But how do we know Respawn didn't axe a map just so they could get back at cboat?????
But how do we know Respawn didn't axe a map just so they could get back at cboat?????
I feel there's no way to know if cboat was right and then they upgraded to 792... 720 to 792 is not unheard of bump in res
It's true. I ran it at 5120x2880. It did not help 1 bit (well, AA was perfect)
Titanfall is a fun game where the graphics are merely serviceable at best. Geometry, foliage, texture resolution, lighting, etc etc.... it's all very dated.
I wouldn't say it's a BAD looking game, but it's not going to win any awards. But that won't stop me from playing it a ton more than far better looking games.
Serviceable is also how I would describe them. The maps and environments also feel a lot more "alive" than traditional MP shooters, there's more going on in the background.
I don't understand this. I see it about a lot of games that I think look good. What is it you are seeing that makes you say it looks bad? Are there not enough effects? Is it because it's not 1080p? Please help me understand why people keep saying this.
This is an interesting observation to me. The game may be awesome and fun, but I feel like this is sort of an opposite situation to a game like Mirror's Edge, where even several years later, the style makes it shine (especially replayed with downsampling etc. on higher-end systems).
Are people going to play this years later and say "Wow, that memorable style certainly made it hold up"? I doubt it. But, maybe it will be like Team Fortress 2 and still played years later, and that in itself will be its legacy. Though oddly enough, Team Fortress 2 is another game with a unique art style that holds up.
If he'd make positive leaks people would say he's MS controlled
the buttocks can't win
I thought no one could see the difference between 720p and 1080p ?.
Why do they even bother go to 792p and not just stay at 720p ?.
Microsoft camp has to come out and explain, is it necessary for a console to deliver graphics more than 720p or not ...
You guys are making it sound like it's a slap to the face of Microsoft to buy Titanfall on the 360. Like it's such an insult, a burn, etc.
Honestly, I'm not sure why some of you guys are so hostile about the game and it's aesthetic. "This guy really liked Titanfall's game play, and doesn't care about the appearance of the game? Gotta bring up how it looks like a 360 game! That'll show him and his optimism!"
They should've lowered the resolution back to 720p in order to stabilize the framerate. I feel like Respawn got a ton of (misguided) pressure from MS to do whatever they can to get the game running at higher than 720p (even at the cost of framerate).
The miniscule rise to 792p, with accompanying framedrops to 35-40fps, just isn't worth it.
They should've lowered the resolution back to 720p in order to stabilize the framerate. I feel like Respawn got a ton of (misguided) pressure from MS to do whatever they can to get the game running at higher than 720p (even at the cost of framerate).
The miniscule rise to 792p, with accompanying framedrops to 35-40fps, just isn't worth it.
The train heading towards E3 has always counted on CBOAT as a passenger. The guy broke so many stories and got the forum into a delightful frenzy pre-show...
I'm gonna miss him for sure!
They should've lowered the resolution back to 720p in order to stabilize the framerate. I feel like Respawn got a ton of (misguided) pressure from MS to do whatever they can to get the game running at higher than 720p (even at the cost of framerate).
The miniscule rise to 792p, with accompanying framedrops to 35-40fps, just isn't worth it.
It's dated, but it's not ugly. Sometimes it's downright impressive with how much is happening on the screen.
would be funny if cboat comes just to post he still says it's 720p
what then? lol
I know we're all on the Titanfall hype train here, but none of what I played I would describe as impressive, at least visually. That was on PC maxed 1080p.
They should've lowered the resolution back to 720p in order to stabilize the framerate. I feel like Respawn got a ton of (misguided) pressure from MS to do whatever they can to get the game running at higher than 720p (even at the cost of framerate).
The miniscule rise to 792p, with accompanying framedrops to 35-40fps, just isn't worth it.
and who's to say they didn't iron out the framerate at 792p? Sorry but I don't think it's fair at all to judge based on a beta.
I feel there's no way to know if cboat was right and then they upgraded to 792... 720 to 792 is not unheard of bump in res
The beta was literally a month ago, there is almost no chance between then and the game going gold that they could fix something like frame-rate dips as a result of the game pushing the hardware too hard.
How do we know that they never weren't planning to downgradeaton the final version to 720p?It was 792p in the beta...BEFORE HE SAID THAT.
Holy fuck, people.
Dead rising had its frame rate improved in the lead up to launch, it was part of the day 1 patch.
It's true. I ran it at 5120x2880. It did not help 1 bit (well, AA was perfect)
The beta was literally a month ago, there is almost no chance between then and the game going gold that they could fix something like frame-rate dips as a result of the game pushing the hardware too hard.
The beta was literally a month ago, there is almost no chance between then and the game going gold that they could fix something like frame-rate dips as a result of the game pushing the hardware too hard.
If your talking graphics then Killzone curb stomps this game at every turn. Gameplay though? Titanfall everytime.Have you met the poster 'wotta'?
Games definitely not winning any awards for looks but i'd take this at 792p over killzone at whatever resolution they tell people it is every single time. If you disagree then I'm afraid you're mad.
I'm confident they made the wrong choice.Respawn are adults who've been around the development block a time or two. I'm confident they made the choices for their engine that were best for the game. Every bit of resolution matters, and they must have felt those extra pixels made a difference. Also, you have no idea what the final framerate is going to look like. How do you even know how much of a difference going down to 720p would make on the framerate?
I'm confident they made the wrong choice.
We're dealing with fixed pixel displays here. You don't need to be a developer to understand that 1408x792 does not divide evenly into 1920x1080. 1280x720 isn't a perfect multiple either, but it's at least a cleaner division than 792p. It's a bad choice.
If we were all using CRTs then, yes, every bit of resolution would help but with modern displays 792p is a poor choice. In the end, it will actually wind up looking virtually identical to 720p on most displays but the possibility for a bit of extra distortion exists as a result of the uneven choice.
There's no way of knowing without Respawn chiming in, but public Betas are usually spun off from the main build a few months ahead of the beta's release.How old was the build they used for the beta? Did they finish it the morning of the beta starting?
How long does it take to fix a dipping frame rate? If more than a month, how much longer?
720p is still 16:9. 792p is WTF.unless you have a great explanation of why 3/2 is better than 15/11 . im going to say nope its still scaling on integer fractions. please back this up with more information/citations.
720p is still 16:9. 792p is WTF.
He specifically said "792p? no. 720".
Dude was just dead wrong on everything he said about titanfall. Even the mapcount.
I wonder if there are any televisions with that resolution. If so that may be the right TV to buy if you're serious about this game.So is 1408 x792 dude.
720p is still 16:9. 792p is WTF.
I wonder if there are any televisions with that resolution. If so that may be the right TV to buy if you're serious about this game.
Why? The Xbox never actually outputs that resolution to your TV.I wonder if there are any televisions with that resolution. If so that may be the right TV to buy if you're serious about this game.
Respawn are adults who've been around the development block a time or two. I'm confident they made the choices for their engine that were best for the game. Every bit of resolution matters, and they must have felt those extra pixels made a difference. Also, you have no idea what the final framerate is going to look like. How do you even know how much of a difference going down to 720p would make on the framerate?
It's true. I ran it at 5120x2880. It did not help 1 bit (well, AA was perfect)
It's Sat night/ Sunday morning, I'm guessing their drunk?What is going on in this thread
It's true. I ran it at 5120x2880. It did not help 1 bit (well, AA was perfect)
Taking an otherwise exemplary track record into account...
720p = 72 hr ban seems fair.
I think a simple zoom on a scaled image without any interpolation reveals the issue.unless you have a great explanation of why 3/2 is better than 15/11 . im going to say nope its still scaling on integer fractions. please back this up with more information/citations.
Have you met the poster 'wotta'?
Games definitely not winning any awards for looks but i'd take this at 792p over killzone at whatever resolution they tell people it is every single time. If you disagree then I'm afraid you're mad.