i7-2600 @ 3.40GHz, GTX 670, 8GB DDR3 RAM.
1920x1080, textures set to Insane.
FPS dipped down to 40 at times, tearing evident. Regardless, we're discussing a game that hasn't had any patches yet. It might not be the most impressive next-gen game we've ever seen, but it's definitely not the worst, and Respawn has said they're continuing to optimize it. They've been very upfront with us about everything so far, so why are we suddenly doubting them?
It might not be the most impressive and it's definitely not the worst we've seen
they should put that on the back of the box
, right next to the 87 metacritic score
While it's a tentpole next-gen title there'll be several others. If the likes of inFamous, Witcher 3, and Batman: Arkham Knight are also letdowns then I think we have a problem, but the PS2 had games like Timesplatter and Zone of the Enders as its major early titles, and frankly the beta alone curbstomps both of those so I think just for an entertaining game we're pretty well off.
You just talked shit about one of the best game mechanics and combat (super smooth 60 fps) action games of the ps2 era (zoe) and one of the favorite shooters on ps2 of a lot of gaffers.
Maybe while you're at it you'd like to call disgaea, mgs2/3 , ssx and silent hill 2 worse than titanfall as well?
If you had set textures down to High you would have held a steady 60 without a problem. Your card doesn't have enough VRAM for the Insane quality textures which is what was causing your framerate to get eaten.
My point was that the game isn't necessarily poorly optimized as long as you appropriately choose your settings. Of course insane texture would cause framerate drops, because it's trying to load 3Gb of textures into 2Gb of VRAM which just isn't going to work out well.
The person mentioned perhaps it's just a poorly coded game. This is about the performance of the PC version. On modest hardware, the game performs alright, especially if you are appropriately choosing settings that match your hardware.
actually if he was vram bottlenecked he wouldn't see framedrops to 40 fps he would 0 fps freezes for 1-2seconds at a time every time the game has to fetch something from the pagefile because the vram didn't have room for it
I have modest hardware (hd6870 and a phenom II, which is better than what's in the xbone and runs other source games at 100+ fps, runs battlefield 3 pretty well (a lot better than titanfall ran and without stuttering) and the game ran poorly for me even with the texture setting on low (and vsync was off, I never ever play with it on in any games, I dislike input lag)
Maybe it's just amd drivers being shit as usual, maybe the game is extraordinarily cpu intensive so people with i5s have less issues, but an i5 isn't exaclty modest.
For reference I could deal with 50 ish fps in bf3 with drops to low 40s (though within a few days after getting the game I just dropped everything to medium so I could get a much higher framerate) but this ran much worse than that, I was getting very inconsistent frametimes even when fraps said the average was 60 fps there was still clear stutter from frameskipping or just some really long frames
