Support NeoGAF

[VibratingDonkey]

Nice to see all those -'s. RIP's are a decent solution. Ought to be standard procedure for these online game snafu's.

Safer not to bother with the sites opting to put up regular reviews with scores and no caveats. I don't understand or share their faith that in this post-MCC and BF4 world, online games can't possibly suffer issues affecting the user experience when the floodgates are opened. These sites seem more interested in being the first on Metacritic than serving their readers. They're at best being negligent.

 

[Beelzebufo]

I disagree, a 5 is 50% right on and thats not bad it just means its "average"nothing special and with 7 or 8's i has a few high notes but its not quite there yet.

When the average review score isn't a 5, I don't think 5 means average

 

[Mman235]

For people reading the reviews and seeing the "stuff takes long to unlock" complaint, here is the Day 1 patch:

So you have to play for like 50 hours to unlock stuff that puts you on par with other players who grinded it out, and that's the "improved" version? Goddamn, modern MP unlock systems are ridiculous.

 

[PhatSaqs]

So you have to play for like 50 hours to unlock stuff that puts you on par with other players who grinded it out, and that's the "improved" version? Goddamn, modern MP unlock systems are ridiculous.

There isn't any competitive advantage to unlocking and playing wuth the higher tier stuff tho so it really isn't a huge deal. They play different and will cater to peeps by play style.

 

[Klyka]

So you have to play for like 50 hours to unlock stuff that puts you on par with other players who grinded it out, and that's the "improved" version? Goddamn, modern MP unlock systems are ridiculous.

I...

I just...


I just can't anymore, I'm out.

 

[Hades Hotgun]

I always find it bizarre that people get hung up on 7 being seen as the minimum level of good.

This is the scale used for most things in life.

5 out of 10 is not average, its fucking horrible. I don't see people clamoring for doctor's with 50% success rates, or cars that start 50% of the time, and no one thinks they deserve to pass a test for getting 50% of the questions right.

So why do people think 50 should be the average for video game scores?

100-90 is exceptional
89-80 is great
79-70 is good
69-60 is acceptable
59-0 is failing/unacceptable/garbage/not worth differentiating

This is how life actually works, pretty much across the board.

And the biggest problem with this is, aside from an arbitrary number being different, what actual, tangible benefit would adopting such a system provide to consumers, developers, or publishers?

What would actually be different? If anything it would just make people more averse to checking out perfectly decent games because they would now have a lower score just for the purpose of appeasing people who think the middle should also be the average.

 

[Joco]

I dont think the game will have legs. Will dead by ssummer. Online shooters are tough to keep populated, unless its cod or bf. Should have focused on left for dead 3 instead.

Agree with this. I feel like the game will be dead before I've gotten the opportunity to really sink some hours into this. Will probably pass on this one.

 

[TomShoe]

When the average review score isn't a 5, I don't think 5 means average

A lot of people use the 10 point grading scale, much like in American schools.

100 - 90 A
89 - 80 B
79 - 70 C
60 - 60 D
59 - 0 F

Anything 7 or higher is basically an acceptable game, not bad, but nothing special about it either. Much like getting a C in school. D's or lower just signify bad games.

 

[MrxDemix]

This game was a boatload of fun to play in beta. I'm super excited to play more. <3 teamwork.

 

[vazel]

So you have to play for like 50 hours to unlock stuff that puts you on par with other players who grinded it out, and that's the "improved" version? Goddamn, modern MP unlock systems are ridiculous.

If you play the mobile game you can get 50% boosts to help you rank up characters in the full game. I'm planning on using 50% boosts from the mobile game to help me grind Lazarus since I don't like that character. If you don't have a smartphone or tablet you can use BlueStacks to play the mobile game.

 

[Fbh]

Sounds like what I expected.

Now comes the wait until the complete edition goes on sale for $30-$20

I disagree, a 5 is 50% right on and thats not bad it just means its "average"nothing special and with 7 or 8's i has a few high notes but its not quite there yet.

In highschool my tests were graded from 1.0 (worst) to 7.0 ( best).
With a 3.5 you will fail the class, 4.0 is the minimum score to pass. 5.0-6.0 is considered average and only 6.0-7-0 is good.

I can see the same logic being applied to videogame scores

 

[-tetsuo-]

Haha people watching a Twitch stream asking streamer to upload their exe file


EDIT: Apparently fixed now. VPN time.

Do you even need to VPN at this point?

 

[5amshift]

Got exactly the scores I knew it would get. It's amazing that it does bring something new to the table in a big way, only wish is that it was out last year.

