PC Tech Comparison: Batman: Arkham City

By David Bierton Published 10 December, 2011

Issues aside, Rocksteady's superb PC build is a huge improvement over the console versions.

PC versions of cross-platform titles are often characterised as simple ports with only the power of the hardware itself giving any advantage over their console equivalents in terms of higher frame-rates or superior resolutions. Batman: Arkham City on PC is not one of these games. It's enormously improved over the console game, even if the initially broken DirectX 11 rendering mode grabbed headlines for all the wrong reasons.

While it doesn't reach the same lofty standards set by the likes of Battlefield 3, it's clear that UK developer Rocksteady has put some effort into making the PC version a substantially better experience. While much of the artwork is shared with the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 builds, pretty much every corner of the game is blessed with a graphical upgrade in one way of another. Some of the differences are quite subtle, adding an extra layer of mild polish to the look of the game, while others are far more drastic, showcasing just how much more detail and clarity is possible when pairing up Rocksteady's masterpiece with a decent spec PC. It's a game that cries out to be run at resolutions well in excess of the console standard 720p.

At the forefront of this is the inclusion of a DirectX 11 rendering mode, taking advantage of advanced visual features which increase graphical complexity and provide gamers with the highest-end experience possible. The results are very impressive indeed, as we'll demonstrate shortly, but only now is it actually playable via a recently released patch - previously, the game experienced lag and stutter that ruined it in this mode.

Pre-patch, Rocksteady simply recommended that users stick to the game's DX9 setting in order to obtain smooth gameplay, and even now, users of 32-bit versions of Windows still can't access DX11 without debilitating performance levels. However, for the purposes of the initial console head-to-head, we'll concentrate on the patched game running on top tier settings on an x64 system. So here's the new game up against the PlayStation 3 version, though if you'd prefer an Arkham City Xbox 360 vs. PC comparison, we've got that covered too, plus there's the obligatery 720p triple-format comparison gallery.

Arkham City at 720p with DX11 settings compared against the standard PlayStation 3 game. Use the full-screen button to enjoy full HD resolution.

As usual we've matched up the resolution with the console versions, running the game in 720p but with all graphical options fixed at their highest settings. This includes the use of 8x multi-sampling anti-aliasing, and with detail levels set to 'very high'. All DX11-specific rendering features have also been turned on, with the goal of showcasing just how much of an improvement you'll be getting when pairing up Arkham City with a decent PC. In all honesty, it's not hard to notice the difference.

How Arkham City PC Improves on Console

The most obvious boost in visual fidelity comes with the inclusion of anti-aliasing, an element missing from both the 360 and PS3 builds. The use of 8x MSAA provides ample coverage in all areas of the scene, with very little in the way of sub-pixel issues and plenty of clean lines free of obvious edge shimmering. The game looks very clean indeed, and the large amount of edge smoothing really helps to preserve subtle details far away from the camera. Dropping the amount of anti-aliasing down to a more manageable 4x MSAA also delivers a reasonably similar baseline look (though without such good sub-pixel coverage) owing to the dark nature of the game and the style of the artwork, which tends to hide the 'jaggies' quite well.

The key artwork is also hugely improved over the consoles in many areas, and the difference is striking, with the PC game offering up higher-resolution textures that are noticeably more detailed from a distance and that contain even more subtleties when viewed up close - things such as pores and indentations in the characters' skin are more pronounced, along with the textured material of their clothing (Batman himself is a triumph in this regard). Characters in general benefit the most from this upgrade, with additional surface shaders bringing the in-game models ever closer to matching their counterparts, shown in the game's in-engine cut-scenes.

360-5
pc-5
360-3
pc-3

There's a lot of shared artwork between the console and PC versions of Arkham City, but the top shot demonstrates how some core art gets a substantial improvement. In the bottom shots, you can see that LOD popping is far less of an issue on PC.

Additionally, the streaming issues present in the console versions of the game are practically gone, and parts of the environment also benefit from having more detailed texture work on PC. The harshest transitions between mip-maps are entirely absent, with higher quality art being loaded in much earlier. There are some minor instances of texture pop-in, but this is hardly visible at all when playing the game, and is part and parcel of optimising for an open-world set-up - there's no point in loading in the highest quality assets on objects very far away from the player as the finer details won't be resolved when viewing them from a distance.

Beyond the use of higher-resolution assets, another key visual upgrade when moving over to the PC version comes with the use of tessellation: a feature of the Direct X 11 renderer which adds more geometry detail to parts of the environment and characters, thus bringing more three-dimensionality to the scene. Working in combination with carefully placed displacement maps, objects which previously appeared a little flat or blocky on the consoles now feature a lot more depth and polygonal detail, with this enhancing the stylised architecture found throughout the game.

We've put together a set of shots below that give you a very good idea of what you're getting: the bricks on the wall in the top shots now feature more polygonal detail, rather than this being faked via the use of normal maps, while the rubber piping in the images below appear rounded as you would expect, compared to the more rudimentary representations seen on the consoles. All across the game we can see subtle enhancements due to the use of this technique, adding to an already polished visual experience where the art is concerned.

dx9-1
dx11-1
dx9-2
dx11-2

A couple of comparison shots showing how tessellation and displacement mapping improve the look of the game in DX11 mode. The rounded brickwork on the wall to the left in the top shot, and the background detail behind Poison Ivy on the bottom shot are subtle but effective additions overall.

Many of these improvements scale up nicely when rendering out in higher resolutions, taking advantage of the additional pixel precision available. The already detailed artwork gains an extra level of clarity when viewed in 1080p or other console-beating resolutions, while the use of 8x MSAA (in turn with the smaller pixel structure) leads to a smooth, almost jaggie-free appearance to the game. It's fair to say that Arkham City looks absolutely stunning in these conditions, and you get the feeling that the visuals are being fully fleshed out in a way that is only possible when gaming on powerful PC hardware.

Improved Effects Work and the PhysX Factor

In other areas, improvements to the visual effects work are also evident; motion blur is rendered using a higher precision implementation, with object blur being more prominent during the cut-scenes and when performing specific, context sensitive moves. Horizon-based ambient occlusion (HBAO) adds a noticeable amount of depth to various scenes, subtly and without appearing overblown. The PC game also benefits from multi-view soft shadows (MVSS): the use of contact-hardening soft shadows for all dynamic shadows cast by both Batman and Catwoman, whereby the shadow penumbra sharpens up when either character interacts with these.

360-11
pc-11
360-45
pc-45

PC benefits from more effects such as additional light sources and ambient occlusion, along with higher precision versions of existing effects, such as motion blur.

In terms of the game's lighting set-up there are additional light sources present in many scenes over the console versions, along with enhanced lighting effects in others - an extra bloom component can be found on various lights throughout the environments, with some being noticeably brighter than others. Along with this, we get the familiar HDR lighting set-up as seen on both consoles, complete with the pleasing use of Unreal Engine 3's lightshaft technology.

Beyond the more obvious eye-candy, we also have PhysX integration within the game's framework. PhysX provides users with compatible NVIDIA hardware with more realistic collision routines between smoke and particle effects, along with enhanced physics for clothing and various environmental objects; paper and debris get kicked up when fighting, wooden crates and walls splinter upon impact, and there's a general sense that yet more believability is subtly added to the game world as a result.

Similar to Arkham Asylum, the implementation of GPU-accelerated PhysX in Batman: Arkham City provides some dramatical visual improvements to the game.

