Batman: Arkham Asylum - PS3/Xbox 360 Demo Showdown

By Richard Leadbetter Published 8 August, 2009

It's what you display that defines you.

There's just enough time to break off from work on other Digital Foundry material to deploy the newer, faster, more data-intensive DF analysis tools on the recently released Batman: Arkham Asylum demo. It's a 1.5GB download available from PSN and Xbox Live right now. It's a hefty download but one that's more than worth the time and bandwidth.

Powered by Unreal Engine 3, it's another chance to see how well the cross-platform environment is suiting the individual console platforms. In the most recent brace of examples (Wheelman and X-Men Origins: Wolverine), the games were close, with a small frame-rate advantage to Xbox 360, combined with fewer torn frames. The inclusion of 2x multisampling anti-aliasing was also a tangible advantage for the Microsoft platform.

While the versus/composite elements of the new Digital Foundry frame analyser are being tweaked and fixed, here are two videos to be getting on with rather than the usual composite: first the Xbox 360 game, swiftly followed up by a PS3 version showing action from exactly the same parts of the demo.

Selected gameplay highlights of the Xbox 360 version of Batman: Arkham Asylum.

Our survey says that based on the technical performance of this demo, nobody is going to be disappointed with Batman: Arkham Asylum. Both games maintain 30FPS for the most part with minimal screen-tear, and in our representative sample of around 17,000 frames, a mere 1.7 per cent of them were torn on PS3 compared to 0.2 per cent on 360. Due to the dark nature of the game, and the fact that it doesn't deal in fast, colourful action, even those torn frames were rarely noticeable. If the level of complexity in the environments increases in the final game, it's fair to assume that the disparity might widen (especially bearing in mind the additional tearing seen in the more open environments in the demo, most evident on PS3), but until we get retail code, we can't put that to the test.

The same gameplay excerpts this time running on the PS3 build of the game.

What is more apparent is that from a cursory inspection it's clear that the 360 has a marginal advantage in image quality, owing to the usual UE3 inclusion of 2xMSAA where there is none on the PS3. Again, the impact here is not so pronounced owing to the darker colour palette employed. Other than that, differences are minimal - a motion blur effect used sparingly when switching between scenes in the engine-driven cinematics is absent on PS3, and just like Wolverine there are differences in some of the lighting, most notably with the inclusion of SSAO (Screen Space Ambient Occlusion) on 360 which helps adds depth to the scene. However, it has to be said that these effects are difficult to notice: the dark and the general gloom really is a great leveller.

Based on the quality of the demo, this looks like being a great game regardless of platform - be sure to download the sampler at your earliest convenience and give it a whirl. I'm really looking forward to the full release now, and additionally the PC version should be a treat too. This build benefits from hardware-accelerated PhysX support, and as UE3 is typically relatively light on both CPU and GPU, it should be enjoyable to gamers even with a relatively modest gaming rig.

Picture of Richard.

About Richard Leadbetter

Rich has been a games journalist since the days of 16-bit and specialises in technical analysis. Commonly known around Eurogamer as the Blacksmith of the Future.

Read more articles from Richard by visiting the Richard Leadbetter archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (57) Latest comment 3 years ago

Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • XXmen #1 3 years ago

    I played the ps3 and pc demo and found the ps3 version ok, without the jaggies it would look better.On my pc(q6600 and gtx 260) I tried 1080p res and different AA solutions and found the best performance with 8Xq(that is never below 30 fps). What I found strange is the pc cinematics, they look like they're lower resolution(not 1080p)and locked to 30fps,or are they like movie files??put in there regardeless of the resolution you take.The x360 demo is on par with ps3, if not a lil bit better because of the 2x AA, but I found it surprising because all of the "free 4x AA" thing that all xbox games should have with their extra RAM that ps3 dont have....

  • chessboxer #2 3 years ago

    It was quite a good demo (PS3 so far, haven't tried the PC version) but the camera angles could do with sorting out. There were a few instances at the start when I was fighting that I found myself looking at a wall when Batman was introducing his elbow to an inmate's face in slowmo.

    I also think that he takes up a bit too much screen space at times.

  • superjag86 #3 3 years ago

    @XXmen: Yep the cutscenes on the PC are movie files which is a shame when you have a rig that runs the game really well.

    I would have bought this on the PC if it wasn't coming out earlier on the PS3. That and you get to play as the Joker!

  • Stormflood #4 3 years ago

    I do like these technical appraisals, but I'm buggered if I can see the differences they are pointing out here between the PS3 and 360 (I did a side by side myself). A little AA on the 360 softens the image, but the version look identical apart from that.

  • TheNinkyNonk #5 3 years ago

    Great demo for what seems to be a great game.

    Dire article for what seems to be a generation obsessed with triviality and one-upmanship

  • womble #6 3 years ago

    "A little AA on the 360 softens the image, but the version look identical apart from that."

    Can't agree with that at all. I A-B'd it on a 720p screen @ 80", HDMI.

    The 360 version isn't soft at all, the frame-rate feels slightly smoother during fights, and the AA really helps in certain areas. Not sure how you missed the improvement with AA on, but it was pretty obvious on my setup.

    Graphically, it's not a stellar game on any machine, but the 360 version is clearly the one to get if you own both HD consoles.

    Having said that, I'll probably only rent this game. It just didn't grab me.
    Edited by 3 at 09/08/09 @ 10:03

  • ZuluHero #7 3 years ago

    I was really surprised by this game - it went straight from a maybe purchase to a day 1. I would have gotten the PC version (just because i'm a cheapskate :p) but now thanks to the delay i'm going to have to get the 360 one. I can't see any real difference in these vids, if i owned a PS3 i think i would be very happy with either version (the game looks great on everything).

    The one thing that confuses me about the PC version, i have an 8800, but the hit of turning on physX really kills it (like a 30fps drop) without it i can run at about 40-60fps on everything set to "high" with PhysX i get 10-30fps (and this is with graphics set to "low". It still looks great, but i can't figure out why there is such a hit...

    And joe75 - why do you even bother gaming if you've become so jaded? I'm not going to oust you by pointing out your affinity with a certain MMO (lets just say its an infamous one on EG). But given that, your comment stikes me as odd.

    You do know the meaning of irony i trust?

  • Stormflood #8 3 years ago

    @womble I didn't miss the AA, it was the only thing I noticed. And I do think the image looks softer, but it's all subjective isn't it. But this really shows just how close the versions look when you need to flick between inputs, whilst staring at pixels - 99% of consumers would give a shit! Ghostbusters on the other hand...

  • decibel #9 3 years ago

    @XXmen, superjag86

    I thought the cutscenes for the demo were movie files to save space, and that the full versions actually use the in-game renderer for each cutscene. Correct me if I'm wrong :)

  • Hunam #10 3 years ago

    I found the movie files to be a little better looking on the PS3 than the PC, not sure what that could be down to, maybe a softer TV screen does them better. I'd wager they'll stay for the final release as not a lot of people like to use UE3 for cutscenes because of the texture loading issues that are very obvious in Mass Effect.

  • Eighthours #11 3 years ago

    Incredibly biased article. Extremely unprofessional; didn't realise this was such an amateur site having only discovered it recently.

    If you are going to write side-by-side comparisons such as this it would be helpful to your readers if you provided all relevant information so that they can make an informed choice.

    Eh? What other information is there?

  • miiiguel #12 3 years ago

    "Eh? What other information is there? "

    Indeed, I was expecting to read some factual info, but the post ended in nothing.

  • Twin_snakes #13 3 years ago

    He's probably talking about the 'exclusive' Joker challenge rooms that will obviously add so much to the game.

  • WinterSnowblind #14 3 years ago

    From what we've seen so far, the challenge maps aren't particularly long, and I doubt the Joker ones will be any different.. Also, we know they're going to be available on the 360 a few weeks later.

    Regardless, this was a comparasion of the DEMO. If there's information you feel was missed, feel free to point it out.

