890°

Titanfall Beta runs at native ’792p’ resolution on Xbox One, may increase with final build

Titanfall Beta runs at native ’792p’ resolution on Xbox One, may increase with final build

Read Full Story >>
titanfallblog.com
Gazondaily3733d ago

Pretty much what I expected (well..720p tbh). I doubt it'll increase in the final build though considering the short time till launch.

DOS_Gamer3733d ago

Very disappointing.

Everyone I listed to stated that the downgraded Xbox One graphics - textures and resolution - were just to save space with the Alpha build.

No reason to get the Xbox One version.

Angels37853733d ago

Same here.

Everyone who spoke with me also said the same about the alpha build

UltimateMaster3733d ago (Edited 3733d ago )

792p?
It's gonna look like crap, TVs don't support that resolution. You're better off with the Xbox 360.

500$ for a new console; you get an upgrade from 720p to 792p!

Forget the Xbox One version. The Xbox 360 online features are vastly better than in Xbox One. Same goes for the PS4 that is better than the Xbox One.

imt5583733d ago (Edited 3733d ago )

Well, i will copy/paste my post from other threads.

Well, alpha and beta are pretty much the same to me :

Same building, just different side on same floor.

Alpha :

[IMG] http://i.imgur.com/lJtuIYe....

Beta :

[IMG] http://i.imgur.com/ILLOV5Y....

Looks like CBOAT was right. I'm definitely sure that Titanfall X360 version is really close to Xbone version.

Timesplitter143733d ago (Edited 3733d ago )

@UltimateMaster
"792p? It's gonna look like crap, TVs don't support that resolution."

Excuse me but I think the senior engineers at Respawn know what they're doing and they have a better understanding of these things than you and I. If they chose to go with the unconventional 792p resolution, it's because it gives the best results the XOne version can allow

ProjectVulcan3733d ago (Edited 3733d ago )

1408 x 792 is a 'true' 16:9 resolution you can upscale to preserve the screen ratio.

If that is the actual resolution instead of stretching being used, it's not that terrible, but miles away from even 1600 x 900, so that would be a fairly big upgrade if the final build could get near that.

You're talking a 30 percent boost required just to reach 1600 x 900. I find it unlikely to reach that.

Still, it's a little bit better than 1280 x 720 right?

truefan13733d ago

I agree, Respawn should have covered 30% of the screen with black bars to hit 1080p. As I have said before all this talk is just a deflection, the xbox gamers are hyped for it all this blabbering about resolution and fps isn;t gonna change the fact that it is fun and many people are looking forward to playing it.

This article will have the most hits of the day, there has been too much good Xb1 news today. 150 disagrees minimum. Book it.

AngelicIceDiamond3733d ago

@DOS Don't speak for everyone you mean YOUR disappointed.

Everyone else seems to be having a blast.

Your to caught up on technical stuff and not even paying attention to the game. The selling point of the game which is aimed towards excitement and fun.

Analyze The Order or Quantum Break. Those games are suppose to take advantage of the consoles technical abilities.

But not with this type of game. Or hardly anyway.

Utalkin2me3733d ago

792P, doesnt hold a constant 60 fps and looks very average in the graphics department, wow is all i can say.

Xsilver3733d ago

http://i7.minus.com/i8sAbmM... how can a game like this not achieve 1080p is beyond me.

blackbeld3733d ago (Edited 3733d ago )

OK.... better stick with the pc then.

NEXT GEN yeah right 792p?

FITgamer3733d ago

Not to mention the frame rate isn't locked at 60fps.
http://www.eurogamer.net/ar...

UltimateMaster3733d ago

Maybe "look terrible" is bit of a stretch.
But, again, 500$ and all you get is 792p?
Explain what is next-gen supposed to be?

Just look at this:
http://www.dualshockers.com...

The PC version looks Significantly Better.
Explain to me why I should buy an Xbox One.
Have I missed something that's incredible?
I don't think I did, but do leave your toughs.

joab7773733d ago (Edited 3733d ago )

It will b much better than the 360 version. And Respawn is working w/ Microsoft to create a better upscaler.

