Titanfall Runs at 792p, 60 FPS on Xbox One

[Glaice]

So it's useless for beta users on PC to put the game on 1080p or higher..

 

[Ravage]

Wow, not only can they not run Ghosts @ 60 FPS 1080p, they can't run a SOURCE ENGINE at that rate, hahahahaha. Freaking pathetic. Yep, awesome next gen console Microsoft.


... Freaking SOURCE, LOLOLOL.

I don't know, the Quake engine CoD uses is from '95, that's probably even more pathetic. PS4 can run Ghosts @ 60 FPS 1080p, though the frame rate does drop at times, it's nothing game breaking at least.

 

[lacktheknack]

I don't understand why everyone seems to think that the Xbox One can't run 1080p. Read the last paragraph of the OP, IT CAN.

To everyone saying "My tablet can run 1080p!": Run Titanfall on it and get back to me.

It's an issue of Titanfall being too good for the console, not the console being unable to upscale.

 

[lacktheknack]

the guys at PCGmaer got this baby running at 7680x1440 with their "Large Pixel Collider"

http://www.pcgamer.com/2014/02/14/titanfall-screenshots-maxed-settings-at-7680x1440-on-lpc/


something that bothers me is that, its the source engine, that thing from what i understand runs incredibly well on top of having a fantastic scalability, how can the xbone not run this at 1080p and 60 fps?

It's been heavily modified. It's quite probable that when a team takes a highly respected and tuned-to-perfection ten year old engine from one of the best teams in the business and spends a few months prodding it, they're going to break things.

 

[BarkBarker]

60 Frames, CONSISTENTLY, is all I give a damn about, maybe some detail is lost at 720 as opposed to 1080, but playing a smooth ass game even in a hectic mess is all I desire.

 

[NuclearKangaroo]

the guys at PCGmaer got this baby running at 7680x1440 with their "Large Pixel Collider"

http://www.pcgamer.com/2014/02/14/titanfall-screenshots-maxed-settings-at-7680x1440-on-lpc/


something that bothers me is that, its the source engine, that thing from what i understand runs incredibly well on top of having a fantastic scalability, how can the xbone not run this at 1080p and 60 fps?

It's been heavily modified. It's quite probable that when a team takes a highly respected and tuned-to-perfection ten year old engine from one of the best teams in the business and spends a few months prodding it, they're going to break things.[/quote

probably

i dont see what can be taking so much processing power though, the game looks "meh" in those high res screens

 

[The Lunatic]

It's not an overly pretty game.

The engine isn't very demanding.

Not a very good performance from a "Current Gen" console.

 

[Strazdas]

1440p? Never heard of it. "Nice of you console folks to catch up." Do you realize what an arrogant jerk that makes you sound like? That kind of attitude is what pisses console gamers off about PC gamers. If both sides could stop doing crap like you just did we might all be able to get along for once in our lives.

As for the holo decks I was mostly just joking about that. How can you say holo decks are terrible when they don't even exist. Are you joking when you say brainwave reader or are you serious? In case you haven't noticed I am pretty sure no one in the realm of video games is working on anything even remotely similar to a brainwave reader. Of course the omni track is severely limiting in some cases. Now I'm gonna sound like a jerk here but why don't you try and build a consumer prototype of something like that and have it not be limited. I know I sure as heck can't.

I can't believe this UHD is actually a thing. Can't wait for that come. Now I really will be able to count every blade of grass on the screen because you know that's why I've always wanted. *face palms*

just because you never heard of it does not mean its not popular. I havent heard of Gangnam Style untill it had like 3 billion views on youtube already (its over 11 billion now i hear).
Yes, it does sound like arrogant jerk. What should i ahve said instead? Im terribly sorry your consoles sucked for so long? that wouldnt have sounded any better im afraid. The fact is, PCs have done for two decades what consoles are struggling to do now. It may be hard to swallow, sure, does not mean we should lie to ourselves.

I provided arguments why holodecks, as show in the movies, are terrible. yet you failed to respond to said arguments so i hold my ground of them not working in real life situation for anyone buy people with mansions.
Yes, noone is doing brainwave reader. That is because we only recently did a proof-of-concept protptype where a person was able to move a ball inside a "videogame" with his thoughts. but if were talking holodecs were talking the future right?
I never said i could do better than oculus or that its a bad thing at all. merely that it is very limited in its options of games you can play.

You already can count every blade of grass on your screen, provided you got a PC that can run this level of graphics (costs around 600-700 dollars).

Think of it this way; the best consoles had done is 720p. living room gaming has no other comparrisons unless you have a PC in there, which I don't and I'm assuming not many do judging by some of the comments to Steam Machines.
Now the new consoles are here and a Google search on "1080p next gen consoles" the first 10 results are how next (current) gen is failing to reach 1080p.
So as a console gamer, in the living room, 792p is gonna be ok/good. they've nothing else to compare it to.

