Titanfall Beta Currently Runs At '792p' On Xbox One

ManofGod said:
That pretty much makes the game entirely useless once the online community for that games dies. Sorry but, I do not think it is worth $60 and I certainly did not pay that much for UT2004 back in the day. (That was the last multiplayer game I had fun with and Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory being the other.)
Click to expand...

LOL, so?

A multiplayer game becomes useless when no one is left playing, yeah that's kind of obvious.

Let's say they did add some hokey 6 hour long single player campaign. Is that supposed to help the game 5 years from now? How many times do you need to replay a short run of the mill singleplayer storyline with no side missions or branching story paths? It's not as if any SP campaign they might have included was going to be the equivalent of an elder scrolls game.

If you really want me to, I can point out two MP focused games that suffered for months after launch thanks to time being wasted on a useless SP campaign no one cares about. They're called Battlefield 3 and 4. BF3's campaign was a joke that no one cared about a week after launch, and the MP was a mess for months. Instead of learning their lesson, we got another hokey SP campaign that was only played to unlock a few weapons and promptly forgotten about, while the MP is still a broken mess 4 months later.

Just as I wouldn't want a pointless MP mode tacked onto a game I'm buying for the single player experience, I don't want a pointless SP mode tacked onto a game I'm buying purely for the multiplayer experience.
 
Godmachine said:
So your argument is confirmation of my argument.

Well done. :cool:
Click to expand...

You said things can change, just like assassins creed.
I refuted your point saying that when something stinks in BETA, like BF4, the final one stinks too.

didn't confirm anything. sounds like you're just trying to get some attention, you've done that. Congrats :cool:
 
SnowBeast said:
Like I said before, this will be a 3-4 year console,if that, before MS releases a more graphically enhanced Xbox One. No real way to do an add-on. If they are already seeing challenges, what option do they really have??
Click to expand...

Mediocre games watered down to conform to the weak hardware. That's what they'll do. And of course inserting language in the developer agreement not to discuss tech specs -- which I'm surprised they didn't foresee.
 
The graphics power of this console generation is pathetic compared to what's available on the PC. Unlike last gen that was at least close to PCs at the time of release.
 
dgz said:
quite a jump from last gen consoles haha

Any word on whether fps is locked on the pc? Will not play a shooter locked to 60fps even if they give it for free.
Click to expand...

I hope you have a 120Hz display otherwise there isn't any point.
 
With the upcoming ultra HD standard, I can't imagine how such resolution is going to look good on large TV. They should have at least make 1080p a standard for these consoles if it's going to last another 8 years.
 
I'm guessing my current gaming PC will last a long time given the capabilities of current gen consoles.
 
Assassins Creed getting patched a few days after release was not because they increased performance two fold by incredible programming. It was patched because there was a mistake in the gold copies sent to the factory that limited the resolution. It was always supposed to be 1080p.

The best you can hope for with this is 900p/60 but given the current performance even that might be a chore. This is source engine people, yes it's heavily modded but not being able to hit certain goals should speak volumes.
 
IT'S SOURCE FOR GOD'S SAKE!! One of the most incredibly, ludicrously scalable engines released in the past decade and they can't even get it running at 1080p on next-gen hardware?!? For shit's sake, you could probably get a TOASTER running most Source games at full HD.

It should be funny seeing how comically bad the XBONE handles UE4 games next.

Good to know it's not just me thinking along these lines too.
 
JDanser said:
IT'S SOURCE FOR GOD'S SAKE!! One of the most incredibly, ludicrously scalable engines released in the past decade and they can't even get it running at 1080p on next-gen hardware?!? For shit's sake, you could probably get a TOASTER running most Source games at full HD.

It should be funny seeing how comically bad the XBONE handles UE4 games next.

Good to know it's not just me thinking along these lines too.
Click to expand...

That's source!? You have to be shitting me.

I managed to get a now ~8 year old heavily OCd but passive cooled Opteron 165 + X800XT to smoothly run source at 1080p 60fps, hell, it even churned out HL2 lost coast!

What an absolute joke the xbone has proved to be. That said, PS4 isn't leagues ahead either..
 
Rizen said:
Is this a serious question?

A better question would be, why do people pay $60 for single player games where the campaign is <10 hours?
Click to expand...

Some people like to be locked in perpetual foreplay and some people like to climax.
 
Sgraffite said:
So it's running at 1502.6 x 792? How do you have partial pixels?
Click to expand...

I don't know where you got those numbers but it is running at 1280*1,1 x 720*1,1, or the same as 21% more pixels than 720p.

Also the game sports 2xMSAA.

Still unimpressed on my end, but hey, it could be a blast over here on PC ;)
 
Its funny that MS is charging more than the PS4 and yet it is less powerful and unable to run most games at 1080p at this day and age is a joke. What the fuck is Microsoft even thinking anyway.
 
ChronoDetector said:
Its funny that MS is charging more than the PS4 and yet it is less powerful and unable to run most games at 1080p at this day and age is a joke. What the fuck is Microsoft even thinking anyway.
Click to expand...

Yeah yeah.. But the TV stuff dude, all the fooseball.. Think about it. Lol that feature would have been great back in 2000,now I know a lot of people that doesn't give 2 shit about câble anymore. I myself I've own a cable box for the last 6 years Lolllllllllll..

Look like source engine, everything is static and devoid of life. Was good when it was released nowadays it's meh. The game that run it did its purpose, half life 2,l4d, etc..
 
Ryoohki360 said:
Yeah yeah.. But the TV stuff dude, all the fooseball.. Think about it. Lol that feature would have been great back in 2000,now I know a lot of people that doesn't give 2 shit about câble anymore. I myself I've own a cable box for the last 6 years Lolllllllllll..

Look like source engine, everything is static and devoid of life. Was good when it was released nowadays it's meh. The game that run it did its purpose, half life 2,l4d, etc..
Click to expand...

Wow, so you see, turn on PS4, play game, turn off PS4, one trick pony. Turns on Xbox one, games, Netflix, TV, many many other things. Turns on computer, blows away PS4 with better gaming in my opinion, does many other things as well, does not look down on others for using what they want and what is forward thinking. ;)
 
I never understood this.

Wouldn't that just look like crap?

If you can't keep up with running a title at 1080p, wouldn't it look better to just run it natively at 720p rather than do all that interpolation?
 
ManofGod said:
Sorry but, why would anyone pay $60 for a multiplayer only game??????
Click to expand...

IMHO,

With the exception of the Civiliation series which I have hundreds of hours logged in team on, all of my top most played games have been multiplayer games, as there is replay value there.

With a single player game, you are typically looking at 15-20 hours of gameplay and then you are done. I have something like 600 hours in Counter-Strike: Source and 200 hours in Red Orchestra II.

The most I've gotten out of a single player FPS was S.T.A.L.K.E.R. which, once I installed mods, lasted me some 80 hours. That was only due to its open ended nature. The Fallout series resulted in a good amount of time as well.

Either way, IMHO, a good multiplayer game will result in many more hours of fun than a single player game. I've started to appreciate story driven single player FPS:es again in the last couple of years, but for the longest time, I wouldn't even touch single player games.

On average, if you compare money spent to hours of entertainment, I'm betting that on average, people get a much better bag for their buck from multiplayer games than they do from single player ones.
 
Ur_Mom said:
Take away the PC master race stuff, and 792p still sounds like a crap res for a supposed "new, next gen console". For having so much power, it sounds like the gaming aspect of the Xbox One was crippled to pack in more of the other crap at the same price point.
Click to expand...

That's the thing though, Xbox One was never really powerful to begin with. :(
 
Graphics aside. That looked really dull to play...
 
Played some beta -- it's alright. Nothing really special, but it was interesting to run around like a bunny bouncing off the walls and getting a mech and splatting people is fun as hell.

I don't like that it is SO static though. Nothing moves or gets destroyed...
 
sonsonate said:
Played some beta -- it's alright. Nothing really special, but it was interesting to run around like a bunny bouncing off the walls and getting a mech and splatting people is fun as hell.

I don't like that it is SO static though. Nothing moves or gets destroyed...
Click to expand...

It's won a bunch of awards hasn't it? I haven't played it, but I did see some twitch gameplay videos and it seems somewhat interesting.
 
ManofGod said:
Wow, so you see, turn on PS4, play game, turn off PS4, one trick pony. Turns on Xbox one, games, Netflix, TV, many many other things. Turns on computer, blows away PS4 with better gaming in my opinion, does many other things as well, does not look down on others for using what they want and what is forward thinking. ;)
Click to expand...

PS4 also has Netflix, without a paywall, and to use the TV you do NOT need the x1.
In any case, both currently suck as a media box, the correct answer is "PS3":
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/d...-vs-xbox-one-which-is-the-better-media-player

And come on, Master Race doesn't look down on consoles? ManofGod please... ;)
 
Merc1138 said:
LOL, so?


Let's say they did add some hokey 6 hour long single player campaign. Is that supposed to help the game 5 years from now?
Click to expand...

Yes, in a way it does. I like to be immersed somewhat in a storyline and feel like my character has a reason to be fighting or playing or adventuring or doing whatever he's doing. If you took say The Witcher and removed all the dialogue text and just made you wonder from npc to npc and the Accept/Decline was the only option with no text. You hit accept, a waypoint appears and you go do something at the waypoint, over and over again.

I think you'd find your experience was a much less 'fun' experience and you'd have less commitment to play for the full 5-10 hours no matter how pretty the graphics might be as without some storyline the gameplay would be terrible.

That's one of the reasons, I never really got into UT too much. It felt like it was just a shooting game with no story. I got into Half Life far mover over UT just because playing through Half Life back in the day was an 'Amazing' experience in terms of interactivity, graphics, gameplay, etc compared to what the competition was offering. I felt the same about Half Life 2. The storyline drew me in a bit and encouraged me to finish the game after the gravity gun fun has worn off.
 
WBurchnall said:
Yes, in a way it does. I like to be immersed somewhat in a storyline and feel like my character has a reason to be fighting or playing or adventuring or doing whatever he's doing. If you took say The Witcher and removed all the dialogue text and just made you wonder from npc to npc and the Accept/Decline was the only option with no text. You hit accept, a waypoint appears and you go do something at the waypoint, over and over again.

I think you'd find your experience was a much less 'fun' experience and you'd have less commitment to play for the full 5-10 hours no matter how pretty the graphics might be as without some storyline the gameplay would be terrible.

That's one of the reasons, I never really got into UT too much. It felt like it was just a shooting game with no story. I got into Half Life far mover over UT just because playing through Half Life back in the day was an 'Amazing' experience in terms of interactivity, graphics, gameplay, etc compared to what the competition was offering. I felt the same about Half Life 2. The storyline drew me in a bit and encouraged me to finish the game after the gravity gun fun has worn off.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure how you're comparing The Witcher to the hokey single player campaigns from BF3/4, and the recent CoD games. Like I said, you're not going to get the equivalent of skyrim as a single player campaign in a MP focused game.

You also validated my point about the focus being MP by bringing up your thoughts about HL. Yeah, there was HL MP, but the mods for MP were the biggest focus of that... which spawned their own releases as MP only games. No one who bought CoD MW3 is going to give a damn about the single player campaign a couple of years from now. The vast majority of the people who bought CoD MW3, bought it purely for the multiplayer. There was nothing amazing about the SP, nothing amazing about the interactivity, no one was "drawn in" by the storyline. It was an MP focused game with a pointless halfass single player campaign tacked on that most people could have easily done without and was likely ignored by a very large segment of the people who bouht the game(if not the majority).

Heck, you brought up The Witcher, would you like to see development time wasted on a multiplayer deathmatch mode that doesn't work worth a crap instead of polishing the SP experience that you apparently like so much? I'm not attacking The Witcher, or your opinion of it. But it doesn't seem like you'd want the developers to waste time on a pointless MP component no one is going to be playing in 6 months after launch at the cost of time that would have been better spent refining the singleplayer campaign.

GTA 5, another example of a game that launched with serious gamebreaking bugs in singleplayer with time spent developing a halfassed multiplayer component that still hasn't delivered on the original promises. Sure, the SP was eventually patched up, but the MP is still garbage and missing an entire gameplay mode that was the primary focus of people spending time playing MP in the first place.

Taking it a step further and going right back to ManofGod's question about who would pay $60 for a MP only game... well who would pay $60 for an SP only game? No one ever seems to question that, yet tons of singleplayer games get made and sold all the time.
 
The major difference is, a good single player game is fun to go back to again. When the online community of a MP only games dies, the game dies with it. Sorry but, I am not going to buy a MP only game with a dead community less than a year after release. UT and UT2004 where worth it but their online communities are still around.

Heck, Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory is free and still being played. Blaming the making of a SP component as the reason for MP problems is a bit silly, those issues would be there even without it.
 
So I could just plug the Xbox One into my Vita or my Phone, both with 720p screens and this should look pretty good, right?

I have long thought that Microsoft was over hyping Titanfall in commercials, because they know it will move more systems in anticipation, before the game launches, than it will ever move after the game is reviewed. I am sure the game will be fine, but it will be no "must have" on Xbox One. It'll get a smattering of 8's and 9's.
 
Dunnlang said:
I have long thought that Microsoft was over hyping Titanfall in commercials, because they know it will move more systems in anticipation, before the game launches, than it will ever move after the game is reviewed. I am sure the game will be fine, but it will be no "must have" on Xbox One. It'll get a smattering of 8's and 9's.
Click to expand...

Exactly. A lot of marketing and advertising dollars being spread around to the review sites. Any site that gives it any more than an 8.0/10 is delusional based on what I'm experiencing in this beta.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top