• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Titanfall 2: PS4 Multiplayer 'Tech Test' Frame-Rate Analysis

N

nOoblet16

Member
Tovarisc said:
EA doesn't own Respawn and Frosbite is only for EA's internal teams so no, they don't have easy access to Frostbite engine. One could say that maybe they should look at UE4 for future titles, but there must have been reasons to pick Source in first place.
Click to expand...

They said that the main reason they picked Source for the first game was because of it working well with PS3 (since that was the most problematic platform last gen).
But things took a turn and the PS3 version got cancelled and by that time it was too late to change engine.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-titanfall-tech-analysis
 
GlamFM

GlamFM

Banned
Just played it twice at gamescom and thought it was amazing.

And I did not like The first one that much.
 
F

funkystudent

Member
BigTnaples said:
Most all EA games are using Frostbite now, with the exeption of this game that uses Modified Source.


Hopefully Titanfall 3 launches on Frostbite and takes full advantage of Neo and Scorpio.
Click to expand...

Respawn isnt a internal EA studio so I assume they dont want them using internal tech like that.

Plus from Respawns POV it makes sense to not use so in the future if they work with another publisher / go indie they dont have to worry about quickly moving to new tech since they wouldnt be allowed to continue with Frostbite

RoboPlato said:
That's the Star Wars game
Click to expand...

Ah ha.


Maybe they will do TF3 on UE as well but just didnt have the time for Titanfall 2. Its nice to see someone doing something cool with Source in this day and age though
 
F

FyreWulff

Member
As above, they went with Source because it in theory made the PS3 version doable, and then the PS3 version was killed with the MS deal, but they were still with Source.

And since Source and the IW engine they left behind share a lineage, I imagine it was familiar for them to work with.
 
P

PeskyToaster

Member
Tovarisc said:
EA doesn't own Respawn and Frosbite is only for EA's internal teams so no, they don't have easy access to Frostbite engine. One could say that maybe they should look at UE4 for future titles, but there must have been reasons to pick Source in first place.
Click to expand...

Yeah and I'm just throwing stuff in the air. I have no clue about the relationship between EA and Respawn or the rules for use of Frostbite. I just didn't think the Source engine was that great tbh but if it works for them, what do I know?

Renekton said:
DF was just remarking how TF2's 900p looks sharper than other Frostbite 60fps games. Plus alpha BF1 also had rought spots.
Click to expand...

Really? Even Star Wars Battlefront which DF mentioned had similar performance to MGSV and Halo 5 but with some of the best visuals on consoles? The footage shown here doesn't really compare to Battlefront and I'm expecting similar results from Battlefield 1. Not that there won't be improvements from this test to release for Titanfall but I doubt it will look as good as the Frostbite games but probably perform as well.
 
Pjsprojects

Pjsprojects

Member
Another game I'll be getting on pc,was hoping to buy it in PS4 but not if it has a choppy frame rate.

Hate to think what the Xbox runs at.
 
X

Xater

Member
PeskyToaster said:
Really? Even Star Wars Battlefront which DF mentioned had similar performance to MGSV and Halo 5 but with some of the best visuals on consoles? The footage shown here doesn't really compare to Battlefront and I'm expecting similar results from Battlefield 1. Not that there won't be improvements from this test to release for Titanfall but I doubt it will look as good as the Frostbite games but probably perform as well.
Click to expand...

They meant sharper as in the image quality is better. Not that it's a overall better looking game. Frostbite introduces quite a bit of bluriness to it's image. The AA solution that Respawn is using might be better, but it might also be the art that helps.
 
BigEmil

BigEmil

Junior Member
Pjsprojects said:
Another game I'll be getting on pc,was hoping to buy it in PS4 but not if it has a choppy frame rate.

Hate to think what the Xbox runs at.
Click to expand...
Only problem is this on PC the player base will likely be small and shrink alot overtime just like Titanfall 1. Also them confirming no server browser also put off alot of people
 
S

Shikoba

Member
GearFourth said:
Only problem is this on PC the player base will likely be small and shrink alot overtime just like Titanfall 1. Also them confirming no server browser also put off alot of people
Click to expand...