 

[Sevenfold]

Do you even need to VPN at this point?

Zone 1 – “Asia”
Feb/09/2015 - 07:01 PST
Zone 2 – “Europe”
Feb/09/2015 - 15:01 PST
Zone 3 – “Americas”
Feb/09/2015 - 21:01 PST
Zone 4 – Japan
Mar/04/2015 - 10:01 PST

Depends where you are but for me in UK, yes.

 

[LaunchpadMcQ]

I agreed with you, conceded the price point just prior to where you quoted me.

At least they are going about it the right way and not segregating the community. Everyone can still play together, even with those playing the DLC content.

Yeah I know, I just wanted to address that last line. No offense or attack intended.

My other main problem, which I realized after I made that post, is that the DLC could lend itself to a pay-to-win scenario if the content isn't balanced correctly, and you can almost guarantee that every new pack of hunters or monsters will cause the game to be unbalanced at the outset.

 

[Elandyll]

A lot of people use the 10 point grading scale, much like in American schools.

100 - 90 A
89 - 80 B
79 - 70 C
60 - 60 D
59 - 0 F

Anything 7 or higher is basically an acceptable game, not bad, but nothing special about it either. Much like getting a C in school. D's or lower just signify bad games.

Quick note on that, the A-F system is worth what it's worth (and doesn't seem to be used in reviews generally?), but applying a number corresponding to that is, and has always been, hugely flawed imo.

By putting a 60-100 only as "acceptable", and 0-59 as a big giant "fail", you basically infer that 60% of your measuring scale is worthless.

 

[Hades Hotgun]

Quick note on that, the A-F system is worth what it's worth (and doesn't seem to be used in reviews generally?), but applying a number corresponding to that is, and has always been, hugely flawed imo.

By putting a 60-100 only as "acceptable", and 0-59 as a big giant "fail", you basically infer that 60% of your measuring scale is worthless.

How is that an actual problem? What specific issue is raised by 0-59 being seen as failing? Its not equally failing, it provides feedback on the relative level of failure and the proximity to a passable score, so how is it worthless?

What would be the value of a scoring system where the difference between 1 and 2 is significant? What about 3 and 5? It doesn't matter. There is no benefit to any party.

The system as it is provides the necessary information. It isn't really worthless. You could have two totally shitty games, but one is at least playable, while the other is just a broken mess. You could honestly say, neither is worth your time, but at least one is playable. For the purpose of a consumer they are both equally unworthy of a purchase, but it still provides information regarding the nature of the failure.

Again, this is the system used for most things in life. Everything from how we rate teachers to doctors to stores and all products, work on basically the same scale. 5 out of 10 is unacceptable, and anything less is just another level of unacceptable.

 

[dcelw540]

When the average review score isn't a 5, I don't think 5 means average

Thats because people make 7 or 8s the new norm of average. I can understand your logic but i feel it should be 5 or 6 as average but people will instantly assume oh no its a terrible game! No buy or wait till cheap

 

[orangecoke]

Thats because people make 7 or 8s the new norm of average. I can understand your logic but i feel it should be 5 or 6 as average but people will instantly assume oh no its a terrible game! No buy or wait till cheap

I kinda view it like school exam scores (at least back in my day). 50-60% was barely a pass, and NOT good. 70-80% was average, and 90+ was great.

Thing is, in todays' market climate there isn't really much room for average or below-average games to succeed. There are too many other high quality entertainment options vying for people's time and money.

 

[MyNameIsRye]

Came in here to read about Evolve reviews, instead I see 5 pages of the same tired ass argument about the review system.

 

[IKizzLE]

Review scores have been using the American school grading systems since the dawn of the industry and to this day, people still argue about why a 7 is seen as average. I swear, if you don't like it, just don't use it. Don't chastise people who use it/make purchases off it/like it. They aren't spending your money.

This argument is old as dirt.

 

[Messofanego]

Came in here to read about Evolve reviews, instead I see 5 pages of the same tired ass argument about the review system.

Welcome to review threads!

 

[Mooreberg]

I thought the review scores would be a little higher for two reasons. One, the press was obsessed with this game last year. Two, they are typically indifferent to whatever bad monetary schemes customers find revolting.

As for the whole review scale thing, you have to keep in mind that when it comes to $60 product*, scores 0 - 59 are functionally the same thing in terms of reader response: not buying it. This is why I like the Giant Bomb five score scale. Three out of five means above average but less than great, rather than equating to being a hair better than abject failure. Why sites keep using review scales where sixty percent of the possible scores draw the same reaction or conclusion from readers, I do not know. Maybe at this point it is not worth the effort to realign their review databases.

