|
if you were to buy the game on launch day as it is now you would not get 100% of the game's content as it is now. you have to pay real money to make your monster look like a red rock or a white furry rock, poo poo that you used to be able to unlock in-game. People are going to be paying $7.50 a pop for new hunters that will most likely be the exact same as all the other hunters but with one new ability that would take a few days to program (if they havent already finished making it and are just holding it back). and I'm the weird one for thinking this is a bad situation. if your $60 game has F2P elements in it, then you should probably be very unhappy with it
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2015 23:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 07:02 |
|
|
^^^ I mean, this has been going on since circa 2006 or so (and arguably even before that with Capcom's constant re-release of games every six months with new skins and such before). I don't understand why Evolve is getting such hate. K8.0 posted:The argument that it's not a $100 game because consumers should constantly be paying you for stuff is dogshit. Competitive games should be launched in a finished state, period. You shouldn't have to go "well I hope they don't gently caress this game up with a bunch of retarded DLC that makes it unfun for me." I would rather have a game come out and never get new content than have DLC. I dunno dude. DLC is basically the modern day equivalent of expansion packs, and there's a bunch of legal reasons in non-NA territories you want to avoid the word "expansion pack." I'm personally happy that Overkill has launched new maps every 4 months or so as DLC instead of waiting a year for an "expansion bundle", but I guess I can see how that's not for everyone. Chomp8645 posted:Tallying up maps, modes, and characters is an idiotic way of assessing value. By your method League of Legends must be worth an upfront payment of $300 because it has (I'm not joking) 123 playable characters (along with multiple maps and game modes). That's a bit of a straw man. What I was trying to point out is that the previous game from the studio had an equatable feature set and sold for the same price, so I was asking why there was a difference of opinion. Eye of Widesauron posted:It's going to be dead very soon just like the last few overhyped experiences and it's going to be really funny watching people defend it. I wish it weren't the case, I really do since I can see how it could be fun but they really blew it on the price point especially for PC since it's just a crappy port. There is no way that this is worth 60 dollars especially on the PC. So, I guess that's what's confusing me. It seems like circular argument to me - the game isn't worth $60 because it will be dead in 6 months, and the game will be dead in 6 months because it's not worth $60.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 00:00
|
|
|
left 4 dead also wasn't worth $50 at launch imo
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 00:02
|
|
|
Antoine Silvere posted:left 4 dead also wasn't worth $50 at launch imo Agreed, but it didn't try to charge you for tank skins. Can you imagine how lame that would be?
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 00:03
|
|
|
hemale in pain posted:Agreed, but it didn't try to charge you for tank skins. Can you imagine how lame that would be? Imagine if they sold hats
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 00:03
|
|
|
Antoine Silvere posted:left 4 dead also wasn't worth $50 at launch imo That's fair. And if that's the basic argument then I'm completely cool with that. For me I know I spent 400+ hours in Left 4 Dead so it was worth it for me, but everyone has different preferences.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 00:03
|
|
|
Brackhar posted:I dunno dude. DLC is basically the modern day equivalent of expansion packs, and there's a bunch of legal reasons in non-NA territories you want to avoid the word "expansion pack." I'm personally happy that Overkill has launched new maps every 4 months or so as DLC instead of waiting a year for an "expansion bundle", but I guess I can see how that's not for everyone. The second part of your "circular logic" argument doesn't hold up because I'm not claiming that it's not worth 60 dollars because it will be dead in 6 months. It would be dead in 6 months on the PC because it's a garbage port with competition that is well below that price point that is well established among other things. It will probably be dead on consoles as well; look at Titanfall. The game is garbage and if you paid 60 dollars or more for it I hope that they eventually fix it so you can get your money's worth but there is a LOT of stockholms going on here.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 00:04
|
|
|
But the port isn't garbage at all and the few issues anyone reported were related to video card drivers.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 00:05
|
|
|
Eye of Widesauron posted:The second part of your "circular logic" argument doesn't hold up because I'm not claiming that it's not worth 60 dollars because it will be dead in 6 months. It would be dead in 6 months on the PC because it's a garbage port with competition that is well below that price point that is well established among other things. It will probably be dead on consoles as well; look at Titanfall. I'll ask again; what about the game is garbage in your opinion? As I said, I've not played the full release. What makes the game itself, ignoring the DLC, un-fun or buggy?
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 00:06
|
|
|
VarXX posted:Imagine if they sold hats Could you imagine people playing a game with a hat economy in the year of our lord 2015
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 00:06
|
|
|
Brackhar posted:That's a bit of a straw man. What I was trying to point out is that the previous game from the studio had an equatable feature set and sold for the same price, so I was asking why there was a difference of opinion. People were mad as gently caress when L4D2 was announced. Everyone bought L4D expecting it to be supported as well as Valve's previous games, and it wasn't at all.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 00:06
|
|
|
K8.0 posted:People were mad as gently caress when L4D2 was announced. Everyone bought L4D expecting it to be supported as well as Valve's previous games, and it wasn't at all.Other people were even madder when it came out and was largely comprised of content that had obviously been cut because it wasn't good enough the first go around. Yeah, that's why I referenced L4D1 instead of L4D2, 'cause I thought that controversy would just distract from the issue at hand. Unless you're saying that Evolve is just L4D or another game with a different coat of paint...?
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 00:07
|
|
|
VarXX posted:But the port isn't garbage at all and the few issues anyone reported were related to video card drivers. Brackhar posted:I'll ask again; what about the game is garbage in your opinion? As I said, I've not played the full release. What makes the game itself, ignoring the DLC, un-fun or buggy? Let's flip this back around. How is this port worth 60 dollars especially considering that it has day 1 bugs, locked content, has assets recouped from console sales already and faces stiff competition from other products that are often lower priced?
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 00:08
|
|
|
I'm saying people were happy to buy L4D1 because they went "oh great, another Valve game that will get years of excellent support, fun mods, etc etc" and then it wasn't and they got mad. With Evolve they're being entirely up front about how they plan to gently caress you in the rear end if you buy their game, which is better, but you still shouldn't buy it. That also ties into this Brackhar posted:I dunno dude. DLC is basically the modern day equivalent of expansion packs, and there's a bunch of legal reasons in non-NA territories you want to avoid the word "expansion pack." I'm personally happy that Overkill has launched new maps every 4 months or so as DLC instead of waiting a year for an "expansion bundle", but I guess I can see how that's not for everyone. It used to be that games would come out, and if they were REALLY good they would maybe get more content you could buy. Now, before a game even comes out they're always saying "If you don't purchase all our (cut) content sight unseen we're going to gently caress you on the price/access time/some other bullshit if it turns out you actually do want it." Seriously trying to frame the current state of game content as anything other than consumers taking it raw up the rear end is ridiculous. K8.0 fucked around with this message at 00:13 on Feb 11, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 00:08
|
|
|
Eye of Widesauron posted:Let's flip this back around. What content is locked besides cosmetic reskins
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 00:10
|
|
|
This game is going to be dead in 6 months just like titanfall and that makes me sad as someone who enjoys gaming.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 00:12
|
|
|
snodig posted:A good kraken seems unbeatable. The problem is that they made Evolve to be played in a very specific way, but there's no tutorial telling you that. So the one guy playing monster has much more room for loving up compared to the 4 dudes who have to get everything right on top of being equally good as the monster to beat him. Like, positioning is super important in Evolve, both in fights and when you chase. And if you mess it up, you have yourself a 20 minute suckfest culminating in a wet fart. It's like playing a moba and suiciding on towers to wear them down because the way you're actually meant to do it makes no loving sense I think Evolve is fun 'cause I'm into the whole cat and mouse thing, but there's too many hoops to jump through to get at the fun for the game to catch on big. Attack on Princess fucked around with this message at 00:16 on Feb 11, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 00:13
|
|
|
I think the anger over this games DLC is because there is so much of it already and so little of the core game. Clearly if they spent that much time developing new skins and animations for dlc hunters and monsters that had to take away time to develop the actual game and content you are paying $60 for. The initial price point does seem a bit high for what looks to be in the game, but idk I haven't played it yet. $40 would have been much better in my opinion.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 00:13
|
|
|
What bugs are people talking about because I haven't had the misfortune of finding any yet?
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 00:14
|
|
|
Eye of Widesauron posted:Let's flip this back around. Have there been a ton of day 1 bug issues? I've not seen a lot of discussion about them in this thread. Are we talking AC:Unity levels or something? As for locked content, I personally don't really care if a game I'm playing has skins for sale for real money at launch, as long as I get some level of customization without paying money. And if I recall I can unlock alternate skins and profile icons via the progression system, right? At leasts that's what I remember from beta. Personally I don't particularly know if the game is worth $60 or not, given that as I said I've not played it yet. I'm super hopeful that it'll be really fun and I loved (with some reservations) the time I spent in the beta, so I went ahead and pre-ordered it. So yeah, for me personally I'd definitely pay $60 for the game I played in beta with 10 more maps and a bunch of new game modes. You've been saying that the game itself is garbage. I'll ask for a third time; what about the game do you find bad?
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 00:14
|
|
|
Donnerberg posted:I think Evolve is fun 'cause I'm into the whole cat and mouse thing, but there's too many hoops to jump through to get at the fun for the game to catch on big. Honestly, I have no idea how they're ever gonna balance this game. A good monster should pretty much always win atm. From watching streams, it seems like the only time the monster loses is when he's completely clueless and tries to fight at level 1 or something.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 00:16
|
|
|
Brackhar posted:Wow, this thread is getting hit with a lot of thread making GBS threads. I'm shocked someone who designed for one of the worst designed games in the biz would be excited to play a horribly designed game. TASTE THE PAIN!! posted:Why are people acting like this is the second coming of horse armor? It seems like a fairly standard DLC plan for a modern game. Buying overpriced skins and poo poo is for free to play games not 60 dollar games (that should probably be 40 bucks max anyway). Oh also they shoulda hired whoever made The Hidden because it's a lot better than this. Groovelord Neato fucked around with this message at 00:18 on Feb 11, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 00:16
|
|
|
Yeah if we're arguing the price point, I think everyone agrees the price could definitely be better, and that may kill gameplay down the line. BUT It's fun right now.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 00:18
|
|
|
Brackhar posted:You've been saying that the game itself is garbage. I'll ask for a third time; what about the game do you find bad? How about the part where the entire game description is "chase a thing through a jungle" and either the Hunters kill baby monster in less than 5 minutes (less than the loading time of a match) or they spend 40 minutes playing Keystone Cops Simulator until Swole Beast bursts forth and rapes their faces in 30 seconds. It's like if they took the process of ganking a jungler in DOTA and dragged the whole thing out to be twenty times as long as normal. Every monster in Evolve in Anti-Mage. You have 30 minutes to gently caress that guy up inside a jungle or he's gonna dumpster your whole team. Meme Poker Party fucked around with this message at 00:22 on Feb 11, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 00:19
|
|
|
Chomp8645 posted:How about the part where the entire game description is "chase a thing through a jungle" and either the Hunters kill baby monster in less than 5 minutes (less than the loading time of a match) or they spend 40 minutes playing Keystone Cops Simulator until Swole Beast bursts forth and rapes their faces in 30 seconds. Yeah, Hunt had some definite pacing issues in beta. That's why I was excited to try some of the alternate game modes, 'cause from an abstract design perspective they should be much better.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 00:20
|
|
|
Brackhar posted:You've been saying that the game itself is garbage. I'll ask for a third time; what about the game do you find bad? Evolve is a textbook case of "really cool idea where they did everything exactly the wrong way".
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 00:20
|
|
|
You guys should stop replying to the handful of awful posters who will inevitably get bored and decide to troll another thread in a few days. Make them bored and they'll find another thing to poke at and giggle about together. This game is pretty good so far on the PS4. I've played a few hours of solo mode and I've yet to have any dumb AI moments and most of the matches have been fair. I'm right at the point where I feel like I'm getting comfortable with the flow of the game, it definitely has it's own pace. So far I find myself overwhelmed often but when you get your footing and survive a brutal fight as a hunter it's quite rewarding. Playing as the monster hasn't been as nice to me. There's a great feeling of being a hulking beast but you also feel like you're always in danger and need to out think hunters while finding food. It's interesting, there's something very compelling about the game and I'm looking forward to learning it's systems in some kind of semi competent way.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 00:20
|
|
|
That I do agree with, $40 seems a much more appropriate price. I haven't played a second of this game and probably never will, but I just don't get the victriol. Worst bug I saw today was Daisy getting stuck in a rock, and one weird desync. That's about it. Also a dissapointing amount of joining in progress games, having no say in what role you're playing. As for the monsters, at this point if it's a good player controlling it they probably should win. I'm wondering if some of the later hunters can deal with the wraith better? Competent hunter teams were getting tore the gently caress up by a skilled wraith, wasn't even close. Aaand I'm glad I'm not the only one who thought of The Hidden because of this game
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 00:23
|
|
|
TASTE THE PAIN!! posted:That I do agree with, $40 seems a much more appropriate price. Fortunately you can get the game for around $45 off of of GMG, so for PC players it shouldn't be too big a deal for those that feel that way. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 00:25
|
|
|
Dr. Carwash posted:Honestly, I have no idea how they're ever gonna balance this game. A good monster should pretty much always win atm. From watching streams, it seems like the only time the monster loses is when he's completely clueless and tries to fight at level 1 or something. A streamer and developer were talking about how they balance the game; if someone says (like I did) "a good kraken seems unbeatable" and the community agrees, they will form a team in the dev group where the best monster player takes the kraken against the best hunter team for a couple of weeks. If it seems one-sided, they start looking at which abilities that usually turn the fight. Like I heard the wraith had a minor ability changed and it balanced the hunt pretty good. I think the "problem" now is that the hunters really need to be super on point in order to bring it down -- like the dude handlings mines need to be really good in the fight versus the wraith. Tactical mines in that fight is important, and if the guy playing that character messes up the other 3 can't really do poo poo since they get focused down one by one. At least they don't just go "yeah we'll just nerf its damage by 10% and see if that helps."
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 00:27
|
|
|
snodig posted:A streamer and developer were talking about how they balance the game; if someone says (like I did) "a good kraken seems unbeatable" and the community agrees, they will form a team in the dev group where the best monster player takes the kraken against the best hunter team for a couple of weeks. If it seems one-sided, they start looking at which abilities that usually turn the fight. Like I heard the wraith had a minor ability changed and it balanced the hunt pretty good. I think the "problem" now is that the hunters really need to be super on point in order to bring it down -- like the dude handlings mines need to be really good in the fight versus the wraith. Tactical mines in that fight is important, and if the guy playing that character messes up the other 3 can't really do poo poo since they get focused down one by one. Having worked on League of Legends, it's a tough challenge for sure. The biggest thing to also remember is that right now everyone is also new to the game, and learning curves will have a big impact on the success of both hunters and monsters. With luck the devs won't be too reactive so they can let the community settle some. Judging from the patch changes they did to the Wraith before release I do have some confidence they'll be able to coax things in the right direction properly. I mean, on paper was a pretty good set of balance changes, and the peeps in the thread at the time agreed as well.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 00:30
|
|
|
Brackhar posted:Having worked on League of Legends, it's a tough challenge for sure. I'd say step #1 to balancing from an LoL perspective is don't loving have over 100 playable characters.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 00:32
|
|
|
Chomp8645 posted:I'd say step #1 to balancing from an LoL perspective is don't loving have over 100 playable characters. That's a good rule imo. It sure makes things drat hard. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 00:33
|
|
|
I bought this game and I hope to be up for some PS4ing later.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 00:34
|
|
|
Eye of Widesauron posted:Well, the game has several broken parts but people are just going to hand wave that as "day 1 glitches" so even though that should be something to consider I won't go into that. It must really suck to be poor. Good luck in your future endeavors!
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 00:36
|
|
|
snodig posted:A streamer and developer were talking about how they balance the game; if someone says (like I did) "a good kraken seems unbeatable" and the community agrees, they will form a team in the dev group where the best monster player takes the kraken against the best hunter team for a couple of weeks. So they balance the game around a dev group that's communicating with each other...that sounds pretty awful. 4 devs communicating with each other is not the same as joining a pub with 3 other random mooks. To me, it seems like the monster will always have a massive advantage. The hunters need coordination to win against a good monster, and a lot of the time, that's just simply impossible.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 00:36
|
|
|
GenericOverusedName posted:What bugs are people talking about because I haven't had the misfortune of finding any yet? turn your monitor on
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 00:37
|
|
|
snodig posted:A streamer and developer were talking about how they balance the game; if someone says (like I did) "a good kraken seems unbeatable" and the community agrees, they will form a team in the dev group where the best monster player takes the kraken against the best hunter team for a couple of weeks. If it seems one-sided, they start looking at which abilities that usually turn the fight. Like I heard the wraith had a minor ability changed and it balanced the hunt pretty good. I think the "problem" now is that the hunters really need to be super on point in order to bring it down -- like the dude handlings mines need to be really good in the fight versus the wraith. Tactical mines in that fight is important, and if the guy playing that character messes up the other 3 can't really do poo poo since they get focused down one by one. This sounds loving RETARDED
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 00:37
|
|
|
bonds0097 posted:It must really suck to be poor. Good luck in your future endeavors! the game of kings and connoisseurs
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 00:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 07:02 |
|
|
bonds0097 posted:It must really suck to be poor. Good luck in your future endeavors! qnqnx posted:the "willfully ignoring the value of money and time" defense
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2015 00:39
|
|