Support NeoGAF

[QueenOfThorns]

Yes it is, it's far too difficult a game for gamers(including most of this website, and reviewers) who are used to spoon-feed gaming from titles like the last of us, and uncharted, and journey to be appreciated. Not surprising really...

It's not particularly hard though? I mean, the only "difficulty" thing that annoyed me was if I died having to collect all those items again for ten minutes before getting to where I was, which isn't really hard, just tedious.

 

[RSB]

nah, if any game was underrated last year, it was Alien Isolation. That game was great!!!

Agreed. I finished Alien Isolation two days ago an it was amazing. TEW was underrated too, but not as much as Alien, IMO.

 

[miksar]

Gamers: "We're tired of handholding in video games".

The Evil Within is released. It is reasonably difficult and requires you to figure out several things by yourself.

Gamers: "It's too old-fashioned".

 

[Fimbulvetr]

I was seriously disappointed by it. I has essentially no resemblance to the old school Resident Evil games, and as an action game it is not at all on par with RE4. I wrote in detail about my thoughts on its core gameplay in the official thread, and I think I'll re-post those here, to see if I can get some interesting conversation going. Pardon the size, but if you're invested in the game mechanically it might be worthwhile to read.

To start, let's establish what the basic paradigms of combat in this game are. Most enemies need to be at point blank range to damage you, and your primary means of offense is ranged weaponry. You are mobile, but enemies are comparably so, even superior at times. You can attack at range while on the move, but the aim bloom mechanic discourages this very strongly, making you want to stay in place as you attack. It's a direct extension of the style introduced in Resident Evil 4. I know everyone who's played both games (and probably even those that haven't) can grasp this intuitively, but I want to outline the specifics of this style for overall clarity and to be able to directly and specifically compare the two games. I feel comparing them directly is fair because of those core mechanical similarities.

Now let's talk about how TEW violates the foundational rules of RE4's systems. Let's start with the player's side of things. I said that most enemies need to be at point blank range to deal damage, so let's look at what happens just before that, when an enemy is very close. This is possibly the single most important "mechanic-moment" in a game of this style; it's where tension is at its highest, where the enemy's basic approach-->attack loop ends before starting again, and where risk is at maximum. This is where player countermeasures are most important.

In RE4 there were multiple countermeasures one could use, from simple repositioning, to hitting weakpoints to make enemies temporarily helpless and initiate a counterattack, to baiting attacks and then countering by manipulating the enemies' predictable attack ranges, and others. Similar games like Dead Space introduced new countermeasure options, like dedicated dodge maneuvers and projectiles that slow enemies down. The Evil Within has... virtually nothing. In fact, its highly constricted field of view while shooting intentionally makes hitting enemies at point blank range exceptionally difficult, especially if they approach from the blind spot on your left. This effectively punishes you for allowing enemies within this range even before the actual punishment, damage, occurs. There are three decently effective defensive options I've found: use a specialized crossbow bolt, use the shotgun, and sprint in the opposite direction of the enemy. The first is subject to your preparedness for scenarios that you can't foresee if you're playing the game for the first time, and probably won't foresee in replays unless you're obsessive about noting the details of each encounter. The second is actually fairly good, since the shotgun's damage increases up close, its spread allows it to hit multiple enemies and it can knock them down, allowing you to burn them, but it's subject to ammo scarcity, and enemies are much more comfortable with approaching on your flank than they are in RE4, which can often render this form of defense moot. The third is the big exception to player and enemy movement's rough equivalence, and where the game's combat becomes outright comical. If your stamina is high enough, kiting enemies around the edges of the arena while taking potshots becomes a very effective strategy that completely disengages you from the core tension that up-close enemy encounter design is meant to create. Even with lower stamina, this is an effective tactic because Sebastian's top speed is faster than any standard enemy's by a significant amount (this also turns stealth scenarios with standard enemies into weird comical affairs, but we're talking about combat here). The game's level design is also poorly made to accommodate this speed of movement, try sprinting around an arena without accidentally bumping into any obstacles, it's near impossible in many cases. Still, it appears that bursts of awkward kiting are the game's intended defense mechanism. Being forced to stand your ground against approaching enemies that deal damage when they reach you, and being given strong and nuanced options to do so is the innermost core of RE4, and it's a core that's entirely missing in TEW despite the game's insistence on imitating RE4's broader paradigms.

