Support NeoGAF

[Freeman]

The industry has a far bigger problem with people pissing on a teams years of work just because certain numbers arent met, and dismissing the game before theyve played a frame (Im not implying that youve not played but I swear to god many wont have bothered before jumping on the fraaaaaaames bandwagon.

Clear gold standard? Because a game does or doesnt hit frames? Your argument is two steps away from 'Trust me Im an expert'.

Its 2014 not 1994, a minimum solid 30fps is a requirement at this point, specially for a game that isn't pushing anything we've never seen before.

Incredibly well said.

I am playing it on the PS4.
Sure, I notice the occasional frame rate drops. I also no doubt noticed the horrid performance of the frame rate in the opening scene, especially when they first get out of the cop car and are outside in the rain, however once I got past that opening scene, I really just notice the occasional drop, and it has by no means detracted from the overall experience in such an impactful way that I can no longer play the game.

Do I prefer it ran at a constant 30 FPS? No, actually I prefer it ran at a constant 60 FPS.
But I am not going to let it outright stop me from playing the game.

I look at it like this.
Some movies that are released, the CGI is incredible yet the acting and story are awful.
Other movies, the story is fantastic, but the CGI is truly awful.
I enjoy them both for what they bring to the medium.

So this is a game that was created by a team who has an amazing premise and a kick ass vision but were not the most adept from a technical standpoint.
It is what it is.
I am still going to enjoy their vision either way.

You movie analogy shouldn't be about special effects, but IQ.

I don't pay to go to the movies to watch a poorly projected movie in 2014, there is a minimal standard of quality for everything.

Even independent movie will easily meet the minimum requirement of actually working.

 

[Head.spawn]

I feel like developers should send early builds to these guys to find graphical bugs for them ahead of release.

Either way, fluttery framerate aside I am very much enjoying the game. The issue they're talking about on Xbox One was completely random feeling to me, like more of some kind of bug as opposed to a performance thing because it wasn't consistent.

 

[Durante]

What goal post? The game doesn't run well without it seems a 700, or high 600 card. ANd let's not forget they didn't even mention AMD?

Since the consoles can't even maintain 30 FPS, anything which runs above 30 FPS minimum is clearly superior. Keeping that in mind, and perusing this chart:

We see that you really don't need anything remotely like a "monster" PC to get an experience which is clearly superior to the console one. Sub-€150 cards manage just fine.

 

[The Elite]

Doesnt sound that good Damn it!

- I wanted to buy Driveclub but EVO fucked up
- I wanted to buy Destiny well, we all know that ''story''
- I wanted to buy Evil Within but it couldn't deliver the hype

Damn it...I will stop wanting games and be surprised by sleeping hits

Have you actually played any of these games to see for yourself?

DriveClub is a fun game. There is no excusing the server fuckups though but when it's all up and running it should be a great experience.

I had my reservations with Destiny at first. The lack of a decent story really bothered me but the game has managed to get its hooks into me with strikes, events and multiplayer fun.

I'm on the fence with Evil Within but actually reading the Evil Within thread gives me hope that the game is a lot better than its technical shortcomings.

I don't think I've played a great game this generation but I've had a lot of good experiences.

 

[CentroXer]

Machinegames are wizards compared to these guys.

 

[Grief.exe]

Since the consoles can't even maintain 30 FPS, anything which runs above 30 FPS minimum is clearly superior. Keeping that in mind, and perusing this chart:

We see that you really don't need anything remotely like a "monster" PC to get an experience which is clearly superior to the console one. Sub-€150 cards manage just fine.

560 ti???

 

[CapitalismSucks DonkeyBalls]

Id tech 5 was really a shit engine. Looks like no one can make it work even at 30 fps

That's the thing. I would imagine it's difficult to get an engine that is designed to run at 60fps, run at 30fps for "cinematic reasons."

If Tango had simply left TEW running at 60, I doubt we'd be having these problems on consoles.

 

[Volcane]

My gaming laptop never seems to like idtech engine games, in that both Rage and Wolfenstein are barely playable and have lots of pop-in.

I assume Evil Within will be more of the same, so won't be buying it, unless dead cheap in Steam sales.

 

[Durante]

560 ti???

What about it?

