Titanfall Xbox 360 will render at sub-720p, output at 30fps – rumor

Saturday, 15th March 2014 21:15 GMT By Stephany Nunneley

Titanfall will render at sub-720p and output at 30fps on Xbox 360 according to a rumor which surfaced earlier this week.


According to Pete Dodd, the Xbox 360 port is “more akin to how Battlefield 4 was ported to last-gen consoles.”

“Lack of news about the 360 version of Titanfall isn’t all about pushing the XB1,” Dodd said on Twitter. “The 360 version is 30fps and sub-720p.”

Dodd was the one who previously revealed the Xbox 360 version of Titanfall was in development at Bluepoint Games, not Respawn Entertainment, a few weeks before it was announced.

Respawn engineer Richard Baker told Digital Foundry the game was still being optimized for Xbox 360.

“Bluepoint’s developing [the Xbox 360 version] and we’ve mostly been hands-off, letting them make their own technical decisions,” he said. “It seems pretty close [in terms of] feature parity and they’re still working on getting the frame-rate up. I’m not sure about the resolution…”

Titanfall launches on Xbox 360 March 25 and March 28 in North America and Europe, respectively. The game is out now on PC and Xbox One.

Thanks, VideoGamer.



  1. Panthro

    Will it become available for Android? It’s just I prefer playing games in HD with a nice graphical fidelity.

    #1 10 months ago
  2. Ekona

    @Panthro Lol, nice! :D

    Seriously though, why not just make it uglier (worse textures, lighting or effects) to get it at least to 720p and closer to 60fps? I can’t see any logic in going lower than that, as no-one expects it to look massively pretty anyway.

    #2 10 months ago
  3. Iliad

    Considering the Xbox One version looks like an Xbox 360 title, I’d expect the Xbox 360 version to look like an original Xbox title.

    #3 10 months ago
  4. Major Mayhem 70

    All this negativity on looks, yet the game plays like a dream. I thought we were gamers, not graphic art majors. SMH AND LOL

    #4 10 months ago
  5. fengato

    @Major Mayhem 70
    It’s not about art – the game can’t “play like a dream”( X1) with a janky framerate and incessant screen tearing. For example, I found it hard to get into Battlefield games in the previous generation due to the tearing and framerate (on console). I played much more COD at the lower res because it felt fluid. TF is the spiritual successor to the Modern Warfare games, yet the performance issues cause it to fall short.

    #5 10 months ago
  6. SAW305

    It’s kinda funny actually coz every time a rumor comes out to make the 360 version look bad.. Respawn comes out with a statement saying the complete opposite. It looks like some people are trying their hardest to spread a rumor. So more people get an Xbone.. lol!
    It’s not going to happen until people see and play the 360 version for themselves. I really don’t think that Respawn wants to lose out on any money or fans they could make off the 360. That’s just completely obvious. They even said TF was made for the 360 first. So actually the port is the Xbone version and imo Battlefield has been the better shooter on console since the people at Respawn left Infinity Ward. Treyarch has done a very good job though but I still prefer the all out warfare and vehicle chaos that the BF franchise has to offer on current and next gen.

    #6 10 months ago
  7. The_Red

    I really don’t understand Titanfall. It’s a truly awesome title (gameplay-wise) but most of the visuals look very dated. The visuals we get on XB1 look like a 360 title and now we hear the 360 version will look worse, run at half the speed and won’t even be 720p.

    It’s like every version of TF is one generation behind on the console it is. Couple that with the fact that Engadget claimed the MS cloud helps make TF look prettier and run better and you get a game that is simply unoptimized and rushed (Technically).

    #7 10 months ago
  8. Major Mayhem 70

    Have you played the game on the X1?!? Now I’ll be the first to admit that all this talk about resolution and frame rate I don’t know too much about. Let me let you in on a lil secret… I’m glad I don’t. I’m playing Titanfall, and I’m having a blast. Everyone that I’m playing with is having blast. I have yet to hear someone in the Titanfall lobby complaining between matches about frame rate or how “last gen the game looks” everyone is talking smack and what they plan to do when the match resumes. It’s called having fun, which is why I play video games. I guess some rather over analyze video games and forget the original reason they picked up the hobby.

    Now excuse me, but I have a Titan dropping in in a few minutes and it literally has my name on it.

    #8 10 months ago
  9. TheWulf


    Graphic art majors don’t, quite frankly, fret over fidelity. It’s not even remotely important to them. In fact, fidelity only becomes important if you’re developing for the AAA games industry. I mean, look at what Trine 2 managed as a lower fidelity game.

    Trine 2 is, quite frankly, one of the most beautiful games of this or any other generation, and it’s all ready a good bit more impressive than Titanfall despite its lack of fidelity.

    And this is why I say that fidelity isn’t important. In my opinion, people only say fidelity when they don’t really understand what the problem is. I’ll make a case for the truth of this by pointing out that many people reckon Skyrim looks better with higher-resolution textures, but that’s not true, there are ‘same res’ versions of those textures available. What made the difference is that the texture creators in question were more daring than Bethesda felt they could be, and thus the environments became more vibrant, more interesting to look at, less generic and desaturated.

    I always grab the same or just slightly larger versions of textures for Skyrim because I want to keep my framerate really crisp. The thing is, though, is that those textures are all ready better. Because people don’t question what they’re really liking (as I do), they tend to think that, obviously, upscaled and higher-resolution textures must be the reason the game now looks better.

    Not the case. It’s that often amateur texture artists create more daring, interesting textures than those who’ve been in the industry for years. You’ll have some texture artists for games who’ll have had “be as boring as you possibly can” hammered into them at every turn. They probably get their work scrapped by suits occasionally for being too interesting or too colourful.

    It doesn’t match the aesthetic! It needs to be more grey! It stands out too much against the work of our lesser paid texture artists, so make it less… interesting.

    And, frankly, considering Trine 2 and how a SINGLE texture artist can so vastly improve Skyrim without improving the resolution of the textures? I can see those kinds of exchanges happening. Probably not, precisely, in those words, but something similar nonetheless. If it doesn’t fit the grey, uninteresting ‘aesthetic,’ out it goes.

    So… what, then, is the problem with Titanfall?

    The aesthetic sucks. It’s grey and uninteresting. People think that the problem is the resolution of the textures, but that’s just not the case. You can have muddier textures which can look amazing. (See: Trine 2.) But if you don’t use them right, they’re boring, and it makes you wish you were playing something else. The majority, probably, has adjusted to this boringness and it doesn’t faze them, and part of the minority just doesn’t understand what the problem is.

    Here’s a picture of the Titanfall mech.

    You wouldn’t stop to look at that on deviantART because it’d be bad art. There’s nothing that captures the eye, there’s no sense of imagination or personal character in the picture, and frankly it looks not unlike what would happen if you got a bunch of actuaries together to create a ‘work of art.’

    I remember how good the Armored Core mechs on the PS2 looked by comparison. I mean, good grief, even the least interesting of the top-down perspective’d Airmech’s offerings are better than that.

    So, no. It’s not fidelity. It’s aesthetics. I’m sure that Titanfall is fun to play. I’ll say that it even looks fun to play! I’d like to play it! But the aesthetics are so muddied and muddled, they all melt into it so much, and they’re so painfully dull that a.) it would probably confuse my sight, and b.) trigger narcolepsy.

    I miss when good aesthetics weren’t a sin.

    #9 10 months ago
  10. TheWulf

    I had a bit of a further thought on this. It might not be the fault of AAA publishers, it might have come from films, right? This lack of aesthetics could have come from there.

    So I rummaged through my memory to find a mech. The first I came upon? The incredibly iconic and instantly recognisable Weyland Power Loader from the Aliens franchise. A mech that has been copied many times since.

    So what about something more recent? Pacific Rim? Were they boring? Hm. Not the greatest mech I’ve seen, but it still has so much personal character, dynamism, and colour. (The elongated, gaunt look of it especially helps make it stand out.)

    What else, then?

    There hasn’t been a lot in this genre that isn’t animated. Um. I mean, there was Avatar, but it’d be an oxymoron to point that out because the contrast of that movie was supposed to be how grey, polygonal, angular, inorganic, and boring looking human technology was when contrasted starkly with the planet of Pandora.

    See what I mean? It’s funny, because it’s almost like contrasting Titanfall’s aesthetics against something better. I’m going to be so amused if the aliens/monsters and their locales turn out to be bright and colourful, but I don’t think that Respawn could be that brave.

    I can’t mention Japanese animation because that’s just unfair. All of that is so, so interesting. Even the more believable/tame stuff, like Big O. So that’s just not a fair comparison. Western animation can be amazing with mecha too, I think the only ‘grey’ robot is the Iron Giant, but he almost has as much character as Bugs Bunny at times despite that. :P

    So, looking at films isn’t exactly telling me that this came from films. So why are Western games so desaturated and boring?

    Japanese stuff is brimming with interesting designs. Even more recent stuff, too, not just the older and more cartoony efforts. Look at Zone of the Enders 2, Metal Gear Rising: Revengeance, Front Mission: Evolved, and so on.

    Even Hawken has some interesting designs. (Though the cockpits irritate me no end.)

    So… I just don’t know where these boring AAA attitudes towards design are coming from. I just felt that it was worth examining things to see if I could make some sense of it all.

    In conclusion: The only thing my brain has come up with is that a suit at Respawn looked at Avatar, didn’t understand what the whole dichotomy aspect was supposed to be about, pointed at Avatar’s boring human tech and said ‘make stuff like that.’ The whole point of Avatar was lost on them, thus Titanfall was borne.

