Author Topic: Batman: Arkham Knight  (Read 13499 times)

Offline MysterD

  • Forum god
  • *
  • Posts: 18,049
  • OWNet 4 Eternity & Beyond
Re: Batman: Arkham Knight
« Reply #40 on: Wednesday, July 01, 2015, 09:59:11 AM »
Kotaku -> One source close w/ the game's production and a game-tester (who are going in anonymously here) are saying WB knew Batman Arkham Knight PC was a mess for months.

Quote

Our second source said Warner Bros. internal QA focused on bug-checking specifically at 720p resolutions.
Most PC players with decent hardware expect to run games at 1080p or higher. If Warner Bros. was using 720p at as a benchmark, that helps explain the large performance gap.
« Last Edit: Wednesday, July 01, 2015, 12:11:18 PM by MysterD »

Offline MysterD

  • Forum god
  • *
  • Posts: 18,049
  • OWNet 4 Eternity & Beyond
Re: Batman: Arkham Knight
« Reply #41 on: Sunday, July 05, 2015, 03:22:29 PM »
Batman: Arkham Knight PC on my new 960 4GB VRAM at 1080p.

No stutters or anything, so far.
Everything here on the 1st section of the Graphics Options at Normal + On (Vsync + whatever the AA is) & all the NVidia GameWorks stuff off.

Running around the gameworld, gliding, slinging around buildings, the works - typical Batman Arkham gameplay stuff.
With the capped frame-rate, as they intended - sticks around 25-30 frames.

Definitely gonna have to uncap the framerate and see how it runs then w/ same Normal settings.
And also see how it runs w/ settings thrown even higher-up.

Also, keep in mind - I ain't even got the Batmobile yet. I will be real curious to see how it runs, once I get that.

Maybe it's the 4 GB VRAM buffer speaking here...

Offline Xessive

  • Gold Member
  • *
  • Posts: 9,918
    • XSV @ deviantART
Re: Batman: Arkham Knight
« Reply #42 on: Monday, July 06, 2015, 11:03:14 AM »
I've got 12GB VRAM and it still chugs. When I run it capped at 30fps it manages relatively well but it's less impressive than it ought to be.

When I run it uncapped I'm able to get 4K resolutions (on the highest settings with Nvidia Gameworks all on) to run over 60fps but texture pop-in is frequent and it crashes consistently.

Offline Quemaqua

  • 古い塩
  • Administrator
  • Forum god
  • *
  • Posts: 16,498
  • パンダは触るな。
    • Bookruptcy
Re: Batman: Arkham Knight
« Reply #43 on: Monday, July 06, 2015, 11:58:16 AM »
When I get around to playing this, it'll be on PS4. My PC isn't half of what it needs to be for this, and the current consoles make it look amazing.

I'm actually going back and replaying these because I never got into City. I just re-beat Asylum, getting all the Riddler trophies and puzzles, and now I'm about to dig into City for the 2nd time (I only played it a short while the first time). I picked up Origins also, because I hear while it's pretty generic, the story is supposed to be quite good, and it looked cool in that regard. Will probably just try to blow through that one, but we'll see how it goes. I won't be going after Arkham Knight until it's much cheaper, and maybe a package with all the DLC and shit.

天才的な閃きと平均以下のテクニックやな。 課長有野

Offline MysterD

  • Forum god
  • *
  • Posts: 18,049
  • OWNet 4 Eternity & Beyond
Re: Batman: Arkham Knight
« Reply #44 on: Monday, July 06, 2015, 12:05:45 PM »
I've got 12GB VRAM and it still chugs. When I run it capped at 30fps it manages relatively well but it's less impressive than it ought to be.

When I run it uncapped I'm able to get 4K resolutions (on the highest settings with Nvidia Gameworks all on) to run over 60fps but texture pop-in is frequent and it crashes consistently.

Those kind of problems w/ 12 GB VRAM - that's ridiculous.
So, I'm guessing you have a Titan, yes?

