Titanfall - Respawn Entertainment's first game

Blade-Runner

2[H]4U
Joined
Feb 25, 2013
Messages
3,458
http://kotaku.com/leak-modern-warfare-creators-new-game-titanfall-is-511622481



An apparent leak of the cover of the next issue of Game Informer confirms one of the bigger pieces of news for this E3. As we'd reported last month, the next game from the people who made Call of Duty popular is an Xbox/Xbox One console exclusive. This is a big deal.

The game, called Titanfall, is being developed by top ex-Infinity Ward people at the new Respawn Entertainment.

NeoGAF user Cartman86 spotted the new issue on his Android device, grabbed the cover and started sharing info: "Xbox One and PC. With a 360 version being developed by someone else. Game uses cloud a bunch apparently." Apparently the game is slated for a spring 2014 release.

We didn't know about the PC version, but the reliance on the cloud and the fact that a non-Respawn studio is doing the 360 version match with our April report. We'd heard the game will require an online connection.

According to Cartman86's read of the issue, "Respawn will use the Xbox One's cloud-computing services to make the game run beyond the hardware's offline capabilities, utilizing the cloud for physics and AI calculations." Last month, Microsoft touted the system's optional cloud computing tech as a tool developers could use to make their games run better. Use of the cloud requires a persistent online connection. The Xbox 360 doesn't support this kind of thing, as far as we know, so that version would lack that enhanced performance.

The game runs on Valve's Source engine, a detail we also reported back in April. We'd been told it looks good but haven't seen it ourselves.

So what's the game about? Sci-fi multiplayer combat with agile, lethal mech suits. This is what we had last month:

The new game from Respawn is a futuristic multiplayer-centric online shooter, one of our sources says. The source describes the game as a battle of Davids and Goliaths. The Davids are heavily-armed foot soldiers. The Goliaths are the giant exosekeltons—Titans—that these soldiers can pilot. These Titans are big mech-style walkers that move with an agility not seen in games like Mechwarrior or Steel Battalions.

To keep the action balanced, game maps limit the number of Titans that can be used in a skirmish. Weapon loadouts for the foot soldiers are designed to ensure that the characters on foot can take out the Titans if need be. The source who described the game does not work at Respawn, but their description tracks with the long-reported desire by the former Infinity Ward team to make a sci-fi shooter.

We've reached out to Game Informer and publisher EA for more comment on the game and its expected presence at E3.

Sounds like the PC might actually be the lead development platform. The hyperbole about using the cloud to accelerate physics and AI calculations sounds like bullshit though, just another thinly veiled excuse for always-on DRM.

Edit: or more likely Respawn is handling the xbone version, and some other studio is porting it to PC and 360.
 

LeninGHOLA

Vladimir Hayt
Joined
Aug 26, 2009
Messages
18,416
No doubt strange mainframes in the sky can make my games do faster with sparkles than my stupid PC, which is only good for email and looking up rutabaga soup recipes.

Anyway, cloud computing adds latency.
 

piscian18

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 26, 2005
Messages
11,021
While not the greatest graphically speaking MW1 and 2 work great on the PC. MW1 Multiplayer is actually still the most enjoyable one. A nice cross between Battlefield and CS.

I actually really support these guys. Anybody willing to fight the titans of the industry deserves a little slack.

bad news ..


THEY FUCKING SIGNED A DEAL WITH EA

 

MavericK

Zero Cool
Joined
Sep 2, 2004
Messages
30,228
Sooo....like Hawken, then?

I don't really care for the "super agile" mechs that seem to be the new thing. Doesn't really make a lot of sense and it just makes it feel arcade-y.
 

CrimsonKnight13

Lord Stabington of [H]ard|Fortress
Joined
Jan 8, 2008
Messages
7,374
Sooo....like Hawken, then?

I don't really care for the "super agile" mechs that seem to be the new thing. Doesn't really make a lot of sense and it just makes it feel arcade-y.

Aren't all light mechs "super agile" in Battletech? I always felt that Hawken (& others like it) are just focusing on light mechs.
 

BiH115

Gif Guy
Joined
May 12, 2011
Messages
9,327
No doubt strange mainframes in the sky can make my games do faster with sparkles than my stupid PC, which is only good for email and looking up rutabaga soup recipes.

