I'm going to do some of that evisceration I talked about a while back now. I've been replaying, attempting an upgradeless Nightmare run, and I've reached the opening of Chapter 6, where you need to protect Joseph as he opens booby trapped doors. The scenario design here is utter, utter shit, as if a middle schooler or something was given the game's dev tools and managed to have their level published in the final game with no one noticing somehow, but I'm not going to talk about it in detail because it's not what's really important. What I want to talk about is how the game's combat is fundamentally flawed.
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.