EDIT:
For me, Arkham Knight PC set on Normal at 1080p for the 1st section of Graphics options + GameWorks stuff OFF even w/ the Batmobile ran the same as when I was running around swinging, flinging, flighting, jumping, and whatnot in-game as Batman - I'm in the 25-30 frame ballpark consistently at 1080p. This felt like right out of Dark Souls 1 PC playbook, w/ its capped framerate + actual consistent performance. And when a game is capped low majorly like that - it better run that damn consistent, IMHO. I don't wanna see any of this crap - stutters; see it even below 20 frames; any slideshows into the low single-digit frames or below; or major rises or drops in framerate here and there.

Of course, it should run consistent like this - I got 4 GB of bloody VRAM here. Of course, it probably should run this well w/ those who have PC's w/ weaker cards - i.e. it should fine for those meeting the minimum requirements. It's not like Arkham Knight PC here is a cutting-edge technical graphical thing of beauty here on the PC, even on Normal. Far from it. It still looks good, but it ain't a jaw-dropper here like when Arkham Asylum + Arkham City actually 1st dropped.

Offline MysterD

  • Forum god
  • *
  • Posts: 18,049
  • OWNet 4 Eternity & Beyond
Re: Batman: Arkham Knight
« Reply #45 on: Monday, July 06, 2015, 12:10:00 PM »
When I get around to playing this, it'll be on PS4. My PC isn't half of what it needs to be for this, and the current consoles make it look amazing.

I'm actually going back and replaying these because I never got into City. I just re-beat Asylum, getting all the Riddler trophies and puzzles, and now I'm about to dig into City for the 2nd time (I only played it a short while the first time). I picked up Origins also, because I hear while it's pretty generic, the story is supposed to be quite good, and it looked cool in that regard. Will probably just try to blow through that one, but we'll see how it goes. I won't be going after Arkham Knight until it's much cheaper, and maybe a package with all the DLC and shit.
Origins' story + character development was decent enough. Just, it was never that spectacular to me.
But more so than anything, lesser-known villains that should've gotten more attention, both story-wise + character-wise, really didn't. Either they really didn't do much w/ them or they dropped the ball entirely on what they actually did with them.

Rehashing a good deal of Arkham City's game-world also really didn't help matters, either. I'd felt like I've done this and been there before.

If you're looking for more Batman and didn't spend the farm on it, Arkham Origins is more Arkham City for the most part, but nowhere as great.

Actually, my favorite part of Origins was probably the Cold Cold Heart DLC.

Offline Quemaqua

  • 古い塩
  • Administrator
  • Forum god
  • *
  • Posts: 16,498
  • パンダは触るな。
    • Bookruptcy
Re: Batman: Arkham Knight
« Reply #46 on: Monday, July 06, 2015, 12:19:21 PM »
I liked what I saw in videos of what they did with it. I'm aware the world itself is more or less rehash, but I don't really care since I'll probably just be zipping through and skipping most of that stuff. I just want to see the story, which I like what I've seen of so far. It actually appeals to me more so than City has story-wise (though I don't know exactly where the story goes there since I haven't played a ton), so we'll see if City manages to grab me this time around and I get far enough for the story to hook me. I think last time I got hung up on side stuff and kind of did more of that and didn't advance the story enough for me to feel invested. That and it didn't set up the reason for Arkham City's existence too well. I've since discovered they did an apparently quite better-than-decent tie-in comic for it that sets up all that, so I want to try to track down and read that soon so I can get some of the setup I wished the game had provided the first time around.

天才的な閃きと平均以下のテクニックやな。 課長有野

Offline Xessive

  • Gold Member
  • *
  • Posts: 9,918
    • XSV @ deviantART
Re: Batman: Arkham Knight
« Reply #47 on: Monday, July 06, 2015, 02:28:03 PM »
Those kind of problems w/ 12 GB VRAM - that's ridiculous.
So, I'm guessing you have a Titan, yes?

