Titanfall appears to look terrible.

Why does this look as bad as it does?

The whole game looks terrible because of a single screenshot

For an next-gen game I would expect it to at least not look like a blurry mess with terrible lighting and an awful hud in any screenshot. Although the game doesn't look good in any screenshot or trailer so far.

Oh wow.

Ew. Stahp making me puke.

I'm still looking forward to Titanfall even as a future-PS4-owner.

Agreed.

But I can see where OP is coming from too. It looks 2 generations behind based on these pics. x_x

Still looks fun.

Obviously from what we've seen at E3 and Gamecom the game looks better than this.

"Take note though, Rayme Vinson a programmer at Respawn Entertainment says that these shots are reduced to 25% of resolution."

“Textures in the Titanfall closed alpha test are reduced to 25% resolution. Huge difference. Leaked pics don’t represent final game.”

Why is there apparently no lighting.

Because the textures have been scaled back for Alpha. If you would get to see other gameplay videos instead of some bullshots meant to cause a stir you would see it looks fine.

Honestly from what I've heard from people who have the Alpha it sounds like the game is earning it's hype.

(Edit) Here's a short video I grabbed from someone @ System Wars. Looks better than those bullshits.

Like it or not it's from the devs of Modern Warfare. It'll get 8+ on average whatever the site and like Battlefield 4, the reviewers will look over any bugs/framerate/hit detection etc issues because it's CoD with robots.

What has gaming come to?

The game looks really boring and uninteresting.

@Pffrbt: I can see it becoming a yearly thing too. And if worse comes to worse, every company's flagship title will try lure it's audience in much like the last generation.

@TwistedShade said:

Whoa, I knew it was going to look like CoD but wow... looks exactly like CoD with a sci fi skin.

I find it difficult to get hyped about any FPS anymore. They all seem the same to me.

I don't care how it looks.....not an interesting game even if it was fantastical in the graphics department.

Who cares what it looks like: it has no single player, that's what murders it for me.

Meh. I have faith in these guys and think this will be an excellent. I can't wait until March.

@Black_Knight_00:

And what's the point of multiplayer anyway with 24 bots running all over the place?

And there's that^

Eh. My expectation for this game have been low for awhile now.

Not expecting anything spectacular...

And yet, you made a thread about said game.

Guess I'll go make a thread about Thief and how I think it looks boring and unfun.

If they tacked on campaign, you still would've complained.

And the multiplayer would've suffered.

I do not get the bandwagon everyone made for this game last E3, there are other games that look way more impressive. I think there are other shooters that do way more interesting things. People have just gobbled this game up and i don't personally see any reason why this game deserves the hype or will be that good

Go ahead?

Maybe those are 360 screenshots? Or like was said, graphical detail is low in the alpha.

I only own a PS4, but even I think Titanfall looks like a lot of fun. No need to downplay the game when it's not even out yet.

Screenshots never do anything justice, games always have and always will look better in motion on a proper monitor.

No. Any single player content is better than no single player content. MAG sends its regards.

To each his own in that department.

I bought CoD: Ghosts and couldn't bear the single player for more than 2 missions, and I have more than 30 hours in the multiplayer so far.

@Black_Knight_00:

Mag was pretty good though and after playing it, its kind of ruined multiplayer shooters for me. Pretty much all multiplayer games with a single player only tackle very repetitive single objectives. Mag on the other hand had a massive battlefield with about 8 objectives going on all at once and a huge amount of tactics to go along with it. Had there been single player focus, I doubt the game would be nearly as complex. Titanfall can't do this however because its 6 vs 6.

@Black_Knight_00: Yeah I have to agree. Although it looks fun, I'm just not into MP games.

I hate these troll threads that are designed to garner troll responses.

MAG was pretty good, but that's not my point: have you tried playing it in the last few weeks? If you had, you'd know that the servers have been shut down and the game now doesn't even allow you to access the main menu, let alone any of the game content. It is now, for all intents and purposes, a beer coaster. Titanfall will suffer the same fate in a few years, unless they allow offline botmatches, which I doubt in this age of premium access multiplayer.

Watched 5 minutes of alpha footage and it looks no better than a 360 game. I don't think it's for me because I wont be able to stand all the "dude!.. like yeah" and "like, I've never lost one match bro" etc.

If a multiplayer game is fun, that is all that matters to most gamers. Who cares if the community won't be around forever?

