titanfall textures disappointing

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Edited by cyloninside (479 posts) -

anyone incredibly disappointed in the textures for titanfall? i mean, i have everything on high, including textures, and a lot of them are just downright bad.... like textures from a game from 2005....

the textures are very inconsistent from surface to surface. some look decent.... some are really bad. the textures on pilots and titans are surprisingly low rez. i would think they would have the best textures in the game. you especially notice it at the start of matches when everyone is standing on the drop ship waiting to drop in, or when you are jumping inside of your titan.... it just does not look good

ofcourse upping textures to "insane" makes them look better.... but we still arent even talking 1080p textures here. at best they look like textures on "high" from other games.... and they require you to have a GPU with 3gb of VRAM or your game will run like total shit. i run 2K textures on skyrim and the performance hit isnt even that bad, AND the textures are MUCH sharper.

the game is fun. i really like the gameplay... but i am just horribly disappointed in the visuals for a game that was supposedly aimed at next gen first. a lot of the textures and sprites for grass and such arent even up to 360/ps3 standards....

#2 Posted by Advid-Gamer (4632 posts) -

Yea, its called a beta. Bitch after release if the textures are shit.

#3 Edited by Tokeism (2323 posts) -

Well it does use the Source engine which was released in 2004, plus your not playing the final version of the game and I doubt its optimised for the PC as Microsoft wants people to buy it on the Xbone

#4 Edited by JangoWuzHere (16124 posts) -

I think the game looks fine.

#5 Posted by nutcrackr (12465 posts) -

Certainly are not the best textures. Not really disappointed though, never expected crysis 3 textures or something. Visuals vs performance is good.

#6 Posted by FelipeInside (25313 posts) -

Certainly are not the best textures. Not really disappointed though, never expected crysis 3 textures or something. Visuals vs performance is good.

This, and at the pace this game goes, I don't see myself stopping to look at textures.

#7 Edited by cyloninside (479 posts) -

its the texture inconsistency that bothers me the most. some textures are fine, others are HORRIBLE. i mean look at this, you CANNOT say these textures are even remotely acceptable for a game made with next gen in mind.... these were all taken with textures on HIGH.

#8 Posted by Gaming-Planet (13997 posts) -

Looks like textures forgot to render but it didn't lol

#9 Posted by couly (5809 posts) -

@Advid-Gamer: There won't be any change to graphics. I've lost count on how many times people have said 'it's only a beta' and it turned out to be identical. BF4, Crysis etc.

#10 Edited by cyloninside (479 posts) -

and just to really drive home my point.... this is the ground texture for streets.... and again, my textures are on HIGH....

that is quite possibly the worst texture i have seen in a game in the last 8+ years.... im pretty sure games that came out 10 years ago had better textures than that...

#11 Edited by naz99 (1214 posts) -

its a Beta.....Betas Dont have full quality textures to cut down on the download size genius.

And like the guy said above if they are still crap after release then bitch away but complaining about a Beta is wholly moronic

#12 Edited by cyloninside (479 posts) -

@naz99 said:

its a Beta.....Betas Dont have full quality textures to cut down on the download size genius.

And like the guy said above if they are still crap after release then bitch away but complaining about a Beta is wholly moronic

in a word, bullshit.

and lol at "betas dont have full textures to cut down on download size"... that has like... NEVER been a thing... NEVER... i have no idea where you got that.

go fucking delude yourself in your corner of unreality. this is exactly how the game is going to look at release.

this mindset has always pissed me off to no end. you hear it all the time in betas for MMOs.... it is the most ridiculous thing ever. we arent talking about bugs or broken mechanics, we are talking about art assets. they are one of the first things to be completed and finalized. the game is out in 3 weeks. there will be no changes to the textures at this point. saying otherwise just makes YOU look like the idiot.

#13 Edited by cyloninside (479 posts) -

enabling "insane" textures makes the game look like pretty much any other game on "high" settings, BUT YOU HAVE TO HAVE 3GB OF VRAM TO USE IT....and the game uses every bit of that 3gb...

aside from that, high textures uses 1.7gb of VRAM.

there is something REALLY fishy about the optimization in this game...Skyrim with 2K textures uses less VRAM than titanfall with its shitty EXTREMELY low rez textures.

