-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
DF - Tech Analysis: Titanfall beta on Xbox One and PC
- Thread starter Gavarms
- Start date
The Maverick
Member
Do we know what the 360 version's resolution is yet? Or when the embargo is up?
Because the game doesn't really look like a step over last-gen to me, at all.
Because the game doesn't really look like a step over last-gen to me, at all.
ultratruman
Banned
The sky boxes look pretty good.
Thaumaturgic Tomato
Member
Didn't CBOAT post something about this a long time ago? That the alpha textures are not for download size but are the final product? What you see is what you get? And there was great buttocks commotion and that thread was locked?
So the phrase that's been uttered before is applicable once again?
"Cboat was right" ?
No, others who played both have said the texture different is night and day between the alpha and beta.
3rdamention
Member
I'm running on a pretty low spec d PC, but I turn the texture quality to high and when I get in a Titan the textures are awful. When he is closing the door up on the Titan and stuff the texture resolutions are verylow. And it stands out cause those textures are right up in your face, close to the screen.
I also noticed it on that tank in the tutorial where you have to double jump and wall run, those textures wouldn't increase at all...
However, the game does run smooth, and I was shocked it performed as well as it did on my PC, even though it doesn't look as well as I hoped.
Around one month before launch isn´t a real "beta" by any means, it´s a near final build. There is still optimisation work to be done of course and I do expect at least a framerate improvements or something closer to 900P. Why? I believe the rumours of MS freeing up the "reserved for Kinect 10%" GPU with the latest patch. This beta could´t use that yet as it launched before the OS update, but the final release will disable Kinect and use everything the slow GPU in the X1 can push. Plus this being X1´s biggest claim to fame in order to catch up with the PS4 I imagine MS are putting their best engineers to help Respawn optimise the engine - this is why I don´t think the 900P target is too far fetched. Just the advertising MS has given the game and the gamepad updates et cetera show how important this game is to them.
It´s a fun game and I´ll buy it on day one, but I have to be honest: technically speaking this game is currently quite embarrassing for a next generation single platform game. Ryse looks so much better than this that it could be on a different console entirely. I blame it on the engine choice and the X1 SDK being in a bad shape, plus the new architecture is exotic and might require more manpower than a small team like Respawn to crack. Just judging by at how this game looks I would expect 1080P with AA at a solid 60 framerate on any next generation console, including the X1. Luckily the gameplay mechanics are fun and well designed (same thing!) plus this time of the year there is a serious draught in new releases. The game is releasing at a perfect time and X1 owners fill flock to it despite it being technically a weak game for a AAA mass hyped release.
Disclaimer: sold my PS4 a while ago, kept the X1 as the games lineup for this year appealed to me more. X1 still has the better controller, OS and hardware quality (PS4 feels like mass produced cheap plastic). I wish MS had taken a different path, the main direction choices with this console were clearly decided by "old white men in suits" who don´t have a clue about gaming ("aggressive BOM margins", "encouraging digital convergence", "dynamic living room media", "cloud connected" and other buzzwords). Seems like the console was designed for 1080P HUDs and 720P graphics with the notion that a artificially sharpening scaler will make it so close the vast majority of gamers won´t notice or care - they were just wrong, core gaming is what drives this industry today and it´s the future too. They probably did a lot of focus tests of their new scaler tech with casual gamers who were just happy enough to hold new controller and participate in the testing in the first place - who knows.
Now MS is aggressively trying to patch things and saving what they can, but imagine how things would have turned out if MS had released at power and price parity with the PS4 with the current superior lineup and Kinect as an optional 150 dollar purchase. The HDMI input doesn´t cost that much, they could have left that in too so that it starts being usable after you buy the Kinect. People would still have bought the add-on for Kinect Sports, TV and other benefits.
At least they would have avoided the negative hype around their console and could then later on have bundled Kinect in when the console BOM drops. They would have started #1 this generation and had everything to win. This console will be a classic case study in 15 years on how to misread a market
I´ll still be keeping mine though, I like many things about it (= games) enough to currently prefer it to the PS4.
