Evolve Wot I Think-In-Progress, Part 1: Monster Maths

Turtle Rock’s asymmetrical multiplayer shooter Evolve [official site] went live today, though its many and various DLC shenanigans mean I’m not entirely sure just how much of the game is on my hard drive right now. That’s a dilemma for further down the line though: today, I just want to natter about how it’s feeling a few hours in. We didn’t get review code before release day, so any sort of definitive judgement lies further along your puny mortal timeline. Let’s do this as we go along.

OK, so the game that Evolve is most putting me in mind of is not its predecessor Left 4 Dead, but Titanfall. I mean that in a good way – small vs big is a strong setup for an unpredictable round of ultraviolence – and in a bad way, in that neither game seems to be comfortable being simply a big, quick, multiplayer bust-up. As in Titanfall but perhaps a little worse, Evolve is swaddled in unnecessary frills which slow things down significantly, from the excess of cutscenes in some modes, to how pointlessly long menu screens hang around and to the multiple post-game screens barraging you with how many of the various experience meters have gone up as a result of your recent actions.

This is not really a game to just jump in and out of, because it’s got so damn much it wants to show before and after you can actually play it. I don’t know whether this is down to someone getting carried away with themselves or it’s to mask that what’s at Evolve’s core is relatively small, but I do feel like it’s wasting a lot of my time. Time I would very much prefer to spend pretending to a big monster, if you please.

If we are to hold this up against Left 4 Dead, it’s a completely different creature from the simple, fast, drop in and have a grisly adventure mentality of that game. But then we are in a different age now. We are in the age of the unlock now. The experience of playing the game no longer matters. All that matters is the reward for doing so. I’m concerned that I play a round of Evolve primarily for the post-game screen which tells me how far along I am to unlocking the next monster or the next ability boost. I wish (as with Titanfall) that the game had a chance to breathe before it had to trumpet prizes and progress at me, that there could have been a month or two where all that stuff wasn’t turned on yet and I could play Evolve purely to play it. Remember Team Fortress 2 before it became about the drops? I’d love an Evolve like that. When all this were fields, etc.

The reason I would is that the key parts of Evolve feel pretty good. So far I’ve been almost all monster almost all day, and I guess the reason for that is I enjoy playing as something with a whole mess of hitpoints, so that I’ve got a decent chance to get out of trouble rather than just have to fall over the second an enemy catches me unaware. (That said, the human Hunters can take a fair old beating before becoming down and out too: Evolve wants to keep everyone on the board, in some capacity, for as long as it can). The essential feedback loop of hide, run, bulk up, take the fight to your oppressors is a great one, especially because (in my case so far at least), there’s huge uncertainty about the hunted becoming the hunter.

I’m still learning the ropes in terms of how to sneak, how to create false trails, and everything required to not have four heavily-armed humans on my arse all the damned time. There are quite a few small elements in there to get to grips with – how certain wildlife behaves and how you can exploit it to create diversion or unwitting assistance, what can and can’t be climbed on, how to maximise jump distances and flight speeds, which creatures should be sought out for maximum health gain when I eat their bones, which of my abilities causes the most light and sound…

The maps are few and the playable monster types fewer, but there does seem to be plenty of strategy underneath it all. Just stomping about is suicide; I’m quite looking forwards to steadily learning how to use the environment as much as I do my claws, flamebreath, electro-tentacles and whatnot. Playing as the monster, I do feel big, heavy and destructive – Evolve has got sound, movement and animation right – but brute force doesn’t last long against four humans with assorted guns, heal-rays, air strikes and harpoons. The balance feels right, in other words.

What’s lacking, though, is any great sense of excitement about, say, which map you’re playing. The game is clad in semi-darkness, which while possibly appropriate for the hunting theme doesn’t do any favours for its personality. The maps have different settings – geodomes, industrial enclaves, forests – but wind up looking and feeling pretty much the same due to all the gloom. I would call that look and feel “locked in an abandoned Center Parcs at 7pm on a late November evening,” which a) isn’t as spooky as it probably sounds to non-Europeans and b) probably isn’t what Evolve was going for, given the attempted Aliens vibe. Similarly, you’ve got all these classes and skins for the hunters (a few for the monsters too), some of which go for real money, but I’m not sure anyone’s going to get much of an eyeful of ’em. Lighten up, Evolve. You’re a game about four superheroes trying to catch Godzilla, after all.

