CrichtonKicks
Member
Oh, I agree I prefer that look. I just think everyone is focused too much on that one capture. The gameplay comparisons are more illuminating.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Batman Return to Arkham PS3 vs. PS4 Arkham Asylum Graphics Comparison
- Thread starter Nachtfalke
- Start date
Oh, I agree I prefer that look. I just think everyone is focused too much on that one capture. The gameplay comparisons are more illuminating.
thelastword
Banned
Why does Gordon look like Croc in the PS3 version? The improvement is noted.
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
TBH Gordon looks like a JRPG character in the PS4 shot. It's the hair ..
texhnolyze
Banned
Or maybe you just have low standard?
It's not a bad thing though, it's actually a perk so you can easily pleased. Don't worry you're not alone. I have low standards as well, I love DA Inquisition and Fallout 4.
EekumBokum
Member
Did they switch out the pre-rendered cutscenes with realtime ones? Only the cutscenes look bad, the rest of the game is an obvious improvement. Maybe I'll get this when it's cheap depending on performance.
Doctoglethorpe
Member
Looks fine to me, a few ugly characters aside. Framerate is what will determine how soon I get this and at what price. I'll be fine with 30fps if it's stable.
Sword Of Doom
Member
I think they changed batman's mouth and chin to sort of resemble Ben Affleck. At least to me it kind of resembles him. Except they gave him horse teeth
Some parts are significantly improved and the lighting isn't fucked up. I'd like to see a comparison between this and the PC version
Some parts are significantly improved and the lighting isn't fucked up. I'd like to see a comparison between this and the PC version
erotic grandpa
Member
Not counting them (awful) bishounen looks, that Gordon comparison shows such a huge loss of character and detail by remodeling him for the PS4 mission. Perfectly tied tie? Flawless down the center sweater? Everything comes off as too clean, too orderly, in a game that's look was anything but.
Like, sure, to some extent the core gameplay is bound to be identical. But you add up enough of these changes to the character models, the textures, the lighting, the overall atmosphere, and you ultimately lose a tremendous part of what made these games what they are.
Not even a $10 purchase for me. I'll stick with the PC/360/PS3 versions.
Like, sure, to some extent the core gameplay is bound to be identical. But you add up enough of these changes to the character models, the textures, the lighting, the overall atmosphere, and you ultimately lose a tremendous part of what made these games what they are.
Not even a $10 purchase for me. I'll stick with the PC/360/PS3 versions.
Checkerboard Render
Banned
I think this is the 3rd thread on these remasters where 90% of the complaining is about pre-rendered footage vs realtime.
As others have said repeatedly (and apparently been ignored), the cutscenes in all previous versions were pre-rendered footage using much better models in terms of texture detail, shadows, lighting - it was obvious even when running AA on a high-end PC that they weren't realtime, they looked so much better than the gameplay. In fact playing it a PC it's a bit jarring to jump to a cutscene the differences are so stark. I only wish the PC gameplay was capable of the lighting in the cutscenes.
They could have done a better job matching the styling of the pre-rendered models no doubt, but really people watch the Candyland video past the first 10 seconds. The gameplay graphics are significantly improved IMO.
Look at the added shadows, better lighting, far better texturing here. Yes it's the PS3 version but the PC version just adds higher res and better AA/aniso, it has the same flat lighting and antiquated models.
Yeah, lack of 60fps is a bummer but there have been substantial graphical upgrades. Swearing off the purchase because non-interactive cutscenes which compromise 1% of your playtime is a little ridiculous.
As others have said repeatedly (and apparently been ignored), the cutscenes in all previous versions were pre-rendered footage using much better models in terms of texture detail, shadows, lighting - it was obvious even when running AA on a high-end PC that they weren't realtime, they looked so much better than the gameplay. In fact playing it a PC it's a bit jarring to jump to a cutscene the differences are so stark. I only wish the PC gameplay was capable of the lighting in the cutscenes.
They could have done a better job matching the styling of the pre-rendered models no doubt, but really people watch the Candyland video past the first 10 seconds. The gameplay graphics are significantly improved IMO.
Look at the added shadows, better lighting, far better texturing here. Yes it's the PS3 version but the PC version just adds higher res and better AA/aniso, it has the same flat lighting and antiquated models.
Yeah, lack of 60fps is a bummer but there have been substantial graphical upgrades. Swearing off the purchase because non-interactive cutscenes which compromise 1% of your playtime is a little ridiculous.
Rated-Rsuperstar
Member
Once you get outside with the light rain falling it looks fantastic.
The combat on the other hand is so simplistic compared to the later entries that it really feels dated.
The combat on the other hand is so simplistic compared to the later entries that it really feels dated.
thepenguin55
Member
So that's exactly what they did with the cutscenes which is crazy. If you can get past that the games are noticeably better looking. Unfortunately it seems like performance is a tad shaky at the moment. Despite the current performance issues it seems like a significant amount of work went into these remasters. I've never been a fan of CG cutscenes as they're never not aesthetically jarring so I actually welcome these new in engine cutscenes (especially if it means seeing Batman's alternate costumes in cutscenes).
GekigangerV
Member
The gameplay in the first combat section looked really jittery in the remaster footage. I think I would get a headache if I had to look at that for an extended period of time if it stays like that in the challenge maps.
Did a comparison of Wii U vs. PS4 version of Arkham City: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=enPKoT0WYHI
May change the video orientation and re-upload. Not sure yet.
May change the video orientation and re-upload. Not sure yet.
Konami would be proud.
This has to be switched.
