Titanfall Xbox 360 Runs Above 30fps - Update

Titanfall Xbox 360 Runs Above 30fps - Update

Bluepoint Games has given an update on the Xbox 360 version of Titanfall, stating it will run "above 30fps," and that it is the "true experience."

Update: For those curious, you can now see how the Xbox 360 version of Titanfall will look and play courtesy of EliteXbox360Gaming.

Thoughts on how the game looks, everyone?

Source: EliteXbox360Gaming via Kotaku

Original Story:

While Xbox One and PC gamers might already be enjoying Respawn Entertainment's debut shooter Titanfall, the same can't be said for Xbox 360 users. If you didn't know, the Xbox 360 version of Titanfall is not being handled by Respawn themselves, but by Bluepoint Games (God of War Collection, Metal Gear Solid HD Collection). Over on the official Titanfall site, senior producer Daryl Allison has given a status update on the futuristic shooter and has confirmed a few bits of info. Namely, that the port will run at above 30fps (frames-per-second), and that it will include everything offered in the Xbox One and PC versions.

Titanfall on the Xbox 360 is the true experience: all the maps, modes, pilots, titans, weapons, burn cards, you name it, found in the Xbox One and PC versions. The game looks great, sounds great, and above all it plays great. There are of course some differences that are due to the technical limitations of the hardware - for example, the game runs above 30fps - but the experts at Respawn worked with us to ensure that all the intense, 6v6 wall-running, titan-dropping action is there.

Truth be told, it would have been foolish to expect that the Xbox 360 version of Titanfall would be able to run even remotely close to its next-gen and PC cousins. But hopefully, the core gameplay remains fun since that should be the most important thing.

While the Xbox 360 version of Titanfall won't be out until Aprili 8, you can check The Escapist's review of the mech-shooter where it scores an impressive four out of five stars, and is labeled "a solid shooter with a laudable amount of unique extras draped over a durable and familiar framework."

Source: Titanfall

Permalink

I just want to say, I fecking called it!

There was no reason I could think of for delaying the 360 version by a couple of weeks unless they (EA/Microsoft) knew it would clobber any hype surrounding the Xbone version.

Xbox 360, more than 30fps
Xbone, less than 60fps

I wonder how far apart they'll be once actually measured.

Okay...

This makes absolutely no mention on anything the Xbox One's promises of what it could apparently only offer that anything else couldn't (like the AI enemies that were apparently part if said "true parts of the experience"). That is, bar none, actually more important than making mention of its fps or it's burn cards or it's mech combat. No, most of the Xbox Ones hype with this game was pushed upon "Dat Cloud!" And this says nothing about whetherw said mechanics are truly included - instead going for a painfully vague inclusion of it.

Which means one of two things.
1) like Sim City's recent release, it was a painfully obvious lie meant to both hype the game up while covering up gods know how many anti pirate and anti player mechanics put into the game.
Or
2) it isn't in this game, at which point it's like Mass Effect 3 or Aliens: Colonial Marines, in which case it doesn't even exist within the game at all, or at nearly the same level as what was promised, and thus made solely to hype and falsely advertise the game.

This is so frigging weasely. So what, it runs as 31 FPS? It clearly doesn't run at 60 FPS or they'd have said so and anything between 30 and 60 doesn't actually matter much because of the way refresh rates work

Man, I really hope that this is good for the 360. I have zero plans to buy a Xbox One in the near future (or in the future period but that can always change if Microsoft makes a few changes) but I am getting so freaking sick of Call of Duty that I want something to have my CoD friends latch onto so I can finally abandon it w/o abandoning my friends.

Graphics, FPS, how many gigaplats does it googlyfly; none of the technical stuff matters to me at all as long as the game itself is excellent.

tippy2k2:
Man, I really hope that this is good for the 360. I have zero plans to buy a Xbox One in the near future (or in the future period but that can always change if Microsoft makes a few changes) but I am getting so freaking sick of Call of Duty that I want something to have my CoD friends latch onto so I can finally abandon it w/o abandoning my friends.

Graphics, FPS, how many gigaplats does it googlyfly; none of the technical stuff matters to me at all as long as the game itself is excellent.

Yeah, I'm relieved to hear they don't plan on cutting too much from the 360 version. Especially as I can't stop listening to this.

Well it's the Source Engine, I'd be surprised if they couldn't get it to run on the 360. Although notice how it doesn't say the resolution, which makes me think it'll run at 720 or maybe even sub-720 at 30fps.

I should hope they'd be able to get it to run at at least 30 fps, considering they've almost certainly had to tone down the textures, the resolution, as well as any anti-ailiasing. That's a pretty low bar they've set for themselves.

Well, 30FPS is like the bare minimum passing grade for gaming, so, yeah, you'd kinda hope it'd be able to do that.

Phrozenflame500:
Well it's the Source Engine, I'd be surprised if they couldn't get it to run on the 360. Although notice how it doesn't say the resolution, which makes me think it'll run at 720 or maybe even sub-720 at 30fps.

More likely it will have cut down textures, AA and particles versus the Xbox One version. Battlefield 3/4 run at 1280 x 704 and they're both much more complicated than Titanfall (which has fixed level geometry), I wouldn't expect Titanfall to be anything else than 720p on 360, which is why the Xbone version is so specifically 792p.

Titanfall isn't CPU intensive at all, for all the marketing bluster the AI bots aren't much different than Call of Duty's faceless goons, they navigate to a point, fire for a bit, then navigate to the next point until someone kills them. It only becomes RAM heavy on the PC when you use the higher or highest res textures too, so I bet the 360 version is great.

30 FPS for a shooter that's meant to be so fast pace and centered around smooth movement is pretty terrible. They should have just dropped those pointless fucking 'AI' and lowered the resolution significantly to retain an acceptable frame rate.
If Brink felt awful at 30 FPS, I can't even imagine how bad it will be for Titanfall.

Westaway:
30 FPS for a shooter that's meant to be so fast pace and centered around smooth movement is pretty terrible. They should have just dropped those pointless fucking 'AI' and lowered the resolution significantly to retain an acceptable frame rate.
If Brink felt awful at 30 FPS, I can't even imagine how bad it will be for Titanfall.

The AI is half the point for the game modes, it's how you can out score the enemy in attrition and they can act as cover for pilots if they're hidden in a group. It's part of why the game is different and interesting, it does more than just sit there, it's something that has to be played with to get I think.
Also the AI isn't handled by the hardware, they're handled by by the servers.

OT: I've been curious how it will be, well I still am since we've yet to see it run and it's by a different dev team. It's likely they could get it running by lowering the amount of textures going per level and what not as they just seem to have a LOT of that going. The game on highest texture settings demands over 3GB of video ram.

Snotnarok:

The AI is half the point for the game modes, it's how you can out score the enemy in attrition and they can act as cover for pilots if they're hidden in a group. It's part of why the game is different and interesting, it does more than just sit there, it's something that has to be played with to get I think.
Also the AI isn't handled by the hardware, they're handled by by the servers.

No, they're pretty much there only to make bad players feel like they've accomplished something. The excuses of either "they're there to score points" or "they're there to get your Titan faster" hold absolutely no water because the maximum points to win or call in your Titan could just be lowered to compensate. After playing for a couple hours on my friend's PC I can safely say the only thing they did of note was waste my ammo and slightly frustrate me.

It runs at 60 FPS for the most part, but it goes down at times depending on the map and how much action there is (which kinda seems a bit worse than being locked at 30 to me, but a lot of people will be happy with it). And it looks pretty good, too. Not as high fidelity as the PC version, but the lower res textures and lighting effects don't really detract from the overall aesthetic. A really good job of optimizing the engine, I'd say.

Also, could you please stop believing the bullshit regarding the AI? It is NOT handled by the cloud because there is no NEED for it to be handled by the cloud (yes, it's the same bullshit as SimCity 2013). AI computations in a game like this use basically no resources (there's even a great article on the Escapist about it, give it a read). Not to mention that the AI in the game is pretty basic. There is nothing special about it. It is NOT the point of the game. The AI creeps are just there to give you something to shoot and make the game feel more intense (and it works, too)

In fact, pretty much any game that boasts "next-gen AI" is lying. Sure, AI could be much better, but it's not a matter of processing power at this point (and it hasn't been for many years) unless we're talking about REALLY large numbers of AI controlled entities (I'm talking in the hundreds and thousands, not dozens)

on the Xbox 360 .<...> The game looks great<...>

sorry, the two are not compatible. Chose one.

fix-the-spade:
I just want to say, I fecking called it!

There was no reason I could think of for delaying the 360 version by a couple of weeks unless they (EA/Microsoft) knew it would clobber any hype surrounding the Xbone version.

Xbox 360, more than 30fps
Xbone, less than 60fps

I wonder how far apart they'll be once actually measured.

see, it probably means above 30 fps the same way it meant 60 FPS for Xbone. that is, in the menu it will do more than 30 fps, less everywhere.
but yeah, in reality its probably just going to have its graphics gutted completely and the bot AI turned mindless since it does not have enough RAM for AI. Also very likely generated in 480p or 572p at best.

Then again, making a game run on Eggsbox 3.60 at all is impressive enough.

BrotherRool:
This is so frigging weasely. So what, it runs as 31 FPS? It clearly doesn't run at 60 FPS or they'd have said so and anything between 30 and 60 doesn't actually matter much because of the way refresh rates work

considering their latest demo for tech was hardcapped at 32 FPS.....

tippy2k2:

Graphics, FPS, how many gigaplats does it googlyfly; none of the technical stuff matters to me at all as long as the game itself is excellent.

this statement directly contradicts itself.

Westaway:

Snotnarok:

The AI is half the point for the game modes, it's how you can out score the enemy in attrition and they can act as cover for pilots if they're hidden in a group. It's part of why the game is different and interesting, it does more than just sit there, it's something that has to be played with to get I think.
Also the AI isn't handled by the hardware, they're handled by by the servers.

No, they're pretty much there only to make bad players feel like they've accomplished something. The excuses of either "they're there to score points" or "they're there to get your Titan faster" hold absolutely no water because the maximum points to win or call in your Titan could just be lowered to compensate. After playing for a couple hours on my friend's PC I can safely say the only thing they did of note was waste my ammo and slightly frustrate me.

Well you didn't play long enough then, troops at a distance can be mistaken for pilots, pilots can hang around them and blend in, they can kill you if you're clumbsy enough with 1 kick if you're injured and if someone goes for just them they can out score you, they are able to do damage to your titans if you're not keeping aware of them. Yes they're dumb but when they do manage to get something off like a kick or that last hit that dooms your titan you curse them like you would any player. Hacking specters can have a squad of them barraging an enemy titan with rockets which is nice.

It's something new, there's other modes where they're less important to scoring but it's not something to be just tossed aside because it's not like other shooters, that's what makes them interesting.

Just for bad players? No, I've seen good players turn them into your team losing because they can murder them quickly, quietly then you for following them. It's different, and that's fun.

Strazdas:
and the bot AI turned mindless since it does not have enough RAM for AI. Also very likely generated in 480p or 572p at best.

The AI are dumb as rocks anyway. Titanfall is not a big or complicated game, the PC version of the game ('insane' textures and all) takes up 14GB of hard disc space. The remaining 34GB of install is taken up by Respawn copy pasting the game's entire audio library in completely uncompressed files for every single language the game is published in. Regards GPU usage, turn the textures down to medium and it uses less than 400mb of VRAM most of the time, turn them to 'insane' and it the usage at 3GB, so nobody knows how much it really needs.

AI in FPS games is neither RAM nor CPU heavy and hasn't been for decades now (unless you're playing ARMA with 500+ units in play), it won't be an issue for the 360, it's texture resolutions and post processing effects that need lots of RAM.

Strazdas:

tippy2k2:

Graphics, FPS, how many gigaplats does it googlyfly; none of the technical stuff matters to me at all as long as the game itself is excellent.

this statement directly contradicts itself.

How so?

If the game runs (I suppose I didn't say that but I assumed a working video game was implied) and if the game is fun are my only requirements. How does that contradict itself?

fix-the-spade:

Strazdas:
and the bot AI turned mindless since it does not have enough RAM for AI. Also very likely generated in 480p or 572p at best.

The AI are dumb as rocks anyway. Titanfall is not a big or complicated game, the PC version of the game ('insane' textures and all) takes up 14GB of hard disc space. The remaining 34GB of install is taken up by Respawn copy pasting the game's entire audio library in completely uncompressed files for every single language the game is published in. Regards GPU usage, turn the textures down to medium and it uses less than 400mb of VRAM most of the time, turn them to 'insane' and it the usage at 3GB, so nobody knows how much it really needs.

AI in FPS games is neither RAM nor CPU heavy and hasn't been for decades now (unless you're playing ARMA with 500+ units in play), it won't be an issue for the 360, it's texture resolutions and post processing effects that need lots of RAM.

I am aware that the AI is not very complicated in graphics requirements. Its a poor looking game after all. ANd im well aware of the 34 GB of audio, in fact you probably remmeber me posting in that thread. That however says nothing about games complexity or AI. They do not take much space on your hard drive or video card load, yet it can ask for a lot of resources, ones that we usually dont pay much attention to, such as regular RAM size, bus speeds, cache reaction times. That is, if you got good AI. The main reason cited for AI not improving on old consoles are actually lack of RAM. when a single unit can be dumb and take 5 mb of ram or smart and take 50 mb of ram its important when your total is merely 512 mb.

AI in FPS has been dumb for decades, and you can thank console limited hardware for that. however on machines as outdated as 360 - anything is important. things we take for granted on computers that dont bother us such as uncompressing 1000 sound files at once wont even make us feel the CPU need, meanwhile on eggsbox your going to lagspike. thats how bad the hardware on consoles is.

Texture resolution and effects take videoram. i was talking about regular ram.

tippy2k2:

Strazdas:

tippy2k2:

Graphics, FPS, how many gigaplats does it googlyfly; none of the technical stuff matters to me at all as long as the game itself is excellent.

this statement directly contradicts itself.

How so?

If the game runs (I suppose I didn't say that but I assumed a working video game was implied) and if the game is fun are my only requirements. How does that contradict itself?

Simple. Lets say your FPS is low. Game becomes unplayable when all you see is a slideshow.
Another example, lets say the resolution is so low you cant read the objective. once again game becomes unplayable.
And even if its playable, its far from exellent. exellent is a very high bar that you set for it. and that means its great on all deparments, graphic fidelity included.

Westaway:

No, they're pretty much there only to make bad players feel like they've accomplished something. The excuses of either "they're there to score points" or "they're there to get your Titan faster" hold absolutely no water because the maximum points to win or call in your Titan could just be lowered to compensate. After playing for a couple hours on my friend's PC I can safely say the only thing they did of note was waste my ammo and slightly frustrate me.

Sounds like you're easily frustrated in that case. I think they're a clever little addition that adds to the energy of the game online.

looks ugly as a sin

Speaking as a console peasant - anybody here have any hands on experience with the 360 version yet? I definitely want to play this game, but I'm not about to shell out for an Xbox One... not yet anyway.

Strazdas:

tippy2k2:

Strazdas:

this statement directly contradicts itself.

How so?

If the game runs (I suppose I didn't say that but I assumed a working video game was implied) and if the game is fun are my only requirements. How does that contradict itself?

Simple. Lets say your FPS is low. Game becomes unplayable when all you see is a slideshow.
Another example, lets say the resolution is so low you cant read the objective. once again game becomes unplayable.
And even if its playable, its far from exellent. exellent is a very high bar that you set for it. and that means its great on all deparments, graphic fidelity included.

"Excellent" is also a very relative term. In tippy's case, I'd imagine "excellent" means "so long as I enjoy the game and have fun with it, regardless of its technical specs".

Or are you saying that you get to determine what games tippy enjoys? In his original post, he quite clearly said that he doesn't care about what the tech specs are...so why are you throwing tech spec examples at him for reasons he shouldn't like the game? If he turns on his 360, the game runs, and he enjoys himself with it, that's all that matters to him. Not every gamer cares about FPS and Resolution.

Snotnarok:

Well you didn't play long enough then, troops at a distance can be mistaken for pilots, pilots can hang around them and blend in, they can kill you if you're clumbsy enough with 1 kick if you're injured and if someone goes for just them they can out score you, they are able to do damage to your titans if you're not keeping aware of them. Yes they're dumb but when they do manage to get something off like a kick or that last hit that dooms your titan you curse them like you would any player. Hacking specters can have a squad of them barraging an enemy titan with rockets which is nice.

It's something new, there's other modes where they're less important to scoring but it's not something to be just tossed aside because it's not like other shooters, that's what makes them interesting.

Just for bad players? No, I've seen good players turn them into your team losing because they can murder them quickly, quietly then you for following them. It's different, and that's fun.

And not only that, but The Icepick Strategy is a real powerhouse within the game.

A lot of people dismiss it or underestimate it since there's this prevailing idea that the Grunts and Spectres are "pointless", but using the Icepick kit to hack every Spectre you come across can yield an absolutely immense power swing in a match. Not only can you use them as a shield to absorb damage or provide multiple targets (especially if you have the Spectre Camo burn card), but they also act as extra sets of eyes, giving you increased vision on your mini-map.

I mean, hell, I've already had my li'l army of Spectres jump-kick Pilots to death that were hunting me. They're a boon in a Titan fight as they relentlessly launch rockets at your target. They've even doomed/killed Titans that I wasn't actually fighting at the time.

The fact that they stay allied with you even after you've been killed and are very good at quickly pathing around the map to get to your location, no matter what you're doing, just makes them all the better.

The complaints people keep making about the uselessness of the non-pilot combatants is about as idiotic as the complaints about the Smart Pistol being "cheap", "overpowered", or "noob-friendly".

If you're honestly saying these things then you've no idea what you're talking about. It's the equivalent of saying the UMP is the most powerful weapon in Counter-Strike and that planting the bomb or rescuing the hostages is a useless tactic.

Wow... Judging from that video, the 360 version, while the textures obviously took a downgrade (they weren't that great to begin with), it honestly doesn't look that bad, I'm more impressed that the 360 is still capable of such feats than the so called "next gen" consoles.

RJ 17:
"Excellent" is also a very relative term. In tippy's case, I'd imagine "excellent" means "so long as I enjoy the game and have fun with it, regardless of its technical specs".

Or are you saying that you get to determine what games tippy enjoys? In his original post, he quite clearly said that he doesn't care about what the tech specs are...so why are you throwing tech spec examples at him for reasons he shouldn't like the game? If he turns on his 360, the game runs, and he enjoys himself with it, that's all that matters to him. Not every gamer cares about FPS and Resolution.

Since we don't actually get one of these on here, you get one of these manually

image

That is exactly it. I was kind of baffled seeing that responding post when I got to work this morning and was prepared to respond back until you basically summed it up for me already. I specifically stated that excellent to me does not have to include being the most perfect graphical work in the history of mankind (again, assuming the game actually works which again, I felt should have not needed saying) and the response is...it can't be excellent if it isn't the most perfect graphical work in mankind.

