Rocksteady Fess Up To Unsteady Arkham Knight PC

'Hello Warner Bros tech support, how may I help you today?' 'RaaaarAAAAGFGH'

Batman: Arkham Kerniggut [official site] is, by all accounts, a pretty good videogame with a pretty shonky PC port. Everyone on RPS who’s tried it has had framerate issues of varying degrees – I think I got off lightest, but my FPS is still all over the place to the extent that I’ll probably shelve it and wait for a patch or driver update – and the internet’s very much doing its internet thing about it. At least devs Rocksteady have now ‘fessed up to there being problems with the release build, though reveal that an “external PC development partner” is involved.

Once upon a time, that’s the kind of phrase I’d presume implied Spotty Ian In QA Who Knows A Bit About Graphics Cards, but big publishers do take PC gaming pretty seriously again these days, and it is indeed a third-party studio. Chicago-based ‘Iron Galaxy Studios‘ are listed as bearing some of the PC weight in credits, and they’re a work-for-hire outfit who often specialise in ports. One of which was Arkham Origins, which didn’t suffer from any particular performance issues, if I recall correctly.

Rocksteady’s community manager had this to say about the kerfuffle:

“We’re aware that some users are reporting performance issues with the PC version of Batman: Arkham Knight. This is something that Rocksteady takes very seriously. We are working closely with our external PC development partner to make sure these issues get resolved as quickly as possible.”

There’s no further detail on exactly where the fault lies or who’s being blamed for it (another possible culprit is Nvidia’s Gameworks/PhysX features, which don’t play all that nice with AMD cards nor, it seems, with many Nvidia cards right now) and nor is any timeline for fixes given. “We’ll update this thread when we’ve got more info to share” is the best we’ve got.

Given the game will run some max-settings scenes at 60FPS – and looks spectacular when it does – I feel reasonably confident that this’ll get sorted out, but you never do know. I think the game could do with a few more options in its settings menus to help people find their own sweet spot too, but even in the unlikely event that does happen it’s probably much further off.

Meantime, I’m sure lots of people in suits are currently yelling at each about this whole mess, rather than the astronomical consoleland scores, currently being the story of WB’s biggest games launch of the year.

Here’s a video John made of the game running on his meaty AMD card:


  1. FurryLippedSquid says:

    Holy Warner Bros are rapidly becoming one of the worst names in PC gaming, Batman.

    • peterako1989 says:

      They are about to join the Ubisoft/EA club

      • mao_dze_dun says:

        And Bethesda. People always seem to forget that each Bethesda game upon release is a bucket full of bugs. Everybody is saying how great their games are and nobody remembers that is after a GOTY edition with all DLCs/Patches + a community made unofficial patch that fixes a ton more bugs and possibly a few mods to fix animations, textures and possibly game mechanics :). I don’t know why they always get the Get Out of Jail free pass. And to be honest – EA have improved their public image a lot in the last year. Sure, they’re still EA but I think at the moment Ubisoft undoubtedly holds the “biggest sh*thead in the industry” award.

        • egamruf says:

          This would be true if it were true, but it isn’t true.

          Bethesda’s games often have bugs, but they’re bugs intrinsic to the size and scale of the project they’ve produced, rather than the EA/Ubisoft/Warner Bros type bugs. Bugs which prevent you playing the game (i.e. memory leaks, frame pacing issues, online connectivity) are rightly criticised up the wazoo. Bethesda (and Obsidian, actually) tend to more often have bugs like poorly linked conversation trees, the odd dragon flying backwards away from you, certain items tagged with the wrong property-category, so picking up something results in everyone attacking you. They don’t prevent you playing the game, they just commend to players the judicious use of quick-save functions.

          Ubisoft is a great example of the difference – Black Flag had ships appear from *under* the sea. I saw random pirates floating in the air and had the odd person walk through solid objects. People lauded it as a classic (and it was). Unity had enormous problems with online connectivity to the uPlay platform, and terrible PC (and console) performance on release – it was rightly hammered.

