PDA

View Full Version : This game was poorly ported over to the pc



MiguelCotto
28th Aug 2009, 09:35
I had to buy a new cpu specifically for this game because my Amd Athlon which was good enough to run better graphic games like Crysis and Crysis Warhead won't run Batman at all at the lowest graphics with 10-15 fps!!!!

What a crock of **** in my opinion because its hilarious how my computer can run Crysis Wardhead at 1024x resolution with medium graphics on. But my computer can't handle a lesser graphics game because the developers did a poor port of the game?

Also the new batman game uses the new unreal engine, which is quite funny since Unreal Engine games usually ran good on my Amd Athlon.

Wolverine ran at 1600x resolution on high graphics
Gears of War ran st 1600x resolution on high graphics
Unreal Tournament ran at 1600x resolution on high graphics

Now I can't even run batman, I will soon enough when my new cpu comes in the mail but this is just ridiculous that they port some games over very lousy!!!

I would tell you what cpu I bought, but I'm paranoid that if one of the game companies that make the game Batman Arkham Asylum pc will purposely make the game work like **** on my specific cpu. So I'll tell you my specs after the game comes out on September 15th.

I will tell you this, my new cpu is a dual processor 3.0ghz.


Can someone explain to me how my computer is strong enough to run Crysis Warhead at medium setting on 1024x but not this game at all?

lostsomething
28th Aug 2009, 09:40
Do you have PhysX on? If no and you don't have a high-end nVidia card it's going to drag your framerate down to the dirt.

MiguelCotto
28th Aug 2009, 09:43
Do you have PhysX on? If no and you don't have a high-end nVidia card it's going to drag your framerate down to the dirt.

That doesn't explain why my computer was able to run Crysis Wardhead at medium setting at 1024x resolution but can't handle batman arkham asylum??? WTF? :mad2:
And no I don't have physx on, I can't even run this game at 600x rez. I have it literally at the lowest settings possible and I get 10-15 fps... This is a bad port!!! Someone did a lazy hack-job

lostsomething
28th Aug 2009, 09:59
That doesn't explain why my computer was able to run Crysis Wardhead at medium setting at 1024x resolution but can't handle batman arkham asylum??? WTF?
And no I don't have physx on, I can't even run this game at 600x rez. I have it literally at the lowest settings possible and I get 10-15 fps... This is a bad port!!! Someone did a lazy hack-job

That's odd. Tried updating your video drivers lately? Might be they're too old to recognize the title and it's not getting the usual optimizations.

Myself, the game runs basically the same as any other UT3 engine title.

trek554
28th Aug 2009, 10:20
That doesn't explain why my computer was able to run Crysis Wardhead at medium setting at 1024x resolution but can't handle batman arkham asylum??? WTF? :mad2:
And no I don't have physx on, I can't even run this game at 600x rez. I have it literally at the lowest settings possible and I get 10-15 fps... This is a bad port!!! Someone did a lazy hack-job how about you actually posting your DETAILED specs and are you positve you dont have physx on? if you have an ATI card and trying to run physx it will actually be running on your cpu which would be about 10fps. if you have have an nvidia card then it still needs to be decent to run physx. the fact that you run Warhead at just 1024 with med settings tells me you have a fairly low end card. also instead of calling the game a bad port you should go ahead and except the fact that it is something on your end at fault here. either you have physx on or you have some issues with your pc because even a lowly 8600gt and dual core cpu can run this game easily on high settings at 1024x768 without physx on.

MiguelCotto
28th Aug 2009, 10:47
amd athlon 3600

2 gigs of ram

geforce 8800gts 520meg card

And Warhead has better graphics then batman from the videos I've seen of both of them on highest quality graphics on youtube. This is just a bad port, and you don't want to admit it. Wolverine, Gears of War, and Unreal 3 all ran fine on my system.

trek554
28th Aug 2009, 10:55
amd athlon 3600

2 gigs of ram

geforce 8800gts 520meg card

And Warhead has better graphics then batman from the videos I've seen of both of them on highest quality graphics on youtube. This is just a bad port, and you don't want to admit it. Wolverine, Gears of War, and Unreal 3 all ran fine on my system.
okay earlier you said you had a 3.0ghz dual core now you say amd 3600. so I guess you mean 3600 X2 which is either a 1.9 or 2.0ghz cpu depending on the exact model. also do you mean 8800gts 320mb or 512mb because there is no 520mb? anyway none of that would keep you from running the game. so are you positive that you have physx off in the game launcher? next what drivers are you using??

this is not a bad port because nobody else is complaining about performance with your level of hardware except for a few trying to run physx. as I already mentioned I can run it easily on all high settings with physx off at 1024x768 with an 8600gt.

