Titanfall Runs on an Original Modded Source Engine, Not Source 2.0

Kenneth Shepard writes: "In a Twitter exchange Respawn Community Manager, Abbie Heppe confirmed that Titanfall will run on a modified version of the original Source Engine, and not the recently revealed Source 2.0."

The story is too old to be commented.
Hatsune-Miku1630d ago

It shows in how the game looks

SuperLupe1630d ago

Looks decent graphically, not mindblowing. Just good enough to not be dissapointing.

georgeenoob1630d ago

Exactly. And multiplayer games are all about gameplay, which Titanfall excels at.

adventureghost1241630d ago

You should really stop talking on this website. Everyone knows who you are, and your not fooling anyone but yourself. I can practically guarantee you have never played it before and you are just saying that it automatically excels in it.

Farmassy1630d ago


You are probably right. He probably hasn't played the game... but maybe he is basing his opinion off of ALL of the positive impressions that have been coming in about the game.

It isn't always necessary to try something to know it will be great. I have never given birth before but I am pretty sure it shows some benefit

Septic1630d ago

Pretty impressive considering how old the tech is.

I like how Respawn approached Titanfall. Less focus on visuals for the sake of it and more emphasis on gameplay.

They clearly sat down and thought about how to develop the competitive fps genre further, not slap a generic game with fancy visuals. Substance over style.

hellzsupernova1630d ago

I have always been in the gameplay over graphics side. As long as it doesn't look terrible I'm fine with that. Granted better graphics is a bonus, and helps with the emersion

JokesOnYou1630d ago (Edited 1630d ago )

I'm a graphics lover but it's always been a distant secondary appeal for me. Never underestimate the importance of graphics they can add alot to the believability/overall immersion. That said gameplay is paramount.

Sure the best case scenario would be Titanfall with Ryse quality graphics and down the road plenty of games may achieve both on both platforms but the bottom line is in March 2014 I'd rather play Titanfall that has been praised for gameplay with good graphics vs KZ SF/Ryse that has great/superb graphics but the general consensus is that the gameplay is NOT the highlight/best part of the game.

btw I haven't played KZ SF and Ryse imo was a good game.

erathaol1630d ago

Does this rule out Source Engine Modders having an easy time?


truefan11630d ago

I agree I just want to have fun, can't wait for the beta.

Gamer19821630d ago

Explains why they have had limitations though. As great as the source 1.0 engine is it is a very old engine. They obviously used it as its a free engine and this being there first game couldn't afford something like unreal engine for there game. Plus source engine was made for PC architecture something the new 2 consoles are built on.. Makes me think the 360 versions gonna be terrible though.. It will port nicely to the One though just a shame they are not using the Source 2 engine which has more features and stuff not even heavy modding can accomplish..

+ Show (6) more repliesLast reply 1630d ago
UnHoly_One1630d ago

lol, right.

You are just seeing what you want to see.

Irishguy951630d ago (Edited 1630d ago )

At least they have the balls to admit they are using an old engine while heavily modified, Bethesda said they were using a new engine for Skyrim. Turned out that no...they were still using that piece of ****. I'm surprised how good Titanfall looks considering it's on source.

Also jonboi...Respawn don't belong to EA. Source engine is proven and reliable. Respawn can use what engine they want to use.

Gamer19821630d ago

Indeed and look at Skyrim and mods for examples of how modding anything bogs down resources. Using an up to date engine means less resources. Modding an engine means more resources required. It's why I feel they ended up limiting the game in the end. But being there first game they had to go with an engine that was free in source and also was easy to port to Xbox One from day of starting as it is now basically PC architecture.

Austacker1630d ago


Well I HAVE played the game already mate and can tell you from first hand experience this FPS will blow the doors off anything on the market today.

This game is a system seller and no, I'm not a EA or MS shill. I mostly play Battlefield today, but once Titanfall arrives, I'm porting across.

There's nothing like it out there now and it plays *incredible*

This game will sell like hotcakes. I'm already pre-ordered & pre-paid, on a simple 30 gameplay experience I've already had.

Prepare for greatness - in Titanfall!!!

Mikeyy1630d ago

Instead of writing all that fluff why don't you tell us WHY its "revolutionary"? Site specific examples if you can please. You all keep saying its amazing yet all the leaked footage just shows us a cod clone??

Austacker1630d ago


The dynamics of the gaming environment, the balance between the Titans and the Pilots, the AI inclusion on the battlefield, the Pilot mobility.