 

[Deleted member 17706]

Legitimate criticism? Don't make me laugh, this is more like

Spoiler

bitching

.

You only feel that way because you like the game and don't want to hear negative things about it. The sooner you realize that, the more at peace with the world you will be.

Not being pleased with the performance for the visuals on offer is a completely legitimate criticism. The game is not such a technical marvel that its lackluster performance on all platforms is justified. Even if it were, dips into the low 20s when it comes to framerate will always negatively affect gameplay in a game that moves in real-time, and should always be criticized.

My gaming laptop never seems to like idtech engine games, in that both Rage and Wolfenstein are barely playable and have lots of pop-in.

I assume Evil Within will be more of the same, so won't be buying it, unless dead cheap in Steam sales.

No idea how it will run on your machine, but I'm getting far less texture pop-in in The Evil Within than I got in RAGE and Wolfenstein. Both of those games required a lot of tweaking and messing with ini/cfg file settings to get them to not be a pop-in mess.

 

[stn]

Screw it, I'm gonna get it for 360. Love third-person action and horror in general. Think I'm gonna pick up Shadows Of The Damned, too. Missed out on that when it released.

 

[Lernaean]

That's bad, and i'm really happy i went with the PC version.
The experience provided by this game (when it runs good) is great. It's a damn shame it's ruined by underperforming console builds.
I still blame the engine above everything.

 

[dark10x]

Since the consoles can't even maintain 30 FPS, anything which runs above 30 FPS minimum is clearly superior. Keeping that in mind, and perusing this chart:

We see that you really don't need anything remotely like a "monster" PC to get an experience which is clearly superior to the console one. Sub-€150 cards manage just fine.

Do you know which area they tested? That matters a great deal here as it's extremely variable on a per chapter basis. Chapter 1, for instance, is basically a locked 30 fps on ps4 (aside from the very first scene). It gets much worse even on PC (chapter 4 house for instance).

 

[GayForMaster]

You only feel that way because you like the game and don't want to hear negative things about it. The sooner you realize that, the more at peace with the world you will be.

Not being pleased with the performance for the visuals on offer is a completely legitimate criticism. The game is not such a technical marvel that its lackluster performance on all platforms is justified. Even if it were, dips into the low 20s when it comes to framerate will always negatively affect gameplay in a game that moves in real-time, and should always be criticized.

Yawn.

 

[JAYSIMPLE]

Pc version for me then

 

[Bl@de]

Do you know which area they tested? That matters a great deal here as it's extremely variable on a per chapter basis. Chapter 1, for instance, is basically a locked 30 fps on ps4 (aside from the very first scene). It gets much worse even on PC (chapter 4 house for instance).

Aaaaaand this game is cpu bound. Look at the monster they used. In the save room I get 67fps and my xeon runs into the cpu limit with the gtx 770 only at 85% load (1080p, max settings, smaa). Be aware of that. People with a 7870 don't usually have a overclocked 5960x ...

 

[Thrakier]

The industry has a far bigger problem with people pissing on a teams years of work just because certain numbers arent met, and dismissing the game before theyve played a frame (Im not implying that youve not played but I swear to god many wont have bothered before jumping on the fraaaaaaames bandwagon.

Clear gold standard? Because a game does or doesnt hit frames? Your argument is two steps away from 'Trust me Im an expert'.

Are you kidding me? "Not hitting certain numbers"? We are talking about framerate dude. Do you even know what that is? Do you know the concept of framerate, which other factors are tied to it and how it influences the gaming experience? Sorry, but you gotta be by far the worst "tech doesn't matter" dude I've witnessed on this board, and there are many of those.

 

[Durante]

Do you know which area they tested?

Sadly, I don't speak Russian (a fact I never had reason to regret until GameGPU showed up with their extremely timely and broad performance analysis of a very wide variety of games), so no.

That said, I don't think the answer can change much about the main thrust of my argument. If a 280X (which is a ~200€ GPU now) can maintain a minimum of 49 FPS in their benchmark, I very much doubt it will ever drop below console performance.

Aaaaaand this game is cpu bound. Look at the monster they used. In the save room I get 67fps and my xeon runs into the cpu limit with the gtx 770 only at 85% load (1080p, max settings, smaa). Be aware of that. People with a 7870 don't usually have a overclocked 5960x ...