  • DaftVice #15 3 years ago

    Whatever the case, content is king. Joker on the PS3 will get my money.

    Exclusive DLC is stupid. I got lucky this time. Either way I would have bought this for my PS3.
    Edited by 1 at 09/08/09 @ 14:41

  • andywilkie35 #16 3 years ago

    I couldn't give a rat's ass about the Joker rooms. I've played both demos and they seem to be exactly the same from where I'm sitting but I'll go for the 360 version as that's my platform of choice.

  • lucky_jim #17 3 years ago

    Methinks a certain paranoid fool needs to lay off the SSkUNk...

  • rotmm #18 3 years ago

    Methinks being a cock is always a great way to make a good first impression for a new poster.

  • wobbly_Bob #19 3 years ago

    < - Eurogamer holding sign up reads "will bait fanboys for hits"

  • Wildsleven #20 3 years ago

    I honestly didnt see much of a difference... buy the game on the console u prefer the most i tell ya ;)

  • makeamazing #21 3 years ago

    Isnt it about time for an Unreal 4 engine? or is that already available?

    Not surprised by the comparison, again nothing really in them and wont see much difference unless you are running both side by side.

    Still not sure if I'm going to get this, should probably play the demo... just theres been a drought of games recently, though of course that will change in the next couple of months to a shower, question is do I buy this or try and play more of my other games... decisions decisions.

  • Uncle_Spanks #22 3 years ago

    Why can't all games on consoles just have v sync forced on?

    Can someone in the know please explain?!

  • Gaol #23 3 years ago

    I would've gone with PC too if it hadn't been delayed. Maybe I'll still wait, either way looks great on all platforms.

  • Huffman_D #24 3 years ago

    they are movie files on the ps3 too, it's just that the resolution on the movies in the ps3 are the same as the game, while on PC you're running the game on a higher rez(mine is 1920x1200) and the movies are still 1280x720. shame they opted not to use high def videos.

    i have a 9800gtx+ runs the game beautifully, and adds some funny physics objects like caution tape. it's kinda like the mirror's edge version; it's just for show and does nothing functional. especially since physx makes all sorts of drapes and tapes behave like toilet paper.

    i'll still probably get the xbox version, if only because the controls are awkward as hell on the mouse&keyboard and i dont wanna get a pc controller

  • Katsumoto #25 3 years ago

    You can always just plug the 360 pad into your PC, it will work off the bat.

  • RKOwned #26 3 years ago

    WOW, Eurogamer was really grasping for straws on this one. Fine Jouranlism boys. *rolls eyes* This si rediculous, both look exactly the same, and PS3 gets joker, therefore PS3 is the better version.

  • ChthonicEcho #27 3 years ago

    Methinks being a cock is always a great way to make a good first impression for a new poster.

    Hey, worked for me!

    You can always just plug the 360 pad into your PC, it will work off the bat.

    Don't think I didn't see what you did there.
    Edited by 1 at 09/08/09 @ 20:49

  • ukgamer #28 3 years ago

    ugh UE3 engine not going to buy this game now. What a POS.

  • sfp_noodle #29 3 years ago

    i completely agree with most comments on here, the difference is not even noticeable unless ur rich enough to own two decent sized hdtv's. i own both consoles and can honestly not see any difference at all between the two. the tearing tht is present was more or less absent to me. it wasnt glaringly obvious like it was in say, resident evil 5 on 360. the main reasons im going for the ps3 version is are simple - it gets the joker as an exclusive character, whether its shit or not, exclusive content equals definitive version. secondly, and this is a personal preference, but i prefer playing action/fighting games with the ps3 pad. ill take all shooters on my 360, but i wont ever give up my ps3 pad for adventure or action games. and finally, i managed to get a pre-order on the ps3 version at £22.50 from thehut.com a few days ago, so i win! :D eurogamer is simply here to start blatant flame wars. the only losers are the ones tht will defend their console like they gave birth to it, the real winners are the ones that have both consoles. sure tht isnt possible for everybody, but whatever console a game comes out for, jus enjoy it man! u know u guys dnt own 1000000X zoom optical equipment ;)

  • shebamurphy #30 3 years ago

    Anyone else playing Viewing Threshold bingo?

