Titanfall Beta runs at native ’792p’ resolution on Xbox One, may increase with final build
Pretty much what I expected (well..720p tbh). I doubt it'll increase in the final build though considering the short time till launch.
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.
Same here. Everyone who spoke with me also said the same about the alpha build
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.
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.
@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
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?
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.
@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.
792P, doesnt hold a constant 60 fps and looks very average in the graphics department, wow is all i can say.
http://i7.minus.com/i8sAbmM... how can a game like this not achieve 1080p is beyond me.
OK.... better stick with the pc then. NEXT GEN yeah right 792p?
Not to mention the frame rate isn't locked at 60fps. http://www.eurogamer.net/ar...
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.
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.
Regardless of how it looks I'm still excited to play it. Microsoft better have put their marbles in the right basket.
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.
Dang hottest game on n4g with 51560, Infamous only 31000! XB1 is killing it, great system with the best games!
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.
LOL This is right after this: "Microsoft: eSRAM Being Too Small For 1080p Output Is "Clearly Not The Case" Yeah right, Microsoft!
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.
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.
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.
@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,..
@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.
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-$500 should meet expectations, or "deliver the goods," your argument is moot. Your "expectations" mean nothing. The only scenario where an argument like this would hold merit, is if a company promised 1080p visuals on all games, thus giving something to base expectations on, and then failed to deliver - but that never happened... instead, we got a bunch of gamers who base their ideas of what is "acceptable" or not, on arbitrary requirements and personal opinions.
@horse you try to change the arguement to seem like its just about which is best looking. People chose consoles for plenty of reasons even though they know expesive pcs might look better. No one is saying omg i want it in 4k. Its ok that its not the best looking game ever but when you buy a new 500$ 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.
@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.
You play games or resolution? It's about content not always about resolution lol.
"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..
"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.
Horse, no offence, but you just waffle complete jibberish, what are you rambling on about? America: Land of the ignorant, home of the gullible.
@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.
@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.
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
Since it's an FPS I'm getting the PC version anyway. Gonna get all the p's I want
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.
And probably 100+fps, damn the Xbone is a weak machine as it runs CODBOT at 792p and can't maintain a locked 60fps.
792p? Lol never heard of that. I agree its unlikely to increase. In which I'm perfectly fine with.
They are supposedly aiming for 900p better then 792p i guess lol
Yeah its got to gold soon
@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.
He never gets tired of being wrong lol
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.
@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.
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
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... -_-
You mad bro?
@GutznPaperCutz Shhh keep quite. Your using logic fanboys don't understand that.
Didn't major Nelson just confirmed today that it was delayed?
Pretty sad stuff here...
Yes.. delayed until later this week.. Hardly worth worrying about
Wow this kid is hella mad.
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.
oh man. i was thinking theres no way it would run under 900p on the xb1. isn't it 720p on the 360?
It will prolly be around 1024p by [email protected] or something like any of the cod that never reached 720p.
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...
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.
Not surprised it can only manage 720p. Plus no destructible environment. This game is just an OK new IP. Nothing amazing here.
Gonna run 1440p on my machine. :)
LMAO!! XBONE IS A WASTE OF FINANCES
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.
Maybe the extra 8% without Kinect got them to bump up that massive increase in resolution from 720p.
The overall aim is for 900p, upscaled to 1080p on the xbox one.
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.
@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.)
LOL Buy it for PC..
But 60 FPS?