My argument was not about 60 FPS or anything like that, it was about maintaining above console level performance. Again according to GameGPU's tests, you only need an i3 at stock for that.

 

[Deleted member 17706]

Yawn.

Wow...

Well, then. I guess you'll have it your way or no way. What a great way to behave in a place where discussion is the primary function.

 

[Bl@de]

.

My argument was not about 60 FPS or anything like that, it was about maintaining above console level performance. Again according to GameGPU's tests, you only need an i3 at stock for that.

Yeah it's not about the 60fps. Just wanted to people tell that (heavy cpu use of id tech 5 streaming in TEW) when they look at the gpu benches. And of course ... Most pcs will run it better than consoles ... As usual.

 

[Uno Venova]

Whatever, I don't find poor performance with this game that problematic, it's obvious this game is trying to do an homage to old school games that may not have been silky smooth, with a similar resolution.

 

[Tidus_Great]

technical mess, and the black bars are annoying. I hated them in movies and I hate them in games. I didn't buy a 40+ inch TV only to have a 1/3 of it covered with black bars.

 

[martino]

That's the thing. I would imagine it's difficult to get an engine that is designed to run at 60fps, run at 30fps for "cinematic reasons."

If Tango had simply left TEW running at 60, I doubt we'd be having these problems on consoles.

Joke post ?

How can console hope for 60 fps when framerate drops to low 20 ?

 

[Durante]

Yeah it's not about the 60fps. Just wanted to people tell that (heavy cpu use of id tech 5 streaming in TEW) when they look at the gpu benches. And of course ... Most pcs will run it better than consoles ... As usual.

It's a fair point, the game clearly is hardly technically ideal on any platform.

 

[Papacheeks]

Look, Papacheeks, I'm going to ask you a question and please be honest here: Are you actually interested in finding out which of the two versions you should buy or are you desperately trying to find some way, any way to claim that the PS4 version is better? Because it isn't. It really, absolutely isn't. It looks worse and runs worse. There's nothing you can do or say that is going to change that, it's out of your hands. So if you're a Playstation fan and you want to defend your favorite platform that's fine by me but please be honest about it and stop wasting my time because I was actually trying to help you decide.

Wow,

Dude I'm just saying the recommendation regardless of your preference, that digital Foundry decided you should get proves that the engine itself for console and PC was not optimized.

That's all I'm saying, I have a i5 2500k sandy (4.2ghz) 8gb of memory and a MSI OC 770 GTX.

I could buy it and play it if I wanted to but friends of mine who bought it on PC are also on the steam forums and they told me to gamefly it and wait for steam sale, because it has issues on PC. Regardless if image quality is better, and maybe higher frame rate is possible, the engine itself still has dips in certain levels and certain instances. Also has crashing issues depending on your Nvidia, and game settings for the game and your card.

I'm gameflying it rather than buying full price, if there's a incoming patch like Digital Foundry eludes too that fixes majority of the issues and he;lps optimize it then yes Im ready to buy it from where ever digitally gmg, steam, or whoever.

I was trying to show you that I was right about the game engine not being optimized, just like previous games that have come to PC from next gen consoles.

Like Dead Rising 3, Ryse, Shadows of mordor which seems to run ok, but graphically does not show the need for the amount of ram it uses on ultra, and does not show good usage of it.

I have no Bias. I was proving a point, that you called me out on. I say my opinion on which one to get is the PS4 since it seems it doesn't crash like pc does, and has mostly just frame rate issues, and maybe FOV if the bars are an annoyance to you.

 

[liquidtmd]

Are you kidding me? "Not hitting certain numbers"? We are talking about framerate dude. Do you even know what that is? Do you know the concept of framerate, which other factors are tied to it and how it influences the gaming experience? Sorry, but you gotta be by far the worst "tech doesn't matter" dude I've witnessed on this board, and there are many of those.

I will take your clear gold standard word for that.

 

[Soi-Fong]

Loving it on PC! Solid 30 fps everywhere with NO drops and to boot, down sampling from a glorious 3200 x 1800 resolution at maximum settings.

The PC version is good guys.

 

[Mr. Tibbs]

good it's a dead engine now.



