Here’s Titanfall 2 At Yer 4k & 60FPS Gubbins

Titanfall was OK! It had this excellent lock-on autofiring pistol, a massive boon for folk who aren’t masterful at online shooters, which made folk who are masterful at online shooters very cross, and thus only made me love it more. Gosh it was a small game though, if one can say such a thing about big stompy mechs blowing up the world, and hamstrung by far too much tropey unlock gunk. Like a beautiful crystal eye with a nasty infection.

Anyway: just eight days until Titanfall 2 [official site], which is hoping to be the market-straddling megahit the first was not. It’s got singleplayer and everything, which is what’s on show in this here trailer, as well as what the game will look like on a PC you can never afford.

The trailer was harvested from one of Nvidia’s gleaming pixel glands, and shows what yer Titanfall 2 would like at 60 frames per second in 4K resolution. It’s running on one of their Titan X cards, but similar should be achievable on slightly less obscene hardware – Nvidia claim here that the GTX 1080 is up to the job. Can’t speak to what Radeons can manage, especially as we’re still waiting on ATI to release what is widely expected to the RX 490, their presumed riposte the 1080 at the top of the market. Me, I’ve got a Radeon R9 Nano which I’m hoping can more or less manage Titanfall 2 at 3440×1440.

For some reason I can’t make the video play above 1080p here, although Alice notes that she can push it up to 4K, so I can’t get a complete sense of its full intended glory. Even so, it just doesn’t look that spectacular to me, which is partly down to the aforementioned YouTube compression, partly down to the unwise over-reliance on grey and partly because, well, it just doesn’t. I don’t reckon PC’s getting a special version based on this – has the hallmarks of a fairly straight carry-over from console.

Still, it’s the stomping and the hopeful recreation of that delicate balance that made foot infantry as powerful as big stompy mechs in the right hands that matters. I’m down to review this one – no code yet, but you’ll hopefully know wot I think soon enough. The game’s due out Oct 28th.

From this site

21 Comments

  1. int says:

    Is it me or do the explosions look kind of… old?

  2. Runty McTall says:

    That looked… Really unimpressive? The bit where the ship got blown up was just awful.

  3. Premium User Badge

    Benratha says:

    That doesn’t exactly look like a singleplayer game portion? Seems to me to be a robot interpretation of British Bulldog. What exactly is the scenario that just has you running at some gates through what looks to be a sharply defined valley?

  4. A Wanderer says:

    It looks…good-ish ?
    Seriously, though. The art style is just fucking bland.
    When will sci-fi games st

  5. A Wanderer says:

    It looks…good-ish ?
    Seriously, though. The art style is just fucking bland.
    When will sci-fi action games finally do something different than the modernish industrial design we’ve seen in…everything since a few years ?

  6. GallonOfAlan says:

    Meh burlygruff.

  7. Premium User Badge

    keefybabe says:

    EA: Challenge Nothing

  8. Raoul Duke says:

    I quite like Titanfall 1 apart from the awful, awful matchmaking system.

    But this… totally lacks the feel of that game. Specifically, this makes humongous mechs feel like they weigh about 50kg and move with the speed and agility of a normal sized human. There’s none of that delightful, Mechwarrior/Pacific Rim-ish feeling that this is a huge metal death robot swinging its massive self around with enormous amounts of energy and momentum involved. It just feels like… another generic shooter.

    And yeah, that ship explosion was awful. Late 1990s awful.

  9. xcession says:

    So it’s now just MechWarrior then?

  10. Blowfeld81 says:

    Well, it will have a hard time after GoW4 and BF1 released just earlier this month. If the gameplay is all well and fine I might check it out on sale, hopefully the MP is not dead until then…

  11. Player1 says:

    What’s the point of sitting in a tall and heavy mech if everything around you is the same scale? It’s like Call of Mech Duty. Also the weapons seem unmechy… I just don’t feel any vibe here, looks like just the next generic shooter to me :(

  12. kud13 says:

    I liked the previous video with the focus on jetpacks better.

    This… is just mechanized CoD

  13. yeoldegamer says:

    Can we seriously stop this 60 fps nonsense. 100 fps has been the absolute minimum for years in pc gaming, even before 100+ hz monitors came on. If the game aint running on atleast 100 fps its not even worth mentioning.

    • Stopsignal says:

      Can we seriously stop this 60 fps nonsense. 100000 fps has been the absolute minimum for years in pc gaming, even before 100+ hz monitors came on. If the game aint running on atleast 1000000 fps its not even worth mentioning.

      • Premium User Badge

        Nauallis says:

        Can we seriously stop this serious tone nonsense. Nonsense commenting has been the absolute minimum for years in pc game trailers, even before 11 cabbage-laden monkeys came on swinging chain-shovels. If the comment aint running on atleast 1000000 drained cans of redbull its not even worth mentioning. Also, power tools.

        • OvalCoyote says:

          Can we 60 stop this seriously nonsense fps. 10,000,000 years has been the pc gaming minimum absolute fps, even before hz monitors came on 100+. If mentioning at least the worth game aint 10,000,000 fps its not even running on.

  14. zerosociety says:

    Having spent some time with it, they have successfully managed to strip Titanfall of everything that made the 1st one interesting. It’s basically Black Ops 3 where you sometimes play as a bigger character.

  15. mercyRPG says:

    Looks impressive! Planning to play this once I get hold of my wishlisted GeForce GTX 1100 Volta GDDR6

Comment on this story

XHTML: Allowed code: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>