NVIDIA has released a new trailer for Batman: Arkham Knight, showing the GameWorks effects that will be featured in it. This trailer shows PhysX Destruction and Interactive Fog and Smoke effects. Destructible objects such as fences, guard rails, and trees fall to pieces when you run into them, while smoke and fog pours out of the Batmobile, as you race and fight your way through the streets of Gotham.
Those interested can purchase this title from GreenManGaming.
Enjoy!
John is the founder and Editor in Chief at DSOGaming. He is a PC gaming fan and highly supports the modding and indie communities. Before creating DSOGaming, John worked on numerous gaming websites. While he is a die-hard PC gamer, his gaming roots can be found on consoles. John loved – and still does – the 16-bit consoles, and considers SNES to be one of the best consoles. Still, the PC platform won him over consoles. That was mainly due to 3DFX and its iconic dedicated 3D accelerator graphics card, Voodoo 2. John has also written a higher degree thesis on the “The Evolution of PC graphics cards.”
Contact: Email
smoke looks a bit weird, COOL but a little weird…hmm which card do i get =D
Its so dense, it looks like cloth. The particles imo need a little more sharpness because smoke should have some dirt as well.
Ultra 1080p 60+ FPS ready
GTX 680 ready for some action in Batman!
STEAM dayONE 4k FTW.
some people can do 4k i can’t on 60 FPS!
Piratebay dayTEN 360p WTF
Ultra 1440p 60+ fps ready
GTX 970 G1 GAMING(almost as fast as a GTX 980 stock) ready for some action in Batman!
Nice!!!
But i prefer Asus and EVGA!
Hooray! …It’s a bunch of more useless sh*t that’s most likely going to absolutely cripple performance. Only a complete moronic and lifeless dipsh*t with more money then brains is going to SLI high end cards to witness some extra sparks and unrealistic smoke.
Yeah, a smarter person will buy 3 Titan Xs, 1 to run performance crippling PhysX on, and 2 to run SLI for the game. Still he will also be another moron.
And how TressFX helped gameplay except crippled performance?
So you are playing all games with settings on low right? Because all these effects and features you turn on will “cripple” performance.
Well I don’t think anyone buys two high end GPU’s for one specific feature in any game. I loved the last three Batman games on PC. I also maxed out all the PhysX settings and was still able to play the game @ 60fps, they also added to the game positively and made it more atmospheric. Here’s the thing though, I didn’t buy a nice PC just for one set of features so I wasn’t disappointed. You sound bitter.
The last games were improved with PhysX and I am sure this game will as well, if you don’t want to use them then don’t, I don’t see why uyou are getting so worked up over NVIDIA trying to look after it’s customers?.
So interactive smoke… And that is it.
Since destructions is generic and HW/platform independent.
Well there used to were a lot more exclusive effects in batman games.
Maybe next one there will be finally none.
I don’t remember such requirements when Mantle was used. Right, that’s different, but still some players had possibility to run game better than others. That kind of exclusivity was good?
ummm this is just one of the gameworks trailers… they already had one before this. This one is just showing off smoke and they will show a 3rd gameworks trailer right before release.
That’s true but the most Gameworks features run on AMD too and are not exclusive only for NVIDIA.
The only ones that don’t are PhysX, HBAO+, TXAA/MFAA.
HBAO+ is not exclusive as I know. Only GPU@PhysX and TXAA/MFAA. And GPU PhysX is rarity now. It would be used in Project Cars or Witcher (as it was claimed last year), but these games are without it. Maybe Batman will be exception.
Yes HBAO+ started with Kepler GPU’s when the 700 series came out. And only works on Nvidia GPU’s.
And those games a year ago said they would use Nvidia PhysX via directcomput. Meaning it’s not GPU accelerated.
edit I guess HBAO+ does work with AMD GPU’s. It’s been a while since I played with a AMD GPU. But It seems it gives AMD cards really bad performance.
Surprisingly, HBAO+ runs fine on AMD actually.
“And those games a year ago said they would use Nvidia PhysX via directcomput. Meaning it’s not GPU accelerated.”
If it would use direct compute, it would be GPU accelerated. But these games use only CPU PhysX. But it’s new SDK 3.x, so it it is more advanced then CPU PhysX before (and much more optimize).
The smoke stuff were in the older games aswell. Nothing special so far. I did saw a video of the rain effect earlier, but they didnt show it here? Was it scrapped or something?! 🙁
> Batman: Arkham Knight NVIDIA GameWorks Batmobile Video
> Batmobile Video
I saw the title on the website, so i completely ignored the youtube video name. Oh well. Still nothing too crazy(Or new) or interesting honestly.
