Originally Posted by jcrox
And outside of Batman:AA name me some "must play" games where PhysX plays a role in the gaming experience.
It's a gimmick and I've never owned a single ATI card in my life.
No problem. There are four PhysX games that critics and hundreds of users ranked as better than average games. I enjoyed all these games, and Batman AA. If I would have played them on an ATi card, they would have looked like they do on my son's consoles.
PhysX makes games look better, no matter what some would say. For example:
The usual standard of Unreal 3 based visuals. Enhanced greatly by NVIDIA’s PhysX for those who have compatible hardware.
However, when PhysX is enabled, it adds superlative nuances and really creates some “wow” moments. The chunky explosions, cloth effects, paper, fog, and environmental detail enhancements are very cool.
I could post links to more reviewers saying the PhysX effects make the games look better, but you get the point.
There may not be 100s of games with PhysX, but I have a dozen and enjoyed half of them.
ATi has been promising GPU accelerated physics and that they would "do it better" for over five years now and they have done exactly nothing. Not one game to show for their hollow promises because they are too poor to bring the ideas they follow NVIDIA on to market.
Yes, NVIDIA accelerated Havok first back in the day.
You guys can apologize for ATi all you want, but at the end of the day, they don't deliver. They would give their proverbial "left nut" to have their marketing be able to say they have a dozen hardware physics games out, but all they can do is yell about open standards and complain that Intel and NVIDIA locked them out. ATi considered buying Havok and PhysX as well, and was either outbid or didn't come to the table. They hoped Intel would let them use Havok for free instead.
Sort of like they hope others will help them with 3d, and look at the mess that turned out to be. Only on TVs in North America, and 24fps limits at 1080p.