The other half of the basic combat equation is enemy behavior. This has a strong impact on the success of the core, but is a separate aspect of design. Again, most enemies must close the distance between themselves and the player to deal damage, and in this style of game the speed with which that distance is closed is fundamental to the game's balance. In RE4, enemies would move at top speed, comparable to the player's average speed (no one ever walked in RE4), until they reached a certain distance from the player, at which they'd slow down drastically. This piece of design, which if you look at it superficially and apply the rules of the real world to it seems unnatural, is actually the lynchpin of the entire combat system as far as standard enemies go. TEW seems to look at this idea, crumple it up like used tissue paper and throw it out the window. Enemies using attacks that rush at the player at a top speed comparable to the player's average speed is practically the norm. In RE4, a standard enemy had only a single attack that could cause them to travel long distances quickly, and it could only be used if the enemy wasn't holding a weapon. In TEW, this type of attack is absolutely commonplace, and can be initiated regardless of weaponry. The careful balance is shattered.

Having so many attacks that close distance quickly wouldn't be so bad if their usage was predictable. In RE4, the zones for triggering enemy attacks were usually well defined, making the execution of their attacks predictable and exploitable. In TEW, enemies trigger attacks wildly and unpredictably, leading to utter chaos. It seems that the basic design goal for TEW's enemies was to make them act very naturally/unpredictably (I think the two terms are fairly interchangeable from a game design standpoint). The theory was probably that this would create a horror experience that was potent and also distinct from RE4. Unfortunately, broad unpredictability is bad game design (you could even say it isn't design at all), and they stuck to a great deal of RE4's design anyway, contradicting their second big goal.

The last thing I'll point out, still in the realm of enemy design, is how enemies track the player as they attack. In RE4, the moment an enemy begins an attack, the direction of that attack is set and the enemy cannot follow further player movements. This is not the case in TEW, enemies are fully capable of tracking the player as they attack. This is less important in TEW than in RE4, since outmaneuvering enemies at close range is de-emphasized as I outlined earlier, but it deserves to be mentioned as another significant piece of sloppy design, again probably in the pursuit of naturalism in the actions of enemies. I believe this entire approach was misguided.

I've been debating with myself what exactly constitutes the core of the combat system in a game of this style, and I think these points cover it fairly well. This isn't all I'd like to say, not by a longshot. I have so many other specific complaints that it'd probably make your head spin, but this stuff is what's most important and it's taken so much effort to write out already. I would like to say that there are parts of the game I enjoy quite a lot, mostly those where the core combat is only loosely integrated into a broader structure. I just can't abide the fundamental flaws silently coming from people I had such high expectations of. I hope I've made my point convincingly, and that what I've written will create some good discussion. Thanks for reading.

 

[Animator]

Yes it is, it's far too difficult a game for gamers(including most of this website, and reviewers) who are used to spoon-feed gaming from titles like the last of us, and uncharted, and journey to be appreciated. Not surprising really...

hahaha

I love these smug posts. It is the hipster Jon Snow post of Neogaf.

 

[BackBackPunch]

Well for one, story and voice acting aren't really factors in what I consider 'interesting and fun'. Maybe these things are important for you to be able to enjoy a game, but as somebody who grew up playing games that never had any voice acting whatsoever and where story was just there to put a general context to your actions, these things have very little bearing on how much I enjoy a game, much less how 'interesting and fun' I actually find it to play.