Interactive Smoke & Fog isn’t in the other batman games
Smoke is? You can move in and out of it and it moves/reshapes just like in this video… I think it was the first game even! like YEARS ago? It was coming out of pipes. I remember it pretty well, because i thought it was amazing. Now days and all those years later? Not so much anymore.
That isn’t Nvidia Gameworks Interactive Smoke & Fog
“Lets downgrade the visuals to make the PC version look like the console version and just put in some overdone/unrealistic effects(like smoke)…”
Unfortunately, this is the mentality of most developers now! We know that a true PC version would make the console version look like last-gen!
it is too expensive to make graphics for PC separately from consoles
Pretty much every multiplatform game looked better on PC, and some of them are miles away ahead of their past gen console versions (Crysis 3, Tomb Raider, Arkham City, Metro, etc).
And when the “next gen” consoles came out, suddenly, it became “too expensive” to make PC graphics better. Yeah, right.
that’s because the gap got too large with the old consoles hardware. (the gap is still huge though even with next gen) in my opinion it is easily possible to make a game that looks way better on PC though. just make it on PC first, then port it to consoles. sadly they make on PC, port to consoles, then port back to PC or some stupid process like that so they make sure console gamers don’t cry. even though they pretend they don’t care about graphics. companies know them better.
Just because you make it on pc doesn’t mean it runs on pc
That didn’t make ANY sense —__—
If the engine is “already” running on Windows then why wouldn’t it run on Windows ?
No, because it wouldn’t execute. Often you have dev kits that execute for you. The proper libraries have to be called, and so the proper channels have to be established. Ever wonder why the PS3 was difficult and different to code for?
PC versions look better in such things as LOD, textures and other stuff like that than on current gen consoles
Let us say you have 100 units to spend. Before ps360 versions cost 20units, so they spent 80units on pc. Now it needs 60units on console because they need to downgrade too much, so only 40 units left for pc. Which is why ports are now shittier.
I agree , the PC was so far ahead of last gen consoles that when developers decided to port their PC versions to the “next-gen” consoles they were not able to match the quality, performance and features of the years old PC versions. For example Tomb Raider, Sleeping Dogs, Metro LL, Borderlands The Pre Sequel, Saints Row4 were all ported to the PS4 and XB1 yet none of them were able to match the quality of the years old PC versions.
Hell even the previous Batman titles were amazing on PC as they had higher resolution textures, DX11 enhanced soft shadows, tessellation, bokeh depth of field, horizon based ambient occlusion, you know, all the graphical features that make up the back bone of the new consoles graphical tricks?.
The amount of investment required to hit the fidelity ceiling for this generation and last generation is around the same amount. It’s not gotten more expensive to reach the same ceiling.
What has happened though, is PC gamers are now demanding a higher ceiling than ever so they can have games look x% better than their console counterparts rather than just reach standard y.
It’s just that the PC versions of games are relatively less of a jump over consoles this generation for reasons that should be obvious: these consoles are more powerful than before so of course the gap is smaller (that and devs are able to make games now with assets closer to their masters), whilst the fidelity ceiling (that money allows) remains about the same.
This is the first generation where games have become so expensive to make that it no longer makes sense to have PC versions look considerably better than their console counterparts anymore, even if the hardware allows. Any comparison you have where PC games look considerably better must be at least one (or several) generations old (or an exception), back when the overall budgeting for a game allowed high end visuals to be made put together relatively cheaply.
If you want intense investment in PC graphics how are you going to justify it financially? Here we have a small subset of people with the necessary hardware to take advantage of advanced visual features, and an even smaller percentage willing to pay top dollar for it.
The days the gap between PC/Console graphics were super wide are gone because technology has facilitated closing that gap (well, as far as budgeting allows).
Personally what I want from a PC version is the option for open fps/resolution options and some clean AA and crisp shadows. I’m not sure why you’d somehow need more than that when these games look as spectacular as they do.
I like your conclusions, but there is a problem. You see, games like Witcher 3 and Watch Dogs were built with much better graphics. All they needed to do is to port it to consoles, downgrading the visual side, just like with the last generation.
However, they also spent additional investments to downgrade a visual side for PC versions. You said that it needed to be justified financially, so where is the logic in that? Unless someone paid them for a delay and for a downgrade.
We need more because graphics they show us now looks like graphics from 2013. It may be next gen for a typical console user, but it’s not next gen for PC.
“I like your conclusions, but there is a problem. You see, games like
Witcher 3 and Watch Dogs were built with much better graphics.”
No they weren’t. What you saw where vertical slices that were shown before everything in the game was functional. Disjointed parts of a game that didn’t talk to each other, but were designed to give you an impression of the whole.
Once they started adding features in on a game-wide scale the game simply didn’t work as anticipated.