Anyway, cloud computing adds latency.

That's why I constructed my PC, for those damn rutabaga recipes that are always evading me.
 

naticus

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Feb 6, 2011
Messages
1,962
Source Engine... um hello 2004?

The source engine is one of the best engines ever made and still looks amazing, It debuted in 2004 but has been updated a metric shit ton since then. There are these things called updates, they are so future!!!!!!
 

MavericK

Zero Cool
Joined
Sep 2, 2004
Messages
30,228
Aren't all light mechs "super agile" in Battletech? I always felt that Hawken (& others like it) are just focusing on light mechs.

Eh...not really. Even light mechs in Mechwarrior feel like big, heavy machines. In Hawken it kinda just feels like Quake but you're "in a mech".

The source engine is one of the best engines ever made and still looks amazing, It debuted in 2004 but has been updated a metric shit ton since then. There are these things called updates, they are so future!!!!!!

Disagree, I think Source looks pretty dated even with the "massive updates".
 

CrimsonKnight13

Lord Stabington of [H]ard|Fortress
Joined
Jan 8, 2008
Messages
7,374
Eh...not really. Even light mechs in Mechwarrior feel like big, heavy machines. In Hawken it kinda just feels like Quake but you're "in a mech".

Makes sense. I guess mech mechanics differ a lot between games.
 

naticus

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Feb 6, 2011
Messages
1,962
Disagree, I think Source looks pretty dated even with the "massive updates".

Wow,really? You think Portal 2 looks dated? Albeit it is no Crysis 3 but it still looks great IMO. And I am sure Respawn are using a newer build of the engine. I guess we will wait and see.

If anything we know it will at least play smoothly and most certainly not be a shitty port.
 
Last edited:

bigdogchris

Fully [H]
Joined
Feb 19, 2008
Messages
18,220
Are they published by Microsoft? Why else would they do PC and One, but not PS4, when they all use virtually identical hardware.

*edit* Apparently they are using the Xbox One Cloud computing gimmick in their game, which explains some of it. Still, 360 doesn't have cloud computing access and so far they haven't announced it for PC either.

Oh well, just another exclusive that Microsoft pays big bucks for. Nothing new here.
 

Flogger23m

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 19, 2009
Messages
11,072
The Source engine even looks more dated than UE3 (which is falling behind). This may well be an updated version, but it will probably still be uglier than UE3.
 

drako

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 11, 2002
Messages
2,071
I'm wondering if all of the facts are accurate here. Given that Respawn is developing this under EA, it seems really strange that they would use Source and not Frostbite.
 

next-Jin

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 29, 2006
Messages
6,632
Are they published by Microsoft? Why else would they do PC and One, but not PS4, when they all use virtually identical hardware.

*edit* Apparently they are using the Xbox One Cloud computing gimmick in their game, which explains some of it. Still, 360 doesn't have cloud computing access and so far they haven't announced it for PC either.

Oh well, just another exclusive that Microsoft pays big bucks for. Nothing new here.

Honestly I don't really care for yet another FPS, unless it drastically changes something I'm not seeing the point. It's not a serious enough exclusive in my opinion to stop me from having a raging hard on for what Naughty Dog (Uncharted 3/Last of Us) has in store for the PS4.
 

Maplehamwich

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Aug 14, 2011
Messages
1,539
I'm excited for this. They are lots of possible negatives, but I'm excited anyway. I'm hoping they'll introduce a game that takes the popularity of CoD to a new and better place.

Remember the original Call of Duty and how amazing it was? I'm looking forward to that.
 

BETA.

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 10, 2009
Messages
2,906
I'm wondering if all of the facts are accurate here. Given that Respawn is developing this under EA, it seems really strange that they would use Source and not Frostbite.

I dunno if this is still the case, but at one point EA was Valve's physical game's copy publisher.
 

limitedaccess

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
May 10, 2010
Messages
7,587
I'm wondering if all of the facts are accurate here. Given that Respawn is developing this under EA, it seems really strange that they would use Source and not Frostbite.

The Studios using Frostbite are actually internal studios and owned by EA. Respawn is not owned by EA as far as I know. The relationship is likely the same Crytek had with EA.

At the moment I am not aware of any external licensee for Frostbite.
 