All in all, there's no question that the DirectX 11-powered version of Batman: Arkham City is leagues above the console SKUs, which isn't at all unexpected given Rocksteady's previously stellar work on the PC port of Arkham Asylum and the ever-increasing gap between console and computer hardware. However, considering the fine work carried out on making the PC version this superior to the 360 and PS3 releases, has the recent patch fixed the various performance issues users have been reporting?

Without the patch enabled, running Batman: Arkham City using the DirectX 11 rendering mode isn't a pretty sight where performance is concerned: essentially, the game near-constantly stutters and drops frames, often severely impacting the gameplay in a way which ruins your enjoyment. One minute things are relatively smooth, while the next everything falls apart, with regular switches between the two.

Arkham City: DX9 vs. DX11

The good news is that things have definitely improved after installation of the patch. Running the game in the highest settings still puts a strain on our i5 and GTX460 set-up, but the annoying stuttering and hitching that frequently occurred is massively reduced. Lag still kicks in during cinematic sequences and in some gameplay moments (such as the slow-motion takedowns when the last enemy is dispatched), but across a general run of play, things are far more stable. The issue is still present to some degree, but it's now an occasional annoyance than a game-breaker, and if you drop down from max DX11 settings you can still enjoy the majority of the experience without the performance issues.

So, 64-bit Windows users can finally enjoy the game in all its graphical glory (hardware specs permitting, of course). However, 32-bit Windows users aren't so lucky; Rocksteady are still working to resolve the issue, but until then they're effectively stuck with the older DX9 rendering mode as a temporary solution. This isn't a deal-breaker, but regardless, it remains shocking that the game should ship in this state in the first place. So until another patch appears that sorts out the issue for all operating systems, what's the impact of a DX9 downgrade? Is Arkham City still a console-beating game on PC?

A cursory 720p comparison of Arkham City's DX9 and DX11 renderers suggests that the differences are quite subtle and nuanced - even the standard DX9 rendition is a significant improvement over the console games. Use the full-screen button to enjoy full HD resolution.

In all honesty, the drop in visual fidelity is hardly worth shouting about considering that most of the additional upgrades found in the DirectX 11 rendering mode are still in play to some extent - albeit with simpler, lower precision versions of similar effects. While tessellation is completely absent (as such we do lose those smoother, or more three-dimensional surfaces) along with the use of MVSS for contact soft shadows, we still get the benefits of having higher-precision object motion blur above the console versions, and screen-space ambient occlusion replaces the heavier HBAO implementation found exclusively in DX11 mode. The use of AO is handled delicately, with little in the way of unsightly artifacts, and does a good job of subtly adding extra depth to the scene.

Elsewhere, the higher-resolution textures and improved surface shader effects all remain firmly in place, and scale up just as well when moving up the resolution chain. Characters feature additional geometry details and more refined use of normal mapping over the console versions, and the game still looks superb overall.

By far the main difference, though, comes in the way of performance. The game is not only smooth and playable, but also runs faster on less powerful hardware. This isn't really surprising given that the DX11 mode is still borked in this regard for 32-bit Windows users, but we do see that the additional graphical upgrades really start to shine when paired up with high frame rates. While 8x MSAA in combination with PhysX set on normal proved a little too much for our Core i5 and GTX 460 combo to manage (we got between 50 and 20 frames per second depending on draw distance and scene complexity), dropping AA down to 4x and turning off PhysX altogether helped to stabilise things a little without having to disengage v-sync.

However, owners of a top end Core i7 and GTX580 set-up should be able to enjoy a far more consistent 60FPS experience without any concerns at 1080p, providing a definitively superior experience over the 360 and PS3 builds, while Rocksteady themselves recommend a GTX570 class GPU as a solid starting point, with a second GPU attached to the system if you want to enjoy the PhysX effects at max.

1080p1
1080p2
1080p3
1080p4

Scaled up to higher resolutions, such as 1080p, Rocksteady's excellent modelling and improved textures create a visual experience significantly beyond what we've seen on the existing console games. Click on the thumbnails for full 1080p images.

In all fairness, some of the enhanced DirectX 11 feature set simply adds extra subtleties to the game's graphical make-up, rather than providing another gigantic leap over and above the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 releases. In that respect, the boost in visual quality gained from the use of higher resolution artwork, more detailed characters, and improved lighting - all contained within the lower-end DirectX 9 framework - is easily enough to make Arkham City on the PC by far the best version to get. The leap over the consoles is night and day, and as a result of the superior performance the game is more fun to play.

There's also full support for NVIDIA's stereoscopic 3D Vision technology - while this does present further performance implications, the 3D effect is remarkable, especially on the newer 3D Vision 2 set-ups. Games with platform-style elements like Arkham City definitely benefit from increased depth perception, but it's the quality of the modelling and the materials that generally look fantastic when viewed in 3D, and the open world elements in particular present some spectacular views that are greatly enhanced with 3D Vision. Be prepared to fiddle with settings to get a consistent level of performance though: we found that 1080p 3D even with a GTX580/i7 combo required dialling down some settings and opting for the DX9 renderer.

Overall, while the game-breaking bugs in the DX11 mode can only be viewed as a massive own-goal (thankfully, mostly resolved now when running a 64-bit OS), the PC version of Arkham City is still absolutely worth your time and your money, clearly showcasing the benefits of the platform against the ageing console hardware more than most multi-platform titles, and presenting a wealth of lovely new features - especially so for owners of more powerful NVIDIA graphics cards.

And if you didn't already know, Arkham City is also a superb sequel that manages to out-quaff the original in almost every way, delivering the most impressive Batman game we've seen so far - and if you've not experienced it yet, the PC version is the one to get.

Comments (124) Latest comment 5 months ago

Comments for this article are now closed, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • Leolian #1 6 months ago

    Maybe it's cause I'm reading this on my iPhone, but I couldn't tell any difference between those screen grabs.

  • dsmx #2 6 months ago

    You expect to see differences on a 4 inch screen?

  • Utopolitan #3 6 months ago

    I still can't use DX11 properly with my two gtx560 TI in SLI. Flickering textures, stuttering, considerable performance drop. Problems I didn't have before installing the patch.

    Yes, I'm using 64-bit Win 7.
    Edited by Utopolitan at 10/12/11 @ 08:43

  • bazqwerts #4 6 months ago

    I5 2500k, gtx 570, 8 gig memory on windows 7 64 O/S. game broken before the patch, unplayable. Now, after update and pissing around logging in through steam then games for windows live which takes about 5 mins, stutters at opening scene to the point Ive just given up trying to play it. Great work.. Well worth the wait. Credit to PC gaming rocksteady. Wankers.

  • bazqwerts #5 6 months ago

    And really happy with the dismissive way D.F treats the debacle.

  • Ducanoff #6 6 months ago

    I gotta be honest, the differences are incredibly minor... calling it "leagues" above the console versions is really stretching it.
    The PC is my preferred platform but I have jet to see an implementation of tessellation that adds significantly to a games graphical presentation.

  • skunkfish #7 6 months ago

    Any idea how well this will run with a Radeon 5850?

  • tiny_Pepper #8 6 months ago

    @bazqwerts Given that theres a number of people that can play the game game without any problems have you ever considered that maybe the problem night be your end? High specs doesn't mean you don't have some duff software screwing something up or a partially broken component of windows etc. (obviously they admitted the dx11 issue but it was still fine in dx9)
    Why is everyone always so quick to blame developers when they have pc issues when there's so many things out of their control (not just rocksteady, you see aggressive posts like this for practically every single game!)

  • gourry #9 6 months ago

    Watching the videos, i really can't see much difference other than a bit more snow on bat's cape for the PC version. Must be getting old...

