Mirror’s Edge PC to use PhysX effects

Folks with newer Nvidia cards will get a treat if they grab Mirror’s Edge for the PC next year. Nvidia has revealed that the PC flavor of DICE’s free-running action game will support PhysX hardware acceleration. All you’ll need is a GeForce 8 or better graphics card, and you’ll be the envy of your console-using friends (you know, the ones who’ve already been playing the game for a week and counting).

Here’s how Nvidia describes the PhysX enhancements:

With the NVIDIA PhysX physics engine, the world of Mirror’s Edge comes to life with real affects [sic] of wind, weapons impact, and in-game movements. Every-day objects within the game become part of the overall experience. Cloth, flags, and banners can now impact weapons and players; ground fog interacts with the player’s footsteps; explosions fill the air with smoke and debris; and weapon impacts are enhanced with interactive particles.

The company was kind enough to send us a video of the PhysX goodies in action, too. You’ll have to use your imagination when the YouTube blur gets too much, but you get the idea—destructible cloth and interactive volumetric smoke ahoy:

Mirror’s Edge should hit PCs early next year. As far as I can tell, this will the first blockbuster title to use PhysX technology since Nvidia’s purchase of Ageia in February.

Comments closed
    • tomc100
    • 11 years ago

    Isn’t DirectX 11 supposed to standardize physics as well. Nvidia is bribing dozens of game developers starting with that “The Way It’s Meant to be Played” mantra and now physics. They are monopolizing the game industry and one of the reasons why we don’t have a lot (any?) of DirectX10.1 games.That is why I will never buy an Nvidia product.

      • kruky
      • 11 years ago

      Sure genius – they giving you physx for free so you’re not going to buy it. Did you forget that before nVidia you had to buy separate card worth 200$? And now they’re using something they bought to promote their products… evil ba$tards…. oh wait – that’s what everyone would do.
      Are you trying to say that you would buy nVidia gfx if they would make all stuff work on ATI/AMD and advertise it?
      And if you didn’t notice there aren’t that many games using DX10 as well – so don’t blame it on nVidia.

    • scribly
    • 11 years ago

    Problem with those ‘cloth tearing’ effects is that it looks more like thin plastic being torn, not cloth

    • ClickClick5
    • 11 years ago

    Well check one bad box for me getting the 4870.
    Darn.

    • lycium
    • 11 years ago

    looks really cool, though if ea molests it with drm and soul sucking licenses (3/5/whatever installs) then i’ll skip it just like spore…

    • Pax-UX
    • 11 years ago

    This is a only a good game (7 of 10), nothing great, way too short. I beat Xbox version in less then 9 hours and in a single sitting. So was disappointed about the length. Just when I thought the story was getting interesting with some developments it turns out that’s the end of the game; when it should have just been the catalyst for the second half / Act II.

    Not worth full price, pick up second hand as it’s only half a game.

    As for physic, unless they rework some stuff there’s nothing to be gained from this. You don’t interact with the world this just seems to be marketing fluff.

      • [TR]
      • 11 years ago

      Isn’t interacting with the world all you do in the game? 😀
      But I know what you mean, and I agree.

        • Pax-UX
        • 11 years ago

        I’d actually describe this as a “real life” 3d platform game, as it’s all about jumps and timing with a couple of puzzles to make the game a little longer on the first play though.

        It needed a replay function so you could see what you’ve just done, so at the end of a level you could watch how well you did on a play though. To integrate this into the game you could just use the News Choppers who filmed you. It also need things like style bonuses. But no, it was a great idea that was mostly well executed but still lacks something when you play it.

      • NeXus 6
      • 11 years ago

      I read that gameplay is a bit mediocre, but it looks good and is a rush. It’s probably more of a tech demo than a real game?

        • Pax-UX
        • 11 years ago

        Yes, this is such a tech demo. At 9 hours of gameplay I feel ripped off, it’s not like there’s some network play options that make up for this.

    • Usacomp2k3
    • 11 years ago

    Finally got around to playing the demo on my xbox. Boy did that give me a headache. I don’t remember where I read it, but some guy was talking about the elements of your ‘body’ that come into view make it seem more realistic and so your body gets into it more and thus is more prone to the nausea. I think I’ll have to agree with him. Either that or I just need to sit more than 18″ from the monitor. Heh.

    • Dagwood
    • 11 years ago

    It is really not all that complicated…

    With Nvidia porting PhysX to any 8000 series card or higher, the base for a game that uses it just got to a level where game developers are intrested in phsics on a the GPU.