Thats my take on it

So your argument is "poor console people have never saw good resolutions so its ok to not give them even standart resolution for paying that much". Sorry, but id rather everyone live better rather than "they never saw better so we can abuse them".

the UHD (UltraHD) that we call 4k is also going to come sooner or later.

You mean the resolution you need more than a 50" screen to even begin to tell the difference? I think that kinda helps the point that we're reaching diminishing returns.

only if your sitting 2 meters from your screen. i for one sit at around half a meter from my screen, at which point UHD is worth it on screens of 20" and higher. Considering that 27" monitors is becoming a standard and for TVs thats closer to 35" and that not everyone has so much space as to sit over 2 meters from their TVs, diminishing returns arent diminishing that fast yet.

I can't wait for PC gamers to swear they can totally tell the difference on a 20 inch screen.

you can if your sitting closer than 0.8 meters to the screen.

Not to mention 20" screens are what you find on laptops, not desktops now.

a quick google search and there aint many PS3 games in 1080p. I'm finding it difficult to find a comprehensive list.

http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=46241 may help. scroll to second post where native resolutions are listed.

I don't understand why everyone seems to think that the Xbox One can't run 1080p. Read the last paragraph of the OP, IT CAN.

To everyone saying "My tablet can run 1080p!": Run Titanfall on it and get back to me.

It's an issue of Titanfall being too good for the console, not the console being unable to upscale.

Yes, it runs 1 game on it! One graphically undemanding racing game whose outside-track mdoels were laughed at for being ridiculously poor quality.

Oh, and btw, Titanfall supposedly can run on 360. Tegra K1 gpus in tables are more powerful than 360. Granted, they only came out this year, but they are catching up fast.

60 Frames, CONSISTENTLY, is all I give a damn about, maybe some detail is lost at 720 as opposed to 1080, but playing a smooth ass game even in a hectic mess is all I desire.

the problem is, people report massive FPS drops when titans are invalved

 

[Insideout Ink Demon]

Think of it this way; the best consoles had done is 720p. living room gaming has no other comparrisons unless you have a PC in there, which I don't and I'm assuming not many do judging by some of the comments to Steam Machines.
Now the new consoles are here and a Google search on "1080p next gen consoles" the first 10 results are how next (current) gen is failing to reach 1080p.
So as a console gamer, in the living room, 792p is gonna be ok/good. they've nothing else to compare it to.

Thats my take on it

So your argument is "poor console people have never saw good resolutions so its ok to not give them even standart resolution for paying that much". Sorry, but id rather everyone live better rather than "they never saw better so we can abuse them".

Personally I research something a lot before dropping that much money in to a purchase.
Ain't like we're depriving the Xbone owners of water here. But anyway, not a "they've never seen better, lets deprive them" more a its all they know, I doubt the majority care. From experience, everytime I try to explain the draw backs of current and last gen, console owners (who are my friends) dont really mind.

I can't wait for PC gamers to swear they can totally tell the difference on a 20 inch screen.

you can if your sitting closer than 0.8 meters to the screen.

exactly, totally agree on this point

a quick google search and there aint many PS3 games in 1080p. I'm finding it difficult to find a comprehensive list.

http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=46241 may help. scroll to second post where native resolutions are listed.

thank you, i'll go look
EDIT: just had a quick look, not many 1080 games, infact, I was really chocked by how many were under 720. and very low AA settings indeed

BTW; out of curiosity, what do you play on?

 

[Zac Jovanovic]

If it were PC I'd much rather take 720p at 60 fps than 1080p at 30, not even a contest. But with a controller the input delay doesn't really matter that much so I can see why PS4 is winning even though I don't think it justifies the massive difference in console sales that could end tragically for us all.

I find it somewhat funny that people report massive FPS drops on consoles when that guy said on twitter that new consoles are twice as powerful as a similar PC (I don't remember who he is but it was reported on Escapist).
I'm in the Titanfall beta on PC and the game runs so perfectly smoothly with pretty much everything maxed out in HD even with 1 GPU disabled (since it completely spazzes out with crossfire enabled). I've never seen it drop under 59 FPS so far.

Seems new generation games are harder to optimize for new consoles than for PCs.

 

[Insideout Ink Demon]

If it were PC I'd much rather take 720p at 60 fps than 1080p at 30, not even a contest.

funny, I'm the other way. I've got to have 1080, willing to let the frame rate drop to 30 and the AA as low as poss if needs be

 

[Zac Jovanovic]

funny, I'm the other way. I've got to have 1080, willing to let the frame rate drop to 30 and the AA as low as poss if needs be

Well, it depends what's being played. An RTS or a non-action MMORPG and similar are perfectly fine. A FPS, Racer and similar games where you directly control your character, not a way in hell.
The small input delay between pressing a key and it happening, and in turning with the mouse feels like someone is slapping their genitals on the back of my head while I'm trying to play. I noticed a lot of people confuse this sensation with seeing the difference in FPS and start pointless arguments.