Honestly, I love my PS4 and cant wait for Infamous...but I really want to play Titanfall. And if its upscaled 1080p...I dont care. It will be crisp and clean and whats really important to me is the next gen gameplay.

Now, MS may have an issue keeping up with Sony concerning resolution...but it doesnt bother me for Titanfall. MS knows how important it is and will do everything to make it as good as possible.

scootscottskeet933733d ago

Regardless of how it looks I'm still excited to play it. Microsoft better have put their marbles in the right basket.

miDnIghtEr20C_SfF3733d ago

Hilarious reading all the SAD fanboy comments. Of course this isn't good enough... PS only game coming in at 800p is great... but this isn't.

You guys are a bunch of idiots. The game plays great.

alexkoepp3733d ago

Dang hottest game on n4g with 51560, Infamous only 31000! XB1 is killing it, great system with the best games!

Edsword3733d ago

Something doesn't seem right here, the 360 version must run at 30fps. Otherwise why would it be such a stretch to reach 1080p on XB1. That would be pretty consistent with what we saw with TRDE. Slight upgrades to current gen with either 1080p or 60fps, but not both. The PS4 advantage likely would have gotten this game to 1080p. MS is smart for buying the exclusive rights. If not this game would have just sold more PS4s. Interesting that the game they are hyping so much for XB1 could have been it's undoing if multiplatform.

badz1493733d ago

LOL

This is right after this:

"Microsoft: eSRAM Being Too Small For 1080p Output Is "Clearly Not The Case"

Yeah right, Microsoft!

bennissimo3733d ago

The only disappointment will be in the hearts of those who choose not to play this masterpiece of a game simply because it doesn't have a higher native resolution.

dedicatedtogamers3733d ago

What's even worse is that this game is using a modified Source engine. They've had plenty of time to tweak this game and build it to suit the X1's hardware.

Oh well. Trying it on PC anyway.

ambientFLIER3733d ago (Edited 3733d ago )

imt558 -

The fact that you're trying to prove anything by posting of a compressed youtube vid is both hilarious and sad at the same time. Just go the *** away, PLEASE. Go comment in the PS4 articles, since you hate MS and the Xbox so much.

Respawn said the retail version will look better than the Alpha. So please, enough trolling for now.

LexRex3733d ago (Edited 3733d ago )

@XSilver,..

Yep,.. It is strange, especially because it is Source engine,.. And it really is not a looker.

You can also see screen-tearing http://i7.minus.com/i8sAbmM... in the screen you posted(1|3 from the top),... So it is not even Vertical synced 60fps,..

Really strange indeed,..

fr0sty3733d ago (Edited 3733d ago )

@truefan, nice try, but you fail yet again. 792p would have to cover around half of the screen with black in order to hit 1080p... as it would still have to fill in the missing horizontal pixels from 1408 pixels to 1920 pixels. Your pathetic attempt to compare this to The Order on PS4 POSSIBLY choosing to adopt a 1920x800 frame, with black bars cropping the remaining 280 vertical lines falls flat on its face. Again though, nice try. Keep it up, you'll be able to formulate an argument that makes sense one day.

H0RSE3733d ago (Edited 3733d ago )

In response to the "$500 for 792p," comments, my question is this:

If graphics and high resolutions were/are such a high deciding factor when it comes/came to which platform to play games on, why wouldn't you just play on PC? Even the PS4 isn't playing all games at 1080p, and when it does, they all aren't at 60fps, so why is there so much emphasis on a factor that isn't even the medium's strong point?

It also seems extremely closed-minded and naive to exclaim something like, "no reason to get the Xbox One version," as if the only reason for ever deciding which version of a game to get, is based around resolution or graphics fidelity...

I like playing my games looking their absolute best, and that's why I did the no-brainer thing and got a high-end gaming rig. I play games on console, and I enjoy them, but having my games look and run their best was never a reason for getting a console, this gen or any other.

Any person who wants their games to look their best and decides to get a console based on that criteria, is contradicting themselves. By willingly making the decision of choosing console vs PC, you are essentially saying graphics actually aren't as important as you claim, since you passed up "best" for "good enough."

