Evolve Review - Intelligent Design

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

Evolve Review - Intelligent Design

Evolve encapsulates great co-op in a well-designed 4v1 shootout.

Read Full Article

this game looks interesting

although I kinda wished it was more...Borderlands than Left 4 dead, so that if I'm not playing with friends I don't feel the pressure to not suck

Glad you posted that disclosure there, because that's one of the bigger ones I've seen.

My biggest concern with the game is still what was mentioned in the article being stuck with a bad group hurting the fun I am having with the game. Its frustrating in other multiplayer games I have played in the past when you have the one person that thinks they know better then everyone else dies a lot and then starts to curse out the group because "we are noobs" and it sounds like you rely upon one another much more then what I have experienced in the past.

The other concern I have is the longevity of the game, for I know the game has more options for a solo player then Titanfall, but I keep thinking it might wind up like with the near empty lobbies that it has on the PC version right now.

With those concerns I am still interested, but I will be waiting to see more on it before I make my final decision.

Vault101:
this game looks interesting

although I kinda wished it was more...Borderlands than Left 4 dead, so that if I'm not playing with friends I don't feel the pressure to not suck

You mean more like Borderlands in the sense that each character is self-sufficient and teamwork isn't strictly necessary? Could be interesting, although honestly if what you wanted to keep in this game was the asymmetrical teams, balancing would be... painful, with each character simultaneously having to be a threat and yet weaker then the single opponent. It can work though, look at The Hidden (although I sure as hell wouldn't want to take on a skilled 617 alone...)

Sanunes:
My biggest concern with the game is still what was mentioned in the article being stuck with a bad group hurting the fun I am having with the game. Its frustrating in other multiplayer games I have played in the past when you have the one person that thinks they know better then everyone else dies a lot and then starts to curse out the group because "we are noobs" and it sounds like you rely upon one another much more then what I have experienced in the past.

The other concern I have is the longevity of the game, for I know the game has more options for a solo player then Titanfall, but I keep thinking it might wind up like with the near empty lobbies that it has on the PC version right now.

With those concerns I am still interested, but I will be waiting to see more on it before I make my final decision.

While exceptionally hypocritical of me to say since I rarely do it myself, as far as getting a "bad group" hurting, it might be worth trying to form a clan in to try and minimize having such games. Not that I have any idea at the moment how easy it is to make one in this game. :/

Not much I can say about longevity, maybe it'll ignite a fanbase, maybe not. The DLC certainly makes me hesitant, even with them saying they'll make sure you can still play with everyone so as not to "split the fanbase", not enough trust there. Fingers crossed!

Mental Cosmas:
You mean more like Borderlands in the sense that each character is self-sufficient and teamwork isn't strictly necessary?

yeah...given how ones experience can depend on other players

that and Borderlands 2 having one campaign that one can complete and move on...rather than a series of mini scenarios

Typo: "finish off. FInally, Defend has players" should be "finish off. Finally, Defend has players"

Vault101:

Mental Cosmas:
You mean more like Borderlands in the sense that each character is self-sufficient and teamwork isn't strictly necessary?

yeah...given how ones experience can depend on other players

that and Borderlands 2 having one campaign that one can complete and move on...rather than a series of mini scenarios

Then by all accounts it sounds like what youre looking for is Monster Hunter 4 Ultimate.

Im told theres an actual story this time, teamwork is an option, and its loaded with more content than any main MH release to date.

gigastar:

Then by all accounts it sounds like what youre looking for is Monster Hunter 4 Ultimate.

Im told theres an actual story this time, teamwork is an option, and its loaded with more content than any main MH release to date.

huh thanks for the suggestion though I'm prretty good for games right now

I usually love the concept of asymmetric shooters, but the alien vs predator series is the only one I've had a proper time with. I will be looking forward to some professional matches in this.

Thanks for the Disclosure btw!

ffronw:
There's also the Behemoth, the monster that's included as a pre-order bonus. He's not only huge, he can summon rock walls to isolate hunters or shield himself.

Quick question for the reviewer, assuming that you've played all the Monsters, would you say the Pre-Order Behemoth monster is any more or any less powerful then the in-game ones? And do you know if it's planned to be released for non-pre-order players at a later date?