    Already completed the game on xbox so I cannot see a need to bother with the PC version (which I would have got if they had not delayed it so long). Might take a look when its a Ł5 on steam next year as the xbox version gets traded in this weekend :)

  • Moxyz1 #10 6 months ago

    i was expecting to see a big difference when i clicked on the video in hd and i had to check that i had clicked on the pc v console comparison video and not ps3 v xbox one as i could not see any difference except more detail on his cape close up. im not biased as i have all three systems that can play it, i bought ps3 for 3d tv.

  • Ryboy #11 6 months ago

    While the DX11 fix has definitely improved things on my end, I still cannot run it with everything maxed on my overclocked i5 2500k, GTX580, 16gb 1600Mhz and Win 7 64. I ended up turning off VSync, turning down DX11 to medium and turning the PhysX down to medium also.

    But maybe I'm doing it wrong. Trouble is I find having to completely leave the game every time I wish to tweak the settings an absolute ball-ache. Just would of thought that a pretty decent rig such as mine would destroy this game graphically.

    What I did find slightly disappointing is that this article did not really explore the further AA settings above 8x MSAA and their affects.

    Still a great read though.

  • kirankara #12 6 months ago

    got to agree, I was expecting huge differences based on article, but saw only minor differences. I have thought many times about getting a gaming PC, but overall, have yet to see much, other than bf3, that convinces me is worth the investment. Even when I decide to get one, to experience games at their best,I read about issues people having with games on PC, and not having tech know how others seen to have about PC gaming,I just think, its too much hassle for me. Consoles have their share of issues this gen with patches fixing minor and major issues, but at least it doesn't mean I've got to find answers, and need around with things at my end to maybe get it to work. Forget that for barrel of laughs. My time means far to much to me to spend it faffin about looking for ways to get my game to work.

  • The-Jack-Burton #13 6 months ago

    The console experience has definitely plateaued, for me, and I am craving something new. I have the three, Wii,360,PS3. I think I'm just tired of the fact that consoles are a closed system and I would really enjoy messing around with the nuts and bolts, and participate with some of the communities that enjoy the same thing. The investment is a difficult hurdle for me to get past, though. But that is where I'm at right now, I'm looking to get a nice PC.
    Edited by The-Jack-Burton at 10/12/11 @ 10:54

  • kirankara #14 6 months ago

    @The-Jack-Burton

    both looking exact opposite experience then.I want simplicity and minimal , whilst you want a project , for want of better term.
    I'm happy to live with less pristine graphics,s long as I can just put in my game and play, cause I value my time, and spending it tinkering, just isn't a good use of it IMO. If PC's didn't involve so much messing around, I'd have bought one already, but happy to wait for next gen

  • MMMMMM7 #15 6 months ago

    Unfortunatly my fears come true. This generation of graphic cards
    nvidia 500 and AMD 6000 series although offering DirectX 11
    graphics support, in practice prove (I mean in real games), that
    they aren't capable enough of offering a worthly DirectX 11
    experience.

    When even the nvidia 580 offers poor frame rates with high settings
    I can only wish nvidia and AMD in their next generation of graphic
    cards in 2012 make them powerful enough to make DirectX 11 games
    with high tesselation features playable and in more affordable
    prices for the averege pocket which covers the 90% of pc gamers.
    Edited by MMMMMM7 at 10/12/11 @ 11:26

  • The-Jack-Burton #16 6 months ago

    @kirankara Yeah, I love tinkering and micromanaging the minutia. I'm a gamer first and foremost, and the consoles have been great for me. But I am ready for a project, like you said.

  • endgame #17 6 months ago

    wow!! the differences r staggering! and now I'm wondering: how many ppl bought a ps3 version of the game which looks so much worst and is so much more expensive than the pc version!? u know u could make this into an add for the console crowd saying "ppl today, getting smarter with each generation!" :D

  • Stratix #18 6 months ago

    Dx 11 version works fine for me now, and looks very nice indeed. Glad I didn't quite finish the game before the patch came out.

    Anyone running Windows 7 on 32 bit is doing something seriously wrong, I can't see anyone using that these days.

  • The-Jack-Burton #19 6 months ago

    @endgame

    I can't tell if your're being funny or if you're just a jackass

  • geox30 #20 6 months ago

    @MMMMMM7
    Graphics Cards of this generation are perfectly capable of delivering a good DX11 experience.I own a previous gen Radeon 5870 and I can run everything DX11 maxed-except BF3,which runs close to maxed.It is bad programming and lazy ports that does this you say.

  • kirankara #21 6 months ago

    @The-Jack-Burton I think its an attempt at humour. Either that or is a shining example if how care in the community is failing the mentally disabled in our country

  • T3TSUO #22 6 months ago

    It's funny pc Crysis was given a different set of rules when comparing against console.
    Besides I'm in the minority but I didn't enjoy this new batman. Far too much back and forthing.

  • Darksjeik #23 6 months ago

    *puts hand on shoulder of Sony and Microsoft*

    a new console....it's time

  • Skirlasvoud #24 6 months ago

    I'll give you a tech issue! Where's my save games?

    I'm a paying customer and my achievements get registered on Games for Windows Live, but every time I restart the game my progress vanishes.

    I'd gladly sacrefice DX11 for just the ability to save my progress!

    So many weeks in and to many, the game is still a broken mess on the PC.
    Edited by Skirlasvoud at 10/12/11 @ 11:53

  • Badassbab #25 6 months ago

    @kirankara

    Gaming on PC is still a mixed affair. I got one about a year ago (after giving up on PC gaming a good few years ago) and when everything falls into place it's brilliant but more often then not you will end up having to tinker about with the settings until YOU are satisfied. The initial outlay is quite expensive but the games are a lot cheaper especially if you wait for the prices to drop and/or for the constant deals on digital download shops (recently got RAGE for less than Ł13). The beauty of gaming on PC isn't just the graphical upgrades but also the buttery smooth frame rates and tear free gameplay. I mean say your happy with the standard console 30fps/720p experience than you really won't need that powerful a PC to run that. You can wack all the settings right up, won't even need to engage v-sync and play a rock solid 30fps (or 60fps if you want which should be no problem at 720p) with no screen tear at all. Some console exclusive games I wish I could play on PC as it's evident the host console is holding it back from looking really good as opposed to just good. Halo Reach and Resistance 3 spring to mind.

  • kirankara #26 6 months ago

    @Badassbab yeah,I know all that mate. I just don't want to end up with issues takes that me hrs, days or may never get solved at all,as I'm not great with the tech side of PC's. I'd do it properly, if I was going to buy PC, and lay out for a mid/top end PC, and would love the better frame rates and extra polish where available, but when it all doesn't just fall into place,I don't want the headaches that come with it, so I'll tolerate until next gen I think
    Edited by kirankara at 10/12/11 @ 12:30

  • JamieR #27 6 months ago

    The biggest thing that stands out to me is the diffreance in AA pc is better with that but considering pc's are suposed to be twice as powerful as consoles and have 8x the memory i think consoles hold up well.

  • kirankara #28 6 months ago

    @Badassbab

    Oh yeah, and I'd probably have to sell my ps3/360 to fund new PC, and missing out on those exclusives like last guardian etc would kill me. I'm going to invest my spare change in a 3ds tbh, as I'm missing the Nintendo magic having sold my Wii. The cravings for Mario and Zelda are killing me.
    Edited by kirankara at 10/12/11 @ 12:29

  • obscured021 #29 6 months ago

    Looks great in dx 11 mode with 3d on, but with 3d off running at 120fps it's crazy smooth, its hard to tell the difference on videos but it dose look way better than the 360 version my friend has

  • The-Jack-Burton #30 6 months ago

    It is pretty incredible how low level programming on consoles holds up so well against powerful PCs being governed by Directx.

