Ok, really stupid question. If I buy the trilogy digitally, I assume that I get 3 separate icons on the switch menu. I could then delete Knight (not waste the memory) and keep the other 2 games on my device. Is that correct? Or is it like Mario 3D All Stars (one icon that brings you to a menu with all three games…so all games must be added/removed together). The current sale brings the price down to what I’m willing to pay for the 2 other games, but I’ll probably wait for a steeper price cut (same with Hogwarts) since Warner does tend to drop prices steeply. Thanks!
I would rate that on how much you want to spend on having great versions of Asylum and City for the switch, knowing that Knight is more an experiment in porting than anything else.
That's what I did. Asylum and City are fantastic. Just delete Knight and ignore it. The other two are excellent on Switch
Psalms 22:16 (1,000 yrs before Christ)
They pierced My hands and feet
Isaiah 53:5 (700 yrs before Christ)
He was pierced for our transgressions
Zachariah 12:10 (500 yrs before Christ)
They will look on Me whom they pierced
In my day we didn't even talk about FPS. We just played games because they looked fun or had cool characters. Now excuse me while i go play Batman on Nes. At least nobody whined about the framerate on that one.
If you go back as far as the 8 and 16 bit eras "framerate wasn't an issue" mostly because games were coded explicitly around the refresh rate. Doing things like running calculations within the v-blank, explicitly removing items between frames for transparency, pointing to different parts of memory mid-frame to create parallax-like effects etc. Ironically NES Batman is a fantastic example of this kind of thing
That kid who made the news recently because they "beat Tetris"? That crash they hit was due to the score calculation taking longer than the time the between frames. Or to put it another way, NES Tetris is coded in such a way that it crashes it it ever "drops bellow 60fps". Some games handled this better but they're generally still programmed around the refresh rate explicitly. NES games don't drop frames, NES games suffer "slowdown" or crash. It's the same reason why PAL versions of these games often run slower but not later eras. These games are quite literally programmed around the refresh rate
Fast forward to the early 3D era? That's when you start seeing stuff "running at lower framerates". It's no-longer practical to do simple maths tricks for visual tricks and 3D calculations are way to heavy to do mid-frame or in the v-blank. All of that kind of thing is thrown out the door. Games start to run at framerates not tied to the refresh rate of the display. You also start to see games run at 30fps or even 15fps. Because 3D is hard. Dark times
When we get late into the SD era? We start to see 60fps become common again. But that dies again as we get into the HD era because normies care more about pixels than things like playability and response times. Switch obviously sits within that ballpark spec so generally suffers the same. You also still see the same even on PS5 because apparently 4K matters more than 60fps. But we're moving on
Basically, 60fps was the norm "back in the day". It died with 3D and was a lower priority going into HD. But we're finally moving out of this low-framerate era, people are starting to want minimum 60fps. We're also starting to see pretty much every TVs ship with VRR or at least 120Hz modes. This is a good thing. I don't think the complaints are unwarranted. Your "in my day we didn't" bit is straight up nonsense
Arkham knight runs fine if you ask me. I'm no expert on framerate or technical specs but i do own the PS4 version and I'm still not seeing any reason why it's so called unplayable on switch. I knew it wouldn't look as good but so what? I'm not an elitists gamer that has to have my games with eyball popping graphics and perfect lightning fast FPS.
You're either blind or lying to yourself about not seeing all the blaring framerate issues. The difference between the PS4 and Switch performance is painfully apparent to anyone with eyes. People are causing a big fuss about stuttering because it makes it difficult to maneuver around or see clearly where you're going. In a game where combat is the main focus, being able to know what's happening is extremely important.
In my day we didn't even talk about FPS. We just played games because they looked fun or had cool characters.
Now excuse me while I go play Batman on Nes. At least nobody whined about the framerate on that one.
People back then didn't talk about the frames of games because no one other than movie developers and computer enthusiasts even knew what FPS was. It's nice you blinded yourself with rose-tinted glasses of how everyone in the older days didn't fight about the video game's visuals or how they played. In reality, it definitely was the case.
Gamers did argue about the FPS, but it went with a different name at the time. That name was slowdowns, and people would complain about those all the time. A slowdown is when the game's framerate would drop from too many sprites displaying up on the screen at once. Also, remember the marketing of "blast processing"? If fanboys weren't bragging about how better the graphics their preferred platform had, they'd boast how "fast" games would run.
