Is Evolve really a bad game?

Avatar image for Sevenizz
#1 Edited by Sevenizz (2538 posts) -

Now I’m aware this game created a lot of controversy over the ridiculous amount of microtransactions. But as a game, is it really bad? I’ll discuss a few points where I think the opposite.

* Audio - I challenge you to find a better sounding game this generation. Whenever I boot the game up, I watch the intro movie primarily to hear the amazing sounds. It’s incredibly detailed and the highs and lows are crisp. A treat if you have a decent audio set up.

https://youtu.be/7IJKdyJq0Yk

* Gameplay - The action is high and buttery smooth even in intense situations where there’s a lot going on. I’m no Digital Foundry, but I don’t encounter frame dips. The shooting is satisfying and fun. With 4 classes to play and even the monster, the variety factor is high. You’ll never have the same experience twice.

* AI - When not playing online, your teammates or Daisy will have your back. I’ve never felt as it’s all about me to defeat the monster as you do in other games with team AI. I’ve never seen AI running on spot or getting stuck by obstacles. Enemy AI is just as reactive and good.

* Story - There isn’t one, or at least anything to annoyingly skip. Your team will crack a joke before you drop, and that’s pretty much all you’ll learn about your situation. I tend to prefer gameplay over story so the lack of goes into my positive category.

* Online - It exists and while you can’t see a universal number of players who are looking for matches, matchmaking should match you up with a mate or a few. This may differ per console, but I haven’t experienced difficulty on Xbox finding games during peak hours.

I wouldn’t rate the game a ten, but an 8 or 9 would be my score. Let’s say 8.5. I revisit it often and it’s one of my faves this gen.

So, assuming you’ve actually played Evolve. What did you think? Am I accurate or off in my assessments?

Avatar image for npiet1
#2 Posted by npiet1 (1444 posts) -

I honestly enjoyed Evolve, I bought it at the end of its life sadly. Its was a very good game. It needed a single player though.

Avatar image for jackamomo
#3 Posted by Jackamomo (1463 posts) -

I haven't played it, I'm afraid.

But did that game launch as online only but didn't get enough players and go offline?

I was supposed to be a good game but the mechanic was very uneven and people were feeling the big monsters were op or something.

Did they launch it as a single player also game or was there always that feature?

I can imagine it would make a perfectly good single player game if the ai was good enough.

We would have to be talking some world class ai though.

Avatar image for Sevenizz
#4 Posted by Sevenizz (2538 posts) -

@jackamomo: ‘But did that game launch as online only but didn't get enough players and go offline?’

No, the game always had a SP element. You’re thinking of Friday the 13th - ironically a similar game to Evolve.

Avatar image for uninspiredcup
#5 Posted by uninspiredcup (30021 posts) -

An average game that suicided itself through it's business practice.

Avatar image for Sevenizz
#6 Posted by Sevenizz (2538 posts) -

@uninspiredcup: Care to elaborate on your experience of the game at its core?

Avatar image for RSM-HQ
#7 Edited by RSM-HQ (7642 posts) -

From what I've overseen its issue was in its business model and marketing.

The game looks solid and had a new take on essentially Arena Shooter genre, though more of a hybrid considering it's also got a hide n' seek element.

Though modern games like Friday the 13th are similar, can't help notice despite being a far more flawed product is much more well received. And I do believe that's because Evolve expected Gamers to pay too much, or get a bare-boned experience. Doesn't help that they heavily advertised the game as an over expensive Arena Shooter_

Overall Quake: Champions got negative response for similar reasons, but still seems to have made better business decisions over Evolve. And fixed the project before it became as big an issue.

Avatar image for Sevenizz
#8 Posted by Sevenizz (2538 posts) -

@RSM-HQ: I mentioned that in my opening sentence and I agree it is a detriment, but can we keep the thread about the actual game going forward - hopefully by people who’ve played it?

Avatar image for RSM-HQ
#9 Posted by RSM-HQ (7642 posts) -

@Sevenizz: Based on sales don't think many played it, that's why was giving clear context to how much a flop it was. But you are right in thinking I haven't played it. Quake: Champions and Friday the 13th however, I have played.

Good luck with finding Gamers that have actually played Evolve.

Avatar image for Sevenizz
#10 Posted by Sevenizz (2538 posts) -

@RSM-HQ: Well, physically there’s about 1.77 million copies sold and if we go under the assumption that digital doubles that, we’re at about 3 million people who own the game. An ultimate version was also free to Xbox Gold members so there’s more people who’ve played it. Is the game a hit? Probably not. But did no one play it? No.

Avatar image for RSM-HQ
#11 Posted by RSM-HQ (7642 posts) -

@Sevenizz: Evolve from articles at full price, it struggled at around 300,000 copies for its launch month. Which was not something the publisher was very happy about.

Last time Evolve shared actual sales was at the discount bundle editions with 2.5 million and since had a free-to-play version launched in July 2016. Also shut down dedicated servers

https://www.gamespot.com/articles/evolve-ships-2-5-million-copies-publisher-calls-it/1100-6427427/

https://www.pcgamer.com/uk/evolve-shutting-down-dedicated-servers-and-free-to-play-branch-in-september/

If it finally hit 3 million, I suspect a lot of that was an attempt to re-coop develop costs and it didn't pay-off. Giving a product for free is hardly a bragging right if they made next to no profit from the project_

*Again not trying to belittle Evolve, if it was advertised and handled differently would have likely jumped in and given it a go. Looks really fun, and my kind of game. However like many, don't support that kind of business model. It's bad for the gaming industry_

So while you can tell me to get lost because I have no first hand experience, my perspective is why the game is viewed with low regard. It's probably a great game, just with a slimy and scummy way of presenting it towards Gamers.

Avatar image for johnd13
#12 Posted by johnd13 (9551 posts) -

I played the Alpha and it was pretty good. Certainly undeserving of its fate microtransactions aside.

Avatar image for nateboussad
#13 Edited by nateboussad (3 posts) -

The only reason that Evolve does not have a good amount of players in my point of view is that it was poorly advertised compared to others AAA games. I think that TRS have made a huge MP game with a lot of courage to introduce this whole new concept and still made it competitive.

I think you just had some bad experiences playing with random people and that made you feel this way. I can’t tell for sure but I really hope the game still gets new players every now and then to maintain its fan base.

see: https://bluestacks.vip/ , https://kodi.software/ & https://plex.software/

Avatar image for Sevenizz
#14 Edited by Sevenizz (2538 posts) -

@nateboussad: Can we get on topic of the ‘gameplay’ and if people like the game going forward?

Avatar image for Litchie
#15 Edited by Litchie (22900 posts) -

Yes. This 4 vs 1 thing sounded cool at first, but it didn't work. Matches ended up too quickly with the monster dying, or too slow with the monster just running around and with slower humans trying to catch up. The game was incredibly boring. And it had very shitty microtransactions. Turtle Rock made a huge mistake both design wise and business wise.

Avatar image for stogo1003
#16 Posted by Stogo1003 (7 posts) -

This game not bad

Avatar image for ivalice
#17 Edited by Ivalice (6 posts) -

Sadly I never played it but I remember the hype people had for it.

Avatar image for mrbojangles25
#18 Edited by mrbojangles25 (42784 posts) -

Evolve was not a bad game, it was a bad business.

In fact I don't think I've ever heard anyone complain about the gameplay. Good, assymetrical, 4-vs-1 games are rare these days.

Avatar image for PETERAKO
#19 Posted by PETERAKO (2006 posts) -

really bad promotion coupled with running around for 15 minutes without anything happening is what killed the game.

Avatar image for Sevenizz
#20 Posted by Sevenizz (2538 posts) -

@PETERAKO: Clearly you’ve never played the game.

Avatar image for djoffer
#21 Posted by djoffer (978 posts) -

@Sevenizz: I did play the game though and had a similar experience, just not a good experience in 90% of the games...

Avatar image for worlds_apart
#22 Posted by Worlds_Apart (70 posts) -

Was Evolve the first game to start the 4 vs 1 formula?

Avatar image for Sevenizz
#23 Posted by Sevenizz (2538 posts) -

@worlds_apart: Yes and no. Commercially yes, but anyone who’s played Halo 2 on the original Xbox will remember a fan made mode called Zombie. 1 person starts the game as the only opposition and one by one infects the other team by killing them and turning them into zombies who join the zombie team. All along the zombie had a sword and the humans couldn’t fight the zombie. Outrunning the timer was how humans won. It’s not the same game as Evolve, but it’s gameplay can be traced back to a Halo 2 fan created mode.

Avatar image for worlds_apart
#24 Edited by Worlds_Apart (70 posts) -

@Sevenizz: ah I see. Thanks.

Avatar image for RSM-HQ
#25 Posted by RSM-HQ (7642 posts) -
@worlds_apart said:

Was Evolve the first game to start the 4 vs 1 formula?

Not really. From what I've checked into Evolve creators never made the claim they are the first either.

The earliest I'm aware of is Quake 2 had an mod called "Playtime". It was a one buffed up avatar hunting down the group who had to survive a timer. It went in Beta in 2000 and can still be downloaded and used with real players or bots.

Monster Hunter also had one monster face four Hunters back in March 2004. Though that's A.I. versus the players. Both pre-date Halo 2 as well_

Chase Mii also pre-dates Evolve, which was 2011.

Avatar image for worlds_apart
#26 Posted by Worlds_Apart (70 posts) -

@RSM-HQ: ah so it dates back to almost 20 years ago! Thanks for clearing that up.

Avatar image for tokyoempire55
#28 Posted by TokyoEmpire55 (2 posts) -

@Sevenizz: It's not a bad game and people saying monsters were to OP is not an excuse the higher up monsters like the behemoth,wraith, and the kraken were tough to beat because of the skill set that the monsters have really it all comes down to what hunter they choose because each one has a certain skill set which will help you in battle with the monster and i get what i hear about the wraith being hard because i had a very difficult time with that monster and its ability to disappear and summon clones and crap like that but you just got to know how to play the game and what characters are better to use for me Crow(Khovalyg) was the best for me to use against the Wraith to track it down and kill it i found it best to defend the trapper when they trap it so try and keep the monsters attention on you if you know how to evade the sucker but for me i'd rate the game around a 8.7 or so.

Avatar image for mastermetal777
#29 Posted by mastermetal777 (3220 posts) -

The game itself was okay for me. It was either a 5 minute thrill ride of monsters vs humans, or a 20 minute boring cat and mouse game, in my experience. The concept is still solid and I'd like to see another studio create a similar experience with more polish.

Avatar image for with_teeth26
#30 Edited by with_teeth26 (9183 posts) -

I thought it was bad.

long stretches of the matches were just boring, the monster running around trying to level up, the humans running around trying to catch it. I never played the revamped version so I can't speak to it but I never thought the premise was any good so I didn't try it again (and given how quickly it died a second time, most people must have agreed).

Compared to L4D2's versus mode, it was a huge letdown. That was asymmetrical gameplay at its finest, with constantly fun and exciting gameplay for both sides.

Evolve absolutely deserved its fate imo, dull gameplay, bad business practices, some brownie points for a fairly original concept and decent audio-visual presentation.

Avatar image for henrythefifth
#31 Posted by henrythefifth (2054 posts) -

One pretty well known and respected gaming critic praised the game to high heaven when it launched, and gave it 9. Dunno why it got so much hate afterwards.