    #10 10 months ago
  11. TheWulf

    You know, Avatar wasn’t the first to handle that dichotomy, either. The first was an RPG called Albion from way back when. Originally from Germany and translated for other audiences, as I recall. It had the same kind of juxtaposition of soulless, inorganic, angular, colourless tech (in an effort to represent anti-life), and a genuinely vibrant and interesting world. In my opinion, I actually think that Albion did it a bit better than Avatar, since it was less… ham-fisted.

    But yes, the point of this is to come back to how Titanfall seems like the ‘anti-life’ technology without any dichotomy to contrast it. I’m convinced that this is what happened at Respawn. They wanted everything to look completely dead and decayed, like it was zombies fighting for the last scraps, without even having any of the more fantastic elements of a potential post or post post apocalypse. (See: Fallout and Adventure Time.)

    That’s amazingly depressing. Since it means that humanity is spending their last few hours on earth fighting. That’s not a game I want to play, but then, I don’t think that Respawn is that bright. I think it’s more that they just didn’t realise what they were doing with having such a strong ‘anti-life’ appearance, such an almost anti-aesthetic. Devoid of aesthetic qualities, even.

    That’s kind of the point of the humans in Albion and Avatar, isn’t it? We’re devoid of aesthetic qualities. Everything is 100 per cent practical. So a space shuttle is just a big block of metal with wings (courtesy of Albion).

    It’s just an interesting topic, okay? Trying to figure out what possessed them to think that this was a good idea, and trying to understand why people could even find this fun to look at. (I don’t think people do find it fun to look at, which is why they’re attacking the fidelity, assuming that’s where the problem is.)

    That really is what it reminds me of, though. Life has aesthetics by its very nature, that’s just an ingrained aspect of it, really. There’s nothing about evolution that’s 100 per cent practical, not even us humans, there are just things which are there for aesthetics. The opposite is trying to drain all personal elements out of something so that it looks as impersonal as possible, as completely homogeneous as an artist could possibly achieve. And maybe that’s just the drive they have to not offend anyone, because they’re cowards?

    The Avatar human tech didn’t offend anyone, it’s completely inoffensive, but that’s also because it’s not even remotely memorable and you’ve forgotten about it almost as soon as you’ve seen it. There’s nothing really striking about it that sticks with you, other than that it was completely utilitarian and dull — and that you’d rather not look at it any more can we look at the pretty planet some more please because that was much more lovely.

    The thing is, though, is that if you vampirically suck away all of the personal aesthetic touches from something, you end up with something that no one really likes. And then people are left trying to figure out why they don’t like the looks of it, or why the Titanfall mechs aren’t visually memorable, why they like playing this game, but hate looking at it (which seems to be a common sentiment, as far as I’ve seen?).

    I guess unless you’re really into impersonal anti-aesthetics, you’re not going to find it all that fun to look at, anyway. You might actually see it from the angle I mentioned, before, where humanity has inbred itself to the point of losing any capability for artistic value beyond the completely practical, and now the last remnants of humanity are warring themselves out of existence. Maybe that’s what this Penny Arcade comic was getting at.

    (I was linked that by a friend when I was last talking about this sort of thing with him, and it still seems to be incredibly relevant.)

    But yeah,done talking, now.

    The thing is is that either way, I don’t like the lack of aesthetics. Either they were just boring to be inoffensive, or this is the worst kind of dystopia ever. I don’t want either. Honestly, wouldn’t Titanfall be so much more fun to play if it was also nice to look at?

    #11 10 months ago
  12. Gekidami

    Plays like a dream. By that i assume you mean the game has decent gameplay? Because with its poor frame rate and screen tearing, it doesnt run like a dream. That stuff can effect gameplay so its pretty important.

    But either way, at least as far as the XB1 version goes, remember that this game is meant to be a system seller. In that regard, when you’re buying a next gen system you expect your games to look and run better than this. May as well just get it for 360, the game in no way justifies buying the XB1.

    #12 9 months ago
  13. Major Mayhem 70


    #13 9 months ago
  14. Major Mayhem 70

    When I say it runs like a dream, I mean the game plays very well on the X1 in my opinion. All this talk of frame rate and screen tearing, I don’t see it. I’m not saying it isn’t there, I’m just too caught up in the game go notice it. I’m glad that I don’t notice it. Respawn has created an engaging game that I enjoy very much. For me, that is the most important criteria when it comes to games.
    As far as being a system seller, we’ll find out soon enough if that is the case. Personally, I could care less if it does or doesn’t. I bought my X1 day one for Ryse, Dead Rising 3, Forza 5 and Killer Instinct. These are just a few of the games that I can’t play on my PS4, just as there are games that will never see the light of day on the X1. I buy consoles to experience the exclusives. True, I could have kept my 360 and purchased Titanfall for it, but then I would have missed out on the above exclusives. We’ll never see eye to eye cause I believe we enter the “new console era” differently. You expect leaps and bounds out the gate, and history says that neither console will start hitting its stride for a year, year and a half after launch. For now, make my games fun. Succeeding in doing that makes me content.

    #14 9 months ago
  15. Panthro

    720p master race reporting in.

    #15 9 months ago

Comments are now closed on this article.