Seeing how heavily they are going down the DLC route, I'd like to know if they can keep it balanced for those who don't splash out on DLC.

Diablo1099:

ffronw:
There's also the Behemoth, the monster that's included as a pre-order bonus. He's not only huge, he can summon rock walls to isolate hunters or shield himself.

Quick question for the reviewer, assuming that you've played all the Monsters, would you say the Pre-Order Behemoth monster is any more or any less powerful then the in-game ones? And do you know if it's planned to be released for non-pre-order players at a later date?

Seeing how heavily they are going down the DLC route, I'd like to know if they can keep it balanced for those who don't splash out on DLC.

Personally, I thought the Wraith was the most overpowered of the monsters. The behemoth is OK, but the teleport / decoy ability of the Wraith is just nasty.

So far, my experience has been that the additional hunters and monsters add variety and different ways to play more than anything. It's not a matter of "This monster / hunter is OP" as much as it is that one might fit your playstyle (or the needs of the map) better.

The best example of that I can think of off the top of my head is the Medic. For static fights, Val is an amzing choice, and her tranq gun + medgun combo is nice to keep the monster slowed and the team healed up. But in Hunt / Nest situation, Caira is great not only because she can heal clumps of allies with her healing grenades, but also because she can use her adrenaline rush ability to make her and everyone around her run faster while pursuing the monster.

ffronw:
Personally, I thought the Wraith was the most overpowered of the monsters. The behemoth is OK, but the teleport / decoy ability of the Wraith is just nasty.

So far, my experience has been that the additional hunters and monsters add variety and different ways to play more than anything. It's not a matter of "This monster / hunter is OP" as much as it is that one might fit your playstyle (or the needs of the map) better.

The best example of that I can think of off the top of my head is the Medic. For static fights, Val is an amzing choice, and her tranq gun + medgun combo is nice to keep the monster slowed and the team healed up. But in Hunt / Nest situation, Caira is great not only because she can heal clumps of allies with her healing grenades, but also because she can use her adrenaline rush ability to make her and everyone around her run faster while pursuing the monster.

Alright then, just with how much this game has been making the headlines for it's DLC, I've been really hoping they avoid the route of "Pay To Win".

Thank you very much for your time sir :)

The problem that I am having its that it seems like one of those where its good, as in the first five minutes are great, but then its the same thing over and over. Titanfall was the same thing, very few content even if that content was good.

Diablo1099:

Alright then, just with how much this game has been making the headlines for it's DLC, I've been really hoping they avoid the route of "Pay To Win".

Thank you very much for your time sir :)

I can certainly understand the disdain for the DLC plan, especially in light of some of the DLC we've seen in recent years, but I'm torn.

The question I keep asking myself is this: Would I rather the dev release the game, walk away, and call it good? Maybe start working on a sequel? Or would I rather they support the community with more content, albeit content we have to pay for?

I usually find myself leaning toward more content. I do wish gamers as a whole would be more discerning about the content they buy, especially for things like season passes, where we're paying for content we essentially haven't seen yet. The prevalence of these things, and the way people snap them up, mean that there's almost guaranteed to be someone abusing them somewhere.

josemlopes:
The problem that I am having its that it seems like one of those where its good, as in the first five minutes are great, but then its the same thing over and over. Titanfall was the same thing, very few content even if that content was good.

This was my initial concern as well, but the map variety and win/loss effects are good at varying the experience. Also, depending on which monster you're fighting against, the experience can be very different.

Evolve:
Intelligent Design; Unintelligent marketing.

ffronw:
I can certainly understand the disdain for the DLC plan, especially in light of some of the DLC we've seen in recent years, but I'm torn.

The question I keep asking myself is this: Would I rather the dev release the game, walk away, and call it good? Maybe start working on a sequel? Or would I rather they support the community with more content, albeit content we have to pay for?

I usually find myself leaning toward more content. I do wish gamers as a whole would be more discerning about the content they buy, especially for things like season passes, where we're paying for content we essentially haven't seen yet. The prevalence of these things, and the way people snap them up, mean that there's almost guaranteed to be someone abusing them somewhere.

Oh, I agree entirely, I know that DLC done right can be a great thing (KI Xbone, Payday 2), but all the nickle and diming of AAA Publishers all too often take the piss and arguably damages a good game as a result like Dead Space 3 and it's Mircotransactions.
Many people figured would be the case here, seeing how the pre-order DLC came out before the actual game did.

Still, your review and score seems pretty legit so I think they got the balance right :)

ffronw:

Diablo1099:

Alright then, just with how much this game has been making the headlines for it's DLC, I've been really hoping they avoid the route of "Pay To Win".

Thank you very much for your time sir :)

I can certainly understand the disdain for the DLC plan, especially in light of some of the DLC we've seen in recent years, but I'm torn.

The question I keep asking myself is this: Would I rather the dev release the game, walk away, and call it good? Maybe start working on a sequel? Or would I rather they support the community with more content, albeit content we have to pay for?

I usually find myself leaning toward more content. I do wish gamers as a whole would be more discerning about the content they buy, especially for things like season passes, where we're paying for content we essentially haven't seen yet. The prevalence of these things, and the way people snap them up, mean that there's almost guaranteed to be someone abusing them somewhere.

My problem is more in feeling like I'm buying a game piecemeal rather than getting the full game that I would have before DLC was a thing.

I absolutely don't mind DLC for full games. But titles like Destiny have just ruined the notion of building a game for DLC like these studios are doing.

Do you feel like this was a full game or would you even really know since you've only had a limited time to review it? I'm betting few people knew that Destiny was as short as it was by the time they put a review up. Or, since this is basically a multi-player title only I guess this would be easier to ascertain the "fullness" of. Do you feel like there is enough meat on the bones to warrant buying it in vanilla form or is this a game to wait for one winter's eve where I find it on sale along with a DLC bundle?

*Sigh* I just wish I could pay for a thing and get the thing. Game + ALL DLC and it not be $200.

If they didn't make the game a full $60 release then I would get it, if $60 included the season pass then I would get it, its just too much for what feels like slightly limited content.

Lightknight:

My problem is more in feeling like I'm buying a game piecemeal rather than getting the full game that I would have before DLC was a thing.

I absolutely don't mind DLC for full games. But titles like Destiny have just ruined the notion of building a game for DLC like these studios are doing.

Do you feel like this was a full game or would you even really know since you've only had a limited time to review it? I'm betting few people knew that Destiny was as short as it was by the time they put a review up. Or, since this is basically a multi-player title only I guess this would be easier to ascertain the "fullness" of. Do you feel like there is enough meat on the bones to warrant buying it in vanilla form or is this a game to wait for one winter's eve where I find it on sale along with a DLC bundle?

*Sigh* I just wish I could pay for a thing and get the thing. Game + ALL DLC and it not be $200.

From what I've played, I don't think the vanilla game is shortchanged in any way. It is a multiplayer title, but you can play it offline as well with bots, so that's a good way to learn.

I don't think you're going to "need" any of the DLC to enjoy the game to its fullest. I spent something like 40 hours playing during the press preview without the DLC characters, and never felt like it was lacking. That said, it depends on you. Some people want all the add-ons and characters, and if you're one of those, you should probably wait for the inevitable "Game of the Year" (or whatever) edition that packs everything in.

It's as much a full game as Left 4 Dead was, and maybe a bit more, since the Evacuation mode changes things up so much.

ffronw:
From what I've played, I don't think the vanilla game is shortchanged in any way. It is a multiplayer title, but you can play it offline as well with bots, so that's a good way to learn.

Offline? Bots? That's fantastic. I certainly wasn't expecting that with offline gaming being seriously shortchanged this gen.

Any idea how many people can play it on the same console? I'm still waiting on a legitimate FPS to invite people to play on the new consoles. Everything seems bottle-necked at two players if not one.

I don't think you're going to "need" any of the DLC to enjoy the game to its fullest. I spent something like 40 hours playing during the press preview without the DLC characters, and never felt like it was lacking. That said, it depends on you. Some people want all the add-ons and characters, and if you're one of those, you should probably wait for the inevitable "Game of the Year" (or whatever) edition that packs everything in.

