• Hey everyone, staff have documented a list of banned content and subject matter that we feel are not consistent with site values, and don't make sense to host discussion of on Famiboards. This list (and the relevant reasoning per item) is viewable here.
  • Do you have audio editing experience and want to help out with the Famiboards Discussion Club Podcast? If so, we're looking for help and would love to have you on the team! Just let us know in the Podcast Thread if you are interested!

News Batman Arkham Trilogy coming to Nintendo Switch on December 1st (out now!)

How come the games run even worse in docked? I assumed it would be the other way round.

This release is such a bummer, i'm considering seeing if I can return the game for a refund at this point


Portable profile optimization priority, this is not the first time this has happened.


Regarding asking for a refund, 2 of the 3 games runs well, if you have not bought the game just because of Knight, which is the one with the fps problems, it makes no sense to ask for a refund.
 
Are the other two really bad too?
No, the other two runs great

There's a reason I say that saying that the collection is disastrous is clickbait. There are 2 games that are going well and 1 that gives problems because of the batmobile.
 
Any info on when/if they will offer the games separately? Kinda wanted them to play during the holidays.
 
I have the game, and in addition to that I saw gameplays and the switchUp analysis, and the fps problems only appeared with the batmobile.

Literally, in the DF video, where the game appears having serious problems is using the batmobile.
I believe they were a little heavy on the criticism with Arkham Knight, yes, I don't think it's worse than Outer Worlds or Ark in their respective releases, if they could optimize the Batmobile better and improve some specific textures it would be a very ok port, I think reducing the resolution to dynamic 720p on the dock can help too.
 
I believe they were a little heavy on the criticism with Arkham Knight, yes, I don't think it's worse than Outer Worlds or Ark in their respective releases, if they could optimize the Batmobile better and improve some specific textures it would be a very ok port, I think reducing the resolution to dynamic 720p on the dock can help too.
Honestly, it seemed strange to me that Knight was at such a high resolution, I agree with you, lowering it to 720p will surely make it go better.

It runs better on portable and it is probably partly because it has a lower resolution (apart of optimizations)
 
0
So I noticed something yesterday that I haven’t seen mentioned anywhere else - the leaderboards for challenge maps have been removed in this version of Knight.

Which, on the one hand I kind of get, but that has another implication - the “rival points” mechanic is gone.

I didn’t even know about this mechanic till I put in my other version of Knight yesterday, but apparently you can get up to 20 rival points on certain maps for performing above the 3 star threshold. So “completing” everything, your star read out would actually read “243/243 + 1100.” I kind of fudged those numbers cause I don’t remember the max star count or point count.

But I thought that was interesting. There won’t be any additional point readout on this version, the only thing to collect is the stars.
 
0
Portable profile optimization priority, this is not the first time this has happened.


Regarding asking for a refund, 2 of the 3 games runs well, if you have not bought the game just because of Knight, which is the one with the fps problems, it makes no sense to ask for a refund.
Thanks, I'll definitely look into it later. I hope they fix Knight in the meantime
 
Should've ported Origins.

Should have ported Knights at a lower resolution, imho.
It's a Switch game, no need to push for image quality over fps imho, in an action game
plus it's a very dark game (visually) and it would have been a better experience imho
I wonder if they will patch it, going exactly in this direction

surely after having seen No Man's Sky new graphic updates, I'm pretty sure we could get a way better overall package from Knight
 
Should have ported Knights at a lower resolution, imho.
It's a Switch game, no need to push for image quality over fps imho, in an action game
plus it's a very dark game (visually) and it would have been a better experience imho
I wonder if they will patch it, going exactly in this direction

surely after having seen No Man's Sky new graphic updates, I'm pretty sure we could get a way better overall package from Knight
The issues with Knight appear to be asset streaming and how Unreal Engine 3 does data streaming.
 
0
Apparently the other two have fps issues. These are ps3/xbox360 games.....yeah im not touching them for now.
Both of them smooth as butter on the handheld mode. Been playing Asylum for 4 hours on handheld no drops whatsoever. As both DF and SwitchUp stated, drops in Asylum are in docked mode.
 


Everyone is entitled to their opinion on what they consider to be an acceptable level of performance. Opinions are subjective. What isn't subjective is the numbers, and the numbers aren't great. I re-watched SwitchUp's video, and it matches what Digital Foundry put out here. Knight has serious problems, framerate is poor, and frame pacing is even worse. A good chunk of Arkham Knight will run around 20fps. It was funny to hear Oliver from DF bring up the idea of a 20fps cap when in the Batmobile, something that I suggested a while back. It is very curious that they render at 810p, I never expected anything higher than 720p for Arkham Knight. Not sure how much benefit they would see from dropping to 720p, but they should absolutely do it if it helps.

Arkham Asylum runs at an inconsistent 30fps, often times in the mid 20's. To say this is solid 30fps game would be misleading. I have been playing with a frame graph on my jail broken Switch, I see 24fps quite often and this is with the GPU clocked to 912Mhz. Im experiencing what DF and SwitchUp are showing in their framerate graphs.

Arkham City runs at an inconsistent 30fps, but has better frame pacing and holds the 30fps target more often.

Should've ported Origins.

It would have been a better fit for Switch for sure. I played Origins on my Wii U a few months back, and it also ran at an inconsistent 30fps, often times in the mid 20's. I do believe the if Turn Me Up Games had been able to focus on three 360/PS3 era Arkham games, they would have been able to provide all three with a high level of polish.

Apparently the other two have fps issues. These are ps3/xbox360 games.....yeah im not touching them for now.

Yes, this is what is disappointing to me. I know the Switch builds of these games render at a dynamic 1080p while the 360/PS3 builds render at 720p, but those older console delivered nearly locked 30fps performance and the Switch ports do not.

I don't understand how people can be quite down on the other two games. Been playing Arkham Asylum and it runs just fine.

These two ports are perfectly playable and enjoyable from what I can tell, but they are not as polished as they could/should be. If Knights performance wasnt so bad, I actually think there would be more criticism for the performance in Asylum and City.

Both of them smooth as butter on the handheld mode. Been playing Asylum for 4 hours on handheld no drops whatsoever. As both DF and SwitchUp stated, drops in Asylum are in docked mode.

The small screen makes framerate drops less noticeable to the point where if the game is in the high 20's, many people wont even realize its not at 30fps. However, I can attest that the game does still drop frames even in portable mode. I can watch the framerate graph on my Switch and the performance isnt that much different from docked mode, its simply less noticeable on the small screen. Bad frame pacing can also give the impression of a poor framerate even when at 30fps. The judder from 30fps with poor frame pacing is often times more distracting than if the game is just in the mid 20's I have walked around in areas where the graph shows 30fps but feels bad, and then been in combat where its showing 24fps but feels fine.
 
Last edited:
The small screen makes framerate drops less noticeable to the point where if the game is in the high 20's, many people wont even realize its not at 30fps. However, I can attest that the game does still drop frames even in portable mode. I can watch the framerate graph on my Switch and the performance isnt that much different from docked mode, its simply less noticeable on the small screen. Bad frame pacing can also give the impression of a poor framerate even when at 30fps. The judder from 30fps with poor frame pacing is often times more distracting than if the game is just in the mid 20's I have walked around in areas where the graph shows 30fps but feels bad, and then been in combat where its showing 24fps but feels fine.
I'm playing 7 games on Switch right now and literally Asylum is the best performing one. GoodFeel's Mameda Bakeru has very significant drops while Dragon Quest Mosnters hovers around 20-23 on overworld. Fae Farm and My Time at Sandrock rarely hit 30 fps while drops in MtiS much more noticeable. And as expected Steamworld Build also noticeable drops when camera is moved too fast. Gothic II is generally 40 fps, drops are much rare but they're there. Still, not as smooth as Asylum.
 
I'm playing 7 games on Switch right now and literally Asylum is the best performing one. GoodFeel's Mameda Bakeru has very significant drops while Dragon Quest Mosnters hovers around 20-23 on overworld. Fae Farm and My Time at Sandrock rarely hit 30 fps while drops in MtiS much more noticeable. And as expected Steamworld Build also noticeable drops when camera is moved too fast. Gothic II is generally 40 fps, drops are much rare but they're there. Still, not as smooth as Asylum.
Why they didnt block Gothic II on 30fps?
 


That bit at 7:30 with the Radar signal mini-game was atrocious. It's as though the devs didn't even try. Again, as Oliver mentioned, how did this pass QA?

Which does bring up an elephant in the room, which is the devs likely had their hands tied, and could only do what they were instructed to do by WB. If I had to guess, some bean counter thought it'd be great to have the entire Trilogy launch at the same time, while not understanding it is not so simple as that.

But what is even more baffling is these developers have used UE3 before on Switch, and based on what's been mentioned already, Borderlands on Switch isn't too shabby of a port all things considered.

Which makes me suggest WB were the real disaster in this trilogy.
 
how did this pass QA?
It didn't, probably why it got delayed for 2 months. But yes, this was on WB, they probably wanted the game out before christmas. They might have thought it wouldn't be much problem as the two games out of three work just fine. TMU will continue working on Knight after the launch anyway.
 
That bit at 7:30 with the Radar signal mini-game was atrocious. It's as though the devs didn't even try. Again, as Oliver mentioned, how did this pass QA?

Which does bring up an elephant in the room, which is the devs likely had their hands tied, and could only do what they were instructed to do by WB. If I had to guess, some bean counter thought it'd be great to have the entire Trilogy launch at the same time, while not understanding it is not so simple as that.

But what is even more baffling is these developers have used UE3 before on Switch, and based on what's been mentioned already, Borderlands on Switch isn't too shabby of a port all things considered.

Which makes me suggest WB were the real disaster in this trilogy.

I was always skeptical that Arkham Knight would turn out great on Switch, but because of the high quality ports of the Borderlands games, I felt confident that Turn Me Up Games would turn out very impressive ports of Asylum and City. I know I am being critical of the port quality for Asylum and City, but that is primarily because they are not up the standard Turn Me Up Games set with the Borderlands collection. So the question is why? My believe if that they were completely overwhelmed with getting Knight into a sellable condition. I can only imagine how bad it must have been two months ago. I totally agree that WB likely set the deadline at December 1st in order get those holiday sales, but to place all the blame on WB would be wrong as well. Turn Me Up Games accepted the terms for porting this Trilogy. They obviously thought they could do it, and most likely expected that they could do it at a high level. Bottom line is they signed a contract to deliver product that they ultimately couldn't deliver. Think of it like getting quotes for new siding for your house and a contractor gives you a good price to get it done in a fair amount of time. The project takes longer than expected and will end up costing you more than quoted. How happy are you going to be paying more for a job that took longer than you were told? Turn Me Up Games deserves some blame on this one.

TMU will continue working on Knight after the launch anyway.

What is done is done and we are sitting here with a poor port of Knight, and fair/good ports of Asylum and City. WB may not deserve the blame for how this Trilogy turned out on Switch at launch, but it is entirely in their hands to decide if they want to greenlight the extra time and money for post launch patch work. So if there are no future patches, it will be because WB decided not to fund any further development. Personally, I think there will be at least one round of post release patches. If that doesn't happen by the end of next week, it would be after the new years before anything rolls out. Developers tend to shut down the last couple weeks of the year and then get back at it after the new year.
 
Just got done doing a few test in Asylum. The GPU clock speed portable profile is 384Mhz. After playing a section that consistently drops into the mid 20s, I increased the clock speed to 460Mhz, max clock speed for portable play. Framerate still dips into mid 20s, perhaps a slight improvement but within the margin of error. Portable memory clock speed is 1331, but after increasing it to 1600Mhz, the framerate is nearly locked to 30fps in this section. Not perfect, but a far more substantial improvement than increasing GPU clocks provided.

So this suggest that we are seeing dips primarily because of a memory bandwidth limitation. This has been a bottleneck on Switch and its showing up again here. Not sure how much optimization can be done to work around this limitation, but as far as I can tell, bandwidth appears to be the limiting factor.
 
AA and AC both look great to me while playing them but I'm not counting frames.

AK is pretty jarring though where it's like playing a pre-patched No Man's Sky.
 
Just got done doing a few test in Asylum. The GPU clock speed portable profile is 384Mhz. After playing a section that consistently drops into the mid 20s, I increased the clock speed to 460Mhz, max clock speed for portable play. Framerate still dips into mid 20s, perhaps a slight improvement but within the margin of error. Portable memory clock speed is 1331, but after increasing it to 1600Mhz, the framerate is nearly locked to 30fps in this section. Not perfect, but a far more substantial improvement than increasing GPU clocks provided.

So this suggest that we are seeing dips primarily because of a memory bandwidth limitation. This has been a bottleneck on Switch and its showing up again here. Not sure how much optimization can be done to work around this limitation, but as far as I can tell, bandwidth appears to be the limiting factor.