Batman on NES is a completely different beast and was made on entirely different hardware from a past generation. It also doesn't suffer the same performance or stutter problems as Arkham Knight. The NES game is smooth throughout the entire game and only suffers minor slowdowns every once in a while. Arkham Knight's framerate is never consistent where the game always jumps between highs to lows and has very bad stutters from just entering a vehicle. No matter how much you act the issues don't exist or are not as bad as others claim, it's an actual major problem that needs fixing.
I kind of agree with both of you.
Is it "unplayable"? Well, no. It's not unplayable. But it is a severely compromised experience to the extent that, many will find it undesirable to play. I'm sure there will be people who can look past the issues and have fun. And to those people, I say rock on dude. Have fun! Seriously, enjoy it! But I think many of us have a certain threshold beyond which we find the detriments a bit too excessive. Especially when Steamdeck OLED is an option. Personally, I don't want to play Knight on Switch. I reserve that for Deck. But Asylum and Knight? Oh man, Switch version of those is excellent. Highly recommended.
If you find the game enjoyable, by all means don't let us stop you from having fun. If you're having a good time, you do you and don't let ANYONE tell you what you can and can't enjoy. At the same time, people aren't wrong for pointing out it's notable issues. And for those who deem those issues too severe to enjoy the game, that's understandable as well.
At the end of the day, each person has their own standards, and must make decisions according to what THEY feel is right for them. Some will see Knight as completely undesirable on Switch. Others may find it playable despite it's issues. There's no right or wrong answer here. The issue is when ppl who find it's issues too severe declare it unplayable for everyone, and attack anyone who can look past those issues, or when ppl who can look past those issues declare it playable for everyone, and attack anyone who can't look past those issues.
It really just comes down to making the best decision for yourself based on your own standards, while respecting the POV of others even if they differ.
Psalms 22:16 (1,000 yrs before Christ)
They pierced My hands and feet
Isaiah 53:5 (700 yrs before Christ)
He was pierced for our transgressions
Zachariah 12:10 (500 yrs before Christ)
They will look on Me whom they pierced
@NintendoByNature
City is arguably the best. But I submit to you, that Asylum is possibly even better than City. Or at the very least, just as good. It's more metroidvania than City, which was an open world approach. So having both is great, because they really do offer two unique experiences. Asylum for metroidvania approach, City for open world approach. And while Knight not being up to scratch is unfortunate, it's regarded as the worst of the 3 games anyways, and was just another open world retread that City did better anwyays (imo at least). That's not to say Knight isn't worth playing, OR Origins for that matter. It's just, out of City, Origins and Knight, City is the one to play.
Psalms 22:16 (1,000 yrs before Christ)
They pierced My hands and feet
Isaiah 53:5 (700 yrs before Christ)
He was pierced for our transgressions
Zachariah 12:10 (500 yrs before Christ)
They will look on Me whom they pierced
@JaxonH ah, I think my post may have been misleading. I was referencing performance with regards to city. I think a patch for City just came out, or maybe it was asylum. Either way it definitely was NOT knight and that runs the worst of the 3 from what's been discussed online. I played all 3 but beat both asylum and city back when they released on xbox/ps. Never jived well with knight so i never finished it. But I bought the trilogy again on switch for the portability and to have them feel fresh again since it's been years.
So at this point should we give up any hope that arkham knight will get a patch to improve framerate? I mean i know it's not running like it did on PS4 but I'm not gonna say it's completely unplayable. That's simply not true. It does need improvement though.
They said they're working on it, but also, I don't expect very much only due to what the Switch is capable of compared to what Knight demands. TMU really can't win, no matter what they do.
Well guess what guys, Apparently a new patch update for Arkham knight has just been made available! Downloading it now. It says it'll take over an hour to download. This must be the fix we've been hoping for!
Wow all this time it's been available and Nintendolife hasn't reported it yet? They sure jump at the chance to spread switch 2 rumors though don't they LOL! 😉
So, despite the state of Knight, even after the latest patch, would you all say that the package is nevertheless worth the current sale price of $35.99, even if Knight is never patched to a more acceptable state?
Forums
Topic: Batman Arkham Trilogy
Posts 121 to 140 of 149
Please login or sign up to reply to this topic