  • Darren #31 3 years ago

    The Xbox 360 version has 2X AA so it looks a little less jaggy than the PS3 which has no AA but otherwise the games appear identical as far as I can see in terms of effects, modelling and textures, i.e. bloody fantastic. I did prefer playing the game with the 360 controller though but that's a subjective/taste thing.

  • womble #32 3 years ago

    "eurogamer is simply here to start blatant flame wars. "

    Then feel free to leave.

    Which part of "This blog is based on technical and gaming issues based on video captures" is giving you the most trouble? It's a TECHNICAL blog, covering the choices that developers make when they create a game on multiple platforms.

    DF provide a great service. For free, I might add. Their articles are very interesting, and are targeting people who ARE interested in the technical aspects of gaming. If you are not one of these people, then why are you here?

    Regarding the idea of having to be "rich" to see a game on a big screen, that's not so. I have a an 80" screen which I built myself, using a Panasonic 720p projector. (A device which is much cheaper than a large plasma or LCD flatpanel.) Big screen gaming is not just for the rich, as long as you're willing to do a bit of work and look for bargains. And it's really well worth it.

    And on that big screen, the differences between titles become VERY evident. You may not be able to tell much difference between AA and non-AA on a 60cm TV, but it's very easy to tell the difference on a big screen. Same thing goes for tearing, contrast levels, texture quality, etc.

    In the case of Batman, the differences aren't huge, but they are exacerbated on a big screen. If you have the choice between the two, then the 360 version happens to look a bit better; it's the one you'd buy. But it's a not a game you're going to buy for the graphics, nor will you buy a console to play it. And regardless of your choice, it's not a HUGE difference, unlike, say, Ghostbusters.

    So, basically, keep up the good work DF, and don't listen to the naysayers who seem able to read all your articles yet continually miss the point of the bloody exercise.


    Edited by 1 at 10/08/09 @ 05:05

  • womble #33 3 years ago

    @semitope

    Hate the look of unreal engine games not to mention they seem quite limited.


    Yeah, because Mirror's Edge looks exactly like Gears of War, which looks just like Bioshock...

    What you're really saying is "I hate the look of any game that doesn't run natively on my pet platform".

    Pick something else to console-troll about, mate.

  • Quixz #34 3 years ago

    @womble

    Well said. +1

  • Scimarad #35 3 years ago

    "...and the movies are still 1280x720. shame they opted not to use high def videos. "

    I know you are making a sensible point but it amuses me that 1280x720 isn't considered HD:)

    I have to admit I don't tend to go beyond 1360x768 on my PC as it's attached to one of the Samsung LCDs that came out around the same time as the 360 - I've never ever felt I needed it to be any higher resolution than that but I suppose it's a taste thing.

  • mizcicz #36 3 years ago

    i liked the demo very much...i´m anything but a fan of superherogames...but this seems to have deep gameplay, a good storylinine and great artwork - so i might buy it...

  • Darren #37 3 years ago

    @Scimarad - On the consoles those 720p encoded movies are much closer in quality to the consoles' own 720p native resolutions so it looks fine but on the PC once you go above that to 1680x1050 or, in my case, 1920x1200 then the quality lessens dramatically and the video sequences can look somewhat crude and blocky.

    It's quite ironic really, at one time FMV always looked far superior to the in-game stuff but with the advent of more powerful systems and engines not to mention high-quality HDTVs and monitors they tend to either look worst or show all the flaws such as overcompression, etc. To be honest, I can't see why the movies in Batman AA are pre-rendered anyway, the UE3 engine is more than capable of handling real-time ones as Mass Effect (for one) proved.