It's honestly fairly difficult to put into words an experience like this one, but it's a classic light bulb moment once you try it.

There's a public beta in a couple weeks. A lot of answers for those who haven't had hands on yet will be offered then.

But trust me when I say when you play this, you'll have a very hard time going back to your current crop of FPS options out there today.

jgrigs091630d ago

@Mikeyy how is it a COD clone? Does that mean all FPS are clones?

Gamer19821630d ago

If its that good then PC has the winner not Xbox One as PC is the place to play titanfall. I can build a PC for less than an Xbox one that will run it at 1080p.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 1630d ago
1630d ago
+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 1630d ago
jonboi241630d ago

I wonder why they used the Source engine instead the Frostbite 3 engine, it's pretty much being used for all of EA non-sport games. Its definitely a more powerful engine.

SuperLupe1630d ago

I dont know, maybe time ? I guess Frostbite would have had them launching the game 6 months later who knows.

theWB271630d ago

Manpower and time. Source is alot more familiar, quicker to develop for and Respawn isn't a big team. Simple as that.

Dlacy13g1630d ago

Frostbite is an EA developer engine for internal studios. Respawn is not an EA internal studio, they merely made an agreement with EA to publish their game as part of the EA Partners program.

andrewsqual1630d ago (Edited 1630d ago )

It was something to do with it being good for PS3 earlier in development. Also Valve proved it was an incredible engine for use with PS3 because you can play with PC players in Co-Op on Portal 2. Holy crap, better pay to keep this game off Playstation platforms forever Microsoft, or it will look bad if the PS3 version has more features than the Xbone while outputting at the EXACT same resolution.


What a Fanboyish comment lol, OMG Source was built on OpenGL so it's will preforms better on PS3 than X1... Yeah... sure it would XD

Lilrizky1630d ago

They possibly wanted different tech to have a different overall look, feel and style to the Battlefield series. If you look at Medal of Honor, it has a similar visual style and feel to BF even though it is nowhere near as good as it.


it was in development before FB3 was EA's flagship engine.

Anonagrog1630d ago

Frostbite can't be licensed by external developers - it's for EA internal studios only.

Hellsvacancy1630d ago

MS wanted it to be made quickly and as cheap as possible

N2NOther1629d ago

Because Respawn isn't owned by EA, and they are simply publishing. Using Frostbite means they would have to license it. Sure, the licensed Source, but it probably made more long-term financial sense for the upstart.

+ Show (6) more repliesLast reply 1629d ago
SilentSolid1630d ago

Good engine. But a bit outdated.

Hicken1630d ago

A bit? Isn't Source older than the 360?

SilentSolid1630d ago

It's old ye. But source engine is great for competitive shooters. So I don't blame them for using it.

RevXM1630d ago

Still not as old as that COD quake engine tho.

Anonagrog1630d ago

Not if you have access to the code, though, and modify it how you choose fit.

Duke191630d ago

Surprised its able to look as good as it does, knowing that its based off the good yet very dated Source Engine.

Wizard_King1630d ago

The Source engine is modular in design and is in a state now that is nearly completely different to the Source engine that was around when TF2 or Portal arrived and that was very different to the Source engine that HL2 was launched on.

Source engine 2.0 will just be the same modular engine with better aspects added into it.

Valve has been very smart with the Source engine allowing it to improve and evolve over time, something other developers are just now figuring out how to do *cough* DICE, Frosbite 3 *cough*.

The Source Engine has a very long and bright future ahead of it.

thezeldadoth1630d ago

portal 2 still looks amazing and much more pleasing to the eyes than most games

Anonagrog1630d ago (Edited 1630d ago )

I don't know why you'd be surprised when they have complete access to the code-base to change whatever parts they have to.

lonewolfjedi1630d ago

Can't wait to find out the PC minimum specs for this game and the resolution on xbox one.

kiz26941630d ago

Me to but I thought it was confirmed to be 720p unscaled to 1080p on X1. If the game is running on source does that mean the PC requirements might be quite low, for such a optimized and don't mean in a bad way old engine.

Wizard_King1630d ago

maxed on an 8800GTX with 512mb of GDDR3 of RAM from all the way back in 2006...

MRMagoo1231630d ago

pretty much any newish laptop will be able to play it, and i am pretty sure it will run fine on any desktop pc with dedicated graphics card.

Show all comments (64)
The story is too old to be commented.