Showed up on TOTK even. It is all too common on Switch at this point.
 
Just got done doing a few test in Asylum. The GPU clock speed portable profile is 384Mhz. After playing a section that consistently drops into the mid 20s, I increased the clock speed to 460Mhz, max clock speed for portable play. Framerate still dips into mid 20s, perhaps a slight improvement but within the margin of error. Portable memory clock speed is 1331, but after increasing it to 1600Mhz, the framerate is nearly locked to 30fps in this section. Not perfect, but a far more substantial improvement than increasing GPU clocks provided.

So this suggest that we are seeing dips primarily because of a memory bandwidth limitation. This has been a bottleneck on Switch and its showing up again here. Not sure how much optimization can be done to work around this limitation, but as far as I can tell, bandwidth appears to be the limiting factor.
From what I've seen people say, it's kind of the fault of Unreal Engine 3, I don't have much knowledge, but it was made for a time when bandwidth was much more abundant than it is for today's GPUs.
 
From what I've seen people say, it's kind of the fault of Unreal Engine 3, I don't have much knowledge, but it was made for a time when bandwidth was much more abundant than it is for today's GPUs.

Wouldn’t it be the reverse?

Because today’s GPU have more bandwidth than ever before, but maybe I’m not understanding correctly how UE3 compiles chunks of data in given scene?

The only thing I can come up with off hand is similar to what id Tech did with megatextures. That UE3 is built around larger chunks of data, which require more processing bandwidth to work at a given time?

I’m probably completely wrong though.🫤
 
Just got done doing a few test in Asylum. The GPU clock speed portable profile is 384Mhz. After playing a section that consistently drops into the mid 20s, I increased the clock speed to 460Mhz, max clock speed for portable play. Framerate still dips into mid 20s, perhaps a slight improvement but within the margin of error. Portable memory clock speed is 1331, but after increasing it to 1600Mhz, the framerate is nearly locked to 30fps in this section. Not perfect, but a far more substantial improvement than increasing GPU clocks provided.

So this suggest that we are seeing dips primarily because of a memory bandwidth limitation. This has been a bottleneck on Switch and its showing up again here. Not sure how much optimization can be done to work around this limitation, but as far as I can tell, bandwidth appears to be the limiting factor.
UE3 has always had asset streaming issues especially more noticeable during the PS3/360 generation.

Wouldn’t it be the reverse?

Because today’s GPU have more bandwidth than ever before, but maybe I’m not understanding correctly how UE3 compiles chunks of data in given scene?

The only thing I can come up with off hand is similar to what id Tech did with megatextures. That UE3 is built around larger chunks of data, which require more processing bandwidth to work at a given time?

I’m probably completely wrong though.🫤
Even with modern GPUs UE3 is still having some issues here and there. Faster hardware helps to brute force it, but there is a reason alot of devs went with muddy color spaces during that time, help cover up inadequacies in UE3.
 
UE3 has always had asset streaming issues especially more noticeable during the PS3/360 generation.


Even with modern GPUs UE3 is still having some issues here and there. Faster hardware helps to brute force it, but there is a reason alot of devs went with muddy color spaces during that time, help cover up inadequacies in UE3.

Given this, is it possible that if the Switch conversions used the updated UE4 engine like the other platforms did, the performance issues may not theoretically be as bad provided all things are equal?
 
Given this, is it possible that if the Switch conversions used the updated UE4 engine like the other platforms did, the performance issues may not theoretically be as bad provided all things are equal?
It might've helped in the porting process, but the Return to Arkham versions of the games are considered the worst versions.
 
Wouldn’t it be the reverse?

Because today’s GPU have more bandwidth than ever before, but maybe I’m not understanding correctly how UE3 compiles chunks of data in given scene?

The only thing I can come up with off hand is similar to what id Tech did with megatextures. That UE3 is built around larger chunks of data, which require more processing bandwidth to work at a given time?

I’m probably completely wrong though.🫤
Today, GPUs have more bandwidth, but this bandwidth has not kept up with the gains in raw computational power that were much greater, which is why tecnologies such as deferred rendering have been developed over time.
Just to give an example:
A GTX 780 had around 4TFlops and 288GB/s of bandwidth.
An RTX 4080 has more than 40TFlops and 716GB/s of Bandwidth.
While computing power grew 10x, bandwidth grew 2.5x.
Another example is the resolutions that these cards target, GTX 780 was a card for 1080p at the time, RTX 4080 a card for 4K, a 4x resolution gain.
VRAM also exhibits a similar pattern, while the 780 had 3GB the 4080 has 16GB.
So yes, today's GPUs are much more limited in terms of bandwidth than they used to be.
 
