|
Just downloaded and played the 1960's TV Series pack and wow...that was actually fun. It was nice riding on the sets that were iconic to the TV show, but the handling on the Batmobile was a bit of a pain to pull off, but it was still great to drive in. The way the blockades are used were a little interesting and were tedious at times but I'm okay with that. Overall it was a decent pack.
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 13:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 12:40 |
|
|
So can I recapture Man-Bat, or is that it?
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 16:46
|
|
|
Dogen posted:So can I recapture Man-Bat, or is that it? I think he's gone for good.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 17:25
|
|
|
Not sure if WB can induce other retailers to take refunds on the game or they'll do it themselves but apparently for the PC version they'll refund it regardless of how long you played the game, as long as you refund it by the end of the year. http://steamcommunity.com/games/208650/announcements/detail/128710596369779495 quote:We are very sorry that many our customers continue to be unhappy with the PC version of Batman: Arkham Knight. We worked hard to get the game to live up to the standard you deserve but understand that many of you are still experiencing issues.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 18:48
|
|
|
quote:talk to you about the issues that we cannot fix. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 19:01
|
|
|
i.e. code for 'there will be no more patches, gently caress you'
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 19:12
|
|
|
welp
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 19:17
|
|
|
The impression I get is that Arkham Knight is basically held together with duct tape and the only reason it's passable on consoles is because they didn't have to worry about different configurations. Which matches the rumors from earlier in the year.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 19:27
|
|
|
So basically the console version was also a pile of crap from the beginning as well?
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 19:43
|
|
|
Scyantific posted:So basically the console version was also a pile of crap from the beginning as well? The rumor was the PS4 version was actually complete garbage until shortly before release, with the game running at single digits most of the time. I don't know what magic they pulled out of their rear end to fix it, but I guess it isn't going to happen on PC. I wonder if the steamOS and linux versions are going to be any better.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 19:50
|
|
|
Scyantific posted:So basically the console version was also a pile of crap from the beginning as well? That is supposedly the reason for the massive delay.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 19:52
|
|
|
After Nvidia came out a bit ago and started bragging on how they were instrumental to fixing the game, is there talk of a new AK Game Ready driver that could maaaaaaaaaaaaaaybe help things?
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 20:24
|
|
|
redbackground posted:After Nvidia came out a bit ago and started bragging on how they were instrumental to fixing the game, is there talk of a new AK Game Ready driver that could maaaaaaaaaaaaaaybe help things? (hahaha)^68
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 20:34
|
|
|
Well what do you know...5 months later and it still doesn't work. Looks like the PC port was already doomed from the start...and no way in hell the Mac and Linux versions are gonna fare any better...let alone slightly decent. Edit: I was trying to think of a Long Halloween joke about this update, but I'm not smart enough to brush up on my Batman trivia.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 22:39
|
|
|
 Well, uhh... maybe they mean directly? Edit: LOL 
Floor is lava fucked around with this message at 23:48 on Oct 31, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 23:46
|
|
|
So as someone else pointed out, you cannot request a refund of the Season Pass if you bought it separately. I got Arkham Knight free with a GeForce card, so as much as I dislike it, I'm not going to demand money back for something I got for free. But I did buy the Season Pass and have been trying to get a refund for it since it became clear that the content wasn't going to be released in the originally planned time frame. Problem was, the base game did work well enough that I put in over 2 hours, so Steam wouldn't ever let me get a refund on the Season Pass. Now, even when offering refunds, they're still shafting people who ponied up money for the Season Pass upfront. I honestly can't understand how this got so bad that they're just straight up refunding it 4 months out.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 02:00
|
|
|
l33t b4c0n posted:I got Arkham Knight free with a GeForce card, so as much as I dislike it, I'm not going to demand money back for something I got for free.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 02:07
|
|
|
I was speaking more ideologically that actually logistically - I know Steam prevents that. If you read the angry swarms of comments on Steam though , I've seen many people demanding refunds even for getting it free with a video card. I've been pissed about this game since launch, but I also understand I got the base game for free so I really can't feel entitled to anything.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 02:10