    Does using the GPU to do physics slow it dow? Of cource it does, but even at resolutions at 1920 by 1200 new graphic cards are sill getting over 60 frames a second in games. A newer card can handle the physics and graphics better than the CPU can handle AI, sound, networking, hard drive transfers, and feeding the GPU data to crunch.

    • [TR]
    • 11 years ago

    I’m feeling the magic already!

    EDIT: Was a reply to #12… Oh well… 🙂

    • glacius555
    • 11 years ago

    gamerankings.com, the average is high due to coppla high scores…

    • glacius555
    • 11 years ago

    It might be a bit irrelevant, but the title does not seem “to shine” on high review scores…

    • moose17145
    • 11 years ago

    So what if you have an actual PhysX card instead? Will it use the physX card to do the physics calculations instead of the GPU? Cause if so then it might be an option for us ATI users who don’t wanna just switch over to NVidia.

    • impar
    • 11 years ago

    Greetings!

    Any news on what kind of DRM this game will come with?
    Its an EA published game…

      • [TR]
      • 11 years ago

      Think of how many uncomfortable steps you wouldn’t mind going through to install the game. Multiply by 10 and you get the future version of Securom that EA will be using for this game.
      For future games, add 2 to the multiplier per week.

        • kruky
        • 11 years ago

        I own both ME and Spore purchased online from EA Store – no SecuRom 🙂 and no problems of any kind. The only problem with Spore was about only 1 account per activation – and they said they’ll correct it. So just buy online – less problems and you have your game right away 😛

    • ssidbroadcast
    • 11 years ago

    Hm. I really like how that blue or clear plastic material looks when ripped up.

    • albundy
    • 11 years ago

    why not just dedicate games to specific video cards while your at it!
    /sarcasm

      • MadManOriginal
      • 11 years ago

      I’d say this is like the early 3D days with things like GLIDE. Eventually there will be a standard API most likely. Which products end up working best will depend upon who has the clout and who works on the standard.

    • Mourmain
    • 11 years ago

    It’s funny that the soundtrack to this game is called “Still Alive”.

    By Lisa Minkovsky. Nice tune.

    • MadManOriginal
    • 11 years ago

    Oh the joys of proprietariness. First I get a 4850 and hear about ATi Stream and am pleased thinking it means a dual core CPU will be plenty for any encoding task I might want to do. Then announcements like this and new super-drivers come out and make me think otherwise or second guess my decision.

    This is defeintely one case where MS can come to the rescue, MS haters aside. And FYI Windows 7 will allow multiple vendor video drivers I believe.

    • aleckermit
    • 11 years ago

    So I can’t get these effects with my ATI HD4850?

    • Mystic-G
    • 11 years ago

    Pretty cool… Definitely some extra eye candy although I’m unsure how well that game works on PC.

    • DrDillyBar
    • 11 years ago

    How is this any different from CellFactor; Other then the entertaining Oni style game play?

    • dermutti
    • 11 years ago

    You can watch the high(er) quality version if you view it on youtube.com (instead of the embeded here).

    I wonder if those physics effects affect gameplay at all or if they’re just eye candy. And if so, can you only use them in multiplayer with other PhysX using players?

      • SoulSlave
      • 11 years ago

      I think they are mostly eye candy, but what’s not eye candy nowadays? I mean, this type of game play would be possible years ago, but it would look horrible.

      So I guess what I want to say is, that every new GPU enable new eye candy, instead of new gameplay, so why would physics be any different?

      And I also can point out that accelerated physics do provide a much wider range of game play possible improvements than GPU.

        • Meadows
        • 11 years ago

        The last time I saw useful and believable physics in a game was in Half-Life 2 and its episodes, every other game is so-so in one way or another. Call of Juarez stood out fiercely in terms of physics quality, but it oddly had a lot in common with Source (even though the engine was proprietary).

          • SoulSlave
          • 11 years ago

          I couldn’t agree more, however the possibilities provided by physics are A LOT more interesting, imagine this:

          A fps game where not only you could explore various paths to your goal, but you could also create your own, by exploding a wall (ANY wall). Or you could stop a convoy by demolishing a bridge.

          One could say this is possible today. But how?

          Today you are presented with a predefined “objective” in which you have to approach one (specific) pillar of that given bridge, strap a bomb that HAPPENS to be laying out there just a couple of feet away, and then…

          …cut scene.