Good graphics are nice but they are not my priority. Is Titanfall fun? Does it function (since I have to put that in evidently)? Then I am a happy camper no matter how low the jillywaffles and megatrums and other technical jargon is.

EDIT: Just watched the video. Looks fine to me. Now to wait for the reviews to make sure looks are not deceiving and then I have some political finessing to do to get my CoD buddies on board...

RJ 17:
"Excellent" is also a very relative term. In tippy's case, I'd imagine "excellent" means "so long as I enjoy the game and have fun with it, regardless of its technical specs".

Or are you saying that you get to determine what games tippy enjoys? In his original post, he quite clearly said that he doesn't care about what the tech specs are...so why are you throwing tech spec examples at him for reasons he shouldn't like the game? If he turns on his 360, the game runs, and he enjoys himself with it, that's all that matters to him. Not every gamer cares about FPS and Resolution.

No. if you want to go for semantics,
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/excellent
1.
possessing outstanding quality or superior merit; remarkably good.
2.
Archaic. extraordinary; superior.

so no, "i enjoy it" is not something you can call excellent.

i use tech spec examples to show that his statement about him not caring about tech specs and only about game being excellent is a contradiction, because by expecting game to be excellent he automatically cares about tech specs.

Strazdas:

RJ 17:
"Excellent" is also a very relative term. In tippy's case, I'd imagine "excellent" means "so long as I enjoy the game and have fun with it, regardless of its technical specs".

Or are you saying that you get to determine what games tippy enjoys? In his original post, he quite clearly said that he doesn't care about what the tech specs are...so why are you throwing tech spec examples at him for reasons he shouldn't like the game? If he turns on his 360, the game runs, and he enjoys himself with it, that's all that matters to him. Not every gamer cares about FPS and Resolution.

No. if you want to go for semantics,
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/excellent
1.
possessing outstanding quality or superior merit; remarkably good.
2.
Archaic. extraordinary; superior.

so no, "i enjoy it" is not something you can call excellent.

i use tech spec examples to show that his statement about him not caring about tech specs and only about game being excellent is a contradiction, because by expecting game to be excellent he automatically cares about tech specs.

As a matter of fact, no, neither I nor tippy wanted to go into semantics. You can disagree with tippy's definition of "excellent" all you want, but that still won't affect whether or not he considers the game "excellent" as he's already given what his definition of "excellent" in this context is. Not everyone is a stickler for using the exact literal definition of every word as you seem to be.

RJ 17:
As a matter of fact, no, neither I nor tippy wanted to go into semantics. You can disagree with tippy's definition of "excellent" all you want, but that still won't affect whether or not he considers the game "excellent" as he's already given what his definition of "excellent" in this context is. Not everyone is a stickler for using the exact literal definition of every word as you seem to be.

Well, yes, me arguing may or may not affect his opinion and what he thinks is excellent. Does not mean he is right though. If you are using word incorrectly then you are using it incorrectly. making up definitions that you like better is a terrible way to do conversation (and thats what we do here on this forum). if everyone made up their own definition we would not be able to understand eachother.

Strazdas:

RJ 17:
As a matter of fact, no, neither I nor tippy wanted to go into semantics. You can disagree with tippy's definition of "excellent" all you want, but that still won't affect whether or not he considers the game "excellent" as he's already given what his definition of "excellent" in this context is. Not everyone is a stickler for using the exact literal definition of every word as you seem to be.

Well, yes, me arguing may or may not affect his opinion and what he thinks is excellent. Does not mean he is right though. If you are using word incorrectly then you are using it incorrectly. making up definitions that you like better is a terrible way to do conversation (and thats what we do here on this forum). if everyone made up their own definition we would not be able to understand eachother.

Verywell, since you insist on calling someone wrong for simply using the common-use definition (languages evolve, you know) of an adjective to describe his opinion, lets go back to the definition you presented:

"possessing outstanding quality" Well quality can be easily defined, and indeed you'd be arguing from a standpoint that Titanfall is of poor quality.
"or superior merit" doesn't really apply in this case, however it could support your notion regarding poor technicals = bad merit.

But what's that little tag-on at the end there, kinda separated off by itself as though it were its own possible definition? "Remarkably Good". Who gets to determine what's "remarkably good"? Seems pretty relative, if you ask me. I'd imagine the basis for something being "remarkably good" would vary from person to person. In tippy's case, "remarkably good" would mean "I really have fun playing the game."

Happy now? Even by your own semantics and definition provided, tippy was using the word "excellent" correctly.

Strazdas:
No. if you want to go for semantics,
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/excellent
1.
possessing outstanding quality or superior merit; remarkably good.
2.
Archaic. extraordinary; superior.

so no, "i enjoy it" is not something you can call excellent.

i use tech spec examples to show that his statement about him not caring about tech specs and only about game being excellent is a contradiction, because by expecting game to be excellent he automatically cares about tech specs.

Remarkably good. Well those graphics to me look "remarkably good" so I suppose I'm still going with excellent.

But you know what? For whatever reason, the semantics of the meaning of the word "excellent" is the only thing you seem to care about in this situation. Arguing semantics is the biggest waste of time so here you go:

After seeing that Futurama clip, you have now converted me. So just for you, I hope that the GAMEPLAY is EXCELLENT and that the graphics are good enough that I get a functioning video game out of the deal because I still don't give a flying fuck if the graphics are top of the line.

Have I pleased you or is this still giving the game too much credit? It seems I need your permission to call something good so please, oh wise internet guru, tell me if that is "technically" correct or if I need to change what I'm saying again?

With this new knowledge in hand, I shall go forth and spread the word! "Super Mario Brothers" cannot be excellent brothers for the graphics are not excellent enough! "Chrono Trigger" cannot be excellent sisters for the graphics are not excellent enough! "Half Life" cannot be excellent children for the graphics are not excellent enough! Go forth and preach the word everyone for games that are not the best graphics cannot be considered "excellent"! All hail "Heavy Rain"!

Vigormortis:

Snotnarok:

Well you didn't play long enough then, troops at a distance can be mistaken for pilots, pilots can hang around them and blend in, they can kill you if you're clumbsy enough with 1 kick if you're injured and if someone goes for just them they can out score you, they are able to do damage to your titans if you're not keeping aware of them. Yes they're dumb but when they do manage to get something off like a kick or that last hit that dooms your titan you curse them like you would any player. Hacking specters can have a squad of them barraging an enemy titan with rockets which is nice.

It's something new, there's other modes where they're less important to scoring but it's not something to be just tossed aside because it's not like other shooters, that's what makes them interesting.

Just for bad players? No, I've seen good players turn them into your team losing because they can murder them quickly, quietly then you for following them. It's different, and that's fun.

And not only that, but The Icepick Strategy is a real powerhouse within the game.

A lot of people dismiss it or underestimate it since there's this prevailing idea that the Grunts and Spectres are "pointless", but using the Icepick kit to hack every Spectre you come across can yield an absolutely immense power swing in a match. Not only can you use them as a shield to absorb damage or provide multiple targets (especially if you have the Spectre Camo burn card), but they also act as extra sets of eyes, giving you increased vision on your mini-map.

I mean, hell, I've already had my li'l army of Spectres jump-kick Pilots to death that were hunting me. They're a boon in a Titan fight as they relentlessly launch rockets at your target. They've even doomed/killed Titans that I wasn't actually fighting at the time.

The fact that they stay allied with you even after you've been killed and are very good at quickly pathing around the map to get to your location, no matter what you're doing, just makes them all the better.

The complaints people keep making about the uselessness of the non-pilot combatants is about as idiotic as the complaints about the Smart Pistol being "cheap", "overpowered", or "noob-friendly".

If you're honestly saying these things then you've no idea what you're talking about. It's the equivalent of saying the UMP is the most powerful weapon in Counter-Strike and that planting the bomb or rescuing the hostages is a useless tactic.

Yeah I'm not sure why everyone is crying foul with the bots. No bots! We want modes with no titans!
Do you people WANT something new in your game or not? All of these features make for something cool and interesting when rolled up into a game.

I had NO CLUE how awesome this game was going to be, I was offput by it since Section 8 did a lot this game did (you know when you're talking about it and not actually seeing it), I was like eh Section 8 has bigger maps, you can call in more than a giant robot, what does this game have that Section 8 doesn't? Tried the demo, brain exploded.

I never hacked that many specters, I did have a pretty big group that was helping me fight another titan, it was really awesome since when I couldn't hit the guy, they did keeping his shields down so I had the time to reload and then yank the guy out of his mech.

Oh, side note- if you're playing this on PC and have any interest in Left 4 Dead 2, there's a mod to play with the Titanfall carbine, took long eh?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but A.) Isn't the XBone/PC version able to run at 60 FPS B.) Isn't the 360 able to handle 60 FPS with no problem (as seen in the Modern Warfare games)?

Snotnarok:

Yeah I'm not sure why everyone is crying foul with the bots. No bots! We want modes with no titans!
Do you people WANT something new in your game or not? All of these features make for something cool and interesting when rolled up into a game.

I had NO CLUE how awesome this game was going to be, I was offput by it since Section 8 did a lot this game did (you know when you're talking about it and not actually seeing it), I was like eh Section 8 has bigger maps, you can call in more than a giant robot, what does this game have that Section 8 doesn't? Tried the demo, brain exploded.

I never hacked that many specters, I did have a pretty big group that was helping me fight another titan, it was really awesome since when I couldn't hit the guy, they did keeping his shields down so I had the time to reload and then yank the guy out of his mech.

Oh, side note- if you're playing this on PC and have any interest in Left 4 Dead 2, there's a mod to play with the Titanfall carbine, took long eh?

I primarily play three games online now.

> Titanfall
> Dota 2
> Left 4 Dead 2

So thanks for the heads-up! I'll check out the Workshop next time I have a chance.

RJ 17:
Verywell, since you insist on calling someone wrong for simply using the common-use definition (languages evolve, you know) of an adjective to describe his opinion, lets go back to the definition you presented:

"possessing outstanding quality" Well quality can be easily defined, and indeed you'd be arguing from a standpoint that Titanfall is of poor quality.
"or superior merit" doesn't really apply in this case, however it could support your notion regarding poor technicals = bad merit.

But what's that little tag-on at the end there, kinda separated off by itself as though it were its own possible definition? "Remarkably Good". Who gets to determine what's "remarkably good"? Seems pretty relative, if you ask me. I'd imagine the basis for something being "remarkably good" would vary from person to person. In tippy's case, "remarkably good" would mean "I really have fun playing the game."

Happy now? Even by your own semantics and definition provided, tippy was using the word "excellent" correctly.

common definition is excelent is one that i presented. Language hasnt changed that word (at least not yet).

You do have a point with remarkability.

soren7550:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but A.) Isn't the XBone/PC version able to run at 60 FPS B.) Isn't the 360 able to handle 60 FPS with no problem (as seen in the Modern Warfare games)?

Xbone version runs at unstable 60 fps where in reality the average is bellow 50. PC version runs as fast as you let it basedo n your hardware, as they didnt tie physics to fps like some, cough, "games",cough.
360 is technically able to output at 60 fps. You can play peggle at 60 fps. It wasnt running games on 60 FPS for a while though.

 

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here