Attempts to forcibly inject personality via cutscenes in the Evacuation mode – five rounds strung together, with minor variations depending on which side wins each – don’t work out too well either. They look impressive, with big spaceships and flocks of monsters, but I’ve found them pretty dreary otherwise, and very much in the way of the shooty-bang I’m really there for. It’s certainly not making me feel fond of anyone. There’s a particularly cringeworthy one which tries to convey the characters of 10 or so different hunters by having each of them speak a ‘cool’, posturing line as they prepare for planetfall, but Aliens’ wake-up scene it is not.

That stuff aside, I like the dynamic of Evacuation mode – it’s a more substantial and satisfying way to play than the standalone rounds (included under ‘Quick Play’). Part of that’s just the best of five setup, part of it’s the conceit that the hunters and the monster are deciding the outcome of a human settlement. Sure, it’s a callback to semi-narrative modes in the likes of early Unreal Tournaments and Return To Castle Wolfenstein (or more recently the ill-fate Brink), but it’s good to have a slightly higher purpose than just win the round or just unlock the next thing. The stakes do feel much higher as the win/loss counter climbs, and the mix of modes makes it feel like more than just a pointsfest.

It is a pointsfest, though. I keep jumping back into Evolve as I write this piece, which I guess means it’s doing something right, but my interest is much more in unlocking the next monster than it is the joy of playing the two I’ve unlocked already. I want to be more excited about the fact I can already play a flying Cthulhu thing with tentacle for arms and which can shoot lightning, but between the unlock mania and the perma-gloom it’s nowhere near as fantasy-fulfilling as it sounds on paper. So far, Evolve feels like a perfectly good action game in the modern paradigm, and with the added bonus of deeply asymmetrical sides which feel perfectly fair, but it’s just not the riotous time a game about big bloody great monsters could have been. More on it soon, anyway. I have more to play, more to unlock, more to learn and especially more time to spend with the puny humans.

Part two of our Evolve review is here.

77 Comments

  1. Fnord73 says:

    Sounds like they should go for a monster vs monster DLC.

  2. coppernaut says:

    Evolve has to be the most disrespectful game launch ever for DLC. As fun as it may or may not be, I’ll never touch it due to their DLC business practice. If a certain amount of people support their DLC tactics, they’ll keep doing it and other publishers will adopt it tenfold. I hate to say it but I hope they lose a lot of money on this game so they stop this crap. I probably would have bought it otherwise.

    • Walsh says:

      This, I keep almost buying it but I feel it will have Titanfall’s shelf life and combine that with the preorder DLC bullshit, I can’t quite justify it.

    • Asurmen says:

      Wasn’t it just one Monster?

    • DonkeyCity says:

      That assumes that the game would have had more content if DLC wasn’t possible, and I don’t think that’s the case. I don’t really understand where the idea that every bit of content that should ever exist for a title has to be present at launch or free forever. The monsters and characters offer wildly diverse gameplay, the maps look a little samey, but all function very differently, and that seems more than sufficient to justify retail cost. That you don’t have to pay for content to play with people that have makes it all the easier to just buy the amount of game you want. It’s not the worst DLC model, it’s the best DLC model: buy what you want, don’t buy what you don’t. It’s the opposite of pay-to-win or grind-to-advance models, and it’s better than a subscription.

      I mean, I love games that continue to grow after launch, and the backlash against this game’s approach to that seems preposterous to me. The pre-order monster thing was bad PR on their part, and is a loathsome practice in general, particularly when it comes to digital goods, but that’s a different issue.

      • PopeRatzo says:

        That’s true. It could be that the game simply isn’t worth anywhere near it’s asking price. Maybe the initial game would not have had more content if it wasn’t for the DLC, but none of that will matter because the amount of content you get for your full-price AAA game (high end of the price scale at that) is simply not enough.

        Like Titanfall, this game is just not worth it.

        On top of that, I’m pretty sure the additional content in the DLC could easily have been in the initial game at the asking price. It looks very much like they finished the game and then said, “Hey, we can strip these bits out and sell them separately to those stupid customers for whom we have so little regard and respect”. Now the only question left is, “How little self-respect to consumers of computer games have?”

        • DonkeyCity says:

          “Hey, we can strip these bits out and sell them separately to those stupid customers for whom we have so little regard and respect”.

          I followed the development of this pretty closely, and that’s really not the case – that content isn’t done, and wasn’t stripped, by every observable bit of information. I’m not trying to shill for the game – I was in both betas, and I ultimately came away with the impression that Evolve was not a game for me (it requires a level of skill and teamwork, even as the Monster, that I don’t have, nor want to develop), but I think the contention that the core game doesn’t provide enough content without DLC is just false. The beta didn’t have half the content and felt like a full game. Regardless, though, It’s bound to be $40 in 3 months, and probably $30 for the year after that – an emphasis on DLC always makes the buy-in cheaper.

