So... Batman: Arkham City looks kind of bad on consoles

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT
 

Quite honestly, I can't really tell the difference between the textures when I'm whipping around a room punching goons in the face, or gliding around the city.

For me the only reason to get games on PC is when I know it's a game that's going to have amazing mods (like anything Valve or Bethesda make), but since Arkham City doesn't have any kind of mod support then I don't really mind the differences in texture. Seriously, compare them all you want, but those differences are totally minimal.

If that's what you consider 'bad', you must have rediculous standards.

I thought the game looked grand when i played it on the 360.

Asuka Soryu:
If that's what you consider 'bad', you must have rediculous standards.

Ridgemo:
I thought the game looked grand when i played it on the 360.

Both of these ring true. I thought it looked great on 360. Are those 360 screens from composite cables? I could swear mine looked fine, and I run component. What do the HDMI 360 screens look like?

Anyway, this is simply nit picking. It looks fine. We get it, you own a computer and play games on it, so fuck everything else, right?

Uhhhh...... I don't really see a difference....

Dirty Hipsters:
Quite honestly, I can't really tell the difference between the textures when I'm whipping around a room punching goons in the face, or gliding around the city.

For me the only reason to get games on PC is when I know it's a game that's going to have amazing mods (like anything Valve or Bethesda make), but since Arkham City doesn't have any kind of mod support then I don't really mind the differences in texture. Seriously, compare them all you want, but those differences are totally minimal.

If it'd only be the "textures" that are extremely blurry maybe, but if you enlarge the screens to look at them and don't do it on a mobile phone or similar device you'll notice a large number of differences, from the sight range for detail being extremely decreased, depth lacking from a number of objects that should have them from the brick walls to other stuff more noticeable in the DX9/DX11 comparison screenshots e.g.

image
image

to horrible jaggies being everywhere because of a lack of Anti-Aliasing and Anisotropic Filtering, to the lighting and simple shadows which are an incredibly important part of making something look "real" or rather fake it for the human eye, there aren't any "over-bright" colors on the console version, look at the neon sign or the spotlights behind Batman's head and especially at the lighting in the third shot, to more minor details like raindrops etc. completely missing from the console version and that doesn't even compare what a difference the Physx-component makes in these games. Also notice that these are differences on a game mainly developed for consoles with the PC version coming over a month later. I was honestly surprised at how damn bad it looks, it's about damn time they move on to new hardware and stop dragging it out...

It's also funny that all of their promo-shots they were releasing over time and people were getting excited about are apparently from the PC-version of the game :P

GreatTeacherCAW:

Asuka Soryu:
If that's what you consider 'bad', you must have rediculous standards.

Ridgemo:
I thought the game looked grand when i played it on the 360.

Both of these ring true. I thought it looked great on 360. Are those 360 screens from composite cables? I could swear mine looked fine, and I run component. What do the HDMI 360 screens look like?

Anyway, this is simply nit picking. It looks fine. We get it, you own a computer and play games on it, so fuck everything else, right?

I use HDMI on the Xbox and like i say, i thought the game looked fantastic. I got fully immersed in the game and part of that was how great it looked.

But then maybe it's just because i'm some console scrub who doesn't know any better.

It's the reason I waited and got it on my pc, also I have a tiny tv while my monitor is 24" xD I'm getting it for Christmas so hopefully they will have patched it up a bit by then too.

I think it looks decent enough on the 360 but I'm a sucker for shiny things and an even bigger sucker for Bruce Wayne...

Unless you play your games by freeze-framing them every few seconds, I don't understand how you can see the difference between these two.

Dexter111:

Dirty Hipsters:
Quite honestly, I can't really tell the difference between the textures when I'm whipping around a room punching goons in the face, or gliding around the city.

For me the only reason to get games on PC is when I know it's a game that's going to have amazing mods (like anything Valve or Bethesda make), but since Arkham City doesn't have any kind of mod support then I don't really mind the differences in texture. Seriously, compare them all you want, but those differences are totally minimal.