#14 Edited by naz99 (1214 posts) -

@cyloninside said:

@naz99 said:

its a Beta.....Betas Dont have full quality textures to cut down on the download size genius.

And like the guy said above if they are still crap after release then bitch away but complaining about a Beta is wholly moronic

in a word, bullshit.

and lol at "betas dont have full textures to cut down on download size"... that has like... NEVER been a thing... NEVER... i have no idea where you got that.

go fucking delude yourself in your corner of unreality. this is exactly how the game is going to look at release.

this mindset has always pissed me off to no end. you hear it all the time in betas for MMOs.... it is the most ridiculous thing ever. we arent talking about bugs or broken mechanics, we are talking about art assets. they are one of the first things to be completed and finalized. the game is out in 3 weeks. there will be no changes to the textures at this point. saying otherwise just makes YOU look like the idiot.

Yes it has you moron many betas are cut down in size I have noticed this over the hundreds of Betas I have taken part in and the way a lot do it is to reduce texture size to save on downloads ...just because you did not know that does not mean it's wrong.

And i dont give a fuck about titanfall i played the beta today and its boring as fuck so how am i deluding myself and why would i want to?

"And like the guy said above if they are still crap after release then bitch away but complaining about a Beta is wholly moronic" <-- and did you miss this bit you Asshat?

im even saying its a possibilty they will be just as crap so why so butthurt young man did a Titan rape your pet??

#15 Posted by Mcspanky37 (1695 posts) -

Sure - it's an ugly game, but it always looked cheap and ugly from the pre-release gameplay footage - I'm not sure why people are surprised.

#16 Posted by FelipeInside (25313 posts) -

@couly said:

@Advid-Gamer: There won't be any change to graphics. I've lost count on how many times people have said 'it's only a beta' and it turned out to be identical. BF4, Crysis etc.

Don't know what will happen with Titanfall but BF4 had lower graphics for the beta.

#17 Edited by mastershake575 (8353 posts) -

@cyloninside said:

in a word, bullshit.

and lol at "betas dont have full textures to cut down on download size"... that has like... NEVER been a thing... NEVER... i have no idea where you got that.

go fucking delude yourself in your corner of unreality. this is exactly how the game is going to look at release.

this mindset has always pissed me off to no end. you hear it all the time in betas for MMOs.... it is the most ridiculous thing ever. we arent talking about bugs or broken mechanics, we are talking about art assets. they are one of the first things to be completed and finalized. the game is out in 3 weeks. there will be no changes to the textures at this point. saying otherwise just makes YOU look like the idiot.

In some cases the user you quoted is right (I've been in and out of betas since 2005 ands it not uncommon to lower textures for beta purposes).

I don't understand why your being an aggressive a-hole about his quote ? (what exactly is your problem ?).

Using profanity and acting aggressive for no reason (especially when your wrong) is a good way to not be taken seriously and be viewed as a child

#18 Posted by R4gn4r0k (16297 posts) -

Sure - it's an ugly game, but it always looked cheap and ugly from the pre-release gameplay footage - I'm not sure why people are surprised.

I'm surprised people call this game ugly. It's not next-gen by any standards, but ugly is an overstatement. This isn't Duke Nukem Forever or anything.

Anyway, in singleplayer FPS I always take the time to look around and stare at the graphics. But doing this in this game, with how fast pace the multiplayer is, I'm sure it would get me killed time after time, so I haven't done it yet.

#19 Posted by topgunmv (10184 posts) -

Get used to the high vram requirement, it's going to be standard for multiplats going forward.

#20 Posted by cyloninside (479 posts) -

@topgunmv said:

Get used to the high vram requirement, it's going to be standard for multiplats going forward.

just means all those people telling folks that the 4gb version of cards isnt worth the money are apparently completely out of the loop.

it doesnt matter if you game at 1080p or not....4gb VRAM looks like it is going to be a must going forward.