          • sneetch says:

            I’ve said this before but we have no idea how much effort it would take for any of these DLC pieces to be finished, they may not be “done” because that last 5% has to be completed or they may just have concept art. We don’t know it’s all down to trust really. I think they’ve done themselves a disservice by talking so much about the DLC.

            Anyway I decided it’s not for me at that price, it seems light to me (as in the game itself seems basic not just the amount of content in the launch package) and I like having the full experience so I’ll wait for the full experience at a reasonable price.

    • MojaveMusic says:

      I am very much not an “ethics” purchaser by any means, but I have to agree.

      Just because, well, who has this kind of money? I dropped $60 on Diablo III and its (fairly substantial) expansion about a week ago and that’s the biggest video game purchase I have made in literal years.

      Even if I wanted to buy into Evolve’s DLCfest bullshit, how could I? I have bills to pay.

    • SimianJim says:

      There’s a rather pathetic sense of righteousness with people whinging about the DLC. They’ve been very upfront about it from day one and they’ve made a big effort to ensure gamers aren’t shut out of maps, or playing against the extra characters if they choose not to purchase the DLC. I don’t get how that is disrespectful?

      Surely anyone with an ounce of intelligence has to realise that the purchase model is changing, not because games companies want to fleece their customers (although there will always be some who approach this in the wrong manner), but because the model of ‘the good old days’ just isn’t viable anymore. I love Evolve, when played with a group of friends I think it’s one of the best multiplayer experiences I’ve ever encountered, ergo I’m happy to support the game by purchasing additional DLC. Firstly because I want new hunters and new monsters and secondly because I want them to keep developing the game, rather than just shelve it after release and move on. I won’t be buying the skins because I’m not really fussed about that kind of thing, but actual new game content? Yeah, bring it on.

      This is not a game that feels like they kept a chunk of it back to squeeze more money out of people, it is a game that feels like it was designed to be modular, to allow for future development and expansion and to allow people to pick and choose which bits they want to buy. You’d best get used to it, cos it’s how a lot more games will be developed.

  3. montorsi says:

    There is a plugin going around that replaces certain words with other words. I’d love to have that for this game, having it display DLC Simulator instead. I don’t really know why this title sets me off but it really hit a nerve. Maybe the utter crassness with which they unveiled and defended the strategy has something to do with it.

    • DonkeyCity says:

      Wouldn’t you rather they be up front about DLC plans than the opposite? Game expansions cost money to make, and are, in this case totally optional. When I was a kid, I was stoked to see more HeroQuest expansions available, and it never would have dawned on me to expect that they should have just come with the base set in the first place. I still see people talking about not wanting to get into a particular game because they aren’t sure it’s going to continue to grow and be supported after launch, and this seems like the ideal way to go about addressing that.

  4. Stinkfinger75 says:

    It seems to me that the (unskippable!) cut scenes are there to mask the next mission loading. I’m perfectly fine with this since the alternative is usually a rotating logo in the corner of the screen.

    • Behrditz says:

      I think so too. I know the ending cutscenes can be skipped, the ones that show the “results” or who won or lost.

      The chatter in the dropship portion is to mask the monsters head start, though. Thats never going to go away.

    • yojimbojango says:

      This is correct. The monster gets a 30 second head start on the hunters, and the hunters get 30 seconds of talking to each other while they wait to get dropped in from the sky.

      As a side note, I suspect that the 30 second count down starts just as soon as the monster loads in, because I’ve been dropped in mid conversation a few times. Once I actually joined the game a few seconds after we landed (with a little indicator that stated that a bot was playing for me until I pressed the E key). So yeah, not really forcing you to watch cut scenes as much as masking the monster head start game mechanic.

    • DrollRemark says:

      Why not give the hunters a planning phase, or a map of the area to look at, or something? Repeated cutscenes seems like a terrible way to fill 30 seconds of time.

      Hell, give them a mini-game, that would probably be more entertaining.

      • TimorousBeastie says:

        Yeah, there are a lot of better ways to do that than a cutscene. I’d have had you running around inside the ship with a count-down on the wall and have a door open that you can jump out of to start when ready. Any minor control you can give a character will get his mind off the fact that he’s waiting.

      • RARARA says:

        Minigames during loading? And get sued by Capcom?