Vincent4756
Member
Are we sure arkham city is capped at 30fps? Cause it definitely feels like its pushing higher at times. Asylum is smooth but city feels a whole lot smoother for whatever reason.
It could also be i played both of the originals on ps3 so these are huge upgrades in comparison.
It could also be i played both of the originals on ps3 so these are huge upgrades in comparison.
peanutbutterlatte
Member
Can I buy the games separately or are they forcing us to buy both like the stupid Bioshock collection?
Played City, never fully made it through Asylum.
Played City, never fully made it through Asylum.
A little disappointed that the 60fps isn't there. I've played these games several times now on PC. I don't really feel the need to revisit the game unless it's perfect.
But if any of you have never played Arkham Asylum before you should consider giving it a go, it's one of the best games from last gen.
But if any of you have never played Arkham Asylum before you should consider giving it a go, it's one of the best games from last gen.
Or go the best route: Get the pc versions.
brandonh83
Banned
If they can't get a last gen game to run at 60 in a "remaster" I'm not even sure why they bother.
Checkerboard Render
Banned
Pre-rendered vs. realtime, again.
In what universe? This is pretty terrible.
Checkerboard Render
Banned
Nice comparison, thanks.
The early part with catwoman looks a little above 30 actually on the PS4...or perhaps the Wii U ver is just so choppy it looks smooth by comparison. Possible variable frame rate, albeit not close to 60 by any means going by the full video.
Massive improvement in lighting though, the Wii ver looks completely washed out by comparison.
Checkerboard Render
Banned
In the universe where people compare realtime gameplay? Take a look at the videos, everything outside the pre-rendered cutscenes on the PS3 ver have seen a significant improvement.
matrix-cat
Member
All these remasters end up looking like the Star Wars Special Editions: newer special effects very obviously slapped over an aged framework. Instead of the original cohesive artistic design you get some random super high-tech reflections or water effects here and there, the same stiff character models and animation but now their skin is ultra-highly detailed. The original look of the game goes out the window in favour of showing off all the new lighting effects and whatever else they can cram in there.
And it's 30FPS.
And it's 30FPS.
People keep saying this. It doesn't matter if its pre-rendered or realtime. They made aspects of the game look worse, therefore it's not good.
SJRB
Gold Member
Then why not use pre-rendered cutscenes in the remaster?
What's the point of realtime cutscenes when the image quality takes a massive [and in this case it truly is a massive] nosedive?
DangerMouse
Member
Yeah. That's so weird. Why did they take time designing a new shirt model when one already existed? It's completely different.
The Gordon shot also has a slightly changed shirt style since the button up is different with it now being exactly straight.
Weird.
Shao Kahn Brewing a Stew
Banned
Gonna share this from the other thread:
What is wrong with your face?!
This scene was meant to be dark. They brightened it without fixing his face.
Toadthemushroom
Member
Yeah, the lack of consistency makes for a more irksome and less balanced visual look. It's like how Twilight Princess HD *only* improved texture quality, everything else looks like a bunch of flat polygons with high res textures pasted on.
Checkerboard Render
Banned
Likely in part because they're 720p and compressed to heck, and Arkham City moved to far more realtime cutscenes in the original as well. Their idea was likely to be more consistent with actual gameplay gfx across both titles.
The originals do look better - problem is they look far better than the actual game. I think I'd rather have the aspect of the game I spend 99% of the time in actually show the significant improvement.
Thanks for your posts. I was caught up on pre rendered cut scene screen shots everyone is laughing at. I didn't know when you actually play the game it looks so much better.
Nachtfalke
Member
Batman Arkham City PS3 Original vs. PS4 Return to Arkham Remaster Graphics Comparison
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZNCdHJMqlY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZNCdHJMqlY
bryanee
Member
Looks great, I shall pick it up this week.
Mostly the PS4 version looks way better.
Diablohead
Member
The remastered hair in-game and cutscenes are the worst part about this remaster visually, it's terrible and looks bad.
bryanee
Member
I'd actually like to see that, put some much needed colour into the grayest game of all time.
Both AA and AC remasters look much better in gameplay. I wouldn't say this is terrible.
Opus Angelorum
Member
Banjo-Kazooie
Member
Waiting for $25
you would almost think we were in a graphics comparison thread discussing graphics...
Crossing Eden
Hello, my name is Yves Guillemot, Vivendi S.A.'s Employee of the Month!
Thank you. Performance is the real issue here, not the upgrade.I think this is the 3rd thread on these remasters where 90% of the complaining is about pre-rendered footage vs realtime.
As others have said repeatedly (and apparently been ignored), the cutscenes in all previous versions were pre-rendered footage using much better models in terms of texture detail, shadows, lighting - it was obvious even when running AA on a high-end PC that they weren't realtime, they looked so much better than the gameplay. In fact playing it a PC it's a bit jarring to jump to a cutscene the differences are so stark. I only wish the PC gameplay was capable of the lighting in the cutscenes.
They could have done a better job matching the styling of the pre-rendered models no doubt, but really people watch the Candyland video past the first 10 seconds. The gameplay graphics are significantly improved IMO.
Look at the added shadows, better lighting, far better texturing here. Yes it's the PS3 version but the PC version just adds higher res and better AA/aniso, it has the same flat lighting and antiquated models.
Yeah, lack of 60fps is a bummer but there have been substantial graphical upgrades. Swearing off the purchase because non-interactive cutscenes which compromise 1% of your playtime is a little ridiculous.
The actual game looks significantly worse. So no, no aspect of the game looks worse aside from realtime versions of pre-rendered scenes that look way better than the actual gameplay of the game.