Probably because they can without a framerate hit. It seems like they can further optimize the esram to hit a higher resolution. The framrate drops seem to be a cpu issue.
-
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
Netherscourge
Banned
Agreed - where the heck are the PC scores?
Did EA put a review embargo on PC scores going up until after the XB1 scores?
While playing the Beta, I did encounter an instance where the game dropped to single digit frames. Didn't think too much of it at the time because it was in fact, still Beta. It really sucks if that happens in the retail version. Something tells me that even at 720p, they couldn't keep a steady 60fps, so they upped the res just for the sake of not being 720p.
Feel free to cling to the one mediocre review of the game if that somehow makes you feel better.
Then Jeff would probably have said "This game is unplayable and messy, don't buy it 1/5"
A possible score of 4/5 is a mediocre score now? What the heck am I reading?
Wow, we had heard the reports the framerate wasn't near locked at 60, but I'm surprised it dips into single digits. The game is friggin' ugly too from a technical perspective, that's the remarkable thing. It's 792p and its texture work, geometry and effects pushed seem barely above last gen, and it's still slumping into the digits. That's why I'm unsure why anyone would feel compelled to upgrade to an XBO for this - if it's this problematic looking and running on XBO, might as well save $500 and just go for the 360 version or if you're fortunate skip both and get the definitive PC edition. Microsoft really didn't think this through imo
Zoro7
Banned
So what about all the games that have had lower scores due to performance and graphics? By the same companies that completely disregard the two when reviewing this game. The game is not just gameplay, the look and feel are just as important to feel fully immersed in a game.
Alcoholikaust
Member
How does a game with such awful performance issues [and lacklustre graphics] get such a high score?
because its basically the most fun I have had in a multiplayer fps on consoles? maybe?
Well... Not specifically, I just heard the frame rate issues arise when lots of Titans are on screen. They did say that Titan only mode was the worst though.
Crimson_Fate
Member
So after recovering another 8% of the GPU they still couldn't make 900P or even a stable 792P.
The Upscaleing on the XB1 is not that bad, I really don't see why they didn't make it stable 720P and if they can improve it to a stable 792,900 or 1080 in the future then just do it then.
There is no reason this should not be stable at or near 60 for launch. I think 720 would have given them that.
The Upscaleing on the XB1 is not that bad, I really don't see why they didn't make it stable 720P and if they can improve it to a stable 792,900 or 1080 in the future then just do it then.
There is no reason this should not be stable at or near 60 for launch. I think 720 would have given them that.
Hale-XF11
Member
Yeah, this is pretty much my thoughts on it. I'll wait to hear how the 360 version performs and then decide if I should skip on that altogether. Single digits is just unacceptable and messy. I think hype is driving a lot of these reviews into much higher scores than it probably deserves.
Zoro7
Banned
Lol, if this man enjoys the game then we have no right to complain!!!
CitizenCope
Member
I take it there's a reason why the Giantbomb review in particular is getting it's own thread. It's to point out the minor mechical problems and offset the overall positive Titanfall review thread.
transformer
Member
I think you need to read the OP again. The opening sentence of the quote:
"The frame rate in Titanfall is uneven on the Xbox One and though it's usually fine, it can get downright nasty in specific situations."
I don't think that translates to an unplayable mess. Can you have an unplayable mess yet be "usually fine" at the same time?
could that ~10% make a difference in terms of the tearing though?
Zombie James
Banned
If we were all using CRTs, that would be punishment, but I still stand by the fact that 792p is less attractive than 720p on fixed pixel displays due to the uneven distribution of pixels when upscaling. It's a terrible resolution choice.
GoodCoffeeJoey
Banned
What's with the massive tearing and frame drops? Shouldn't it be one or the other?
I highly doubt they would increase the resolution in a post release patch if it was going to have such a huge hit on framerate. A lot of the issues the game is having seem to be caused by the cpu.
Again, they wouldn't increase the resolution all the way to 900p or 1080p, nor would they even be talking about it if it were going to tank the framerate.
Holy fuck it's like everyone is playing stupid here. The low resolution is caused by the esram. Respawn thinks they can further optimize the esram to get a higher resolution.