        • Baines says:

          Namco, not Capcom. Namco owns the patent for letting people play a different (mini)game while waiting for the main game to load. They used it to fill loading times on PS1 games, such as letting the player play Galaga while waiting for Tekken to load.

      • yojimbojango says:

        If you hit the tab key it brings up a map of the area, and you can talk to each other through during the scene. It’s not like a pre-rendered video scene, it’s your characters sitting in a drop ship bantering around while you can get to know the guys you’re about to play with.

  5. Vurten says:

    I’m ambivalent too.
    It’s very fun and intense at times but in my experiences during the alpha/beta it was like 8 mins of boring running around hunting the monster for a short encounter and then 8 mins later a sort of final encounter. Don’t even mention if you had an inexperienced hunter.
    I really doubt the downtime between stuff happening is going keep my interest in this seemingly interesting game. Sadly.

    • Afoxi says:

      If you want a team with really low downtime between encounters, you want a competent Maggie, as it sounds like you are dealing with sneaky monsters. Griffin’s listening devices are good AFTER a dome as the monster is disregarding stealth, whereas Abe’s tracking darts are much more reliable if he’s seen you in the first place (the other option is tagging wildlife and wait for them to be eaten).

      Val/Caira Medics will narrow the speed differences between Hunters/Monster. For supports, Bucket’s role overlaps with Abe’s when tracking, but with a bit more leeway as you can chase pretty far with UAV, and Cabot is a nuisance if he thinks you’re hiding nearby because of that “see all creatures nearby bomb”, thankfully with a long cooldown.

      Your downtime is now basically just dependent on your Trapper’s Dome cooldown and ability to intercept (not chase) the monster.

  6. Yargh says:

    Could RPS possibly come together and let us know what it is like to play with friends and voice chat?

  7. Stevostin says:

    4 vs 1 is a total turnoff for me. 1 vs 4 is exciting, but 3rd person view is a no go.

    • Asurmen says:

      Don’t see how Monster would work in first person.

      • Gnoupi says:

        Natural Selection seems to be doing it without too many issues (even having one of the monster cams between the teeth, actually)

        • Asurmen says:

          Natural Selection isn’t Evolve.

        • Deadly Sinner says:

          The monster definitely needs that extra awareness with the prospect of four hunters zipping around it. Plus, I think it would be a lot harder to aim Goliath’s jump, rock throw and leap smash.

    • Premium User Badge

      Phasma Felis says:

      It’s baffling to me that people have such strong opinions about 1st vs. 3rd person.

  8. bv728 says:

    I really don’t get the DLC furor, beyond MAYBE pricing.

    99% of the time, DLC is stuff cut 3-6 months prior to release after initial, rough implementation. It’s chopped out as best they can without spending more than a half-an-hour of one guy’s time (this is why there’s often bits and pieces of stuff left over – they disable it in code, and leave everything else alone). Then the publisher comes back for DLC and they pull out the already-partially designed and implemented stuff and get the budget and time to complete it.

    People complain “Oh, they cut it out to make DLC”, but it’s normally the opposite – it never would have been made except as DLC. Simple examples would be Shale for Dragon Age Origins, or the Prothean for ME3 – both were completely cut after partial development, and made it back in when the publisher was offering more budget in exchange for DLC. The worst I can say I see happen on a regular basis is “This is less important and we’re under time and budget pressure, so cut it now and if we get the DLC budget, we can finish it out on that”.

    In short: If they weren’t making DLC, you would get what was shipped. There are good odd there wouldn’t be a fourth monster or any extra hunters, except maybe an expansion pack in 6 months that would segment the community based on who bought it and who didn’t.

    • Spider Jerusalem says:

      I don’t want to game in a world where $60 titles launch with $85 in DLC.

      Sorry.

      • Premium User Badge

        Wisq says:

        Well you’re in luck then, because Evolve is $70! (Along with GTA5. Seems like $70 is now “a thing”.)

        I wonder what the first game to go $80 will be?

        Edit: Oh wait, I think Steam finally added Canadian dollars and that’s just our local rate. Ah well.

        • Baines says:

          Evolve isn’t even the worst amount of DLC, yet. Just off the top of my head, Dynasty Warriors 8 has around $190 in DLC. Dead or Alive 5 apparently has nearly $300 of almost entirely cosmetic DLC, and Final Round will likely add even more.

          As for the first game to go to $80, one might want to question Mortal Kombat X. Yes, it is a $60 game, but it launches with a $30 dlc ‘expansion’ that adds an unspecified number of ‘classic’ characters.

    • Alegis says:

      I want to buy a game for $60, not the ‘privilege’ of buying access to a DLC store for monsters in order to be able to play the game on the same level as everyone else.

