Batman: Arkham Knight is a disaster on PC

Many people such as Totalbiscuit have spoken about how games are supposed to run at 60fps for the responsiveness and speed the game offers by running at double the framerate. 30fps is known to cause the game to become less responsive and therefore slower to play than 60fps. Plus 60fps just looks a fucktonne smoother anyway.

It's more indepth here. He takes about 10 minutes before he starts on about input lag though.

Also http://30vs60.com/

30 vs 60 said:

Remember that 60fps not only looks better, but it also feels better to play with due to decreased response time, delay and less lag. Seeing it here is one thing. Experiencing it is another.

Yeah that 60th of a second can totally cost you. versus a 30th of a second. I hate to say it, but I can tell a difference. Maybe I'm just crazy.

Whenever I see a real video outside of video games at 60 frames it just looks very strange to me, like I'd prefer it at the default 27 or whatever it is.

There are a lot of factors that make up input lag. Processor speed, VRAM speed, vsync, server latency based on your ping and even deliberate controller lag like it only reads the input every 5 frames instead of 1. One developer on Steam admit to that last one.

There's always the conspiracy theorists that say Microsoft and Sony want a lesser version on PC.

He's on about framerate specifically regardless of your system and it's mainly on about single player games. I have no idea why multiplayer games don't get the same flack about framerates, I guess it's because they're usually tested more for the whole group of player's experience rather than the predetermined experience that developers can put you in in single player games or something along those lines. It's pretty hard to find a cinematic multiplayer game.

I can easily tell the difference between 60 and 75 htz refresh rate on monitors.

Chu said:

Me too!! If it was I would buy that version rather than the PC because the controller is so much fun to use.

But you know, people don't give Ninty enough credability. AC was amazing on the platform.

http://www.ign.com/articles/2014/03/27/why-batman-arkham-knight-isnt-on-wii-u

Check this out. Sounds like bullshit to me haha

We can't make the car go fast on 7th gen consoles so fuck the Wii U. To be fair the Wii U is using some fucking ancient hardware similar to an AMD Radeon HD 4000 series and it wouldn't even run the game on low.

Looks like the game was pulled for the time being.

Jaxxoon R said:

I can easily tell the difference between 60 and 75 htz refresh rate on monitors.

I actually can't tell the difference.

@SavageCorona Honestly I think the devs are just fucking lazy. They might have to cut some of the fancy effects but they could defiantly run the batmobile at a good framerate. Take Mario Kart 8 for example, the game looks great albeit not as beautiful Arkham Kights but it runs at a silky smooth 60fps!

Its true some people can't tell the difference. Just like 10% of people can't see the 3D of 3D movies. There are some people that get motion sickness if a frame rate is different from the frame rate in your eyes and the direction of our ears / equilibrium.

SavageCorona said:

He's on about framerate specifically regardless of your system and it's mainly on about single player games. I have no idea why multiplayer games don't get the same flack about framerates, I guess it's because they're usually tested more for the whole group of player's experience rather than the predetermined experience that developers can put you in in single player games or something along those lines. It's pretty hard to find a cinematic multiplayer game.

I don't know what games you're talking about there. But I recall there being lots of controversy about refresh rate in virtually every multiplayer game I've played, where it wasn't already excellent. Quake live for instance got a variable refresh rate so you can set it to match your monitor. Had that game been locked at 60hz, people would have left long ago.

TheNerdTurtle2 said:

@SavageCorona Honestly I think the devs are just fucking lazy. They might have to cut some of the fancy effects but they could defiantly run the batmobile at a good framerate. Take Mario Kart 8 for example, the game looks great albeit not as beautiful Arkham Kights but it runs at a silky smooth 60fps!

No they actually said that the car would be physically slower on 360 and PS3, talking shit about how driving it at 25mph is boring. Biggest crock of shit I've heard in my life besides this

@SavageCorona How can a program be optimized better for one particular game? Anyway I still think the devs are lazy and they could get the batmobile to travel faster.

TheNerdTurtle2 said:

@SavageCorona How can a program be optimized better for one particular game? Anyway I still think the devs are lazy and they could get the batmobile to travel faster.

Not even a program but a FUCKING DRIVER...amazing.

Given the latest stirrup about another kind of PC, I am always more inclined to think that the latest Batman: Arkham Knight is too racist or something. Heh, in fact, if Batman wants to look scary, why did he choose BLACK as the color of the outfit? Does he imply that black people are all scary boogeymen? Why so much negativity associated with the color BLACK, eh? You're a racist bigot miser, Batman. Not cool.

Speaking of poor optimization, let me use Nuclear Kings as a punching bag. Fantastic game with a lot of slow down and chaos that causes some harsh slowdown even though its *I think* 320 x 240 resolution. So much shit can go on at once that it makes a G4 i7 slow down. Especially when projectiles break into projectiles.

No one complains though.

Speaking of drivers... I've been playing Rage and for a good amount of time after the second fps mission it forgot that it was a first person shooter. Sure there were sections where you'd get out of the car to shoot a few people, but it wasn't a fps level.

SavageCorona said:

Many people such as Totalbiscuit have spoken about how games are supposed to run at 60fps for the responsiveness and speed the game offers by running at double the framerate. 30fps is known to cause the game to become less responsive and therefore slower to play than 60fps. Plus 60fps just looks a fucktonne smoother anyway.

It's interesting because I find that Doom feels hard to control/aim properly at 60fps. Of course it looks great, but my aim is severely affected at 60.

I often wish it was possible to cap games at 30 as 60+ tends to give me nausea. As Kristus said, you should be able to play games as you want. The ability to adjust framerate optionally should be in every game as far as I'm concerned.

N64 FPS used to give me nausea. Its something about the frame rate of your eyes vs the frame rate on screen vs the frame rate of your ears with your equilibrium that causes nausea.

Looking through the posts, I'm happy to see that I was able to spot it was the tank that's the problem, because I hear the tank is more of the game than the fighting.

Doomkid said:

I often wish it was possible to cap games at 30 as 60+ tends to give me nausea.

I find higher framerates tend to fatigue my eyes much faster, even if they do look smoother. I can certainly tell the difference, but after two minutes of playing something at 30 FPS, my eyes will adjust and I'll forget all about framerate anyway.

Thing is that WB already knew about the bugs and all that stuff according to some articles and didn't bother to fix them, instead they released the game and attempt to grab as much cash as possible before removing it from the digital stores, i am guessing that this was either a planned dick move.

I think its just WB games as a whole. MKX had issues, Arkham Knight and Arkham Origins had issues. Some people even say Arkham City did too. All of which are Unreal engine games... dun done dun. I've always complained about Unreal 4 being slow... until I upgraded to a G4 i7 with 4GB VRAM.

The only issues I found with Origins was with the vents with the Riddler data packs in the radio towers so if you grapple to them Batman's hands get stuck and you can't get off of it.