Almost no graphical settings, crashes, bugs, abysmal performance. It's not a better product, it's a broken product that doesn't meet expectations of a good pc versions. No FoV settings, no VSync settings, no native 60fps support, no scaleable settings whatsoever.
Wolfenstein this year was made on the same idTech 5 engine and was a much better performing game on every system and a good pc version to boot.
The console versions of the game are apparently fairly well received - so when the same game comes to the PC, why is it suddenly a "broken product" for not having additional PC-centric features and, well, being the same game?
The console versions of the game are apparently fairly well received - so when the same game comes to the PC, why is it suddenly a "broken product" for not having additional PC-centric features and, well, being the same game?
I can understand the anger towards the PC issue. Don't get me wrong, some people, especially on the steam forums, are just complaining for the sake of complaining, but there are some really stupid issues.
The aspect ratio for example, looks stupid on PC since you're playing with a monitor, but it actually fits quite nicely onto the console version since you'd probably be playing on a big screen tv. The 30 FPS cap shouldn't exist on the PC version, especially since mice and keyboards have less input delay than a controller, 30 FPS with a mouse feels like a very inconsistent experience to the point where playing the game on the easiest difficulty can prove to be a challenge. The other main issue is the supposed crashing that everybody seems to be running into.
The best way to enjoy this game on PC is probably to just connect your PC to a large HDTV and play with a controller. I've been playing more of the PS3 version and the game is actually very good. The framerate dipping really isn't an issue because this isn't the type of game that requires a high framerate to play, it'd be nice to have at least a consistent 30 FPS but again, not really necessary.
I keep seeing people complain about the art but it looks fantastic in my opinion. The PS3 version of this game looks great compared to other PS3 titles and from the screenshots of the PC version I've seen maxed out, it also looks great.
I am somewhat disappointed in the focus on stealth elements though, I was really just hoping for a new Resident Evil 4, but the game is still enjoyable and they haven't lied about anything in the advertising.
i would say just one word: expectations. It's pure logic.
They sold the game very well, they created a huge hype, but they didn't say anything about all its flaws in the horrible PC Port. Aside of that, the team involved has a good reputation but we couldn't imagine this would happen, seriously. This is like when we buy stocks, we don't know if their value will rise...
With Shadows of Mordor i did good buying the game on pre-order. Monolith met all my expectations. They deserve our support with the pre-orders (although i paid less not buying the game on steam).
Waiting months until the game is under 5€ doesn't help the developers...
I also bought Dark Souls 2 in pre-order and i don't regret it. I don't care if the game needed some patches i didn't notice. But with the Evil Within, the whole thing is totally different, black bars, 30fps cap, bad gameplay without real horror, ugly models with horrible designs, and the worst: poor texture size for 50GB of hard disk space, etc. That's shameful.
With too many games, i love to pre-order due to the pre-order bonuses or collector editions bonuses (ex. The Witcher franchise). AC Unity Gold is the last game i have pre-ordered, and i'm sure it will have as many patches as the previous ACs. I love those kind of games and i really don't need to read reviews because too many of them are very very subjetive (a matter of tastes).
there are too many reasons for pre-ordering, at least if you are still a genuine gamer.
The console versions of the game are apparently fairly well received - so when the same game comes to the PC, why is it suddenly a "broken product" for not having additional PC-centric features?
Because expectations are different for console games and pc games. Console gamers are used to bad performing and bad looking games. People, enthusiasts who spend thousands of dollars on hardware expect a certain quality. They don't go PC for no reason. Releasing a bare bones version on PC always means a bad port, ask anybody. Any good pc version should cater to a big variety of hardware, it means it should have a good number of scaleable options so every user could cater the game to their system. Just look at any good game released this year, like Shadow of Mordor for example.
This is how settings screen should look in a proper pc version and many games do just that. Unfortunately, developers of Evil Within were unable to provide that and that's why they get called out for it. It is not okay to do that, ever. PC is not a console, different systems with different expectations.
I'm not saying that it's only PC version that runs like crap, consoles have their own problems with this game. And user reviews and sites like Eurogamer try to inform people about the problems of this game on every system. Many big game review sites employ people who can't differentiate 720p from 1080p and say that 30fps is more "cinematic", that's why many gamers buy this game completely unaware of its problems. No matter how good the gameplay may be, this is unacceptable.
While I agree the game should have proper PC centric features and optimisations, it's running pretty well for me after some tweaks, again we shouldn't have to use these workarounds and thought should have gone into this before it was released.
I've seen far worse PC ports and IMHO this isn't all that bad for me, albeit I've had no other issues apart from the initial crash. I'm probably brute forcing this with my GTX690 and agree it could run a whole lot better, again I think this is down the the underlying tech. Other people may feel more strongly about it, but I think it's a decent port and isn't has bad has some make it sound. Watchdogs was far worse at launch, couldn't even run the game and look at the hype surrounding that game.
The graphics options are limited, but the controls are good, and mouse control in the menus, this used to be a problem with ports not long ago. Feels funny to praise them for features that should be standard in PC games, but this is the way gaming has gone, at least for people who prefer PC.
This may sound weird, but this game runs better than both Rage and Wolf did on release. Rage suffered huge pop in and performance issues on launch. Forget about playing it if you had a AMD card. Wolf had the same problem with some settings not working correctly and making the game a slide show.
Also, Shadow of Mordor is just the best example of how to do everything right, even the options menu with the tooltips was a breath of fresh air to see. You can clearly see effort was put into the PC version.
So I finished the game yesterday, am just 100%-ing trophies now, (Akumu mode... o_O )
I feel like maybe my initial reaction to the game was a little harsh, originally I would've given it a 5-6 out of 10 but after completing the story and seeing more of what the game offered, I would definitely bump it up to a 7 or 8, (again mainly fps issues and similar stuff previously mentioned kinda letting it down a bit.) The story itself seems pretty solid and it gets more interesting toward the end.
In terms of my comment about it looking kinda last gen - there are some parts where it doesn't look graphically superior at all, while other areas I would enter would make me stop and be like "damn, this looks amazing!" so definitely mixed feelings on that You experience a lot of jumps as well so the horror experience is great, especially the 'crawling bitch'... (I can't find a more apt name for her at the current time.)
Anyway will give it a thumbs up, looking forward to hearing what other people think of it
I've played for like 5-6 hours so far. Visually it's a rollercoaster, some areas look really good and some areas look downright bad, super noisy textures, grain in general etc.
It does look last-gen in many ways. It looks like older ways of doing things, that it's not keeping up with current trends or tech.
Gameplay-wise I think it's fine, FOV is a bit shallow and I feel like it can be kinda hard to aim sometimes.
overall I like it, half-way in or something I feel like it's a 7/10
Mmmh Gameplay wise its looks more like a bad Action RPG.
You have a boring Perk system (+10%damage, +10% crit, +10HP, +10%healing kit usage, x+ ammo capacity) with nothing game changing for your "playstyle". Yes the Perks are not useless but from a higher standpoint the developer can use a zombie less and the difficulty is the same in this moment.
The stealth or kill mechanic is not good.
First Zombie corpse Reward loot so it can be that at the end at your fight you have the same number of Bullets that a Stealth Character have.
Second the very limited Inventory. When you have a absurd situation thats better to go back and kill a Zombie turn around and use the pile of Bullets which decay useless without usage.
I was busy for the last few days so I haven't gotten to play as much, but I think I'm almost at the end. I really love the lighting in the game, especially in some of the outdoor areas. The creature designs never get old in my opinion, and every new enemy I meet is beautiful in a disgusting sort of way,
especially that boxhead asshole when he rips off his own head to teleport next to you.
My only real complaint after playing around 12 hours so far is the fact that the game can be artificially difficult at times. I hate the occasional situations where I'm required to kill a bunch of enemies in an area to continue, but I have next to no ammunition which means I have to try and punch the monsters to death while avoiding the brutal kill moves (this can easily be done if you corner one of them, punch it twice, run away, and repeat.) It wouldn't be so bad if the punching attack was stronger without having to purchase upgrades, but the weakest enemies in the game can eat like 15 punches on normal mode.
The game as a whole is great, it's one of the more enjoyable horror games I've played in the last few years, but it could have been legendary. I think a lot of people will be disappointed because they were probably expecting a spiritual successor to Resident Evil 4 rather than an actual horror game, but I'm content with everything I've played so far. I'm not sure if anything is unlocked after beating the main game, but it would be awesome if there was a Mercenaries mode that was available after finishing the game like with RE4 and the later RE titles.
I think the main problem is that the the game doesnt try to scare you.
You go over a bridge and now you can only walk not run *someting is incoming*
Chainsaw Boss in chains and i need a chainsaw for the gate mmmh*oh that must be the first boss, trigger mechanic ahead*
The Ring Girl *must be the second boss... later because it must desroy a wall*
Oh a big dog in a cage and a destructive wall * oh that must be the next boss*
Oh the doctors brother, mmh nothing better to do then have a surgery at night alone in a old house... *he is never a zombie, all things normal ;P *
The game is the opposite from scare jumps. Every "scary" event is introduced by cutscenen, change in the walking mode or save positions like outside a cage.
After you meet Ravik the first time you know its all in your head. The floor when you escape the butcher after he hit you with the chainsaw was absurd funny like Galaxy Quest the machine room. The car scene and the collapse of the city with no humans visible was hillarous.
Which higher meanings have the levels, hospital, church, cementary... no explanation. The same with the bosses... they represent nothing. They exist without background.
The game show or let you play nothing, only a few cheap paper pieces.
And Ravik... he looks like Sepiroth a cool guy and not scary villian.
Bossfights take up maybe 2-3 hours of a 15-20 hour game, they could have been executed better but I wasn't expecting much from them. I can't name a single horror game that had enjoyable and meaningful bossfights and I'd consider myself a horror enthusiast. Usually it's just "press A to win" or "stand still and shoot until they stop moving" but some of the bossfights in this game were actually pretty well made scenes.
The part where you had to turn all the valves within the time limit while avoiding the teleporting boxhead. Also the part with all the flaming pipes where you had to constantly try and dodge the spidergirl. I laughed at the fact that the chainsaw guy was chained up despite being on the "same team" as the regular enemies, but when he picked up his chainsaw it actually turned into an enjoyable and even challenging fight considering you basically have to shoot, run, and hide since he'll kill you before you can take him down if you are stationary, assuming you weren't playing on easy mode that is.
Horror games are generally known for having deep stories and solid horror filled gameplay. TEW isn't as deep as a lot of other great horror titles, but the "horror design" was pretty good in my opinion. When you engage an enemy, it can quickly turn from an easy kill to an intense game of hide and seek and I haven't seen any other game other than maybe the earlier Silent Hill titles that provided such a thrilling feature. I heard Alien: Isolation provides a similar feeling but I haven't tried it yet, it'll definitely be the first game I try once I finish TEW though.
real lesson: don't buy PC games made by console centric devs and be wary of any PC game from Japan.
PC game development in Japan isn`t like in the States. All their eggs are in the console/handheld/mobile market. A game that is re-released on Steam for PC isn`t released AT ALL in Japan, or the wait is insanely long to get it.
The Evil Within has been out a week, and we’re thrilled to see so many of you enjoying your experience with the game. In tandem, we’re also reading feedback from some of you guys on how you’d like the PC experience improved.
We always try to be responsive to our fans and we are looking at your suggestions. We are open to modifications of the PC experience but we’re investigating and testing what’s possible that won’t negatively affect other players. We are evaluating optimizations for players with high-end PCs to improve the gameplay experience at 60 FPS. We’re also looking into ways to allow you to remove the letterbox format of the game for those of you who prefer not to have it. Over the next few days we’ll be working on potential changes and testing them. If all goes according to plan, you’ll be able to go hands-on with these changes soon. When we have more information on PC-specific changes, we will let everyone know.
We believe The Evil Within is an extraordinary game, and obviously we're happy that all of you are excited about it. But we want all our fans, including those of you on PC w/ high end rigs, to be able to experience the game the way they want. So we are seeing what we can do to provide you with optional changes you have said you would like.
Thanks for your wonderful support and valuable feedback.
I'm on mobile, so linking is annoying, but if you google: Evil Within FOV fix, you should find a reddit post. It's a mod, I just started using, camera is a lot better now, didn't even have to mess with the console commands.
It has settings for fixing The Evil Within now, works flawlessly!
I'm like 8-9 hours into the game, I feel like it's a good game, people are complaining to much. In my opinion its way better than RE6 and by a lot of people that was considered good etc. But then again it has co-op which makes it a bit more fun.
Nah.
Its maybe okay as Survival Adventure but as Horror Game its bad.
It has the old problem with tell and not show, the Story pieces are cheap integrated and the world feels random. The level design is okay but they have no Story.
Some levels have so many crates to destroy, i feel like im in Diablo. :poly124:
Well I finally finished the game. I enjoyed the adventure overall, I'm still confused about a few things in the story but I read some interesting theories on some forums. I'm guessing all the holes will be explained in the DLC that will probably be released within a year, the keeper DLC could also be an interesting twist to the gameplay as well.
The environmental design for the last level was some of the most unique work I've seen in a while, I really need to pick up the artbook for this game!
Replies
The console versions of the game are apparently fairly well received - so when the same game comes to the PC, why is it suddenly a "broken product" for not having additional PC-centric features and, well, being the same game?
The aspect ratio for example, looks stupid on PC since you're playing with a monitor, but it actually fits quite nicely onto the console version since you'd probably be playing on a big screen tv. The 30 FPS cap shouldn't exist on the PC version, especially since mice and keyboards have less input delay than a controller, 30 FPS with a mouse feels like a very inconsistent experience to the point where playing the game on the easiest difficulty can prove to be a challenge. The other main issue is the supposed crashing that everybody seems to be running into.
The best way to enjoy this game on PC is probably to just connect your PC to a large HDTV and play with a controller. I've been playing more of the PS3 version and the game is actually very good. The framerate dipping really isn't an issue because this isn't the type of game that requires a high framerate to play, it'd be nice to have at least a consistent 30 FPS but again, not really necessary.
I keep seeing people complain about the art but it looks fantastic in my opinion. The PS3 version of this game looks great compared to other PS3 titles and from the screenshots of the PC version I've seen maxed out, it also looks great.
I am somewhat disappointed in the focus on stealth elements though, I was really just hoping for a new Resident Evil 4, but the game is still enjoyable and they haven't lied about anything in the advertising.
They sold the game very well, they created a huge hype, but they didn't say anything about all its flaws in the horrible PC Port. Aside of that, the team involved has a good reputation but we couldn't imagine this would happen, seriously. This is like when we buy stocks, we don't know if their value will rise...
With Shadows of Mordor i did good buying the game on pre-order. Monolith met all my expectations. They deserve our support with the pre-orders (although i paid less not buying the game on steam).
Waiting months until the game is under 5€ doesn't help the developers...
I also bought Dark Souls 2 in pre-order and i don't regret it. I don't care if the game needed some patches i didn't notice. But with the Evil Within, the whole thing is totally different, black bars, 30fps cap, bad gameplay without real horror, ugly models with horrible designs, and the worst: poor texture size for 50GB of hard disk space, etc. That's shameful.
With too many games, i love to pre-order due to the pre-order bonuses or collector editions bonuses (ex. The Witcher franchise). AC Unity Gold is the last game i have pre-ordered, and i'm sure it will have as many patches as the previous ACs. I love those kind of games and i really don't need to read reviews because too many of them are very very subjetive (a matter of tastes).
there are too many reasons for pre-ordering, at least if you are still a genuine gamer.
Because expectations are different for console games and pc games. Console gamers are used to bad performing and bad looking games. People, enthusiasts who spend thousands of dollars on hardware expect a certain quality. They don't go PC for no reason. Releasing a bare bones version on PC always means a bad port, ask anybody. Any good pc version should cater to a big variety of hardware, it means it should have a good number of scaleable options so every user could cater the game to their system. Just look at any good game released this year, like Shadow of Mordor for example.
This is how settings screen should look in a proper pc version and many games do just that. Unfortunately, developers of Evil Within were unable to provide that and that's why they get called out for it. It is not okay to do that, ever. PC is not a console, different systems with different expectations.
I'm not saying that it's only PC version that runs like crap, consoles have their own problems with this game. And user reviews and sites like Eurogamer try to inform people about the problems of this game on every system. Many big game review sites employ people who can't differentiate 720p from 1080p and say that 30fps is more "cinematic", that's why many gamers buy this game completely unaware of its problems. No matter how good the gameplay may be, this is unacceptable.
I've seen far worse PC ports and IMHO this isn't all that bad for me, albeit I've had no other issues apart from the initial crash. I'm probably brute forcing this with my GTX690 and agree it could run a whole lot better, again I think this is down the the underlying tech. Other people may feel more strongly about it, but I think it's a decent port and isn't has bad has some make it sound. Watchdogs was far worse at launch, couldn't even run the game and look at the hype surrounding that game.
The graphics options are limited, but the controls are good, and mouse control in the menus, this used to be a problem with ports not long ago. Feels funny to praise them for features that should be standard in PC games, but this is the way gaming has gone, at least for people who prefer PC.
This may sound weird, but this game runs better than both Rage and Wolf did on release. Rage suffered huge pop in and performance issues on launch. Forget about playing it if you had a AMD card. Wolf had the same problem with some settings not working correctly and making the game a slide show.
Also, Shadow of Mordor is just the best example of how to do everything right, even the options menu with the tooltips was a breath of fresh air to see. You can clearly see effort was put into the PC version.
I feel like maybe my initial reaction to the game was a little harsh, originally I would've given it a 5-6 out of 10 but after completing the story and seeing more of what the game offered, I would definitely bump it up to a 7 or 8, (again mainly fps issues and similar stuff previously mentioned kinda letting it down a bit.) The story itself seems pretty solid and it gets more interesting toward the end.
In terms of my comment about it looking kinda last gen - there are some parts where it doesn't look graphically superior at all, while other areas I would enter would make me stop and be like "damn, this looks amazing!" so definitely mixed feelings on that
Anyway will give it a thumbs up, looking forward to hearing what other people think of it
EDIT: Dem alphas
It does look last-gen in many ways. It looks like older ways of doing things, that it's not keeping up with current trends or tech.
Gameplay-wise I think it's fine, FOV is a bit shallow and I feel like it can be kinda hard to aim sometimes.
overall I like it, half-way in or something I feel like it's a 7/10
You have a boring Perk system (+10%damage, +10% crit, +10HP, +10%healing kit usage, x+ ammo capacity) with nothing game changing for your "playstyle". Yes the Perks are not useless but from a higher standpoint the developer can use a zombie less and the difficulty is the same in this moment.
The stealth or kill mechanic is not good.
First Zombie corpse Reward loot so it can be that at the end at your fight you have the same number of Bullets that a Stealth Character have.
Second the very limited Inventory. When you have a absurd situation thats better to go back and kill a Zombie turn around and use the pile of Bullets which decay useless without usage.
My only real complaint after playing around 12 hours so far is the fact that the game can be artificially difficult at times. I hate the occasional situations where I'm required to kill a bunch of enemies in an area to continue, but I have next to no ammunition which means I have to try and punch the monsters to death while avoiding the brutal kill moves (this can easily be done if you corner one of them, punch it twice, run away, and repeat.) It wouldn't be so bad if the punching attack was stronger without having to purchase upgrades, but the weakest enemies in the game can eat like 15 punches on normal mode.
The game as a whole is great, it's one of the more enjoyable horror games I've played in the last few years, but it could have been legendary. I think a lot of people will be disappointed because they were probably expecting a spiritual successor to Resident Evil 4 rather than an actual horror game, but I'm content with everything I've played so far. I'm not sure if anything is unlocked after beating the main game, but it would be awesome if there was a Mercenaries mode that was available after finishing the game like with RE4 and the later RE titles.
Chainsaw Boss in chains and i need a chainsaw for the gate mmmh*oh that must be the first boss, trigger mechanic ahead*
The Ring Girl *must be the second boss... later because it must desroy a wall*
Oh a big dog in a cage and a destructive wall * oh that must be the next boss*
Oh the doctors brother, mmh nothing better to do then have a surgery at night alone in a old house... *he is never a zombie, all things normal ;P *
The game is the opposite from scare jumps. Every "scary" event is introduced by cutscenen, change in the walking mode or save positions like outside a cage.
After you meet Ravik the first time you know its all in your head. The floor when you escape the butcher after he hit you with the chainsaw was absurd funny like Galaxy Quest the machine room. The car scene and the collapse of the city with no humans visible was hillarous.
Which higher meanings have the levels, hospital, church, cementary... no explanation. The same with the bosses... they represent nothing. They exist without background.
The game show or let you play nothing, only a few cheap paper pieces.
And Ravik... he looks like Sepiroth a cool guy and not scary villian.
Horror games are generally known for having deep stories and solid horror filled gameplay. TEW isn't as deep as a lot of other great horror titles, but the "horror design" was pretty good in my opinion. When you engage an enemy, it can quickly turn from an easy kill to an intense game of hide and seek and I haven't seen any other game other than maybe the earlier Silent Hill titles that provided such a thrilling feature. I heard Alien: Isolation provides a similar feeling but I haven't tried it yet, it'll definitely be the first game I try once I finish TEW though.
I will pick this up for PC.
I'll pick this up on PC as well when that time comes. Loving the game really.
http://forums.bethsoft.com/topic/1509198-pc-update/
It has settings for fixing The Evil Within now, works flawlessly!
I'm like 8-9 hours into the game, I feel like it's a good game, people are complaining to much. In my opinion its way better than RE6 and by a lot of people that was considered good etc. But then again it has co-op which makes it a bit more fun.
Its maybe okay as Survival Adventure but as Horror Game its bad.
It has the old problem with tell and not show, the Story pieces are cheap integrated and the world feels random. The level design is okay but they have no Story.
Some levels have so many crates to destroy, i feel like im in Diablo. :poly124:
The environmental design for the last level was some of the most unique work I've seen in a while, I really need to pick up the artbook for this game!