Bethesda Reveals Minimum System Specs For The Evil Within

Status
Not open for further replies.

spdragoo

Splendid
Ambassador
So, let me get this straight: they're implying that the game is extremely CPU-intensive (because they're listing an i7 as both the recommended and minimum CPU equivalent)...but they're also implying that it's GPU-intensive (because even though 1GB of VRAM is the minimum, they "recommend" 4GB of VRAM in order to at least game at 1080p, if not higher, resolutions)?

I can only conclude that 1 of the following has happened:

1. Bethesda's programmers apparently don't know how to write code. We're talking about ported code, & consoles have inferior hardware (CPU/GPU-wise) compared to the specs they've listed for a PC version, so apparently their coders have managed to bloat the code beyond mainstream CPUs & GPUs simultaneously. Or,

2. Bethesda & the coders have focused all of their energies on creating the most whiz-bang graphics effects for a game...which, as history shows us, usually means a game with an extremely craptacular storyline, limited replayability, & laughable single-player campaign mode (assuming they even bothered with a single-player mode). Or,

3. The "minimum" and "recommended" specs were written by the marketing department, with no actual input from the coders working on the project, & they said, "Well, what are the absolute top-of-the-line CPUs & GPUs out there? OK, we'll say that's what you need for the game." Or,

4. For the true conspiracy theorists out there, Bethesda has signed a secret deal with nVidia, AMD & Intel, where Bethesda gets a "royalty" fee for implying that their product will require gamers to go out & upgrade their machines simultaneously with the latest & "greatest" hardware, thereby boosting nVidia, AMD & Intel's sales. Or,

5. A combination of two or more of items #1 - 4 previously mentioned.
 

alidan

Splendid
Aug 5, 2009
5,303
0
25,780
0
So, let me get this straight: they're implying that the game is extremely CPU-intensive (because they're listing an i7 as both the recommended and minimum CPU equivalent)...but they're also implying that it's GPU-intensive (because even though 1GB of VRAM is the minimum, they "recommend" 4GB of VRAM in order to at least game at 1080p, if not higher, resolutions)?

I can only conclude that 1 of the following has happened:

1. Bethesda's programmers apparently don't know how to write code. We're talking about ported code, & consoles have inferior hardware (CPU/GPU-wise) compared to the specs they've listed for a PC version, so apparently their coders have managed to bloat the code beyond mainstream CPUs & GPUs simultaneously. Or,

2. Bethesda & the coders have focused all of their energies on creating the most whiz-bang graphics effects for a game...which, as history shows us, usually means a game with an extremely craptacular storyline, limited replayability, & laughable single-player campaign mode (assuming they even bothered with a single-player mode). Or,

3. The "minimum" and "recommended" specs were written by the marketing department, with no actual input from the coders working on the project, & they said, "Well, what are the absolute top-of-the-line CPUs & GPUs out there? OK, we'll say that's what you need for the game." Or,

4. For the true conspiracy theorists out there, Bethesda has signed a secret deal with nVidia, AMD & Intel, where Bethesda gets a "royalty" fee for implying that their product will require gamers to go out & upgrade their machines simultaneously with the latest & "greatest" hardware, thereby boosting nVidia, AMD & Intel's sales. Or,

5. A combination of two or more of items #1 - 4 previously mentioned.
Somebody else had a very good theory for all of this, Bethesda just doesn't want to hear people complaining that their games play like crap on their system anymore. Just I don't hear the same crap over and over again that this game is in plain good enough they just list the specs is something stupidly high just so anyone playing with less can't complain, and in saying that they don't have to bug fix for performance.

Also you're looking at a survival horror game, this is one of the few genres that require you to have amazing graphics. I know you can look at old games and point to him and say this didn't require good graphics to be scary, but the gains at the lesser graphics don't hold up as well today is the one that had fantastic graphics. You want to build suspense and a horrendous visual narrative you need to have the graphics to back that up, sound can only get you so far.
 
If they think all gamers are going to run out and spend hundreds of dollars to be able to play this one game they are nuts. If it will play on my hardware great otherwise there are lots of other titles to play. I just won't buy this title.
 

spdragoo

Splendid
Ambassador
Good graphics, yes. But survival horror isn't FPS. The Doom series may have had a horror-style setting, but first & foremost it was an FPS game, & helped defined the FPS genre that lives on in non-horror series like Halo. Survival horror is about a good storyline: picking the right alley to run down to avoid a nasty monster vs. the dead-end alley that leaves you surrounded by flesh-eating zombies; finding a particular item that doesn't immediately seem to have any effect on the storyline, but 2 acts down the road you find out it's crucial to driving off a particular boss; creeping down a dark hallway when you start hearing "scritch-scritch" noises nearby, only to have a "OH, my HEART!!!!!" moments when your flashlight finally decides to start working just in time to shine full-force on a hideous Lovecraftian beast in its tentacled glory.

