Titanfall - Respawn Entertainment's first game

At least they aren't going to make another military game, god damn that is so overdone and boring. Would have like to seen a newer engine though, Frostbite would have been perfect but too bad.

Hope this game doesn't have any of today's FPS elements but I'm not counting on that.
 
Remember that not-Infinity Ward doesn't like shitting out the same products over and over; if they had their way this would have been Call of Duty 3.
 
BETA. said:
You're doing Source engine a disservice by using that an example when you're arguing for looks. Here's a better example.
Click to expand...

That looks even worse IMO. All of the stalagmites/tites in the center are lit up even when they're behind others, most aren't casting shadows, the ones on the right aren't receiving any of the blue lighting and look completely out of place, etc. The lighting in Source is really really bad.
 
According to the leak they are using a "heavily modfied version of Source''. Maybe Source 2 Engine?
 
Whenever I hear "heavily-modified Source" I just think of like, Half-Life 2.
 
Bankie said:
That looks even worse IMO. All of the stalagmites/tites in the center are lit up even when they're behind others, most aren't casting shadows, the ones on the right aren't receiving any of the blue lighting and look completely out of place, etc. The lighting in Source is really really bad.
Click to expand...

I dunno, I didn't really do well in art class, but for Source engine, I think the screenshot I posted has better lighting and texture than the other one. Could you point out what you're referring to as far as the lighting for the stalagmites are incorrect?
 
I think, as I mentioned, the lack of ambient occlusion is really apparent in that screenshot.
 
Engine is irreverent. If there artist are shit the game will look like shit.. Regardless of any engine.. And the opposite also applies.
 
BETA. said:
I dunno, I didn't really do well in art class, but for Source engine, I think the screenshot I posted has better lighting and texture than the other one. Could you point out what you're referring to as far as the lighting for the stalagmites are incorrect?
Click to expand...

24d2auu.png


Basically it's missing a bunch of shadows (especially on the water), and the lighting maps are misaligned. The most telling example is that the base of some of them is bright while on a dark area (this sis likely due to the lower resolution lightmaps or differences in resolution).

It might not be as bad as this makes it seem. But it's not really technically correct or modern. Then definitely not "next gen" capable as it is (though the other screenshot sucks too, I could point out what's wrong with that, but it's mostly the same stuff + worse textures).
 
yawn...........................nire fi =========if tgew sanw crao if sdytt
whoops wrongs keys....
 
DeathPrincess said:
24d2auu.png


Basically it's missing a bunch of shadows (especially on the water), and the lighting maps are misaligned. The most telling example is that the base of some of them is bright while on a dark area (this sis likely due to the lower resolution lightmaps or differences in resolution).

It might not be as bad as this makes it seem. But it's not really technically correct or modern. Then definitely not "next gen" capable as it is (though the other screenshot sucks too, I could point out what's wrong with that, but it's mostly the same stuff + worse textures).
Click to expand...

Wow. Butthurt about the Source engine or something?
 
Sorry gonna take the stance that the source engine is perfectly serviceable for me.
 
DeathPrincess said:
Answered asked question. You seem very defensive of a dated engine. :p
Click to expand...

Yeah your little charade of the image above is pretty awkward, just sayin. It must be that time of the month...... for weirdos.
 
Last edited:
naticus said:
Yeah your little charade of the image above is pretty awkward, just sayin. It must be that time of the month...... for weirdos.
Click to expand...

You seem to have taken some kind of personal insult from pointing out the failings of a 9 year old engine? :confused:
 
DeathPrincess said:
You seem to have taken some kind of personal insult from pointing out the failings of a 9 year old engine? :confused:
Click to expand...
How dare you point out the obvious shortcomings of outdated tech!!! :mad:

Yeah, Source is pretty damn long in the tooth. I don't imagine they will do a big overhaul until their next HL game... so uhhh.. could be a while!
 
DeathPrincess said:
24d2auu.png


Basically it's missing a bunch of shadows (especially on the water), and the lighting maps are misaligned. The most telling example is that the base of some of them is bright while on a dark area (this sis likely due to the lower resolution lightmaps or differences in resolution).

It might not be as bad as this makes it seem. But it's not really technically correct or modern. Then definitely not "next gen" capable as it is (though the other screenshot sucks too, I could point out what's wrong with that, but it's mostly the same stuff + worse textures).
Click to expand...

2/10 would not render
 
Seriously, everyone all upset that Source is being called dated? I've been a huge supporter, but it's absolutely dated. And we need some super cloud super computar to calculate Source physics? I guess if CS:S/CS:GO's bullet physics are anything to go by, you just might.

Sounds somewhat similar to a Shogo remake; could be interested, hopefully the engine is heavily modified.
 
