how are the graphics on titanfall?

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Edited by carr2332 (275 posts) -

haven't had the chance to play the beta

#2 Posted by thenephariouson (3952 posts) -

The Graphics are good, given that the Source engine is not known for its visual prowess the game looks great and runs at a silky smooth 60 FPS.

The Source engine is renowned for its slick speedy processing and not its visual grunt.

#3 Posted by sailor232 (4346 posts) -

The graphics are good enough, the game is so fast and fun that standing around to 'nit pick' at anything will result in your characters death.

#4 Posted by BattleSpectre (5952 posts) -

Graphics seem pretty good, nothing ground-breaking but graphics don't play a part in these sort of games.

#5 Edited by cyloninside (428 posts) -

horribad. worst textures i have seen in a game in the last 10 years. just take a look at these completely awful looking graphics:

that is from the PC beta, on all high settings. no idea how they can get away with calling this a "next gen focused" game with graphics like that. i havent seen textures that blurry since 2002.

#6 Edited by RimacBugatti (1189 posts) -

@cyloninside:

Ok granted gameplay is obviously the most important thing but damn those graphics look HORRIBLE! I'm a graphics whore but gameplay is number one when it comes to gaming. But who do they think they are to deliver a game in 2014 that looks like that. Lazy ass devs!

#7 Edited by cyloninside (428 posts) -

@RimacBugatti said:

@cyloninside:

Ok granted gameplay is obviously the most important thing but damn those graphics look HORRIBLE! I'm a graphics whore but gameplay is number one when it comes to gaming. But who do they think they are to deliver a game in 2014 that looks like that. Lazy ass devs!

i know right... the game is fun, i will say that.... but those graphics.... i dont care if it is a source engine game or not. i have seen source engine games that came out 5 years ago with far better textures... it really blows my mind.

#8 Posted by donalbane (16168 posts) -

There are games that are made to look as gorgeous as possible, and then there are games that are made to run smoothly. Titanfall, like many shooters, is made to run smoothly, so it's not the best looking game by a damn sight. But what it lacks in poly count and texture quality it more than makes up with animation, cool models, and general craziness on screen.

#9 Posted by a55a55inx (4130 posts) -

@cyloninside:

Ok granted gameplay is obviously the most important thing but damn those graphics look HORRIBLE! I'm a graphics whore but gameplay is number one when it comes to gaming. But who do they think they are to deliver a game in 2014 that looks like that. Lazy ass devs!

I wouldn't say that the devs are being lazy, because you can make the argument that creating a low res texture takes longer than using a high-definition one. Textures are captured using a high resolution camera, so in order to get it to a lower-res form requires developers to compress the image quality in Photoshop. A big part of video game development is resource management; one of the decisions may have been: "should we aim for visually impressive graphics or silky smooth gameplay?" My money would be on the latter. You move so fast in the game and you're likely to spend a lot of time on a titan; would the general public even notice the low res textures on the ground or walls? Why spend resources on something only a few nit-pickers would catch rather than allocating the power towards the games performance.

#10 Posted by BoozDigi (279 posts) -

The Graphics are good, given that the Source engine is not known for its visual prowess the game looks great and runs at a silky smooth 60 FPS.

The Source engine is renowned for its slick speedy processing and not its visual grunt.

doesnt it run at 30fps, and not 60. !?

#11 Posted by cyloninside (428 posts) -

@BoozDigi said:

@thenephariouson said:

The Graphics are good, given that the Source engine is not known for its visual prowess the game looks great and runs at a silky smooth 60 FPS.

The Source engine is renowned for its slick speedy processing and not its visual grunt.

doesnt it run at 30fps, and not 60. !?

it tries to maintain 60FPS but does not manage it most of the time. the game is pretty much a technological failure on the XB1. low res, bad textures, not 60fps.

thankfully the game is fun... or it would just be a fail all around.

#12 Posted by sukraj (21797 posts) -

I wish titanfall had a single player mode.