          That’s why Bethesda get a ‘free pass’, because their games usually *work* on release.

          • DanMan says:

            I’ve got to say, I prefer the game-breaking bugs like crashes, because those are obvious defects they can’t gloss over. So there’s a good chance of them getting fixed, or you getting your money back because it flat out doesn’t work.

          • demicanadian says:


          • jonfitt says:

            Fallout 3 had exactly these sort of issues on launch. There were terrible stuttering and frame rate issues relating to vsync, and locked framerates which had something to do with it being a gfwl game.

          • egamruf says:

            Fallout 3 had micro stutter (which many people can’t even recognise) – I don’t recollect there being general frame rate issues like Arkham Knight is having.

        • Phier says:

          I agree, Bethesda releases mostly crap. Modders make it a real PC game.

          • egamruf says:

            This would also be true, if it were true. It is, however, a matter of opinion – I won’t criticise you too much for expressing your opinion, even if you seem to have attempted to do it in an inflammatory way for no benefit.

        • fish99 says:

          Skyrim wasn’t too bad at launch.

          • OneTwoWho says:

            Skyrim had pretty bad performance on release, it took a moder to release an reworked .ini file to improve the performance drastically (which he did a few days after release). Then there were a few game breaking bugs, which affected a small percentage of players. If I recall correctly some cave with a bugged exit where you could get stuck.

          • fish99 says:

            And on the scale of how big and complex a game it is I’d call that ‘not too bad’. I didn’t say great. Also you can always work around glitches with console commands in Bethesda games.

        • Geebs says:

          Everything I’ve played by Bethesda since Morrowind has been in a playable state at launch (yes, including Rage).

          The issue with these high-profile releases is now that a particular publisher releases buggy games, it’s that the more ambitiously huge or graphically intensive titles come closest to exposing the fact that literally all real-time 3D is a thin tissue of lies wrapped around a bunch of jury-rigged code that just barely works well enough to function. Games which push the hardware further just buckle more visibly.

          What’s far more interesting in this game’s case is that it looks like developers have finally started using this generation’s console hardware in ways other than “badly-species PC” – the architectural differences between PC and console, particularly in terms of unified memory avoiding the PCIe bandwidth bottleneck, might finally start to show through.

    • SuicideKing says:

      Well, Steam refunds exist now…

      • sirax says:

        I bet at some point in the future some idiot at WB will look back at this, subtract all the refunds from the total sales, claim “PC sales have been bad” and “PC Gaming is dying” and use it as an excuse to not do a port at all.

        Might be a bit cynical but I wouldn’t be surprised at all…

  2. brat-sampson says:

    I don’t know about the console builds but Origins on PC wasn’t great on release… Smooth overall, sure, but buggy including at least one that would prevent progress in a story mission because Mr Man couldn’t interact with a grate properly.

    • MisterFurious says:

      I played it a month ago and it’s still not great. I ran into quite a few bugs while playing it. Nothing game-breaking, but they were there. My favorite was the bug that made Batman wig out whilst gliding.

    • DanMan says:

      I was under the same impression from what I had read on the net about Oranges. Squishy, sure. But also a bit putrid.

    • Blad the impaler says:

      Oh my god, that grate!
      I mean, really, what video game character is incapable of shimmying into an airduct?

    • suibhne says:

      Even better was the fact that WB announced the game would receive no further support/patches when they were glaring bugs remaining.

      • demicanadian says:

        “If we ever patch this game again, it’d be only fixes to game-breaking bugs” was their exact words

  3. Xzi says:

    “They’re a work-for-hire outfit who often specialise in ports.” Clearly “specialize” is being far too generous. Rocksteady should be pissed. Iron Galaxy had to have known the port had some serious issues, yet probably didn’t tell Rocksteady or convince them to at least delay the PC version by a few weeks. This is bad even by indie early access standards, let alone a AAA game that’s supposed to be at its release state.

    • scannerbarkly says:

      They clearly knew it was bad because of the lack of PC Review codes and the extremely late changes to the specs needed to play the game. They only care today because they are being savaged for it on the internet.