  • chris_ace #38 3 years ago

    Post deleted at 11:55:13 13-12-2011

  • 3william56 #39 3 years ago

    F**k me. Now we're splitting hairs on demos, and making judgements on things that *might* be included later. What's next? A face off based on Assassin's Creed 3, ten years before it's released on the NextBox and PS5?

    Please - back to the fascinating DF tech retrospectives and developer interviews, and park this flamebait back in 2008 where it belongs. If there's a real, serious difference (like content, DLC, timing, or a really shameful conversion - here's looking at you Half Life2), bring it up in the review. Otherwise, claiming massive advantages based on an antialiasing routine? No thanks. Drags the entire site down.

  • Lionheart #40 3 years ago

    I liked this demo, yet why does every baddy have to go down holding his head EVERY time?

  • womble #41 3 years ago

    @3william56

    Mate, you are the ONLY person here who claimed there is some "massive advantage" to the anti-aliasing.

    Try reading what others have written, instead of making crap up and then working yourself up in to a lather about things you imagined.

  • septimus #42 3 years ago

    Get the PS3 version I guess.... 360 is packed away ready to move house, doubt I'll see it for a couple of months.

  • erp #43 3 years ago

    I was very, very pleasantly surprised by the PS3 demo. I don't have a 360 to do a direct comparison against but there was absolutely nothing I'd complain about on the PS3.

  • sfp_noodle #44 3 years ago

    @ womble

    first of all, jus because i think a certain website is starting flame wars it dusnt mean i dnt like to read their other articles. this is a duscussion board after all. its there to DISCUSS issues related to GAMING. this is just one of many. an OPINION isnt fact. just because u dnt agree with mines dusnt mean u have a right to tell me to leave mate. as for u building ur own 80" set, well done. but having sed tht, not all ppl in the world have tht ability either. whats easy to u isnt easy for everybody else. whilst u have the time to look for bargains and do some work on ur projectors, ppl like me go to uni and use the spare time to either work a part time job or see their girlfriend. im not argueing with u. all im saying is tht everybody has an opinion. dnt go belittling them simply because u disagree or have better knowldge on building big screens (:
    Edited by 2 at 10/08/09 @ 11:01

  • StooMonster #45 3 years ago

    the PC version should be a treat too. This build benefits from hardware-accelerated PhysX support, and as UE3 is typically relatively light on both CPU and GPU, it should be enjoyable to gamers even with a relatively modest gaming rig

    I am waiting for the PC version, 2560x1600 resolution and PhysX support for extra graphical touches. :)
    Edited by 1 at 10/08/09 @ 14:21

  • GamesConnoisseur #46 3 years ago

    I have both consoles but getting game on X360 as have a big screen, lots of friends on X360 who will also get game so can compare achievement and I played both demos. Not big differences other than issues get magnified on a large screen.

    Getting to play as a Joker is an advantage I accept that I will miss, If the exclusivity was much more in term of contents then I would think twice but not this one. Am I retarded for deciding so?!! Or it is my right and others to choose their preferred option?

    Less of infantile name callings pleeaaaassse!

  • StooMonster #47 3 years ago

    8ball: instead of a cool objective approach

    I am having a little trouble understanding how Digital Foundry's frame rate analysis is not a cool and objective approach. e.g.

    Both games maintain 30FPS for the most part with minimal screen-tear, and in our representative sample of around 17,000 frames, a mere 1.7 per cent of them were torn on PS3 compared to 0.2 per cent on 360.

    They've explained how they've gone about an analysis and what the statistical results are, how could they be more objective?

  • SnoopDop #48 3 years ago

    "a mere 1.7 per cent of them were torn on PS3 compared to 0.2 per cent on 360"

    So the PS3's worse 8.5 times than 360 ? WoW

  • siro #49 3 years ago

    SnoopDog: I was also surprised to see those numbers to be handled equally. This means a screen tear every 2 seconds (if it's a 30fps game), compared to every 17.

