Home / News / Titanfall Runs At A Solid 60fps, Features Tons of Graphical Effects

Titanfall Runs At A Solid 60fps, Features Tons of Graphical Effects

By on July 6, 2013

Some new details on Respawn Entertainment’s Titanfall have come to light. The game runs at a solid 60fps as revealed by the developer and it is fully V-Synced. That means you’ll never see a torn frame on the screen.

titanfall respawn featured

This does not change even during explosive battle scenes, Digital Foundry has found out.

“Not a single frame is repeated over the four minute stretch, producing a monotone reading at the head of the frames-per-second axis,” their analysis read. “Having double-checked many thousands of these frames by eye after the automated pass, we can confirm that it runs with v-sync engaged at full-blast 60fps regardless of the intensity during battle.”

They have also mentioned that the game has a lot of visual effects and it seems Respawn is going all out when it comes to that.

“Little is held back in the realm of effects work either. To our count, there’s full-screen motion blur, lens flares, plus high grade alpha for sparks, smoke plumes trailing behind rockets, and no restraints on particles spraying from ruined Titan foes – though again, physics-based action seems minimal outside of crumbling machinery.”

The game will be released next year on the Xbox One, and is also planned for a PC and Xbox 360 release. There’s no word on the PS4 version yet. The game was revealed before E3 and here’s some details on that.

The developers have also released a behind-the-scenes video.

Via Digital Foundry.

 

Related Items
  • andy

    I love the graphical effect where the ENTIRE map is destroyed already when you start the level and stays like that for the whole level. A true next gen game. But at least its fun because no video games are fun.

    • Joseph Lan

      The Xbox One’s Cloud allowed the game to pre-compute all the destruction on the map before the player even steps foot on it.

  • Joseph Lan

    Lol at “tons of graphical effects.” I observe a decent amount of particle and smoke effects, but that’s about it. Hardly any post-processing effects, dynamic global illumination, motion blur, tessellation, or other truly “next-gen” techniques are being utilized. It’s likely not even running at 1080p. But, like the article states, many graphical concessions have to be made in order to adhere to a 60fps gameplay budget.

    Still, 60fps or not, it’s probably the most visually underwhelming “next-gen” game I saw at E3, alongside Thief. Talk about completely static environments, some of the most primitive facial animations I’ve seen in years, terribly low-res textures, and shockingly low polygon detail on models and assets (again, partly owing to the lack of tessellation).

  • Nintendo Fan 4 Lif3

    Isn’t it time that developers actually start trying to make games higher than 60 FPS. I mean, Ocarina of Time had 20 FPS on N64! Come on, that was on a console back in the late 90s. Since the early 2000s, games have been between 30 and 60 FPS with no improvement in that area since, while PC has gone way beyond those numbers. I believe it’s realistic that maybe 100 FPS start getting done on consoles…come on this is next-gen we’re talking about, this will be the third console generation that consoles will be stuck at 60 FPS if no one does any R&D to advance consoles. Feel free to disagree with me below since I know many of you will say how it’s literally impossible at this point due to the specs and hardware/software ratio of power efficiency of game machines.

    • this_is_my_humble_opinion

      With screen refresh rate and input maxed at 60Hz on most TV screens, it would be pointless to make a game run any higher than 60FPS. This will simply result in wasted frames and less stable motion.