    • PopeRatzo says:

      I really don’t get the DLC furor, beyond MAYBE pricing.

      “I didn’t really mind the Great Flood, except for all that water.

    • yojimbojango says:

      Keep in mind that I actually pre-ordered the game when I say this, but I’m pretty sure there were business strategy decisions made by people with degrees and investors present. DLC was planned, however I am an old man by video game standards (30’s). I bought $50 games for my NES back in the day when I was making $8 a week delivering newspapers. It’s significantly easier that it was these days to put down $45 on a pre-order sale and maybe decide to drop another $15-$30 if I’m still playing the thing in a year or so.

      Off my lawn.

  9. Stupoider says:

    Two giant ‘guides’ posted and now a Wot I Think ‘in progress’. RPS seems to be paying Evolve a lot of front page lip service, splitting up a Wot I Think into more than one article. Why would a game like Evolve require more than one article when it’s a straight up multiplayer shooter with no singleplayer campaign? When I click on the ‘review in progress’ tag, no other review of the kind turns up. Very strange.

    • Farsearcher says:

      It’s a game they seem to be interested in and what they’re doing makes sense.

      A number of other sites are covering this as a review in progress as well. Polygon most notably is holding back on a firm score (the one that will go to the all important metacritic) until it’s been out for a while to see how it progresses as new content is created.

      This is an interesting article about the wary reaction game journalists have had to Evolve

      link to forbes.com

      I hope more multiplayer games are reviewed like this. It’s not unprecedented either, a few major sites have re reviewed MMO’s over time – not just with new content expansions either.

      The guides are something I was interested in. I much prefer to read stuff like this than watch youtube videos. Pip has a background in competitive games journalism (as I wrote in my comment on one of the other evolve posts) so it’s hardly surprising she got some advice for beginners in a what could become a big competitive game posted up.

      • Baines says:

        Other sites are doing the “review in progress” thing because the game is so heavily dependent on the online multiplayer servers and community. Sites were given review code in advance, but were only able to play against a limited pool of other reviewers. I guess sites are starting to feel burnt by release-day collapses, and Evolve had already drawn a lot of negative attention, so they didn’t want to give it a stamp of approval only to see post-release complaints roll in.

        Destructoid posted no release day review, instead posting an article explaining that they were delaying their review. IGN posted a “review in progress” first impressions, saying that they would finalize the review 48 hours after launch.

        • ravencheek says:

          Lots of these webpages posted a day 1 review of Team Fortress 2, when that was release with the orange box, which is a game wholly dependant on multiplayer servers and communities. Arguably more so than evolve as evolve at least has a singleplayer option.

          I do not see this “review in progress” anything other than an attempt to pander to the developers poor release and delay the inevitable “it’s fun, but relies to much on unreliable team mates and every match is a slight variant of the same mission”.

          MMOs, grand RPGs and some other things with large or expansive content deserve a 2 part review. A multiplayer game with a handful of characters and modes does not.

          • Baines says:

            The last few years have been bad enough that game news sites have started taking note.

            Assassin’s Creed Unity, for example, was the straw that broke the camel’s back for some. It’s release status resulted in reviewers publicly stating changes to their review policies.

            Halo The Master Chief Collection got positive reviews, but it launched with broken matchmaking that has yet to be fixed after three months of patching attempts. It has reached a point that 343 Studios recently announced a public beta test of their next patch (though they apparently just cancelled that public beta test.)

            Destiny was Destiny. Pretty much exactly what everyone should have expected, but for some strange reason many though Bungie’s attempt would be different from everyone else’s.

            Like I said, Evolve already had bad vibes and bad press due to its approach to DLC, so it was a ready target. Sites really didn’t want to give Evolve a stamp of approval only to have their review followed by days or months of complaints. But sites are also paranoid about not having some kind of release day review out (which is how publishers are able to get away with so much), so some decided to do a “first impressions” type article to be followed days later by the real review.

            (Which is perhaps treatment more online-heavy games should receive. A quick release day bit giving a general judgment, followed a few days later by a more complete review that includes post-release experience.)

    • Premium User Badge

      onesandzeroes says:

      I suspect it has a lot to do with the fact that it’s still a pretty slow time of year for game releases, and since this is one of the few “big” releases at the moment, they’re making the most of it. Is there some more sinister reason you had in mind?

    • Alec Meer says:

      We write about what we’re playing.

      I am currently playing Evolve.

      I didn’t have code until yesterday.

