Domingo
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2004
- Messages
- 24,243
I have a feeling the game will eventually be quite good. Hopefully it just won't take them months to make it so.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
-
A Great friend to the HardForum with a great kid that he is trying to get a scholorship to continue his schooling. Please give hime a vote! Only 24 hours left! Thanks.
If you have an VOTE FOR KEENAN!
Batman: Arkham Knight
- Thread starter cageymaru
- Start date
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2014
- Messages
- 2,244
But honestly I think what a lot of us are wondering is: how did WB/Rocksteady think they were going to get away with this?
I know the saying "any publicity is good publicity," but... is it?
(And I know, ironically, I answered my own question back when someone mentioned AC:U and yes they actually did fix it amidst some heat, and given AC:S, looks like Ubisoft came out of it well enough, all things considered.)
Domingo
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2004
- Messages
- 24,243
The difference with AC: Unity is that all versions of the game were jacked. Had it only been the PC, I'm not so sure things would have worked out the same way.
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2004
- Messages
- 33,127
Still an awesome game from a "PC-first" company...plus the level of support coming out of CDPR has been great.
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2004
- Messages
- 4,614
At least TW3 was... um.. what's the word?
Oh yeah, playable.
And the visual downturn didn't affect my enjoyment of it one bit.
B:AK needs to be playable before they worry about making it any prettier imho. Don't care how pretty it is if I cant even play it.
I would be more annoyed at Witcher if it really was bad, but I didn't find it to be. There are only some things that I was thinking was worse, where as others was merely different, and not strictly in a bad way.
As for Arkham.... the only Batman game I was actually interested in and it turns out to be unplayable. (I don't own it though, was planning to get it down th road, so hopefully it is fixed then... it'd be really bad if they just decided to fuck PC and abandon it.)
As for Arkham.... the only Batman game I was actually interested in and it turns out to be unplayable. (I don't own it though, was planning to get it down th road, so hopefully it is fixed then... it'd be really bad if they just decided to fuck PC and abandon it.)
Colonel Sanders
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2001
- Messages
- 5,615
lol this game has one of the best unexpected jumpscares in the history of gaming. I pooped myself.
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2013
- Messages
- 13,492
Can't be any worse than the one in bioshock infinite.
Colonel Sanders
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2001
- Messages
- 5,615
Actually it might be, because Infinite is a very linear experience where you kind of expect anything since you HAVE to go a certain way, while AK is very free form (and the way the scare happens I guarantee you will not even remotely expect it)
Also, what's the deal with the revisionist history?
The original Witcher was an absolute mess when it was released. CDPR, experiencing massive problems because of the engine, which they licensed from Bioware, had run out of money, and just shipped the game, unfinished, in order to meet the deadline for the (back then) lucrative Christmas market. The so-called enhanced edition was a huge patch. A patch. Not an enhancement. Those spin doctors at CDPR are the masters of marketing.
The Witcher 2 wasn't exactly in great shape upon release either - it took at least three patches before that game was running reasonably well.
So once again, CRPR gets the free pass, while companies like Rocksteady get thrown under the bus.
It ain't right, gents.
The original Witcher was an absolute mess when it was released. CDPR, experiencing massive problems because of the engine, which they licensed from Bioware, had run out of money, and just shipped the game, unfinished, in order to meet the deadline for the (back then) lucrative Christmas market. The so-called enhanced edition was a huge patch. A patch. Not an enhancement. Those spin doctors at CDPR are the masters of marketing.
The Witcher 2 wasn't exactly in great shape upon release either - it took at least three patches before that game was running reasonably well.
So once again, CRPR gets the free pass, while companies like Rocksteady get thrown under the bus.
It ain't right, gents.
LeviathanZERO
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2003
- Messages
- 6,496
CDPR didn't outsource their AAA game to a low tier console porting company, to port it to PC.
Dion
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2004
- Messages
- 4,061
Well said.
if the PC version was excellent right out of the gate I wonder if we would have even known that the game was outsourced to Iron Galaxy...Rocksteady might have taken all the credit...but as soon as there were problems they were quick to blame Iron Galaxy
And Rocksteady didn't lie about the graphics of Arkham Knight by releasing incredible, mind-blowing footage that was simply never going to be representative of the actual game.
Really? So it's okay to lie about your game?
Hey, at least Warner Brothers and Rocksteady have taken the appropriate steps here. They've even apologized to gamers.
I've yet to see any such apology from CDPR. They blatantly lied about their game. So yay?
2/10.
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2004
- Messages
- 4,614
Only because of the loss of a massive portion of revenue now that Steam offers refunds, not because they give 2 shits about you or me.
They had probably 10x the budget for this even compared to TW3 and they still shipped a broken port.