You can give me the "I can't play TLOU or Uncharted on PC" arguments all day, but that has to do with choosing a platform based on games available, and absolutely nothing to do with choosing a platform based on graphics, especially considering you can only play games like those on one platform, so there isn't exactly a bunch of platforms to choose from....

And finally, to address anyone claiming that something that costs $400-$500 should meet expectations, or "deliver the goods," your argument is moot. Your "expectations" mean nothing. The only scenario where an argument like this would hold merit, is if a company promised 1080p visuals on all games, thus giving something to base expectations on, and then failed to deliver - but that never happened... instead, we got a bunch of gamers who base their ideas of what is "acceptable" or not, on arbitrary requirements and personal opinions.

wsoutlaw873733d ago

@horse you try to change the arguement to seem like its just about which is best looking. People chose consoles for plenty of reasons even though they know expesive pcs might look better. No one is saying omg i want it in 4k. Its ok that its not the best looking game ever but when you buy a new 500$ console you have some basic expectations and ms just isnt living up to them. No ones saying it should preform like a 1500$ pc but it could at least preform like a 500$ console. The xbox one verson just doesnt seem like its on 8 year newer 500$ hardware than the 360. To be fair i have never really been interested in this game as it just looks like cod: future warfare with mechs. I just dont like cod style superman shooters.

nypifisel3733d ago

@Timesplitter14

Actually, 792 and 1080 does not correlate well in upscaling. IQ will suffer if that's the end resolution. Then they might as well just go with 720 seeing how that scales better across a 1080p upscale.

KiLLUMiNATi_893733d ago (Edited 3733d ago )

You play games or resolution?

It's about content not always about resolution lol.

n4rc3733d ago

"Man this game is fun as hell!"

"Its only 792p"

"Yeah? OK screw this game it sucks now"

That's pretty much exactly the scenario some are trying to justify.

Stop playing fkn numbers and start playing games..

H0RSE3733d ago (Edited 3733d ago )

"you try to change the arguement to seem like its just about which is best looking."

- because that is the part of the arguments I am focusing on - it is also on topic with the what the article is about - the game and the resolution it is running at.

"Its ok that its not the best looking game ever but when you buy a new 500$ console you have some basic expectations and ms just isnt living up to them."

- and I dedicated a whole paragraph to the "expectations" people have.

"No ones saying it should preform like a 1500$ pc but it could at least preform like a 500$ console."

- and what does or should a $500 console perform like? Is there a indisputable list of requirements it must meet? Are there lab tests that have been conducted to illustrate what the "$500 tier" of consoles need to achieve?

Exclaiming that something "should perform like a $500 console," is just another way of wording "It didn't meet my expectations," and as I stated, I posted a whole paragraph on this. Apparently, you missed it, so here it is again:

to address anyone claiming that something that costs $400-$500 should meet expectations, or "deliver the goods," your argument is moot. Your "expectations" mean nothing. The only scenario where an argument like this would hold merit, is if a company promised 1080p visuals on all games, thus giving something to base expectations on, and then failed to deliver - but that never happened... instead, we got a bunch of gamers who base their ideas of what is "acceptable" or not, on arbitrary requirements and personal opinions

"The xbox one verson just doesnt seem like its on 8 year newer 500$ hardware than the 360. To be fair i have never really been interested in this game as it just looks like cod: future warfare with mechs. I just dont like cod style superman shooters."

- In the beginning of your response, you accuse me of trying to "change" the argument to seem it is just about which version is best looking, and proceed to inform me that there are other reasons people chose consoles, yet here you are focusing on the technical aspects of the X1, and comparing it to 360 and saying how it doesn't perform like a $500 console should...

A key factor you (and others) are not addressing, is that just because it is a next-gen console, doesn't mean every single game released on it has to "push the envelope" in the realm of visuals... Titanfall is not a graphical powerhouse, and it was never advertised as such. Even the "insane" textures the PC will get, will not be anything special. Titanfall was always about gameplay, and that's what the devs have been stressing since the game was announced.

Like you stated, "People chose consoles for plenty of reasons," so with that in mind, why are you stressing the differences in graphics (or lack of) between X1 and 360, when at least for some people, the graphics are whatever, and have no bearing on their reason(s) to choose the game on one platform over the other.