Haine
28th Aug 2009, 12:12
I had to buy a new cpu specifically for this game because my Amd Athlon which was good enough to run better graphic games like Crysis and Crysis Warhead won't run Batman at all at the lowest graphics with 10-15 fps!!!!

What a crock of **** in my opinion because its hilarious how my computer can run Crysis Wardhead at 1024x resolution with medium graphics on. But my computer can't handle a lesser graphics game because the developers did a poor port of the game?

Also the new batman game uses the new unreal engine, which is quite funny since Unreal Engine games usually ran good on my Amd Athlon.

Wolverine ran at 1600x resolution on high graphics
Gears of War ran st 1600x resolution on high graphics
Unreal Tournament ran at 1600x resolution on high graphics

Now I can't even run batman, I will soon enough when my new cpu comes in the mail but this is just ridiculous that they port some games over very lousy!!!

I would tell you what cpu I bought, but I'm paranoid that if one of the game companies that make the game Batman Arkham Asylum pc will purposely make the game work like **** on my specific cpu. So I'll tell you my specs after the game comes out on September 15th.

I will tell you this, my new cpu is a dual processor 3.0ghz.


Can someone explain to me how my computer is strong enough to run Crysis Warhead at medium setting on 1024x but not this game at all?

I call bull****. Wanna know why?

I've got a 2ghz Duo Core 2, 4gigs of DDR3 Ram & a 9700 Mobile GTS with 512 megs, and AA runs damned near flawlessly, I can play Crysis through to completion on all settings on high till the Aircraft Carrier boss battle & The Snow Stages.

Yes I might have a "high-end" system, but I'm willing to bet one if not two or more components of your system are sub-par.

chip5541
28th Aug 2009, 12:44
What OS?

Vista?
XP?
Windows7?
Windows 98?
Win95?
Windows 3.11?

What was the outcome from this scan?

http://forums.eidosgames.com/showthread.php?t=93961

Nemesis296
28th Aug 2009, 13:22
I find it funny you think this was ported over to the pc. It was actually ported over to the consoles, and developed for pc...as are all games. To ensure that your computer isn't trying to run PhysX, you should uset the nVidia control panel, and disable PhysX altogether. Make sure you close any programs that are processor intensive before running too. Part of the problem with troubleshooting on PCs is there are so many variables, it's hard to describe every situation and get to the bottom of it without actually trying it myself. Free up some CPU (if you're running Vista and only have 2G of RAM you don't even meet the minimum system requirements. You need 3G with Vista, but we dont know your OS yet :p)

Post back with some more detailed specs, and I'll see if I can help. Chip's right though...did the scan on your computer pass?

Pbrad08
28th Aug 2009, 16:25
I find it funny you think this was ported over to the pc. It was actually ported over to the consoles, and developed for pc...as are all games.

Indeed. However, if you truly want to see a Terribad console port you must look at the new Wolfenstein, absolute garbage.

iceman0124
28th Aug 2009, 17:00
The PC version is way ahead of the consoles for me. You might have something improperly configured, perhaps you need to update your DX9 runtime extensions, drivers for everything, from chipset, to vid card to sound card, the PC has a lot of links in its chain, and if ones broken it can easily show. Or you may simply have your settings to high, if you have the 8800GTS 320 card, you cant run super high textures, physx and what not....because they simply wont fit in the cards frame buffer, the 640 version "should" handle high settings, normal or no physx and I wouldnt start above 4x aa

For the record 8800GTS's come in the orginal 640mb, then the cheaper 320mb, then the revamped core and bus with 512mb that had a nice performance leap over the original 640mb version.

Bottom line, running high res with high textures wont likely wont jive on cards with less than 512mb ram, very high will need 896(GTX260's) and up. (mebbee the 800GTX 7xxmb, but I kinda doubt it)

For the record this one of the best multi platform games for the PC , they are going the extra mile to have the game be all it an be, thats why I'm not playing it on one of my consoles now but waiting for the PC release, just gotta have the hardware to run it. Crysis running on your machine means nothing, the original was just a poorly coded mess hence it was a system killer, it wasnt the demanding graphics.....it was poor code plain and simple.

The game should run fine on your setup, though your card is dated...it wont handle things maxed, just strat trimming the fat till it runs well. And as stated in this thread and others....if your card is under 512mb, you cant run very high detail or probably even high detail, theres juat too much data that wont fit in your cards frame buffer.

The PS3 version looks to be a hybrid of medium/high compared to the PC maxed out as a point of refference.

Good luck getting the game running....but please refrain from bashing a product when it doesnt run flawlessly on your dated hardware...cause all it does is make you look like a troll.