It´s a fun game and I´ll buy it on day one, but I have to be honest: technically speaking this game is currently quite embarrassing for a next generation single platform game. Ryse looks so much better than this that it could be on a different console entirely. I blame it on the engine choice and the X1 SDK being in a bad shape, plus the new architecture is exotic and might require more manpower than a small team like Respawn to crack. Just judging by at how this game looks I would expect 1080P with AA at a solid 60 framerate on any next generation console, including the X1. Luckily the gameplay mechanics are fun and well designed (same thing!) plus this time of the year there is a serious draught in new releases. The game is releasing at a perfect time and X1 owners fill flock to it despite it being technically a weak game for a AAA mass hyped release.
Disclaimer: sold my PS4 a while ago, kept the X1 as the games lineup for this year appealed to me more. X1 still has the better controller, OS and hardware quality (PS4 feels like mass produced cheap plastic). I wish MS had taken a different path, the main direction choices with this console were clearly decided by "old white men in suits" who don´t have a clue about gaming ("aggressive BOM margins", "encouraging digital convergence", "dynamic living room media", "cloud connected" and other buzzwords). Seems like the console was designed for 1080P HUDs and 720P graphics with the notion that a artificially sharpening scaler will make it so close the vast majority of gamers won´t notice or care - they were just wrong, core gaming is what drives this industry today and it´s the future too. They probably did a lot of focus tests of their new scaler tech with casual gamers who were just happy enough to hold new controller and participate in the testing in the first place - who knows.
Now MS is aggressively trying to patch things and saving what they can, but imagine how things would have turned out if MS had released at power and price parity with the PS4 with the current superior lineup and Kinect as an optional 150 dollar purchase. The HDMI input doesn´t cost that much, they could have left that in too so that it starts being usable after you buy the Kinect. People would still have bought the add-on for Kinect Sports, TV and other benefits.
At least they would have avoided the negative hype around their console and could then later on have bundled Kinect in when the console BOM drops. They would have started #1 this generation and had everything to win. This console will be a classic case study in 15 years on how to misread a market
I´ll still be keeping mine though, I like many things about it (= games) enough to currently prefer it to the PS4.Will not be in DF analysis, you can bet on it.
Chance Hale
Member
PC version beta is a 12 GB download(20 once installed) compared to the One's 4 GBs so one imagines there is some difference that will hopefully not be present in the retail edition. Keep in mind the last Xbox One digital foundry hysteria around Dead Rising 3 was based on incomplete code only a week or two before launch that turned out to be irrelevant and the actual game ran much better. Fingers crossed for a big resolution boost and framerate adjustment, but I'll likely be getting it on the PC anyway because I have a decent rig.
Krusenstern
Banned
Feeling better now?
Yup!
Steve McQueen
Member
Played it for a few hours and had a lot of fun. The gfx are a letdown though. It really looks slightly better than current gen. Now I can live with that, but the framedrops and tearing are annoying to say the least.
scoobs
Member
ya but xb1 uses slower ddr3 memory and a pretty shit graphics card in comparison to, for instance, my gtx770. I find it really hard to believe
Bluekaveli
Member
More than likely 720p.
Just depends on how the developers optimize it. IDK.
I still don't understand why they didn't build a new engine for this instead of using the source engine : /
Lactose_Intolerant
Member
$$$
Dreams-Visions
Member
And a small team too, right? Maybe they could have used Frostbite or Cryengine, but making their own engine seems unrealistic. Maybe when they get bigger.
Lactose_Intolerant
Member
small team and $$$ are the same thing
If you have lots of money, you can throw people at it like Assassins Creed, with 1000+ people working on it.
Granted, that's mostly content producers.
Sharpening filter is fixed, gamma isn't though.
FairXchange
Member
Not a chance at 1280x720p, probably sub720p like COD's resolution, which is 832x624p on PS3.
alexandros
Banned
Heh. Not much more to be said really, pretty much every gaming PC from the last three years or so should be able to handle Titanfall beautifully.