EDIT:
For me, Arkham Knight PC set on Normal at 1080p for the 1st section of Graphics options + GameWorks stuff OFF even w/ the Batmobile ran the same as when I was running around swinging, flinging, flighting, jumping, and whatnot in-game as Batman - I'm in the 25-30 frame ballpark consistently at 1080p. This felt like right out of Dark Souls 1 PC playbook, w/ its capped framerate + actual consistent performance. And when a game is capped low majorly like that - it better run that damn consistent, IMHO. I don't wanna see any of this crap - stutters; see it even below 20 frames; any slideshows into the low single-digit frames or below; or major rises or drops in framerate here and there.

Of course, it should run consistent like this - I got 4 GB of bloody VRAM here. Of course, it probably should run this well w/ those who have PC's w/ weaker cards - i.e. it should fine for those meeting the minimum requirements. It's not like Arkham Knight PC here is a cutting-edge technical graphical thing of beauty here on the PC, even on Normal. Far from it. It still looks good, but it ain't a jaw-dropper here like when Arkham Asylum + Arkham City actually 1st dropped.
Yep, Titan X.

The game clearly struggles due to poor optimization. It's a shame that technical issues are marring what is otherwise a real gem in the Arkham series.

Offline MysterD

  • Forum god
  • *
  • Posts: 18,049
  • OWNet 4 Eternity & Beyond
Re: Batman: Arkham Knight
« Reply #48 on: Thursday, July 09, 2015, 05:17:47 AM »
I should note - I jumped up my 1st set of graphic settings to High + left second set of GameWorks stuff OFF. Still runs the same, at around 25-30 frames per second.
Though, it eats more VRAM consistently - eating often around 3700 to 39xx MB of VRAM, according to EVGA Precision X.
« Last Edit: Thursday, July 09, 2015, 05:48:43 AM by MysterD »

Offline MysterD

  • Forum god
  • *
  • Posts: 18,049
  • OWNet 4 Eternity & Beyond
Re: Batman: Arkham Knight
« Reply #49 on: Saturday, July 11, 2015, 03:10:45 PM »

Offline Quemaqua

  • 古い塩
  • Administrator
  • Forum god
  • *
  • Posts: 16,498
  • パンダは触るな。
    • Bookruptcy
Re: Batman: Arkham Knight
« Reply #50 on: Saturday, July 11, 2015, 03:30:13 PM »
Not sure if that's the trailer I watched, but the one I saw was pretty awesome looking. I'm into it!

天才的な閃きと平均以下のテクニックやな。 課長有野

Offline MysterD

  • Forum god
  • *
  • Posts: 18,049
  • OWNet 4 Eternity & Beyond
Re: Batman: Arkham Knight
« Reply #51 on: Saturday, July 11, 2015, 08:21:31 PM »
After approximately 39 hours, I've finished the Main Quest of  Batman Arkham​ Knight (PC).

Despite its flaws, it was still pretty good.
And here's the thing w/ this all: this could've been great, if they didn't saddle the game w/ so much filler for gameplay...especially in the last 1/3rd of the game.

Offline Xessive

  • Gold Member
  • *
  • Posts: 9,918
    • XSV @ deviantART
Re: Batman: Arkham Knight
« Reply #52 on: Saturday, July 11, 2015, 09:35:12 PM »
I think the main problem I have with the content almost completely boils down to "too much Batmobile." Particularly, too many "take out the drones" sequences. They are monotonous.

In those moments I feel the game ceases to be a Batman Arkham game and turns into World of Tanks or something.

Plus there aren't enough investigations, I think there was one "rebuild the scene" sequence (similar to the investigations of Arkham Origins), and that was about it. The game is less "World's Greatest Detective" and a lot more "World's Greatest Mediocre Tank Operator."

Offline MysterD

  • Forum god
  • *
  • Posts: 18,049
  • OWNet 4 Eternity & Beyond
Re: Batman: Arkham Knight
« Reply #53 on: Saturday, July 11, 2015, 09:40:29 PM »
I think the main problem I have with the content almost completely boils down to "too much Batmobile." Particularly, too many "take out the drones" sequences. They are monotonous.
Agreed 100%.