  • CrispyXUK #31 6 months ago

    Looks the same to me.

  • Dr_Cowley #32 6 months ago

    Damn, with the boasting headline and novel length article I was expecting a bit more than "the graphics are better".

    25 years of gaming has taught me that graphics arnt everything, hell in some games they account for fuck all

  • Lemming81 #33 6 months ago

    I'm sure I read on RPS the DX11 stuff isn't working properly yet and is waiting for a patch. You are looking at DX9-level graphics, I believe - Hence the lack of difference.

  • Deckard1 #34 6 months ago

    Except for the better aa it looks the same? The physics stuff is nice though.

  • johnw100 #35 6 months ago

    "Rocksteady's superb PC build is a huge improvement over the console versions."
    Are you kidding? I just watched the full screen hd version and apart from less jaggies and slightly increased texture resolution the PS3 and PC look identical.

  • Waffleaber #36 6 months ago

    Couldn't see too much difference in those videos myself.

    I'm perfectly happy with the way my old 4870 runs the game, didn't see enough in it to make a DX11 upgrade needed.

  • L1nc3 #37 6 months ago

    @The-Jack-Burton 360 is 'governed' by DX too m8

  • PuppyFiddler #38 6 months ago

    Trust the techie when he says it's night and day since you have to see it running to properly appreciate things. Arkham Asylum on PC was brilliant, much better experience than PS3 which I finished before it. The Physx adds a lot to the experience when you have rooms full of flying objects and moving cloth not to mention dynamic smoke. The first time I ran through smoke and saw it parting was a shock on Arkham Asylum, like I had just witnessed something from the future.
    Looking forward to seeing how the dx11 tesselation looks since it can be subtle but very impressive when you notice it. I imagine the water effects are much better as well.

  • deadstoned #39 6 months ago

    PC version has GFWL though.... Maybe Ł5 steam sale. Why did they use such terrible software? GFWL is worse than Uplay for a lot of people.

  • DozyKipper #40 6 months ago

    Looks like I shoulda gone to SpecSavers as I can't see any difference either.

  • verynaughtyboy #41 6 months ago

    Does DX11 improve the 32DD's? (Catwoman's of course)

    Sorry but that's the closest to jargon I can do!

  • scoop #42 6 months ago

    Well all I got from this isn't how great the PC version is, but how bloody amazing the PS3 version is.

    My PC cost over 3K...so I think I'm justified in saying that the Price-to-OMFG ratio is still way off.
    Edited by scoop at 10/12/11 @ 14:20

  • L0cky #43 6 months ago

    I wasn't aware of the DX11 issues, and certainly don't experience anything described in the article both before and after the patch. I don't know if I'm in the minority or not though.

    The article does makes it sound like the game simply shipped with those issues; as if they apply to everyone. Just pointing out that's not true for the benefit of anyone still considering getting it.

    technowibble:
    i5 2500k, gtx 560ti + gtx 275 (for physx), 16gb ram on Win7 x64. Running DX11, max settings @ 1920x1280 with vsync and getting 55-60fps (average 58 on the benchmark).

  • Starsailor #44 6 months ago

    I played the comparison video on full screen and I cant notice the difference between the PS3 and PC version. Considering how much you need to spend on a good DX11 pc, its not worth it.

  • TaniumZX #45 6 months ago

    PC elitist smugfest alert.

  • Darren #46 6 months ago

    Why are you running the DX11 version on Very High settings when there's an higher Extreme setting introduced in the recent patch?

    From watching the first video, I noticed that the PS3/360 versions have a lot of screen tearing and that the PC version wasn't running very smoothly which is more noticeable when the game is running at half speed as it is here.

    While the fixed DX11 version is an improvement on the tragic initial release (what possible excuse was their for releasing the game with broken DX11 code in the first place?), I couldn't honestly see much difference between DX9 and DX11 personally while playing the game and I've been playing on maxed out settings. Tessellation is the most noticable improvement IMO but only in Ivy's lair and on the T-Rex in the museum. If it's anywhere else then, like the advanced shadows and ambient occlusion, it is so subtle that I missed it. And Arkham City is such a dark game anyway which makes these improvements harder to see.

    What's worse though is that DX11 still isn't running as smooth as it should be on my machine (Core i7-920 @ 3.6 GHz, 6 GB, GTX 580, Windows 7 64-bit). The framerate tanks when going through doors for example (< 2 fps at times) causing a judder that doesn't happen under DX9. These framerate dips are even apparent in the built-in benchmark as they occur between the different areas where data is loaded and result in the minimum framerate being lower than it should be. I'm playing at 1920x1200 on Ultra with FXAA (High) and PhysX on Normal. Benchmark returns a min. framerate of 26 fps, an average of 52 fps and a max. of 78 fps on those settings.

    Maybe future drivers and another patch will improve DX11 but I can't help but be a little disappointed reall and it certainly didn't help that DX11 wasn't working out of the box. The game is gorgeous looking even in DX9 but the higher resolution and framerate plus steam effects from PhysX elevate it above the console versions. Tearing aside, the Xbox 360 looked and ran great though.
    Edited by Darren at 10/12/11 @ 15:35

  • bazqwerts #47 6 months ago

    @tiny_Pepper Given that there is also a number of people who can't then i'm guessing maybe theres a load of us with broken software etc. It wasnt an aggressive post, i'm expressing my view, thats allowed. I'm not a 13 year old with no clue about computer's, and everything else works with no issues on my pc at all, BF3 run's like you should/would expect for a fairly high end system, so please dont patronise me.

  • Demiath #48 6 months ago

    I definitely do not get 60FPS on my Core i7+GTX 580+8 GB RAM rig even with the new patch, so I'd still say the DX11 is kinda broken (assuming, of course, that you're not supposed to have, say, two 580s or something to get good performance - which I'm perfectly fine with if that's indeed the way it is supposed to be).

  • zlo2 #49 6 months ago

    The game runs surprisingly poorly with DX11 enabled on my rig (GTX460 1GB, i5 750, 4GB 1600), even after the fix.
    With everything on high and tessellation disabled I get almost rock solid 60 fps, however, it drops to about 30 when I put tessellation on medium.
    Not sure if my PC is showing signs of age or the DX11 implementation in this game is bad.
    Edited by zlo2 at 10/12/11 @ 19:23

  • PuppyFiddler #50 6 months ago

    GFWl won't let you save games unless you log into it before you start and if you've forgotten your password then have fun trying to get it back. It's a pointless piece of software that does fuck all to add to the experience. It's like having a monkey on your back.

  • gandhimaster #51 6 months ago

    at the risk of seeming like a muppet, what kind of horse power does the Onlive version of Arkham have? obviously our end its governed by internet connection, but are the servers running this DX11 version?

  • uninspiredcup #52 6 months ago

    I notice in the first video you can't even make out the one armed clowns tattoo on the ps3. Just a smush. On the pc, it's about as crisp as you can get.

  • geox30 #53 6 months ago

    @JamieR
    PCs are supposed to be 10x more powerful than consoles.Consoles do seem to hold up well compared to PCs,but in reality they stall graphical progress,as they are the main platform of gaming development and games are optimized for them.

  • Kostas #54 6 months ago

    Turning on physX comes before turning on DX11 mode. The experience with the physics enabled is so much more pronounced and meaningful since it adds heavily to the atmosphere. If you cant run the game well enough in DX11 mode and PhysX then i would strongly recomend keeping the physics and turning down anything else little by little.