BotoxAgent
Member
Seems like the console was designed for 1080P HUDs and 720P graphics with the notion that a artificially sharpening scaler will make it so close the vast majority of gamers won´t notice or care - they were just wrong, core gaming is what drives this industry today and it´s the future too. They probably did a lot of focus tests of their new scaler tech with casual gamers who were just happy enough to hold new controller and participate in the testing in the first place - who knows.
Now MS is aggressively trying to patch things and saving what they can, but imagine how things would have turned out if MS had released at power and price parity with the PS4 with the current superior lineup and Kinect as an optional 150 dollar purchase. The HDMI input doesn´t cost that much, they could have left that in too so that it starts being usable after you buy the Kinect. People would still have bought the add-on for Kinect Sports, TV and other benefits.
At least they would have avoided the negative hype around their console and could then later on have bundled Kinect in when the console BOM drops. They would have started #1 this generation and had everything to win. This console will be a classic case study in 15 years on how to misread a market
Pretty much. The sharpening and black crush did mislead a lot of eyes though, in the beginning.
Dictator93
Member
kinda. It does actually run rather poorly for how it looks in a lot of ways.
No it didnt dead rising ran the same?.
Glorified G
Member
This is not a next gen game. It is a cross gen game. The game was built to accommodate 8 year old hardware.
Chance Hale
Member
The launch patch had major improvements to the framerate across the board.
seventynine
Member
They went for it for the now defunct PS3 version (Portal 2 ran better on PS3 than it did on 360).
I'm guessing Bluepoint was chosen for the last gen port because of their expertise with PS3 too.
GillianSeed79
Member
Hyperbole much? I don't even have an Xbox One, but that sounds like a pretty bold statement. Console developers have always had to deal with doing more with less. There's always usually growing pains when it comes to developing for a new console, especially if it's a cross-gen game. I mean, I think it's safe to assume that the PS4 and Xbox One's roles have shifted vs. last gen, i.e. in more cases than not the PS4 will probably have better performing multiplats, but I think it's way too early to say these systems are nearly tapped out.
Just look at what PS3 exclusive launch games looked like compared to, say TLoU, or what Perfect Dark Zero on the 360 looked like compared to, say, Halo 4. This has always happened before, even with the PS2 which was the least powerful console on the market compared to the Game Cube and Xbox.
I don't think the sky is falling per se. If you can only afford one console, it'd probably be wiser to invest in a PS4, but I don't think Xbox One owners should be panicking just yet. I'm sure it will be a competent system with a caveat of having some performance issues with multiplats. Even last gen, the PS3 managed to reach parity with 360 with some multiplats. And, of course, if you have a PC you'll be fine. At least if you have a recent PC, you won't have to worry about not being able to max out next-gen console ports I guess.
Arrogant Bastard
Banned
Right. Games never get better on consoles over time, yep. Hate to break it to you but if consoles weren't there developers would focus more on smartphone/mobile/tablet gaming over PC.
UltimateRemag
Banned
tell me more.. amazing sales pitch there...Around one month before launch isn´t a real "beta" by any means, it´s a near final build. There is still optimisation work to be done of course and I do expect at least a framerate improvements or something closer to 900P. Why? I believe the rumours of MS freeing up the "reserved for Kinect 10%" GPU with the latest patch. This beta could´t use that yet as it launched before the OS update, but the final release will disable Kinect and use everything the slow GPU in the X1 can push. Plus this being X1´s biggest claim to fame in order to catch up with the PS4 I imagine MS are putting their best engineers to help Respawn optimise the engine - this is why I don´t think the 900P target is too far fetched. Just the advertising MS has given the game and the gamepad updates et cetera show how important this game is to them.
It´s a fun game and I´ll buy it on day one, but I have to be honest: technically speaking this game is currently quite embarrassing for a next generation single platform game. Ryse looks so much better than this that it could be on a different console entirely. I blame it on the engine choice and the X1 SDK being in a bad shape, plus the new architecture is exotic and might require more manpower than a small team like Respawn to crack. Just judging by at how this game looks I would expect 1080P with AA at a solid 60 framerate on any next generation console, including the X1. Luckily the gameplay mechanics are fun and well designed (same thing!) plus this time of the year there is a serious draught in new releases. The game is releasing at a perfect time and X1 owners fill flock to it despite it being technically a weak game for a AAA mass hyped release.