As for calling it a trial and error instadeath-athon, well, that's a massive exaggeration and a sign this probably wont be a terribly reasoned conversation, but lets just say that the wide variety of effective and satisfying weapons and tactics available to you, along with a nice variety of enemies(something I felt was very lacking in TLOU) and enemy encounters, made for a very thrilling gameplay experience. And it was scarier than TLOU, which is a positive in my book.

And in terms of performance, I played it at an enjoyable 60fps. I had no problem there, though I know it did suck on consoles.


No, I'm not. :/

Its crazy how some people just make up things in their mind to dismiss opinions they don't like to hear.

The enemies all seem the same to me. Meandering, uninteresting zombies with basic AI routines to wander around until triggered to go after you. The bosses are more of the same. Maybe it changes further into the game, but so far I'm seeing nothing interesting or dynamic.

But hey, if you enjoyed it, great. Just not my cup o' tea.

 

[AHA-Lambda]

Gamers: "We're tired of handholding in video games".

The Evil Within is released. It is reasonably difficult and requires you to figure out several things by yourself.

Gamers: "It's too old-fashioned".

I would agree actually. I understand that if you wanted something harkening back to old school Resi you would be disappointed, as it's closer to Resi 4 than 1-3 (but Destiny ain't anywhere close to what was promised and that's somehow ok with lots of people >_>)

I don't understand why it didn't get a better overall reception, it's a challenging survival action game that stands out on its own. I will admit that the storytelling is guff though and some had tech issues, but my experience on PC was fine.

 

[leng jai]

Gamers: "We're tired of handholding in video games".

The Evil Within is released. It is reasonably difficult and requires you to figure out several things by yourself.

Gamers: "It's too old-fashioned".

I'm sure it's the exact same people in both instances...

 

[antitrop]

It was one of my favorite games of last year, but I don't really think so. I think it was always set to review fairly middling, due to the high difficulty.

You have people like Jim Sterling and Patrick Klepek that are so stubborn, they refuse to learn how to play the game properly, and then give it low scores. Angry Joe couldn't even get past the 3rd fucking chapter. Embarrassing.

My favorite thing about Klepek's review was him ranting like an idiot about the supposed lack of a tutorial that he simply failed to pay attention to.

 

[User 479360]

I would say that it's Never Alone, which is a really cool little game. Not perfect by any means, due to some confusing gameplay decisions and some bugs, but memorable.

I'm not a huge TEW fan. I was looking forwarded to it, but didn't like the E3 demo much and was disappointed by what I played at release.

I need to restart it and play through it all, though. I admittedly didn't play a lot.

 

[jonezer4]

It's not even the most underrated survival horror game.

Spoiler

ZombiU

 

[To Far Away Times]

Most underrated for me would be Kid Icarus Uprising.

Unique gameplay with lots of depth. Fantastic single player and competitive multiplayer. Excellent writing and dialogue, absurdly good presentation and polish. Lots of stuff to do and collect, you could pretty much play it forever.

It's got it all.

 

[Terareflection]

Pretty divisive, but negative leaning thread. I have been wanting to try it because it seems like a game that I would like. It does look like a game you have to play on your own to see if you like it, but the PC version is pretty much a requirement, and I am a console gamer.

Well this a bit of a quandary.

You think the DLC would improve the performance?

 

[DedValve]

Well it's certainly the second most divisive other than Destiny.

People who knows how to play survival horror games generally love it, people who don't well... Don't.

I really hate broad examples like this because they are never true.

Someone like me who has played a ton of horror games it being my favorite type of games to play did not enjoy Evil Within that much at all. At this point I either stop playing or put it on easy and hopefully cruise by just to see the ending (on ch 11 currently) .

I found Alien to be far better executed for the most part until it decides to jump the shark in the last 5 hours with needless fetch quests. That said I'm on my second playthrough of Isolation and I'm adoring it even if I have a much better handling of the Alien now, Sevastapol is so big there are places I never even knew existed (the critical care room is perhaps one of the coolest looking rooms in that entire game).

I feel like dropping my money on the season pass to play the survival maps.

I just found TEW to be...meh. Its good but theres too much bad there (tech wise, black bars and general "feel" of the shooting, daytime levels). I honestly wish I had a good pc to play it as I'm sure I would have been more fond of it. But I'm just not feeling it and thats just my personal opinion.

 

[AHA-Lambda]

It was one of my favorite games of last year, but I don't really think so. I think it was always set to review fairly middling, due to the high difficulty.

You have people like Jim Sterling and Patrick Klepek that are so stubborn, they refuse to learn how to play the game properly, and then give it low scores. Angry Joe couldn't even get past the 3rd fucking chapter. Embarrassing.

I didn't realise this and that's heartbreaking as I respect each of those.
I only felt there were 2 chapters at most that were unbalanced and felt cheap. God damn it >_>

 

[antitrop]

I didn't realise this and that's heartbreaking as I respect each of those.
I only felt there were 2 chapters at most that were unbalanced and felt cheap. God damn it >_>

Klepek didn't understand how to use Matches, so I politely explained it to him over Twitter, very clearly, and after that he was just being intentionally dense and pretending like he was too stupid to understand a simple game mechanic.

 

[Creamium]

Klepek didn't understand how to use Matches, so I politely explained it to him over Twitter, very clearly, and after that he was just being intentionally dense and pretending like he was too stupid to understand a simple game mechanic.

What was his complaint specifically, because I don't see what's so complicated or weird about the matches.

 

[dmr87]

My guess is that people that played the pc version had a MUCH better experience than the ones who played the PS4/XONE versions.

No doubt there.

 

[Crimsonclaw111]

I personally loved it and it ranks highly on my year end list.

I could never play the console versions but the Pc version with tweaks is fantastic.

 

[AHA-Lambda]

What was his complaint specifically, because I don't see what's so complicated or weird about the matches.

Yeah, this?
It's really not difficult at all and he plays plenty of horror games

 

[swazzyswess]

Yes it is, it's far too difficult a game for gamers(including most of this website, and reviewers) who are used to spoon-feed gaming from titles like the last of us, and uncharted, and journey to be appreciated. Not surprising really...

The Last of Us on hard is a much, much harder game than TEW on hard. it's just that you aren't constantly fighting poor controls and terrible FOV in TLOU.

Akuma might be harder than Grounded mode, but I don't think that's the comparison people who didn't like TEW are making.

 

[SpokkX]

The framerate on ps4 says no

 

[Haluko]

I don't think its underrated at all. I forced my self to beat it, and it was my least favorite game I played in about a year. I love horror games, but TEW is a mess. It has some nice highs but way more lows. Im all for hard games, I love them. I found it more annoying than hard.

Underrated? Alien isolation, that game was friggin amazing. It was just too long and they should have edited them game down more to about 10-12 hours.

Best part of the evil within was beating so I could delete it and never play it again.

 

[Pilgrimzero]

Klepek didn't understand how to use Matches, so I politely explained it to him over Twitter, very clearly, and after that he was just being intentionally dense and pretending like he was too stupid to understand a simple game mechanic.

To be fair the game doesn't explain the match thing very well. I related it to Res Evil Remake where you burn a body so it doesn't get back up.

As opposed to, TEW system where you shoot them in the legs so they collapse then set them on fire to end the fight faster.

 

[popyea]

I think it gets a bad rap for things that aren't particularly important. Little things that people latched onto and cite as though they're the reason the game is bad. But I think the main reason the game is disappointing is that all the good ideas the game has don't gel together to make a cohesive and satisfying whole. They never stick to an idea long enough to elaborate on it, and you're instead encountering new concepts that don't tie into any past or future ones. It feels a lot like a new studio trying to find their feet.

 

[antitrop]

What was his complaint specifically, because I don't see what's so complicated or weird about the matches.

He said that he didn't understand what the Matches were for, so I explained to him that they're essentially used to turn corpses into splash damage traps, or a quick way to finish a downed enemy that is still alive, rather than the way Resident Evil Remake uses the Lighter. He didn't get it.

