Just a heads up...

[Venny]

The game has no audio options and has limited graphics settings meaning this could be difficult to run on lower end machines. Also the company producing this port has made some of the worst PC ports ever made. Also for some odd reason they made the game run at 30 fps at the get go instead of 60 and made 60 fps an option which seems like an odd choice.

[Venny]

Originally posted by Neon Socks:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l4OZRwQ1t-Q

/thread

This doesn't mean anything. On top of that the game is locked at 60 fps and cannot go any higher from what it seems. Also the past things this company has done have been considered the worst ports of all time. They are know for making the infamous Destiny port for last gen consoles which ran horribly and they ported games like Borderlands 2 for the Vita which ran poorly as well. Just showing me a 4k video running at 60 means nothing.

[El Pedro Los Yeet]

Originally posted by vMMe:

Originally posted by Neon Socks:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l4OZRwQ1t-Q

/thread

This doesn't mean anything. On top of that the game is locked at 60 fps and cannot go any higher from what it seems. Also the past things this company has done have been considered the worst ports of all time. They are know for making the infamous Destiny port for last gen consoles which ran horribly and they ported games like Borderlands 2 for the Vita which ran poorly as well. Just showing me a 4k video running at 60 means nothing.

The company makes great ports to PC. Your examples are them trying to port a demanding game to weak systems. This gen games simply can't run on last gen, how hard you try.

[Venny]

Originally posted by Neon Socks:

Originally posted by vMMe:

This doesn't mean anything. On top of that the game is locked at 60 fps and cannot go any higher from what it seems. Also the past things this company has done have been considered the worst ports of all time. They are know for making the infamous Destiny port for last gen consoles which ran horribly and they ported games like Borderlands 2 for the Vita which ran poorly as well. Just showing me a 4k video running at 60 means nothing.

Well yeah it shows you everything, you going on here saying it's "probably not going to run well" is irrelevant when there's gameplay of the PC version right there, and it looks brilliant.. and 60 fps is just fine.. no need to try and complain about everything.

We do not know the hardware this person is running this on. Also the graphics are not a huge improvement over the PS4 or even the switch they are just very minor lighting tweeks that don't hange much at all. The settings are also very limited meaning there is not as much customization for lower end machines.

[DrLegit]

Originally posted by Neon Socks:

Originally posted by vMMe:

We do not know the hardware this person is running this on. Also the graphics are not a huge improvement over the PS4 or even the switch they are just very minor lighting tweeks that don't hange much at all. The settings are also very limited meaning there is not as much customization for lower end machines.

Really? "Not much difference".

Are you being serious? There's plenty of difference between the PC version and the PS4, the boxes look much clearer and the animations look much smoother, there's a higher fidelity in everything, everything is so much clearer and vibrant. Plus, if it was bad even the person with a good PC would be struggling to play it. The video clearly shows a settings menu with different options.. low, high, etc. I don't get what point you're trying to make here.. of course you're going to need a somewhat decent PC to run this, just like you would need with any other modern game. It's the person's responsibility to look at the recommended specs before buying.

I think they're just crying because his potato gaming laptop from 2013 isnt going to be able to run a game that has been upgraded for pc in 2018... let them cry i say

[V]

Originally posted by vMMe:

Originally posted by Neon Socks:

Well yeah it shows you everything, you going on here saying it's "probably not going to run well" is irrelevant when there's gameplay of the PC version right there, and it looks brilliant.. and 60 fps is just fine.. no need to try and complain about everything.

We do not know the hardware this person is running this on. Also the graphics are not a huge improvement over the PS4 or even the switch they are just very minor lighting tweeks that don't hange much at all. The settings are also very limited meaning there is not as much customization for lower end machines.

Your complaining about graphics in a remake.

[Bobsoir]

Good job I don't have a lower end machine then and it runs at 60fps which is more than PS4 XBOX One and the Switch. If you're PC has problems running a not so demanding game such as this then you need a new PC

[Captain Deadpool]

Originally posted by McAkkeezz:

Originally posted by vMMe:

This doesn't mean anything. On top of that the game is locked at 60 fps and cannot go any higher from what it seems. Also the past things this company has done have been considered the worst ports of all time. They are know for making the infamous Destiny port for last gen consoles which ran horribly and they ported games like Borderlands 2 for the Vita which ran poorly as well. Just showing me a 4k video running at 60 means nothing.

