See how Batman: Arkham Origins on Xbox 360 compares to PC version at Max

Interesting Posts

By -

Batman: Arkham Origins is a current generation game that is going to release on a PC as well — but with no next generation version in sight. It is not surprising to expect a Game of the Year type edition for next generation consoles though. If it ever comes out, we can at least have a good idea on how it looks by taking a look at the comparison between Xbox 360 and PC version.

Before starting this comparison, keep in mind that the PC version showcased here is maxed out and running on DirectX 11 compared to the DirectX 9 for Xbox 360 version. Unfortunately, the original snaps are in 1080p so we downscaled them to 720p to make a much more fair comparison but this will also result in a super sampling effect on the PC screens making it completely free from jaggies. Still, it shows a obvious gap between the quality of Xbox 360 and PC version of the game. A difference that is sure to mitigate once the next generation version of Arkham Origins is released(hopefully).

Now that we have gotten the general gist out of the way, lets start with the comparison.

Batman AO Comparison 7-1 Batman AO Comparison 7-2

The textures, as obvious, have gotten a huge bump here. From the floor to the background to the character models, everything looks far more impressive in the PC screenshot. Take a look at the face of Black Mask – on Xbox 360 – it exhibits a plastic like effect more so than the PC version, where the inclusion of DirectX 11 and bumped up textures make it appear far more impressive.

Batman AO Comparison 5-1 Batman AO Comparison 5-2

The biggest difference can be seen here. While the difference in textures is expected, the more realistic looking lighting really adds a lot to the atmosphere here on the PC version of the game. Atmosphere is pretty important for a game like Batman Arkham Origins and the PC delivers the definite experience here.

Batman AO Comparison 3-1 Batman AO Comparison 3-2

Another big difference here. The scene looks so fake and plastic like on Xbox 360 while the PC version is on a whole another level with its sharper looking textures and lighting. Heck, we could’ve easily mistook it as a CGI cutscene on PC while this one is actually from a boss battle.

You can check out further comparison shots below.

What do you think of this article? Let us know in the comments below.

Stay tuned to GearNuke for latest news and info on Batman: Arkham Origins.

Khurram Imtiaz

A Geek and Gamer, who loves JRPGs and VITA. Follow him on Twitter and Google+

  • dezz

    PC does have the capability of looking 5 times better than the current gen e.g.look at battlefield 4.current gen is nothing compared to battlefield 4 on a high end PC or even a mid range PC. The only reason Arkham Origins didn’t look that great is because the port is bad.

  • Dakan45

    Sorry but you are a retard the game can run and look better on a 2007 8800GT, its a graphicaly unimpressive game and a bad comparison.

    Crysis 3 on the other hand runs on consoles UNDER the lowest pc settings.

  • kyle

    Just wait until Naughty Dog come out with their PS4 exclusive game, considering how they maxed out the PS3, what they will produce on PS4 will be very very very special.

  • PINGPONG

    One thing that is important to note though, is that PC games are typically cheaper, at least $10 cheaper than console. I was also able to get this on Steam with a 25% off coupon, making this game less than $40 (and did not have to pay tax). Mind you, I built this system recently as an upgrade and I would not classify it as a “gaming system”, but I do have a midrange Radeon and a new haswell chip on a system that is a do it all kind of rig that can still rip Blu-ray and encode videos whilst surfing the web. I also own a 360 and PS3, but if a certain version of the game looks better, and is much cheaper–well it’s a no brainer which one I would choose.

    • spideynut71

      If you wait a week or so, you can buy a used copy at GameStop, beat the game, and return it for a full refund within a week (if you don’t finish it, rinse and repeat). The only way to play it for free on PC is to pirate. Your point is invalid.

      • PINGPONG

        I never said I wanted to pirate or play anything for free, but I hardly think that buying a used game at Gamestop, beating it and then returning it for a full refund is within the spirit of their return policy if in fact you enjoyed it enough to play through it completely. That would border on abuse, and I am sure that Gamestop would eventually flag that type of behavior.

        But if you want me to qualify my comment as “buying new games are cheaper on the PC,” then I will.

        • spideynut71

          I worked for GameStop for 3 years….and no, they don’t “flag” such things. They only take note of “problem” repeat customers, like those who buy a used game, then come back and say “no game was in the case”, then demand another copy (usually to score another copy for a buddy)…things like that. In fact, the 7-day trial is something they heavily promote, because it really helps get rid of used games, since most people keep their games and/or lose their receipt, or forget they can return it at all.

          • Robert Severson

            I think there’s a difference between looking for a bargain and theft, you’re actions are bordering the second. It may be legal but that doesn’t make it moral. If you enjoy games, support the developers. If everyone took your tact I assure you there would not be any video games produced.

  • spideynut71

    Exactly…and it’s sad how the author seems to really believe there’s a huge difference, when there isn’t. Fact is, the PC version…on Ultra…SHOULD look like the damn CG cutscenes.

    • Iain Chambers

      the cg cutscenes look bad

      • spideynut71

        I actually meant the promo trailers, which look awesome ; I have no idea what the in-game cutscenes look like. I haven’t bothered playing the game, because it’s not Rocksteady, and the reviews confirmed my apprehension about the game.

        • Iain Chambers

          Its not a bad game but it is buggy

    • Dakan45

      Fan fuct, arkham city has better graphics than this, you are comparing a graphically unimpressive game on pc with a graphically crappier console version.

      Other games say like crysis 3 run on ps3/x360 UNDER the lowest pc settings.

  • Nick TwinkleToes Setzer

    Wow wtf how is xb360 able to be so close graphically. Really surprised. Can’t wait to see next gen when optimization gets better.

    • Jack Slater

      Next gen optimized is going to make many PC gamers really angry, when their +2500$ sli systems , when they’re gonna look at an uncharted 4 or halo 5, and will say ‘damn, it’s not impossible, these graphics on 1.6GHz cpu’.
      O.p.t.i.m.i.z.a.t.i.o.n

      • Robert Severson

        Nah, software dev’s will finally get off their ass and make games that look better. Will still look better on PC. Most stuff today is made for the lowest common denominator (read consoles).

        • Jack Slater

          50% right, 50% wrong.
          Why can’t a PC dev just give you the option, a slider, etc to:
          - use uncompressed textures on PC, instead of 50-60-70% compression on consoles
          - use 4096*4096 textures on PC, instead of, maybe 512*512 on consoles
          - while a character on console may use 40k polygons, and PC, 70k, give the option to a PC gamer to increase the polygons on character, enemies, NPC, to 100k-150k, even +500k
          - use real-time lights, instead of pre-rendered lights
          - allow pcm uncompressed sound, at 7.1. Instead of simply stereo or weak Dolby digital 5.1
          - allow using ultra heavy,big, wonderful textures/images/UV maps packs
          give gamers the choice to play at 30 fps, or 60 fps, instead of a useless 160 fps .fixing for example at 60 fps, and allocate that gained power to the rendering tasks, ^^
          - and many other options, that would make the game look really avatar-like, instead of just being a console game, played with more fps and higher resolution.

          • Robert Severson

            I think we are kind of arguing the same point, maybe I didnt make it clear, I’m extremely pissed off at game manufacturers for not utilizing PC’s to their maximum potential. All of the things you listed are feasible options, but as long as idiots keep throwing their money at crummy developers to make 4 iterations of the same game with no real difference they will continue to laugh all the way to the bank (i.e. EA). Don’t worry you get fish AI and articulated blades of grass though. Stop giving this companies your money! And now with the crowdsourcing rules for funding that will stop future creative initiatives. Thanks gubmint!

          • madbads

            This gen was almost about x360 ports that really sucked. Hopefully next will be different as they say consoles are more like PC.

      • Dakan45

        my god you are an idiot.

  • Matt

    “… it shows a obvious gap between the quality of Xbox 360 and PC version of the game.” – Obvious gap? C’mon, now! Why even bother with this ‘comparison’? All this nitpicking over the tiniest of details is really a shame, when what really matters is if a game is fun/challenging to play.

  • MattS71

    Console graphics = not as far off as I’d expect

    • Iain Chambers

      To be fair its more like the pc isn’t being pushed

  • Kyle

    lol, comparing 7 year old console graphics to a max settings PC graphics is hardly fair, but I’m surprised, the graphics actually compare pretty well given the age of Xbox360, and tbh the gameplay will be identical.

    • madbads

      I think that is because they made the game for 360 1st then ported to PC and added some changes and options without really bothering too much. But really for a 7 year old console , its very good still.