This. The first one on pc ended up just like Battlefront with a dead/tiny community. Hoping for a solid console game as I don't have much faith in the pc version this time around.
 
B

btags

Member
JP said:
I would't read too much into how this version of the game performs, they made a point of emphasising that this isn't what "beta" tests have become to get people to pre-order games, this is going to be a rough build that is there to test the online stuff in the way that traditional betas used to.

That could well be a build from June or earlier and there's a lot of time to optimise what's being shown in that video.
Click to expand...

I would like to believe that, but if the previous game is any indication, the performance profile form early demos mostly remained intact in the final game, with plenty of drops and screen tearing while also at a low resolution on xbox one. I am not saying they won't improve it, but after dealing with the first game on xbox one I am weary of how much they will improve it.
 
F

FyreWulff

Member
GearFourth said:
Only problem is this on PC the player base will likely be small and shrink alot overtime just like Titanfall 1. Also them confirming no server browser also put off alot of people
Click to expand...

What will help this time is no DLC splitting for the community. Everyone gets new maps. That's part of what kneecapped TF1
 
KingJ2002

KingJ2002

Member
wasn't expecting 900p but It's a promising upgrade over the first title and respawn has enough time to address framerate issues and possibly even up the resolution to 1080p before launch... and if necessary... after launch (ala Assassin's Creed IV: Black Flag).

Either way... it looks good and i'm looking forward to it.
 
V

vasametropolis

Member
While I don't disagree with the trade off decisions they have made here, the result is unfortunate. You can't have this game dropping to 30 all the time.

I don't believe the suggestion that this is an older build. This stuff happens all the time and performance is almost always the same on launch.
 
F

FyreWulff

Member
vasametropolis said:
While I don't disagree with the trade off decisions they have made here, the result is unfortunate. You can't have this game dropping to 30 all the time.

I don't believe the suggestion that this is an older build. This stuff happens all the time and performance is almost always the same on launch.
Click to expand...

Pretty sure that's an actual Respawn employee. It's also typical of betas - it's an old build you generally branch off and make stable and not crash so you can get some actual data off the general public playing it.You can't send out the latest code from the repo from 2 days ago. Sometimes that build won't even be working that day.
 
K

Katori

Member
Can't watch the video at work--is it 60? 900p is fine if it's 60, plus, I'm sure they'll get the res up before release. Also NEO lol.

I don't know why people are saying the rendering looks different. It doesn't look that different. A few upgrades, sure, but definitely an iteration on their existing renderer (which is NOT the default Source renderer).

Also, CA has no/very little performance cost, it's just a screen shader.
 
C

Calen

Member
jett said:
How can a game be pre-alpha when it's coming out in a couple of months? Words have meanings.



That's just odd then that they're sending this out to the public, if true.
Click to expand...

It's because there is a surprisingly large lead time on this sort of thing.

Think about how long it usually is between hearing that a game has "gone gold" and it hitting retail. The tech test version had to go through Sony and Microsoft certification like any other title, so we had to "go gold" with this build a lot earlier than it might intuitively seem.
 
T

TheSpecialOne

Banned
I dunno if it's just me but this game looks like a high rez last gen game to me graphically. Maybe it's the art or something but it just doesn't sit right with me. It really looks like it's lacking technically from a graphics perspective.
 
B

BokehKing

Banned
TheSpecialOne said:
I dunno if it's just me but this game looks like a high rez last gen game to me graphically. Maybe it's the art or something but it just doesn't sit right with me. It really looks like it's lacking technically from a graphics perspective.
Click to expand...
So it should fit right up there with the first titanfall, destiny, COD and Halo


Battlefield and Battlefront are the only fps games that look like they belong on a next gen system.
 