  • jogyourmind #55 6 months ago

    The game is perfect for me in DX11, it's also an amazing game! The only thing I have turned off is physx because I use ATI not nVidia. I have everything else cranked to full, no slowdown, runs great. LOVE the game.

    My specs:

    2500k at 4.5ghz
    8gig RAM
    HD 5870 1gig
    Win 7, 64bit.

  • Bravestinsane #56 6 months ago

    Not got my copy yet but ill pick it up in the Steam xmas sales, spent too much on games can't afford it atm!

    On a side note that physX comparison video is laughable

    Comparing a 5 year old 8800GT, to a modern top of the range 560gtx is a joke

    Show me a 560GTX with physiX on and one with them off.
    Edited by Bravestinsane at 10/12/11 @ 17:43

  • tiny_Pepper #57 6 months ago

    @bazqwerts Your response holds little water given the first was written in a sarcastic tone and you called them w*****s. You might not be 13 but you can't blame me for that assumption. Back to point in hand, bf3 runs fine/others with bm:ac issues, I think you'll find that for every person for which that is true you'll find the reverse can also be found! I'm willing to bet I can find a massive percentage (ie vast majority) that run both ok. Keep in mind that it may not look that way on forums/comment threads but then it's natural that people who don't have issues are unlikely to post anything. I expect that if you try it on a clean install with latest drivers it'll work just fine

  • Deckard1 #58 6 months ago

    I like how everyone's posting their "rigs" now.

  • chrisola #59 6 months ago

    "Issues aside, Hitler was actually a good political leader"

    The issues make this game virtually unplayable -- shoddy, unoptimised DX11 mode, Games For Windows Live, Securom etc etc.

  • uninspiredcup #60 6 months ago

    It's too bad most pc gamers will just steal this.
    Then the next one will be a lazy port or not even bother with platform. Then the pirates will cry, because they can't steal it anymore.

  • walidb123 #61 6 months ago

    In a reverse kind of way it shows that for consoles which are over 5 years old they can still do a very good job. Yeah, details and a bit of a drop in resolution and a couple other things are missed but this has no effect on gameplay, which is the most important thing.

    If I could afford a good gaming pc I'd get one, but for half the price you get a brilliant experience on console that doesn't lose much in the way of significant features compared to pc. Not yet anyway.

  • spekkeh #62 6 months ago

    I appreciate you need to exaggerate these articles a bit, because with so much parity between so many multiplatform games, you might as well quit your job. But 'streaming issus on consoles', 'harsh transitions', 'jaggies', now you seem to be just making stuff up. I never noticed them during my normal play. Yes if you freeze the frame and get off the couch to look at the tv from close up you will notice small jaggies, but nobody plays like that. This article reeks of masterrace snobbery.
    Edited by spekkeh at 10/12/11 @ 19:19

  • bazqwerts #63 6 months ago

    @tiny_Pepper Mate, i'm not going to get into an argument with you, but it's either sarcasic or aggresive, can't be both and i'm guessing it works perfect on your computer otherwise I don't think you would be so chirpy about handing out basic fresh install, new driver advice. I'm happy for every person it works great for, I really am, but for me it doesnt, it isnt anything to do with the pc or set up, it's down to poor work. I'll retract my wankers comment and end with. "Rocksteady, you blighters" does this make it more acceptable to complain, or is it always the user's fault and never the people that make the game?

  • tiny_Pepper #64 6 months ago

    @bazqwerts You're right my mistake. I actually meant that it was attacking not aggressive. Anyway. We'll just have to disagree. I'm of the opinion that it's a very good port and as is the case with pc development it's very very hard to make any complicated program (and something cutting edge like game dev is one of the most complicated) work on such a diverse and unknown setup as a users pc.

  • Lunatic4ever #65 6 months ago

    I watched the first video and I could recognize a difference in the first shot overall I really dont regret having played this on the console. It wasn't worth waiting for the dx11 version. So no big surprise for me.

  • bazqwerts #66 6 months ago

    @tiny_Pepper Fair enough. What's really bothered me about the game is, I owned and really enjoyed the first one on my ps3, one of the few games I actually wanted to complete (being married with a young son, time's at a premium ), and I was really looking forward to playing the sequel, on a better platform. I'm a big fan of PC power,always have been, better than any console but it's issues like this that set PC gaming back more than anything else. It was lazy of Rocksteady to release a game in this state after already delaying it over a month.

  • WickedDeeJ #67 6 months ago

    DX11 actually still doesn't work for me, even though I'm running 64-bit Windows and the patch. The game will boot, but the second the GFWL logon comes up, it will become an absolutely abysmal stutterfest, rendering it completely unplayable. I checked this by just leaving it at the splash screen for a bit where it does that panorama around Batman - everything was fine, but the second GFWL was initiated, it went to hell.

    Really shoddy code at work, still :-/

  • jogyourmind #68 6 months ago

    @Deckard1

    I did it solely to show how the game can work on a relatively old graphics card.


    The issues make this game virtually unplayable -- shoddy, unoptimised DX11 mode, Games For Windows Live, Securom etc etc
    .

    I don't like this new thing where people call things unplayable. Unplayable means it can't be played, AT ALL. That is just far from the truth. I am playing it *perfectly* with everything turned up, including DX11. For those who have trouble with DX11 they can just play it in DX9 and it doesn't even look that much different. If you can't get it to work even in DX9, then that is just some problem for you personally.
    Edited by jogyourmind at 10/12/11 @ 22:01

  • tiny_Pepper #69 6 months ago

    @bazqwerts Agreed. Anything that effects everyone should have been sorted before release. The whole dx 11 thing not working for anyone is poor after the delay and from the patch notes there's a few other major issues that slipped by but there's small consolation that its been patched reasonably early and did work ok in dx 9. Its a great game tho. I suggest you return your copy and get ps3 version if youre still having issues :)

  • KopparbergDave #70 6 months ago

    Read this article on my phone, just watched the HD videos on my laptop.... to be honest the difference is really slim. I'm sure on PC the higher resolutions and frame-rates make the real difference but in terms of each frame there's not that much of a stark difference, certainly not until you look for it, plus a few less jaggies. The console versions hold up pretty damn well. Considering all the issues and hassles some PC gamers are having I think I'm happy I don't have a PC gaming rig. The initial outlay for one (that's current) is at least double what a console costs these days and to me it's not all that worth it. The consoles have their issues too but at least you have just one stable system and solving the issue is relatively straight forward. From past experience of PC's they end up befallen with glitches in the system, sometimes with no obvious fix, and each system is different (and no I shouldn't need or expect to be a computer scientist and fix all my own PC problems, I'd hope by now we'd have tech that worked more reliably and less susceptible to annoying things like this).

    That's why as much as I keep pondering getting an up to gate gaming rig (for the awesome PC racing sims more than anything else) it's simply not a viable option that I can really get behind as I'm fed up fixing technology just to get something that may work right (then fails anyway). Would rather save my money for the next Xbox and then we'll be back up to speed :p

  • azic #71 6 months ago

    To all saying you can't see much different, you need to be sat in front of the screen.

    I thought the same when I got AA on 360, after I saw the PC running it, the diff is night and day.

  • Skirlasvoud #72 6 months ago

    @jogyourmind

    Would you call the inability to load save games a flaw that makes the game unplayable?

    If so, then the game is unplayable.

    Happens to me and many others that save games simply vanish.

  • oi #73 6 months ago

    I didn't bother to read the article but from personal experience PC Arkham City is a complete joke. My PC is pretty meaty and even post patch (which did sweet FA) performance in DX11 is utterly broken. The Physx requirement show how completely unoptimised it really is imo. Arkham Asylum was brilliant on PC but I feel AC was a waste of money. Maybe someday it will be patched up properly...