      If I waited to write about it until I’d played ‘enough’ anything I’d have to say might well seem irrelevant to people thinking about buying it.

      The article, which I presume the OP has not read, expresses several major concerns about the game. As do a number of previous posts about it.

      Someone *always* pops up accusing us of shenanigans if a game, be it big or small, makes regular appearances on our website.

      Insinuations of conspiracy are extremely rude, no matter how carefully-expressed, and also risk making those who post them appear to be tiresome internet stereotypes.

      • Stupoider says:

        “If I waited to write about it until I’d played ‘enough’ anything I’d have to say might well seem irrelevant to people thinking about buying it.”

        Then why has there never been a ‘Wot-I-Think-in-progress’ before? Surely this isn’t the first time reviewers have been given the code on release day. Nor is it the first time there’s been a rush to review a game. RPS has done Wot-I-Thinks of games that don’t actually get interesting until at least 50, maybe even 100 hours into the playthrough, did those warrant a ‘Wot-I-Think-in-progress’? Maybe it’s the feeling that Evolve, much like Titanfall before it, will fall by the wayside a week after release- more so because of the DLC stink.

        I liked Wot I Think because it was a comprehensive, in-depth look at a game after a solid playthrough. This seems to be peddling the ‘early access’ trend that’s crapped all over Steam, nothing is solid, nothing is comprehensive.

        • Eddy9000 says:

          You should visit the site more, RPS have done initial WIT’s before the main one several times before, with the same rationale that some kind of impression was needed on the games release date but more time playing was needed to give an informed opinion. They’ve just never been called “initial WIT’s” before which is probably why the tag doesn’t lead to any others.

          I really do think it’s odd that the first thing you assumed was some kind of corruption, and honestly bloody rude to make the accusation with no other evidence to support this.

      • Myrdinn says:

        I’ll wait until I can get all the content for about $25. Because I’m a cheapskate.

        edit: not sure why this got posted in a reply, sowwy.

  10. HighFlyer15 says:

    “though its many and various DLC shenanigans mean I’m not entirely sure just how much of the game is on my hard drive right now.”

    1. Many and various
    There’s TWO type of DLC right now. Season Pass and the rest is the skin type. Neither changes the way the game plays.

    2. How much of the game is on my hard drive right now.
    ALL of it! The FULL game is on your freaking hard drive. Stop advertising this game as DLC whore. Skins are in LoL as well, but do you flame them for wanting to earn a bit(yeah the Evolve skin prices are quite crazy, but if you don’t want them, don’t buy them) more? No.
    Skins can even be gotten through simple leveling up, so it’s not a “oh lets make all skins in-game purchases” thought after the game was done.
    Don’t want skins, don’t buy them. You still get the FULL game.

    • Spider Jerusalem says:

      $85.88

    • ravencheek says:

      How does a new whole new monster only available to people who buy DLC, not change the way the game plays?

      The full game may be on your HD, but in order to access it you’ll need to pay. Just because another company does it doesn’t mean it’s good practice. lol is popular in-spite of it’s DLC-whorey-ness, not because of it.

    • Groove says:

      “2. How much of the game is on my hard drive right now.
      ALL of it! The FULL game is on your freaking hard drive. Stop advertising this game as DLC whore. ”

      That very much seems like the problem rather than the solution. The game just launched, if this was all complete when the game launched, and I bought the game, why don’t I own it?

      Other games have done similar, and worse things, but I lot of the people bashing Evolve’s DLC also shat on previous game’s DLC practices. Season passes and the old Project $10 rubbush didn’t get let off.

    • Stupoider says:

      They’re charging the full AAA price for a multiplayer-only game. No campaign, no nothing. On top of that they seem to have monetised it as much as possible.

      Why does LoL even enter into this argument? LoL is a free to play game. If Evolve followed suite then the DLC would be forgiveable, but this is the same as LoL asking for $60 up front, along with all it’s paid characters and skins.

  11. Drinking with Skeletons says:

    Fortunately Monster Hunter 4 is coming out this week to provide a monster hunting experience that I’m confident I will enjoy.

  12. ironhorse says:

    “That said, the human Hunters can take a fair old beating before becoming down and out too: Evolve wants to keep everyone on the board, in some capacity, for as long as it can”

    And _that_ is why I did not buy this game after playing both alpha & beta.
    I do not enjoy a game where there is a striking amount of lack of consequence, or an overabundance of mindless “grinding” (in gameplay itself, not unlocks).