|
|
|
Junior Jr. posted:Well what do you know...5 months later and it still doesn't work. Looks like the PC port was already doomed from the start...and no way in hell the Mac and Linux versions are gonna fare any better...let alone slightly decent. You can thank me later.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 03:08
|
|
|
l33t b4c0n posted:I was speaking more ideologically that actually logistically - I know Steam prevents that. If you read the angry swarms of comments on Steam though , I've seen many people demanding refunds even for getting it free with a video card. I've been pissed about this game since launch, but I also understand I got the base game for free so I really can't feel entitled to anything. It's still a hosed game either way and I don't think WB ever wanted to be this literal about this being how the batman dies because I don't think even one or two very good games can dig any potential future of this franchise out of the Knight hole they've buried themselves in. Even Unity eventually fixed itself to a stable yet boring form.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 03:26
|
|
|
Arkham Knight has the advantage over Unity of having a solid set of console ports so it doesn't quite have the same audience-wreckage as that. It's still going to make people real cautious about Arkham Universe or whatever comes next.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 03:44
|
|
|
Xeremides posted:The rumor was the PS4 version was actually complete garbage until shortly before release, with the game running at single digits most of the time. I don't know what magic they pulled out of their rear end to fix it, but I guess it isn't going to happen on PC. I wonder if the steamOS and linux versions are going to be any better. Talking about console versions specifically, the game wasn't going to hit a late 2014 release no way no how unless you wanted a Unity-style shitshow. It got delayed, and now it runs basically perfectly on consoles. There's nothing substantial to the rumor of "Arkham Knight barely functions on consoles!" and saying such is basically just putting a spin on "at one point, this video game in development was still in development." (see also: recent No Man's Sky rumors.) The explanation of "well it ran like poo poo until last minute changes!" actually makes way less sense. The infinitely more likely scenario is that Rocksteady made a perfectly fine console game, WB outsourced the port, and something happened with Iron Galaxy - they weren't given enough time, enough staff, or they just weren't good enough - and we got this poo poo, and apparently there's something, or some things, within the port's very fundamentals that just cannot be fixed unless you do the entire port again from scratch, and there's no loving way WB is going to finance that for a game that has already sold 90% of the copies it is ever going to sell.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 09:22
|
|
|
Pirate Jet posted:Talking about console versions specifically, the game wasn't going to hit a late 2014 release no way no how unless you wanted a Unity-style shitshow. It got delayed, and now it runs basically perfectly on consoles. There's nothing substantial to the rumor of "Arkham Knight barely functions on consoles!" and saying such is basically just putting a spin on "at one point, this video game in development was still in development." (see also: recent No Man's Sky rumors.) The explanation of "well it ran like poo poo until last minute changes!" actually makes way less sense. They delayed the game twice, so they had issues with the console versions. Seems more likely to me that they had to delay the game because of performance and bug issues rather than because they desperately wanted to add more tank battles and races. http://www.playstationlifestyle.net...elays/#/slide/1 quote:Getting it to work on consoles was impossible for months. That’s part of why the game got delayed so many times, they were totally unprepared for how hard it was on next-gen consoles. and quote:Another source who was close to the production of Arkham Knight backed this up, saying QA teams were told in various meetings that the new consoles were “not nearly as easy to work with as [Rocksteady] expected.” As a result, testers were told to focus on finding console bugs, with just 10% of the roughly 100 people focused on PC. And then you had their E3 footage being run on a PC: http://www.cinemablend.com/games/Batman-Arkham-Knight-E3-Footage-During-Sony-Conference-Was-Running-PC-64642.html Seems pretty clear they had issues getting it to run well on consoles prior to release, and then focused almost entirely on consoles to unfuck it. If the console versions were running like hot garbage, and that's what Iron Galaxy had to work with, it's easier to understand why the PC version is what it is. I'd guess they did what they could with what they had, when they had it, and it ended up being the mess we have today. It isn't like they could have waited for a better build, and then ported that, as all version had to be released simultaneously. I'm not saying the rumor is true so far as the game was running in the single digits on PS4 just prior to release, but to say the console versions were going just fine and the fault lies entirely with Iron Galaxy seems wrong. Especially considering they were the ones to port Origins, and its performance was top notch on release (game breaking bugs notwithstanding).