  • Jayaitch #74 6 months ago

    Post deleted at 09:35:40 22-05-2012

  • Jayaitch #75 6 months ago

    Post deleted at 18:50:52 11-01-2012

  • Subquest #76 6 months ago

    PC running at 720p in a head to head is like asking a boxer to fight with one hand behind his back. It doesn't show the biggest benefit to fidelity, the increase in resolution to 1080p (or more).

    2073600 pixels at 1080p versus 921600 pixels at 720p. More than double. Shame we don't get to appreciate that, hence comments of 'it looks the same'. Sit somebody down in front of a decent gaming PC, and there's no mistaking the difference.

    Not sure why EG feel the need to slow the vids down either. Gives the impression of a choppy frame rate on all platforms when in reality it's not the case.

  • 43n1m4 #77 6 months ago

    I still don't like this way of doing comparisons, where PC is considered one standard. I'm pretty sure my laptop won't be able to run Batman AC much better than my Xbox360 - but a semi-highend (upgradable) desktop PC sure might give you some visual improvements (which does not change the basic gameplay of the game). Saying that the PC version of Batman AC is always better than the consoles, as the sub-headliner bluntly says, is a good way of ignoring how the market for PCs work and fuel the fire for yet another tired platform discussion.

  • Simplex #78 6 months ago

    "While 8x MSAA in combination with PhysX set on normal proved a little too much for our Core i5 and GTX 460 combo to manage (we got between 50 and 20 frames per second depending on draw distance and scene complexity), dropping AA down to 4x and turning off PhysX altogether helped to stabilise things a little without having to disengage v-sync. "
    Could you clarify if you refer to DX9 or DX11 in this passage?

    I have overclocked GTX560Ti and i5-750 @ 3.6GHz, 64-bit Win7 and I find DX11 performance abysmal, post patch. I play at 1080p with everything maxed out, FSAA is FXAA high, physx is normal - and for example when I am standing in the middle of the "hospital-chuchr", where abosolutely not action is taking place, the framerate dips into 20s! This is crazy.

    Not to mention that while I hardly notice DX11 improvements while I am playing the game, I definitely notice framerated drops, so I chose to play DX9.

  • Subquest #79 6 months ago

    @JAGUARCD32X lets just not make out we are getting next gen eye candy when all we are getting is less jaggies and more FPS

    Dude, we're also getting DX11 effects and increased texture resolution. Nobody who's played BF3, Crysis 2 with everything turned on could say we're only getting res + FPS over the consoles. With the right game it's a world away.

  • oi #80 6 months ago

    @Simplex

    Tell me about it. I was getting wound up by people proclaimg the 'patch' was an improvement haha. Performance is utterly abysmal.

  • cw- #81 6 months ago

    Why do the first and last video, which say they are showing the PC version, show Xbox controls?

    My copy of Arkham City on the PC has never displayed Xbox controls in game. Does this happen when you connect an xbox controller?

  • PuppyFiddler #82 6 months ago

    Jaguarcd32x you only see less jaggies when running in 1080p? Man you need to get glasses or something. Everything in 1080p is twice the detail. Try reading signs from medium distance in 720p it's a joke. 1080p is a big deal.

  • Subquest #83 6 months ago

    @JAGUARCD32x not like I needed to replay Crysis 2 for some token tesselation

    So you're saying you've not played it then, post high res update? I would advise you to do so, then come back to me better informed.

  • SonicUk #84 6 months ago

    I'm sorry Digital Foundry, but the way the article reads I was expecting a major difference? Maybe I'm getting old but I really cannot see any discernible difference between the Dx9 and Dx11 modes or indeed between the Console and PC versions other than the fact that depending on your hardware you can in theory run the game at a higher resolution with more AA and a better framerate if you have the rig to do it of course. For all the hassle involved getting PC games to run properly (believe me, I know!) I think I'll stick with the 360 version that's in my collection yet to be played (got a bit of a backlog to get through first).

  • Subquest #85 6 months ago

    Be honest, you are trolling a little bit aren't you? Scroll to the top of this page and read the subtitle again. I quoted you earlier as saying all PC gamers are getting is less jaggies and more FPS, which is patently absurd if you'd care to revisit the many 3 way face offs of recent times.

  • Miths #86 6 months ago

    Like many others I'm also struggling to the see the supposed "huge improvement" of the PC version.
    Being both a PS3 and PC gamer (I've only played the PS3 version of Arkham City) I know that a high resolution and higher framerates alone (although my Geforce GTX 260 is now so dated that it's struggling to manage both in an ever increasing number of games) are usually enough to feel like a pretty huge improvement over a 720p, ~30 fps console game, but that's something I take for granted so I was looking for other elements with a major visual impact in this game, considering the boasting sub-headline.

    I'm not really seeing all that much though, aside from PhysX and slightly sharper textures. Plus anti-aliasing of course, but that's obviously an option in all PC games.

  • PuppyFiddler #87 6 months ago

    "@PuppyFiddler You said try reading signs in medium distance at 720p is a joke. Thats the thing though how many games use PCs power that the levels are so big your lost reading signs "
    How many games use PC power? Only the ones on PC. The ones that have legible signs.

  • Simplex #88 6 months ago

    @JAGUARCD32x

    The card is factory overclocked (Gigabyte OC), the CPU is Quad.

  • PuppyFiddler #89 6 months ago

    "how many games use PC power for extra"

    Sorry you've lost me again. I need about an hour to decipher each of your sentences.

  • PuppyFiddler #90 6 months ago

    My question was banal because your posts are banal.
    What do you mean which games take advantage of a gtx580? ALL OF THEM IS THE ANSWER.

  • JumpinJackFlash #91 6 months ago

    Consoles only offer a baseline experience, on the PC the game is the best it can be.

  • PuppyFiddler #92 6 months ago

    It's easy to call you a troll when you're making stupid accusations and making questions out of nothing.
    Arkham Asylum runs perfectly on full settings with an old GTX295 nevermind a GTX580. None of the cards are PPU dedicated which is why you need to give over a whole graphics card if you want full Physx. Even then the old GTX295 was able to handle low Physx along with running 1080p etc. At least you have the option on PC for physx. And that GTX295 can be bought for less than €100 off ebay.

  • Kaminari #93 6 months ago

    In Richard's technical lingo, "huge improvement" = "subtle polishing". Well, if you can count game-breaking bugs and stuttering as polish. As for DX11 tesselation, it really brings nothing to the table. Rounder bricks? All riiight.

  • Caimbeul #94 6 months ago

    "Any idea how well this will run with a Radeon 5850?"

    Not too bad. will depend to an extent on your CPU & RAM. \i sm running an i5 2500K at 4.5Ghz, 8gb RAM and a 5850. max DX11 settings range between 20-45fps. dropping it a little boosts it to 40-60 and going DX9 is in excess of 60. You can get 60+ without DX9 but just need to toy with settings. thankfully they have kept the benchmarking option in the game.

  • Caimbeul #95 6 months ago

    Much better than the console version AND a third cheaper on launch... despite owning both X360 and PS3 there is no competition.

    Also i like these head to heads but there is a big problem. the video quality is so poor that you are very hard pressed to see any bloody difference!

    Also EG/DF need to do what they do over at tomshardware...use a gif that changes constantly so you can see the changes in qualuty between two or more images easily. I dont know about everyone else but by the time i have hit back and then clicked to the next image i have forgotten what the previous image looked like.

