Slashdot Mirror


Dreadnought Demos Released

John Callaham writes to tell us that Gamecloud is heralding the latest release from Torc Interactive and AMD. The latest demos for the upcoming FPS, Dreadnought, have been released. The first is strictly a gameplay movie while the other gives a comparison between the game running on a 64 bit processor (which it was ultimately designed for) and a 32 bit processor.

8 of 192 comments (clear)

  1. AMD64 by mysqlrocks · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It's interesting that AMD is pushing their 64 bit technology with this game. If it weren't for video games then what other reason would we have to continue to build faster computers?

    1. Re:AMD64 by tji · · Score: 5, Interesting

      HD video.

      MPEG2 is tough on a CPU, but within the capabilities of current processors.

      AVC / H.264 / MPEG4.10 is much harder. Doing 1080p AVC is beyond the capabilities of most current processors, and is certainly not do-able with other stuff going on (e.g. a MythTV PVR, recording a couple HD streams simultaneously, transcoding another, while viewing one.

      AVC, or future codecs, will require either much faster CPUs, hardware acceleration, or both.

    2. Re:AMD64 by sakti · · Score: 2, Interesting
      A few off the top of my head...

      • servers - many server applications are very CPU intensive.
      • graphics rendering - ray-tracing, render farms, etc.
      • programming - faster CPU mean faster compile times and more time for programming.
      • gentoo users - heh.
      --
      "It is better to die on one's feet than to live on one's knees." - Albert Camus
    3. Re:AMD64 by lidocaineus · · Score: 4, Interesting

      anyway, the PC is far superior to consoles in every way possible save installation and compatibility.

      Really? When was the last time you played a silly game like Mario Kart DD on a 9' (yes, feet, not inches) diagonal HDTV projector with a bunch of your friends on the couch on your PC?

      While you may PREFER PC style gameplay, and the games can be (emphasis on CAN be) technically superior, it doesn't mean one or the other is far superior in general terms. You may consider superior to be high framerates and resolutions. My friends may consider superior to be locally shared gameplay experiences (not over the internet) and ease of use.

      Me? I can appreciate both sides of the coin. The platforms are so different that they can hardly be compared, aside from the crossover titles, which although growing, are not the norm.

      pc games are also cheaper at launch (i just saw a new game, black and white 2 for sale at 37 bucks) whereas to this day halo 1 for the xbox is still 20 bucks. the halo pc version now costs like 10 dollars less than 2 years later whereas it debuted for 35

      Wow, you pick the one of the few titles that Microsoft actually keeps at a high price to milk for all its worth. I rarely buy games that are over $20 for any of the consoles, and most of those are barely 6 months out. It's no different from the PC world. Just take a look at pricing for The Sims. Not the sequel. The original.

      in the end, pc gaming is only a tiny bit more expensive or on par. and a computer is far FAR more useful and versatile. that and for the time being, it is free from Digital Handcuffs and you can truly access and own your property.

      Please do the math for me for this one. Please compare the price of the console to the equivalent hardware you would buy for a PC at that time, because I have a hard time believing any of that. And digital handcuffs? You do realize that almost all PC games have copy protection on them, right? You can break it, but you can do the same thing with consoles too. And when do you not OWN the game? Microsoft can't revoke any license you have for a game. They can't send a signal down to your xbox saying, "HE CAN NO LONGER PLAY THIS GAME ANYMORE".

      a computer is far FAR more useful and versatile.

      Obviously. But as you said, the ones that can play games to the level you describe are far out of reach of most normal consumers, most of whom don't want to play on their computer anyway, and even if they did, they would balk at spending over $500 on a computer these days. A $500 computer isn't going to get you very far in high end gaming unless you start adding some heavy duty stuff to it.

      true... but you don't see companies still making ps1 games or dreamcast games. those systems are still very capable.
      no, to say that gfx aren't important would mean we would still be on a lot older hardware. current consoles can do absolutely everything next gen can do except for a few extra special effects.


      What a joke. Do you know how many people still play dreamcast and ps1 games? Ironically your comment is much more akin to the PC world. Most games are coded for much lower standards than the cutting edge, and have options to turn on the eye candy at higher levels.