#21 Edited by cyloninside (479 posts) -

@cyloninside said:

in a word, bullshit.

and lol at "betas dont have full textures to cut down on download size"... that has like... NEVER been a thing... NEVER... i have no idea where you got that.

go fucking delude yourself in your corner of unreality. this is exactly how the game is going to look at release.

this mindset has always pissed me off to no end. you hear it all the time in betas for MMOs.... it is the most ridiculous thing ever. we arent talking about bugs or broken mechanics, we are talking about art assets. they are one of the first things to be completed and finalized. the game is out in 3 weeks. there will be no changes to the textures at this point. saying otherwise just makes YOU look like the idiot.

In some cases the user you quoted is right (I've been in and out of betas since 2005 ands it not uncommon to lower textures for beta purposes).

I don't understand why your being an aggressive a-hole about his quote ? (what exactly is your problem ?).

Using profanity and acting aggressive for no reason (especially when your wrong) is a good way to not be taken seriously and be viewed as a child

because the guy decided to take an aggressive, demeaning position with me first. i have no sympathy. the guy is wrong. it is 3 weeks to release.

what you played this weekend is the game at this point.

#22 Posted by topgunmv (10184 posts) -

@topgunmv said:

Get used to the high vram requirement, it's going to be standard for multiplats going forward.

just means all those people telling folks that the 4gb version of cards isnt worth the money are apparently completely out of the loop.

it doesnt matter if you game at 1080p or not....4gb VRAM looks like it is going to be a must going forward.

Yup.

It was apparent that anyone saying otherwise after it was known the new consoles would have 8gb of shared memory simply had their heads in the sand.

#23 Edited by mastershake575 (8353 posts) -

@cyloninside said:

because the guy decided to take an aggressive, demeaning position with me first. i have no sympathy. the guy is wrong. it is 3 weeks to release.

What ? He said calling out a beta before release is foolish (based on some betas of the past) and that you should complain after the release just in case.

That's not aggressive at all (at very best you could argue that he was being a little bit of a smart aleck).

If you want to take a quote that was at very worse a little smart aleck and turn it into some sort of personal attack are resort to profanity then I don't think an internet forum is the right place for you

#24 Edited by Cwagmire21 (5887 posts) -

Game definitely isn't Crysis quaity graphics, but it's fun as hell - I'll give them that.

#25 Posted by SEANMCAD (5464 posts) -

I havent seen a single video (on high) that looks good graphically or game play to be honest.

#26 Posted by Cwagmire21 (5887 posts) -

@SEANMCAD said:

I havent seen a single video (on high) that looks good graphically or game play to be honest.

Titanfall isn't a good example since the graphics really do suck, but I wouldn't judge how a game looks by a YouTube video. Even at 1080p, it still doesn't look like it would in-game due to compression.

#27 Edited by SEANMCAD (5464 posts) -

@SEANMCAD said:

I havent seen a single video (on high) that looks good graphically or game play to be honest.

Titanfall isn't a good example since the graphics really do suck, but I wouldn't judge how a game looks by a YouTube video. Even at 1080p, it still doesn't look like it would in-game due to compression.

no doubt...check out Arma 3 youtubes on high.

side story...guys at work where actually have a debate on graphics in games showing each other pictures on a cell phone...i slapped them on the head

#28 Posted by MBirdy88 (7704 posts) -

I play games for textures.... oh wait.

#29 Posted by cyloninside (479 posts) -

@cyloninside said:

because the guy decided to take an aggressive, demeaning position with me first. i have no sympathy. the guy is wrong. it is 3 weeks to release.

What ? He said calling out a beta before release is foolish (based on some betas of the past) and that you should complain after the release just in case.

That's not aggressive at all (at very best you could argue that he was being a little bit of a smart aleck).

If you want to take a quote that was at very worse a little smart aleck and turn it into some sort of personal attack are resort to profanity then I don't think an internet forum is the right place for you

"Betas Dont have full quality textures to cut down on the download size genius."

aggressive, demeaning position. no sympathy.