      • Xzi says:

        They also locked it to 30FPS on PC, and I believe this is the first time they’ve done that with an Arkham game. So yes, they obviously knew of the performance issues. I don’t understand how WB could have let this happen, either. Shadow of Mordor looked great and ran great on the PC, after all.

        • melkemind says:

          Well, then let’s give credit where credit is due. Monolith developed Shadow of Mordor, and they have a longstanding history of good PC development going back to my days as a youth (and I’m no spring chicken). Rocksteady clearly put consoles first. This is probably a case of one hand not knowing what the other hand is doing. I doubt any suits from WB even saw the game on PC before it was released.

    • UncleLou says:

      I couldn’t care less if Rocksteady is pissed, all that is internal stuff. It says Rocksteady and WB on the box, those are the two responsible parties towards the customer. If they don’t manage to oversee the port, that’s just as much a failure as if they had done the shoddy port themselves.

      • Xzi says:

        I agree. There’s plenty of blame to go around. The fact that the game made it to release in its current state means that Iron Galaxy, Rocksteady, and WB all fucked up in equal measure. Glad all the people who paid $60 for this pile of shit can get their money back from Steam, at least. I paid $20 for it and I’m stuck with it, so hopefully it is somehow miraculously fixable.

        • ElVaquero says:

          I’d say the blame for this is all on Warner Bros. They are the only ones in this scenario who got to say “Yeah, good enough. Ship it.” Do you honestly think Rocksteady or Iron Galaxy just don’t give a shit about their software?

          This is a publisher problem, plain and simple.

      • Itdoesntgoaway says:

        Yup – in my day to day job overseeing outsourced work is a given part of hiring third parties (a decent business model should even factor that in as an offset against the financial savings that outsourcing usually entails).

        Get the feeling that in this instance though, given how egregiously bad this port is, they Just. Didn’t. Care.

        • Dawngreeter says:

          I’m sure a lot of people cared. Just not the ones calling the shots. We’ve seen this with Unity and I’m sure we’ll see it a lot more in the future – projected sales are huge and release days are planned. Engineering informs them they need more time because the product isn’t shaping up in time. They say fuck it, PC can be patched whenever. They’re not going to miss their planned date with a million dollars just because you lot want to buy the game and then play it too. If framerate falters, let them eat cake (this really works better for Unity…).

  4. Sexy.KOT69 says:

    Why did Rockstar’s community manager decide to chime in all of a sudden on this topic?.. Not only that, but they’re speaking for Rocksteady. Hmm.

  5. Blackcompany says:

    Then why release what you know is a broken product? If they knowingly did so they deserve the flack. Reasonable, product focused flack, anyway.

    • CookPassBabtridge says:

      I think this may become less frequent now steam refunds exist. The comfort of having the pre-order cash and then waiting for the bug reports from day one users may no longer be present.

      • subedii says:

        My thoughts as well.

        Honestly I saw far too many sites (this one included) trying to insinuate if not outright state that this was yet another reckless and poorly thought out move by Valve, but frankly, I think it’s the best thing for consumers and this shows exactly why (the hand wringing over the poor indie devs was pretty spurious. TotalBiscuit actually did a good video on how badly skewed those stats were, and I’m not even a fan of TB).

        The initial sales period with the hardcore fans is THE most important sales period, it’s where the most money is made. So if even a small portion are refunding their premium priced copies on launch, that is a MAJOR deal. And I’ve already seen people posting that they’ve already received refunds.

        Even if they buy later, the vast majority of the profits those customers WOULD have represented is already lost, and unlike other more nebulous concepts (like potential sales lost to piracy), this is something that’s completely trackable and measurable.

  6. McPartyson says:

    Too incompetent to optimize Gameworks? No options to turn that stupid shit off if we don’t want it? Fail.

  7. Lightningproof says:

    Should’ve guessed this was all Dave Lang’s fault

    • theodacourt says:

      You just know that Johnny V over at Disney got his old bud Dave Lang to make a terrible port for Warner Bros. Let’s start the Corp wars!