FlunkinMonkey3733d ago

Horse, no offence, but you just waffle complete jibberish, what are you rambling on about?

America: Land of the ignorant, home of the gullible.

InactiveUser3733d ago

@truefan1

"I agree, Respawn should have covered 30% of the screen with black bars to hit 1080p."

If The Order goes with 1920 x 800 for a more cinematic look, it's still 420864 pixels (~38%) more than Titanfall.

1920 x 800 = 1536000
1408 x 792 = 1115136

So as clever as you thought you were being, you might have made Titanfall's resolution sound even worse, since it's still significantly lower than 1920 x 800.

If Titanfall went with a 2.4:1 aspect ratio like The Order: 1886 may or may not.. based on the amount of current pixels it can push on XBone, it would be about 1637 x 682.

1920 x 800 = 1536000 (TO in 2.4:1 aspect ratio)
1637 x 682 = 1116434 (TF in 2.4:1 aspect ratio)
1408 x 792 = 1115136 (TF current reso/aspect)

Black bars aren't helping your argument with a 38% disadvantage in raw pixel count.

RobbyGrob3732d ago

@bennissimo

"The only disappointment will be in the hearts of those who choose not to play this masterpiece of a game simply because it doesn't have a higher native resolution."

You're missing the point. This is more about money than it is about resolution. Many people could instead have used their money to upgrade their PCs and play way better versions of this and many other multi-plats. XB1 simply isn't worth 500 bucks. A new GPU and/or CPU really is. You can get great PC hardware really cheap these days.

VENOMACR12273732d ago

I'm def not going to buy it because its not 1080 and 60fps. It's all about graphics. If the game doesn't look good, it's not good. Gameplay, overrated. And fun? Who wants to have fun playing a video game? I know I don't. I'd much rather stare at trees and walls and think to myself "wow, that tree looks so lifelike and that wall, it's like I'm staring at it in my living room!" Graphics = sales, not gameplay. I mean look at COD, that's the most beautiful game ever made and sells millions and millions because of the graphics.

Oh wait, thats right, the graphics are sub par but sells like hot cakes because its addictive and fun to play. THAT'S what sells games, not graphics. Ryse is beautiful but gameplay sucks, and guess what, majority of reviews reflect that with a low score but praising the graphics.

Gameplay > graphics

+ Show (32) more repliesLast reply 3732d ago
Timesplitter143733d ago

Since it's an FPS I'm getting the PC version anyway. Gonna get all the p's I want

bumnut3733d ago

If you play it on PC at 2560 x 1440 it will be almost 4 times the resolution, It will look far superior to the Xbox version.

esemce3733d ago

And probably 100+fps, damn the Xbone is a weak machine as it runs CODBOT at 792p and can't maintain a locked 60fps.

AngelicIceDiamond3733d ago

792p? Lol never heard of that. I agree its unlikely to increase.

In which I'm perfectly fine with.

B-radical3733d ago

They are supposedly aiming for 900p better then 792p i guess lol

Kayant3733d ago

@truefan1
"I agree, Respawn should have covered 30% of the screen with black bars to hit 1080p"

Then you realise it's actually a native 1080p image with no upscaling or loss in clarity from a 1080p image. A different ratio doesn't change the fact it's still a native 1080p albeit with some inactive pixels.

"150 disagrees minimum. Book it." - Explains a lot.

Whiskeyjacked873733d ago

He never gets tired of being wrong lol

ambientFLIER3733d ago

Yes, 30% inactive pixels. Lol. Pretty much ANY game can hit 1080P doing that, when 30 percent of pixels only need to be rendered black. Lol.

Kayant3733d ago (Edited 3733d ago )

@ambientFLIER

"Pretty much ANY game can hit 1080P doing that, when 30 percent of pixels only need to be rendered black" - Really now why haven't XB1 versions of multi plats that are not 1080p compared to PS4 done that. WHy don't we see a mass amount of game last gen do that or why isn't BF4 or PS4 doing it.

Why don't crytek do it. Ryse was 900p they felt that was a good comprise to get better graphical effects elsewhere. Seeing as any game can do it Ryse should have been 1080p and not 900p.