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 10:10
|
|
|
floor is lava posted:
They can't even do refunds right 
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 11:21
|
|
|
Holy poo poo that Nightwing DLC was absolutely terrible.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 13:20
|
|
|
PoshAlligator posted:Holy poo poo that
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 14:31
|
|
|
All of their DLC has always been terrible, it's bizarre but for as good as the games they make are (PC AK not withstanding) the DLC is always the shortest, most bare minimum stuff you could make. The Mr Freeze DLC for Origins was probably the best and was still only an hour and half long but it at least added a new enemy type and was in some pretty nice looking and new environments (I did get it for £1 though, so that may skew my perspective).
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 14:42
|
|
|
thebardyspoon posted:All of their DLC has always been terrible, it's bizarre but for as good as the games they make are (PC AK not withstanding) the DLC is always the shortest, most bare minimum stuff you could make. The Mr Freeze DLC for Origins was probably the best and was still only an hour and half long but it at least added a new enemy type and was in some pretty nice looking and new environments (I did get it for £1 though, so that may skew my perspective). WB Montreal made Origins, so that probably explains why Cold, Cold Heart isn't as bad as all the others. Origins is actually my favorite of the lot.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 15:09
|
|
|
Xeremides posted:WB Montreal made Origins, so that probably explains why Cold, Cold Heart isn't as bad as all the others. Origins is actually my favorite of the lot. Same. Honestly, Origins was a fantastic loving game, and I'm hoping after the debacle that was Knight, more people go pick it up. It didn't revolutionize the genre like Knight did, it was just a tighter, better City. But hey, there isn't anything inherently wrong with that. All ya'll disappointed with Knight, that skipped Origins when it came out should go pick it up. It's ironically now the best game in the series. Odd how that works out, ain't it?
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 15:46
|
|
|
No it isn't. Arkham Asylum is and always will be the best game in the series. Origins is not even as tight as City with it's backward rear end level designs. There are more things than just it being a safe sequel/prequel game after City that people have complaints about. Like the goddamn upgrade tree. It sucks. 
Shindragon fucked around with this message at 16:37 on Nov 1, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 16:24
|
|
|
use your refund to pick up mad max instead
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 16:40
|
|
|
Shindragon posted:No it isn't. City is a very close second, but I agree.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 17:01
|
|
|
Pirate Jet posted:The infinitely more likely scenario is that Rocksteady made a perfectly fine console game, WB outsourced the port, and something happened with Iron Galaxy - they weren't given enough time, enough staff, or they just weren't good enough Uh, yeah it wasn't IG's fault. They were literally given about a month to port it to PC. Then they had to fulfill a prior commitment to attend PAX Prime which cut down on that time by about a week. So essentially 2-3 weeks to push out a fully functional port. The reason? They didn't want anything to leak out before release. At least that's the story.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 18:07
|
|
|
Personally, I'd say City is the best at making me feel like Batman. It helps that it has all of the major rogues in the game as well, aside from Scarecrow and Ventriloquist.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 18:18
|
|
|
Scyantific posted:Uh, yeah it wasn't IG's fault. They were literally given about a month to port it to PC. Then they had to fulfill a prior commitment to attend PAX Prime which cut down on that time by about a week. So essentially 2-3 weeks to push out a fully functional port. The reason? They didn't want anything to leak out before release. I may be misremembering, but the part about IG only having a month was false. It was, instead, when they uploaded their build to Steam, which isn't to say that's when production began. All the same, IG was given a mound of poo poo and told to sculpt Michaelangelo's David.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 18:26
|
|
|