      Here's a hint. It MOSTLY all about the gameplay. Take for example in the PC world. What's the most popular in terms of bestselling game ever? Everyone knows the answer, and it has nothing to with graphics. Or PC power. While there will always be graphic whores on the console and PC side, what makes the games worth playing is the gameplay. I have a feeling, however, that you only care about graphics. And just so you know where I am coming from: I have a VERY high end PC and a whole slew of mac, since I work in video. There aren't many games that I have to turn down to 1280x1024, and even then I can run most anything with 16x aniso and 8x aa at 30+FPS. What do I play the most? Pla

    4. Re:AMD64 by bani · · Score: 2, Interesting

      the cpu (amd/intel) is the single largest power consumer in modern laptops. the multi-platter HD will eat 5W-10W, network card a few W, the LCD panel with backlight maybe 10W. the CPU will eat several times all those components combined.

  2. Realism. by iamlucky13 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I'm a little curious to see what the inside of a Kirov class cruiser looks like. I doubt even the CIA or the navy knows exactly. Based on what I've been allowed to see of our own conventionally powered Aegis cruisers and destroyers in the tours I've been on, and the fact that the layout of nuclear-powered ships is even more protected in both the US navies, there has to be a huge amount of conjecture going on here.

    Still, I've always been interested in playing a game that effectively encompasses all of a relatively small area, rather than meandering through small parts of a huge area. Quite a few pictures of the Kirovs are publicly available, and if they study other ships (retired destroyers, battleships, etc), they should be able to create a very believable environment, with all sorts of mundane curiousities to explore. If the entire game really takes place on this ship, notwithstanding the fact that it's dimensionally nearly as big as an Iowa class battleship, it should lend itself well to that sort of game design. Being on a ship also offers some fun. For example, they could change the weather and sea states throughout the game (how about throwing a grenade in a 40 knot wind?). I thought the varying weather was one of the nice subtleties of Enigma: Rising Tide (although that's not an FPS).

    Of course, it could end up simply sucking like most other games out there.

  3. Just tried the game... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    ... and wow, how very underwhelming. Firstly, it ran fine, such as it is, on my P4 3.2 Ghz w/GB RAM and Radeon x850 XT PE. The only problem is, the game sucks, even for a tech demo.

    The environs are even more cramped than Doom 3. The sound is OK, but the graphics look about two generations old. Maybe that's the point? Are they saying that's as good as it gets on my Pentium proc? Well, hey, that's fine. If you'd rather not have me as a customer because I'm running a 32 bit Intel processor, there are lots of other games I can spend my money on.

    F.E.A.R. is comming-out in a few weeks (which is what this game wishes it could live up to), or Quake 4. I can't wait.

  4. Re: by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Glows actually can be helped by 64+ bits, but not CPU bits. All of the latest generation of GPUs, and some previous (basically all DirectX 9 GPUs) support colour depths greater than 32-bit. A 32-bit colour depth is 8 bits per colour, and 8 bits for transparancy. Given that 8-bits per channel is the normal output, it was generally thought to be enough. However anyone who's worked with shaders will tell you that small errors start to add up, and you can get nasty results. So new GPUs support 64-bit and 128-bit floating point colour.

    Now because of the extra bits, and because it's a FP representation, you get much better colour, highlights, and shadows. Though the output is ultimately the same resolution, you don't have the clipping problems you used to, and you don't have errors that add up to incorrect colours.

    Both nVidia and ATi have a bunch of demos that'll show you this, if you like. Any Radeon 9 or X series or GeForce 6 or 7 series will handle it.

    However none of this is relivant to a 64-bit CPU. This can, and does work great on a 32-bit CPU. It's all internal to the GPU. Even if the CPU needed to do some work as 64-bit CPU would be irrelivant as only the integer unit is increased in size. FP units have been larger than 32-bits for a long time, current CPUs generally can handle up to 128-bit FP numbers, depending on what you are doing.

    So you are correct, all fluff as far as the CPU is concerned.