Literally COD4 graphics

>literally COD4 graphics
>900p60fps and 720p60fps with drops

NEXTGEN
E
X
T
G
E
N

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=0SiTNxfJz2U
twitter.com/AnonBabble

>COD4 Graphics

I'm sure they're not that bad, don't be too harsh on the game.

...

I like how if you didn't name the game in the pic, I would have no clue it's Titanfall 2.

as terrible as that is, it doesn't really matter, considering the rest of the gameplay is absolute shit
they really fucked up

>900p60fps and 720p60fps with drops

>console
Kill yourself.
Literally.

feel free to send me the link to the PC tech test ;^)

So this is the power of console.

>>literally COD4 graphics
congrats on torpedoing your own thread with your rampant stupidity

t. titanfall dev

It's a pre-alpha, mongtard. I don't what you were expecting.

But its fun! I am really enjoying this demo.

...

You're behaving like a pigeon playing chess.

>Sup Forums constantly whines about downgrades,
>The idea of a game looking better when it's released on the other hand is completely dismissed as impossibru.

looks pretty shit for a pre-alpha

here is another game in "pre-alpha" stage

>"hurr durr muh fps dropped from 60 to 59.99"
>meanwhile a giant text saying PRE-ALPHA TECH TEST on the bottom right
What part of the "this does not represent the final product" did you not understood OP?

It's also targeting 60 FPS on consoles, which requires big sacrifices. Just look at what Halo 5 had to give up.

>graphic baby

Please, kill yourself.

>game is out in 2 months
>BUT ITS PRE-ALPHA

I bet you're one of those guys who thought the release version of No Man's Sky would be different from the 2 week early copies

That's an Ubisoft game, pham. We all know what's going to happen to those graphics.

>Sup Forums literally doesn't know what PRE-ALPHA means

nothing, Mr. Memester

Can't reason with you dumb fuckers, yall behave like a bunch of thalidomide babies. I don't know what I expected by coming here and wanting some quality discussions.

>It's also targeting 60 FPS on consoles, which requires big sacrifices.

Feel free to post this regarding the game when it's actually out and shit. Doing so now is just stupid.

Your not helping your cause user. Battlefront sacrificed everything for muh graphics

I wonder why they still use fucking Source when as an EA studio they can probably get Frostbite easily.

I don't know what you expected from the source engine

Is the PS4 demo still up? And how big is the file size? I liked the original, might try downloading it.

>haven't made a single improvement to the CoD4 engine in nearly a decade
>tech requirements continue to skyrocket

don't forget to buy 16 gigs of additional ram and a new GPU!

First Titanfall looks like a PS2 game on low and still cant hold stable 1080p60fps on a GTX560

>Battlefront sacrificed everything for muh graphics

Battlefront has more players and shit going on.
Titanfall offers nothing more, it just looks and runs plain shit.

>I don't know what you expected from the source engine

youtube.com/watch?v=0SiTNxfJz2U

The game is actually playable and in closed beta.

This is what the game will look like, if not worse.

But gr8 b8 m8.

Respawn is not owned by EA, just got a publishing deal with EA

?
That looks like shit

I don't get it, what did you expect from an EA game?

m8, if you think performance will be vastly improved at launch then you haven't been paying attention to literally any alphas in the past 4 years.

Of course it's playable, it's a reskin of last years game.

It doesn't even use CoD's engine. It uses a modified version of Source. It's probably not modified enough though and that's probably why the performance sucks. They're trying to do modern rendering with an old engine. It's like devs trying to get modern games out of UE3. The engines weren't made for what they want them to do and even modifying them doesn't work well.

12.58 GB, it will be up till the end of this weekend and a second test will start next weekend.

ps4 and xbone released 3 years ago.


time to stop calling them next gen.

Do they own the Titanfall IP? If not, then there's no reason not to use a better engine. I guess they're just used to working with outdated shit, like they did on Infinity Ward.

>consoles

>lel epic pc cuck meme

Frostbite is garbage tho

What's neo-Sup Forums's obsession with graphics instead of gameplay?

I can't grasp how you think that this game looks bad.

whats all the censored stuff?

Retards that make posts like yours don't seem to realize that a lot of the recent games people criticize for similar things look mediocre AND run like shit. Consoles still can't do too much stuff but there will generally be less complaining if the game looks mediocre but can run 1080p 60 fps on console and also have good performance on PC. The problem is this games don't look good but also run like shit.

It looks like the original with more DoF and post-processing effects.
The game's are fun, but I don't think Sup Forums is wrong in saying that they look like shit.
That said, the original also ran like shit on XB1, but this one does seem to run better.

It makes pretty stuff that runs well, why it's garbage? An engine is as good as developers want it to be, games aren't inherently bad just because they're on a certain engine. The point is, an old engine like Source has a fuckload of outdated shit, mainly the lighting and rendering techniques, and to improve it they basically need to build their own engine and/or 'hack' a lot of the stuff in.