Also keep in mind this is a demo....not the finished product.

Worst PC "versions" for me are resident evil 4....just terrible until users started modding it, and the new bionic commando game....lack of any grahphical optins above the cosoles is a sin for a B list and up anticipated game.

pleomax
29th Aug 2009, 14:53
To the op....

Rubbish !!, crysis and warhead are much harder to run than batman.

You must have done something wrong.

SteMot
29th Aug 2009, 20:19
You have PhysX enabled in your Nvidia Control Panel as well as the game I take it.

Cadman
29th Aug 2009, 21:48
My specs are...

Core i7 Processor @ 2.67 GHz, 4 Core(s), 8 Logical
12 GB of DDR3 Memory
Two (2) 9800 Gt's Nvidia with 512 mb on each card running in SLI (Driver 190.62)
Windows Vista Home Premium 64-bit
Resolution 1440 x 900 @74 hertz
Physx is on
Directx 10

Like everyone's been talking about, it's about the system but it depends on the game as well and how it was designed. Back in the good old days when I played alot of Doom and Doom2 many factors came into play...how fast was the processor, was it a 486 processor or a pentium processor...did you have one lowly video card. All these variables determined how well you could play the game.

Batman plays fine on my machine and I make it a point to make sure I have the latest drivers for everything on my machine, it really does help...:)


Cadman

trek554
29th Aug 2009, 21:56
My specs are...

Core i7 Processor @ 2.67 GHz, 4 Core(s), 8 Logical
12 GB of DDR3 Memory
Two (2) 9800 Gt's Nvidia with 512 mb on each card running in SLI (Driver 190.62)
Windows Vista Home Premium 64-bit
Resolution 1440 x 900 @74 hertz
Physx is on
Directx 10

Like everyone's been talking about, it's about the system but it depends on the game as well and how it was designed. Back in the good old days when I played alot of Doom and Doom2 many factors came into play...how fast was the processor, was it a 486 processor or a pentium processor...did you have one lowly video card. All these variables determined how well you could play the game.

Batman plays fine on my machine and I make it a point to make sure I have the latest drivers for everything on my machine, it really does help...:)


Cadman why would you build a system like that to play at such a low res??

iceman0124
30th Aug 2009, 00:03
He likes a crap ton of AA and AF? I've seen worse, but its what ever makes people happy. At least it wasnt a dual GTX 285 fed by a sempron setup....

Cadman
30th Aug 2009, 02:30
why would you build a system like that to play at such a low res??


That's because when I installed the video cards When I looked at the Nvidia Control Panel that's what it set as the native resolution for my monitor. I just haven't had time to mess with it yet and modify it, just letting everyone know what I'm running right now. My particular Monitor only supports up to that resolution, when I'm able to upgrade to a better monitor then I'll be able to get to the better resolutions.


Cadman

iceman0124
30th Aug 2009, 03:38
Theres some decent 1920's well under $200

http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=2010190020%201106217860&name=1920%20x%201080

Choronzonon
30th Aug 2009, 14:51
The demo is running perfectly with the following config:

Microsoft® Windows® Vista Home Premium 64-bit SP1
Processor Brand: Intel
Processor Class: Core 2 Quad
Processor Speed: 2.50GHz
Memory Type: DDR2
Memory Size: 2x2GB & 2x1GB
Total Memory: 6.0GB
Memory Speed: DDR2 667 (PC2-5300)
GPU/VPU: NVIDIA GeForce 9800 GT
Video Memory: 512MB Memory

RYO_91
13th Sep 2009, 06:02
he didnt awnsered anymore...
i think that he was lying about something or it was a software problem

trek554
13th Sep 2009, 06:21
he didnt awnsered anymore...
i think that he was lying about something or it was a software problem pretty sure he was banned. he had multiple accounts and was a troll.

RYO_91
13th Sep 2009, 09:05
pretty sure he was banned. he had multiple accounts and was a troll.

a troll is someone who trys to start a fight or a discussion right?

trek554
13th Sep 2009, 09:23
a troll is someone who trys to start a fight or a discussion right? yeah its someone that just tries to start trouble for the sake of doing it.

Shaderhacker
13th Sep 2009, 12:35
Let me chime in here and shed some light on why people are getting terrible framerates regardless of what video settings they have.

I, too, have been getting terrible framerates, but with my experience in the industry, I was able to track down what this game demands.

The bottleneck is not the video card. It's the main CPU. I had a Pentium D 3.0Ghz processor (VERY old by todays standards) with a Geforce GTX260 running pretty much every game with fairly high video settings. Crysis and some other games are heavily dependent on the video card and thus the bottleneck with those games are the video processor. It's just not the same with Batman. I suspected that the design of Batman probably needed more CPU power in order to push the game to good framerates.