Arkane Studios, Also owned by Zenimax used UE3 on Dishonored and got CryEngine 3 for their next game.

It's not. Arkane became a two project studio after Dishonored shipped. Most of the people who made Dishonored are in Lyon. The Austin studio has hired around 30 new team members this year. They are working on Crytek.

The Lyon studio will be using id tech 5 for Dishonored 2.

 

[Papacheeks]

Since the consoles can't even maintain 30 FPS, anything which runs above 30 FPS minimum is clearly superior. Keeping that in mind, and perusing this chart:

We see that you really don't need anything remotely like a "monster" PC to get an experience which is clearly superior to the console one. Sub-€150 cards manage just fine.

Well it looks like it proves my point by looking at the model of cards they tested on same with CPU. It get's shakey when you go below a 570 GTX. Frames seem to drop if you go below that, and their using high end components like a SSD, 16gb of ram and a high clocked I7.

I would like to see it run on standard regular Hard drive, 8gb of memory on a AMD quad-core, or i5 with a 560 and see how well it runs.

Even a 660 gtx.

 

[Dr Dogg]

Aaaaaand this game is cpu bound. Look at the monster they used. In the save room I get 67fps and my xeon runs into the cpu limit with the gtx 770 only at 85% load (1080p, max settings, smaa). Be aware of that. People with a 7870 don't usually have a overclocked 5960x ...

Yeeeeah about that.

If GameGPU's benches are to belived its not number of cores or clock speed that counts but architecture. An i3 Haswell beating out a 6 core X79 i7? Granted that's still at 1920x1080 so they're not really as good an indicator of CPU performance than a lower bunch of settings would have provided. PCGH should hopefully be doing some benches sometime soon so will be nice to compare them to and hopefully they'll be done under a more taxing situation.

 

[Durante]

Well it looks like it proves my point by looking at the model of cards they tested on same with CPU. It get's shakey when you go below a 570 GTX. Frames seem to drop if you go below that, and their using high end components like a SSD, 16gb of ram and a high clocked I7.

I would like to see it run on standard regular Hard drive, 8gb of memory on a AMD quad-core, or i5 with a 560 and see how well it runs.

Even a 660 gtx.

So your point is essentially that the PS4 performs better than a €140 GPU from 2012? If so, then I have no quarrel with that. In fact, all I can say to that is "duh".

 

[Hawk269]

Loving it on PC! Solid 30 fps everywhere with NO drops and to boot, down sampling from a glorious 3200 x 1800 resolution at maximum settings.

The PC version is good guys.

What is your CPU & GPU? I am at 4k, but just want to know if it will run good for me. I have a 3930k and a GTX Titan.

 

[El Sabroso]

This shows how game needs a lot of optimization on consoles

 

[Crimsonclaw111]

This shows how game needs a lot of optimization on consoles

Could use tons of polish on all systems, PC included.

What a shame.

 

[Deleted member 17706]

Whatever, I don't find poor performance with this game that problematic, it's obvious this game is trying to do an homage to old school games that may not have been silky smooth, with a similar resolution.

So you're saying that poor performance and low resolution was an artistic choice?

This is incredible.

 

[Soi-Fong]

What is your CPU & GPU? I am at 4k, but just want to know if it will run good for me. I have a 3930k and a GTX Titan.

I7 2600k 4.4 gHz + GTX 780 Ti Classified. Tried 4k, but I was getting to drops to 28 fps so I dropped to 3k.

 

[Papacheeks]

So your point is essentially that the PS4 performs better than a €140 GPU from 2012? If so, then I have no quarrel with that. In fact, all I can say to that is "duh".

No, what I',m saying is regardless of preference they even say in their analysis that the engine is not optimized.

With those specs they tested with I would hope it would be way better than the console counterpart.

But looking at the issues, people are having with the PC version with moderate setups it proves my point that if you dont want hassle go console, because looks like they are going to patch it. But if they patch both then I guess it doesn't matter.

At this time though you want to deal with the possibility of it crashing, not working at desired settings depending on your setup?

I don't, when I buy something I dont want to jump through hoops to get it to work, when it should out the box. I don't mind tweaking image settings to desired specs, but trouble shooting issues as simple as keeping it steady frame rate during cutscenes, or certain levels would piss me off.