Disclaimer: sold my PS4 a while ago, kept the X1 as the games lineup for this year appealed to me more. X1 still has the better controller, OS and hardware quality (PS4 feels like mass produced cheap plastic). I wish MS had taken a different path, the main direction choices with this console were clearly decided by "old white men in suits" who don´t have a clue about gaming ("aggressive BOM margins", "encouraging digital convergence", "dynamic living room media", "cloud connected" and other buzzwords). Seems like the console was designed for 1080P HUDs and 720P graphics with the notion that a artificially sharpening scaler will make it so close the vast majority of gamers won´t notice or care - they were just wrong, core gaming is what drives this industry today and it´s the future too. They probably did a lot of focus tests of their new scaler tech with casual gamers who were just happy enough to hold new controller and participate in the testing in the first place - who knows.
Now MS is aggressively trying to patch things and saving what they can, but imagine how things would have turned out if MS had released at power and price parity with the PS4 with the current superior lineup and Kinect as an optional 150 dollar purchase. The HDMI input doesn´t cost that much, they could have left that in too so that it starts being usable after you buy the Kinect. People would still have bought the add-on for Kinect Sports, TV and other benefits.
At least they would have avoided the negative hype around their console and could then later on have bundled Kinect in when the console BOM drops. They would have started #1 this generation and had everything to win. This console will be a classic case study in 15 years on how to misread a market
Was going to say precisely this. Even earlier examples in the systems' respective life cycle work. Gears looked much better than PDZ. Uncharted looked much better than Resistance.
At this point, if you want to see what a shooter looks like that is purely optimized for Xbox One, you probably want to wait until Halo 5. Everything else is going to be cross gen or cross platform.
Mostly GPU - CPU might have some extra work for sorting stuff (alpha is always tricky regarding order of rendering), but the biggest performance drain usually is the overdraw (think several layers of smoke for example, that results in many pixels drawn and blended several times, which is the domain of the GPU).
It says once you buckle into a titan. Not when a titan is on screen
Portugeezer
Member
What does that even mean?
Valve is the exception. Respawn are console developers, XB1 is underpowered and has shit SDK. Vince made a killing on consoles so I can't blame him for prioritising console development.
GetemMa
Member
It's customary to put a disclaimer before a sales pitch, not in the middle.
I've never understood these people that will buy a console around launch and then sell it within 3 months because of "the games lineup." You didn't know the games lineup for the first half of 2014 before you bought it? Why not? Everyone else with functioning internet did.
I also have no idea why people care about "build quality" of a console so much that they ignore the obvious power advantages one has over the other. You play games on the console, the game isn't playing with the console. "Oh look at this! It's built so well! That is too plasticky! ick!" Enjoy your 792p.
I want to get this on PC but it sounds like a completely half-assed port right now.
Metalingus5150
Member
I believe they had a comparison between patch and unpatached and it ran the same.
OldAsUrSock
Banned
This is not the source engine.
OldAsUrSock
Banned
He means that this gen is underpowered and that because games need so many compromises at the start of the generation, he wishes the gen should end soon.
They aren't some indie. They are being published by fucking EA. They also got tons of money thrown at them by MS. Stop acting like they are four people.
DirgeExtinction
Member
Finally got a PC beta code, so I'll be trying it out later.
That being said, if TF can't hold a stable 60fps(or even mid-high 50s) at all times with the current resolution, they shouldn't even be thinking about the possibility of raising the resolution to 900p. Stabilize the framerate first, then if there's enough power left, raise the resolution. Otherwise, 900p will kill the performance of this game. "Framerate is king", remember that Respawn.
That being said, if TF can't hold a stable 60fps(or even mid-high 50s) at all times with the current resolution, they shouldn't even be thinking about the possibility of raising the resolution to 900p. Stabilize the framerate first, then if there's enough power left, raise the resolution. Otherwise, 900p will kill the performance of this game. "Framerate is king", remember that Respawn.
Chance Hale
Member
That was comparing the launch day patch to the 13GB one. Months after launch.