If it'd only be the "textures" that are extremely blurry maybe, but if you enlarge the screens to look at them and don't do it on a mobile phone or similar device you'll notice a large number of differences, from the sight range for detail being extremely decreased, depth lacking from a number of objects that should have them from the brick walls to other stuff more noticeable in the DX9/DX11 comparison screenshots e.g.

to horrible jaggies being everywhere because of a lack of Anti-Aliasing and Anisotropic Filtering, to the lighting and simple shadows which are an incredibly important part of making something look "real" or rather fake it for the human eye, there aren't any "over-bright" colors on the console version, look at the neon sign or the spotlights behind Batman's head and especially at the lighting in the third shot, to more minor details like raindrops etc. completely missing from the console version and that doesn't even compare what a difference the Physx-component makes in these games. Also notice that these are differences on a game mainly developed for consoles with the PC version coming over a month later. I was honestly surprised at how damn bad it looks, it's about damn time they move on to new hardware and stop dragging it out...

It's also funny that all of their promo-shots they were releasing over time and people were getting excited about are apparently from the PC-version of the game :P

Again, the vast majority of these are things that you would never notice when playing the game. Unless you really like to randomly stare at wall textures for hours on end these are things that you would never notice unless you were looking at screen shots. The only noticeable difference I would say is the draw distance, but even that's not a particularly big deal considering how often you're in detective mode anyway.

Also, I see absolutely no difference between the DX9 and DX11 screenshots.

Dirty Hipsters:
Again, the vast majority of these are things that you would never notice when playing the game. Unless you really like to randomly stare at wall textures for hours on end these are things that you would never notice unless you were looking at screen shots. The only noticeable difference I would say is the draw distance, but even that's not a particularly big deal considering how often you're in detective mode anyway.

Also, I see absolutely no difference between the DX9 and DX11 screenshots.

Of course you see a difference, if you wouldn't see a difference they wouldn't spend days of their time implementing the algorithms and increased high quality assets and Microsoft and other hardware companies would stop developing both graphics software and hardware. Screenshots are just a good way to show that difference by comparing the two versions against each other in a still moment, that doesn't make them go away when it's moving...
Everything in a game from the visuals, to the art direction, to level design, sound and so on flows together to make the game and if you have a better illusion of actually being there you will get a better experience, something which is increasingly helped by not having to look at jagged edges or bad lighting/shadows that tend to pull you out of it and making it look like a "game", even if you don't want to admit it.

But damn apparently noone sees the obvious like night and day differences so I kinda feel like arguing with people claiming that there's no difference whatsoever between Standard and High Definition TV 5 years or the ones claiming that the PlayStation 2 (or whatever generation before) is the highest pinnacle of gaming graphics achievable and anything more won't make any difference anybody could make out 10+ years ago and honest... now, like back then, I feel like facepalming over and over again xD

That's not much of a difference. I could barely tell the first two.

First set of shots you posted: Yeah, I can see a difference. It's not massive, and it's not something I'd notice if I suddenly had to switch from the PC version to the 360. But I can see it.

The Poison Ivy shots: I honestly can't see much of a difference. I mean, there seems to be slightly different textures used on the trunk (or stalk?) of the plant on the left side of her. And it looks like they used a different plant altogether on the plant in the far right edge of the shot. But I had to pick those out in the way I would a "Find Six Differences" picture puzzle. Most everything else looks exactly the same to me.

You're probably attracting some people to deny any difference whatsoever due to your smugness and your hyperbolic language ("Arkham City looks kind of bad on consoles"? Not even). So one hyperbolic statement attracts an equally hyperbolic statement to the contrary. And you should have (and probably did) expect that reaction. We call that flame-baiting.

DustyDrB:
First set of shots you posted: Yeah, I can see a difference. It's not massive, and it's not something I'd notice if I suddenly had to switch from the PC version to the 360. But I can see it.

The Poison Ivy shots: I honestly can't see much of a difference. I mean, there seems to be slightly different textures used on the trunk (or stalk?) of the plant on the left side of her. And it looks like they used a different plant altogether on the plant in the far right edge of the shot. But I had to pick those out in the way I would a "Find Six Differences" picture puzzle. Most everything else looks exactly the same to me.

You're probably attracting some people to deny any difference whatsoever due to your smugness and your hyperbolic language ("Arkham City looks kind of bad on consoles"? Not even). So one hyperbolic statement attracts an equally hyperbolic statement to the contrary. And you should have (and probably did) expect that reaction. We call that flame-baiting.

That's most likely because you didn't open them up large, it's hard to make out stuff on the forum thumbnails, especially with a completely white background, even those screens are scaled down to console resolutions though (1280x720) and the larger and more detailed the image becomes the more obvious it becomes to spot the differences:
http://images.eurogamer.net/2011/articles//a/1/4/2/8/2/2/8/DX9_002.bmp.jpg
http://images.eurogamer.net/2011/articles//a/1/4/2/8/2/2/8/DX11_002.bmp.jpg

But they're actually the very same objects, it's just Tessellation being used to add depth information to the plants making them look a lot more organic and less "flat", Tessellation also increases the amount of polygons being shown at any given time dynamically depending on how far away you are from any given scene/object, a perfect example would likely be an entire world making use of it where you'd see depth on every single cobble stone or wall like in real life but with games being mainly developed with consoles in mind it is being used sparingly on select things, here's a good vid summing up what it does:

And I'm not "baiting" anyone, I really think it looks horrible and I see a very clear difference between the two (not the Tessellation one, that one is both on PC... just some of the subtle differences added with DX11), especially the first shots with the blurred out textures in the background where you can't even read the billboard anymore and likely pop-ins kind of reminds me of Wii levels of graphics and would totally ruin my immersion.

The difference in texture quality is actually a lot more noticeable when you're playing the game. Not to mention nvidia PhysX and Dx11 features. But is it really that surprising that a PC game looks better than a console game in 2011?

Nonsense! The game looks great on any platform!

...nah, I play it on my Xbox and it looks pretty great. No complaints from me.

Also, while I DID notice some differences in the first images, the DX9-DX11 comparison I couldn't notice a single change. If there's a quality comparison in there it's a subtle one and not one anyone should obsess over.

I have both a powerful gaming rig and a 360 and unless I put the two side by side then I can't really tell the difference. Long time PC gamers may have different reactions but the differences in the images you posted a hardly noticeable. To me at least.

I don't think Arkham City is a good example to argue your case. RAGE on the other hand.....

I...don't see any difference? And does it really matter anyway? So what if it looks slightly better on PC, isn't the game itself what matters?

Consoles with their outdated hardware are not capable of the same graphical power as a PC on midtier level?

image

But serious, it's not big news that such things happen. I often can't play console games (especially if a PC version exists) because I always see the difference in texture quality. But then again: I see it because I have a capable PC and because sharp textures increase my enjoyment of the game (like AA decreases it). If I would only know consoles I wouldn't see the difference.

I know people will call me out for this, but anyone who decides whether they'll get this for PC or console purely based on the grphics is a complete idiot and not worth my time. At the end of the day, the choice should be down to which system it plays better on, in gameplay terms. Which has better controls and all that. Gameplay trumps graphics, every time, and that's all I'll base my thoughts on. What about old-school games with crappy graphics, eh? If the game stands up on gameplay, then graphics shouldn't matter one way or the other...

Three points:

1. Those screenshots are damn near the same!
and
2. Isn't it kinda obvious that PC will look better than console? PCs are 6 years more advanced than the X360!
and
3. Who the fuck cares?! Enjoy your game instead of bitching about tiny problems! If you think the X360 version looks terrible then don't get it, buy the PC version and enjoy it (If it is even possible for you to enjoy games!).

