WB: Arkham Knight’s PC Version Is Unfixable

That's pretty brutal. Why wonder they even attempted a second release on an 'unfixable' game.
 
So who here is having issues with this game? It seems like everyone in this thread is saying that it's working for them, including myself. Is this really a huge problem or is it that the game is poorly optimized for lower end hardware but runs well on higher end stuff?
 
crusty_juggler said:
I dunno who to blame here. WB published Dying Light and Shadow of Mordor, which were good ports.

Did WB place too much pressure on Rocksteady to meet a sale date, forcing them to outsource to Iron Galaxy? Did WB not allocate enough money to PC development, requiring Rocksteady to pass the duties on to Iron Galaxy? Did Rocksteady just not give a fuck about the PC port?
Click to expand...
While it could have been part of the problem, not meeting the sale date couldn't have been the whole problem if it's still broken 4 months later. My guess is it was just really bad management from the get-go, then the same really bad management running the fix.
 
I always had issues with this game, SLI or not.

There were constant frame drops, heavy, and I emphasize HEAVY, texture flickering to the point where you can be induced into an epileptic seizure.

And of course, crashes to desktop after 10 minutes.

This all happened to me with the hardware in my signature. I don't know, how can you say the game isn't broken when the company's clearly saying it is?
 
rotarymotor said:
I always had issues with this game, SLI or not.

There were constant frame drops, heavy, and I emphasize HEAVY, texture flickering to the point where you can be induced into an epileptic seizure.

And of course, crashes to desktop after 10 minutes.

This all happened to me with the hardware in my signature. I don't know, how can you say the game isn't broken when the company's clearly saying it is?
Click to expand...

I guess 8GB of ram is not going to cut it anymore.
 
ManofGod said:
I guess 8GB of ram is not going to cut it anymore.
Click to expand...

That's my guess. His hardware is a lot better than mine with the exception of his 8 GB vs. 12 GB for me and I'm on Windows 10 which apparently mitigates some issues with the game with 12 GB or more.

Clearly there are issues with the game, it's just that with a certain setup they are mitigated.
 
ManofGod said:
I guess 8GB of ram is not going to cut it anymore.
Click to expand...

That has to be a loaded statement.

I was playing Rust the other day before they patched it because it had a severe memory leak.

I only noticed the performance dropping after about an hour or so of gaming and that was because I tabbed out to launch my internet browser and noticed everything was surprisingly sluggish.

I checked my memory usage and sure enough it was pegged out at 8GB. But my system was still running and the game was not crashing.

After they patched it, my system only uses a total of 6GB when playing Rust. The highest I have ever seen with a game I believe was FarCry 4 with 7GB total system usage.

I know eventually I will need more RAM but I don't believe that time is now, or anytime in the next year.
 
rotarymotor said:
That has to be a loaded statement.
Click to expand...

This game should run fine with only 8GB but apparently memory management is an issue with this game and the more memory the better in that case and apparently the issue goes away with 12 GB or more with Windows 10 for some reason. So why that haven't gotten that fixed, who knows. I can't believe that it's an inherent design flaw in the code. It must be some bug that they just haven't been able to track down, which also seems odd after all of this time. Unless it's happening in so many places that it's difficult to fix.
 
crusty_juggler said:
I dunno who to blame here. WB published Dying Light and Shadow of Mordor, which were good ports.
Click to expand...

And Mad Max! Three awesome games that were done very well for PC. It's definitely the hip thing on Reddit to spam WB memes now, but gotta keep in perspective that all these games are made by different studios. Why punish one for the sins of another?

I'll continue evaluating games case by case, on their own merits, regardless of publisher or what's trending on Reddit. But that's just me.
 
heatlesssun said:
So who here is having issues with this game? It seems like everyone in this thread is saying that it's working for them, including myself. Is this really a huge problem or is it that the game is poorly optimized for lower end hardware but runs well on higher end stuff?
Click to expand...

The outliers always scream the loudest, everyone else is too busy playing.
 
rotarymotor said:
That has to be a loaded statement.

I was playing Rust the other day before they patched it because it had a severe memory leak.

I only noticed the performance dropping after about an hour or so of gaming and that was because I tabbed out to launch my internet browser and noticed everything was surprisingly sluggish.

I checked my memory usage and sure enough it was pegged out at 8GB. But my system was still running and the game was not crashing.

After they patched it, my system only uses a total of 6GB when playing Rust. The highest I have ever seen with a game I believe was FarCry 4 with 7GB total system usage.

I know eventually I will need more RAM but I don't believe that time is now, or anytime in the next year.
Click to expand...

I like the fact that they are using a lot more ram in this game. I have it, please use it so things do not have to be loaded off my hard drive all the time. Game plays a lot better when more things are loaded into memory.
 
DPI said:
The outliers always scream the loudest, everyone else is too busy playing.
Click to expand...

Which still does not answer the question as he put it though. I am pleased that my system is running it well and will do much better when I upgrade my video card next year. However, what about those who have issues and have not said anything? What is the actual causes.
 
ManofGod said:
Which still does not answer the question as he put it though. I am pleased that my system is running it well and will do much better when I upgrade my video card next year. However, what about those who have issues and have not said anything? What is the actual causes.
Click to expand...

Well it's hard to gauge a few responses in a forum thread in any statistically meaningful way. But for those people still having problems, obviously WB has thrown their arms up and said "Screw it, we'll give you two months to buy the game and all the DLC, play it through 2-3 times, and then get a full refund."

That said, I suspect many people having issues would do well to put ego aside and simply turn down their graphics settings to make the game playable.
 