My view on this game has always been that it will find a longer term audience on Steam, perhaps less so on consoles. I think a lot of people are settled in to Advanced Warfare or Destiny for the time being, or will play BF Hardline until Battlefront comes out. If this game does not have a good "pub" experience, it will have a hard time getting a healthy enough audience size.

*It is actually well above $60 for the complete product in most cases these days, present company included. It makes the whole review scale even dumber because who the fuck is going to pay that much for anything less than at least a 75 average?

 

[dcelw540]

Welcome to review threads!

Haha ya i feel ya but until the game comes out for ths rest of us ill be just arguing

 

[antitrop]

These scores are much higher than I'd have expected.

I think they're much lower than all the awards and media hype this game recieved would have indicated.

The media doesn't often turn their back on their own hype like this, Titanfall still recieved mid-to-high 80s on Metacritic.

 

[Mooreberg]

Haha ya i feel ya but until the game comes out for ths rest of us ill be just arguing

The funny thing is that for all the misinterpretation of review scales, success for this game is probably going to be determined by Youtube channel operators and Twitch streamers. We've got plenty of evidence lately that good review scores do not necessarily sell games to any meaningful degree. I am barely ever in review threads any more because I pay a lot more attention to video on Gametrailers and Gamersyde, threads on here, or what people on my friends list are saying about a game.

I think they're much lower than all the awards and media hype this game recieved would have indicated.

The media doesn't often turn their back on their own hype like this, Titanfall still recieved mid-to-high 80s on Metacritic.

Precisely my thought on it.

 

[Give War A Chance]

I simply *can't* shake the feeling that 1 month from now, this game will be barren, horribly unbalanced for one of the two sides, and not engaging in the way other online MP games manage to stay engaging...

Even after these reviews. It's a bad feeling.

 

[antitrop]

Review scores have been using the American school grading systems since the dawn of the industry and to this day, people still argue about why a 7 is seen as average. I swear, if you don't like it, just don't use it. Don't chastise people who use it/make purchases off it/like it. They aren't spending your money.

This argument is old as dirt.

There's always a few that think review scales are determined by the readers. No point in arguing with them.

As an American who has grown up reading game reviews for over 20 years, they have always followed pretty closely, in general, with the American public education system's scale of 7 being average. I don't tell reviewers what their scale means, yet there are still some out there that will always put the blame on your expectations, which is backwards.

 

[DrGonzo615]

I simply *can't* shake the feeling that 1 month from now, this game will be barren, horribly unbalanced for one of the two sides, and not engaging in the way other online MP games manage to stay engaging...

Even after these reviews. It's a bad feeling.

Yep, I have that same feeling....someone will find the right combination or the right strategy to completely dominate as the monster or as a a group of hunters, ruining any fun. Either that or the majority of people just wont "get it" and be turned off by the strategy required to have a good match.

 

[Give War A Chance]

Yep, I have that same feeling....someone will find the right combination or the right strategy to completely dominate as the monster or as a a group of hunters, ruining any fun. Either that or the majority of people just wont "get it" and be turned off by the strategy required to have a good match.

Yeah, you nailed my fears. I couldn't think of the way to explain it earlier, but I think you got it.

It feels like this game has a super high chance of becoming algorithmic as opposed to dynamic, and that makes me want to avoid it at all costs, even though everyone seemed to LOVE IT at E3, and have cooled just a touch since then. It's so weird.

 

[Deleted member 17706]

GAF is notoriously unfriendly to multiplayer focused games. I can't think of a single one that isn't a fighting game that gets any widespread love around here.

I think it's just because most multiplayer-focused games get boring pretty quickly. You also have a billion excellent alternatives, many of which have no entry fee. To charge $60 for a multiplayer-only or multiplayer-focused game means you'd better bring a pretty revelatory experience that can't be had elsewhere and doesn't get old. You also need to be a company that shows it cares about its community and engages with them. The DLC nonsense with this game is definitely a poor start for relations with your possible fan base.

You can't expect gaming journalists, who are typically extremely casual, to give an accurate appraisal of a multiplayer game's long-term playability. It has to get in the hands of the hardcore community before the game's depth and degree to which it is balanced can be determined. Hearing "yeah, it's a lot of fun" from a guy who 1. didn't pay for the game, 2. played it under optimal conditions (when the servers aren't crowded and probably exclusively with game journalist buddies at play times set up by the publisher), and 3. probably spent a few dozen hours at maximum with the game really shouldn't mean much to anyone looking to drop $60 to $100 or more on the game.

