The Evil Within

The more I see and hear about this the more enticing it is, think that this, Crimes and Punishments, Shadows of Mordor and maybe Alien Infestation will be my autumn games. Properly throw in Far Cry 4 at some stage too as it looks like the kind of madness that'll put a smile on your face.

Robert ninja

Xenji wrote: »

Some impressions of the demo from Dusk Golem who is the main horror game aficionado over at Neogaf, quite a long read but very informative.

Ugh, Neogaf really? Oh well, suppose we don't have much of a choice. From what has been said, everything sounds absolutely great. Adjustable HUD, grain effect, difficult enemies with decent A.I, horror seems high-tier. However, this bothered me

05.) Headshots are hard. A lot of games make headshots instant gratification and an easy task to do even with a casual player. Evil Within's headshots are hard. The enemies have way smaller Hitbox's for their 'weak points' than say, Resident Evil 4 or 5, Dead Space, or the like. They're very precise where you must shoot them. Simply shooting the head won't do it, you can shoot off their jaw or chunks of their skull, and they'll still keep marching, unphased. And Sebastian's aim is not perfect, shakey and he doesn't always hit the mark. Headshots are hard, but rewarding as they send out juicy amounts of gore and feel, sound, and look satisfying. Speaking of that...

Oh boy, here we go. I hope the game doesn't have any unadjustable mouse acceleration (to OFF, of course). I played all versions of RE4, from the gamecube to the latest steam release and out of all them I have the rather unpopular opinion that keyboard and mouse are actually better for the aiming in that game and third person shooters in general (sleeping dogs is an exception).

Point being, shaky-hand thing does not work with mouse aiming. It's fine for stick, but just feels wrong when your aim trails off even if your palm has been completely still on the mouse. Not to mention, I don't see how this game could have any more difficult head shots than any other game beyond the fact that jaw-shots may not hit the brain and don't cause instant death. Aside from that, what's making headshots hard? If I turn mouse acceleration off, adjust the mouse sensitivity, I get the exact same aiming I should get in any well-made game.

I'm assuming the Neogaf writer was playing on PS4? - That's where they've really been pushing this game at demos even at Quakecon (lol what a disaster that was). Maybe it was just hard on stick but I really hope they don't bork the classic KB/M controls.

I'll likely be playing this game on whatever the hardest difficulty is available for first playthrough and it sounds like a really nice challenge as it is... I wish they won't screw it up with artificial difficulty or any other disrupting mechanics injected into my controls beyond the default limitations of the control schemes as-is. Having some upgrade "improve aim" would confirm there is aim-disruption being added and those 'upgrades' would slowly remove/reduce it.

I don't mind the weapons themselves being inaccurate at certain distances, that's understandable to an extent.

Anyway, besides this one thing it sounds like it is coming along very nicely. Will definitely like to hear from early-buyers about their experience so I'll be keeping and eye on this thread and other forums and image boards like 8chan.

Oh and have they removed the black bars from the game yet?

Robert ninja

Xenji wrote: »

Some impressions of the demo from Dusk Golem who is the main horror game aficionado over at Neogaf, quite a long read but very informative.

Ugh, Neogaf really? Oh well, suppose we don't have much of a choice. From what has been said, everything sounds absolutely great. Adjustable HUD, grain effect, difficult enemies with decent A.I, horror seems high-tier. However, this bothered me

05.) Headshots are hard. A lot of games make headshots instant gratification and an easy task to do even with a casual player. Evil Within's headshots are hard. The enemies have way smaller Hitbox's for their 'weak points' than say, Resident Evil 4 or 5, Dead Space, or the like. They're very precise where you must shoot them. Simply shooting the head won't do it, you can shoot off their jaw or chunks of their skull, and they'll still keep marching, unphased. And Sebastian's aim is not perfect, shakey and he doesn't always hit the mark. Headshots are hard, but rewarding as they send out juicy amounts of gore and feel, sound, and look satisfying. Speaking of that...

Oh boy, here we go. I hope the game doesn't have any unadjustable mouse acceleration. I played all versions of RE4, from the gamecube to the latest steam release and out of all them I have the rather unpopular opinion that keyboard and mouse are actually better for the aiming in that game and third person shooters in general (sleeping dogs is an exception).

Point being, shaky-hand thing does not work with mouse aiming. It's fine for stick, but just feels wrong when your aim trails off even if your palm has been completely still on the mouse. Not to mention, I don't see how this game could have any more difficult head shots than any other game beyond the fact that jaw-shots may not hit the brain and don't cause instant death. Aside from that, what's making headshots hard? If I turn mouse acceleration off, adjust the mouse sensitivity, I get the exact same aiming I should get in any well-made game.

I'm assuming the Neogaf writer was playing on PS4? - That's where they've really been pushing this game at demos even at Quakecon (lol what a disaster that was). Maybe it was just hard on stick but I really hope they don't bork the classic KB/M controls.

I'll likely be playing this game on whatever the hardest difficulty is available for first playthrough and it sounds like a really nice challenge as it is... I wish they won't screw it up with artificial difficulty or any other disrupting mechanics injected into my controls beyond the default limitations of the control schemes as-is. Having some upgrade "improve aim" would confirm there is aim-disruption being added and those 'upgrades' would slowly remove/reduce it.

I don't mind the weapons themselves being inaccurate at certain distances, that's understandable to an extent.

Anyway, besides this one thing it sounds like it is coming along very nicely. Will definitely like to hear from early-buyers about their experience so I'll be keeping and eye on this thread and other forums and image boards like 8chan.

Oh and have they removed the black bars from the game yet?

Game went gold today, happy days

http://ie.ign.com/articles/2014/09/25/the-evil-within-goes-gold?abthid=5424444bf6f8835563000011

Robert ninja

http://www.tomshardware.com/news/evil-within-gold-bethesda-horror,27765.html#xtor=RSS-181

recommended system specification for the PC version. The list includes a 64-bit version of Windows 7 or Windows 8, an Intel Core i7 processor with four cores or more, 4 GB of RAM and 50 GB of hard drive space. The game also needs an Nvidia GeForce GTX 670 or equivalent with 4 GB of VRAM, a high speed Internet connection and a Steam account for activation.

http://www.bethblog.com/2014/09/25/the-system-requirements-within/

As mentioned in the blog post, we’re not posting minimum requirements, because we’re looking to share requirements that show the game the way it was meant to be played.

Baked.noodle

Yikes!

http://www.bethblog.com/2014/09/25/the-system-requirements-within/

Updated October 2

On the heels of our Gone Gold announcement, we’ve put the final touches on the recommended PC requirements for The Evil Within. These specifications are listed as “recommended” as they are the settings we’ve determined ensure that your gameplay experience plays as intended by the development team.

Recommended PC System Specifications

64-bit Windows 7/Windows 8
i7 with four plus cores
4 GBs RAM
50 GB of hard drive space*
GeForce GTX 670 or equivalent with 4GBs of VRAM
High Speed Internet Connection
Steam account and activation
*It’s worth noting that the 50 GB of space required is for the PC install. When the installation is complete, the game will take up ~41 GB of HDD space.

Minimum Requirements

OS: windows 7/8.1
GPU: GTX 460 or an equivalent 1 GB VRAM card
CPU: i7 or an equivalent 4+ core processor
RAM: 4 GB
HDD: 50 GB

Speaking of space (and by your request), here are the install sizes for the console versions of the game.

Xbox One — 40 GB HDD Space
PlayStation 4 — 40 GB HDD Space
PlayStation 3 — 7 GB HDD Space
Xbox 360 — 7 GB
Note: The Evil Within requires a mandatory install to the Xbox 360’s HDD or a USB 2.0 (or higher) flash drive.

Smithy2306

Hope this game is good. I like the consoles skins.

Cold|Fusion

full release has already hit the web, i'm really tempted to try it, but going to wait for my pre-order on ps4, looks awesome!

Reebrock

This game looks like it could be great, what do you think? I'm excited to get my hands on it.

Myrddin

Moved from Xbox

Reviews should hit this weekend. Eager to see how it's received by the critics.
Released Worldwide on 14th Oct, might have to take a half day

Robert ninja

• 30fps
• black bars
• borked resolution and aspect ratio

What's the status on the game's framerate and aspect ratio?

Shinji Mikami and the team at Tango designed The Evil Within to be played at 30fps and to utilize an aspect ratio of 2.35:1 for all platforms. The team has worked the last four years perfecting the game experience with these settings in mind. For PC players, we’ll provide debug commands on how you can alter the framerate and aspect ratio, but these commands and changes are not recommended or supported and we suggest everyone play the game as it was designed and intended for the best experience.

Does the game support 4K resolution?

Yes. The engine can go even higher if you’ve got a monitor and video card that supports it.

Can I disable the letterboxing?

The letterboxing (a 2:35:1 aspect ratio) is used for gameplay purposes, as certain elements display in the black areas of the screen. On PC, you can turn off the bars and force the game to render full-screen. However this option is not supported. We’re keeping the ability to turn off bars as a console-only command that we will share at launch

How can I turn on the debug console?

There will be a command-line option to enable the console. More at launch.

What can I do with the debug console?

Gameplay cheats, as well as advanced camera controls will all be available via console commands. More to come!

Welp, skipping this one unless people find out it actually runs fine in 1080p 16:9 and 60fps doesn't cause the game to malfunction. Those black bars need to GTFO pronto.

So disappointing they've possibly ruined it with cinematic™ nonsense.


sources
http://forums.bethsoft.com/topic/1508448-the-evil-within-releases-next-week-things-to-know/
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=907772

Robert ninja

Robert ninja wrote: »

• 30fps
• black bars
• borked resolution and aspect ratio

Welp, skipping this one unless people find out it actually runs fine in 1080p 16:9 and 60fps doesn't cause the game to malfunction. Those black bars need to GTFO pronto.

So disappointing they've possibly ruined it with cinematic™ nonsense.


sources
http://forums.bethsoft.com/topic/1508448-the-evil-within-releases-next-week-things-to-know/
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=907772

Why? What's wrong with a Cinematic effect. You can't possibly have an idea if it will work well or not.

'The letterboxing (a 2:35:1 aspect ratio) is used for gameplay purposes, as certain elements display in the black areas of the screen.'

johnny_ultimate

A 2.35:1 aspect ratio is not something to dismiss offhand, as it could play a major factor in establishing a unique look for the game through the compositional potential offered by a wider aspect ratio. It's not just black bars: aspect ratios have a significant impact on the way landscapes, people, spaces and everything else are presented. Honestly, I'm always disappointed more games don't use wide (or indeed 4:3) ratios, as they can be utilised brilliantly. 16:9 all the time is dull, as of the three most common aspect ratios it's the least immediately arresting and unique. Especially encouraging if Mikami and co. are using the bars to do something interesting.

gizmo

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

A 2.35:1 aspect ratio is not something to dismiss offhand, as it could play a major factor in establishing a unique look for the game through the compositional potential offered by a wider aspect ratio. It's not just black bars: aspect ratios have a significant impact on the way landscapes, people, spaces and everything else are presented. Honestly, I'm always disappointed more games don't use wide (or indeed 4:3) ratios, as they can be utilised brilliantly. 16:9 all the time is dull, as of the three most common aspect ratios it's the least immediately arresting and unique. Especially encouraging if Mikami and co. are using the bars to do something interesting.

Indeed, I'm also intrigued to see how The Order looks and plays with its 2.40:1 ratio.

The 30fps cinematic feel argument, on the other hand, is patently nonsense I feel.

Retr0gamer

Last time I've seen black bars used like that it was for Resident Evil 4 on Gamecube, another Shinji Mikami game, and that was used to keep the framerate up. Later versions like the heavily compromised PS2 version were full 16:9 (the original was 16:9 in a 4:3 display).

The fact that it's only really on console seems to me that they are really just trying to keep the framerate up although if they do interesting stuff with the bars as he says then it might be worth it.

I'm not really convinced though. 30fps cinematic thing is nonsense as just said. If they really wanted to do that then why not go to 25 fps? I know the reason why not and it's the same reason why 60 fps is far better for games.

gizmo

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Last time I've seen black bars used like that it was for Resident Evil 4 on Gamecube, another Shinji Mikami game, and that was used to keep the framerate up. Later versions like the heavily compromised PS2 version were full 16:9 (the original was 16:9 in a 4:3 display).

The fact that it's only really on console seems to me that they are really just trying to keep the framerate up although if they do interesting stuff with the bars as he says then it might be worth it.

I'm not really convinced though. 30fps cinematic thing is nonsense as just said. If they really wanted to do that then why not go to 25 fps? I know the reason why not and it's the same reason why 60 fps is far better for games.

Conversely, with The Order they're running at an effective resolution of 1920x800 but also using 4x MSAA, a technique that would be more of a perf hit than running at full 1080p, which would rule out that particular train of thought. Not that that means it's the same case as The Evil Within but given the nature of the game and the tech behind it, I'd imagine it's more likely a creative call than anything else.

As for the differences with the PC version, shipping a console game with variable resolution and aspect ratio would be seen as a no no by most studios. The PC version would also need to be more flexible given the varying requirements but they'll still only need to ensure baseline performance on the minimum and recommended specs. This is further emphasized by the fact that the options in question will be console-based debug commands rather than regular options accessible via the menu.

Retr0gamer

I'd argue it's to get the framerate up in the order as well. Those fogging effects are very taxing on the GPU and reducing the fill rate will take a lot of strain off.

gizmo

Retr0gamer wrote: »

I'd argue it's to get the framerate up in the order as well. Those fogging effects are very taxing on the GPU and reducing the fill rate will take a lot of strain off.

As I said, if they were worried about the GPU load one would assume 4x MSAA would be the first thing to go.

Retr0gamer

gizmo wrote: »

As I said, if they were worried about the GPU load one would assume 4x MSAA would be the first thing to go.

With that many transparency effects MSAA is the only real anti aliasing solution you can use, FXAA or other approximate AA solutions are quite poor at picking out jaggies when there's transparency effects in effect.

It's probably a case of getting the fill rate down to support those effects with MSAA and then making the most out of it with a filmic aspect ratio. Telling us that 30 FPS is an artistic choice though feels to me like a bit of a lie. I probably wouldn't care if they just said they were targeting 30 FPS and left it at that.

gizmo

Retr0gamer wrote: »

With that many transparency effects MSAA is the only real anti aliasing solution you can use, FXAA or other approximate AA solutions are quite poor at picking out jaggies when there's transparency effects in effect.

It's probably a case of getting the fill rate down to support those effects with MSAA and then making the most out of it with a filmic aspect ratio. Telling us that 30 FPS is an artistic choice though feels to me like a bit of a lie. I probably wouldn't care if they just said they were targeting 30 FPS and left it at that.

I was more suggesting they would have abandoned hardware-based AA altogether in such a scenario. A custom temporal based solution could have been an alternative but, as you pointed out, it would have been a pain in the ass given the number of transparency levels visible in some of the footage so far.

My points in general were focused more on the resolution choice than the frame rate though. When they first announced the 2.40 AR and accompanying 1920x800 res, there appeared to be more backlash to that than there was the frame rate call.

johnny_ultimate

I'd be seriously concerned if game makers were afraid to try different aspect ratios because it would be met with an angry backlash. Forget framerate - aspect ratio does indisputablyhave a major asthethic impact. A game like Uncharted particularly would IMO benefit massively from a wider ratio to capture and amplify the scope of its epic landscapes, while games that attempt to capture an early 20th century atmosphere could undoubtedly take advantage of Academy ratio. Sure, that it decreases the technical load helps and no doubt was a point of consideration for both this and The Order, but it should be considered a valid artistic choice too. 'Cinematic' isn't always a bad word, because cinema does some things incredibly well, and having a variety of distinct aspect ratios is one that could be easily translated to gaming. Letter/pillarboxing is a tiny price to pay for the major compositional benefits offered by 4:3, 2:35 and others besides.

Retr0gamer

Well we'll see but I'm not convinced. To be honest even with the aspect ratio it's not really giving the Order a more cinematic presentation than any other game. It just looks too much like a game to me, which is hard to explain.

Robert ninja

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

A 2.35:1 aspect ratio is not something to dismiss offhand, as it could play a major factor in establishing a unique look for the game through the compositional potential offered by a wider aspect ratio. It's not just black bars: aspect ratios have a significant impact on the way landscapes, people, spaces and everything else are presented. Honestly, I'm always disappointed more games don't use wide (or indeed 4:3) ratios, as they can be utilised brilliantly. 16:9 all the time is dull, as of the three most common aspect ratios it's the least immediately arresting and unique. Especially encouraging if Mikami and co. are using the bars to do something interesting.

But you're not getting wider shots when it comes to video games, you're just getting less vertcal space. The original reason why black bars were added was to hide the players' character's legs... which apparently makes a game scarier. This is an FOV issue. 16:9 is wide enough as it is... black bars are NOT going to give you ANY more horizontal space or any 'unique' look. I've played games with black bars and it's annoying... its something I only expect in really old games and like I said before, the last game I saw it was a 4:3 point and click game (about 35% of my screen was black bars on every side).