The devs have already acknowledged they know their choice has a performance benefit from doing that. It doesn't change the fact that they wanted a 2:40:1 ratio for their game. Your trolling is weak you're still not losing any image quality from a native 1080p image because it's already rendered at 1080p it's not stretching the image to fit your TV in any way. Don't why I bother.

garos823733d ago ShowReplies(2)
Z_-_D_-_33733d ago ShowReplies(3)
badboy7763733d ago Show
dark_1013733d ago (Edited 3733d ago )

Yeah, i'll be happy if its 900p or something
but I have to disagree with the possibility of not being able to increase the resolution in the final build, since assassin's creed had an update on PS4 to make it run at 1080p.. so yeah, I dont think increasing resolution is a big deal for developers at any time(As long as the X1 can handle it ) :IMO as a PC gamer

We only can hope for the best

GUTZnPAPERCUTZ3733d ago

You guys are funny! 900p @ 60fps will be the final build with better textures, but most of you are too incompetent to know that New X1 SDK's just shipped to all developers, DX11.2 Graphics Update 10% performance boost is this week, and in March Update will be Titanfalls xbox one update for the system will also include the forementioned 8% GPU allocation free-up for the console... but lets just forget any of this was on this site a couple of weeks ago... -_-

DoubleM703733d ago

@GutznPaperCutz

Shhh keep quite. Your using logic fanboys don't understand that.

parentoftheyear3733d ago

Didn't major Nelson just confirmed today that it was delayed?

Sarcasm3733d ago

Pretty sad stuff here...

n4rc3733d ago

Yes.. delayed until later this week..

Hardly worth worrying about

valormeer3733d ago

Wow this kid is hella mad.

aondaatje3732d ago

They haven't forgotten. They just gotta get their digs in before titanfall drops and wins game of the year. Just laugh at them like i do because in a month it wont matter. We will all be playing titanfall and they will all b on here still pissing and moaning about it.

+ Show (4) more repliesLast reply 3732d ago
3733d ago Replies(1)
assdan3733d ago

720p and 792p are different. More different than you'd probably think. It's about 20 higher. 193536 more pixels. I don't really care that much though. Gonna get this on the pc if I get it at all. Lots of games I'm getting on my ps4 in the next few months though...

Cloudyday713733d ago

792p is a lot less than I was expecting, but then this is the incomplete Beta version. But I expect the final code to be a lot higher.

donman13733d ago

Not surprised it can only manage 720p. Plus no destructible environment. This game is just an OK new IP. Nothing amazing here.

JsonHenry3733d ago

Gonna run 1440p on my machine. :)

mrmarx3733d ago

LMAO!! XBONE IS A WASTE OF FINANCES

ITPython3733d ago

It's 792p now? Wonder if they still plan on adding those higher res textures they promised? It's possible they had to sacrifice those textures to get the bump in resolution.

Sarcasm3733d ago

Maybe the extra 8% without Kinect got them to bump up that massive increase in resolution from 720p.

quaneylfc3733d ago

The overall aim is for 900p, upscaled to 1080p on the xbox one.

Kornholic3733d ago

The best part is that Titanfall runs on Source Engine - an engine from 2004. Every lowtier pc can run this game at the same settings as Xbone.

Bennibop3733d ago

@Alexkeopp

I don't think you can compare N4G hot ratings for Infamous and Titanfall as you are forgetting Infamous is a true exclusive (PS4 only) where as Titalfall is a console exclusive (x1, 360 and PC.) So you would expect it to be higher what with 80million 360 owners, 4 mill x1 and god knows how many PC gamers. I think you have actually exposed how much hype there is for Infamous considering only 5mill PS4 owners at the moment. Also it is the only game coming to x1 that the hot meter shows that there is any form of hype for (which I do not believe is the case.)

MetaReapre3732d ago

I have to say, what a strange resolution to set it at...

+ Show (23) more repliesLast reply 3732d ago
sobotz3733d ago

"792p" ? That's an odd number, I wonder if things will looks weird in upscaled 1080p

Kingthrash3603733d ago (Edited 3733d ago )

lol
mathematically even,
visually odd.
in all honesty its the first i've seen as far as rez is concerned and 900p was new to me when ryse downgraded to it. this 792 seem like they are reaching to put out the highest number possible, i say just leave it at 720 and improve other areas. 792 seems unnecessary.