 

[Hades Hotgun]

All of these "it will be dead in a few months" comments confuse me.


Evolve is not a team vs team FPS. Reviews have been fairly explicit is saying this is a game designed to played by friends. You don't need any more than 3 or 4 other friends to enjoy this game at its very best.


I don't intend to ever bother with random matchmaking when the player count required for optimum enjoyment is so low.

 

[Elandyll]

How is that an actual problem? What specific issue is raised by 0-59 being seen as failing? Its not equally failing, it provides feedback on the relative level of failure and the proximity to a passable score, so how is it worthless?

What would be the value of a scoring system where the difference between 1 and 2 is significant? What about 3 and 5? It doesn't matter. There is no benefit to any party.

The system as it is provides the necessary information. It isn't really worthless. You could have two totally shitty games, but one is at least playable, while the other is just a broken mess. You could honestly say, neither is worth your time, but at least one is playable. For the purpose of a consumer they are both equally unworthy of a purchase, but it still provides information regarding the nature of the failure.

Again, this is the system used for most things in life. Everything from how we rate teachers to doctors to stores and all products, work on basically the same scale. 5 out of 10 is unacceptable, and anything less is just another level of unacceptable.

IF you accept that there is a difference between 6 and 9 (you visibly do), there should also be a difference between 1 and 4.

In your system (A-F applied to a numerical score) there isn't, as EVERYTHING edges on being above 59 to not be considered a failure.

There is no inherent problem in the A-F ranking when the main problem is Pass/ No Pass, and when you want to quality the degree of Pass (from "barely", to "with honors").

There -is- a problem when you want to qualify every degree of quality, even in how bad things can get. Just as an example, a 4.5/10 game could be considered acceptable by die hard fans of one given genra (say giant Mech combat), who would be more than willing to accept to turn a blind eye to some glaring problems to get their fix.
Otoh, a 1/10, per example, would clearly indicate a game pratically broken beyond any hope. Maybe a 0 should also not be a taboo? (as in, broken at launch and unplayable in some aspects?).

So in short, the problem I see too often is that the A-F scale is used as applied to a decimal scoring, where it should not.

Either use the full 1-10 scoring range, or use the A-F scale (F meaning DO NOT PLAY THIS, and B, C & D indicating various levels of enjoyment, with finally A being "MUST OWN, WHOEVER YOU ARE").

Sorry for the partial OOT.

 

[TheBaronOfNA]

I like how most of the outlets refrained from giving a score until servers are live at launch. It's a good start for these kinda games.

That is really kind of awesome.

 

[Beelzebufo]

They basically do use A-F, but with numbers. 70 is a C, and C is a garbage grade. B is alright but not special, A Is great.

 

[Mooreberg]

I think it's just because most multiplayer-focused games get boring pretty quickly. You also have a billion excellent alternatives, many of which have no entry fee. To charge $60 for a multiplayer-only or multiplayer-focused game means you'd better bring a pretty revelatory experience that can't be had elsewhere and doesn't get old. You also need to be a company that shows it cares about its community and engages with them. The DLC nonsense with this game is definitely a poor start for relations with your possible fan base.

You can't expect gaming journalists, who are typically extremely casual, to give an accurate appraisal of a multiplayer game's long-term playability. It has to get in the hands of the hardcore community before the game's depth and degree to which it is balanced can be determined.

Multiplayer games are completely at the mercy of the audience. Not that this would really apply to Evolve since it is 4 v 1, but it is hard to ignore the extent to which most developers have given up on match balance these days. Parties do not get broken up no matter how messed up it makes a given match, creating a whacky revolving door routine on the bottom half of the losing team's roster. A 6 v 6 game can have 18 players pass through it because nobody wants to waste their time being the replacement cannon fodder in a match that is already over in terms of outcome.

Whatever issues there are in Evolve will be somewhat unique to it, and Turtle Rock could end up responding to them in a timely manner that keeps people happy. But nothing about the way reviews are handled will ever inform players of that.

 

[Deleted member 17706]

Multiplayer games are completely at the mercy of the audience. Not that this would really apply to Evolve since it is 4 v 1, but it is hard to ignore the extent to which most developers have given up on match balance these days. Parties do not get broken up no matter how messed up it makes a given match, creating a whacky revolving door routine on the bottom half of the losing team's roster. A 6 v 6 game can have 18 players pass through it because nobody wants to waste their time being the replacement cannon fodder in a match that is already over in terms of outcome.