      • TinKelp says:

        This is what happens when you tweet out someone’s personal cell number, Johnny! YOU DID THIS!

    • NotToBeLiked says:

      What did you expect from a guy that makes Flash games for a living? It’s obvious he just recompiled the game in Flash, because you can’t play it on iOS!

  8. Alien says:

    “a pretty good videogame with a pretty shonky PC port.”

    Isn’t it extremley easy to do a good PC port? Cap framerate to 30fps, resolution to 1080p and replace analog stick movement with mouse movement?

    • ResonanceCascade says:

      Pretty much, except the resolution should always be scaled 720p. Then just make sure all the graphics options are set via an encrypted .cfg and never allow the framerate to drop below 2-3 frames per second, except when it does.

    • Xzi says:

      It’s actually kind of difficult to port from next-gen consoles to the PC if you have little or no experience in doing so. The PS4/XBOne use APUs rather than a traditional CPU/GPU setup, so you have to code the game to properly utilize system resources, otherwise it will call on RAM as VRAM and that alone will completely destroy performance. Not to mention several other subtleties that “Iron Galaxy Studios” clearly had no idea how to navigate. They can’t take all the blame, though, as Rocksteady hired them probably knowing full well how incompetent they were and how badly they’d fuck up the PC version. Thus the reason for giving out PC copies of the game for free with Nvidia cards.

      • SuicideKing says:

        Er I’d assume the engine handles the calls to RAM/VRAM, and should be smart enough to allocate accordingly, with the help of drivers if necessary.

        • Xzi says:

          Well one would hope, yeah, but ridiculous stuff like that slips through the cracks all the time. Skyrim, for instance, renders shadows with the CPU, making them unnecessarily blocky and heavily impacting peformance on a lot of systems.

          Crappy ports used to be the norm, but the PC is supposedly more respected as a gaming platform now. If WB and Rocksteady want to get a piece of the ever-expanding PC gaming audience, they need to get their shit together.

          • jonahcutter says:

            Well, with an IP like Batman it’s going to sell a hefty chunk no matter what. Rockstar could churn out GTAs until the end of time and pull envy-inducing numbers regardless of whether the games actually ran well or not.

            Hopefully, they don’t rely on that. Rockstar didn’t, and GTA 5 was a large improvement in functionality over GTA 4. It’s almost like they took the criticism to heart and set out to give their fans a quality product. Or maybe they wanted to not be known as a company that produces the minimum necessary to get people to fork over cash. Whatever the reasons, they did pretty well with 5’s release and earned back a good amount of respect for it.

            Same with Witcher 3. Previous problematic releases. Yet the third is the strongest, and most complicated technically, yet. CD Projekt RED, respecting their fans and being respected (and rewarded) in return.

            All three games are huge, complicated, open-world action games late in the progression of their respective series’. Rockstar and CDPR improved their performances significantly. Rocksteady/WB regressed significantly.

            What’s Rocksteady/WB’s choice going forward?

          • Geebs says:

            No it doesn’t, Skyrim uses filtered shadowmaps like every other game out there. The CPU usage in that scenario comes when you have a multitude of different objects and can’t batch draw calls efficiently, or where it’s difficult to cull a lot of objects that aren’t actually visible to the player because their shadows fall within the main view frustum. It’s just a reality of an open-world game that most of the really snazzy shadow-optimisation strategies don’t work. (Source – I’ve written an open-world 3d renderer with a full day-night cycle. Shadows are incredibly tricky to get right in that setting).

            Skyrim does try to cheat with the environmental shadows by limiting the number of times they’re redrawn, which is why the environmentL shadows jerk to a new position every minute or so.

        • FecesOfDeath says:

          It’s using Unreal Engine 3, and Iron Galaxy was the studio responsible for Killer Instinct after it was handed the project after Amazon acquired Double Helix. The difference is that Arkham Knight is still developed for the x86 architecture on PC, while the PS4 and XB1 SKUs are using x64. Also, I dunno if the PC version is still single-threaded. The console versions are surely taking advantage of all the cores of the Jaguar APU.

