CambriaRising
Member
Both can be had.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
GiantBomb - TitanFall framerate in mech combat is not fixed in Xbox One retail code
- Thread starter DieH@rd
- Start date
- Status
Both can be had.
7DollarHagane
Banned
Thank god for the PC version
Dreams-Visions
Member
That's how it felt to me at times in the Beta and I mentioned as much several times here. Very brief moments, but they were clearly there. Really just a random, minor annoyance in a journey of tons o fun.
Clockwork5
Member
Blighttownfall
Ryse looks better than second son. But on the titanfall front. It's frames over everything mentality is now getting shot down.
Messofanego
Banned
Mo Hype, Mo Backlash
Liquid-Swords
Member
So they didn't fix the screen tearing from the beta? Believe it or not this bothers me more then the frame-rate dip. I thought they didn't go 1080p so they wouldn't encounter these issues...
Ryse?
blueplancha
Banned
How does a game with such awful performance issues [and lacklustre graphics] get such a high score?
Zombie James
Banned
I think I'll wait for DigitalFoundry to do it's semi-reliable thing, but I find it hard to believe that a game running on a decade-old engine that looks as rough as it does has single-digit framerate issues. It just sounds ridiculous.
Gameplay?
How does a game with such awful performance issues [and lacklustre graphics] get such a high score?
pokeystaples
Banned
Pretty much. Not much use for a 10+ page thread about someone's naked eye perceived fps figure.
this line of thought is so insultingly dumb. Every game is fun to a core base. Are you not able to imagine the game in a prettier, better running shape? Is this the extent of your imagination ?
How does a game with such awful performance issues [and lacklustre graphics] get such a high score?
One nine at a time.
Dreams-Visions
Member
How does a game with such awful performance issues [and lacklustre graphics] get such a high score?
Because the game is fucking great, and the framerate dips are limited. The game got a 9/10 from me with just 2 Beta maps, 1 Titan, and 10 weapons. Fun game is fun.
It's one point higher than BF4 on PS4, and it was literally non-functional.
How does a game with such awful performance issues [and lacklustre graphics] get such a high score?
Zoro7
Banned
The gameplay isnt so great that it makes everything else insignificant. Only 6v6, graphics look terrible, performance isnt that great....yet this game gets a 9/10. Gaming journalism at its finest.
How does a game with such awful performance issues [and lacklustre graphics] get such a high score?
Because the really low framerate issues only seems happens in very specific situations? At least, that's what I'm getting from giantbomb review.
How does a game with such awful performance issues [and lacklustre graphics] get such a high score?
Marketing, hype, good gameplay, rare framedrops, ignoring tearing and ignoring the fact that his is $60 MP-only game. If Activision tried to sell standard MP section of any of their COD game as standalone 60$ product (which usually has more content than Titanfall, coop, horde, etc), reviewers would bury them completely.
It happens when around four Titans are in the map.
Pseudo judo
Member
How does a game with such awful performance issues [and lacklustre graphics] get such a high score?
The game is fun to play. The occasional drop to around 30fps is known. The claim of single digit frame rates is unsubstantiated even by the one who made the claim.
I purchased the game for PC so I don't care that much. I did play the X1 beta and so if it plays the same the game deserves the scores it's received.
Glass Shark
Banned
It's such a fascinating coincidence that so many of you are really into beanies. Who would've thought?
How does a game with such awful performance issues [and lacklustre graphics] get such a high score?
Because the entertainment factor overrides the slight mechanical issues.
Go figure. Reviewers rating a game by how fun and entertaining it is... Crazy, right?
Liquid-Swords
Member
Maybe they would of given a 10/10 if not for the performance issues...
How does a game with such awful performance issues [and lacklustre graphics] get such a high score?
Probably by being fun and interesting.
How does a game with such awful performance issues [and lacklustre graphics] get such a high score?
High score ?
Given the advertising thrown at this game a sub 90 isn't what they would have been hoping for.
Bam Bam Baklava
Member
I can't trust reviews of "big" games anymore. I mean does a place like IGN even give out anything below 8s to AAA games by big publishers?