    Time your engagements and how long it takes to take down just one hunter at each stage assuming they are getting their armor AND health consistently healed and that the hunter uses their own *personal shields* – ugh – a mechanic that is the epitome of what I consider wrong: Forgoing actual strategy and teamwork for mindless forgiving run and gun along with the boring requirement of pressing LMB for 30 seconds to make any progress.

    Why aren’t the hunters 2x as mobile and fragile?
    Are we that scared to encourage skillful movement, positioning, and aim?
    I really wanted to love this game.. Too bad it’s not open to mods. :-/

    • yojimbojango says:

      I will say that the game has only been out for a day now, but I’m already seeing that the humans are getting more and more squishy as the monster players get better (not doing that joke). For instance if you put all your abilities into rock throw at level 1 it will take exactly 2 hits on a hunter to take them out. This is supposedly when your monster is in it’s baby run for your life form.

      At level 2 I’ve had great success lobbing a rock into an unsuspecting group of hunters (rock is aoe and you can often get two in the radius), and then following behind it with a charge attack, and then some good ol fist swinging. With a bit of luck/skill you can take one of the hunters down in the initial attack and have some pretty descent damage on a few others. Once you get to level 3… Well if the hunters let you get that far with out taking at least a good chunk of your health out, they’re pretty much screwed.

      So that’s how it seems to be shaping up from what I can see. Lots of sneaking and gradually the monsters are learning that controlling imitative in a fight can mean the difference between being trapped in a dome and having the hunters screaming at the trapper to take the dome down so they can get away and regroup.

    • Asurmen says:

      You said this in revious beta article. You were wrong then and you’re still wrong now.

      • ironhorse says:

        Lol, How can I be wrong when it’s my opinion that I do not enjoy it??
        Also, does it burn you that even RPS sees what I was speaking about? I am betting so considering your lack of an actual argument

        • Asurmen says:

          It’s not the fun bit I’m saying your wrong about, because yeah it’s an opinion. You are, however, factually wrong about the grind. It only takes forever to take down one Hunter if you’re playing really really badly. If don’t target switch, don’t use your abilities to move Hunters around the battlefield (you know, playing tactically?) where you can kill them quickly, then I can see how you would form that opinion. It’s just your opinion isn’t based on reality.

          For example, Charge to knock Medic out of the group, instant Leap and Flame as you land will go very far to putting her out of action if not actually down. She can’t really heal herself too well. Engineer then lands Bombarbment ability driving you back, or Cloaks to get her up. You sniff or Flame to reveal him. An example of tactical counter-game play.

          As for the 2x mobile and 2x fragile, that would mean the Monster would rarely escape but would one shot Hunters at lvl1. Pretty dumb idea.

          It doesn’t burn at all. You’re reading far more into what RPS is saying. You’re imprinting your highly contrived scenario on what they’re saying. I never denied they can take a beating, but that’s a completely different take on things that your pretty much non existent scenario you’re using to prove a point. I’m now repeating myself because I made these same points to you last time, which you ignored. I don’t lack an argument at all.

    • Deadly Sinner says:

      Sorry, but less health equals more casual in multiplayer games. Less health means that less skillful aiming and movement is required, and it means that luck plays a bigger factor in the outcome. This applies to the regular fps as well as Evolve.

  13. Thirdrail says:

    I don’t want anything to do with Turtle Rock or Take-Two, after seeing the insane DLC plan for this game. I’m going to laugh at all the people who support this kind of nonsense, and then end up with a wildly overpriced game that has no players. (*cough Titanfall cough*)

  14. Lobotomist says:

    DLC or not. I played this game in beta…for 1 hour. Than i uninstalled it.

    It probably sounded as good idea on paper but as the game it simply does not work.

    • Asurmen says:

      In what way doesn’t it work?

      • rcguitarist says:

        It’s like call of duty, titanfall and the more recent battlefield games. Play it for around 6 hours and you feel like you’ve already done everything the game has to offer and any more playing is just repeating what you have already done. There’s only so little that can change from round to round. 95% of each round plays out exactly the same.

        • Asurmen says:

          Oh, I agree it’s lacking a reason to repeatedly play, which isone of the two reasons I haven’t bought it, but I got the impression Lobotomist’s point was that it fundamentally doesn’t work, as in the game mechanics.

        • Deadly Sinner says:

          Uh, you’re talking about multiplayer games in general. Except, of course, it’s only the general overview of a match that that is generally similar. It is literally impossible that 95% of each round of Evolve plays out the same way when match times can vary wildly from less than 10 minutes to over 20.