#14 Posted by RimacBugatti (1189 posts) -

@a55a55inx:

Didn't realize it took longer so now that you explained that it does make perfect sense. I guess it's a very fast game as you said and no time to notice the little things. Not like you will have time to smell the roses. lol

#15 Edited by Spike1988 (1618 posts) -

This is gonna sound crazy, but the game looks a hell of a lot better than that on Xbone.
In my opinion the Beta must have had low or medium settings only. Wouldn't be the first time.
They label it as 'high' but really it's actually low/medium and a lot of extra settings are disabled.

Trust me it looks a lot better than that and will look wayyy better than that on PC when you have the final version.

#16 Posted by cyloninside (428 posts) -

This is gonna sound crazy, but the game looks a hell of a lot better than that on Xbone.

In my opinion the Beta must have had low or medium settings only. Wouldn't be the first time.

They label it as 'high' but really it's actually low/medium and a lot of extra settings are disabled.

Trust me it looks a lot better than that and will look wayyy better than that on PC when you have the final version.

it doesnt. im playing it on PC right now on "insane" textures. textures have not changed at all.

#17 Posted by Spike1988 (1618 posts) -

@Spike1988 said:

This is gonna sound crazy, but the game looks a hell of a lot better than that on Xbone.

In my opinion the Beta must have had low or medium settings only. Wouldn't be the first time.

They label it as 'high' but really it's actually low/medium and a lot of extra settings are disabled.

Trust me it looks a lot better than that and will look wayyy better than that on PC when you have the final version.

it doesnt. im playing it on PC right now on "insane" textures. textures have not changed at all.

Strange...
It definitely looked better on Xbone during the Beta.
I'm picking it up tomorrow when it launches here in Australia. Will suss it out and let you know what I think.

#18 Edited by Venom951 (365 posts) -

There is gonna be a patch coming that is gonna release DX12 on Xbox 1 and said its gonna up the Res .

#19 Edited by craigalan23 (15879 posts) -

It looked good to me for the four hours that I played it on the xbox one. Not sure why it matters though.. It was a lot of fun PLAYING it and not staring at the ground. I didnt even notice the textures.

#20 Posted by rrjim1 (841 posts) -

You don't have much time to look at the Graphics, if you do your dead!

#21 Posted by WaxCriminal (23 posts) -

i think the game has great graphics, not as great a Ryse but still great.

#22 Posted by WaxCriminal (23 posts) -

@cyloninside said:

@Spike1988 said:

This is gonna sound crazy, but the game looks a hell of a lot better than that on Xbone.

In my opinion the Beta must have had low or medium settings only. Wouldn't be the first time.

They label it as 'high' but really it's actually low/medium and a lot of extra settings are disabled.

Trust me it looks a lot better than that and will look wayyy better than that on PC when you have the final version.

it doesnt. im playing it on PC right now on "insane" textures. textures have not changed at all.

Strange...

It definitely looked better on Xbone during the Beta.

I'm picking it up tomorrow when it launches here in Australia. Will suss it out and let you know what I think.

It looks alot better on Xbox One if those screenshots are from the PC version.

#23 Posted by Gatman32 (429 posts) -

Who gives a shit, the game is fun as hell!!

#24 Posted by superclocked (5823 posts) -

I've been watching my son play. Don't believe the earlier images. The game actually has very good graphics for a console game. It's much prettier than BF4 on the XB1...

#25 Posted by Starshine_M2A2 (4079 posts) -

Graphics on the Xbox and PC are only marginally different. So that should be a positive thing, right? It's not often consoles can match PC visuals after all.

#26 Posted by marccasshern (6 posts) -

Yeah i agree with most people here... I love, amazing visuals! The fist time you play Oblivion i was in awe at their detail and The Last of Us for atmosphere was stunning. Titanfall does look good don't get me wrong but not what i expect from next gen. With that said i haven't had time to stop and look at textures, because the game it self takes me back to some fast multiplied fun that game like Timesplitters, Goldeneye and even Halo before the empire that is COD whitewashed the fps world.

#27 Posted by Mesomorphin (807 posts) -

The textures aren't that great but they do present some nice visuality, in-fact I think its fair to state that whilst this game isn't no Infamous or Halo 4 visually, it does present a pretty wild visual pallet and the atmosphere of the game works well to contribute to it. Overall I would definitely say this game is a good looking game, especially for what it is no doubt.