CryofSilence3733d ago (Edited 3733d ago )

I've been playing in 900p for years, but that's because that's the screen resolution of my 4 year old laptop. :3

tagan8tr3731d ago (Edited 3731d ago )

@CryofSilence I know right! Any 2 year old PC that had gaming in mind when bought or built can run this game @792p smh.

GUTZnPAPERCUTZ3733d ago

Nah, BF3 on last gen was 702p instead of 720p

n4rc3733d ago

And cod was always 630 or something..

It's nothing new.. People didn't even know what native resolution was a couple years ago.. Lol

Its like lag compensation.. Old news to some, hot button topic of the day for the masses

XiSasukeUchiha3733d ago

Damn really sad 792p what the heck!

clmstr3733d ago

You, Sir, should have gotten used to this kind of news by now.

Elit3Nick3733d ago

He's not actually worried since he's a troll and everything...

BOLO3733d ago

You just wait till the cloud kicks in...It will increase to 793p. /s

jhoward5853733d ago

Now I can clearly see where the 8% GPU went..the resolution of course.

WeAreLegion3733d ago

That's quite alright. It's not a graphics showcase. It's just a fun game. Does anyone know the PC native resolution?

lets_go_gunners3733d ago

LOL "Native Resolution" oh my child..You have much to learn about Pc gaming.

WeAreLegion3733d ago (Edited 3733d ago )

Nope. Huge PC gamer. What is the maximum resolution they built into it?

You can't just throw it on the highest pixel density monitor in existence and magically make it look significantly better. There are limits. I'm just wondering what limits they put on it. If I don't mention "native" everyone else jumps down my throat.

MidnytRain3732d ago

Lol, wtf, legion, your first comment had 'max' nowhere in it.

Banok3733d ago

PC games usually aren't restricted like console games.

Could go all the way up to 4k resolution. But 1080p has been standard for many years now.

WeAreLegion3733d ago

I'm fully aware of that, but it still has a maximum resolution. I doubt they built it with 4K in mind, but I can still upscale it to 4K.

Detoxx3733d ago

PC resolution could be anything depending on your pc/laptop.

From 480P to 4K.

Detoxx3733d ago

@1lawrence

No?

I'm not even gonna explain.

aerisbueller3733d ago

PC's don't have a native resolution. Whatever your graphics card and monitor can handle, which PC gaming master race aside, I'd say 1080p or 1200p is at the very low end of what would be considered adequate, and resolution below that would mean it's time for an upgrade

Godmars2903733d ago

"It's not a graphics showcase."

Except that it been talked about as a graphics showcase, to ad nauseam, by those defending it.

Fitting that those same "fans" get burned like this.

allastocata3733d ago

Please reference a single link of this game being a "graphical showcase". Every single person that has spoken about this game that i have or listened has said the opposite, fun as hell, but not too pretty.

bennissimo3733d ago

Only Sonyboys care about pixels over gameplay.

Look at the defense of Killzone...

NarooN3733d ago

@bennissimo

The problem with that, is that Killzone ran at 60fps at full native 1080p and actually looks hella good while doing it. So if Sony fanboys brag about it, at least they're bragging about something that has actual weight to it.

lets_go_gunners3733d ago

They did say you could run it at 4k res on a single 780 so I guess that answers your question.

Talidan3733d ago

I could be totally wrong on this, so forgive me if I am:

You'd still be able to run it at 4K or higher, regardless of the intended "max" settings found in the performance options. Games require a cap for consoles because there isn't the varying hardware, it's all the same, so they try and push the best graphics they can with what they have for the best performance, and it's all locked when produced onto disc.

PCs are only limited by the individual's hardware. You can have a crap graphics card and pump that resolution up to 4K and it just won't perform. That's the limitation, not whether or not you can put it at 4K, but just whether or not your computer can handle it. It's not locked to a max.