          • Xzi says:

            Very stupid if true. They could easily port over the x64 code for the PC, the majority of gaming PCs now run on x64 OSes and architecture. Optimizing for four fast cores as opposed to eight slow ones also should not be that difficult.

      • Monkeh says:

        You do realise I got Batman: Arkham Asylum with my older Nvidia card and more recently The Witcher 3.
        Those must be badly created games too, seeing as they’ve given those out for free as well. /sarcasm

      • fish99 says:

        Rocksteady have no reason to want the PC version to be poor. This is costing them money and hurting their reputation.

        • egamruf says:

          It had crashes and frame-rate issues for some people, although many of these were just a result of people choosing settings their computers couldn’t support. One of the problems it had was texture size on the higher settings, and card VRAM problems. From recollection it also suffered a relatively off-putting memory leak in the early days for some people.

          It also had gameplay issues for almost all people, in the early days – the most obvious one was dragons flying backwards away from you, but there were various examples of misplaced map markers, quests misreporting and the whole gamut of problems.

          But yeah – I also thought it was pretty ok at launch.

          • fish99 says:

            Did you mean to reply to my Skyrim comment? Anyway, none of that stuff stopped anyone playing and finishing it (and didn’t stop RPS giving it GOTY), and when I say ‘not too bad’ I’m talking relative to other Bethesda games. Fallout 3 / New Vegas were a lot worse I recall.

  9. The Sombrero Kid says:

    Having worked with Warner Bros in the past I’m certain the blame lays with them, they’re incompetent and pull all the dirty tricks in the book, it’s without a doubt that iron galaxy were treated like shit by them and it’s within the realms of possibility that rocksteady never saw a pc build.

    Saying that there certainly is a pattern forming with gameworks and rocksteady trying to throw the third party under the bus is undignified, they wouldn’t’ve got the credit if it was great, reminds me of gearbox and eidos Montreal pulling the same unprofessional shit when even the slightest criticism is levelled at their games.
    Stand by your work or don’t.

    • Itdoesntgoaway says:

      Indeed – blaming the third party is an still admission of one of these two things:

      1: We knew they did a bad job and didn’t care so released anyway.
      2: We didn’t know they did a bad job because we were too incompetent to check.

      But they probably think your average gamer is too ignorant to realise that a game which has been in development for years doesn’t just turn up unexpectedly broken.

      What a joke.

    • KenTWOu says:

      Eidos Montreal pulled the same unprofessional shit?

  10. IcyBee says:

    I just finished downloading this as I was having my dinnerdinnerdinner.
    Then I had the bright idea of Verifying the Integrity of the Game Cache before running it up for the first time.
    “487 files are corrupt (or more likely encrypted) and will be redownloaded.”

    I’ll wait until tomorrow then.

  11. Drinking with Skeletons says:

    Asylum ran like smooth, creamy butter. City was a damn mess. Origins ran fine.

    I’m getting the PS4 version of Knight. I don’t know what the hell happened, but I don’t trust Rocksteady’s PC support.

    • Leonick says:

      I don’t remember having any issues with City (or hearing about any issues with it), I know a lot of people had issues with Origins (though I can’t remember the details) but didn’t have any particular issues myself.

      • Vandelay says:

        City had issues with the DX 11 mode (or whatever was the latest version at the time.) It was fine if that wasn’t enabled.

        I only recently played Origin, but had no performance issues. Did encounter a couple of bugs, one which meant I had to reload a checkpoint to proceed, whilst the other was a bug that prevented me from completing a side mission.

        Pity this is so bad on PC. It looks beautiful and I have heard it runs brilliantly on other versions.

  12. gunny1993 says:

    This twinned with hideous pre-order bonuses means this is definitely going to be a half price GOTY edition purchase in a year or two.

    • silentdan says:

      I bet if we really keep up the pressure, we could get that 1/2 price GOTY by December.