          Also, I’d say it takes at least 3 to 4 matches, or one hour, to become competent with a hunter and learn some basic strategies (and more time than that for each monster,) so, even if you weren’t planning on going past the surface level of the game, I don’t see how you could only get 6 hours out of it.

      • Lobotomist says:

        Fundamentally it suffers from PUG syndrome, similar to other co-op games like L4D or Heist.

        The game relays on tight co-operation, and unless you are playing with fixed group of friends the game turns into tiresome chaos.

        And sadly this is even more problematic in this game than any co-op i played before.

        Basically if you are not playing with friends. You better not be playing at all.

        • Asurmen says:

          So there’s nothing actually wrong with the game, you’re just cynical. Bit of a difference between that explanation and your original statement.

  15. ravencheek says:

    Is this “review in progress” the latest review embargo that other games like Colonial Marines have used in the past when they know a game is being release and will do poorly in the public eye.

    Seems strange that all the main webpages are doing this “review score pending” idea. Surely a game should be judged on it’s merits and worth when it is released as, you know, that’s what you payed for. RPS had review code before it’s release date.

    Why wait a few days or weeks to publish a score? Has there been any kind of remuneration for doing a “review in progress”?

    TF2 is a prime example which was reviewed and scored BEFORE it’s release. Both are exclusively multiplayer (even though evolve does have singleplayer), but why haven’t you released full “wot I think” on or before it’s release date?

    This game also doesn’t have the depth or scope to require a 2 review. This game can be easily mastered within 8-10 hours, and by that I mean you can see/use/learn all of the abilities and skill available. Some games which have a far longer story campaign had to do with a single article “wot I think”, so why does this get a 2 parter?

    • Premium User Badge

      Graham Smith says:

      Why wait a few days or weeks to publish a score?

      Because we need to play the game first. We only got it yesterday.

      And we don’t give scores.

      RPS has been doing “a few hours with”-style WITs since the beginning, for games where we get it late but think it’s important to have some guidance online as soon as possible. We’ve sometimes called these reviews in progress, and sometimes “Wot I Think Of The First Few Hours” and so on. Evolve is no different.

    • gpown says:

      Please, stop bringing TF2 up. The game is 10 years old. Since then we’ve had online-only disasters, broken servers on launch, broken games on launch with review embargoes, day-one patches are a normal thing and games started gating half of their content behind a massive time-, pay- or companion app wall.

      Times have changed. Online games are a service now, and if you don’t see it, you have spent the last 10 years under a rock. Every major website has reacted to that by doing review updates and reviews in progress.

    • brettski says:

      Wtf is wrong with you? You claim there must have been payment to a respectable gaming site because they’re taking their time to weigh in on a MP game? Jeebus, this isn’t deflategate.

      From where I stand, the writers and editors of this site have tried to break news about a (possibly, see:titalfall) exciting game created by people who made an earlier exciting game. And you choose to muck up the works, by claiming they were paid to do so? boo, sir. Boo.

  16. Zulthar says:

    This game really doesn’t feel like it hasn’t enough depth to warrant the price. I feel like I experienced almost everything the game has to offer during the two playtests. It’s just barebones as hell. I felt like L4D was weak on content at launch and this game is much worse.

  17. Yargh says:

    Well there certainly seem to be quite a few very vocal people swearing never to buy this game and desperately trying to get everyone to do the same. For most of them it looks like this is due to the terrible marketing plan from Take 2 more than the game itself.

    To temper this viewpoint a little I have 19 people on my Steam friends list who now own Evolve and those I have spoken with have no regrets about their purchase so far. 5 of us played multiple games of the Evactuation mode during the evening (5 maps in sequence with bonus effects depending on each result) and had a great deal of fun.

    The current content offers plenty of skill variation between the characters and unlocking the ones beyond the initial selection doesn’t take all that long.

    The DLC marketing campain was indeed terrible and appears to have put a lot of people off, but taking the time to go through the details of what is on offer it becomes quickly obvious that there isn’t a single piece of DLC that is in any way essential to the game so there is no pressing need to buy any of it.

    This is similar in many ways to how Overkill have done DLC for Payday 2.

    If I do enjoy Evolve long enough for the current content to get old then, maybe, I will look at what is on offer as a paid extra, but certainly not before.

  18. aircool says:

    Sounds like one of those games where noobs get locked out after the first few weeks. Happens a lot in MMO’s. I know the monster should cater for the solo players amongst us (like myself), but I get the feeling that a good team of hunters will always trump a good monster player after a while. Factor in the usual flavour of the month tactics and equipment, along with the ‘more you play, the more you unlock’ business and you’ll end up with the far too common leet vs noob thrashing.