WB/RS aren't doing the "right thing", they are covering their asses now. Doing the "right thing" would have been shipping a playable game in the first place.
You know, like CDPR did with TW3. I could actually play that when it launched, and enjoy it, unlike this mess. Lowered visuals didn't stop people from playing the game they paid for, whereas this is a game that plenty of people cant even play.
Not quite an apples to apples comparison you're making. One is game breaking, one is not.
Is it the one with you know who that leads to that side mission or is it from the other you know who during you know which mission? Both of those made me jump and kind of scared me. There is another great one late in the game.
LeviathanZERO
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2003
- Messages
- 6,496
Who said it was OK to lie at any time? They are both wrong, but which game did you pay $60 for and could not play at all? If we want to talk about liars, lets bring From Software into this with their DS2 shtick, cause that sure as hell didnt look like the e3 trailers. But when I pressed play on my steam list, the game worked. Screw them for lying, but at least their product came out the door like expected, and not the trash that was this outsourced port, that they expect you to pay $60 for.
LurkerLito
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2007
- Messages
- 2,877
LOL what exactly is your beef with CDPR Wabe?
There is a big difference, CDPR's games worked and could be played for most people, BAK only worked for a few people (like myself) but took a dump on most people's machine. That is a BIG difference. The game they released was suppose to be a "Rocksteady" made PC game, but we got an "Iron Galaxy" port of a Rocksteady game. WB has a hell of a lot to apologize for.
As far as the "blatant lie", WTF are you talking about? TW3 graphics? pfft...every single game dev out there is a "blatant liar" if that is your criteria. They showed the best their game engine could do over a year before the release date, before they had to account for porting it to a console system. That isn't a lie. That was the state of the game at the time. There is a reason all that footage is always labeled pre-release. It's because it's going to change from what you are seeing.
There is a big difference, CDPR's games worked and could be played for most people, BAK only worked for a few people (like myself) but took a dump on most people's machine. That is a BIG difference. The game they released was suppose to be a "Rocksteady" made PC game, but we got an "Iron Galaxy" port of a Rocksteady game. WB has a hell of a lot to apologize for.
As far as the "blatant lie", WTF are you talking about? TW3 graphics? pfft...every single game dev out there is a "blatant liar" if that is your criteria. They showed the best their game engine could do over a year before the release date, before they had to account for porting it to a console system. That isn't a lie. That was the state of the game at the time. There is a reason all that footage is always labeled pre-release. It's because it's going to change from what you are seeing.
I brought up CDPR - not just The Witcher 3.
You've conveniently glossed over The Witcher and The Witcher 2 - both had terrible launches, the original game in particular.
The original Witcher WAS released unfinished. And that so-called Enhanced Edition WAS a massive patch.
So not only does CDPR release buggy, unfinished games, but they lie to their loyal fan base by posting the most insanely gorgeous video footage - basically promising a cutting edge title - but then releasing a game that looks nothing like their own promotional material. And I mean NOTHING like it. Terrible.
I'm far more impressed right now by Rocksteady than I am by CDPR. Rocksteady had the balls to man up, and admit what they did, instead of riding out the storm like those fuckers at CDPR.
When the shit hit the fan during the great Witcher 3 downgrade debacle, I just sat back and watched it happen. I said nothing because I had already called it six years earlier. Those poor Witcher enthusiasts who had supported CDPR all those years - having the carpet ripped out from underneath them.
I just felt sorry for those guys. It was sad to watch. Still, that's what happens when you chip in with lousy lying cheating bastards - you will get burned.
I played both of them close to release, both were playable, as were TW3. TW2 was hard as fuck, but it wasn't very buggy and I don't recall any real performance problems. The 'enhanced editions' were just that, enchanced editions. They were not necessary to play and complete the games.
I'm at a loss why you're spending your first account-day here on this shit. Did the previous account get burned for some reason? Can't imagine why in that case.
Back to batman.
I'm so glad you asked.
Did you know that during the big downgrade debate CDPR was banning people at their forum left, right, and centre? I've communicated with two such people, and I can tell you that both were disgusted and infuriated.
In many cases, these banned forum members simply wanted to discuss the downgrade issue. CDPR, the masters of the PR game, wanted to control the discussion, and came down hard on anybody who was being critical of them specifically.
The same thing happened to me exactly one day after the release of the first game. Banned simply for being critical of The Witcher.
Here's what happened: I got out my stopwatch, and timed the load screens to prove that in certain situations, depending on where you were going in the city, you could spend just as much time looking at load screens as playing the blasted game.
That's right. Seven minutes staring at load screens, and seven minutes of 'playing'. I proved that, with my stopwatch. I was very vocal about warning people away from the game. That's what forums are supposed to be about.
And I got banned for it.