Like some people on these boards, I put my settings all the OFF and turned off PhysX, lowered the resolution to 800x600 and the game still chugged along at low FPS. I knew then that the bottle neck was NOT the video processing of my card but the actual game engine commands through the CPU.

I quickly went out and bought a new computer yesterday (I was in dire need of a new one anyway) and had the following configuration:

i7 920
9Gig RAM

I immediately set the computer up and took my new GTX260 from my old computer and put it in my new one. Downloaded the demo and turned all options ON and even set up 2X AA @ 1920x1200 w/PhysX.

The game runs at least 40fps now consistently. In combat, there is no hiccups.

In conclusion, this game is highly CPU bound as opposed to videocard bound (unless you try to run PhysX in software mode with an ATI card).

Hope this clears up some misunderstandings about video cards being the culprit.

-M

=ColdFire=
13th Sep 2009, 17:11
My PC is no longer anything to right home about but I could play with max graphics (with a low amount of AA and AF), with normal PhysX, with 20-30 FPS, which is good enough for me.

trek554
13th Sep 2009, 19:16
Let me chime in here and shed some light on why people are getting terrible framerates regardless of what video settings they have.

I, too, have been getting terrible framerates, but with my experience in the industry, I was able to track down what this game demands.

The bottleneck is not the video card. It's the main CPU. I had a Pentium D 3.0Ghz processor (VERY old by todays standards) with a Geforce GTX260 running pretty much every game with fairly high video settings. Crysis and some other games are heavily dependent on the video card and thus the bottleneck with those games are the video processor. It's just not the same with Batman. I suspected that the design of Batman probably needed more CPU power in order to push the game to good framerates.

Like some people on these boards, I put my settings all the OFF and turned off PhysX, lowered the resolution to 800x600 and the game still chugged along at low FPS. I knew then that the bottle neck was NOT the video processing of my card but the actual game engine commands through the CPU.

I quickly went out and bought a new computer yesterday (I was in dire need of a new one anyway) and had the following configuration:

i7 920
9Gig RAM

I immediately set the computer up and took my new GTX260 from my old computer and put it in my new one. Downloaded the demo and turned all options ON and even set up 2X AA @ 1920x1200 w/PhysX.

The game runs at least 40fps now consistently. In combat, there is no hiccups.

In conclusion, this game is highly CPU bound as opposed to videocard bound (unless you try to run PhysX in software mode with an ATI card).

Hope this clears up some misunderstandings about video cards being the culprit.

-M it does require a decent cpu to run smoothly and the fact that they list a single core P4 as the minimum a joke too. you certainly need a very good gpu though too especially if running phsyx so I would not really call the game cpu dependent. the bottleneck would really depend on the individuals setup. if someone has a single core P4 cpu and 6600gt then they need both a better cpu and gpu. if someone has an 8600gt and a cpu like a E7300 then a better gpu is needed if they want to noticeably increase performance.

your prob was that you were were running an excellent card with a relatively slow and pathetic cpu. even a Core 2 cpu at just 1.8 would run rings around a Pentium D at 3.0. you were killing the potential of the gtx260 in EVERY game that you had but it just happen to be more noticeable in some more than others. with that cpu you would have gotten the same playable performance with a much slower card since any Pentium D would have been the bottleneck with a 9600gt or better. I cant believe you ever even put a gtx260 in a system with a Pentium D in the first place. :eek:

also if anybody with an ATI card is trying to run physx they are putting that load on the cpu which cannot handle those full effects and run smoothly.

pleomax
14th Sep 2009, 20:40
I had a Pentium D 3.0Ghz processor (VERY old by todays standards) with a Geforce GTX260I wouldn't say batman is heavily cpu dependant, you had an obvious bottleneck putting a slow cpu with a fast gpu.

Shaderhacker
15th Sep 2009, 01:00
Yes, in *my* case, it was CPU limited

jbscotchman
16th Sep 2009, 11:42
There is nothing wrong at all with the way this game was ported to PC. It basically runs the same as any other Unreal engine game which is great. Enabling Physx does take a hit but as long as you've got a decent video card the game is still perfectly playable. Theres something wrong with your PC.

deders
24th Oct 2009, 01:43
To the op....

Rubbish !!, crysis and warhead are much harder to run than batman.

You must have done something wrong.

would just like to point out that I could play Crysis quite happily on medium to low settings with a 6600gt, so a 8800gt should have no problems on medium. saying that neither should Arkham Asylum

TASOS
22nd Nov 2009, 19:28
What kind of graphics card you have?