Well, while I do love any excuse to bash those under-specced consoles, I'm really not noticing any major differences there. Certainly not enough to complain. I would also reinforce what someone else said - if you are playing a batman game and stopping to examine the textures, you are doing it wrong. Stop looking at the textures and go re-arrange some badguy's faces

Trivun:
I know people will call me out for this, but anyone who decides whether they'll get this for PC or console purely based on the grphics is a complete idiot and not worth my time. At the end of the day, the choice should be down to which system it plays better on, in gameplay terms. Which has better controls and all that. Gameplay trumps graphics, every time, and that's all I'll base my thoughts on. What about old-school games with crappy graphics, eh? If the game stands up on gameplay, then graphics shouldn't matter one way or the other...

*cough* It still plays better on PC considering You can hook 360 controller to it*cough*

But yeah, generally all the graphical details are less obvious on console because You sit so far away from Your TV You simply don't notice everything. With PCs You have screen in Your face and every blurry texture, every lightning effect lacking becomes very obvious.

Also, what worried me more with AC than graphics fidelity was the wasted potential of the villains and way to "AssBro-like" gameplay that consisted mostly of mini-games rather than solid plot to follow. The moment I picked first call from Zasz I abandoned the whole story-line for sake of random adventure.

You're kidding, right?

This is so ridiculous.

No, Arkham City does not look "kind of bad" on consoles.

Anyone saying it looks kind of bad should look back 8 years, then realised we've passed the stage of kinda bad already by leagues. The differences are now marginal and barely visible (IF even visible at all, I did not see it.)

Oh God, the images are so horrible! They hurt my eyes!

I seriously remember a time when there were actual major differences between versions. At this point, if you're picking nits this hard, you should probably just play the damn game.

Dexter111:
Stumbled over this article a while ago and I knew there were big differences between the versions before, but good god xD
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-pc-tech-comparison-batman-arkham-city

image
image

image
image

image
image

Larger image links:
http://images.eurogamer.net/2011/articles//a/1/4/2/8/2/2/8/360_003.bmp.jpg
http://images.eurogamer.net/2011/articles//a/1/4/2/8/2/2/8/PC_003.bmp.jpg

http://images.eurogamer.net/2011/articles//a/1/4/2/8/2/2/8/360_005.bmp.jpg
http://images.eurogamer.net/2011/articles//a/1/4/2/8/2/2/8/PC_005.bmp.jpg

http://images.eurogamer.net/2011/articles//a/1/4/2/8/2/2/8/360_011.bmp.jpg
http://images.eurogamer.net/2011/articles//a/1/4/2/8/2/2/8/PC_011.bmp.jpg

Sorry to ask but why is this surprising?

PC version almost always looks better, sometimes MUCH better.

Current gen consoles run on old tech while PC's use 2011 tech. I ran Witcher 2 on a high resolution with everything maxed out(except uber) and while it looked STUNNING, I can't exactly imagine how the hell will they do the xbox port unless a newer generation of consoles come out or they scaled down the game's graphics massively.

People who play consoles most of the time won't notice the difference. The PC crowd that can max out their games graphically would tell the difference even while playing, not just in stills.

Batman in DX11(heck, in DX9 too) with all the bells and whistles looks absolutely gorgeous.

Dexter111:

Dirty Hipsters:
Again, the vast majority of these are things that you would never notice when playing the game. Unless you really like to randomly stare at wall textures for hours on end these are things that you would never notice unless you were looking at screen shots. The only noticeable difference I would say is the draw distance, but even that's not a particularly big deal considering how often you're in detective mode anyway.

Also, I see absolutely no difference between the DX9 and DX11 screenshots.

Of course you see a difference, if you wouldn't see a difference they wouldn't spend days of their time implementing the algorithms and increased high quality assets and Microsoft and other hardware companies would stop developing both graphics software and hardware. Screenshots are just a good way to show that difference by comparing the two versions against each other in a still moment, that doesn't make them go away when it's moving...
Everything in a game from the visuals, to the art direction, to level design, sound and so on flows together to make the game and if you have a better illusion of actually being there you will get a better experience, something which is increasingly helped by not having to look at jagged edges or bad lighting/shadows that tend to pull you out of it and making it look like a "game", even if you don't want to admit it.