So, you see, I've known for many years now that the people at CDPR are really just wolves in sheeps clothing.
Go take a look at Rocksteady's forum, btw. Nobody is being banned.
No. I lost my password, and my previous email account, used for this forum ,was compromised.
That was about three years ago. I decided to re-register to discuss Arkham Knight.
I think we've reached a milestone here. I really do. It's now going to MUCH harder for gaming companies to release half baked ports.
After this, the rules are going to change. Power to the gamer!
Also, that's it. I'm done talking about CDPR.
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2014
- Messages
- 2,244
Let's see:
We've got another questionable Assassin's Creed coming up, along with a few games already providing some early disappointment, like The Division and Rainbow Six Siege (I don't mean to pick on Ubisoft, it's just on the tip of my tongue right now). It's 2015 and while pre-orders continue to be thoroughly criticized, Fallout 4's Collector's edition with the Pipboy has sold out, multiple times. E3 is still overrun with CGI trailers and vague announcements and we eat it up. DLC and season passes and "exclusive" content to a retailer are the norm - just look at how Bungie treats its players with DLC and add-on content. P2W is still arguably out there for the "competitive" scene. Consoles and "ports" fragment players into separate camps and as we've seen, lowers the bar across the board.
Steam refunds are definitely a game changer, and a step in the right direction, but a turning point - no way. I think we can't declare "power to the gamer" just yet.
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2013
- Messages
- 13,492
It just means the next Ubisoft games will be UPlay exclusive.
We wouldn't have a clue I'm sure. It was a dick move for them to throw Iron Galaxy under the bus. It was after all Rocksteady's decision to outsource the PC version to another vendor when they hadn't done so in the past.
I'm making a wild guess here but I wonder if Rocksteady simply didn't have the people or time to make a PC port and instead of delaying it WB shoved the port off on a studio and said "get this done in a couple weeks". Iron Galaxy's name is in the credits so we'd know they did some work on the game, but it wouldn't have been a big obvious thing. Hiring outside studios to do work on a game or handle a port isn't exactly uncommon, it just isn't always so disastrous.
Dion
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2004
- Messages
- 4,061
So I watched the Totalbiscuit video. That guy is getting very good performance with his single Titan. Yes I know its a Titan it should run well. But even 980Ti's are on par with Titans so don't act like 1000$ video cards are needed for this game.
Anyways his frame rate was going anywhere from 60-120fps. I am confused. He is playing at 1440p too.. Isn't this GOOD????????
And on top of that SLI isn't even working its broken. Apparently fixed in the new driver tho.
Anyways his frame rate was going anywhere from 60-120fps. I am confused. He is playing at 1440p too.. Isn't this GOOD????????
And on top of that SLI isn't even working its broken. Apparently fixed in the new driver tho.
Matthew Kane
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2007
- Messages
- 4,233
That's the thing too many polarising performance figures at the moment. Could it be people getting shit performance have other programs like Afterburner or such running in the background? Who knows.
Many gamers thought AC Unity was a terrible, terrible port.
For me it wasn't. Nevertheless, all the Ubisoft games you just mentioned will all be released on Steam. If any of these games run as poorly as Unity did, then two hours should be enough for any gamer to decide that a refund is in order.
Ubisoft is now going to be held accountable, just like Rocksteady was. I think we can pretty much agree that gamers are going to be even less lenient with Ubisoft than they were with Rocksteady.
Which is why this IS a game changer.
Rocksteady did not get away with releasing a poor port - you're telling me that Ubisoft will? .
I thought TB switched to 980s or 980 Tis at some point. I know he was talking about it at least.
Game performance is entirely random it seems. Some people get great performance but most don't, even when comparing similar set ups. Jumping from 60 to 120 really isn't good. That huge fluctuation would cause serious hitching while playing and would kill the experience.
I run Afterburner and a lot of times I'll leave the overlay up just to see what my FPS is doing, so that's not it.
It just means the next Ubisoft games will be UPlay exclusive.
Except these games are already listed on Steam
Matthew Kane
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2007
- Messages
- 4,233
I have to agree with Wabe here with the previous Witcher releases, W2 on release had a lot of bugs, more so then W3 had/has. They did fix 99% of the game though, but the bugs and glitches are not deal breakers with what Batman AK is supposedly having atm.
It just means the next Ubisoft games will be UPlay exclusive.
That brings up an interesting question: How do Steam refunds work with games that get registered on 3rd party services? If someone were to say buy AC: Tophats on Steam then refund it would it also get pulled form their Uplay?
Of course.
usually people with high end cards are spared major issues like this but with Arkham Knight it's very random...everyone from 980 Ti's to Titan X to 970's to 780's are either having issues or the game runs decent...AC: Unity had a lot of issues at launch but people with older graphics card were feeling it more