It might've helped in the porting process, but the Return to Arkham versions of the games are considered the worst versions.

I agree. The games became even heavier in this transition to UE4, with the PS4/X1 having numerous framerate drops with the Return to Arkham version. Perhaps it would have been easier to scale down to Switch, I also think it would have ultimately looked worse. Keep in mind that the Switch build of these games is rendering at 2x-2.5x the resolution of the 360/PS3 build, better textures a d higher settings, Turn Me Up may have opted for higher resolution and settings rather than focusing on a locked 30fps. I'm still hopeful for some further optimization to improve framerate stability, but I won't dismiss the idea that a higher resolution, higher settings, better textures version of these games might be worth a 25-30fps variable framerate.
 
I agree. The games became even heavier in this transition to UE4, with the PS4/X1 having numerous framerate drops with the Return to Arkham version. Perhaps it would have been easier to scale down to Switch, I also think it would have ultimately looked worse. Keep in mind that the Switch build of these games is rendering at 2x-2.5x the resolution of the 360/PS3 build, better textures a d higher settings, Turn Me Up may have opted for higher resolution and settings rather than focusing on a locked 30fps. I'm still hopeful for some further optimization to improve framerate stability, but I won't dismiss the idea that a higher resolution, higher settings, better textures version of these games might be worth a 25-30fps variable framerate.
That is what I am hoping as well. They did a great job with Borderlands and I wonder if their effort was divided between BL3 and Arkham Knight.
 
That is what I am hoping as well. They did a great job with Borderlands and I wonder if their effort was divided between BL3 and Arkham Knight.

I believe Saber did the Borderlands 3 port, not Turn Me Up Games. Regardless, I think having three games all at once, and one being an impossible port, was just too much to tackle at once. I would also be curious if the Arkham games used a deferred render, making bandwidth limitations more problematic. I remember Panic Button had to rework a lot of Dooms rendering to be a combination of both forward and deferred rendering to get the performance they were targeting.
 
Today, GPUs have more bandwidth, but this bandwidth has not kept up with the gains in raw computational power that were much greater, which is why tecnologies such as deferred rendering have been developed over time.
Just to give an example:
A GTX 780 had around 4TFlops and 288GB/s of bandwidth.
An RTX 4080 has more than 40TFlops and 716GB/s of Bandwidth.
While computing power grew 10x, bandwidth grew 2.5x.
Another example is the resolutions that these cards target, GTX 780 was a card for 1080p at the time, RTX 4080 a card for 4K, a 4x resolution gain.
VRAM also exhibits a similar pattern, while the 780 had 3GB the 4080 has 16GB.
So yes, today's GPUs are much more limited in terms of bandwidth than they used to be.

Imagine what could be achieved with 2.8TB/s of bandwidth… 🤯
 
0
I believe Saber did the Borderlands 3 port, not Turn Me Up Games. Regardless, I think having three games all at once, and one being an impossible port, was just too much to tackle at once. I would also be curious if the Arkham games used a deferred render, making bandwidth limitations more problematic. I remember Panic Button had to rework a lot of Dooms rendering to be a combination of both forward and deferred rendering to get the performance they were targeting.
Borderlands 3 is by Fractured Byte, not Saber or Turn Me Up Games. I think people keep getting it confused because Turn Me Up Games did the Borderlands collection, although Fractured Byte assisted with that. Turn Me Up did pride themselves on UE3 to Switch technology though.
 
I agree. The games became even heavier in this transition to UE4, with the PS4/X1 having numerous framerate drops with the Return to Arkham version. Perhaps it would have been easier to scale down to Switch, I also think it would have ultimately looked worse. Keep in mind that the Switch build of these games is rendering at 2x-2.5x the resolution of the 360/PS3 build, better textures a d higher settings, Turn Me Up may have opted for higher resolution and settings rather than focusing on a locked 30fps. I'm still hopeful for some further optimization to improve framerate stability, but I won't dismiss the idea that a higher resolution, higher settings, better textures version of these games might be worth a 25-30fps variable framerate.
I saw in DF’s video he said the textures on Switch matched PC’s high setting (IIRC) - is that better than PS360’s were? He didn’t specify
 
I'm playing 7 games on Switch right now and literally Asylum is the best performing one. GoodFeel's Mameda Bakeru has very significant drops while Dragon Quest Mosnters hovers around 20-23 on overworld. Fae Farm and My Time at Sandrock rarely hit 30 fps while drops in MtiS much more noticeable. And as expected Steamworld Build also noticeable drops when camera is moved too fast. Gothic II is generally 40 fps, drops are much rare but they're there. Still, not as smooth as Asylum.