But damn apparently noone sees the obvious like night and day differences so I kinda feel like arguing with people claiming that there's no difference whatsoever between Standard and High Definition TV 5 years or the ones claiming that the PlayStation 2 (or whatever generation before) is the highest pinnacle of gaming graphics achievable and anything more won't make any difference anybody could make out 10+ years ago and honest... now, like back then, I feel like facepalming over and over again xD

There is a difference, but it's quite technical and frankly a bit pedantic. It isn't anywhere near as big as the difference between HD and standard video, or the PS2 and the PS3. It isn't like night and day when you're running along, sneaking around, and beating bad guys up, which is what you're supposed to be doing in a game.

You sound like you are graphics whoring. Which is fine, but you're also sounding like someone who is confused as to why people don't see the chasm that you do. It's because the chasm just isn't there, and for the most part the difference is only noticeable when you stop and look for it.

To me, it's a minimal difference at best. Even when super zoomed in and in a still screen-shot, those shots look pretty damn similar to me, let alone when the game is in motion.

This reminds me of that "Alan Wake", NOT EVERYTHING IS IN 1080 RESOLUTION, I COUNTED THE PIXELS, THIS GAME SUCKS!!!!1 thing that was going on. The game looks fine, some people are just unhappy if it's not absolutely perfect.

Same kind of thing happens to my friend. He's a music engineer and LOVES his nice $500 headphones. I can't tell the difference in sound between his $500 set and my cheap ass $20 but he swears by them (well that's not true, there's obviously a difference but not a $480 difference).

Which is fine for you OP, you can be unhappy about it. Just don't expect people to agree with you and be shocked when people say that they disagree.

The fact that the PC version looks better doesn't surprise me nor does it hinder my enjoyment of the PS3 version. The only thing I noticed when playing was the jaggies but even that wasn't that big of a deal. With graphics, the main thing for me is aesthetics and animation; Batman has great aesthetics and animation, I don't really care about the graphical detail unless it's just downright horrible. The console version is better because I can play it in front of my TV in a recliner with my DualShock3 controller connected to my surround sound system instead of playing it in at my computer desk.

well the differences are not really big and we have had those for years now but most of the time they this doesn't impact the actual enjoyment of the game because unless you freeze-frame stuff you will not notice the difference.

Dexter111:

Dirty Hipsters:
Again, the vast majority of these are things that you would never notice when playing the game. Unless you really like to randomly stare at wall textures for hours on end these are things that you would never notice unless you were looking at screen shots. The only noticeable difference I would say is the draw distance, but even that's not a particularly big deal considering how often you're in detective mode anyway.

Also, I see absolutely no difference between the DX9 and DX11 screenshots.

Of course you see a difference, if you wouldn't see a difference they wouldn't spend days of their time implementing the algorithms and increased high quality assets and Microsoft and other hardware companies would stop developing both graphics software and hardware. Screenshots are just a good way to show that difference by comparing the two versions against each other in a still moment, that doesn't make them go away when it's moving...
Everything in a game from the visuals, to the art direction, to level design, sound and so on flows together to make the game and if you have a better illusion of actually being there you will get a better experience, something which is increasingly helped by not having to look at jagged edges or bad lighting/shadows that tend to pull you out of it and making it look like a "game", even if you don't want to admit it.

But damn apparently noone sees the obvious like night and day differences so I kinda feel like arguing with people claiming that there's no difference whatsoever between Standard and High Definition TV 5 years or the ones claiming that the PlayStation 2 (or whatever generation before) is the highest pinnacle of gaming graphics achievable and anything more won't make any difference anybody could make out 10+ years ago and honest... now, like back then, I feel like facepalming over and over again xD

There's literally almost no difference at all. Graphics are not the end-all-be-all thing in games anyway, so nitpicking something like this is just outright silly and a bit pathetic.

While I didn't notice much of a difference on the embedded pictures, I could see a huge difference when I opened the links he added for larger images.

On a side note... While I usually avoid threads like these, because of the potential for overdosing on fanboyism, but I don't find the OP of this thread to be very fanboyish or hostile against any platform.
Lots of overreacting in this thread.

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked