Avatar image for ntm
#1 Edited by NTM (11506 posts) -

I know people had issues with it from a performance perspective when it came out, be it bugs or just frame rate. The game is $10.00 right now on the Xbox One, and I'm thinking about getting it and seeing how it is now, and especially on the X. Who here has checked it out, and does the game run better not only now since its release, but on the One X? Hopefully, I can get some insight since it's only 50% off for five more days. I've already played both games, the original versions of course, more than once. I loved Asylum; it's one of the best games of 2009 to me. City is a game I've always tried to like more than I did; it was a pretty disappointing sequel to me though, but I'd like to see if I can once again find some enjoyment out of it in remastered form.

Avatar image for nodima
#2 Posted by Nodima (2525 posts) -

It...ran bad? I didn't even really look into it, just bought it when it was $10 on a PSN sale a few months back. I haven't installed it yet as I was planning to sate myself during the winter with my first ever play of Asylum and a belated replay of City (alongside a long overdue comparison of the two and why so many prefer Asylum to City). I hope it doesn't run bad.

Avatar image for ntm
#3 Edited by NTM (11506 posts) -

@nodima: Asylum now isn't quite as good as I remember, this is just coming from my perspective of the last time I played it which was more than several years ago. Probably around the time Origins came out? I don't exactly remember. The game felt a bit bare and short in comparison to the sequels, but the reason I think it's so good is that the atmosphere is great. I love Arkham Asylum's setting. This was partially the reason why City didn't do it for me. There were some interesting places, but overall they filled the environments, trying to make it seem big with dull looking, samey architecture.

I also thought some of the dialogue was cringe-worthy. The story had some interesting story beats but also had moments that felt predictable. At some point along the way, I got bored and stopped caring. City is by far my least favorite Arkham game though, so I know I'm probably in the minority. And yeah, I don't know how it is now, but the game supposedly runs poorly or did. From the looks of it, the PS4 Pro didn't get much work, but the base console has gotten better, running at a near steady 30fps. This is all I know when it comes to updates for the game, and it speaks about the PS4 version.

Loading Video...

In the end, it's not ideal even updated, as it uses dynamic resolution and doesn't always hit 30fps (plus, as a remaster, even with an updated engine, you'd probably expect, or hope for a 60fps). That said, it might be tolerable enough to still enjoy. I'm curious if anything has changed since this video has been posted, and whether it runs well on the Xbox One X.

Avatar image for inevpatoria
#4 Posted by inevpatoria (7396 posts) -

Though I put a ton of stock into the Digital Foundry analysis, I played through these remasters on the Xbox One right after release and found them to be totally fine. Worth the discount if you're looking for a reason to replay the Arkham games. Really a shame, however, that they never got around to touching up Origins.

Avatar image for quarters
#5 Posted by Quarters (2658 posts) -

Only bad thing about it is no Origins. Other than that, they look good and run fine. No 60 FPS, but a solid 30 on the Pro and X.

Avatar image for colonel_pockets
#6 Posted by Colonel_Pockets (1307 posts) -

They ran perfectly fine for me when I replayed them a couple of months ago. Some of the changes to the suits was a little weird, but it's a small complaint. The games are are still so good.

Avatar image for castiel
#7 Edited by Castiel (3466 posts) -

@inevpatoria said:

Really a shame, however, that they never got around to touching up Origins.

Yeah, I think Origins gets a undeserved bad rep. But I don't think Rocksteady thinks highly of the game and that might probably be part of the reason why it's not included in the collection. I think it's a shame, since Origins might have the best bossfights of the Arkham series.

It reminds me a bit of Ken Levine's rumored not too great opinions of Bioshock 2. Even though BS2 is actually a really good game.

Avatar image for deactivated-5ba16609964d9
#8 Posted by deactivated-5ba16609964d9 (3361 posts) -

@castiel: That Deathstroke fight is really fun and makes great use of the combat system. Really captures a knockdown drag out Batman fight against an equally skilled opponent.

Avatar image for ntm
#9 Posted by NTM (11506 posts) -

I got it last night. I played about 40 minutes of Asylum. It's okay. I wish it was enhanced though because the aliasing is pretty bad, and the resolution doesn't help. Also, Batman is uglier than I remember. Despite them making it Unreal Engine 4, it still feels very last-gen looking to me. I haven't gone outside the Asylum though so I don't know. It's not so bad that it's ruining the experience, but it's a bit disappointing. I think they could have just made the resolution higher and made it 60fps from the original version.

Avatar image for ntm
#10 Edited by NTM (11506 posts) -

Okay, so really weird. Can anyone check whether this was really updated? I stopped playing this game to play other games, but I just came back to it and as I was playing I thought 'darn, I really wish they enhanced the game' so I check online to see if they plan to or maybe I could ask them, and I see that just a few days ago they actually made it an enhanced game. That said, I couldn't tell at all. The game still seems low in resolution, or it's just the lack of anti-aliasing. Plus, I noticed a few framerate hitches, so it doesn't seem enhanced to me at all. I'm just surprised to find out that they just 'enhanced' it, and yet I was hoping they had done so because it doesn't look any different than when I played it a week ago. Actually, looking at my achievements it says I played it on the 28th and I haven't noticed any updates to the game... Do I have to reinstall the game or something? I am totally confused.

Edit - Hmm. I am still confused. Maybe I have a bad memory and need the little details to be pointed out to me, but it's very hard to differentiate what has really changed. The frame rate might be better as it doesn't look quite 30fps, but it also doesn't feel like it's a steady 60fps. There may be particles that weren't there before? I can't tell whether the resolution is higher or not. It may look a little 'blurrier' in that some of the aliasings has been eradicated, but it's still a heavily aliased game which makes it hard to tell. Man... it's kind of a disappointing enhancement, especially considering I came back to the game hoping they'd enhance it when it just was unbeknownst to me.

Edit 2! - So, I uninstalled and reinstalled it and it just got done a little while ago. I'm not sure if anything has changed, but the game looks better to me for some reason and runs smoother. I'm thinking I just got accustomed to The Witcher 3's 30fps in the time I've been waiting for it to reinstall, or it does actually look better in some way. The game still has aliasing issues, but it's not terrible, and the image just looks cleaner with a noticeable boost in frame rate, although when I pan the camera it still doesn't feel like a stable 60fps. I'm wondering if it's noticeable because the game I played just prior to Arkham returns was RE7 which is a solid 60fps, and now I'm coming off of a 30fps game. I don't know. Fingers crossed, but my Xbox One X and TV both turned themselves off as I played Arkham Asylum before the reinstall. It was only this game that had it happen which worried me. I'm thinking a fresh install did it good.