They could've saddled a lot of these to the side quests, I would've been MUCH happier.

I don't mind cruising in the Batmobile or zipping around on the rooftops w/out anything getting in my way - it's just so much of the main quest involving Batmobile combat + stealth sequences just screams "Filler," especially in the last 1/3rd of the game.

Also, I never really found a boss fight here - and there really ain't many here, either - anywhere in the world of Origins. If there was anything Origins did right, that was it. Rocksteady did not learn from WB Montreal, obviously.

Quote
Plus there aren't enough investigations, I think there was one "rebuild the scene" sequence (similar to the investigations of Arkham Origins), and that was about it. The game is less "World's Greatest Detective" and a lot more "World's Greatest Mediocre Tank Operator."
No arguments there.

I didn't do all of it, but I liked some of the side-quests w/ scene-rebuilding that involved the serial killer. Those were cool. I should finish that plot-line.

Offline MysterD

  • Forum god
  • *
  • Posts: 18,049
  • OWNet 4 Eternity & Beyond
Re: Batman: Arkham Knight
« Reply #54 on: Saturday, July 11, 2015, 09:56:03 PM »
My long-winded Batman: Arkham Knight review on Steam:
http://steamcommunity.com/id/mysterd/recommended/208650


Offline MysterD

  • Forum god
  • *
  • Posts: 18,049
  • OWNet 4 Eternity & Beyond
Re: Batman: Arkham Knight
« Reply #56 on: Wednesday, July 15, 2015, 01:53:19 PM »
Batgirl: A Matter of Family DLC - REVIEWS:

Scored out of 10:
Destructoid -> 6.5

No score:
GamesRadar.
Kotaku
Eurogamer



Offline Quemaqua

  • 古い塩
  • Administrator
  • Forum god
  • *
  • Posts: 16,498
  • パンダは触るな。
    • Bookruptcy
Re: Batman: Arkham Knight
« Reply #57 on: Wednesday, July 15, 2015, 03:14:35 PM »
Aww. Bummer.

天才的な閃きと平均以下のテクニックやな。 課長有野

Offline MysterD

  • Forum god
  • *
  • Posts: 18,049
  • OWNet 4 Eternity & Beyond
Re: Batman: Arkham Knight
« Reply #58 on: Wednesday, July 15, 2015, 03:30:55 PM »
@Que

Yeah, real bummer. I was really looking forward to Batgirl. Was hoping they do something worthwhile w/ it.
Even though it sounds like quality, at around 50 min to an hour - skip that noise.

I might care about the DLC's, if I can get the Season Pass ultra-cheap down the line, in the future.

Offline gpw11

  • Gold Member
  • *
  • Posts: 7,180
Re:
« Reply #59 on: Wednesday, July 15, 2015, 06:10:46 PM »
I want to play this but also want to wait for the patch to fix it on PC......decisions

Offline PyroMenace

  • Senior Member
  • *
  • Posts: 3,930
Re: Batman: Arkham Knight
« Reply #60 on: Wednesday, July 15, 2015, 06:16:06 PM »
How bad is it on PC? Is it still completely fucked?

Offline gpw11

  • Gold Member
  • *
  • Posts: 7,180
Re: Re: Batman: Arkham Knight
« Reply #61 on: Wednesday, July 15, 2015, 10:17:52 PM »
How bad is it on PC? Is it still completely fucked?
From just testing it out it seemed not great but still completely playable.  This was only fifteen minutes or so, so I don't really know.  I'm hoping one of these guys can enlighten us.

Offline MysterD

  • Forum god
  • *
  • Posts: 18,049
  • OWNet 4 Eternity & Beyond

Offline MysterD

  • Forum god
  • *
  • Posts: 18,049
  • OWNet 4 Eternity & Beyond
Re: Batman: Arkham Knight
« Reply #63 on: Thursday, July 16, 2015, 06:11:07 AM »
How bad is it on PC? Is it still completely fucked?
Depends on your VRAM (Video-card RAM). Do you have 3-4 GB of VRAM?

If "yes" - you should be sitting at 1080p on Normal at least.

If you have a real 4GB VRAM (this doesn't include the 4GB 3.5 GB VRAM GeForce 970), I'd say aim for High settings.
So, namely - I'd say you'd need a 4 GB VRAM 960 or 980; 6 GB VRAM 980 Ti; or a Titan for High.
Or an AMD equivalent that is over 4 GB VRAM.

If you have the VRAM and a rig similar to mine (or better) - expect performance b/t 25-30 frames, no matter what...if you leave the cap on and don't mess w/ the INI files.

My rig running Batman AK PC = i7 950 @ 3.02 Ghz; 16 GB DDR3 RAM; 4 GB VRAM GeForce GTX 960; Win 7 64-bit.

Offline MysterD

  • Forum god
  • *
  • Posts: 18,049
  • OWNet 4 Eternity & Beyond
Re: Re: Batman: Arkham Knight
« Reply #64 on: Thursday, July 16, 2015, 06:22:27 AM »
From just testing it out it seemed not great but still completely playable.  This was only fifteen minutes or so, so I don't really know.  I'm hoping one of these guys can enlighten us.
I think the real thing w/ this game was - you need more VRAM to run it, basically.
Most people probably have a decent processor and nice amounts of regular RAM, but likely don't have 3-4 GB VRAM video-card.
We're just starting to see more PC games recommend 2-4 GB of VRAM or more, at higher settings - i.e The Evil Within, Batman AK, AC Unity, Ryse, Dead Rising 3, etc.

This game is WAY bigger than previous Batman games, has a lot more going on in the game-world (special effects-wise), is on the same UE Engine (that they modified + improved, in some ways), and is not optimized AT ALL. Hence why it's locked at 30 FPS - b/c supposedly, performance drops + rises quite a bit, if you unlock it and don't have a bloody beast of a vid-card.

EDIT:
People looking to screw w/ Batman AK's PC settings - you can do so via INI's, since this is a UE game.
Also, you can check out this Batman AK Tweak tool someone made.

If you're going to mess around w/ INI files and/or use the Batman AK Tweak Tool, this is AT YOUR OWN RISK.
Always BACK-UP INI files, game folder, saves, or whatever before you mod/tweak, if necessary - just in case things possibly go wrong!




Offline Cobra951

  • Gold Member
  • *
  • Posts: 8,934
Re: Re: Batman: Arkham Knight
« Reply #65 on: Thursday, July 16, 2015, 07:55:22 AM »
I think the real thing w/ this game was - you need more VRAM to run it, basically.
Most people probably have a decent processor and nice amounts of regular RAM, but likely don't have 3-4 GB VRAM video-card.
We're just starting to see more PC games recommend 2-4 GB of VRAM or more, at higher settings - i.e The Evil Within, Batman AK, AC Unity, Ryse, Dead Rising 3, etc.

You can thank the 8GB consoles with unified memory for that.  I imagine last gen, which lasted nearly a decade, it was a non-issue, with 512 MB and 256 MB available to the MS and Sony systems (respectively).  Games were designed with those limits in mind.  It must be a bitch to port a game from a PS4 to a PC now.  As you said, the CPU is not the problem.  That sucker will be loafing.  System RAM, same thing.  But the amount of shit the videocard has to address at any time--that is going to hurt.

Offline MysterD

  • Forum god
  • *
  • Posts: 18,049
  • OWNet 4 Eternity & Beyond
Re: Re: Batman: Arkham Knight
« Reply #66 on: Thursday, July 16, 2015, 09:48:53 AM »
You can thank the 8GB consoles with unified memory for that.  I imagine last gen, which lasted nearly a decade, it was a non-issue, with 512 MB and 256 MB available to the MS and Sony systems (respectively).  Games were designed with those limits in mind.  It must be a bitch to port a game from a PS4 to a PC now.  As you said, the CPU is not the problem.  That sucker will be loafing.  System RAM, same thing.  But the amount of shit the videocard has to address at any time--that is going to hurt.