As it has with couple games in the past like Far Cry 3.

 

[Papacheeks]

This shows how game needs a lot of optimization on consoles

Which is what I'v been trying to say this entire time to Alexandros and Durante

 

[NoirVisage]

Esoteric id Tech engine handed to a Japanese studio seems like a bad mix to me.

It worked well for Wolfenstein, though, and at least The Evil Within LOOKS really nice even if it runs poorly.


No. Retail units.

Try it again with your copy. I'd be surprised if you couldn't see it.

It may actually he the beginning of something awesome, they've had one game to work the kinks out, I can see them knocking it out of the park tech worse by their next game.

 

[StrongBlackVine]

There is really no excuse for this type of piss poor performance on current gen consoles. I don't regret buying it, but hopefully it won't impact my enjoyment of what otherwise seems to be a great game. Reading this will probably make the issues stand out more now...ignorance is bliss.

 

[StevieP]

But looking at the issues, people are having with the PC version with moderate setups it proves my point that if you don't want hassle go console, because looks like they are going to patch it.

What the hell am I reading?
I guess it's something like "if you don't mind inferior experiences so that the developer can control how the game plays for you, the console version is superior! And don't worry, they might patch it to be better."
(because patches only happen on consoles to make things better, I guess?)

You forgot to talk about the metal, btw.

 

[Hawk269]

I7 2600k 4.4 gHz + GTX 780 Ti Classified. Tried 4k, but I was getting to drops to 28 fps so I dropped to 3k.

My rig is SLI so that wont help me sustain a 30fps solid frame rate at 4k since it is idtech. Damn. I was hoping I could do it, but if your rig cant keep a solid 30fps and a 780ti Classified is just as good as a Titan, then I wont have a chance at 4k.

 

[Papacheeks]

What the hell am I reading?
I guess it's something like "if you don't mind inferior experiences so that the developer can control how the game plays for you, the console version is superior! And don't worry, they might patch it to be better."
(because patches only happen on consoles to make things better, I guess?)

You forgot to talk about the metal, btw.

I meant that you think the PC version is going to get patched before the console? If you don't want the crashing and the and what ever else problems there might be right now, go console as it will get patched first and seems to have mainly just frame rate issues.

PC has more issues than console because of the way the engine is using the hardware, and other variable that may rear their ugly heads.

 

[StevieP]

I meant that you think the PC version is going to get patched before the console?

Actually that's often what happens, due to cert delays on consoles.

 

[Papacheeks]

Actually that's often what happens, due to cert delays on consoles.

Really? Because day one console version of AC4 for PS4 was patched. And then I believe it got delayed for PC.

You think Call of Duty:Ghosts got patched first on PC?

When bread and butter is xbox and PlayStation for Activision.

You think Bethesda is looking to make the most money on PC? Then you are delusional, if I was a business man I would make sure the updates went out to closed platform first than a platform that is more open and has more variables to patch.

 

[shadowsdarknes]

I don't get it. Why in the world can't developers hit a solid 30 fps on these consoles?

 

[Papacheeks]

I don't get it. Why in the world can't developers hit a solid 30 fps on these consoles?

Their engines are not optimized. And the development kits are still not as mature as they could be.

 

[mullet2000]

I don't get it. Why in the world can't developers hit a solid 30 fps on these consoles?

What other developers? The Evil Within is by far the worst next-gen game of note in terms of framerate so far. Hell, way more games have been 60 FPS so far this generation than the past couple.

Just looking at my shelf 10/15 of my PS4 games are 60 FPS. Most of the others that aren't (Infamous, Assassin's Creed 4, Shadow of Mordor and Alien: Isolation) hold 30 FPS pretty damn well. The Evil Within is not even close to the norm on these consoles.

If you meant just the developers of The Evil Within specifically by your post then my bad, ignore the above. The reason is likely the game being incredibly unoptimized and their weird use of the iD Tech 5 engine.

 

[-tetsuo-]

Yawn.

Is this how you rebuttal being wrong? Bad performance is near the very top of the list of "valid things to complain about".

 

[Coulomb_Barrier]

I don't get it. Why in the world can't developers hit a solid 30 fps on these consoles?

Lots can. It's obviously possible.