  • PuppyFiddler #96 6 months ago

    @jaguarcd32x lol jesus you are a troll. Accusing people of glossing over and you just ignored what I said to you in the last post. Obviously you're so upset you can't run physx at the highest setting you have to come here and cry about it as if you've somehow been ripped off, which isn't the case.
    By the way a GTX580 isn't the best card on the market.
    Edited by PuppyFiddler at 11/12/11 @ 21:50

  • Subquest #97 6 months ago

    now that I have spent 2000pounds should I be happy

    Rolling out the same tired old crap about the cost of PC gaming isn't going to convince anybody. My PC cost Ł700. Ł300 of that was to buy 2 x gtx470s. The other Ł400 I'd have spent anyway, because surely even console gamers have some kind of PC/laptop/Mac or whatever. So when you talk about value, PC gaming isn't all that more expensive, and I'd consider my machine to be pretty high end in that I run all games smoothly in 1080p with everything on.

  • PuppyFiddler #98 6 months ago

    1. I never called you a troll until it became clear you fuckin wanted to be called one.
    2. Never glossed over anything.
    3. Take your pills.

  • Subquest #99 6 months ago

    Well then you should have done your research better, if indeed you did spend 2k on a PC, since you and I will be having the same gaming experience. I'd certainly be interested to know HOW you managed to spend so much, if you'd care to list your kit.

    Have just got a bugbear because you've spent so much money?

    Most PC gamers KNOW they're playing the same game as console gamers, but where the devs have made the effort, we're getting some real 'nice to have' benefits in graphical fidelity. For me, that cost Ł300 over the cost of a regular PC, which I think's pretty good value.

  • jogyourmind #100 6 months ago

    For what it's worth, I don't think it looks massively better on PC, even with everything cranked. You can see good comparison videos on youtube (in HD). You can see that with DX11 turned on, it only improves the textures on a few objects in the world. Most of these objects are just scenery that you will be running past or flying past and great speed. It would matter if it was things like walls and floor textures or something, but it's not. Look at the videos, it's a lions head on the front of a library or something, and a bit plant type thing growing out of the wall in the sewers. They look better if you actually look at them, but they are so insignificant you wouldn't even notice the difference unless you stopped to look at them.

    So I think the PC version does have a lot more room for improvement. Some better draw distances and smoother texture popup would be nice, and some higher res textures. But really, I don't care that much. The game looks REALLY nice so I can't complain. It looks good on consoles, and it looks a bit better on PC, so I don't feel short changed.


    @Skirlasvoud

    Yes, but when you say the game is unplayable you make it sound like it affects everyone. The majority of people are enjoying it and playing it without problem.


    @oi

    You sound like a noob. The game works fine for me on the PC I listed above, so how do you account for that? If it doesn't work ok with everything cranked, then suck it up and turn off DX11 and/or the physx. You sound like a spoilt child when you expect to play it with everything turned on full even though your PC isn't up to it.

  • PuppyFiddler #101 6 months ago

    jaguarcd32x when you're done making retarded juvenile assuptions about people maybe you'd care to actually listen to what's being said instead of playing the victum card in every one of your posts. The only thing you're a victum of is your own stupidity not some PC elite club that's out to get you.

    The whole meat of your longwinded arguement is based on the fact you can't accept a graphic card can't do massive amount of physics. Graphics cards are designed to shift polygons and shade them not calculate physical collisions which is why they had dedicated PPUs out which no one bought due to the lack of game support.

    Ł25 gets you a dedicated GTX8800 for physx. TWENTY FIVE POUNDS.

  • shadowdogg #102 6 months ago

    The major differences are that you can have 1080p. Thats it but it does make a huge difference

  • Subquest #103 6 months ago

    Ok, so you've future proofed, but you seem upset that you're not getting more out of your PC today. I'd question anybody who'd spend 2k on a PC at this time, since the vast majority of games lead on console, even a middling PC should churn through most games without breaking a sweat. The best time to future proof was about 18 months ago, since we don't yet know what the next gen consoles will bring. I get the impression MS / Sony would much rather continue to squeeze more out of the current gen for as long as they can

  • PuppyFiddler #104 6 months ago

    At least my assumption was a credible one.

  • jogyourmind #105 6 months ago

    @iplaygames

    dood u jelly bro?!

  • Subquest #106 6 months ago

    @iplaygames You really think the you're one of these 'normal, level headed' gamers, when you spend half an hour writing an essay filled with nothing but stereotypes. There's a level deep below those people who blindly defend their format of choice, and that is where you find yourself.

  • Liquidoodle #107 6 months ago

    People who can't see any difference are clearly blind and definitely should stick to their consoles or tiny iPhone screens, it's like when people say they can't tell the difference between 720p and 1080p, I often wonder if you guys need glasses, too much watching porn maybe?

    I think some people do have a strange idea of how different it's going to be though, they almost expect an entirely different game where the developers have done a brand new set of uber high res artwork. PC gets the same artwork as consoles but the higher res lods which the developer has had to strip out for the consoles due to the fact they are really low spec and only have something like 256 meg shared memory.

    The differences with PC games aren't normally massive but are very noticeable, the higher textures, nicer lighting methods, AA, physics, smooth frame rate and higher resolution rendering, all noticeable when you turn them on and off especially when seen on an actual PC and not just commenting on some video on eurogamer, they never show the differences very well. So if you want the best possible version of the game, get a decent PC I say... when the game works that is ;)

    The game really is quite intensive to run, I have an i7 2600k with a GTX580, running maxed out on everything in 720p and it's not 60fps smooth all the time, to run anything higher than 720p you really are going to need that extra graphics card.

  • craigy Verified Senior Developer, Eurogamer Network #108 6 months ago

    Jaggies drive me nuts.

  • oi #109 6 months ago

    Oh shit I jusr read the header...

    "Rocksteady's superb PC build"

    Ahahahahaa! Wow. O_o

  • oi #110 6 months ago

    @Liquidoodle

    I've got the same system exactly and imo a 2600k/580 combo should play ANY PC game 720p/60fps. Hell it runs Crysis maxed out at 1360x768 damn near constant 60fps so with not Arkham City? Because Arkham City is so poorly optimised, that's way.
    Edited by oi at 12/12/11 @ 11:24

  • PuppyFiddler #111 5 months ago

    iplaygames I feel your pain. There was a time I looked at PC gaming and realised I couldn't afford a good PC as well.

    It's tough man, I know.

  • vizzini #112 5 months ago

    @liquidoodle

    I think DF has it wrong by saying it is just a matter of LOD in the wall resolution drop on 360 when compared to the PC(second stills).

    It actually looks like the PC is using the parallax mapping feature on those side walls which is a feature implemented in UE3.5 for PC and PS3 iirc.

    Parallax mapping however needs a extra UV/normal map and much more processing to be able to make the stretched quad wall appear like complex geometry at parallel surface viewing angles. But because the effects are most pronounced to the viewer under dynamic lighting, which is lost in Jpeg stills and poorly retained in DF captures by either 8bit capture undersampling or incorrect H.264 settings (eg compare to Sony's Last of Us PS3 capture trailer and the way its preserves the dynamic range).

    It is quite ironic that DF are now hypocritically using the “night and day” line for the PC, against a backdrop that no one can really see a difference in their captures; yet have worked so hard this generation to suppress the visibility of these similar type difference advantages for the PS3 games as far back as Half Life 2.

    All they have successfully done by playing down differences for so long, is accelerate the abandonment of rasterization graphics in home consoles and PC gaming; as the incremental improvements are no longer visible in print or online media to the masses, or meaningfully now (a diminishing return) for core gamers to buy new hardware for.