T

TheSpecialOne

Banned
BokehKing said:
So it should fit right up there with the first titanfall, destiny, COD and Halo


Battlefield and Battlefront are the only fps games that look like they belong on a next gen system.
Click to expand...

That may be the case but it looks significantly worse that COD IW, Destiny, and Halo 5(only watched gameplay video so it's not the same as playing).
 
thelastword

thelastword

Banned
Renekton said:
DF was just remarking how TF2's 900p looks sharper than other Frostbite 60fps games. Plus alpha BF1 also had rought spots.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure I trust a DF which made light of 1080p - 900p differences this whole generation. In any case, the game I'm seeing here is definitely softer than 1080p, I saw it immediately as soon as the footage started, so I'm not sure where the "it's sharper than most FB titles is coming from"....There's quite a few effects that is blurring the image here apart from the 900p resolution.....
GifGafIsTheBestGaf said:
probably SP is gonna be 1080p and MP is gonna stay like that to maintain performance
Click to expand...
This is what I'm hoping for, I hope SP is 1080p, they can go for 1080p 30fps for the SP and go gungho on the effects and texture work.
 
S

SmartWaffles

Member
jett said:
How can a game be pre-alpha when it's coming out in a couple of months? Words have meanings.



That's just odd then that they're sending this out to the public, if true.
Click to expand...

This is exactly how public demo builds work. Devs don't really specificaly put out a build for one press/convention event, instead they pick whatever the latest stable milestone build is (typically for internal playtesting and showing to publishers), then use that as a base because it is hella lot easier to iron out bugs than say, your latest dev build. Which means the press demos you see often are very old, at least one or two months, sometimes several months even.
 
B

BokehKing

Banned
TheSpecialOne said:
That may be the case but it looks significantly worse that COD IW, Destiny, and Halo 5(only watched gameplay video so it's not the same as playing).
Click to expand...
Really? I think it looks leaps and bounds above titanfall 1 which could have easily been mistaken for a 360 game.

First thing when watvhing those videos yesterday was
"Oh wow they stepped it up"
 
M

mullet2000

Member
It's kinda a bummer to be put into a situation where you need to choose between the chance of dealing with an extremely small community (PC) or an inferior version of a game (Sub-native res, controller, spotty framerate).

Not to give the devs any disrespect, they're doing the best they can on consoles. I just really hope this game takes off on PC better than the last game. I'm really hyped for it, but I'd vastly enjoy playing this on PC instead if PS4.

I have the same concern for Gears 4 on PC, as well.
 
Teletraan1

Teletraan1

Banned
thelastword said:
Cut down on the effects and go for 1080P, and please remove C.A completely. Can't believe DF suggests tearing to boost framerate. tearing is much more jarring than drops to the 40's. Even if they implement adaptive vsync, the game will still drop frames. Titanfall on the XB1 was not a 60fps lock by any means. So by DF's suggestion you have framerate drops mixed with tearing just plain awful. Lower some effects to boost framerate, optimize, but keep vsync.
Click to expand...

100% agree.
 
BigEmil

BigEmil

Junior Member
I prefer 900p with higher better IQ turned on compared to 1080p with terrible distracting IQ. You can do 1080p on NEO.
So 900p 60fps please.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

(Vg Tech) Tomb Raider 1-3 Remastered PS5 & Switch & Xbox Series X|S Frame Rate Test
Analysis
6
1K
MDSLKTR replied
(VG Tech) Final Fantasy 7 Rebirth PS5 Frame Rate Comparison (Demo)
Analysis 2
83
5K
Senua replied
[VG Tech] Alan Wake 2 PS5 vs Xbox Series X|S Frame Rate Comparison
Analysis 2 3 4
169
11K
Vergil1992 replied
[VG Tech] Bloodborne 60fps Mod PS5 Frame Rate Test
Analysis
21
2K
saintjules replied
[ Digital Foundry] Helldivers 2 - PlayStation 5/PC - Tech Review
Analysis Review 2
79
10K
GymWolf replied
Top Bottom