Do not for a second think there was an entire functional game they had working at a higher fidelity than the final product. If they did they’d ship that version on the PC because, as you said, why go to the cost of downgrading the game? It makes no sense.
“You said that it needed to be justified financially, so where is the logic in [the costly process of downgrading the PC version]?”
First things first, you’ve got it backwards here (explained above) as there was never a downgrade, given there was never an actual game to begin with.
Try activating the “E3” effects for the PC version of Watch Dogs, it still won’t look as dynamic as the original reveal (as for why those effects weren’t included from the off in the PC version, the answer is likely laziness on Ubisoft’s part, because they clearly couldn’t be bothered to QA/optimise any version of the game, let alone the PC version).
The real question is why did they go to the effort/cost of creating such an ambitious vertical slice in the first place? The answer is marketing hype. Look at the hype Watch Dogs received after its initial showing. It was enough to sustain interest in the game despite its release being delayed to well after reveal.
And given the killer sales Watch Dogs got, and the fact that it likely propped itself up as a new IP for Ubisoft, I’m thinking Ubisoft feels the financial investment in the IPs’ most important advert was more than justified.
I have only one last question. What about the 35 minutes demo from Witcher 3 that came out 6 months before the release? Isn’t it too late for a vertical slice? Or they did it solely for marketing purposes just like the first video from Watch Dogs?
That was a little different from wool-over-your-eyes marketing (though I do believe that these devs really would like to achieve the vision they initially set forth) but simply the fact that the game wasn’t pulled together as a whole until quite late in development.
They had many parts, many of which did talk to each other. But it’s a bit different when you drop them all into one simultaneous game session. It’s likely that they didn’t pull the game together as whole until they neared the end of development. It would also explain the delay.
From Eurogamer: “The billowing smoke and roaring fire from the trailer? “It’s a global
system and it will kill PC because transparencies – without DirectX 12
it doesn’t work good in every game.” So he [CDPR studio head Adam Badowski] killed it for the greater
good, and he focused on making sure the 5000 doors in Novigrad worked
instead.”
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2015-05-19-cd-projekt-red-tackles-the-witcher-3-graphics-downgrade-issue-head-on
Couldn’t agree more.
Insert ‘X’ effect which requires Titan X as minimum for 30fps. Then add 4x SSAA to AA for ultra preset and then moan about how no pc can max this game.
So true, thats the sad fact that all the hype about DX12 wont mean crap.
The games will still just look slightly better then the POS console versions :/
Surely the main improvement DX12 will bring is performance related. Direct X has never meant anything big in terms of visuals as most of it is theoretical. It reminds me of when people lost their marbles over tesselation with DX11… then the games came out and we got some flappies and slightly rounded shoulders :S
Batman: Arkham Knight – Downgrade Confirmed.
Where did you see downgrades? Effects in video are really good and whole graphics seem to be great? So why is this trolling good for?
Everyone who claim an obvious downgrade are trolls and idiots… until a release.
“Obvious” downgrade? Do you have an official comparison of sorts that you’re referring to here? Or are you speculating?
So you compare it with something right? What is that downgrade you see? I can’t say it won’t be downgraded, but I really can’t say it according to this video.
nvidia should add on/off option for each gameworks stuff. i like the rain but i don’t like some heavy useless stuff with it.
Harley Quinn Campaign – exclusive pre-prder content.
Red Hood Campaign – exclusive Gamestop content.
Scare Crow’s nightmare missions – Timed exclusive to PS4.
Batgirl Campaign – comes with 40$ season Pass.
really ? oh it’s Warner, so we could also expect microtransactions.
>nvidia should add on/off option for each gameworks stuff. i like the rain but i don’t like some heavy useless stuff with it.
Absolute true
IMO if you only want the rain effect, might as well just jump off towers instead of diving off lol, won’t make a difference!
I have a 970 and I will play with PhysX off. I want 60fps, not overdone performance crippling effects.
“PhysX off. I want 60fps, not overdone performance crippling effects.”
I feel sorry for you.
So you would rather play with PhysX on with a stuttering sub 30fps experience while feeling happy about the game looking better than ps4?
I am the one feeling sorry, not you.
I have 970 too and i will play with evrything maxed because i know that 970 is more than enough for max settings with all nvidia gameworks enabled. Also the article forgot to mention that we will also get Faceworks and Turbulance too that are some new Nvdidia gameorks features that ths will game will be the first to use.
Turbulence was used in other games too (XCOM – Declasified, Batman – Origin or Dark Void).
Its too early to declare a single 970 will run everything maxed just fine. I’m pretty sure in their physX recommendation they’ll recommend a dedicated 970/80 for the “high” preset, like Borderlands TPS.
However I may be wrong too. Nvidia has done those performance reviews below, they might use several difference physx cards and recommend a proper one, however I am sure framerate will die each time you eject out of batmobile.
