Titanfall Review Thread
- Thread starter VisceralBowl
- Start date
Bornstellar
Member
Just want to say that the retail game does actually look quite nice and has a hell of a lot of stuff happening on screen. It really doesn't show well in screenshots though.
Starbuck2907
Member
Ars Technica has an article where Respawn says a patch us coming later to up the resolution. Has this been mentioned yet? I'm on my phone and can't use the search feature easily right now. I thought for sure there would be a thread dedicated to this news.
http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2014/...e-xbox-one-titanfalls-792p-resolution-likely/
Quote: "We've been experimenting with making it higher and lower," Baker told the site. "One of the big tricks is how much ESRAM we're going to use, so we're thinking of not using hardware MSAA and instead using FXAA to make it so we don't have to have this larger render target. We're going to experiment. The target is either 1080p non-anti-aliased or 900p with FXAA. We're trying to optimize... we don't want to give up anything for higher res. So far we're not 100 percent happy with any of the options. We're still working on it."
http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2014/...e-xbox-one-titanfalls-792p-resolution-likely/
Quote: "We've been experimenting with making it higher and lower," Baker told the site. "One of the big tricks is how much ESRAM we're going to use, so we're thinking of not using hardware MSAA and instead using FXAA to make it so we don't have to have this larger render target. We're going to experiment. The target is either 1080p non-anti-aliased or 900p with FXAA. We're trying to optimize... we don't want to give up anything for higher res. So far we're not 100 percent happy with any of the options. We're still working on it."
DerZuhälter
Member
Many "No score yet" reviews. Looks like BF4 changed the review landscape for the better. Though reading the Gerstman's GiantBomb review, I felt a lot of it could have been written up after the beta. Except for a column on the singleplayer stuff I know nothing new about the maps or other content not available in the beta.
... for buying a PC?
Mr Moose
Member
Yeah I think there's a thread on it (I remember reading about it). Although from some of the reviews the FPS dips are quite large, so... Not sure if that's going to happen.
a) Can you give us an example of somebody that said that?
b) Do you honestly think resolution is the only difference between the two console versions of the game? Is that the only metric that you can think of when comparing games? The XBO is roughly 6 times more powerful than the 360 (going on teraflops only, which is a popular metric lately), with 16x the RAM. Regardless of what you think of the power of the XBO, that additional hardware didn't go into adding 72 lines to the 360's image. C'mon son, you're smarter than that!*
*Disclaimer - I have no idea if you're smarter than that, I have a feeling but I'm trying to be nice.
No, it's because MS want to convince as many people as possible to buy the Xbone version.
The people predicting this have yet to explain how the 360 could keep up with hardware 5x more powerful (Xbone).
bigboss370
Member
I'm betting 360 version won't be anything special at all.
How do you know it's 720p on 360? CoD games were lower than 720p on 360 in order to reach 60fps. What makes you think Titanfall can do it at 720p?
Whether or not the actual framerate performance of that version is better or even equal to XBO has yet to be seen. But it's quite an assumption to think it's going to be 720p on 360 when other 60fps FPS games were not.
GlamFM
Banned
Which would be hard to do if people found out that the 360 version looks and runs the same...
Console warriors really are a sad, pathetic batch of human beings.yup
It would be harder to do anyway if it were widely known that there's a version for the console you already own.
There is literally no reason to assume something dippy like BluePoint managing to achieve platform parity on a seven year old console to explain the missing 360 version. MS don't really want you to buy it, that's the reason it hasn't been mentioned.
It could be better.
Obviously it's not going to be as technically advanced, but they could have made trade offs that make it the more attractive version to some people.
Looks like I was almost exactly correct, both in terms of the score and in terms of certain publications not accepting the amount of content on offer in a multi-only game.
It's amazing how easy it can be to predict metascores from video previews of games. You can usually guess to within 2 points either side.
What's so funny about what he said that it merits laughing out loud?
anonymous_abc
Member
This need more love:
How about you read the user reviews first? Or is it implausible to you that this is such a godly game that people could not possibly find it a 4/10 game? Or are you just going spout bollocks? There are some legitimate points being made:
1) Inconsistent framerate (for the Xbox One and PC version (maps with water experience drop rates)).
2) Mind boggling shitty A.I. Self explanatory.
3) Cheap, and unfulfilling gun play akin to CoD.
4) Low player count.
5) Unbalanced burn cards (there's a wallhack one ffs)
TheFLYINGManga_Ka
Member
Bayonetta 2 is going to be interesting on Metacritic!yup
licktheenvelope
Member
Not sure why everyone is so big on the resolution... not the best looking game anyways.
transformer
Member
No need to take wild guesses.
Official word:
The 360 version is a port of the Xbox One/PC version and lagging behind because development occurs on the lead platforms first.
SlickShoes
Member
This need more love:
I'd rather have a better multiplayer component to any game than the single player drivel call of duty has been serving up for the last 6 years.
People need to realise that if a game doesn't have single player and you like single player, don't buy it. Don't take to the internet and impose your views on everyone else.