Cyborg
Member
And yet Poly gives it in a review a 9/10
Killzone doesn't look like a launch title from the xbox 360
The Wizard
Member
The performance issues seem mildly annoying and not game breaking. From what I played of the beta the scores are more or less what I expected. It is a fun game, the bland visuals don't detract from that much. The performance issues are interesting in showing how next gen hardware seems underpowered but not in terms of ruining the experience of this game in particular.
How does a game with such awful performance issues [and lacklustre graphics] get such a high score?
I have a feeling it might not totally have been Respawn's choice to have the game run at a resolution of 792p on the X1(even if they tell you otherwise).
720p has been a PR disaster so far for the X1, so the suits and marketing department may have had a say in the final resolution of the game.
The console has to render 21% more pixels at 792p vs 720p, so I think it does affect the performance a little bit, although it wouldn't make a difference in preventing those frame rate drops to single digits.
It's kind of like how the 360 RROD was a PR disaster for MS, so they just removed the RROD entirely for the hardware revisions.
720p has been a PR disaster so far for the X1, so the suits and marketing department may have had a say in the final resolution of the game.
The console has to render 21% more pixels at 792p vs 720p, so I think it does affect the performance a little bit, although it wouldn't make a difference in preventing those frame rate drops to single digits.
It's kind of like how the 360 RROD was a PR disaster for MS, so they just removed the RROD entirely for the hardware revisions.
KeyboardThug
Member
This game needs more beanies. TitanFall hats :/
Future PhaZe
Member
for a game that seems to have very few flaws outside of the xbox ones terrible hardware its truly terrible that there aren't any pc scores out there
Wouldn't the strong community response answer the question for you? If you're trying to get a sense of if it's worth the time to play or not.
Booya_base
Member
Actually this is not true, EDF is actually better for having single digit frame rates
(I'm not joking, I love EDFs jank)Anyway, back OT, this doesn't bother me at all, all I need to know is one thing - is it fun? Loved MW but nothing since really. I would have to get this on PC and none of my friends would be doing the same. How is the GAF community I wonder?
gioGAF
Member
This needs to be reiterated because it is spot on. The value proposition is just not there with this title. I would be seriously pissed if CoD tried to sell me just the MP component for $60.
pokeystaples
Banned
LOL! No, this is not the extent of my imagination. Yes, I am able to imagine the game in prettier, better running shape. Please read my additional comments. It just seems as though people are going extra hard on TF. I then agreed that because it was being hyped to high hell the anti-hype would be just as strong. No biggie. Not trying to insult anyone or myself.
LukasTaves
Member
Perhaps perception. Going from 60 straight to 30 might make it look like a larger drop.
They did said the engine was slow on the cpu side if you try to use it to render more complex scenes (compared to Portal games) and hit 60fps... Esram seems to be a problem to hit 1080p.
What's funny is that Respawn actually keeps talking about upping the resolution.
And yet, it's neither. I find it amusing that all the Titanfall naysayers are desperately clinging to the one mediocre review the game is getting.
The gameplay is the game.
Reviewers rate the experience of playing the game. They don't rate how good it looks in screenshots, or how many players it has, or how many times it dips below 60 FPS.
Your claim would have to be that a game simply can't be satisfying to play without cutting edge graphics or perfect performance. And that would be a ludicrous thing to claim.
What, the single digit framerate? The review specifically says "where every player spawns in a robot suit--several players crammed their mechs into a tight area and began duking it out".
For the other regular framerate drops, it's a shame but I've seen other games with much more framerate problems score higher on metacritic.
"Sounds unplayable and messy," yet the reviewer whose quote was the basis for this thread is poised to give the game a rating of 4/5.
transformer
Member
How does a game with such awful performance issues [and lacklustre graphics] get such a high score?
Quite simply a game with issues as bad as you insinuate cannot achieve such a score. Yet all is still well in the world.
Hale-XF11
Member
And yet, that's exactly what's being reported in the OP. If single digit framerates and screen tearing don't translate to an unplayable mess then I don't know what does.
- Status