The company makes great ports to PC. Your examples are them trying to port a demanding game to weak systems. This gen games simply can't run on last gen, how hard you try.

Iron Galaxy was responsible for the Arkham Knight and MK X disaster on PC so stop spreading bulls**t!

[InsaneEnergy]

People are just fearmongering and making much to do about nothing when it comes to Iron Galaxy. The reason they ♥♥♥♥♥♥ up Arkham Knight was because of the lack of time they had, and the small team that worked on that port.

[Super Bambaspis]

Originally posted by Captain Deadpool:

Originally posted by McAkkeezz:

The company makes great ports to PC. Your examples are them trying to port a demanding game to weak systems. This gen games simply can't run on last gen, how hard you try.

Iron Galaxy was responsible for the Arkham Knight and MK X disaster on PC so stop spreading bulls**t!

You got that a little wrong - those games are examples of Warner Bros not pumping in enough money to porting to the PC, and those ports ending up broken.

In both of these cases, WB were informed that the ports weren't ready and pushed them anyway.

Iron Galaxy wasn't at all involved in MK X - that was High Voltage.

You may have actually inadvertently defended Iron Galaxy

[El Pedro Los Yeet]

Originally posted by Captain Deadpool:

Originally posted by McAkkeezz:

The company makes great ports to PC. Your examples are them trying to port a demanding game to weak systems. This gen games simply can't run on last gen, how hard you try.

Iron Galaxy was responsible for the Arkham Knight and MK X disaster on PC so stop spreading bulls**t!

MKX runs great on PC, what are you talking about? And the Arkham Knight port got only about six weeks of work done before WB decided to sell it

[Super Bambaspis]

Originally posted by McAkkeezz:

Originally posted by Captain Deadpool:

Iron Galaxy was responsible for the Arkham Knight and MK X disaster on PC so stop spreading bulls**t!

MKX runs great on PC, what are you talking about? And the Arkham Knight port got only about six weeks of work done before WB decided to sell it

Oh, no - MK X was one of the most broken PC ports ever. It was really, really terrible. It's ok now, but it was awful for a long time. WB also annouced they weren't going to patch it, and that they pulled planned support and DLC - The outrage was so intense, that they coughed up the dough to get Nether Realms (or was it QLOC? I dont remember) to fix it and they finally patched it.

But again though, it wasn't Iron Galaxy at all - High Voltage did the port, Iron Galaxy isn't remotely involved.

[El Pedro Los Yeet]

Originally posted by Bilbo Laggins:

Originally posted by McAkkeezz:

MKX runs great on PC, what are you talking about? And the Arkham Knight port got only about six weeks of work done before WB decided to sell it

Oh, no - MK X was one of the most broken PC ports ever. It was really, really terrible. It's ok now, but it was awful for a long time. WB also annouced they weren't going to patch it, and that they pulled planned support and DLC - The outrage was so intense, that they coughed up the dough to get Nether Realms (or was it QLOC? I dont remember) to fix it and they finally patched it.

But again though, it wasn't Iron Galaxy at all - High Voltage did the port, Iron Galaxy isn't remotely involved.

So WB actually fixed the thing. I'll be damned

[Bindal]

Originally posted by McAkkeezz:

Originally posted by Captain Deadpool:

Iron Galaxy was responsible for the Arkham Knight and MK X disaster on PC so stop spreading bulls**t!

MKX runs great on PC, what are you talking about? And the Arkham Knight port got only about six weeks of work done before WB decided to sell it

On launch, it wasn't. WHen they released a massive update to make XL a thing on PC, then it started to run great.

Still, WB is to blame there and Iron Galaxy didn't do the port for either version.

[Venny]

Originally posted by vMMe:

The game has no audio options and has limited graphics settings meaning this could be difficult to run on lower end machines. Also the company producing this port has made some of the worst PC ports ever made. Also for some odd reason they made the game run at 30 fps at the get go instead of 60 and made 60 fps an option which seems like an odd choice.

I just want to thank you all for starting such weak discussions and thanks to the people straight up harassing me over a game appreciate it.

[Venny]

Iron Galaxy has made many bad ports in the past not just MKX and Arkum Knight. They made such god awful ports as the Borderlands Vita port, Destiny last gen port, and many many more NOT JUST ARKAM KNIGHT