  • Miths #50 3 years ago

    I've never actually understood those "torn frames" percentages. If I recall correctly there have occasionally been games featured here at DF that supposedly have percentages as high as 20-30+ - shouldn't that pretty much result in a big nasty screen tearing line visible on screen almost constantly?
    That has certainly not been my experience with any of the games in question (or any games, period). Some of them definitely have had way more screen tearing than I've found acceptable, but we're still talking visible screen tearing several times a minute here, not every 0.3 seconds.

    So what exactly is "torn frames" supposed to mean in these DF articles? If the vast majority of those torn frames aren't actually visible to the naked eye, I don't really see how those percentages are interpreted in a relevant fashion?

  • Branoic #51 3 years ago

    I didn't bother to read this article cos I find these ridiculously in depth technical comparisons to be very dull. Just wanted to say kudos to the bloke who has famously spent the last two years working on nothing but batman's cape. Having played the demo, it is, indeed, a very nice cape.

  • Darren #52 3 years ago

    @Miths - Depending on your TV, the torn frames may appear at the top of the screen in the overscan area. GTA IV on the 360 had tearing but on my Sony HDTV it cannot be seen at all at 720p. Sometimes tearing is very subtle/minor and you won't notice it, such as in a dark game like Batman AA, others time you will very likely see it if the game is brightly lit, e.g. Call of Juarez: Bound in Blood!

    Whether you see it or not is really subjective, some people just don't see tearing at all (aren't they the lucky ones?), but DF have an objective test that reports the number of torn frames. The figure quoted is an average, tearing happens depending on the complexity of the scene and how much is going on at the time.

    From my own experience, any game that outputs less than 5% torn frames (ave. of 1 in 20) isn't going to be too annoying, even for those that notice it, so the 1.7% and 0.2% figures for the Batman AA are very encouraging.

  • WinterSnowblind #53 3 years ago

    I don't notice tearing at all, perhaps because I don't really understand it. But I'm happy to keep it that way.

  • Huffman_D #54 3 years ago

    unreal engine has a very distinctive look; which is why batman looks like bioshock looks like gears looks like rainbow six vegas. i do hate the unreal engine, but if the game is great it's a small pebble on an otherwise smooth road.

    they should do what they did with mirror's edge and mass effect; can't even smell the unreal from under there.

  • Darren #55 3 years ago

    @Huffman_D - If Mass Effect and Mirror's Edge don't look like UE3 games to you then that contradicts your statement about UE3 games having a distinctive look. The look is an artistic choice, some developers are clearly more imaginative than others, not everyone wants to make them look like Gears of War (although you can't really blame them for wanting to)!!!

    As for BioShock, it uses UE, yes, but it looks nothing like your average UE3 game IMO as the art design is far more imaginative and *gasp* colourful not the grey/brown palettes that UE3 is usually associated with (TimeShift, Blacksite, Turok, Hour of Victory, Gears of War, UT3, etc.).

    P.S. I do disagree that Mass Effect doesn't look like a UE3 game though, the texture pop in, very noticeable in the 360 version, is a dead giveaway for starters! ;)

  • SaberEdge #56 3 years ago

    Fanboys will start flame wars over practically anything, so I don't think the Digital Foundry blog should be blamed. They are providing a very interesting technical analysis for those of us interested in that kind of thing and it can't be helped if people use it as cannon fodder for their console wars.

    Anyway, I have tried both versions of the demo and I must say that this is one of the better multiplatform releases that I have seen in terms of platform parity. So, good job to the developers. I did notice that the 360 version was smoother-looking due to the anti-aliasing and I actually did notice a few more torn frames in the PS3 version, but I tend to notice aliasing and screen tearing issues quite easily. I would personally choose the 360 version if I were to buy this game, but I wouldn't be disappointed at all to play the PS3 version.

  • Coninja #57 3 years ago

    "It's quite ironic really, at one time FMV always looked far superior to the in-game stuff but with the advent of more powerful systems and engines not to mention high-quality HDTVs and monitors they tend to either look worst or show all the flaws such as overcompression, etc."

    Welcome to OnLive... low video resolution and artefacts 'n stuff from overcompression... and these are the least of our problems ;)