It's as much a full game as Left 4 Dead was, and maybe a bit more, since the Evacuation mode changes things up so much.

That's pretty darn high praise. Thank you for taking the time to response as that has opened me up a lot more to considering this game!

ffronw:

From what I've played, I don't think the vanilla game is shortchanged in any way. It is a multiplayer title, but you can play it offline as well with bots, so that's a good way to learn.

I don't think you're going to "need" any of the DLC to enjoy the game to its fullest. I spent something like 40 hours playing during the press preview without the DLC characters, and never felt like it was lacking. That said, it depends on you. Some people want all the add-ons and characters, and if you're one of those, you should probably wait for the inevitable "Game of the Year" (or whatever) edition that packs everything in.

It's as much a full game as Left 4 Dead was, and maybe a bit more, since the Evacuation mode changes things up so much.

I find the problem with DLC is the value each individual assigns to the content and how their personal views impact that decision. One thing I have never really understood are the people that are upset that DLC exists, but perfectly happy demanding expansion which normally both get the same source for the content.

Right now I think the game that has bugged me the most with DLC is Assassin's Creed Unity, for I have avoided the game because of the bugs and other issues around it so all my knowledge is second hand. It sounds like they have another level of weapons and upgrades that can only be completed if you pay for them. If Evolve DLC never feels like "you need to buy this class or you are at a disadvantage" I have no problem with it, but the moment it feels like you need to give them extra money I will remember that in the future.

Lightknight:
Offline? Bots? That's fantastic. I certainly wasn't expecting that with offline gaming being seriously shortchanged this gen.

Any idea how many people can play it on the same console? I'm still waiting on a legitimate FPS to invite people to play on the new consoles. Everything seems bottle-necked at two players if not one.

Unfortunately, I don't know from experience, as I spent all my time with the PC version.

I just realized something I left out of the review that I should have mentioned. If you're playing with a less-than-full group, you can actually hotswap between the AI-controlled characters, so you can try different characters within the same game. Plus, if you have a friend using a DLC Hunter you don't have, you can jump into that character and use it (assuming they swap to another character), even if you don't own the DLC associated with it.

EDIT: I accidentally a word.

ffronw:

Lightknight:
Offline? Bots? That's fantastic. I certainly wasn't expecting that with offline gaming being seriously shortchanged this gen.

Any idea how many people can play it on the same console? I'm still waiting on a legitimate FPS to invite people to play on the new consoles. Everything seems bottle-necked at two players if not one.

Unfortunately, I don't know from experience, as I spent all my time with the PC version.

I just realized something I left out of the review that I should have mentioned. If you're playing with a less-than-full group, you can actually hotswap between the AI-controlled characters, so you can try different characters within the same game. Plus, if you have a friend using a DLC Hunter you don't have, you can jump into that character and use it (assuming they swap to another character), even if you don't own the DLC associated with it.

EDIT: I accidentally a word.

Well then, that's mighty fine information. Depending on the quality of the bots I'll be very happy. Thanks again. Nice to see a Van Cleef fan writing reviews.

Sanunes:
My biggest concern with the game is still what was mentioned in the article being stuck with a bad group hurting the fun I am having with the game. Its frustrating in other multiplayer games I have played in the past when you have the one person that thinks they know better then everyone else dies a lot and then starts to curse out the group because "we are noobs" and it sounds like you rely upon one another much more then what I have experienced in the past.

The other concern I have is the longevity of the game, for I know the game has more options for a solo player then Titanfall, but I keep thinking it might wind up like with the near empty lobbies that it has on the PC version right now.

With those concerns I am still interested, but I will be waiting to see more on it before I make my final decision.

That's any multiplayer game with a matchmaking system. Just play some games until you find a few good players, ask if you can friend them and after a little bit you have a list of good players that you can join up with for some really good games. Protip: This isn't just for your 4 hunters, you can also have a fifth friend join up as the monster so you know you won't be fighting a scrub monster.

Lightknight:
Well then, that's mighty fine information. Depending on the quality of the bots I'll be very happy.

It's nothing groundbreaking, but the bots are actually pretty well coded, especially the monster AI.