          I keep imagining how awesome would it be if demolishing that bridge is not “mandatory” but one of many given possibilities, and the way I had to do so, would be completely up to me, like…

          1.: drive a tank into it.
          2.: A car…
          3.: Punch it (Crysis anyone?)
          4.: Yell at it…
          5.: Huffing and puffing…
          6.: And maybe, just maybe, actually use a bomb…

            • lethal
            • 11 years ago

            Crysis was pretty good in that respect, albeit with some limitations. The maps themselves were still VERY linear and while many things could be destroyed, the fact that some buildings (or parts of them) were completely invulnerable would often break the sense of immersion pretty quickly.

            Then again, making a story could be a nightmare if you could kill / destroy everything in the game so it’s probably a tradeoff to a complete sandbox game.

            • Meadows
            • 11 years ago

            Why, don’t you think that tank-resistant large trees are realistic? 😉
            At least I had some extra cover. The fact that most trees can be shot to pieces, but the forest’s deciduous trees are practically God even against tanks, helped me fight past some levels.

            • SoulSlave
            • 11 years ago

            I couldn’t help but laugh a little… hehehe…

            That’s exactly the level of realism I would be looking for in a game, when I’m in a tank, it would be nice to be able to go over a wall, a tree, a car…

            It seems that Tanks in crysis are made out of carbon-fiber, resistant but ridiculously light…

            It’s wired…

            • SoulSlave
            • 11 years ago

            From my point of view, Crysis was just a first step. A very interesting one, but still very limited.

            As for the story, they would have to become creative, a good shift from script-like goals to story-like goals would be interesting.

            For example:

            Instead of telling you that you must stop a convoy thats headed to a given place, by destroying the bridge in the exact moment the first car passes over the center of it, the game would just say: “Stop that convoy”

            Where, when, and how, would be completely up to you. You could use a more Rambo-like approach and simply kill everyone with a knife and a bow and arrow, or act all Vietnam War, and call in an Napalm air strike…

            You see, it wouldn’t be all that hard…

            • Meadows
            • 11 years ago

            Why are you talking about a bridge all the time?

            • SoulSlave
            • 11 years ago

            It’s just an example, as a math teacher I tend to stick to an specific example until my (not very bright) students get the point…

            I could use bunnies, but it does not make much sense to blast a 300 feet bunny in order to stop a convoy, hehehe…

            • SoulSlave
            • 11 years ago

            But seriously now, this was just to show how an otherwise trivial quest could get o whole new level of entertainment from the freedom involved…

            • no51
            • 11 years ago

            I thought the general consensus on the internets was Crysis is just a prettied up Doom clone?

            • Meadows
            • 11 years ago

            No, Crysis is the inverse of Doom 3. There were no enclosed spaces, and no tension whatsoever.

            • A.C.Sanchez
            • 11 years ago

            Maybe you should try a variety of examples, since your one point isn’t getting across…

            • SoulSlave
            • 11 years ago

            That…

            …was a joke.

            (it seems that I still can’t make sarcasm work in a foreign language)

      • Forge
      • 11 years ago

      Mirror’s Edge doesn’t have any MP.

    • Gerbil Jedidiah
    • 11 years ago

    Awesome. This means I have a couple of months to figure out how to get my second PCI-E slot working… Already got the videocards…

    • sdack
    • 11 years ago

    Would be nice if not each company would be creating their own physics library but if M$ could step in and create a “DirectPhysic” API. I wonder what it takes to make that happen …

    • charged3800z24
    • 11 years ago

    Ever since nVidia aquired Ageia, all the sudden Physicsis become an implementation everytime you turn around… I also do not plan on switching out my 4850’s just for nVidia’s new thing..

      • jackaroon
      • 11 years ago

      I would consider it, but I’d have to be pretty sure that i was switching for a really really good game where the physics actually mattered in gameplay.

    • SoulSlave
    • 11 years ago

    I have a question though, will it be possible to combine an AMD/ATI GPU with a NVidia GPU, so it would be possible to use the later one exclusively for physics?

    I mean, I already have a RadeOn 4850 (Upgraded from an old GeForce 7600 GT), and have no intention on moving to the NVidia side just for physics, but I do have a spare PCIe X16 slot.

    So, I was wandering, I could buy a 9600 (any) and use it just for physics, I mean, 75 does not seem such an unreasonable price to pay, I could even get a 8600 GT / GTS for like 35 ~ 40 bucks…

    I know it does not sound like a smart move, but if, and only if the effects prove actually worth, wouldn’t you want it?

    Just my piece of thought….

      • Usacomp2k3
      • 11 years ago

      Not in Vista. Unless you can get a physX-only driver that doesn’t show up as a display adapter.

      • Traz
      • 11 years ago

      would it be possible to buy just a straight physx card and use that? I glanced at an article about physx here on TR and the test system used ATI graphics card.

      article: §[< https://techreport.com/articles.x/10223< ]§ PhysX card: §[<http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814121246&Tpk=ageia<]§

        • Rza79
        • 11 years ago

        Why wouldn’t it work? That’s what it’s meant for.

