The game runs fine on my machine, I'm not even sure how, but it does and I do feel sorry for all the people who are struggling to run it.
But the problem is that all this knee-jerk reaction is going to give the game a massively negative stigma that'll stick with it, even when they eventually patch all the issues people are having with the game. It's like the Assassin's Creed Unity situation all over again (though Arkham Knight is no where near as broken as Unity was on release).
Holy shit what is wrong with the game?
-snip, there's more than just the FPS lock apparently-
[QUOTE=ClauAmericano;48032129]The only real "problem" is the locked 30fps the majority of reviews are reporting.[/QUOTE]
And you can easily unlock the fps by changing one line of text in an .ini file. But apparently it's still worth getting in a outrage over.
Also if you change any ini files (like to say uncap the pointless 30 fps limit) and then verify the game cache, it deletes the whole game.
Also like 5 minutes of unskippable logos
Sounds like every Arkham game requires like a week before they iron stuff out and things become playable for a lot of people.
Apparently if you edit the .ini files you run into even more issues.
The game's FPS will also jump all over the place (won't maintain 60 FPS) even at normal settings with a high-end GPU.
[video=youtube;dHAr3n53-U8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dHAr3n53-U8[/video]
Bad PC port basically.
[QUOTE=The Stills;48032133]And you can easily unlock the fps by changing one line of text in an .ini file. But apparently it's still worth getting in a outrage over.[/QUOTE]
Because when you unlock it the framerate dips to 10-15 instead.
Wooo, shitty PC ports! When will developers get that the PC is not a console?
[QUOTE=Jamsponge;48032166]Wooo, shitty PC ports! When will developers get that the PC is not a console?[/QUOTE]
It's just WB proving yet again that they're the worst publisher.
[QUOTE=ClauAmericano;48032129]The only real "problem" is the locked 30fps the majority of reviews are reporting.[/QUOTE]
Oh and you know, constant stutters, 980's not even being able to run it that well, turning off depth of field causes huge problems like no map, counter warning, or detective vision. etc.
[QUOTE=l337k1ll4;48032177]It's just WB proving yet again that they're the worst publisher.[/QUOTE]
What do WB have to do with this?
[QUOTE=Novangel;48032191]What do WB have to do with this?[/QUOTE]
They released unfinished game.
[QUOTE=Novangel;48032191]What do WB have to do with this?[/QUOTE]
What Does ubisoft has to do with releasing AC unity
[QUOTE=Novangel;48032191]What do WB have to do with this?[/QUOTE]
Multiple things, really. The atrocious DLC bullshit Arkham Knight is already pulling for one thing, trying to get people to preorder the game + a season pass for 80 freaking euros. That's WB.
And the fact that Rocksteady released the game in this state indicates that WB forced them to hold the deadline, even though the game clearly isin't finished.
I love the Rocksteady Batman games, and I was hyped on this as well, but the horrible DLC bullshit turned me off from buying it, and the horrible port just solidifies that decision.
Well I know of a game that's going to be subjected to warez until the GOTY edition is in next year's sales.
[QUOTE=Muggi;48032238]Multiple things, really. The atrocious DLC bullshit Arkham Knight is already pulling for one thing, trying to get people to preorder the game + a season pass for 80 freaking euros. That's WB.
And the fact that Rocksteady released the game in this state indicates that WB forced them to hold the deadline, even though the game clearly isin't finished.
I love the Rocksteady Batman games, and I was hyped on this as well, but the horrible DLC bullshit turned me off from buying it, and the horrible port just solidifies that decision.[/QUOTE]
I thought the game already got delayed due to polishing time anyway though.
What the fuck happened? I remember the ports of Asylum and City being good.
[QUOTE=The Stills;48032122]The game runs fine on my machine, I'm not even sure how, but it does and I do feel sorry for all the people who are struggling to run it.
But the problem is that all this knee-jerk reaction is going to give the game a massively negative stigma that'll stick with it, even when they eventually patch all the issues people are having with the game. It's like the Assassin's Creed Unity situation all over again (though Arkham Knight is no where near as broken as Unity was on release).[/QUOTE]
your name should be "the shills" with the amount of shill in that post
[QUOTE=codemaster85;48032533]your name should be "the shills" with the amount of shill in that post[/QUOTE]
I'm not sure what you're even getting at. I realise that it's a shitty port and a lot of people are having issues, but that fact of the matter is that the game runs fine for me, it dips here and there but I'm not getting anything near the huge issues I can see other people are getting.
It clearly must be because Rocksteady have paid me off, right?
[QUOTE=itisjuly;48032125]Holy shit what is wrong with the game?[/QUOTE]
Well as people have already noted, it really does run like total shit, but I do believe that the backlash is mostly just "lel, pcmasterrace, we do not preorder, we do not forgive ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)". A lot of PC releases are locked at 30, some of them can't be unlocked without fucking the game up completely - and while that sucks, it's nothing new. Maybe it's just the summer
Also, it is widely thought that the game has that Denuvo stuff implemented, so a shitload of people are getting mad about DRM, even though they gladly bought the game on Steam.
[QUOTE=codemaster85;48032533]your name should be "the shills" with the amount of shill in that post[/QUOTE]
How uncalled for. Grow up man.
Arkham Knight is a fucking stellar game, it just launched with problems, like most games do, problems that could potentially be fixed by the time a couple days have passed. That "Mostly Negative" on its page is most likely not going anywhere even if the problems do get fixed and that could just be the biggest problem here assuming the problems do get patched out.
[QUOTE=Keychain;48032699]How uncalled for. Grow up man.
Arkham Knight is a fucking stellar game, it just launched with problems, like most games do, problems that could potentially be fixed by the time a couple days have passed. That "Mostly Negative" on its page is most likely not going anywhere even if the problems do get fixed and that could just be the biggest problem here assuming the problems do get patched out.[/QUOTE]
Problems that should never fucking occur in the first place. You cant release a game that 80% of the Pc playerbase has problems with and say "oh its just released omg wait for patch" There have been countless other releases of games that have not had such significant issues that were as widespread as this.
[QUOTE=l337k1ll4;48032177]It's just WB proving yet again that they're the worst publisher.[/QUOTE]
Oh, there are way worse publishers than WB.
Compared to companies like Bethesda and Ubisoft, they have a pretty good track record. One bad PC port isn't the end of the world.
and that's what refunds are for
[QUOTE=The Stills;48032133]And you can easily unlock the fps by changing one line of text in an .ini file. But apparently it's still worth getting in a outrage over.[/QUOTE]
And what does locking the FPS to 60 do? Completely fuck up the entire gameplay?
[QUOTE=Bat-shit;48032847]And what does locking the FPS to 60 do? Completely fuck up the entire gameplay?[/QUOTE]
It has no bad effect on the game at all from the 2 hours of it I played last night.
[QUOTE=Bat-shit;48032847]And what does locking the FPS to 60 do? Completely fuck up the entire gameplay?[/QUOTE]
It's been said in the thread already, people have been reporting that makes the framerate highly unstable and causes stuttering. It hasn't caused any issues like that for me.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