    It might have helped Microsoft do okay to compete with two technically superior platforms this generation, but unless they've got some great deal with Intel or AMD to achieve real-time photon tracing next generation, or abandon graphics prowess for Kinect 2.0, I think the partial success is going to be quite short lived given how lukewarm people were with Epic's Spartan demo also.

  • Liquidoodle #113 5 months ago

    @oi

    You would definitely hope that combo to run any game at 60fps. Crysis was perfectly smooth even after all the updates :) I think the reasons for why Arkham doesn't run ultra smooth all the time is the HBAO and PhysX which I have heard are huge drains on any games using them. Really looking forward to playing the new Metro on that rig though!

  • Liquidoodle #114 5 months ago

    @vizzini

    Oh yeah, I didn't see they said that was polygonal detail. Silly DF! It's definitely parallax mapping and one of the nicest features of the DX11 in my opinion, the cobbles really show it off but everyone shows screen shots from high up in the rooftops rather than street level where this game looks like sex! Could you imagine modelling each extra brick and cobble... eek! The effects definitely get lost in whatever compression DF are using!

    In terms of real time photon tracing by the way it's not an unrealistic goal ;) in fact Battlefield 3 is using some new tech by Geomerics which gives Real Time Global Illumination, granted it's not tracing as well as rendering something in mental ray or renderman but it definitely accurately mimics GI bounce, it works as a part of UE3 too, even works in the UE3 level editor when placing lights, it's super impressive. http://www.geomerics.com/enlighten/

  • Liquidoodle #115 5 months ago

    @JAGUARCD32x If it helps dude, mine was the same rig, running with the updated DX11 features and high texture pack all set on extreme or whatever is the highest. I even switched on the 3D just to see if it would get any frame drop at all. To the human eye it seemed to run smooth 100% of the time maybe even above 60fps at times if that's possible but I didn't ever get an fps read out. My house mate commented that he didn't like how smooth it was, he prefers the console framerate lol ;)

  • PuppyFiddler #116 5 months ago

    No jaguarcd32x everything iplagames said isn't true it's just idiots like you and him love to throw stereotypes around to make yourselves feel superior. There's nothing in this thread from PC enthusiasts that attacks people who play console games yet you still find you pointing fingers and playing the victum card. If you can't listen to reason where I mentioned what solves the physx problem etc. then expect some sarcastic replies which lower to your level.

    And for your information I play more PS3 games than PC.
    Edited by PuppyFiddler at 12/12/11 @ 16:50

  • PuppyFiddler #117 5 months ago

    It's hard not to sound condescending when you are clearly too thick to understand simple things.
    I already told you the graphic cards aren't built to handle physics. GET OVER IT.
    If you just want to sit here crying about how there's no one card solution instead of just buying a cheap second card to handle physics then there's no point to this.

    Here's a tissue.
    Edited by PuppyFiddler at 12/12/11 @ 17:29

  • lagoonalight #118 5 months ago

    Post deleted at 18:35:12 12-12-2011

  • lagoonalight #119 5 months ago

    First of all iplaygames jesus christ jealous much? For the record I use my PS3 controller on just about all my games and will NEVER use a keyboard for movement in games. I honestly think using keyboards for movement makes you a flaming fairy.

    Have to agree with Vizzini here. EG does a poor job at hammering home the differences in comparison pics and has routinely tried to make the 360 look better than anything else out there. I am not even sure what settings they are using half the time.

    And they even go so far as to put 720p caps up against the console ones as if anybody with a decent PC is playing on that res though I see why they do it. But where is the totally uncompressed 1080p caps that should be going against the console and we could also use some better pics to illustrate the depth of the environment and the detail that comes at you at 60fps (though this one may not hit that for most). Just the pop in reduction alone is enough to make me want the game as pop in is the worst offender along with jaggies and screen tear in making games feel like you are really not immersed in them.

    Some guys here obviously have NEVER played on a PC. Word of advice: get the game when it's like 5 or 10 bucks on steam and it will run fantastic. Meanwhile, enjoy the whole backlog of great games on steam when they are on sale and you will not even notice the time passing.

    For guys like k.kara you really need to just try it out sometime. PCs are infinitely more reliable than consoles. I just spent 1200 on mine and got the latest stuff packed in. An overclocked sandy bridge 2500k and an EVGA 560 ti with 10% overclock as well as everything else including a bluray player.

    You can only get smarter by running into problems and really there should be none if you go the Nvidia route. This stuff isn't rocket science. I play ALL my games perfectly. No driver issues but yeah you are going to have to learn a couple things about installing drivers cleanly and tending to your system with something like AVG Tuneup 2011 which makes it a breeze.

    It is actually more fun than you could ever imagine. If you only game on 360 WTF are you waiting for seriously. I have a PS3 with literally tons of PSN and retail games but I am taking a break and letting the prices come down. I don't play any multiplat games on PS3 at all. Why?

    Because 1080p on a 30 inch plus screen is godly if you are sitting close. You guys saying you can hardly see a difference o man you guys are just inane. Stop watching that vid on your 20 inch monitor from 10 feet away and go get a PC and decent length HDMI and hook it up to a large Plasma or local dimming LED and you will see just how much difference there really is. Immersion levels go up 200% for me. I never felt like that except in the best PS3 games like Uncharted 2 or Killzone or whatever. And the jaggies in those games kill immersion for me at least.

    I am playing Witcher, as well as 900 other games, right now and it's probably the best RPG I have ever played. The Witcher 2 looks at least 2x better in GFX as well and I still think 1 looks better than any PS3 semi-open world RPG. AND I am playing it with my PS3 controller with motionjoy drivers and xpadder.

    I play most of my PC games with a PS3 controller. Another is Ghostbusters.... O man you have never seen that game unless you are playing it on PC with 8xMSAA at 1080p. COMPLETELY different game from that horrid port. I can see why people think Batman looks good on consoles as it is mostly in the dark but there is still going to be SIGNIFICANT gains in POP IN and Jaggy Reduction. And those things are very important to a lot of us.

    I am all for both consoles and PCs but when my console breaks down and dies and leaves me with a 300 dollar bill it can go **** itself. Play most of my multiplayer on PS3 exclusives and believe me I yearn for the day when I get 1080p 4xMSAA and can play with my buds.
    Edited by lagoonalight at 12/12/11 @ 18:59

  • JumpinJackFlash #120 5 months ago

    @lagoonalight

    I agree with most of your points. I also think, judging by some of the comments on EG, that some people on here have never played a PC game in their life.

    Therefore, it's just all gobshite and negativity towards the platform. It's just sour grapes.

    Ah well, fuck them, it's their loss and such people will never experience the delights of PC gaming. They don't and never will know what they're missing.

    The PC is the best platform out there by a mile (IMO).
    Edited by JumpinJackFlash at 12/12/11 @ 19:39

  • StooMonster #121 5 months ago

    @Utopolitan I still can't use DX11 properly with my two gtx560 TI in SLI. Flickering textures, stuttering, considerable performance drop. Problems I didn't have before installing the patch.

    Yes, I'm using 64-bit Win 7.

    I still can't use DX11 properly with my two 5870 in Crossfire. Flickering textures, stuttering, considerable performance drop. I didn't play before patch so I don't know what it was like before.

    Yes, I'm using 64-bit Win 7.

  • jogyourmind #122 5 months ago

    @Liquidoodle

    "it's like when people say they can't tell the difference between 720p and 1080p"

    You are pushing your luck there..

  • Jayaitch #123 5 months ago

    Post deleted at 09:35:41 22-05-2012

  • TheRealPanda #124 5 months ago

    Man this is a great article! Did anyone know that Arkham City dlc came out today and its actually free? my source