Why are you doing this to yourself?
 
0
I love having AA and AC on my Switch OLED. I'm having a blast.

If you've never played these games before or want them portable and are sitting on the fence because of Knight's performance I would strongly consider making this purchase anyway as you are still getting two solid ports of two of the best games of all time. I haven't played an AAA current gen third party game this good... they don't make em like they used to.
 
I saw in DF’s video he said the textures on Switch matched PC’s high setting (IIRC) - is that better than PS360’s were? He didn’t specify

I was curious about this as well, I wish he had spent more time directly comparing the 360/PS3 build of these games to the Switch ports. When observing comparison videos on YouTube, it does appear that there is more detail in some of the textures, but its difficult to say definitively because the Switch build is rendering at 1080p/900p, so you are getting a clearer view of those textures. I might have to fire up my PC and compare Asylum directly with my Switch versions to see where it stands.

One of the great attributes for both Asylum and City is that they tend to look good even when lowering the settings. The overall aesthetic will remain regardless of the settings. With the Switch builds being higher resolution than the 360/PS3 I do wonder if they pushed out some of the LOD. Are shadows drawn at the same distance from the screen? One thing about 720p is that it creates a natural blur to distant objects. Increasing the resolution can actually make things like pop in more noticeable.
 
Are the PC versions of Asylum/City based on the PS3/X360 versions like Switch? They don’t seem to be listed on Steam as ‘Return to Arkham’ so was curious.
 
Any news of patches yet?

Nothing yet. At this point I do not really expect anything until after the new year. A lot of developers tend to shut wind down the last couple weeks of the year. Nintendo's process for submitting patches also takes longer than with Sony or Microsoft, so that also delays when we see patches released.

I completed Arkham Asylum and am half way through Arkham City. The early hours for City do in fact tend to run better than Asylum. However, as the game goes on City is plagued with performance troubles as well. This is by no means unplayable but I would say that it their current state, I cannot recommend buying these games on Switch. Performance for City is as bad or worse than it was on Wii U, and that was considered a poor port because it ran far better on 360 and PS3. This will go down as my biggest gaming disappointment of 2023. When this package was announced, I knew Knight would probably be a bit rough, but because of the great work that Turn Me Up Games did with the Borderlands collection, I was convinced that Asylum and City would be polished gems on Switch, and unfortunately, they are in rough shape. I am really really......really hoping they patch these up to standards they set with their port of Borderlands, but as it stands today there are numerous superior options to play these games and if one of those is available to you, that would be my recommendation.
 
Nothing yet. At this point I do not really expect anything until after the new year. A lot of developers tend to shut wind down the last couple weeks of the year. Nintendo's process for submitting patches also takes longer than with Sony or Microsoft, so that also delays when we see patches released.

I completed Arkham Asylum and am half way through Arkham City. The early hours for City do in fact tend to run better than Asylum. However, as the game goes on City is plagued with performance troubles as well. This is by no means unplayable but I would say that it their current state, I cannot recommend buying these games on Switch. Performance for City is as bad or worse than it was on Wii U, and that was considered a poor port because it ran far better on 360 and PS3. This will go down as my biggest gaming disappointment of 2023. When this package was announced, I knew Knight would probably be a bit rough, but because of the great work that Turn Me Up Games did with the Borderlands collection, I was convinced that Asylum and City would be polished gems on Switch, and unfortunately, they are in rough shape. I am really really......really hoping they patch these up to standards they set with their port of Borderlands, but as it stands today there are numerous superior options to play these games and if one of those is available to you, that would be my recommendation.

That's really too bad. You and I were talking about this for months leading up to the release, and had high hopes for it. We'll see if future patches can iron out anything. It'd be nice if AA & AC can be locked at 30fps, and AK can at least not stutter/pause due to loading issues.

If I ever do pick this up for Switch, it'll only happen if and when performance issues are fixed.
 


Back
Top Bottom