Yup. What you mentioned is the common thing I hear on message boards and online, when talking about multi-platformed games on PC & PS4/X1 on the reason why PC games are requiring flat-out more VRAM, within the last year or so. Even more so true, now more so than ever before - since more games also aren't doing versions for the X360 + PS3; there goes the spiking of the PC requirements.

Also, throw on top of it all he fact that PC versions really ain't getting much love, care & support in many instances - yeah, especially in the AAA arena - this all can be combined into a recipe for disaster. Ask Iron Galaxy, WB, and Rocksteady about that one for Batman AK - it shows! Of course companies will support consoles more - easier to make for one fixed box (PS4 or X1 are each one fixed platform) opposed to many  hardware, software + variables on PC. And when they feel there's more money to make on the consoles (especially from ASAP MSRP purchases of games + DLC's/Season Passes), of course they'll support those platforms first!

EDIT:
AC Unity is another great example. This game's down-right beautiful on the PC to look at. It ran like garbage on my 1GB VRAM card (which was under-spec; it wants 2 GB VRAM - but I figured I'd try it, since I bought it cheap). 4GB VRAM, though - it eats AC:U for breakfast at 1080p on High to Ultra; i.e. 25-30 frames plus (25-30 is more what I get w/ Ultra; High is 30 frames plus).

Offline Xessive

  • Gold Member
  • *
  • Posts: 9,918
    • XSV @ deviantART
Re: Batman: Arkham Knight
« Reply #67 on: Saturday, September 05, 2015, 12:11:38 AM »
Good news! Arkham Knight for PC is fixed (for the most part). It's at least in the state in which it should have been released.

I can confirm that the framelock is now an option between 30, 60, and 90. Due to technical restrictions they cannot unlock it; theoretically, as long as it is a multiple of 30 it should function correctly.

The performance is smooth as butter and several visual effects that were missing are now appearing and looking gorgeous e.g. rain drops on the batsuit.

If you've been holding off on playing Arkham Knight due to the technical issues, it's time to hop in.

Offline PyroMenace

  • Senior Member
  • *
  • Posts: 3,930
Re: Batman: Arkham Knight
« Reply #68 on: Saturday, September 05, 2015, 02:58:50 AM »
Pretty crazy it took this long.

Offline MysterD

  • Forum god
  • *
  • Posts: 18,049
  • OWNet 4 Eternity & Beyond
Re: Batman: Arkham Knight
« Reply #69 on: Saturday, September 05, 2015, 05:43:26 AM »
Some of my thoughts on the so-called "miracle patch":
http://steamcommunity.com/groups/TGAEC/discussions/0/523890681420629251/

Quote
POST 3 -> 09-03-2015.
Testing the newly released "miracle" patch for Batman: AK.

So, I just tried a quick-look Batman: AK PC, to see how performance is.

Well...it's a bit better for me, I guess.

At 1080p; Maxed-out settings for the first set of Graphics Options; and all of the GameWorks Stuff OFF: 30 FPS no problem w/ the 30 FPS cap. Beats the former 25-30 FPS that I had before w/ the 30 FPS cap.

Now using the same settings & throwing on a few of the GameWorks Stuff on (except the first two options, which will take the card over 4GB VRAM); and with 60 FPS cap: meh. Performance is wild; ranging anywhere from 27 frames to 60FPS. It's all over the damn place, with crazy rises + drops. Sometimes in the 40's, or 50's, or at max of 60 FPS. Not consistent at all.

With the 30 FPS cap back in place - ahhhh, much better. 27-30 FPS. Looks great, running consistent.

