-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Want to play The Evil Within on PC at a locked 1080p60? No chance. (Eurogamer)
- Thread starter GavinUK86
- Start date
The Cowboy
Member
I'd say FFXIII is more of a technical train wreak (at least on PC) released recently, consider the games age and the version ported (360) its quite stunning at how badly it runs and how little hardware (CPU/GPU) the game uses - this game is a very close 2nd for me though.
SerTapTap
Member
I haven't played it, but FFXIII does sound particularly bad, possibly worse. The 720p thing is embarrassing, at leasT TEW doesn't have anything like that. It's horrible to even be compared to FFXIII PC though.
TheFLYINGManga_Ka
Member
So I'm guessing it's a technical problem and not a advancement in graphics?
LiquidMetal14
hide your water-based mammals
performance does not have any merit for the quality of game play or enjoy ability of a game. Unless its really unplayable.
You've said that at least twice now. Give it up.
jim2point0
Banned
Durante pls
What do people want Durante to fix here?
It's also worth noting that this game is DX11. I don't think Durante's ever done anything on a DX11 game yet (although I believe he's working on DX11 compatibility for GeDoSaTo).
Leafhopper
Banned
Going by the problems at hand. He would have to fix well the modified engine that Tango has done to Idtech5.
Dead Rising 3.
This is what happens when otherwise discerning devs drink John Carmack's koolaid about how amazing his new tech is.
I feel sorry for these guys because otherwise they seemed to have made a pretty damn cool game. I'm only up to Chapter 6 but I like it quite a bit so far (a few parts of Chapter 5 notwithstanding).
Oh well, PC version is still inarguably the best version of the game and it's still a solid game.
I feel sorry for these guys because otherwise they seemed to have made a pretty damn cool game. I'm only up to Chapter 6 but I like it quite a bit so far (a few parts of Chapter 5 notwithstanding).
Oh well, PC version is still inarguably the best version of the game and it's still a solid game.
What's playable to you may not be playable to someone else. This is especially true for those with 120hz/144hz monitors who play at high frame rates as standard. Is Evil Within playable in the sense that you can go from start to finish, certainly but for some people it would also be that much more enjoyable with more solid performance from the game.
Dictator93
Member
Carmack must be having a field day.
Because he designed this horrible engine?
Lanrutcon
Member
This made me chuckle. Thanks!
MemoryHumanity
Member
Oh man stuck with Gamebryo and Id Tech 5....oof
Prophet Steve
Member
Then what is actually the reason we''d like better performance if it doesn't effect our ability to enjoy the game? And please don't tell it is because we like to brag.
The gameplay part is wrong too, because input lag does in fact make a difference on gameplay.
Given how wonderfully Wolfenstein has been received, I doubt it's an engine problem.
I feel like the industry would decide to see this as more of a "no one likes survival horror anymore" rather than the intended implication. Personally, while I obviously don't support technical flaws, the game runs fine and is quite enjoyable. If poor performance means that we would no longer have things like Dragon's Dogma, The Evil Within, The Souls series, and endless others, then I guess I'd rather have them than not. It's not like they're filled with game-breaking bugs. Anyway, that's just me. In a perfect world there would be no tradeoffs being made.
Most stuff from Japan has quirks, though, for some reason. Maybe inexperienced developers due to lack of demand in Japan? Idk.
ChoklitCow
Member
I'm definitely getting the feeling this title was forced to come out in October and they had to scramble to put it together. Between the optimization discussed in this thread, and the common problems shared within reviews (moments of brilliance followed by things that feel slapped together, strange mechanics, stealth/combat issues) it just seems likely.
...jesus christ
D
Deleted member 17706
Unconfirmed Member
The inability to easily break 60 and stay there on powerful hardware is quite ridiculous, but I find that the port seems to be decent otherwise. Most importantly, the framerate seems pretty *stable* for wherever you are. It's not having wild jumps and dips like occurs in some games. I'm using the following system and, in the first three chapters at least, I'm probably hovering around 40 - 50fps or better the majority of the time.
i5 2500k @ 4.2ghz
16GB DDR3 1600mhz RAM
Radeon 7970 3GB
i5 2500k @ 4.2ghz
16GB DDR3 1600mhz RAM
Radeon 7970 3GB
D
Deleted member 17706
Unconfirmed Member
Honestly? Yeah. id Tech 5 has been nothing but a goddamned mess on PC, even with the original RAGE that was developed by id themselves. I feel that it is a very bad engine, as we have no examples of a good implementation.
Take that engine and hand it over to a Japanese developer for their first game a company, have them implement their own lighting solution, and then pass whatever code they worked onto to some unknown third party port house to do the PC version, and I honestly expected a complete disaster with this port. It leaves a lot to be desired, but complete disaster it is not.
Demon Lizardman
Banned
My newly build $2000 PC does not have 4 gigabytes of fucking dedicated RAM.
Didn't Rage just have a bumpy beginning? It didn't have any long-standing issues, did it?
Should've researched more before dropping $2000 on a computer, man. The next generation of hardware has been on its way.
Fahrenheit
Banned
Ehhh might keep this in my backlog till them patches come. Got Aliens and Forza to play anyways
Demon Lizardman
Banned
I do agree with it being my fault for buying the parts late July, but cmon, I looked at my specs and my PC can play, Ryse, Dragon Age Inquisition, Alien isolation and Project cars just fine. Why is it this game that requires more?
How is that even possible?
D
Deleted member 17706
Unconfirmed Member
No idea if they ever got around to fixing it. I only played it at launch and it was initially pretty much unplayable with the texture pop-in, but they improved it a bit. It was still garbage on any system with less than 2GB VRAM.
He's gotta mean VRAM... I imagine.
Prophet Steve
Member
I don't think that is the reason of this.
Also it doesn't sound like you picked your parts too well.
EDIT: You can play the game perfectly fine.
Demon Lizardman
Banned
I got this
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814202103
I also got recommendations from the PC thread and posted my parts and didn't purchase them until everyone said they were fine. Granted, the time between then and now may have been different because there may have been new parts introduced. Maybe picking AMD was a bad choice.
Prophet Steve
Member
But...it has 4GB of VRAM.
Demon Lizardman
Banned
Then why does that Can you run it site say that I only have 3.1 gigabytes of vram? But you are right, it does say 4 gigabytes, maybe the site is lying to me. At least I can do the minimum requirements.
lol
In your start menu, under "search programs and files" type "dxdiag" and hit enter. Under the "display" tab, see how much memory you have.
Mobius and pet octopus
Member
The evil within is easily the worst optimized game for the visuals it has that I have ever played.
Even worse is that the graphics options they do include with the game are bare bones. On top of the fact that they force a "cinematic" aspect ratio with an incredibly small FOV. There are hacks to change that, and well that is a sad thing to require tbh, but it surely isn't helping performance.
I think the worst thing in the deal is that by chapter 3 I really want to continue playing the game, but the performance has made me uninstall.
Maybe they'll get some optimization patches out, and I'll try again after that.
Even worse is that the graphics options they do include with the game are bare bones. On top of the fact that they force a "cinematic" aspect ratio with an incredibly small FOV. There are hacks to change that, and well that is a sad thing to require tbh, but it surely isn't helping performance.
I think the worst thing in the deal is that by chapter 3 I really want to continue playing the game, but the performance has made me uninstall.
Maybe they'll get some optimization patches out, and I'll try again after that.
idTech 5 itself is not a terrible engine in an ideal world, it just seems to not scale very well with less than ideal development environment and platforms.
From the Intro PDF of the Rage Tool Kit:
Second comes the OpenGL renderer, which at the time of Rage's release had decent/pathetic support from both GPU vendors (one considerably worse than the other). Again, the engine would've not given so many problems if on the ideal situation good OpenGL support was far more common. Now I'm hearing that this game has a DX11 renderer, while on the same year Wolfenstein used the OpenGL one? I'm not really expecting the best kind of transition there.
I'm pretty much speculating here from the info available and would appreciate any corrections if possible.
From the Intro PDF of the Rage Tool Kit:
So now you have an engine that does not lend itself well to developers that rely on lots of iteration nor have the resources to speed up these building times. It's not an exactly uncommon thing with so many engines baking GI nowadays, but it does seem more intensive than others due to having to rebuild the mega-textures. Who do you think iterate less, the developers experienced with the engine or the ones learning how to use it?
Second comes the OpenGL renderer, which at the time of Rage's release had decent/pathetic support from both GPU vendors (one considerably worse than the other). Again, the engine would've not given so many problems if on the ideal situation good OpenGL support was far more common. Now I'm hearing that this game has a DX11 renderer, while on the same year Wolfenstein used the OpenGL one? I'm not really expecting the best kind of transition there.
I'm pretty much speculating here from the info available and would appreciate any corrections if possible.
Prophet Steve
Member
...Don't use that website.
And you didn't just reach the minimum requirements, the 4GB of VRAM is for "an optimal experience". You'll be able to run it on the highest settings easily.
Demon Lizardman
Banned
It says 4 gigabytes of ram, so why the hell does that site say I don't have that?
Dream Wanderer
Neo Member
Sounds like you spent you money horribly if with 2000$ of new pc you don't have a gpu with at least 4GB of vram.
Edit: it seems that you have 4gb of vram afterall
Ummm... Frames affect gameplay for me.
Demon Lizardman
Banned
Well, all I have to say is that this game seems incredibly disorganized when the developers were porting this to the PC.
pixel monkey
Banned
It seems more than a little odd that if this is the IdTech 5 engine, which even a decent rig destroys at 60 fps... we can't even hit 60?
The question then becomes why? This has to be on the developers, no?
The question then becomes why? This has to be on the developers, no?