Worgen:
If they didn't make the game a full $60 release then I would get it, if $60 included the season pass then I would get it, its just too much for what feels like slightly limited content.

Yeah, I don't necessarily mind an MP-only or a "DLC Platform" type game, but chucking the full 70 (CAD) tag on something that is both of those seems a little much. The monster *might* be worth the 15 they're charging, but the game is still a bit of an unproven commodity to be selling that highly priced an option before its even out. I'm pretty sure the Hunter pack will absolutely not be worth the asking price, as even in Beta the Hunters start feeling samey, and seem to have exhausted most practical options already in terms of weapon types.

The other problem is that playing with friends is all well and good, but one random cowboy can easily ruin your match, especially while pursuing the Ranking up objectives fiercely to the detriment of the actual game objective. You can also end up with your chosen class slot being abruptly shuffled away from you to someone, since the game bases it on people's prioritized list of choices. Rather then simply matching someone prioritized to Assault into your Medic/Support/Trapper team, you simply get a random guy who may take your Trapper slot, bump you into Support, and knock the Medic into assault, resulting in chaos as everyone adjusts or tries to learn an unfamiliar role.

Worgen:
If they didn't make the game a full $60 release then I would get it, if $60 included the season pass then I would get it, its just too much for what feels like slightly limited content.

Green Man Gaming actually has a VIP sale for the PC version right now.
Digital Deluxe which is the base game + Hunting Season Pass is $60.

http://www.greenmangaming.com/vip/?gmgr=kiwovatu

Having said that, I thought this game was going to get ripped to shreds on the Escapist.
And then I remembered, Jim Sterling doesn't work here anymore.

I don't want to say his video was misinformed, I just feel he didn't provide all the facts about the game, like all future maps and game modes would be free, and you could play with all the DLC characters as allies even if you didn't buy the game. And that it was not going to be Pay to win.

HostileParadox:

Worgen:
If they didn't make the game a full $60 release then I would get it, if $60 included the season pass then I would get it, its just too much for what feels like slightly limited content.

Green Man Gaming actually has a VIP sale for the PC version right now.
Digital Deluxe which is the base game + Hunting Season Pass is $60.

http://www.greenmangaming.com/vip/?gmgr=kiwovatu

Having said that, I thought this game was going to get ripped to shreds on the Escapist.
And then I remembered, Jim Sterling doesn't work here anymore.

I don't want to say his video was misinformed, I just feel he didn't provide all the facts about the game, like all future maps and game modes would be free, and you could play with all the DLC characters as allies even if you didn't buy the game. And that it was not going to be Pay to win.

I am aware of the gmg sale and its tempting, if I didn't have to sign up for the site then I would probably do it.

Sterling was right in his vid on the game, when they first announced the game they talked a lot about dlc and this was before they even had put out any screen shots. I never thought it would be pay 2 win, I just worried about the amount of content and the value of it.

inu-kun:
Evolve:
Intelligent Design; Unintelligent marketing.

That's what it sounds like.

I played this at PAX Prime 2014; I loved it. Left PAX and preorder it.

Then all the DLC-fest came and I un-preordered it.

Based on this review and several others, will look to pick this up when I get some free time.

Perhaps for a steam sale at a later date. This game doesn't have enough to it to justify 60 bucks. Maybe when the rest of the maps and game modes actually come out and it's on sale for less than 25.

I just hope they fixed the crashing problems the beta had.

no matter how good this game is, it was just marketed so poorly, i dont think i could support it in any way.

Turtle rock's attitude about dlc should not be encouraged, i cant fathom how the people behind left 4 dead could mess that up so badly.
left 4 dead had such a great reputation for quality and value attached to it, and at the first opportunity they piss away all that goodwill with their abysmal dlc plans

ya fucked up, son

I'm happy to hear that it's good. Both my brother and me rather enjoyed the beta/alpha/whatever, but I was worried that it'd get old too fast. Titanfall certainly did. My own backlog of games is way too large to invest in another right now (barely started Freedom Wars or Soul Sacrifice Delta, haven't even touched Bayonetta 2, and Monster Hunter 4 and Majora's Mask are on the way soon), I might give him a heads up about this.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here