If a supermodel told you she wanted to spend the night but just the night with you would you tell her 'No, nothing that can happen in a short span of time is worth experiencing!'. Okay, maybe you would, but back when I was single, I wouldn't.

I'm not sure Titanfall will be fun (a handful of players and dozens of cannon fodder AI strike me as a bad idea) but I don't think the fact that the designers are focusing on what they are passionate about (multiplayer) is problematic.

@CarnageHeart: Then let's admit that Titanfall is a rental: it'll be fun while it lasts and then it will disappear off the face of the earth once the servers go offline. The death of the whole "gaming is an art form" debate.

@Black_Knight_00:

They did shut down the servers however I believe they only really did so because nobody was playing anymore. The whole reason I quit playing is because there became a point where it started taking 20+ minutes just to start a game. Some game-types never had players. Especially the DLC ones. So as people move on, I guess there is a time where there really is no choice but to close it down. I did manage to get a couple thousand hours in though before the game was no longer worth playing making it well worth the $60 I paid. I've never put that kind of time into any single player and probably never would have with the multiplayer if there was single player making the multiplayer only half developed like most other multiplayer games out there.

That's not the point though: the game is now unusable, completely useless. I guess there are people who don't care and that's fine, but I don't want to buy games i will never be able to play again 4 years after release.

Blockbuster would still be with us if people rented multiplayer games for the months or even years they tend to enjoy such games rather than buying them outright :).

Something being art or not has nothing to do with permanence. A sand sculpture isn't of less artistic merit than a rock sculpture just because it won't last as long.

I misspoke: when I say "it's a rental" I mean you buy it but in a sense you're actually renting it for a few years and then it's gone.

As for art, well, a sand sculpture's whole purpose is to be looked at: you can take a picture of it and it would still get the job done even after the wind has been an asshole. A game that can't be played anymore and is by all intents and purposes gone, though? I wonder.

While ideally I'd like every game that I purchase to be playable for however long that I own the game realistically I currently own hundreds of game of which most I'll never play again and the more games I purchase the bigger that list gets. It's the same with movies and books. Typically unless a game is in my backlog because I have yet to play or finish it at least once I'm usually done with most of my games within a year or less and I've moved on to other games or their sequels.

Can't say I feel like I'm missing out on something.

You don't like Bioshock Infinite, Skyrim, Fallout 3, Assassins Creed, you think God of War games are boring with shallow combat, and Destiny doesn't excite you one bit. You seem like a sad depressed gamer. I'm curious to know what games you actually like.

The game looks way better than this from the gameplay videos I've seen. There is no way in hell they are going to release it looking like this. Come on now.

Point at things and shoot till they're dead.

-Bayonetta
-Guacamelee
-Sonic 3 and Knuckles
-Anarchy Reigns
-Metal Gear Rising
-Deadly Premonition
-Knuckles Chaotix
-The Wonderful 101
-Super Mario 3D World
-Dragon's Crown
-Nintendoland
-Siren: Blood Curse
-A Link Between Worlds
-Majora's Mask
-Ocarina of Time
-Vanquish
-Animal Crossing: New Leaf
-Chibi-Robo
-All-Stars Racing Transformed
-JSRF
-NiGHTS into Dreams
-Zone of the Enders 2
-Sin and Punishment
-Dynamite Headdy
-Mischief Makers
-Stretch Panic
-Demon's Souls
-Dark Souls
-El Shaddai
-Resident Evil 4
-Klonoa: Door to Phantomile
-Megaman Legends

The jumping on stuff and running on wall stuff look nice. But I got FPS issues...I shouldn't have watched that video for a long time...awww man I'm getting dizzy and nauseous. >.<

Not really since you're playing as a floating camera.

I thought this was suppose to be a new gen? All I have seen so far is crap!

Some good Japanese games there. Still need to play Vanquish and Sonic all stars racing one of these days.

Now list all the western games you like.

Like most people have said the leaked footage from Alpha is probably not a true representation of what the game is actually going to look like. On that note however Titanfall needs to really stand out from the crowd because it's going to be competing against established franchises like Battlefield (yes I get that EA owns that too) as well as Call of Duty. It'll all come down to the implementation of the mechs and the jetpacks, if both those mechanics fall short in any way you're basically look at much smaller versions of the CoD and BF.