TwistedAegis said:
Seriously, everyone all upset that Source is being called dated? I've been a huge supporter, but it's absolutely dated. And we need some super cloud super computar to calculate Source physics? I guess if CS:S/CS:GO's bullet physics are anything to go by, you just might.

Sounds somewhat similar to a Shogo remake; could be interested, hopefully the engine is heavily modified.
Click to expand...

It is heavily modified. The video above shows a demo of the multiplayer on the Xbone One. It most certainly does not look dated.
 
BatJoe said:
Source Engine... um hello 2004?
Click to expand...

Yes because the engine has literally never received an update it's exactly the same as it was at inception. I completely agree that it's dated, but it's certainly been updated.

Somewhat ironically, DOTA2 is probably the most advanced version of it so far (excluding this). They've switched to a deferred renderer, have some reasonably modern effects like SSAO, etc etc. The fragmentation with their engine is all over the place, they have 501928381 engine branches scattered all over the place for all their games, TF2, Portal 2, GO, DOTA2, etc.


Also this is targeting 60fps at 1080p, so it doesn't look bad given they've opted against 30... and the XBone isn't exactly the biggest rendering powerhouse. I imagine the PC version will be sailing along at a nice, smooth 120+ fps on decent setups given equivalent settings.
 
socK said:
Also this is targeting 60fps at 1080p, so it doesn't look bad given they've opted against 30... and the XBone isn't exactly the biggest rendering powerhouse. I imagine the PC version will be sailing along at a nice, smooth 120+ fps on decent setups given equivalent settings.
Click to expand...

Has a PC version been confirmed? Something tells me Microsoft will see fit to screw over PC users in just one more way, let's face it their mission these days is trying to force PC's into iPads and appstores, and with so much XBONE backlash already I can't help but think they'll just keep it exclusive since its shaping up like the console will need all the help it can get. Look how long Gears of War took to appear on Windows.
 
Last edited:
limitedaccess said:
The Studios using Frostbite are actually internal studios and owned by EA. Respawn is not owned by EA as far as I know. The relationship is likely the same Crytek had with EA.

At the moment I am not aware of any external licensee for Frostbite.
Click to expand...

They could have at least used CryEngine 3. They're all in now on the Source Engine, for a 2014 release at that.
Valve doesn't have the nerve to release another AAA game with Source i.e. HL.
DPI said:
Has a PC version been confirmed?
Click to expand...
Yes. According to Wiki.
 
DPI said:
Has a PC version been confirmed? Something tells me Microsoft will see fit to screw over PC users in just one more way, let's face it their mission these days is trying to force PC's into iPads and appstores, and with so much XBONE backlash already I can't help but think they'll just keep it exclusive since its shaping up like the console will need all the help it can get. Look how long Gears of War took to appear on Windows.
Click to expand...
It's confirmed for 360, XboxOne and PC.
 
WorldExclusive said:
They could have at least used CryEngine 3. They're all in now on the Source Engine, for a 2014 release at that.
Valve doesn't have the nerve to release another AAA game with Source i.e. HL.
Click to expand...

Cyrtek and EA's relationship is a publishing one only as far as I know which is what at the moment seems to be Respawn and EA's relationship. There is no real connection there that they need to use Frostbite or Cryengine 3 which was what I was referring to.

So yes they could have used Cryengine 3, they could have used Unreal 3, they could use any other commercially licensed engine or made their own as well.

Also there are more considerations for what engine to use aside from what it is capable of rendering on high end PCs. That by itself does not guarantee a visually impressive game even. Nexuiz uses Cryengine 3 for example but would you consider the game visually impressive? Also keep in mind in this case their primary platform does not exactly have the same performance envelope of a PC that is required for a game like Crysis 3 to really showcase its features.

For instance maybe they feel they would be more familiar and capable working with Source? Maybe they do want to heavily modify any engine they will use (such as additional functionality for cloud physics support)? Perhaps they feel they are more capable with working with Source and/or it has more favorable licensing terms to achieve this? Given how Source is not widely licensed I would wager that there is some internal or licensing related advantage which led to the choice.
 
Who really gives a shit what engine it uses? Judge it by how it actually looks and plays, not by the underlying technology. I mean yeah, I love to get all excited about new tech as well, but I'm not going to immediately rail the game just because they may be using an older engine. The art style and technical proficiency are going to matter more in the end, and given what Infinity Ward did with old tech in Call of Duty MW1, I am sure they can make Source look good too.
 
from that video: "it Screams Call of Duty, because these guys created cal blah blah, so yeah
blah duty with mechs:rolleyes:
 
hmmm so PC is indeed confirmed? I am sold.. for now. The gameplay video released earlier was great.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top