DPI said:
That said, I suspect many people having issues would do well to put ego aside and simply turn down their graphics settings to make the game playable.
Click to expand...

Each step in cranking this game takes a huge leap up in hardware needs. The best I can get are low textures, normal shadows and whatever the other setting is there and trilinear filtering. The in game benchmark comes in at an average of 57 FPS at 1080p with these settings and the game is silky smooth and still looks great IMO. For 4 year old hardware I don't think that's unreasonable.

I think this is where PC gaming gets into trouble. Everyone wants ultra max supper settings but then there's games like this that really mean you better have the hardware to go with it. And while these game does seem to have optimization problems they seem to go away with hardware. This is why there will always be a console market. PC gaming is great but it's simply never going to be quite as trouble free as console gaming.
 
OK, once again.... tell me why I should pre-order a game, pay full retail price, and face potential game-breaking issues when I can wait a year, pick it up at a discount through a Steam sale, and hopefully, they patched it all up?

Any guesses as to how long before 32GB is going to be the recommended spec?
 
ZLoth said:
OK, once again.... tell me why I should pre-order a game, pay full retail price, and face potential game-breaking issues when I can wait a year, pick it up at a discount through a Steam sale, and hopefully, they patched it all up?

Any guesses as to how long before 32GB is going to be the recommended spec?
Click to expand...

When the next Batman comes out on the PC ;)
 
ZLoth said:
OK, once again.... tell me why I should pre-order a game, pay full retail price, and face potential game-breaking issues when I can wait a year, pick it up at a discount through a Steam sale, and hopefully, they patched it all up?

Any guesses as to how long before 32GB is going to be the recommended spec?
Click to expand...

They have to make money off of somebody and have to have a reason to patch the game. If nobody bought the game then they would be less likely to lower the price quickly. They also would have no reason to patch the game. So somebody has to be out there buying the games early (preorder isn't really needed) and needs to inform them of issues to patch and give them a reason to pump more money into fixing the game.
 
What seems to be the case is that the game runs perfectly fine on higher end hardware but runs worse than it should on low to mid range hardware. I have a 980Ti with 16Gb of RAM which means I fall into the higher end category and the game runs perfectly fine for me but it could still run better. Even with a SSD I get frame skips when driving around in the Batmobile and flying around certain parts of the city. They aren't horribly bad but probably shouldn't be there or at least reduced some. As for the look of the game it looks really good overall but I feel a decent 3 or 4Gb card would run it fine maxed out if it was optimized for the PC better.

I shouldn't complain too much since I got it free and I've already beat it and enjoyed it but it's too bad others with systems that are good enough to run most games can't run this one well due to it being a poor port.
 
Zarathustra[H];1041944215 said:
Unfixable? Bull.

More like "we don't want to spend any more time/money on this"
Click to expand...

Exactly. Big difference between unfixable and "we dont give a fuck".
 
heatlesssun said:
Or people trying to play it above what their hardware will allow. I'm running Windows 10 with 12 GB and had to the game clearly points out in the textures option that Low requires 2 GB of VRAM. The game however didn't detect that right on my system and for some reason added up the VRAM of my 3x SLI GTX 680 2GB cards and thought I had 6GB and set the textures to high. Once reduced to low things were smooth as butter. And I think the game still looks very good even with the low textures.
Click to expand...

There is nothing in this game that would justify a 12 gigabyte memory requirement other than some absolutely incompetent programming and hoping that throwing enough RAM at the thing conceals the fact that there are memory leaks everywhere.
 
I think I'm just going to buy this on PS4. That's what I did for GTA V and never regretted it.
 
damicatz said:
There is nothing in this game that would justify a 12 gigabyte memory requirement other than some absolutely incompetent programming and hoping that throwing enough RAM at the thing conceals the fact that there are memory leaks everywhere.
Click to expand...

Sounds like a "Crysis". :D
 
its playing better but not perfect.

as for it being un fixable? if WB dont wana do the right thing and spend money on fixing it they should either give the game away very very cheap like $5 or even better release it for free.
 
ZLoth said:
OK, once again.... tell me why I should pre-order a game, pay full retail price, and face potential game-breaking issues when I can wait a year, pick it up at a discount through a Steam sale, and hopefully, they patched it all up?

Any guesses as to how long before 32GB is going to be the recommended spec?
Click to expand...

That's what I run now. Game seems ok on my TitanX - I haven't had the issues that may people report. No idea how the consoles can run it if it takes that much mem to run.
 
JayteeBates said:
That's what I run now. Game seems ok on my TitanX - I haven't had the issues that may people report. No idea how the consoles can run it if it takes that much mem to run.
Click to expand...

64GB here, but only because I run a bit of a ramdisk.

Just downloaded the game to test it out for myself on my dual 980ti's.

I got it with the video cards, just never installed it. (Nothing really to do with the bugs, it's just not my kind of game)

Was impressed with FiOS. Only took 30 minutes to download the 34Gig game.
 
Zarathustra[H];1041946654 said:
64GB here, but only because I run a bit of a ramdisk.

Just downloaded the game to test it out for myself on my dual 980ti's.

I got it with the video cards, just never installed it. (Nothing really to do with the bugs, it's just not my kind of game)

Was impressed with FiOS. Only took 30 minutes to download the 34Gig game.
Click to expand...

So, looks like SLI is still not working at all.

IMHO, I don't really find the graphics all that impressive, but they really hit the video cards pretty hard at high resolutions.

I didn't even launch the game. Just played with the options, and ran the "PC Performance test"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top