City did a good job of fitting in as much of the Batman universe as possible without overloading the game. In Knight, there are so many references that it started to feel too bloated or like villains are a bit shoehorned in. Take Two-Face for example. In City, he's only present for a brief intro plot (unless you count Catwoman's after-game stuff), but it's also worked well into the main plot. In Knight, Two-Face shows up to rob banks and this is somehow related to Scarecrow's plot because the game says it is.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 18:35
|
|
|
Xeremides posted:They delayed the game twice, so they had issues with the console versions. Seems more likely to me that they had to delay the game because of performance and bug issues rather than because they desperately wanted to add more tank battles and races. The more acceptable comparison would be Red Dead Redemption, because that's the game that we actually know meets this weird narrative of "hosed under the hood and would be difficult to put on PC as a result," and I don't know if you saw RDR at launch but the end result was a game where people had cougar animations, horses would get stuck in the ground, carriages would spontaneously implode, and sometimes faces wouldn't even render. Here's what we know to be facts and not just NeoGAF rumors: The game runs with almost no frame drops or bugs whatsoever on consoles, the game runs like garbage on PC, the game was done by a different studio than the original on PC, the game's publisher is infamously a bag of dicks. The conclusion here is pretty easy to draw, and saying that "the game is actually screwed on CONSOLES (despite being the better performing and looking version)" is this weird story that seems like it's just trying to throw shade on Rocksteady because you didn't like the car. I'm not even saying it's Iron Galaxy's fault. The "one month to develop!" rumor almost certainly isn't true because a literal one month would mean you could boot the title screen and that's it - but it's almost certain that WB didn't give Iron Galaxy the resources they actually needed for a decent port.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 19:13
|
|
|
It's really tempting to refund the game at this point out of spite even though I played through the whole thing when it came out and will likely replay it at some point in the future. A delicate balancing act between telling WB to gently caress themselves and keeping a game that I still ultimately enjoyed even though it's a technical mess.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 19:16
|
|
|
l33t b4c0n posted:City did a good job of fitting in as much of the Batman universe as possible without overloading the game. In Knight, there are so many references that it started to feel too bloated or like villains are a bit shoehorned in. Take Two-Face for example. In City, he's only present for a brief intro plot (unless you count Catwoman's after-game stuff), but it's also worked well into the main plot. In Knight, Two-Face shows up to rob banks and this is somehow related to Scarecrow's plot because the game says it is. For a game that's supposed to be about investigating Hugo Strange, you are then shunted off to investigate Joker, who then infects you with his really not all that lethal blood (thanks Knight!), who then makes you go to Penguin and a surprise Solomon Grundy, so you can save Freeze, who then makes you go to Ra's, and then whoops, you never really finished investigating Strange and it turns out that Arkham City is getting firebombed to the ground. Oh and somewhere along the way Bane, Azreal, Clayface, Hush, Deadshot, Zsasz, and Hatter all show up randomly. Asylum and Origins are the best about the bloat. Asylum doesn't go totally overboard with on-screen cameos. Origins only really throws Anarky and Hatter out there as a wildcard. The remaining villains all have a pretty clear motivation and reason to be in the story.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 19:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 12:40 |
|
|
NoEyedSquareGuy posted:It's really tempting to refund the game at this point out of spite even though I played through the whole thing when it came out and will likely replay it at some point in the future. A delicate balancing act between telling WB to gently caress themselves and keeping a game that I still ultimately enjoyed even though it's a technical mess. I'm kinda in the same boat, except that I'm sorta at the whims of Hot Karl at GMG. Thing is though, if they do re-open the refund floodgates then I'll probably pull the trigger and get something else with the money.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 19:27
|
|
