Epiphany

It's called Chronicles Of Dust. home with concept designs CHRONICLES OF DUST GAME PLAY Chronicles of Dust Video Game is a Dark Gothic Medieval Third-Person Action-Adventure Video Game powered by dramatic story telling for the X-Box 360 entertainment systems. Experience the rich history of Dark Gothic worlds, unlike anything any mortal being has ever conceived. From a flat world inside an atom, to the rage of an evil god that wakes up in a dead and devastated world. Become a GOD as you journey through an epic deception and take your place as GOD. Features: * Increase your power and status with states of evolution. * Engage in amazing combat with rage combo moves using physical agilities such as rage, torment, three sword combos, air acrobatics, devastating energy punches and the ultimate God power * Strike fear into those that dare to oppose you by pulverizing them into every object you can possibly imagine. * Realistic real world Physics that will allow you to destroy everything your mind can imagine, from destroying houses to bringing down large buildings. In game winds and weather systems. * Artificial ecologies. * Rational Artificial Intelligence parameters control the world and the Non-Playable Characters to give you an added feel of intelligence. * Large free roaming animals can be seen throughout the world. * Solve unique randomized elaborate puzzles. * Nine unique worlds utilizing the Doom 3 game engine. * Experience the uniquely detailed gothic architecture. * Three point video camera angles to best capture the action. * No in-game loading.

Mass Effect (MGS-BioWare Corp.): Set 200 years in the future in an epic universe, Mass Effect places gamers in a vast galactic community in danger of being conquered by a legendary agent gone rogue. A spectacular new vision from legendary developers BioWare, Mass Effect challenges players to lead a squad of freedom fighters as they struggle against threatening armies to restore peace in the land. Mass Effect is the first in a trilogy of games with an overarching story, where the real conflict between organic beings and artificial intelligence comes to life in startling clarity.

No, to game online against other people (like Halo, or Perfect Dark Zero) will require the gold membership, which is a fee based service ($50 a year). The silver membership offers most of the other features, but should also allow access to MMORPG games, like FFIX for example, since games like those do not use the Live service. The original plans for next gen Live was to allow Silver membership gaming access on weekends, or special days. I believe that's not going to happen.

Content updates - new levels, models, characters, weapons etc... patches = bug fixing. Anyway, this is my last response to you, you're too uninformed, and it could become aggrivating trying to educate you on the subject.

What an utterly retarded statement. Out of the hundereds of DL content games on Live, and the hundereds more that have access to Live through the interface, none have ever recieved a patch like a PC game required. It is in the policy to not allow patching over the Live service, or for Xbox games in general. Otherwise, many games out there would be better, such as Advent Rising. Content updates for new playmodes on Live, fixing cheating and whatnot are not patches to the game that cause a game to go from broken to fixed in a single player experience. It's amazing how ignorant people can be on the subject of Live, and the services it offers. It's $50 a year (~$4.17 a month) for the current service, if you don't take advantage of the free trials in every Live aware and up game. On the next-gen live there are two services, one free and the other requires the fee. The free one gives you access to all content downloads and MMORPG services. Guess that shatters your "pay to patch" theory...

I won't have a fit, since rumors and speculation are just that, especially from little websites. This is the same kind of junk that went around about Itagki and Ninja Gaiden 2 being PS3 exclusive. Everyone knows that didn't happen, and Team Ninja/Tecmo have already let it "out of the bag" that it's coming to the X360.

I didn't claim it was "half ass", I simply pointed out that the mag stated that Sony clarified it would be like the PS2 online model, which in my opinion, sucks. It has no additional features to bring console gamers together, and it's completely up to the developers on how their online presentation works, which means you'll have some good, and some incredibly bad interfaces. Many of the PS3 fans were really looking forward to a "Live clone" for the PS3, and on the IGN PS3 forum, they aren't very excited about this news. I applaud your optimistic approach to this, but the simple fact of the matter is, the PS2 online model was grossly inferior to Xbox Live, and if this report is, in fact, true, then the PS3 online service will fall drastically short in quality compared to the next gen Live service. I look forward to see what Nintendo does with their online plan though, as they were so dead set against online gaming this gen. My gut tells me they'll probably botch it, as N always seems to dismiss or screw over at least one major aspect of gaming the past two generations. But, as always, I'll wait and see how it pans out.

I think $50 a year is a great price for the service you get with Live. It's not just "PC online gaming", it's an entire closed system, with voice service, text serivce, everyone on a mic ready to talk, buddy lists, Live aware, tracking systems, and DL content. Added next gen, there will be video chat, and the GUI will be far more expanded, including stat tracking and feedback. Granted, most all of these can be found on the PC, but in order to take advantage of them, you have to get everyone on the "same page", with the Live environment, you can meet random people, and instantly have access to all these features with them. While it may not be your thing, it's a solid system, that is, in my opinion, the best online model ever created. I look forward to when MMORPG's explode on it, and all these features will carry into them.

Yet my report on their cloth physics demonstration on the cell was unresponded to. Grow up, I report stuff that I find interesting, that hasn't been posted here, plain and simple. NEXT

In the latest issue of OPM (The Official U.S. Playstation Magazine, not to be confused with PSM, which is an independent playstatin magazine), Sony states that they will not go the route of MS and have the online system made just like the one on the ps2. they say that it will be up to the developers to design the interface and everything, which will give more freedom to devs. I think this online model sucks, and if it really is the way their online service is going to be, will give the X360 a serious online advantage, far more than what they would have had if Sony had tried to copy Xbox Live. The only truth I can find to this from developers is the fact that every developer questioned about online content has said the X360 offers vastly superior online support. I always just figured it was because Sony was a step behind and trying to copy Xbox Live from the Xbox, instead of MS' new model for the X360. Now it points more towards the fact that Xbox Live has evolved and Sony has chosen to leave their online content void of a unified system.

PDF To be noted, the algorithm incorporated self-intersecting physics, keeping the cloth from flowing through itself, which is impressive.

Beats both in what? I don't see USA or eDRAM on that card. It's total performance is in no way greater than Xenos - given the card doesn't have near free FSAA (5% performance hit) - I do, however, see it takes a 25% hit at FSAA 4 w/ 8X AF or a 14% hit with just 4x FSAA turned on in Half Life 2 at 1280 x 1024 which is the closest 720p resolution they tested. It also appeared as those the "no FSAA" framerate was CPU limited, which means the performance hit would be even larger with a more powerful CPU. So, I don't see how that card "beats both" in terms of overall performance and/or features. Xenos is a monster GPU, the eDRAM and USA give it a huge edge in performance over any card on the market, and any card that will be on the market for a long while, until the unique architecture is adopted by ATi and Nvidia for PC GPU's. Regardless, you still didn't show where the RSX had 96 billion continual shader ops per second.

ATi has already stated that Xenos is more than capable of displaying 1080p images. It was the decision of Microsoft to not support a resolution that has no foothold on the market - and won't for another 5-6 years. I'd like to see your proof that someone has clocked the RSX at 96 billion continual shader operations per second. Because, as it stands now - Xenos can perform at a continual 48 billion per second while the RSX has a theoretical 60 billion total ops per second (52 pixel and 8 vertex). If you're going to quote Nvidia/Sony sources, then please, allow me to quote ATi where they have already said the PS3 will be "slower and less powerful" than the X360. Or perhaps where Nvidia said that PC GPU's would be more powerful than the RSX at PS3 launch, but where ATi has stated that it'll take a few generations before PC GPU's catch up to Xenos. :|

Then don't read the post, genius. It's not like there are dozens of threads on the topic.

Yeah, that's the focal point of Sony's "power campaign" - they have a higher theoretical FLOP number. Xenos has 48 pipes RSX has 32 pipes (24 pixel and 8 vertex) - although I remember hearing a while back that it was only supposed to have 6 vertex, which would give it 26 pixel instead. Given that USA can break down the 48 pipes on Xenos however it needs to be - well... I realize this may come as a surprise, but the X360 will output in 1080i as well as 720p. 720p is just the minimum STANDARD resolution that developers must meet. But that aside, the PS3 has no required resolution, which means it's possible games will be released at 480p on the system. So there goes the above "color depth" comment, right out the window. The number of developers? I've seen floods of developers making games for the X360. Announcing them, announcing exclusives, Square-Enix offering strong support for next gen with titles beyond their FF MMORPG rehashed re-release. Hell, they just announced that the X360 would be getting new franchises as well.

http://www.gamespy.com/articles/634/634928p4.html Unless you're implying that EA is not a third party developer ^_^ Furthermore, it's so obvious to him that he says "no question about it." To bust your bubble without even needing try: "Well, I don't think any of us are really ready to say for sure." Yeah, there's an abundance of knowledge and confidence flowing from him. A beacon of truth I tell ya... What color is the sky? I don't know for sure. It's purple, without a doubt. ...eh? Considering I straight up told you that the comment in relation to "professionals" was a direct quote from an IBM tech. But I'm glad you don't claim me as an authority on anything, I won't have to worry about trying to explain anything to you anymore, since you won't be asking me any more stupid questions. Shouldn't you be working on that super new and unique AI routine that uses massive FLOP performance??

You always threaten your "find quotes" nonsense... Your typical "distort the truth inorder to make Ender appear smart" antics. Yeah, and Sony initially said that the PS3 would be a network hub as well, yet that was canned. Ken has also gone on record as saying the HDD, if offered, would not be used for game saves, rather strickly music and other media applications. Hence, the game caching advantage would be OUT THE WINDOW. More of your truth distorting. I said it could not output two 1080p images for game related purposes, but I have always stuck by the claim that it would produce stored footage (movie, film clip, etc...) at 1080p, as it has enough banwidth for that, but it does NOT have the banwidth to produce visuals at that quality of 1080 for "stunning" looking games. No 3rd party developer has outright said that the PS3 is more powerful, and there isn't a single 3rd party developer that would make such a bogus claim unless they developed exclusively for said console. Objective developers are maintaining a neutral stance, which is the smart thing to do, since thrashing a console will only get them ignored by said manufacturer. I used a MS quote ONCE, for YOU, when YOU said YOU had never seen MS say something. I quoted it for YOU, since again YOU REQUESTED IT. Yes, because MS has such a huge, mammoth size role in HD-DVD... HD-DVD will win, regardless. Again your lack of knowledge on the subject shines through, as Xenon shares no direct relationship with the G5 line other than the PowerPC label which is just that, a label that's not even used anymore. G5's were used in ALPHA test kits. The true backbone of the cores is based off of the PowerPC architecture, which is not exclusive to the G5 line. Regardless, the processor has been customized to such a degree, it was given the "Xenon" name, and the PowerPC label was dumped. Again, your distrotion of the truth, as I clearly said that the PS3 shares more with a common PC than the X360 does since the -->GPU<-- is a run of the mill Nvidia "lets bump up the mhz" card. Cell, Xenon and Xenos are new to the tech field. But your selective memory easily allows you to ignore the blatant facts I beat over your head day in and day out. I've never said FPU performance meant nothing, again, more of you distorting everything that's said to rally the people behind your baseless accusations. FPU performance generates the graphics that you see, beyond that, its role is significantly less. FPU performance on a CPU, however, isn't nearly as important as integer performance. A subject which you have oddly enough, ignored completely, which is where my "over your head" argument comes into play. You've yet to offer any counter point to the fact that Xenon is superior in ALU performance (by a large margin) over Cell, and that RSX and Xenos will be what FPU performance is measured by. Again, ~90% (almost exactly 90 for the PS3, and more for X360) of BOTH consoles FPU performance comes from the GPU. I've said this multiple times, let me know when it sinks in. Just you and that other guy that "lol'd" at everything and agreed with everything you said with "OWNED!" while adding absolutely nothing to the debate. Face it, Ender, you have nothing on this argument, as you simply distort everything that's said inorder to try and get people to rally behind you by making stuff up. Yet you've been unable to PROVE any of it as being false. Should I spout off the breakdown of ALU/FPU performance, how the PPE and SPE's communicate, versus the symetrical design of Xenon again? Should I go into detail about the VMX advantage Xenon has over Cell, and why Cell will be a great workstation CPU, but not a great gaming one? Should I dive into (again) more information regarding how each SPE has a tiny VALU to help curve its lack-luster ALU performance, dispite the fact that the VALU is in fact, tiny, and nothing to write home about? Should I also discuss how if the VALU's are used, then that negates any further advantage (be it moot) the PS3 would have in FPU performance, since the clock cycles between the PPE and the SPE's would be eaten up with the PPE going what integer processing it can, while feeding the SPE's simple integer code as well? What about the fact that a single Xenon core is more powerful than the PPE in Cell, and that the SPE's themselves are only marginally greater in total power (if properly fed info from the PPE) than a fully functional PPE? How about the fact that an IBM tech said that the Xenon could easily perform the same functions (for a gaming environment now - don't forget) that the Cell could, but it would be LESS efficient than actually setting up the three cores to run independantly of one another? (not because the Cell design is inefficient, outside of gaming standards, that is) Should I move the discussion to the GPU's? I mean, I could easily talk all day about how Xenos has a superior architecture than the RSX, and how Nvidia (who previously claimed USA was unimportant), has gone on record as stating their future GPU line will contain USA. What about the eDRAM? 5% performance hit on 4X FSAA at 720p resolution? Unheard of in modern day cards, and completely unachievable in the RSX. The bus speed advantage the eDRAM in Xenos provides boosts it far above what the RSX could ever hope to perform. The benefit to RSX is that it apparently works well with Cell, which helps recover some of the ground it got blitzed on by Xenos. As I've said all along, Cell is a better workstation CPU than any on the planet, its FPU performance will lend itself wonderfully to programs like AutoCAD. For gaming, however, it simply will not perform as well as a processor that has close default specs, but was built for a single purpose - TO RUN GAMES. You know, I could go on, but you'll be too "busy" making more excuses, or hunting for quotes of mine and then taking them out of context. Hell, you've already made me a hypocrite by baiting me with your nonsense into responding to you again. I'm done with you till the PS3 launches, so that I can shove the proof directly in your face -- if anyone even bothers to pay the arm & leg the console is going to cost.

The PS was easier to develop for than the Saturn, the N64 was still barebone development, it just had cartridge hell to be delt with. Nintendo's philosophy during that generation was all or nothing, on both 3rd and 2nd party titles. A large portion of once large Nintendo supports left the console and moved to the Playstation because of the disc medium. Making a game for the console was easy, making what they WANTED to make was hard because of cartridge storage. The Playstation offered full motion video, lots of voice over acting, and larger games (since discs > cartridge and you could swap discs on top of that). That's why the console beat the N64, it had nothing to do with ease/difficulty of development - like you just tried to claim. Get a clue Ender. Done with ya, I'll post again when more info is released on the PS3, proving one of us right. BYE!!!!!!!!!

I've never once said that the X360 doesn't have a new architecture to develop on. Please, put me BACK on your ignore list, because your continual quest of making stuff up is starting to become a bore. The PS1/PS2 were NOT the easiest platforms to develop for, for their respective generations. The PS1 dominated the N64 due to the disc medium and Nintendos goal to alienate themselves from 3rd party developers and maintain a standard of being 1 generation behind the "norm", that generation it was cartridges vs CD rom. Facts straight - don't make stuff up about me - then debate Otherwise, return me to your ignore list, like you've previously touted. Bye Ender - I'll see you later when more news reports/publications print what I've been trying to beat over your skull for the past months. BYE ENDER!!! Again... Standard resolution has no impact on the development cycle. Artists draw their textures in a high resolution, they don't draw them in horribly low ones.

Nothing new in that article. No development kit is going to alleviate the stress of having to code in a completely new environment. That aside, it still does nothing to disprove the fact that standard resolutions have no effect on developers. :|

Small developers will not benefit from no standard resolution. Coding for the in order processors will be what taxes them.

Oh it matters to a few people that claimed I was full of lies when I continually stated this over and over.

The new issue of PSM states that Sony is not setting a resolution standard for their games on the PS3, (like MS is with the X360 where all games will be at least 720p), which means 1080p will not be supported across the board (as a few here have claimed). Oddly enough, this could mean some games may only be released in 480p, which would be quite commical. Confirming my statements made a while back, when I said that 1080p was achievable, but only the games that have the worst graphical presentations will use it as the console simply does not have the banwidth to push it. See you next time. +1

I believe there is far more code than simple "choice" strings that create a fully dynamic and robust AI. The way games are generally architectured, almost exclusively pool their AI into logic, which falls under integer. With FP, you have far too much overhead and CPU cycles to achieve effects that can be done via integer. If FP were so powerful, entire games would be coded on the GPU - for all platforms. Floating point, as it is though, has this large overhead that simply creates an environment more complicated than it needs to be, or, in my opinion, an environment that any coder would try not to create in excess for that very reason. If you want to have the NPCs base their decisions on probabilities which are affected by a large variety of variables, a statistical approach to AI is very likely going to be required, lest you abstract it and result in more erratic and bizarre behaviours. In fact, I found the whole question that the above quote came from quite interesting. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> It appears as though Greg himself is just "thinking" it will happen. So, as of that interview, it doesn't appear as though developers are taking advantage of (or willing to) the additional FPU performance. It's simply not the way games are architectured, and I honestly believe the only time we'll see it, is on a game for the PS3 that's in development for many, many, many years. It's a taxing performance that is simply not an ideal angle to approach game structure. edit: I am in no way trying to downplay FLOP performance, because it's a vital aspect of the way games are designed. Without it, graphics would not evolve. But the load balance between flop and integer greatly favors integer code, and once you factor out the "graphics" aspect of what's being dumped on the GPU, the balance shifts drastically in favor of integer performance.

Hence the reasoning why the game requires massive integer/logic performance from the hardware running.