        This article will give you a good idea what to expect:
        §[< http://www.computerbase.de/artikel/hardware/grafikkarten/2008/bericht_nvidia_cuda_physx_ueberblick/8/#abschnitt_physxbenchmarks<]§

          • SoulSlave
          • 11 years ago

          Well, considering that the full extent of my German is: “Arhftathas ardhein dhoin, hemhorrodiz idn” (This is a Brazilian joke, please don’t ask me to explain that), I have to admit that I understood close to nothing from this article, however as I can see, a GTX 280 + Physix Card is A LOT slower then a GTX 280.

          Which, I have to say, makes no sense at all.

          Anyone care to enlighten me?

            • Rza79
            • 11 years ago

            This article basically shows that although a dedicated Physx card does accelerate, from a 9600GT and up it’s faster to use a Geforce.

            GTX 280 + Physx = Geforce for 3D only and a dedicated Physx card.
            GTX 280 = Geforce for 3D and Physx processing.

            You have to conclude that it only makes sence to use a Physx card only when you have Vista and ATI. If you have XP, you can combine ATI & nVidia.

            • SoulSlave
            • 11 years ago

            It’s not all that bad really, I mean, U$$ 69,00 is about the price that I had in mind, however those Ageia’s cards are insanely hard to find around here in Brazil…

            Well, I guess I’ll just have to import one…

            • Traz
            • 11 years ago

            I checked other e-tailers and most were selling an ageia physx card for double newegg’s price or more

            • SoulSlave
            • 11 years ago

            That’s really bad news, as I’ll just have the spare money by the end of January (U$$ 69,00 may be cheap, but R$ 180,00 is not so cheap), and I think it will be already sold by then?

      • indeego
      • 11 years ago

      Yikes. They should fix the plastic part at the end there. stands outg{<.<}g Man my machine can't play any 720P or 1080/[

    • designerfx
    • 11 years ago

    So mirror’s edge is a sellout too? I wonder how much Nvidia bribed them for this one.

    Hasn’t anyone realized that the reason for PhysX is the same idea as DirectX continually releasing new versions? It’s to break compatibility of the competitors (AMD and openGL).

      • Meadows
      • 11 years ago

      They didn’t have to. Unreal Engine.
      PhysX is built in as the engine’s physics method, and nVidia can accelerate that. Same story as with UT3.

        • designerfx
        • 11 years ago

        No, see. EA sells out continually. This is just more of the same. You’ll notice “magic” framerate increases with PhysX turned on, this is where that breaking compatibility/tweaking performance comes in.

          • Meadows
          • 11 years ago

          You won’t notice anything magic unless your processor is bad and/or you’re not GPU-bound.

    • poulpy
    • 11 years ago

    It’s not like full out physics they’re talking about here so I’m not quite convinced a dual or quad core CPU can’t deal with real “affects” of destructible cloths..

    ps: the quality of the video isn’t that bad when you’ve ticked HQ in Youtube

      • d0g_p00p
      • 11 years ago

      It’s on the GPU so I don’t really don’t see what you are trying to say.

        • poulpy
        • 11 years ago

        That’s my point: it’s being touted as a treat for Nvidia PhysX enabled cards whereas to me /[<"destructible cloth and [..] volumetric smoke"<]/ only doesn't sound something too intensive for our dual/quad cores. Well unless you fill up the levels with both I guess but what kind of game would that be..?

          • BobbinThreadbare
          • 11 years ago

          If it was easy or even possible at decent frame rates, don’t you think someone would have done it by now?

            • poulpy
            • 11 years ago

            I’m pretty sure physics engines like Havok can handle a couple of rags blowing in the wind without GPU acceleration, especially when you see that most games leave 1, 2 or 3 cores almost idling.

            It’s not because nobody has done it before that it’s impossible, it could be that a) nobody cared enough to implement realistic rags and/or b) as everything in life game engines are just improving incrementally on the previous generations.

            It’s being blown out of proportion now but I just suggested the idea that this was only a fake additional feature for Nvidia users (which could run without HW acceleration) because the game is part of TWIMTBP.

            • SPOOFE
            • 11 years ago

            “I’m pretty sure physics engines like Havok can handle a couple of rags blowing in the wind without GPU acceleration”

            Can it handle five hundred, dangling above a waterfall?

            • Saber Cherry
            • 11 years ago

            Sounds great. “Polluted Rivers in 3rd-World Countries: The Game”

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This