  13. DanMan says:

    If you haven’t played Arkham City yet: spoiler warning for the video.

  14. James says:

    ‘Rockstar’s community manager’

    I assume you mean Rocksteady? Though Rockstar have done well on the port front recently :)

  15. Phantom_Renegade says:

    “One of which was Arkham Origins, which didn’t suffer from any particular performance issues, if I recall correctly.”

    You are recalling incorrectly. The game was rather broken when it launched, and was never really fixed to the point where for me certain side missions are still incomplete able. Instead of fixing their game, they stated they would no longer be patching and instead focus on releasing DLC.

    In fact, I believe RPS tried to follow up on it. It’s really weird that you don’t remember how much of a mess Origins was the first couple of weeks it was out. And in some ways, still is. Origins is the entire reason I stopped buying WB games at launch.

    • Xzi says:

      Arkham City was also a huge mess at launch. It was a really good game once they sorted all that out, but it took a very long time to do so. I don’t understand why they wouldn’t just put off release for a couple months, given the fact that they’ll end up having to put a couple months work in to it after release anyway.

    • Asurmen says:

      I think they’re recalling correctly. It was buggy yes, but ran fine in terms of performance.

  16. Leonick says:

    To add to all the PC version issues, the retail version discs are broken… It comes on 5 discs which takes almost an hour to install and after that you’ve only got 7.8GB of the game installed, or in other words, 22%. The rest you have to download, the exact thing I’m trying to avoid by getting the retail version!

  17. Itdoesntgoaway says:

    I’ve fixed the press release.

    “We’re aware that MOST of our users are reporting performance issues with the PC version of Batman: Arkham Knight. This is something that we at Rocksteady clearly didn’t give a shit about prior to release as we were too busy counting all our pre-order loots. We are blaming our external PC development partner to make sure these issues get leveled at them as much possible. Thanks for the fat stacks of cash suckas.”

  18. Jahooba says:

    I heard someone say they fixed their framerate issues by running the game in Windowed Borderless mode.

  19. DanMan says:

    Apparently the console versions run really well, which leads me to think that Rocksteady optimized heavily for those. Which is nice for console players, but that probably made it also harder for the studio that does that PC port.

    Further evidence towards that, is that stuff apparently breaks, if you unlock the 30fps framerate. So they very likely coupled things (like physics) to the framerate, which is all too common in console games unfortunately. Thus creating additional work for the PC port, which seemingly didn’t happen. They just locked it to 30fps, too, and called it a day IMHO.

    • XX says:

      It’s broken when locked to 30fps as well. If anything the game seemed to run a bit smoother when I capped the frame rate to 60. Everything falls to pieces when it starts doing cutscenes though. Driving through the city blowing up drone tanks is mostly fine (mostly), but a cutscene of walking Ivy through GCPD is a slideshow.

      Maybe the PC version is actually some to-be-released DLC included in the 30-odd quid Season Pass. You know, every month for the next half a year they update the game with options that give us “new ways to play”. Such as playing a stable 60 fps, or playing without nausea inducing motion blur, or playing on an AMD card…or apparently, even playing on an Nvidia card.

      • ran93r says:

        Oh god, don’t give them ideas.
        DLC1 – 60FPS
        DLC2 – Gameworks settings available
        DLC3 – Save files no longer corrupt upon exit

        More exclusive content coming in our second season pass!

  20. vorador says:

    Thank god i waited. Seeing the state the game is in, it will take a while to fix.

  21. PopeRatzo says:

    Like the commercial says: “This is how The Batman dies.”

  22. laggerific says:

    I managed to get some consistently good performance in 4k at 30FPS on my rig, which is night and day different than I got at 1080p when Arkham City came out. I know how everyone feels, but I can’t fathom why I would somehow be saved from all this janky mess, except by sheer brute strength of multiple Titan X’s (though, the top end cards at the time of B: AC weren’t able to save me at that games launch.