#30 Posted by cyloninside (479 posts) -

@MBirdy88 said:

I play games for textures.... oh wait.

graphics are 50% of the puzzle for me. anyone that says that graphics arent a reasonable portion of their experience is fooling themselves or just flat out lying.

if graphics are shit, it definitely takes away from my enjoyment of a game. if the gameplay is fun, i may still enjoy the game. if the gameplay is fun, and the graphics are good, i will enjoy the game that much more.

#31 Posted by MBirdy88 (7704 posts) -

@MBirdy88 said:

I play games for textures.... oh wait.

graphics are 50% of the puzzle for me. anyone that says that graphics arent a reasonable portion of their experience is fooling themselves or just flat out lying.

if graphics are shit, it definitely takes away from my enjoyment of a game. if the gameplay is fun, i may still enjoy the game. if the gameplay is fun, and the graphics are good, i will enjoy the game that much more.

Maybe so, but the game is far from bad looking. and I spend 0% of the time zoomed in on textures.

#32 Posted by PredatorRules (7405 posts) -

@MBirdy88 said:

@cyloninside said:

@MBirdy88 said:

I play games for textures.... oh wait.

graphics are 50% of the puzzle for me. anyone that says that graphics arent a reasonable portion of their experience is fooling themselves or just flat out lying.

if graphics are shit, it definitely takes away from my enjoyment of a game. if the gameplay is fun, i may still enjoy the game. if the gameplay is fun, and the graphics are good, i will enjoy the game that much more.

Maybe so, but the game is far from bad looking. and I spend 0% of the time zoomed in on textures.

Graphics are important in terms of multiplayer along with gameplay.

In singleplayer it would be storyline along with gameplay.

So far Titanfall looks OK to play but the do need to improve textures of many places including walls and objects, the game is still on alpha or beta or whatever and they've got a month to just improve those things along with the brain dead AI which IMO my most concern about the game and most important.

#33 Posted by MBirdy88 (7704 posts) -

@MBirdy88 said:

@cyloninside said:

@MBirdy88 said:

I play games for textures.... oh wait.

graphics are 50% of the puzzle for me. anyone that says that graphics arent a reasonable portion of their experience is fooling themselves or just flat out lying.

if graphics are shit, it definitely takes away from my enjoyment of a game. if the gameplay is fun, i may still enjoy the game. if the gameplay is fun, and the graphics are good, i will enjoy the game that much more.

Maybe so, but the game is far from bad looking. and I spend 0% of the time zoomed in on textures.

Graphics are important in terms of multiplayer along with gameplay.

In singleplayer it would be storyline along with gameplay.

So far Titanfall looks OK to play but the do need to improve textures of many places including walls and objects, the game is still on alpha or beta or whatever and they've got a month to just improve those things along with the brain dead AI which IMO my most concern about the game and most important.

There was something going around about the textures not being full... but I wouldn't hold my breath.

Everybody is assuming this studio is as big as the other games... its not. respawn are quite small compared to other AAA shooter franchises. I expect with this game's success that will change with Titanfall 2 though.

#34 Posted by silversix_ (14072 posts) -

the game is a cash grab, cash grabs have no money invested in the game design but marketing and only marketing

#35 Edited by GeminonTraveler (155 posts) -

the game is a cash grab, cash grabs have no money invested in the game design but marketing and only marketing

i dont think that is true.... respawn is a new studio. they need to establish themselves with a big franchise to ensure that they have a future. if anything, pushing out a cash grab game would hurt them in the long run.

i do find it extremely strange that the COD games, which are running on an engine that is just as old as source and these devs have ample experience with, have much better textures than titanfall. i have seen plenty of source games with stellar textures, so you cant tell me it is an engine thing. i have also seen many XB1 games, AND XB360 games with far better textures, so you cant tell me it is because of consoles. i really just dont get what the deal is.

#36 Edited by KHAndAnime (13429 posts) -

@R4gn4r0k said:

I'm surprised people call this game ugly. It's not next-gen by any standards, but ugly is an overstatement. This isn't Duke Nukem Forever or anything.