 

[Snotnarok]

Ehhhh...That's pretty lame considering ...this is the source engine we're talking about, yes modified and tuned up but still akin to Half Life 2, Team Fortress 2, Left 4 Dead 2, Sonic 2, Shinobi 2- may have gotten off track.

But 60 fps is important with games like this, especially when hitscan is involved.

 

[The Lugz]

If you're XB1 exclusive, you don't really care about res, bro. That's selectively bred out of you, bro. 1080p is bad for you, bro.

this isn't an exclusive, I'm in the pc beta right now.. level 14 because that's the beta cap

on pc it looks great and runs absurdly well, considering what's going on so I imagine it will scale down to consoles pretty good, even if it isn't exactly running at 1080.

 

[Insideout Ink Demon]

funny, I'm the other way. I've got to have 1080, willing to let the frame rate drop to 30 and the AA as low as poss if needs be

Well, it depends what's being played. An RTS or a non-action MMORPG and similar are perfectly fine. A FPS, Racer and similar games where you directly control your character, not a way in hell.
The small input delay between pressing a key and it happening, and in turning with the mouse feels like someone is slapping their genitals on the back of my head while I'm trying to play. I noticed a lot of people confuse this sensation with seeing the difference in FPS and start pointless arguments.

I do miss that back of the head slapping sensation

I think a lot of it comes from most my gaming background before the last few years, being console based, so its all improvements to me. pluss I usually just play single player, I'm guessing that super responsiveness is only THAT importanat in multiplayer?

 

[Zac Jovanovic]

I do miss that back of the head slapping sensation

I think a lot of it comes from most my gaming background before the last few years, being console based, so its all improvements to me. pluss I usually just play single player, I'm guessing that super responsiveness is only THAT importanat in multiplayer?

Yeah it's definitely worse in multiplayer, I'm useless in any first person shooter under 45sh FPS, and even at that it starts feeling uncomfortable. But there are single player games too, for example the last Need For Speed. Locked to 30 FPS, it looks great but the control is so sluggish and floaty.. Impossible to enjoy.

I remember that Viking RPG, Heroes of Asgard or something. Didn't know it was locked to 30 fps when I got it, couldn't play it with KB/M. Luckily it had decent controller support so I dealt with it.

 

[Someone Depressing]

Eh. Anything about 1080 hurts my head.

I'm going back to cat videos. They hurt my head but the good outweights the bad.

 

[Strazdas]

Personally I research something a lot before dropping that much money in to a purchase.
Ain't like we're depriving the Xbone owners of water here. But anyway, not a "they've never seen better, lets deprive them" more a its all they know, I doubt the majority care. From experience, everytime I try to explain the draw backs of current and last gen, console owners (who are my friends) dont really mind.

Not everyone researches their purchases thoroughly. Some people, gasp, expect it to work as advertised. You know, the reason we got laws that say advertisements cant lie. Microsoft has been pushing their "superior power, HD TVs online" propaganda all the way till the launch, no wonder some people got tricked.

And people care. If they didnt graphics wouldnt be such a selling point.

EDIT: just had a quick look, not many 1080 games, infact, I was really chocked by how many were under 720. and very low AA settings indeed

Indeed they performed very poorly. Got to remmeber they are 10 year old machines though. Even despite the fact that PCs could do 1080 even earlier. Thing to note is however that at launch Xbox 360 and PS3 were actually more powerful than your regualr high end PC. This is the first generation where even at launch consoles are already obsolete.

BTW; out of curiosity, what do you play on?

Back in 1999 my friend got a PC and showed me a demo for Starcraft. I have been converted into PC master race ever since. My last console was Sega Mega Drive (know to americans who like to rename everything as Sega Genesis). I do have family members and friends who play consoles though and as such i have played on quite a few consoles, even if i dont own one.
I do remmeber when i wanted to get Prototype and a cousin had it on Xbox, it almost made me not to buy the game how horrible it controlled, alas i still got it for PC and enjoyed it.

I find it somewhat funny that people report massive FPS drops on consoles when that guy said on twitter that new consoles are twice as powerful as a similar PC
Seems new generation games are harder to optimize for new consoles than for PCs.

Thats called a lie, welcome to the internet.

Optimization is the same, since they use the same architecture now, well except that APU configuration that is a good idea for a office PC to save up on a GPU, but terrible idea for a gaming platform. the consoles are simply not fast enough to compete even with mid-range PCs.

Elitist PC gamers will disagree otherwise. I might disagree and is all down to preference on a singleplayer game but in multiplayer you need all the performance you can get

Actually the pro PC crowd will go for FPS any day. they turn graphics down as much as possible to get their FPS into hundreds because thats actually beneficial, while graphics are just the pretties. Now, playing non-competitively there is hardly a reason to go above 120 FPS nowadays, especially when easily acessible monitors usually are limited to 144hz, but people who do this for a living value FPS a lot.