      • Nintendo Fan 4 Lif3

        So why don’t developers such as Sony invest more so that that aspect of TV screens is increased instead of focusing solely and audio and visuals with their TVs? I mean come on, why is the world always so slow to adopt when they know there’s a 90/10 chance that new technology will become a part of everyday life. There’s TVs that can do 120 Hz or a little more..why the hell are people stuck in the fucking stone age with technology? They see something new, they rather stick with what they know. They see HD, they stick with SD. They see 120 Hz, they stick with 60 Hz. They see a PC with Windows 7 Pro and 12 GB GDDR5 RAM, they rather stick with retarded Windows XP and 1.89 GB GDDR3 RAM. What’s up with that? I know money’s huge in decision making and all for most, but if there’s to be any advancement in electronics, we can’t wait for people to adapt, we have to make them get with the game. Seriously, my parents have kept their stupid SD Toshiba 42″ screen since they got it in like Y2K, man, and they actually think it still has good picture and audio when it actually sucks rats’ ass. They’ve bought another TV that’s HD but never bothered to actually replaced the SD TV cuz they’re too blind and primitive to actually realize the fallacy in that perspective of things and convince themselves to go modern. If I were them, I would’ve trashed the TV and got HD when it first came out. I guess one of the reasons they never did is that Nintendo was always SD until they released the Wii U this past year and never played Sony or Microsoft’s consoles so they never saw the need. After playing HD games on my 360 and PS3, I can’t believe they didn’t get it sooner and deprived me of great gaming experiences for so long and certainly don’t see why Nintendo couldn’t bet their money on it to actually make the Wii an HD console and not humiliate themselves by delaying their games for Wii U by stating the fact that they ‘underestimated the manpower required for HD development.’ That’s bullshit, man! Flat-out and Nintendo still underestimates the fact that advancement in technology not only makes your game look better but run better in the process. It’s fiascos such as this that can’t be avoided if all this ignorance and bitterness continues to prevail technological evolution. Hell, people are most likely not gonna adopt 4K until like 5-6 years from now when the console cycle nears its conclusion which is most likely why Sony didn’t bother with implementing 4K gaming for PS4. If people were more open to something new, they would’ve never had to have made that sacrifice and slow down gaming’s potential. I don’t care if people’s current products don’t support that technology. For any progress to be made, developers have to start experimentation now so that they’re ready for actual public consumption in the future. If anything, they can create new techniques or find shortcuts to making greater games instead of sitting on their laurels. If Nintendo was able to make great, large, expansive games that took up a lot of space on their console, why can’t developers give a damn and try to bend the rules of game development and technological development as a whole? Though Nintendo just made their foray into HD, they were somehow able to make their own proprietary 25 GB disc format, and still manage their budgets and put all their money on game development. That is not obsession-that’s true passion, yo! Why aren’t Sony and Microsoft demonstrating that same devotion to the future with their technology beyond Bluray and game sharing?!

        • this_is_my_humble_opinion

          The reason they don’t make this jump is because it wasn’t needed until now: what kind of content are you going to watch on a proper 120hz tv? (and most 120hz screens today can’t process a real 120fps. They simply interpolate 60fps with blended frames)

          There are no TV shows, no films, and almost no video content in 60FPS (not to mention streaming 60FPS), so asking for panel manufacturers to do 120HZ before there is even the slightest content supply!? Why don’t you ask for standard 50MP cameras in phones and 8K screens while we’re at it!? That’s all pretty pointless once you reach a point that is “good enough” for the majority of content.

          Not to mention that from game development perspective, running at 120FPS means you have half the amount of resources compared to a 60FPS, giving you lower quality graphics and forcing you to settle on everything else from physics to AI.

          • Nintendo Fan 4 Lif3

            Well, if you think about it, manufacturing costs will go down as long as people are buying the product. It wasn’t until Sony’s PS3 started really selling fast a couple years after it’s launch that they were able to actually bring down costs and give the system a price drop that was proper for consumers. If no one is willing to adopt technology early on and just wait it out to see if it even works, do you really expect that any advancement will be made in any technology with 50 MP cameras or 8K TVs at all? Or do you just think that money will sporadically come at the spur of the moment when the ‘public’ decides it’s needed and then it gains traction in the market? 120 FPS only has half the amount of resources of 60 FPS is because developers haven’t found a proper formula to balance it yet. The difference between 30 FPS and 60 FPS is very negligible because developers are able to allocate similar resources with hardware and other software factors deciding how those two run in parallel. If developers can do that, I don’t see why they can’t at least start any kind of R&D now so that for the next-generation that comes around 2020 or so they will be ready to give that technology to the public, or at least prototype that technology on PS4, X1, and Wii U so that they at least have an idea of how much further they need to go to get to that climax in technological evolution and actually have it ready for the public without all the hassle. Perhaps instead of developers solely focusin on FPS and then factoring in physics and AI, they can focus on the latter first and other things so that way they don’t hamper the frame rate and actually reach something as high as 120 FPS. Remind me again, what’s the Hz on a Sony 4K TV as of this moment?

        • Shawn Pearson

          it wouldn’t matter the human eye wouldn’t notice anything beyond 60 fps so it would be a waste as you can play several pc games at 120 fps right now but it’s pointless …