Anyway, in singleplayer FPS I always take the time to look around and stare at the graphics. But doing this in this game, with how fast pace the multiplayer is, I'm sure it would get me killed time after time, so I haven't done it yet.

Probably has something to do with the abundance of extremely low-resolution textures being constantly in your face, with no charming art style to make up for it. If this game came out 5 years ago, I wouldn't have been impressed by the graphics then either. The game is practically flaunting how technologically dated it looks. It looks so cheap. They really couldn't have made the game look any better given how small the scale of the game is? Even for a Source game, it looks bad...

I get it though : they want the game to be popular with kids and casuals, and this crowd doesn't typically own fast gaming PCs.

#37 Posted by Grey_Eyed_Elf (3694 posts) -

Textures aside personally I just don't find it fun... Also I just downloaded the new BF4 Map pack and it also was boring, I think I have shooter fatigue right now... So yeah I don't think I'll be playing or buying shooters in the next several months.

#38 Edited by Netherscourge (16328 posts) -

Titanfall was built on the Source 2.0 engine (Portal, CS, TF, HL2, etc...).

It's not a very graphic-rich engine (not by 2014's standards anyway). However, it's very flexible for gameplay features though.

That's why textures generally look flat and unimpressive. That's the first thing I noticed when I entered a Titan for the first time in the training mode- flat, generic-looking textures inside the main Titan chassis.

Apparently, Source still doesn't use Tessellation.

#39 Edited by IncisionX (157 posts) -

Looked fine for me but I guess I was busy running along the side of walls haha :P

#40 Posted by remiks00 (1708 posts) -

I'm sure the textures for the PC version will be fully applied & fixed upon release. Wasn't BF4's beta looking like crap as well? I know that was the case with the PS3 & Xbox 360 versions at least.

#41 Edited by FelipeInside (25313 posts) -

Love how 90% of people on these forums are graphic whores, yet then they say things like "it's the gameplay that matters".

I love shiny graphics, but Titanfall doesn't look bad or ugly by any means. It's amazing it looks that good in beta (final game will look a bit better) for an engine that old.

#42 Posted by Arthas045 (5100 posts) -

The only time I really paid attention to it, was from the drop ship. Other than that I wasn't really looking to close. I am sure this will be bumped up upon release though.

#43 Edited by Netherscourge (16328 posts) -

For those calling us graphic whores....

PC gamers spend more money EXPECTING top-notch graphics to GO ALONG WITH their great gameplay.

We want and demand BOTH as STANDARD for PC gaming.

If you're on an Xbox One, then yes - you have no right to complain about 720p upscaled graphics because that's what you bought and you knew going in that's what you were getting.

But people who spend hundreds, if not thousand,s on their PC every year, YEA, GRAPHICS MATTER JUST AS MUCH AS GAMEPLAY DOES!

There is no compromise between the two allowed - BOTH must be present for us to get the most value from our hardware purchases. Lousy graphics + great gameplay is not acceptable for most PC gamers. If that's your benchmark, then you don't get into PC gaming - you buy a console.

(I speak for myself officially and many other PC gamers unofficially)

/rant over

#44 Edited by wis3boi (31114 posts) -

@R4gn4r0k said:

I'm surprised people call this game ugly. It's not next-gen by any standards, but ugly is an overstatement. This isn't Duke Nukem Forever or anything.

Anyway, in singleplayer FPS I always take the time to look around and stare at the graphics. But doing this in this game, with how fast pace the multiplayer is, I'm sure it would get me killed time after time, so I haven't done it yet.

Probably has something to do with the abundance of extremely low-resolution textures being constantly in your face, with no charming art style to make up for it. If this game came out 5 years ago, I wouldn't have been impressed by the graphics then either. The game is practically flaunting how technologically dated it looks. It looks so cheap. They really couldn't have made the game look any better given how small the scale of the game is? Even for a Source game, it looks bad...

I get it though : they want the game to be popular with kids and casuals, and this crowd doesn't typically own fast gaming PCs.

I found it weird how inconsistent it was. I could be running around outside and practically puking at how gross the land and trees and backdrops were, then sprint through an empty house or store and go "Hey, this looks pretty detailed and well made" only to go back outside and gag at the outdoors again.