 

[Soule]

This is the last game that I finished. Really enjoyed it

 

[fantomena]

No.

I found it overall medicore-good.

Story was shit, lots of technical hiccups, dumb dialogues and a shitload of running and shootiing.

I played through it and enjoyed it, but it was not very great.

It's kinda difficulty to explain, but it was fun and enjoyable enough to play though, but not great.

 

[Relaxed Muscle]

He said that he didn't understand what the Matches were for, so I explained to him that they're essentially used as splash damage traps, rather than their usage in Resident Evil Remake. He didn't get it.

At first I thought that was their use, then I burned a few enemies using one corpse and a match and quickly "cliked". I wonder if is an effect of braindead design so common these days on gaming that unless is perfectly explained to players is just bad design or bad gameplay.

 

[Mugatu]

I didn't think it was overrated at all.

 

[VaultBoy101]

Evil Within is better than the Last of Us.

Where's that Jennifer Lawrence "ok, sure" gif, I know I left it lying around here somewhere.

 

[antitrop]

Evil Within is better than the Last of Us.

Evil Within has a better upgrade system, but that's about the only thing I can think of that it does better.

RE4 > TLoU >> TEW

 

[SargerusBR]

Evil Within has a better upgrade system, but that's about the only thing I can think of that it does better.

TEW does horror better than TLOU. TLOU scary factor was next to zero.

 

[Seanspeed]

TEW does horror better than TLOU. TLOU scary factor was next to zero.

TLOU was reasonably scary at times, I think. But yes, TEW does it much better.

 

[swazzyswess]

TLOU was reasonably scary at times, I think. But yes, TEW does it much better.

The hotel basement in TLOU made my heart beat faster than anything in TEW.

But the TEW was consistently more scary, I'll give it that. Then again, I'd hope so for a game marketed as pure survival horror.

 

[Tain]

Evil Within is better than the Last of Us.

It is.

Combining the best of both would be one hell of a game, though.

 

[swazzyswess]

"Most underrated" is not something I'm gonna fuck with, but it is unquestionably an excellent action game.

"Unquestionably"? Taking into account a decent number of reviews and the opinions of many who played it, yes, its excellence is indeed questionable. There's no such thing as an "unquestionably" excellent game, and if there was, it sure as hell wouldn't be TEW.

 

[AHA-Lambda]

Evil Within is better than the Last of Us.

I'll take that tbh, I think TLOU is one of the most overrated games I've ever played.

 

[antitrop]

TLOU scary factor was next to zero.

I thought the same of TEW. Actually, I think Clickers from TLoU are scarier than anything you can find in The Evil Within, 'cept maybe Laura. But she's a bit too try-hard, for my tastes. They tried so hard to make the ultimate monster, that she comes off as a bit comically exaggerated. So I found her more amusing than terrifying.

Also, TLoU's Hotel Basement alone tops any "horror" setpiece from TEW.

I don't think TLoU is a particularly scary game at all, I just think TEW is actually even less scary. RE4 is much, much scarier than either of them, and it's the least scary classic RE.

 

[Beast780]

My vote would be for Donkey Kong Tropical Freeze!

 

[Wolvesinthebathroom]

Spoiler

ive been stuck at the squid boss in chapter 14 for like three days now and I'm about to never play it again.

The dialogue is so bad in TEW.

 

[Bodom78]

I wouldn't say underrated. Seems to have done alright despite it's technical and gameplay flaws. Loved by some and hated by others.

I'm on Chapter 10 and man it's hard, but I'm enjoying it so far. I try to do a level a week as it's a bit too stressful a game for me to play for long stretches.

 

[tookhster]

I wouldn't say underrated, but definitely underappreciated for what it does do right IMO. First of all, the game looked beautiful, and I thought it was gonna look like shit when we got PS2 level screenshots and trailers handed to us. It actually felt like a current gen game as soon as I took control and walked into the hospital.