    • scannerbarkly says:

      I doubt your dual Titans have much to do with it. I believe the game doesnt support SLI at this time.

      • geisler says:

        It doesn’t, i have the same GPU setup and one Titan X was having a sweet snooze initially. SLI is even disabled by default in the driver profile (i know, all this while they claim its the game specific driver and includes SLI support), and if enabled, results in negative scaling and artifacting. Instead i dedicated the 2nd one to PhysX, as i was getting some drops in some scenarios (also at 4K). This resulted in a “smooth” experience for me, but i would much rather be playing at 60 FPS, for less input lag alone.

  23. monkeymcnugget says:

    At least some people can download it! My steam has decided to restart the download twice now! currently downloaded around 45 gigs of data and yet a quick steam restart later and im back to 0%! madness!

    • wu wei says:

      That happens if an update was pushed out while you were downloading the game. Had the same issue with Shadow of Mordor recently. It’s crap.

  24. PsychoWedge says:

    hm, nobody is talking about the textures being only medium quality. no high or even ultra. and it really shows. Bat’s face looks rather blurry and way worse than in Origins, for example. apparently the PS4 version runs with high resolution textures though, so good for them I guess.

  25. demicanadian says:

    THe problem I see, is that this works exactly like Arkham City did in DX11… And they never fixed City.

  26. XhomeB says:

    It’s all the more surprising considering the fact Asylum and City were rather great on release. I never had a single problem with them.
    This, however, looks like an absolute trainwreck. Unacceptable.

  27. ran93r says:

    I finally got around to launching it last night.

    I didn’t change the FPS cap but hit the settings, everything was on except gameworks, so I switched those on (for science) and ran the benchmark.

    Oh ok, max 78, min 34.. this might actually be ok.

    #1 Crash right out of the bat (hurr)
    #2 Second attempt and played through the intro area with completely unacceptable stuttering and input lag and then a crash
    #3 Third and final attempt for the night, got the Press E to crash the game after a little gliding around with single figure FPS.

    Imma going to wait until they fix this shit, life is too short.

  28. Wowbagger says:

    This is all well and good but the important question is, ‘do the batmobile sections play as shit as they look?’

    • Jalan says:

      Reviews seem to suggest they’re fun (well, a number of reviews – at least ones where people take the time to put full thought into what they’re writing, anyway).

      This was the biggest thing that put this game up in the air as to whether I would buy it now or much later when the DLC train has pulled into its final station. Having seen someone play a few sections, it does look insanely awkward (I can’t put my finger on it but it reminds me vaguely of the old Ghost in the Shell Playstation game when the Batmobile goes into battle mode) but nowhere near bad/incomprehensible as I initially thought when seeing the released trailer(s).

  29. Sarracenae says:

    There’s a number of different issues going on here.

    1) There is clearly a major problem with AMD cards. Those videos that stutter and grind to a hault all appear to be on AMD cards.

    2) locked to 30 FPS. No idea why they did this and not expect PC users to notice or make a fuss about it.

    3) The game actually runs ok (only ok) on Nvidia cards. On normal, with everything turned on (normal) and the frame rate unlocked I get between 35-60 fps on my laptop with a GTX 970M, running of an SSD. If i turn the gameworks stuff off. I get a fairly solid 60 fps. I get no slowdown stuttering etc.

    Clearly this could be better when mordor runs at a solid 60+ on ultra on this laptop. The theme seems to be don’t buy AAA releases until after launch and when they are working. If you have a steam code just refund it. I got mine free with the laptop so i’m not that bothered, it’s not a game i’d have bought anyway.

    • Kempston Wiggler says:

      Hmm. I’ve an AMD card. An old one. Guess I’m not touching this until at least GOTY stage.

      • Sarracenae says:

        Apparently there is an AMD driver update that fixes alot of the issue with their cards out now.

        I think it’ll be a while before a proper update which brings the game i performance n line with there the FPS should be for the graphical fidelity.

  30. aircool says:

    Best review on Steam so far…

    “The human eye can’t see above 5fps anyways”