I also got an "outdated vid-card driver" message. I have the NVidia 353.30 driver in for my 4GB VRAM 960. I'll have to look & see if the newer driver improves things any better for this game, when I feel like it. Not really in any rush, since I don't have some brand-new game that I really want to run + look better.

Offline gpw11

  • Gold Member
  • *
  • Posts: 7,180
Re:
« Reply #70 on: Monday, September 07, 2015, 07:45:13 PM »
Great news for me.   I'll be playing this soon!

Offline gpw11

  • Gold Member
  • *
  • Posts: 7,180
Re: Batman: Arkham Knight
« Reply #71 on: Thursday, September 24, 2015, 05:27:34 PM »
So, runs great with the patch and it's a really really good game. But god damn it, you guys were right about the tank battles.  JUST. STOP.

Offline MysterD

  • Forum god
  • *
  • Posts: 18,049
  • OWNet 4 Eternity & Beyond
Re: Batman: Arkham Knight
« Reply #72 on: Thursday, September 24, 2015, 06:48:09 PM »
So, runs great with the patch and it's a really really good game. But god damn it, you guys were right about the tank battles.  JUST. STOP.

They should've delegated more of the tank battle stuff to the side-quests. The last 1/3rd especially of the game just has way too many of them in the main quest. The tank battles just ain't deep enough, varied enough, and interesting enough for the amount of time the main quest spends on them.

Plus, Batman games are at their best w/ the hand-to-hand combat stuff, IMHO.

Offline Cobra951

  • Gold Member
  • *
  • Posts: 8,934
Re: Batman: Arkham Knight
« Reply #73 on: Monday, February 08, 2016, 02:30:03 PM »
Masterful game, one of the best.  I've been rotating through this, AC Syndicate and Borderlands TPS for the past 2 months, so it took a while to get through it (and Syndicate--the Borderlands games are more of a perennial playground for me).  The completion stands at 98%, with every item on the progress wheel chart at 100%, except for Azrael at a paltry 20%.  I've had a very hard time with a good number of activities needed for completion, but nothing like the expectation of not taking a single hit during the Azrael trials.  Even the Riddler's massive lineup of chores, fights and brain twisters--along with his incessant and demoralizing harangue--seem tame by comparison.  Perhaps I'm doing something wrong, or the reflexes are too old.  Either way, I think this is as complete as it's going to get.

This is the most perfect atmosphere I've ever experienced in any superhero game--highly detailed and completely fitting to the lore.  The look is amazingly well done.  The voice acting is top notch, including of course Mark Hamill as the Joker.  Performance is consistent throughout, with not a single program crash or other weird-out during my entire run through it on the XONE.  The story is engrossing, and the immersion complete.  Controls are just about perfect, with my only negative being that there are just too many of them.  So many different actions are possible that my aged memory doesn't seem capable of keeping all the button combos or context-sensitive executions straight at the lightning speeds required during combat.  As a result, I got much better at the strategic, but simpler-to-control tank battles than at melee combat.  I died a zillion times, and this was on the so-called "Easy" setting.  Yet I kept getting back on the horse and trying again, all the while improving my skills with the combat system.  It is quite deep and nuanced, and requires concentration.  Random button mashing gets me nowhere.  So well done.  I wish I was younger to be more adept at it.

And before I forget navigation, damn!  The Batmobile and the cape gliding are extremely enjoyable.  I spent long periods just hopping in and out of the car and just grappling ever higher, bomb diving and leveling out to a fast glide, and trying for the most elegant landings on rooftops and bridge supports.  It's so very compelling.

Anyway, it's too bad that the PC version turned out so troubled.  Let's ignore that.  Anyone with a PS4 or X1 needs to take this for a spin.

Offline MysterD

  • Forum god
  • *
  • Posts: 18,049
  • OWNet 4 Eternity & Beyond
Re: Batman: Arkham Knight
« Reply #74 on: Monday, February 08, 2016, 02:49:17 PM »
@Cobra

I liked Batman: AK, but my gripes with it are basically the last 1/3rd of the game. There's just too much forced Batmobile stealth missions + Batmobile tank missions. Both of those type of missions have repetitive combat, repetitive enemies. There's a lack of variety in those elements.