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

I'd be seriously concerned if game makers were afraid to try different aspect ratios because it would be met with an angry backlash. Forget framerate - aspect ratio does indisputablyhave a major asthethic impact. A game like Uncharted particularly would IMO benefit massively from a wider ratio to capture and amplify the scope of its epic landscapes, while games that attempt to capture an early 20th century atmosphere could undoubtedly take advantage of Academy ratio. Sure, that it decreases the technical load helps and no doubt was a point of consideration for both this and The Order, but it should be considered a valid artistic choice too. 'Cinematic' isn't always a bad word, because cinema does some things incredibly well, and having a variety of distinct aspect ratios is one that could be easily translated to gaming. Letter/pillarboxing is a tiny price to pay for the major compositional benefits offered by 4:3, 2:35 and others besides.

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

I'd be seriously concerned if game makers were afraid to try different aspect ratios because it would be met with an angry backlash.

They're not... they don't even think about aspect ratios. Make no mistake, all this black bar nonsense and FPS caps is to reduce strain on their targeted platform's(consoles) APUs to make it so the game can look as shiny as possible for the graphics obsessed market.

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

aspect ratio does indisputablyhave a major asthethic impact

In 3D games... it really doesn't. I can render most 3D games in any resolution at any aspect ratio. It doesn't change any 'asthetic' except for maybe making me feel like I'm playing on my old computer from 2004. If I want to see more space I adjust the FOV. If I truly want more horizontal resolution I'd get a 21:9 ultra wide monitor.


You're talking about games as if they're films and I've heard this more and more lately. Games are not films and they shouldn't try to be. If a game needs to be more story-focussed or have cinematic effects then to me that's all in the camera work, acting, music, script etc which honestly make a HUGE difference to the quality of a game.

The best thing though is that because it's a video game black bars can appear at any time the director wants and we've seen that for a long time. Gameplay normal, but as soon as a certain scene (usually a cutscene but not always) starts then black bars quietly appear... and that never annoys me because I'm usually just watching or it's actually fitting to what's happening. If the game were to continue with conventional gameplay and the black bars didn't go away I'd immediately notice and get pissed off by it.

johnny_ultimate

Robert ninja wrote: »

You're talking about games as if they're films and I've heard this more and more lately. Games are not films and they shouldn't try to be. If a game needs to be more story-focussed or have cinematic effects then to me that's all in the camera work, acting, music, script etc which honestly make a HUGE difference to the quality of a game.

It's not just film though (although they are closely related in some respects) - every major visual medium uses different 'shaped' canvases to express different things - unique symmetries, balance, emotional and visual impact etc... A face, to take one example, will have to be framed totally differently depending on whether it is a narrow or wide canvas. That's across film, photography, painting etc... I personally don't agree gaming is immune to this, and that different aspect ratios - or resolutions, or whatever we want to call them - do have the ability to communicate uniquely.

All the things you mention do make a huge difference, and I'm not for a second denying it. All I'd argue is that an aspect ratio is simply another factor worth considering out of the hundreds worthy of a designer's attention. I just compared gameplay footage from The Order and Gears of War, and IMO I do notice a significant difference in the way their respective presentations handle horizontal space - there's much more space to frame explosions in the former, for example, which IMO packs more of a visual punch than if you have the whole 16:9 frame occupied (16:9, of course, offering its unique benefits - it's the workhorse of aspect ratios, in both good and bad ways). Wide-angled or symmetrical images are always going to be quite striking if the focus is on horizontal space - it's IMO not just a matter of losing vertical space. If the developer merely lops off the top and bottom to save rendering power, well that's pointless and is going to have little significant impact (maybe even a negative one), I don't disagree with that. But if a developer does that and also considers what kind of compositional benefits their newly letterboxed or pillarboxed presentation offers them, then IMO there's definite potential there. Doubly so if technical considerations are a non-issue and the decision to go with a different aspect ratio is a wholly artistic one (I am, incidentally, not convinced that's the case in either of these games).

Retr0gamer

Rab at amusement arcade wrote about something similar today:

http://www.amusementarcade.org/2014/10/09/frames-per-second-what-feels-right/

How Soon Is Now

So is the game any good?

Raymond Pest

Watched the first 20 minutes of gameplay . Looks pretty good getting a RE4 vibe from it but a lot more disturbing

ShadowHearth

Its out like in a few days, right? I would love to get it, but I am too scared of it lol.

Xenji

ShadowHearth wrote: »

Its out like in a few days, right? I would love to get it, but I am too scared of it lol.

It is out on Tuesday, will have to wait till it gets dark to play it though