Shadow of Mordor vs Arkham Knight

[iemander]

So Shadow of Mordor, a WB published title, made by Monolith productions. Had an amazing PC version.

Arkham Knight, another WB published title, made by piece of ♥♥♥♥ developer Rocksteady, had a truly horrible PC version.

You know, WB has nothing to do with it, Monolith developed the PC version themselves and Rocksteady could've done exactly the same. It's more that Rocksteady is a cheap piece of ♥♥♥♥ developer that makes the difference.

[Xen]

People keep saying SOM was "awesome for pc" "perfectly optimized"...it wasn't that way day 1, and there is STILL the 'savefile too large' crashing bug. Rocksteady is a good studio. Something happened internally that none of us can explain, and will probably never be revealed to us anyway.

[iemander]

Come on man, you can't seriously expect me to take serious what you say with Batman Arkham Knight. A port so bad it needs a dual titan system to run at 60FPS with settings turned OFF.

And no one needs to explain anything, a customer just demands a game that works for the money and goodwill they give a company.

[Enowai]

Unless you were there when the decision to outsource the PC version of the game, then I am fairly certain you know nothing about who made what decision. Since you use one game to provide "evidence", let me provide my own; Mortal Kombat X.

I rest my case.

[Xen]

I don't disagree that AK is absolute ♥♥♥♥♥ at this point, and yes, MKX was absolutely ♥♥♥♥♥ as well. All I'm saying is that none of us can point a finger, because WE WILL NEVER KNOW WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED. My PERSONAL opinion is that WB forced rocksteady to release early, seeing as how they funded the game, it's their call.

[UserName]

I can understand your anger, but the PC port wasn't made by Rocksteady. WB made another company port the game to PC. Please direct your anger correctly.

[Magical_Wisp]

Lol shadow of mordor was piece of ♥♥♥♥. Nothin to compare

[Tyjan]

Originally posted by iemander:

So Shadow of Mordor, a WB published title, made by Monolith productions. Had an amazing PC version.

Arkham Knight, another WB published title, made by piece of ♥♥♥♥ developer Rocksteady, had a truly horrible PC version.

You know, WB has nothing to do with it, Monolith developed the PC version themselves and Rocksteady could've done exactly the same. It's more that Rocksteady is a cheap piece of ♥♥♥♥ developer that makes the difference.

Rocksteady didn't develop the PC Port. WB Game comissioned Iron Galaxy to handle it, the same people who also ported Borderlands 2 to the Vita and also the PC version of Arkham Origins.

Rocksteady, in all seriousness, had next to nothing to do with this port. However, they are now maintaining and working on making patches and getting it fixed.

In short, stop blaming the developer that had no hand in this, and start pointing your hand at WB Games instead.

[Charlie]

Completely ignoring performance I cannot stand SoM

[Crimsomrider]

I had SOM since launch day, I was completely surprised at how well the game was optimized and the number of options it contains, despite the game being shown only on consoles and PC not being mentioned at all until just a couple of days before release.

PC community was begging day after day for them to show us and they did at the PC Global Appreciation Day event with NVIDIA.

Monolith was at first a PC developer after all, so it comes as no surprise that they truly mastered the PC version. Rocksteady however, was always leaned towards Playstation even since Arkham Asylum with the exclusive Joker Challenge Maps. But still, Rocksteady made a hell of a franchise which evolved the combat mechanics that most games try to copy, but fail. SOM is the only game I saw that actually managed to improve on the Batman combat system.

Still, what happened to AK came to me as a shock since Rocksteady had a certain prestige of quality behind it's name. I am sad that it's gone now. But in truth, AK is a great game with fun gameplay and a story which in my opinion is very similar to Nolan's Batman. I eagerly await the day when I'll be able to fully enjoy it.

[Damien Azreal]

Is it really fare to compare a game (Shadow of Mordor) made by developers with a very long standing on the PC. A developer with a huge love for PC, who even uses their own in house engine developed specifically for PC.

To compare it to a game (Arkham Knight) made by a developer who's openly stated they are a console focused studio. A game that was outsourced to a third party studio for it's PC version.

[Jackal]

no actually it did not, SOM was pretty bad port and ran like complete 1:1 console port with 100% parity

it looked like garbage compared to arkham knight and of course it would run smoothly because the game looked like garbage.

and before you try to ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ about rocksteady, they didnt make the pc port of arkham knight, the people who made aliens colonial marines did, and thats why the port was so bad for you people with inferior pcs


looked it up the name of the actual devs of the port is iron galaxy studios

and complaining about this port, when none of you complained about previous ports? they were all very much similar to this port, crap optimization and you had to have a beefy machine to play at launch

its like you have no idea how ports to pc even work, the coding isnt good because its a fricking port

[Sygmaelle]

lol yeah arkham city + dx 11 + physx at launch : good luck. Even with the patch that was released shortly after. Every single studio struggle with ports. Always was, always will be

[Tyjan]

Originally posted by Jackal:

no actually it did not, SOM was pretty bad port and ran like complete 1:1 console port with 100% parity

it looked like garbage compared to arkham knight and of course it would run smoothly because the game looked like garbage.

and before you try to ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ about rocksteady, they didnt make the pc port of arkham knight, the people who made aliens colonial marines did, and thats why the port was so bad for you people with inferior pcs


looked it up the name of the actual devs of the port is iron galaxy studios

and complaining about this port, when none of you complained about previous ports? they were all very much similar to this port, crap optimization and you had to have a beefy machine to play at launch

its like you have no idea how ports to pc even work, the coding isnt good because its a fricking port

Umm, no. Iron Galaxy had nothing to do with the PC version of Alien: Colonial Marines. You must be thinking of TimeGate Studios, which worked on all of the versions of A:CM.

Iron Galaxy was responsible for a few other PC ports, like Bioshock Infinite and Arkham Origins, but they never touched an Aliens game.

Also, subjectively speaking based off of Arkham Knight as opposed to Shadows of Mordor, SoM at least had tons of different ways to configure the game's settings, and even showed how much memory it was taking to run certain aspects of the game. It was also a game where there was next to no backlash with the PC port, because an excellent company that primarily works for PC games was handling it.

Arkham Knight, on the other hand, has incredibly limited options with its current build, takes manually tweaking of the .ini file to access even the most basic of graphics settings, and was universally panned because of how shoddy it runs.

Also, as opinionated as "Shadows of Mordor looks like garbage next to Arkham Knight" is, there is no denying that SoM at least runs better than Arkham Knight does.

To make a long post short, please come in with actual knowledge of what you're spouting off next time before looking like a fool to people you don't know on the internet.

[daryldixon]

I preordered Shadow of Mordor and played it on day 1 without complaining. I expereienced no glitch. I haven't played Arkham Knight so I can't compare those two, but pc version of Shadow of Mordor was quite good. I preordered Arkham Knight but got a refund.

[iemander]

Lol, at the people blaming the 10 man squad called Iron Galaxy. Of course they're not ideal for the job, they didn't write the source code, they don't have intricate experience of the UE3 engine, etc.

So who made the idiotic decision to use them? WB? Hell no, as SoM was developed in house. There doesn't seem to be any policy coming from WB to do that.

And console centric studio? All Rocksteady had to do was cough up some money to hire PC talent like Monolith has done many times before.

Rocksteady are cheap ♥♥♥♥♥ that shifted responsibility away from themselves, causing the horrible PC port.