#45 Posted by MBirdy88 (7704 posts) -

For those calling us graphic whores....

PC gamers spend more money EXPECTING top-notch graphics to GO ALONG WITH their great gameplay.

We want and demand BOTH as STANDARD for PC gaming.

If you're on an Xbox One, then yes - you have no right to complain about 720p upscaled graphics because that's what you bought and you knew going in that's what you were getting.

But people who spend hundreds, if not thousand,s on their PC every year, YEA, GRAPHICS MATTER JUST AS MUCH AS GAMEPLAY DOES!

There is no compromise between the two allowed - BOTH must be present for us to get the most value from our hardware purchases. Lousy graphics + great gameplay is not acceptable for most PC gamers. If that's your benchmark, then you don't get into PC gaming - you buy a console.

(I speak for myself officially and many other PC gamers unofficially)

/rant over

meh disagree.

If a game pushes graphics and advertises so I would agree.

If a game was butt ugly that I couldnt stand it I would kinda agree.

Titanfall doesn't fall into either of those categories.

why people give a damn about textures when there is so much goodness going on is pretty sad. "oh no, that gravel is abit pixelated.... NOW THE GAME SUCKS".... was too busy.... doing good things.

#46 Edited by Cwagmire21 (5887 posts) -

@MBirdy88 said:

@Netherscourge said:

For those calling us graphic whores....

PC gamers spend more money EXPECTING top-notch graphics to GO ALONG WITH their great gameplay.

We want and demand BOTH as STANDARD for PC gaming.

If you're on an Xbox One, then yes - you have no right to complain about 720p upscaled graphics because that's what you bought and you knew going in that's what you were getting.

But people who spend hundreds, if not thousand,s on their PC every year, YEA, GRAPHICS MATTER JUST AS MUCH AS GAMEPLAY DOES!

There is no compromise between the two allowed - BOTH must be present for us to get the most value from our hardware purchases. Lousy graphics + great gameplay is not acceptable for most PC gamers. If that's your benchmark, then you don't get into PC gaming - you buy a console.

(I speak for myself officially and many other PC gamers unofficially)

/rant over

meh disagree.

If a game pushes graphics and advertises so I would agree.

If a game was butt ugly that I couldnt stand it I would kinda agree.

Titanfall doesn't fall into either of those categories.

why people give a damn about textures when there is so much goodness going on is pretty sad. "oh no, that gravel is abit pixelated.... NOW THE GAME SUCKS".... was too busy.... doing good things.

Like with Hotline Miami, I was having too much fun to care about the graphics.

#47 Edited by MBirdy88 (7704 posts) -

@MBirdy88 said:

@Netherscourge said:

For those calling us graphic whores....

PC gamers spend more money EXPECTING top-notch graphics to GO ALONG WITH their great gameplay.

We want and demand BOTH as STANDARD for PC gaming.

If you're on an Xbox One, then yes - you have no right to complain about 720p upscaled graphics because that's what you bought and you knew going in that's what you were getting.

But people who spend hundreds, if not thousand,s on their PC every year, YEA, GRAPHICS MATTER JUST AS MUCH AS GAMEPLAY DOES!

There is no compromise between the two allowed - BOTH must be present for us to get the most value from our hardware purchases. Lousy graphics + great gameplay is not acceptable for most PC gamers. If that's your benchmark, then you don't get into PC gaming - you buy a console.

(I speak for myself officially and many other PC gamers unofficially)

/rant over

meh disagree.

If a game pushes graphics and advertises so I would agree.

If a game was butt ugly that I couldnt stand it I would kinda agree.

Titanfall doesn't fall into either of those categories.

why people give a damn about textures when there is so much goodness going on is pretty sad. "oh no, that gravel is abit pixelated.... NOW THE GAME SUCKS".... was too busy.... doing good things.

Like with Hotline Miami, I was having too much fun to care about the graphics.

but mate.... the inside of the titan's textures are poor... that whole half a second you can see it... ruins teh game.