There are plenty single player only games out there, should all of those reviews be rated down because the buyer is being ripped off because it doesn't have multiplayer options like call of duty?
GlamFM
Banned
Is this "official world" from you by any chance?
anonymous_abc
Member
You miss the point.
for 60 you buy COD with
bad?!
for 60 you buy TF and get MP with a similar scope of CoD.
So you are paying the same for less.
It would be a different story if the MP scope of TF was significantly more than your average CoD, but from what I have read so far that is not the case.
Trade-offs like what? Lower resolution? Fewer effects? Lower framerate?
I'm struggling to think of a reason someone might think it's better looking that isn't along the lines of 'it looks better because the sub-HD and low framerate makes it look more filmic'. You know, the kind of excuses that are usually laughed out of the thread when Xbone users make them in cross-platform comparison threads.
Of course maybe I'm wrong. Maybe BluePoint have found the 360's long-secret second GPU and it's running at a silky smooth 1080p60.
I'm sorry, wasn't that a parody of the increasingly hysterical MS-owned press anti-Sony conspiracy theory posts making their way around GAF at the moment?
I guess Poe's law is a bitch.
Is Ryse, Dr3, Crimson Dragon, Killer Instinct or Forza 5 on 360?
Quite with the salty console wars nonsense, and attempt to use some intellect when posting.
Maybe it runs much smoother and doesn't tear, and some people would rather have that despite considerably lower resolution.
Bingo.
Its not out of the realm of possibility that visuals are drastically dropped in that version to maintain 60fps. Youll have a better performing version on a console no one expects great visuals from anymore anyway.
It's...possible, I guess? I still don't see how people think BluePoint will have made a down-port run better on 5x weaker hardware, but weirder things have happened.
Weirder things such as CoD:Ghosts running at the same resolution and framerate for both the Xbox One and the Xbox 360?
So Respawn, and the hardware experts at Microsoft never thought to attempt this when they were trying to get it above 720 and settled at 792p, really?
TitanFall isn't taxing the XBO, regardless of it's spotty performance, it's just not nearly impressive enough. I don't think the theoretical performance gulf is important in this regard, something is wrong with the XBO version, that the XBO isn't responsible for.
Source on DX9 is extremely efficient. If it's 640p, removed a bunch of smoke effects, tweaked things here and there, I wouldn't at all be surprised to see it be the more attractive version.
GlamFM
Banned
Before they released that weird patch that killed the framerate, I thought the Xbone version was pretty close to 60fps locked?
I would be. I think the visuals in this game depend a lot on a clean image quality (the PC version at high res looks pretty good to me, at least on some maps), and 640p is going to trash that.
I'm sure it would be highly entertaining for a lot of people to see the Xbone version of MS's lead game get 'beaten' visually by the last-gen version, but I don't see it happening.
Having said that, if I had a penny for every time I've overestimated Xbone since launch...
Miguel just uploaded a few 1080p60 videos from the PC version:
http://www.gamersyde.com/news_our_pc_videos_of_titanfall-15099_en.html
I also just received my Xbox One review copy this morning, so I should have videos from that version up later tonight.
http://www.gamersyde.com/news_our_pc_videos_of_titanfall-15099_en.html
I also just received my Xbox One review copy this morning, so I should have videos from that version up later tonight.
That didn't happen, and it's pretty unlikely to happen with Titanfall.
I think 2, 3 and 4 are part of the games design. The bots aren't supposed to challenge you because who wants to die to what is essentially scenery all the time.
The gun play is trying to mimic COD to draw that crowd in so it's safe to assume it was designed to be similar.
Low player count Is probably due to the titans, image 12v12 and everyone is in a titan, it would get pretty crowded pretty quickly.
My point being this game isn't what people wanted it to be, not the game being broken.
jimbobsmells
Member
Tearing? Is there tearing on the PC version?
GoofsterStud
Member
Not that I have noticed. I use the video card setting for frame limiting.
Uh, what?
Are you aware of Microsoft's investment in Polygon?
Were you aloof during Machinima's bribing?
Did you know IGN's Ryan McCaffrey was on Twitter practically begging Phil Spencer to host their next E3?
Those are just a few examples off the top of my head. Others can chime in.
Explain how the conspiracy isn't becoming increasingly proven and less hysterical.
quantumnerd
Member
I'm glad the game is scoring well. The Xbone losing the war entirely would be bad, and the game looks like fun.
Who says the game is broken? People hold different aspects of the game in different regards. It's plausible that someone who buys fps's solely on their gunplay would give the game a 4/10 after playing it. Not to mention that a 4/10 means different to different people. For you, a 4/10 means a broken game. For me, a 4/10 means a poor game that function just fine but is nevertheless a poor game.
Anyway, the point I was making that it's easy (and rather pathetic) to brush low reviews as "console fanboyism" such as the user that i replied to did. Hilariously, from a handful I read, the fanboyism came from PC gamers.
Similar threads
- Poll