Any game can be played at any resolution on PC with the right hardware, that's all that matters (and changing some settings outside the game, usually in a .txt file somewhere). Some things can start to look like crap because of asset resolution (models, textures, etc), but that's not what's being talked about.

There isn't the same sort of "native"/scaled/etc issue with PC.

At least this is my very general understanding. Pardon me if I'm totally wrong.

ABizzel13733d ago

@WeAre

It doesn't matter what it is, it'll be hacked for 2k and 4k within 1 - 3 weeks after launch.

This game is a light weight, and it's recommended specs. are nearly identical to COD: Black Ops 2 for PC.

The XBO us basically on par with a 7770 / 7770 GHZ right now, and that GPU runs COD: BO2 on PC Ultra settings in 720p @ 60fps 4xMSAA + FXAA. The XBO isn't using that level of AA, and probably only using high settings in which case the final product could be 900p @ 60fps + FXAA High settings.

By comparison the PS4 could do 1080p easily @ 60fps Ultra settings using those same setting + better AA.

The PC version should run this game in 2k @ 60+ fps on anything around the performance level of a HD 7870 or higher. Source engine is so lite though that they might be able to get even better performance out of it.

WeedyOne3733d ago

If the pc version doesnt do 1080P at the very least... they are doing it wrong...

There are some games that do it wrong, like darksouls2. That game had a 720p limit then later updated to support 1080p. Same stupid thing happened to NFS Rivals except it wasnt resolution, it was FPS that was capped to 30. LAZY PC PORTS!

Kenshin_BATT0USAI3733d ago

Most likely up to 4k. These days it's achieveable with a top of the line build.

+ Show (7) more repliesLast reply 3732d ago
Show all comments (309)
90°

15 Underrated FPS Games You May Want to Try

Popularized by Doom in 1993 and still making video game haters gnash their teeth today, first-person shooter games are the best thing to happen to gamers since pizza rolls. So here are 15 underrated first-person shooter games you may have missed.

Read Full Story >>
ghettogamer.net
Jiub602d ago

Although the late 2000s Turok wasn't my favorite, I would love a new entry. Open world survival with shotguns and dinosaurs. Not sure how we'd get the fusion cannon, but that would be pretty sweet too.

MadLad602d ago

Lol

All of these games are pretty much universally praised. Outside of Timeshift I literally own all of these.

Venoxn4g602d ago (Edited 602d ago )

XIII, The Darkness 2, Far Cry: Blood Dragon, Timesplitters: future perfect, Bulletstorm are awesome games

gurp2d ago

I played them all, they are all good in their own way
I used to be obsessed with FPS games

60°

An ode to Titanfall: The last twitch shooter I'll probably ever enjoy

Windows Central: "Titanfall 1 is being sunset, taken off storefronts by EA. While the servers remain live for now, one has to wonder just how much time it has left. I look back and pay tribute to the last "twitch"-styled shooter I ever truly loved."

Read Full Story >>
windowscentral.com
90°

Respawn Entertainment is Discontinuing Sales of Original Titanfall

Sales for the original Titanfall are being discontinued.
It will be pulled from subscription services on March 1, 2022.

Ethereal883d ago

Physical media. Unfortunately the way games are going these days game servers will eventually be shut down and you can stare at the menu and wish you could play the game again.

littletad883d ago

This is why reading is so important. Nothing to do with digital or physical media. The game, which is online only, is being delisted because of DDOS and other hacker attacks. The case got so bad that only six players in the world log on. For PC. Rather than fix it, they continued to sell the game, broken as it is, and only now just decided to call it quits. But please, go on thinking what you will.

Ethereal881d ago

I'm aware of the DDOS attacks and that this case is not typical. This game would eventually have it's servers shutdown regardless of the current situation so that is a moot point. My comment was in a general sense and that there are instances in which games can be preserved physically when official support ends.

Let's recap your first sentence. I said, "the way GAMES are going these days" indicating a broader stroke than just this game. I agree, reading IS important. I was simply stating the obvious downsides of the digital marketplaces and online only trends in games these days. I could even make the argument that the online only offering which has allowed hacker manipulation has impacted the preservation of this great game. My comment is valid in the general sense and thank you for your permission to continue to think what I will.