That’s funny how some people talking about “crippling” performance. Let’s turn off AA, AO, Shadows or any kind of Ligth effects. All of these features comes with performance price, but nobody tell that they crippling performance. How is that…
PhysX will drop framerates down to 30fps in between fights (those papers flying, smoke, etc). That is where I need it the most.
This I understand. But you have always chance to turn it off. And there are still people who have strong enough HW to run it without significant drops. I’m using old GTX 460 just for PhysX and I have no problems with any GPU PhysX game.
I would much rather have PhysX on ultra along with graphics settings and have the game running @ 60fps to be honest. I have played all three previous games with PhysX enabled and it really did add to the game in a positive way as well as enhancing the game’s atmosphere. I personally haven’t used an old GPU as a PhysX only card but I am sure there is millions of PC gamers who will be able to dedicate one of their old GPU’s for PhysX so their main GPU renders the visuals?.
I am currently using a GTX980 and it needs to run the game 60fps on a 2560x1440p monitor so who knows if it will be able to manage this with PhysX?. I do have my GTX690 that I could use as a PhysX card but it’s not ideal solution.
well i like some physx on wall etc and rain effect (no matter AMD or nVidia – like them both at the same time hate them both) stuff only not paper/smoke etc… if it’s about having options it must be like that not just one button for all or nothing at all. and yes i also have a gtx970 but having more options is always better
I agree, but however options has not been the strong suite of physX. Maybe just the “normal” option would use less particles so that 900 series can run without performance issues on single gpu.
I would not call them crippling effects. I mean they are effects for PC user’s who want something that is not in a console version. Besides if you are finding your 970 is doing bad with PhysX games use your CPU or if you have the room spend $50 on a used 560 GTX and use it as a dedicated card. That’s what I used my 750 TI for before I got another 970 in SLI.
Using my cpu for physX would kill my system even more. I don’t know if you are a peasant or a noob.
I have tried Batman AO with a 560ti dedicated for Physx, and honestly the game ran much better only on the 970. The 560ti would absolutely die when I would zoom in batman when the smoke from the shock gloves was released (sub 30fps). But only on 970 it dropped to the 50s. If they use that effect each time you eject the batmobile, I’m honestly staying far away from PhysX.
You can preach all you want with “PhysX makes all the difference duh, wanna play with 0 difference to ps4 version? lel.” but in the end with PhysX off, I am bound to have a better experience of a more fluid framerate.
That’s weird. GTX 560Ti should be enough. I played Batman AO with GTX 460 dedicated for PhysX with GTX780 as main GPU. I didn’t go under 30 FPS. What CPU do you have?
Been playing games on PC since 1986 dude. And btw PhysX has been used on consoles since PS3/Xbox 360 it’s just not hardware accelerated.
And I notice a huge difference when using PhysX with a dedicated card. As for using your CPU. Well I have a I7 4770K so I guess I would really not notice. No clue about your system.
And PhysX does make a huge difference. Sounds like you are the Peasant or a noob.
Yeah WB is turning games into cashcows. Worse then EA could of ever dreamed of.
I mean look at MK X on PC. Total launch disaster, People who spent $90 on the worlds best start up screen and that was it for hours and hours.
And let’s not forget about the Patch that destroyed your save game file…..
I was lucky and did not launch the game after the patch since I was at work.
If this is like other Batman games you should be able to control what you want on and off.
“nvidia should add on/off option for each gameworks stuff.”
They do
where is it ?
Usually in the graphics menu. All games which has gameworks lets you disable the options. For example The Witcher 3 has hairworks and HBAO+, there’s the ability to disable them separately
yes but that’s it. i mean more specific options, for example batman games in the past had physx options like this: off/medium/high, it wasn’t specific. i want it to be like this:
destruction = on/off
nvidia’s rain = on/off
smoke = on/off
spikes = on/off
cloth = off/medium/high
etc…
Wow everyone will still turn off that GameWorks Effects for max fps or more :O
I like Gameworks effects I just don’t like the fact that I have to have 970’s in SLI to enjoy a game with them on.
But that’s the thing about SDK’s from AMD or Nvidia. Even with TressFX on in Tombraider on a 290X or 980GTX it’s still a performance hit.
It’s nice to see effects on PC but the cost in GPU power is more then the average gamer will want to spend money on to make run for their needs.
The smoke looks stupid.
Glad I’ve got a dedicated video card purely for PhysX.
I wouldn’t mind turning on these effects and playing the game at 30fps. But in my experience some PC games have framepacing issues when you engage 30fps locks, making them look less fluid and more juddery than the console versions running at the same framerate. It all depends on the game (so I’ll have to wait and see).