And oddly enough, 792p scales WORSE than 720p does. So effectively it was like the worst of all worlds. I really want to know their thoughts behind why they chose that specific resolution instead of just staying at 720p. Nothing good has come of it.
It is like this for every major release of an anticipated title. Yet, the world spins on. Don't let your feathers get too ruffled by this stuff.
Honestly the whole situation just makes me think cboat was right about how Titanfall was originally supposed to ship. Then the internet freaked out and Respawn made the performance worse just to escape the 720p label.
Is a metascore of 87 the highest score that it is possible to achieve? Suppose for instance the mechanics of the game if evaluated separately would merit a 9.4.
"Look and feel" consists of more than just how technically impressive a title is. TF2 has 7 year old graphics, but the visual appeal of the game remains. Equally Titanfall can be "immersive" without cutting edge graphics, because of the art, animation, effects work, and of course what's going on the screen.
Edit: In any case, I think this is less important for multiplayer shooters. Even if TF2 had terrible graphics, I would still be playing it today.
Best gif ever. You made my day. Thank you.
Or not. The beta ran at the same resolution the final game is running at. And Respawn is currently working on increasing it further.
720p doesn't scale up without distortion to 1080p either.
If your issue is with scaling to 1080p, they're both bad options, but 792 is better.
Zuhzuhzombie!!
Member
Noooo they're not.
I sure hope not...
Glass Shark
Banned
Occasional framerate dips I can deal with. The continuous screen tearing is unacceptable. Unfortunately, that seems like the norm for the new generation. So glad I'm playing this on PC and not Xbox One.
They said currently they are thinking about 900p woth FXAA or 1080p without AA.
They specifically stated the esram is the bottleneck on the resolution. The resolution the game is currently running at isn't what is causing framerate drops.
I still haven't seen your explanation of why you think this is. When you first mentioned it, I asked and you didn't reply, and we've seen example comparisons demonstrating that the opposite is true.
They wouldn't even be talking about it if it were going to hurt the framerate.
Caayn
Member
Is the extra power already available to devs? And if so did they have enough time to implement it in their games?
As for the framerate: I doubt that lowering the resolution would help much if at all. Sounds to me like the game is hitting a CPU bottle-neck, thanks to source being extremely single-threaded.
Geez I was just asking a question. I'm certainly no expert, I only understand this stuff in terms of how I tweak pc games to get to 1080p60. I was under the impression that 10/20% or whatever the pixel difference could still help performance, but I guess not.
Zuhzuhzombie!!
Member
They can say anything they want, but if 792 or whatever results in massive occasional drops in FPS and serious screen tear issues then they'll be hard pressed to do much else with it.
Giving out (too) good scores is just a measure of self-preservation for the game journalism.
Let´s not forget that all this doom and gloom about the videogame industry will not only hit the big players and the fans, every other industry attached to it will suffer (or is suffering). It would be utterly dumb to rate a heavily advertised (thus reaching the mainstream) AAA game badly. Even 7-7.5 would immensely hurt the perception of a blockbuster AAA game for the casual gamer, maybe pushing him towards other forms of entertainment.
Sometimes a game lives up to the hype, but sadly not most of the time.
Titanfall surely is a hell lot of fun (played it at last gc),
but considering the performance and overall graphics, I would guess most of the game journalist went easy on it.
What I hate the most is that information regarding the 360 version is nowhere to find.
A very sneaky way of pushing people to buy the xbone ;-)
Let´s not forget that all this doom and gloom about the videogame industry will not only hit the big players and the fans, every other industry attached to it will suffer (or is suffering). It would be utterly dumb to rate a heavily advertised (thus reaching the mainstream) AAA game badly. Even 7-7.5 would immensely hurt the perception of a blockbuster AAA game for the casual gamer, maybe pushing him towards other forms of entertainment.
Sometimes a game lives up to the hype, but sadly not most of the time.
Titanfall surely is a hell lot of fun (played it at last gc),
but considering the performance and overall graphics, I would guess most of the game journalist went easy on it.
What I hate the most is that information regarding the 360 version is nowhere to find.
A very sneaky way of pushing people to buy the xbone ;-)
- Status