More than anything, good-to-great survival horror games need great stories, & a big focus on single-player or multi-player co-op campaigns instead of the usual "deathmatch/CTF/base defense" multiplayer modes. Given the choice between a game with stellar storyline but only so-so graphics, & a game with spectacular graphics but only a so-so story, I'll pick the better story any day.
 

Tzn

Honorable
Nov 4, 2013
694
0
11,060
47
Utter Bullshit, Mordor did the same and here i am with a G1620 a 4gb ram and a hd7750 running Mordor on 1080p high settings on 20fps with v-sync on and on medium with 30 fps locked.
 
50 GB.... there goes the empty space on everyone's SSD :). The I have a spare 256 Gb for gaming, (2 x 256 GB SSD + 2 x 2 Tb SSHD) I do find I prefer leaving games on the SSHD .... I don't have to worry about space and swapping locations and the SSHD adapts to which game is being played automatically resorting what gets on the SSHD and the mechanical portion of the drive.
 

turkey3_scratch

Polypheme
Ambassador


Woah wait you're telling me this is 50GB large! What has happened to modern games? The designers abuse the hardware and capacity of computers today. It's not the same as it was in the 90's when things were limited. I hope they have fun selling a game that needs an I7 and uses half someoen's SSD. I ain't giving them my money.

As for the game itself, a new zombie shooter, Soooooo original.

How freaking CPU itnensive can a zombie shooter be that an I7 is needed!!!!!
 

InvalidError

Titan
Moderator

Maybe they are simply leaving their musical, ambient, narrative, effects, etc. audio tracks in lossless PCM format because they are concerned that an i7 might be too slow to decode MP3/AAC on-the-fly or the first time they get loaded...
 

turkey3_scratch

Polypheme
Ambassador

lol
 

clueless77

Reputable
Jun 5, 2014
146
0
4,710
11
"4. For the true conspiracy theorists out there, Bethesda has signed a secret deal with nVidia, AMD & Intel, where Bethesda gets a "royalty" fee for implying that their product will require gamers to go out & upgrade their machines simultaneously with the latest & "greatest" hardware, thereby boosting nVidia, AMD & Intel's sales. Or,"

Maybe in this particular scenario this isn't necessarily the case, and it may be the case that GPU manufacturers never pay out royalties to the publishers that control the output of development studios, but planned obsolescence is not a conspiracy theory but a standard tactic within the tech industry. It's kind of like Microsoft not integrating support for DirectX 12 for Windows 7 or 8/8.1, or Apple not releasing new features through firmware updates on older products that are more than capable of supporting them but instead introducing an entirely new line of products one year later to make these features exclusive.

The most of the publishers maintain mutually beneficial arrangements with GPU manufacturers, so apart from the publishers pushing ports that are poorly optimized for PC hardware, I wouldn't categorize the above as necessarily a conspiracy theory which are almost always grounded in unsubstantiated speculation while bordering on the completely irrational. For all the advocacy for capitalism coming from most tech enthusiasts, the some of them don't seem to quite understand how it operates while putting too much good faith in it.
 

skit75

Splendid
... some of the scariest games I've played have 60% or more of the screen blackened out leaving me at the mercy of my wild imagination. That is a lot of horsepower for another game that looks to primarily take place in the dark. Those pesky black pixels.... so hard to render.
 

The3monitors

Honorable
Dec 9, 2013
151
0
10,710
16
This team (now that it's done with this game) better be put onto another game. Hmm lets see it might start with f and end with out. Thats right friends night out the only game you get to go kick the living crap out of stupid ass Bethesda executives for not making fallout 4 sooner. Rated pg x.
 

omnimodis78

Distinguished
Oct 7, 2008
886
0
19,010
9
Sorry but this is the most off the wall, insane system requirements I've seen in some time, perhaps ever. The game seems to look good, but not THAT good - I mean I get it if it needs a strong GPU and a good CPU, but in i7?! 4GB of vram?! That precludes a lot of solid, well built systems. Undoubtedly this is all about bad coding and porting.
 

InvalidError

Titan
Moderator

My bet is they are simply shooting for the moon to make people who were bugging them about system requirements shut up.

The real requirements are likely not finalized yet so they aimed high to avoid having to deal with people blaming them for having under-powered systems if final requirements end up higher than the real target.
 

crabdog

Distinguished
Sep 16, 2006
107
0
18,690
1
"According to Bethesda, gamers need Windows 7 or Windows 8.1, but the company doesn't state whether the OS needs to be 32-bit or 64-bit."

"As a recap, the recommended system requirements include a 64-bit version of Windows 7 or Windows 8"

Wait, wtf? Get your facts straight please...
 

clueless77

Reputable
Jun 5, 2014
146
0
4,710
11


Well, if "bad porting" becomes the trend which then it turn requires higher amounts of vram or some type vague i7 for those still solid PC's and for 1080p at that, it's probably better to nip this in the bud now. I don't think that anyone would argue that software doesn't become more technically demanding over time, but why is the wind blowing for revolutions in requirements now when it's been nothing but miniscule improvements and necessary resource usage for how long?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS