Titanfall.... XO

[MRU]

Ok first impressions.

Yes the world is pretty bland and static.. In every regard I mentioned in previous posts above still hold true. Bar odd window everything in the world is indestructible and covered with the best anti explosion veneer. Seriously last gen world.

But... even though it's not 1080p it's 792p or some such it actually doesn't look low res. In fact generally resolution is not an issue with it. Sure higher would make it crisper but it's pretty crisp as it is.

Gameplay wise... It is indeed great fun and I have already won some challenges and ranked upto level 5 only after 4 matches. I can see myself playing it for good while. It's first multi player game I can see myself spending time on since Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter on Xbox 360.

It does seem balanced. I was able to parkour upto a titan and blow it's brains out (very satisfying) and I enjoy the cloaking system.

In all it does seem very balanced even for my play style which is more going for rewards rather than frag kills. I managed to get to top of my team leader board without having most kills but for keeping & capturing bases etc.. scoring more that way.

It's very arcade like and yes.... I will now indeed reinstate my pre-order with Amazon.

It's not upto the Hype, I don't think any game could live upto the hype this title has, but it's solid arcade fun.

Certainly not a system seller on its own, but if you are a Xbox owner and want a dose of solid arcade multi player then it fulfills the brief.

It's an early summer movie... mindless, a little shallow character and story wise (heck there is none) but it's entertaining and the sound in particular is very good, especially with a DTS system cranked up.

Oh and there was no trace of LAG in the games I played.

 

[antman2x2]

I was lucky enough to play in the alpha.

At first your like "WHOAH THIS IS SICK" but soon after it gets REAAAAAAALLY stale and boring. The graphics were really terrible for a "next-gen game". It literally looked like I was playing on an xbox 360.

It has that initial burst of "holy crap" but within an hour you sit there thinking.. is this it?

Perhaps it was just the alpha and it wont be as bland as it was when its released but jeeze. The textures were terrible and the foilage looked like it was ripped from 007 goldeneye on the N64...

It has potential but when I played it, it was stale and mindless, and although people say COD is stale and mindless, it keeps its initial excitement of ranking up and getting some pretty sweet kills. But titanfall was just repetitive. Almost all of your kills are identical there is no excitement.

Just my .02.

 

[MRU]

Yeah I can see how it can get repetitive, I'm already a little bored with the two maps in the beta.

And yes it really doesn't look or feel next gen. It does feel like an Xbox 360 game given a bit of a boost. The game also exhibits some screen tear which isn't very nice either on your new next gen console.

The card booster system is a nice idea though. Though how much they really change the play is still questionable with the beta.

The final game has 17 maps doesn't it? It really would need that many and I do feel that a story campaign would have been preferable but clearly small team so not possible resource wise.

By the way folks the beta code has been gifted to a user of the forum so it's no longer up for grabs.

 

[gkarris]

And yes it really doesn't look or feel next gen. It does feel like an Xbox 360 game given a bit of a boost. The game also exhibits some screen tear which isn't very nice either on your new next gen console.

Isn't Titanfall also supposed to be on the Xbox 360? I'm hearing many of the early PS4 and Xbox One games are just ports of the PS3 and 360 versions...

 

[david401]

I have been selected by EA too ..

I now have a spare Beta Key.

Anyone want it?

If anyone has any other extras I'd be happy to grab it, been waiting for this game for a long time and I haven't gotten a code yet.

 

[lJoSquaredl]

For the people asking, I believe the beta was supposed to end on the 19th, if they update it to go any longer ill repost here.

And don't say it's repetitive. It's only 2 maps and 3 game types, you're just spamming the same stuff over and over lol, course its gonna be a lil repetitive When I try to play Halo I get the same map 5 times in a row on 1 game type, THAT'S repetitive haha. It's a beta to test the servers, not the game itself. 17 maps and however many game types on release, it'll be much more enjoyable from a gameplay perspective. What you guys should be doing is reporting any gameplay issues with server lag, screen lag, etc on their beta forums asap, every little bit of info helps

I really hope people see the depth in this game, I can't go back to the FPS genre if people are just gonna spam the same point n shoot CoD another 5-10 years. I needs some change I could really use a pure Arena shooter again as well...still waiting...

 

[MRU]

For the people asking, I believe the beta was supposed to end on the 19th, if they update it to go any longer ill repost here.

And don't say it's repetitive. It's only 2 maps and 3 game types, you're just spamming the same stuff over and over lol, course its gonna be a lil repetitive When I try to play Halo I get the same map 5 times in a row on 1 game type, THAT'S repetitive haha. It's a beta to test the servers, not the game itself. 17 maps and however many game types on release, it'll be much more enjoyable from a gameplay perspective. What you guys should be doing is reporting any gameplay issues with server lag, screen lag, etc on their beta forums asap, every little bit of info helps

I really hope people see the depth in this game, I can't go back to the FPS genre if people are just gonna spam the same point n shoot CoD another 5-10 years. I needs some change I could really use a pure Arena shooter again as well...still waiting...

I am enjoying it, more so than my skepticism had allowed me to think I may.

Where did you find the 17 maps listed - I've been looking all over including the official site and can't seem to find definitive map number anywhere.

I said 'a little repetitive' but yeah clearly that's only because of two maps. Actually the bigger map is really really good, the smaller one is the more repetitive simply because it lacks variety and is so small.

I've actually not had any server lag, and haven't had any bugs so far (only as I said a bit of screen tearing hear and there). But heck it's a month from launch - it's fair to say that the retail game disc is likely done and past major bug testing anyway. Factoring in pressing and distribution chains - I doubt anything reported now will make it into the retail disc, but will more likely make up a day 1 or week one patches.

I do hope your right and there is the full 17 maps and more than the three game types, if so I will have no hesitation recommending it.

I would really like to see from a technical standpoint how the xbox one version compares to the xbox 360 version.

 

[LethalWolfe]

In all it does seem very balanced even for my play style which is more going for rewards rather than frag kills. I managed to get to top of my team leader board without having most kills but for keeping & capturing bases etc.. scoring more that way.

I prefer to go after objectives instead of frags too so this is good to hear.

 

[MRU]

Titanfall is now becoming an open beta to everyone.

So basically it's a demo then

 

[cocky jeremy]

Even if I planned on owning a platform this game releases for, I still would have no interest whatsoever.

- multiplayer only: no appeal
- cod style gameplay: no appeal
- mechs that are superfast, have no sense of might and weight: dumb. Why even have mechs then?
- boring static environments: somewhat trivial, but it doesn't help matters

I never once understood the hype about this from the beginning. I guess I am not their target audience, but it's pretty rare that I fail to see what ANYONE sees in a game.

Multiplayer only: No biggie to me. It's all I play anyway.
COD style: Most FPS's are. Still fun.

I didn't think it'd be that great, and I was on the fence about my preorder.. but it's really fun and addicting. Best of all, hit detection seems dead on, unlike most games I play. BF4 has gotten worse and worse, Ghosts has sucked since day 1 and still does. Even in beta it feels polished and finished. I think it's going to blow up and be the next COD/BF, in terms of popularity.

 

[poe diddley]

Multiplayer only: No biggie to me. It's all I play anyway.
COD style: Most FPS's are. Still fun.

I didn't think it'd be that great, and I was on the fence about my preorder.. but it's really fun and addicting. Best of all, hit detection seems dead on, unlike most games I play. BF4 has gotten worse and worse, Ghosts has sucked since day 1 and still does. Even in beta it feels polished and finished. I think it's going to blow up and be the next COD/BF, in terms of popularity.

I have to agree. Gameplay is very fast paced and addicting. I'm really liking it, and see a lot of potential for the future of this title. For anyone crying about the limited maps and only multiplayer, come on, its a beta, they are wanting to test the functionality of the servers-did you expect them to hand you the full game?. The beta feels very polished in my opinion. I cant put it down since i started playing a few hours ago. I'm as excited as i was the first time i saw a video for modern warfare 2 multiplayer.
Ghosts made me really sad when i played the multiplayer side of things. I feared that either i had lost interest in fps, or somebody forgot how to make them. This title, while not really inventing mech games or fps, has melded these two concepts into something really fun to play. At least it is for me. I'm sure it won't be for everyone.
This is going to be a very cool game for anyone into first person shooters.

 

[MRU]

Did anyone else get the 350mb Xbox one update today?




Digital Foundry analysis of the beta

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2014-titanfall-beta-tech-analysis


Exactly as I posted above my main criticism are echoed...

It's also impossible to ignore the tearing that creeps up during such dips. Adaptive v-sync is in play, which taps in any time the engine detects a frame going over budget and missing a slot within its 60Hz refresh.