MavericK

Zero Cool
Joined
Sep 2, 2004
Messages
30,228
Wow,really? You think Portal 2 looks dated? Albeit it is no Crysis 3 but it still looks great IMO.

I think with games like Metro, Tomb Raider, Bioshock Infinite, and Crysis 3...yes, it looks dated.

Never said it looked bad, but it does look dated.
 

dremic

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Dec 9, 2011
Messages
5,178
Eh...not really. Even light mechs in Mechwarrior feel like big, heavy machines. In Hawken it kinda just feels like Quake but you're "in a mech".



Disagree, I think Source looks pretty dated even with the "massive updates".

source engine looks amazing, especially considering its age.




i agree hard to keep up with metro last light, etc.. might not push boundaries to the extreme but those arent necessarily the best games.
 

DeathPrincess

Fully [H]
Joined
May 15, 2010
Messages
18,205
The game runs on Valve's Source engine

So expect it to look bad and have crappy lighting?

Unless you work for Valve (and get to keep all the profit) there is no advantage to using Source. It's missing a bunch of modern features, and isn't any easier to develop for than any of the other major engines (UE3 etc. etc.).
 

DeathPrincess

Fully [H]
Joined
May 15, 2010
Messages
18,205
source engine looks amazing, especially considering its age.

I suppose that's one of the nicer looking Wii titles. Oh wait. :p

DOTA2 makes Diablo 3 look great, it has terrible textures and low quality models and simple lighting.
 

dremic

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Dec 9, 2011
Messages
5,178
So expect it to look bad and have crappy lighting?

Unless you work for Valve (and get to keep all the profit) there is no advantage to using Source. It's missing a bunch of modern features, and isn't any easier to develop for than any of the other major engines (UE3 etc. etc.).

i think the advantage is that it looks good and runs even better. people can play dota 2 on a gigantic range of systems. not everybody has an insane system dude.
 

DeathPrincess

Fully [H]
Joined
May 15, 2010
Messages
18,205
i think the advantage is that it looks good and runs even better. people can play dota 2 on a gigantic range of systems. not everybody has an insane system dude.

The advantage is that includes consoles.

But for a next generation PS4/Xbox One title, it's going to be difficult to make it look that good lacking good dX11 things like tessellation, sub surface scattering (for decent skin textures), full dynamic lighting, more complex lighting shaders, more complex lighting models, high poly count assets, proper physics (Source just has pseudo physics, destruction is pre computed for example) etc. etc. before the extra overhead of 9 vs. 11.

Source isn't really highly optimized either, any device which can run DOTA2 can easily run UT3, and even that looks better.
 

dremic

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Dec 9, 2011
Messages
5,178
The advantage is that includes consoles.

But for a next generation PS4/Xbox One title, it's going to be difficult to make it look that good lacking good dX11 things like tessellation, sub surface scattering (for decent skin textures), full dynamic lighting, more complex lighting shaders, more complex lighting models, high poly count assets, proper physics (Source just has pseudo physics, destruction is pre computed for example) etc. etc. before the extra overhead of 9 vs. 11.

Source isn't really highly optimized either, any device which can run DOTA2 can easily run UT3, and even that looks better.

now youre just trolling
 

BETA.

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 10, 2009
Messages
2,906
source engine looks amazing, especially considering its age.




i agree hard to keep up with metro last light, etc.. might not push boundaries to the extreme but those arent necessarily the best games.

You're doing Source engine a disservice by using that an example when you're arguing for looks. Here's a better example.



I wouldn't be too worried about graphics mainly, but keep in kind Respawn Entertainment are responsible for some of the most successful FPS. No doubt they will have a huge emphasis on MP. If I were them i'd be more concerned about the crappy netcode Source engine in it's current state has.
 

zamardii

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 22, 2004
Messages
3,106
Can I ask a simple question...

Do we REALLY need cloud computing to power the SOURCE engine?
 

zamardii

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 22, 2004
Messages
3,106
The advantage is that includes consoles.

But for a next generation PS4/Xbox One title, it's going to be difficult to make it look that good lacking good dX11 things like tessellation, sub surface scattering (for decent skin textures), full dynamic lighting, more complex lighting shaders, more complex lighting models, high poly count assets, proper physics (Source just has pseudo physics, destruction is pre computed for example) etc. etc. before the extra overhead of 9 vs. 11.

Source isn't really highly optimized either, any device which can run DOTA2 can easily run UT3, and even that looks better.

I think it's funny... you don't see ANYONE talking about whether the game will even be fun to play or have good gameplay... lol. How times have changed...
 

dremic

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Dec 9, 2011
Messages
5,178
i agree hard to keep up with metro last light, etc.. might not push boundaries to the extreme but those arent necessarily the best games.

graphics are part of it.

gameplay and story come first though. hence my previous mention of games with high end graphics end up sucking. crysis 3 anybody?
 

DeathPrincess

Fully [H]
Joined
May 15, 2010
Messages
18,205
I think it's funny... you don't see ANYONE talking about whether the game will even be fun to play or have good gameplay... lol. How times have changed...

It's hard to tell gameplay from the 0 information we have or 0 footage/demos/gameplay reactions. Also games like Brink sound semi good in words but is awful and harming to play. :D

Plus gameplay most likely isn't going to be that different in this generation than the last, just the graphics, and all source games look bad nowadays and lack modern features, so that will be a greater challenge than gameplay (though that's another Source point, whats the most players a Source game has ever had, 24? [I know there's the 64 player workaround, but that hardly works well, as well as frostbyte or UE...2] 24 player epic battles would be kind of crappy)
 

MavericK

Zero Cool
Joined
Sep 2, 2004
Messages
30,228
You're doing Source engine a disservice by using that an example when you're arguing for looks. Here's a better example.

http://cloud-2.steampowered.com/ugc/596999980241758926/32C794EAA44261D0C2167D5BC2CA4219BB423792/

I wouldn't be too worried about graphics mainly, but keep in kind Respawn Entertainment are responsible for some of the most successful FPS. No doubt they will have a huge emphasis on MP. If I were them i'd be more concerned about the crappy netcode Source engine in it's current state has.

Even that looks dated to me...no tessellation, no ambient occlusion, etc. Again, doesn't look "bad" really, but it doesn't look "current-gen" and therefore I would call that dated.
 

BETA.

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 10, 2009
Messages
2,906
Even that looks dated to me...no tessellation, no ambient occlusion, etc. Again, doesn't look "bad" really, but it doesn't look "current-gen" and therefore I would call that dated.

Keep in mind, this is all in the context of Source engine, it's pretty common sense when you hear Source engine you think "dated", really no need to state the obvious. I don't think even the latest version of Source that we know of has tessellation. With that said though, who knows what RE will do with the Source engine, maybe they'll modify it and add all that eye candy stuff.
 

DeathPrincess

Fully [H]
Joined
May 15, 2010
Messages
18,205
Keep in mind, this is all in the context of Source engine, it's pretty common sense when you hear Source engine you think "dated", really no need to state the obvious. I don't think even the latest version of Source that we know of has tessellation.

Unreal Engine 3 debuted in 2004 (though actual games took a while to be released), Source Engine also debuted in 2004.

Dated has no real excuse, nor is there any excuse for the lack of modern features which the other has been adapted to be capable of. It's not a 2012 engine against a 2004 engine; it's two 9 year old engines, but one hasn't bothered to update itself or adapt.
 

BETA.

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 10, 2009
Messages
2,906
Unreal Engine 3 debuted in 2004 (though actual games took a while to be released), Source Engine also debuted in 2004.

Dated has no real excuse, nor is there any excuse for the lack of modern features which the other has been adapted to be capable of. It's not a 2012 engine against a 2004 engine; it's two 9 year old engines, but one hasn't bothered to update itself or adapt.

From a company standpoint, Valve doesn't really need a good excuse. Take a look at the latest Steam hardware survey, then also take a look at any game that has the most users playing it. Half Life 3 had better debut Source 2.0 or something though.
 

relapse808

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Apr 11, 2005
Messages
1,218
You're doing Source engine a disservice by using that an example when you're arguing for looks. Here's a better example.



I wouldn't be too worried about graphics mainly, but keep in kind Respawn Entertainment are responsible for some of the most successful FPS. No doubt they will have a huge emphasis on MP. If I were them i'd be more concerned about the crappy netcode Source engine in it's current state has.

I am just being technical here but respawn isnt responsible for anything. They haven't released a single game.
 
Top