I was not a fan of the story, but I loved the details in the gameplay, like how you could blow a hole into an enemy's face so you couldn't just headshot them again, or how some enemies wore masks. I also liked the frequent change in environments, and how some chapters were very linear while others were much more open world-ish. The game definitely has some flaws but I still thought it was a quality game, and most of the reasons I see it get criticized for are lame. Black bars being a game-breaker? Come on.

 

[gelf]

Underrated or not it was my fave game of last year...once I got it to work on my PC at least. I had a great time, the encounters were really hectic and stressful and I love the atmosphere and the variety of locations. If the plot had to be a bit of a mess to justify all those locations then thats fine by me.

I didn't have many issues with the gameplay at all. I don't really understand how people found it so janky. Comparatively a zombie game I played soon after EW was The Last of Us Remastered, I actually had more problems playing that. And overall liked it far less, it had a better plot certainly, the rest I'd give to EW.

 

[DukeBobby]

TEW does horror better than TLOU. TLOU scary factor was next to zero.

The Evil Within's scare factor is next to zero, too. It has buckets of atmosphere and great enemy design, but it's not scary at all, in my opinion.

Hell, I think Dying Light has scared me more than The Evil Within.

 

[Tidus_Great]

Evil Within is better than the Last of Us.

It's certainly more fun to play.

Last of Us wins because of the high quality story/characters.

 

[antitrop]

The Evil Within's scare factor is next to zero, too. It has buckets of atmosphere and great enemy design, but it's not scary at all, in my opinion.

Hell, I think Dying Light has scared me more than The Evil Within.

Unquestionably. By orders of magnitude has Dying Light made me jump more than The Evil Within.

Seeing one of those exploding fuckers in a tight passageway is a moment of sheer panic and terror that The Evil Within can't even pretend to offer.

 

[TrouzzzerSnake]

He said that he didn't understand what the Matches were for, so I explained to him that they're essentially used to turn corpses into splash damage traps, or a quick way to finish a downed enemy that is still alive, rather than the way Resident Evil Remake uses the Lighter. He didn't get it.

I haven't played the game - just want to throw that out there right away.

I see a post or two saying the game doesn't make the quoted bit clear, and I see your post saying throw them on corpses to light 'em up.

Just throwing out a piece of real life here...

If for any reason the game does not make abundantly clear that a corpse does not light on fire immediately when a match is dropped on it, no friggin real world person would assume that. There is a reason you see everyone light a cigarette with a lighter - it's not because of frequent use.

A standard match head blows out extremely quickly from any wind whatsoever. Anecdotally, it also takes several more seconds to light that a lighter with the gas-rate turned up trying to ignite the same material. Coupled with an extremely short life of just under 10s with a long wood-bodied match (which is the hardest to keep lit, and that's why you see a prevalence of paper-based bodies), it is hard as fack to light anything but dried brush... certainly not conventional fire-retardant clothing or rotting skin, unless they were decayed to a point where they were exuding so much gaseous waste they basically lit themselves on fire - and if they were decayed to that point, the motor ligaments, tendons, and muscles in their bodies certainly wouldn't be of a functioning capability to animate them.

So it better have made it damn clear for anyone who has ever lit a match outside of a vidja game.

 

[swazzyswess]

It's certainly more fun to play.

Last of Us wins because of the high quality story/characters.

Eh... TLOU's gameplay is much tighter and satisfying. Imagine playing TEW in a competitive mode. It'd be godawful. TEW did have sections obviously designed to be more fun though, like chapter 12 (even though I thought that chapter was one of the worst in the game). Those headshots are arcade-y good fun though.

RE: TEW's scariness. I thought even the scariest moments were undermined by the fact that Sebastian runs like he has to take a massive dump and is racing to the nearest bathroom.

 

[Naughty_Doge]

Yes it is, it's far too difficult a game for gamers(including most of this website, and reviewers) who are used to spoon-feed gaming from titles like the last of us, and uncharted, and journey to be appreciated. Not surprising really...

Lol, these posts always give me a good chuckle.