That said, it's unfortunate that once you stop to have a look around at the arena that the environment appears so clinical. Much of Fracture, for example, is built to a very strict and rigid wireframe, with no evidence of next-gen technologies such as tessellation to round off the more egregious corners. Shading is also largely missing, outside of baked-in shadows and ambient occlusion that fades in we near objects. The two maps shown so far are vibrant and well-suited for the wall-run-and-gunning gameplay, but without these extra layers of detail the whole world come across as a little plain, lacking in dynamic destruction and enhanced environmental detail and animation. It's clear where the emphasis is: Titanfall relies upon the sheer intensity of its action for its measure of spectacle.

 

[lJoSquaredl]

Did anyone else get the 350mb Xbox one update today?




Digital Foundry analysis of the beta

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2014-titanfall-beta-tech-analysis


Exactly as I posted above my main criticism are echoed...

I hear the game looks better without the Xbox sharpening filter, so happy they got rid of that Either way game looks fine to me. I never understood the need for these OMG graphics some people on PS4 and PC seem to chase. I just want a super fun, competitive game to play...graphics are for benchmark test games and maybe campaign focused stuff? As far as multiplayer goes run it as low as possible, just keep my frame rates somewhat consistent and I'm happy. Art style > graphics imo. Also...for shooters, i'm way more happy that Microsoft invested in billions of dollars in servers for their games than graphics...they know what their main player base wants As far as multiplayer goes i'll complain way more about lag/netcode/hackers before graphics. They really made the sub to Xbox Live worth it this time around at least.

Also now i'm hearing 14 maps, but just a rumor. No one knows I guess until Respawn announces:/

 

[MRU]

I hear the game looks better without the Xbox sharpening filter, so happy they got rid of that Either way game looks fine to me. I never understood the need for these OMG graphics some people on PS4 and PC seem to chase. I just want a super fun, competitive game to play...graphics are for benchmark test games and maybe campaign focused stuff? As far as multiplayer goes run it as low as possible, just keep my frame rates somewhat consistent and I'm happy. Art style > graphics imo. Also...for shooters, i'm way more happy that Microsoft invested in billions of dollars in servers for their games than graphics...they know what their main player base wants As far as multiplayer goes i'll complain way more about lag/netcode/hackers before graphics. They really made the sub to Xbox Live worth it this time around at least.
:/

Because great graphics and gameplay are not mutual exclusive, and when we have new generations of hardware that is significantly more powerful than Xbox 360 and ps3 - we have a realistic expectation that a game should look better than a 360 game.

The wii u has taken so much stick for its hardware from sony and Microsoft users and yet a game like super Mario 3D world arguably has a far better art style and runs in 1080p and is 60fps on vastly inferior hardware spec wise.

That's why it's disappointing to see such a last gen looking title leading the way on supposedly next gen hardware.

There has been a sudden 'graphics aren't as important as gameplay' comments since the resolution gate and concerns over the xbox ones hardware. Microsoft did not intentionally design an inferior console - for many moons since announcement Microsoft have been drumming up the power of the hardware and now it's clear that the hardware isn't as powerful as we may have hoped and given we are in for 7 years we need developers to get a handle on this hardware, and arguably the choice of giving so much power to kinect has made the xbox one have an overhead that is again arguably not necessary... Heck kinect voice commands don't even work in the majority of countries it actually launched in, so you have thus camera looking at you, consuming power and CPU/GPU overheads and it possibly is at the detriment to the end graphical experience.

Owning all systems I won't make excuses for something that clearly so far has been a misstep. Microsoft need to sort out the SDK and prove it hasn't created a 'gimped' console.

Xbox one owners should be demanding this - not accepting and fooling themselves that this was how the hardware was planned. It's 2014 not 2005 - we deserve 1080p and some developers clearly have been able to give us that - whilst others haven't.

Titanfall is great fun true, but it's undeniable that it would benefit from better graphics and better resolution. The drops to 35-45 fps when in a mech on a sub 1080p game with all be told small maps (by any open world standard) is disappointing and is not a design choice - it's either hardware limitation or developer limitation..... Or a combo of both.


The Xbox One can indeed output 1080p games. Lego Marvel Super heroes looks great, as does Lego Movie, forza 5, and Zoo Tycoon. Heck even the forthcoming multiplayer only Plants V Zombies : Garden Warfare is 1080p

All of which have not had a quarter of the push from Microsoft as Titanfall. You hold something up to be a beacon... You best make sure that is one gorgeous beacon....

 

[lJoSquaredl]

Because great graphics and gameplay are not mutual exclusive, and when we have new generations of hardware that is significantly more powerful than Xbox 360 and ps3 - we have a realistic expectation that a game should look better than a 360 game.

The wii u has taken so much stick for its hardware from sony and Microsoft users and yet a game like super Mario 3D world arguably has a far better art style and runs in 1080p and is 60fps on vastly inferior hardware spec wise.

That's why it's disappointing to see such a last gen looking title leading the way on supposedly next gen hardware.

There has been a sudden 'graphics aren't as important as gameplay' comments since the resolution gate and concerns over the xbox ones hardware. Microsoft did not intentionally design an inferior console - for many moons since announcement Microsoft have been drumming up the power of the hardware and now it's clear that the hardware isn't as powerful as we may have hoped and given we are in for 7 years we need developers to get a handle on this hardware, and arguably the choice of giving so much power to kinect has made the xbox one have an overhead that is again arguably not necessary... Heck kinect voice commands don't even work in the majority of countries it actually launched in, so you have thus camera looking at you, consuming power and CPU/GPU overheads and it possibly is at the detriment to the end graphical experience.

Owning all systems I won't make excuses for something that clearly so far has been a misstep. Microsoft need to sort out the SDK and prove it hasn't created a 'gimped' console.

Xbox one owners should be demanding this - not accepting and fooling themselves that this was how the hardware was planned. It's 2014 not 2005 - we deserve 1080p and some developers clearly have been able to give us that - whilst others haven't.

Titanfall is great fun true, but it's undeniable that it would benefit from better graphics and better resolution. The drops to 35-45 fps when in a mech on a sub 1080p game with all be told small maps (by any open world standard) is disappointing and is not a design choice - it's either hardware limitation or developer limitation..... Or a combo of both.


The Xbox One can indeed output 1080p games. Lego Marvel Super heroes looks great, as does Lego Movie, forza 5, and Zoo Tycoon. Heck even the forthcoming multiplayer only Plants V Zombies : Garden Warfare is 1080p

All of which have not had a quarter of the push from Microsoft as Titanfall. You hold something up to be a beacon... You best make sure that is one gorgeous beacon....

Well, I guess as a console gamer, and a person who plays on low-med graphics at 900p-1050p when my system is capable of much more, i'll just never understand this need for graphic enhancements. If it's there fine, if it's not fine. Getting a game with features that aren't broken, and gameplay is balanced and works well seems to be way more difficult, so I put that before anything.

I'm very optimistic too. Respawn is only 70 people, as opposed to 343s 200 or more, Bungies 500, even GTAV took around 1000 people to make. That game kept its original art style and graphics tho, no one really complained cuz it was true to the series. Maybe this is just Respawns art style, simple...yet effective
Don't know much bout how engines work either but i'd assume they're only capable of so much before you've completely rewritten them. Games that use much newer engines seem to be pretty, while games like Titanfall and CoD written on much older engines always have a simplified look. Still these games run like a charm, while BF's Frostbite seems to be extremely complex and has many issues that make it aggravating to play on. I've even seen/heard many issues with Unreal for shooter games. I still stay graphics should be the last concern. With these new consoles all I see is a more reliable box of hardware that has a better chance for more open world games, more consistent/smooth gameplay especially with things like Titans/parkour/bots which could easily cause issues on lesser hardware, features like streaming/recording while playing. That's whats next gen to me. Kinda curious to see how this game runs on 360 with the port they're doing actually.

Also, I highly appreciate games that are built to run for the masses. Games like Hearthstone, World of Warcraft, League of Legends...these games are the most popular in the world because they can usually run decent in any situation...for the most part.

Having said all that...it's still near launch. Stuff was still being shuffled months before launch. Xbox 360 saw some INSANE leaps in quality after 2-3 years. Sometimes devs just gotta get better with the hardware. Last time it was PS3, this time it's Xbox One. I don't even think Xbox One is using DirectX 11.2 is it? That should help with stuff regarding frame buffer and textures, etc. Still i've heard PS has had more framerate issues than X1 so it sounds like they're pushing both systems pretty hard anyways. If your on console tho ull always be further behind PC every year so...just go get a PC lol. Unless you're about the games like me, them Microsoft bastards make me buy an Xbox for Halo or i'd just play Blizz and Riot games on my Mac

Also...is it just me or is technology with games moving WAAAY faster? Microsoft said crap, you know what? We ain't gonna come close to a quality PC, and in a year it'll already be way behind. Lets just invest in cloud, dedicated servers, stuff that'll last 10 years without showing age, and can be transferred to the Xbox Two. I can see that conversation probably went down at some point...thankfully. This could be the last Xbox console too, least they'll still have their servers around if it ends after the One.

 

[0098386]

.Sometimes devs just gotta get better with the hardware. Last time it was PS3, this time it's Xbox One.

But both consoles have the same architecture. Granted the PS4 is a bit faster but any dev who has made a PC or console game in the last 6 year should be putting out good stuff straight away on these consoles. It's now easier more than ever.

But it's not just the Xbox One making this game look so bad, the PC version looks awful too. Graphics aren't everything but why should I pay full price, with (probably) expensive DLC on something that looks 8 years old. I've worked with teams half the size of Respawn and they've had a better art direction and created better assets than this.

The fanbase will still love the game no matter what, but at this point after spending so much money don't we deserve a bit more?

 

[MRU]

But both consoles have the same architecture. Granted the PS4 is a bit faster but any dev who has made a PC or console game in the last 6 year should be putting out good stuff straight away on these consoles. It's now easier more than ever.

But it's not just the Xbox One making this game look so bad, the PC version looks awful too. Graphics aren't everything but why should I pay full price, with (probably) expensive DLC on something that looks 8 years old. I've worked with teams half the size of Respawn and they've had a better art direction and created better assets than this.

The fanbase will still love the game no matter what, but at this point after spending so much money don't we deserve a bit more?

With EA as publisher I fear there is going to be lots of DLC and likely another $50 premium pass / season pass

 

[lJoSquaredl]

With EA as publisher I fear there is going to be lots of DLC and likely another $50 premium pass / season pass

Never liked DLC, I dealt with it in WoW, and I always bought Halo DLC till Halo 4, but past that haven't even considered it.

 

[poe diddley]

I like the game. Its in beta so i understand that there will be some glitches here and there, and the graphics might not be 100% of what it could be upon release, and then later thru further updates to the game and to the xbox. I understood when I bought an xbox one that I was really buying a machine that was a bit of work in progress in a couple areas. The hardware is leaps and bounds over the previous generation of consoles, however, and fanboys on either side can argue the ps4 vs xbox numbers till the cows come home and it doesn't change my opinion of either console. I feel like both companies rushed their product to market in order to compete with each other.
But its not about that stuff to me. I want cool graphics and a fun, reliable gaming platform, and i feel like i got that. There is room for improvement from respawn/ea and microsoft, and i feel like we will see that. The game has a lot of potential, and is super fun and addicting to play.
I just wish everyone would quit arguing about the details as much ( some are legit, others just nitpicking) and see if they actually enjoy what the game and system have to offer.

 

[Liquorpuki]

I was lucky enough to play in the alpha.

At first your like "WHOAH THIS IS SICK" but soon after it gets REAAAAAAALLY stale and boring. The graphics were really terrible for a "next-gen game". It literally looked like I was playing on an xbox 360.

The Alpha used 25% of the final build's texture resolution

 

[gkarris]

The wii u has taken so much stick for its hardware from sony and Microsoft users and yet a game like super Mario 3D world arguably has a far better art style and runs in 1080p and is 60fps on vastly inferior hardware spec wise.

Yes, I remember going online and seeing negative reviews about Wii U graphics (which I already had a system and love the games), then brining home Pikmin 3 to play - astonishing...

1080p and incredible graphics and lighting/shading - wow....

But Pikmin 3 and Mario 3D world were released after the Wii U has been out for a while by the first party manufacturer.

I would assume Sony and MS will have the same awesome graphics on their games by holiday 2014.

 

[boy-better-know]

I began watching a stream of it, then saw that you could bounce around as if you were on a giant space hopper, quickly turned it off.

Perhaps I am being a bit unfair but it seems like another FPS to add to the pile. And that's fine, people enjoy them, I enjoy them, but I will stick to buying COD every other year when I get a craving.

 

[antman2x2]

The Alpha used 25% of the final build's texture resolution

And now im playing the beta and it still looks terrible...

Compared to ryse? Battlefield 4? It looks like an xbox 360 game.

 

[MRU]

And now im playing the beta and it still looks terrible...

Compared to ryse? Battlefield 4? It looks like an xbox 360 game.

Yep it's going to be interesting to see how the xbox 360 version looks.

 

[gkarris]

The console versions say, "XBox Live Gold Required To Play"

What gives?