I also wasn't super-fond of Batman: AK's boss fights, as I think Batman: Arkham Origins were much improved and often more interesting. Batman: AO just rehashed too damn much + so much, I really couldn't get over that more so than anything else. I prefer the other 3 Arkham games.

I love just riding around the Batmobile to navigate + just traverse around the game-world - which, I also think, AC4: Black Flag (with its naval traversal) and AC: Syndicate (with stage-coaches and rope-launcher) learned very well, keeping the player from running around on their characters' feet MUCH less.

For me, Batman Arkham games, it looks like this:
AC > AA > AK > AO.

Offline Cobra951

  • Gold Member
  • *
  • Posts: 8,934
Re: Batman: Arkham Knight
« Reply #75 on: Monday, February 08, 2016, 03:59:59 PM »
Yeah, I get that the tank battles got tedious for a lot of players.  There are quite a few.  Two reasons why I think they didn't bother me (on the contrary, I enjoyed them):  (1) I got into their tactics right away.  I often completed even the most intense battles with almost no damage--I took very few hits, sometimes none.  The added perks like EMP and multi-missile attacks helped to keep it fresh too.  (2) As I said, I took 2 months of calendar time to play through the game, in rotation with 2 other engrossing, massive games.  So the tank battles didn't get a chance to stack up monotonously.

Offline MysterD

  • Forum god
  • *
  • Posts: 18,049
  • OWNet 4 Eternity & Beyond
Re: Batman: Arkham Knight
« Reply #76 on: Monday, February 08, 2016, 04:08:36 PM »
@Cobra
Did you also vary up quite a bit b/t the side + main quests in Batman AK, also?

Offline Cobra951

  • Gold Member
  • *
  • Posts: 8,934
Re: Batman: Arkham Knight
« Reply #77 on: Tuesday, February 09, 2016, 01:18:30 PM »
@Cobra
Did you also vary up quite a bit b/t the side + main quests in Batman AK, also?

Oh yeah.  Whenever I stumbled unto a side mission, I'd usually go ahead and tackle it.  The Riddler stuff in particular was a good diversion from the storyline.  Racking up upgrade points was important too, since I'm just not good at such million button-combo melee-fight mechanics.  I found myself upgrading defensive stats and abilities first, followed by easy-to-use offensive abilities.  Stuff that requires building up combo meters and then executing some multi-button maneuver at just the right moment and place was dead last.  When I had several unblocked most-wanted missions available, I'd often rotate through those too.  My favorite way to clear areas is with stealth--hiding under floors and doing multi-fear takedowns, then ducking away again, or striking from above and grappling away before getting mobbed.  But the game won't let you play that way very often.  There situations set up to force taking on a roomful of thugs all at once are the least enjoyable for me.  Those get so hairy as the game progresses.  This is where I die, a lot.

OK, so, the ending.  I went ahead and let the incomplete one happen, then I watched the complete one on youtube.  Don't like it.  It shouldn't be up to a game to do that. 
(click to show/hide)

Offline gpw11

  • Gold Member
  • *
  • Posts: 7,180
Re: Batman: Arkham Knight
« Reply #78 on: Wednesday, February 10, 2016, 08:22:02 PM »

OK, so, the ending.  I went ahead and let the incomplete one happen, then I watched the complete one on youtube.  Don't like it.  It shouldn't be up to a game to do that. 
(click to show/hide)


(click to show/hide)

Offline Cobra951

  • Gold Member
  • *
  • Posts: 8,934
Re: Batman: Arkham Knight
« Reply #79 on: Thursday, February 11, 2016, 08:12:45 AM »

(click to show/hide)

Without a doubt, outside the purview of where it happened, and it should have happened nowhere.  Part of it is the times we live in, right?  
(click to show/hide)
 No one respects anything.