Whatever issues there are in Evolve will be somewhat unique to it, and Turtle Rock could end up responding to them in a timely manner that keeps people happy. But nothing about the way reviews are handled will ever inform players of that.

Pretty much. All they can really comment on is whether the game is any fun under ideal circumstances. Of course it's going to be fun under ideal circumstances. Pretty much any game can be a lot of fun when you're playing with your mates.

 

[HowZatOZ]

Jason Schreier has got a point

https://twitter.com/jasonschreier/status/564797789620940800

I get where he's coming from, but Kotaku has done the same thing before. I would argue though that this is somewhat different to SimCity or Diablo 3 because you don't need to be online or really have any specific experience to enjoy and review the game. As long as you have five humans you can easily review what the game has to offer, going live won't change that core experience outside of server issues.

 

[Deleted member 17706]

I get where he's coming from, but Kotaku has done the same thing before.

I think they have since said they would no longer do so.

 

[geordiemp]

I...

I just...


I just can't anymore, I'm out.

Bloody hell, devs just don't respect our time anymore. This and Destiny...my god.

Listen devs, I like to play a few different games, I want to enjoy a game for a week or 2 and move on, and then come back for the DLC as I enjoyed it so much. Grind does not = more sales, it often is a turn off and lost sale.

 

[Klyka]

Bloody hell, devs just don't respect our time anymore. This and Destiny...my god.

Listen devs, I like to play a few different games, I want to enjoy a game for a week or 2 and move on, and then come back for the DLC as I enjoyed it so much. Grind does not = more sales, it often is a turn off and lost sale.

No, that's not why I dropped out.

 

[CozMick]

Bloody hell, devs just don't respect our time anymore. This and Destiny...my god.

Listen devs, I like to play a few different games, I want to enjoy a game for a week or 2 and move on, and then come back for the DLC as I enjoyed it so much. Grind does not = more sales, it often is a turn off and lost sale.

I actually thought he was implying that informing people about the game was a complete waste of time because the goalposts were continuously being moved.....

Seriously, all multiplayer games have some sort of grind, its not exclusive to Evolve....

EDIT: beaten by the original poster

I have come to the conclusion however that the entire population of gaf never ever buys a single game for one reason or another. Its a wonder the game industry still makes money

 

[Z_Y]

There have been so few threads about this game...especially if you don't count the dlc hate/controversy threads. I'm surprised this thread isn't any bigger. Probably not a great sign.

I'm back on the side of probably pre-ordering this tonight to get the DLC bonus. .What time do OTs go up nowadays? And what is everyone getting this on? Has there been any talk about differences between the console versions?

 

[geordiemp]

I simply *can't* shake the feeling that 1 month from now, this game will be barren, horribly unbalanced for one of the two sides, and not engaging in the way other online MP games manage to stay engaging...

Even after these reviews. It's a bad feeling.

Excellent point, the reviews also say the gun play is poor, so all that's left is strategy, and when players figure this out it will be a one way street for those that use it.

 

[patchday]

Was wondering what the review scores would look like. I'm on PS4 so never got a chance to beta test. Since its the guys that made Left 4 Dead I'll toss them a bone. Granted, that thinking kinda got me in trouble with Destiny (Bungie). I enjoy Destiny but its for sure not the product I was expecting (I was looking for a Shooter like BorderLands/Diablo but got a great shooter mired in poor-grindy RPG elements)

I'm a little worried by the Polygon review mention of grinding. I am looking for games that is very light on that (like Call of Duty-AW). But as long as there is no "random" bullshit loot I should be fine. I'm okay with earning what I want but not a fan of RNG loots

 

[komorebi]

Jason Schreier has got a point

https://twitter.com/jasonschreier/status/564797789620940800

Its ironic for him to post this when A) those sites are just as desperate for clicks as every other major gaming site and B) he works for one of the most notorious clickbait sites to begin with. Nothing "unbelievable" about it.

 

[Deleted member 17706]

Seriously, all multiplayer games have some sort of grind, its not exclusive to Evolve....

No, they don't.

I'd argue that the best ones keep you coming back solely because they are a ton of fun to play, and not because they have you on some unlock treadmill.

 

[ito007]

I always find it bizarre that people get hung up on 7 being seen as the minimum level of good.

This is the scale used for most things in life.

5 out of 10 is not average, its fucking horrible. I don't see people clamoring for doctor's with 50% success rates, or cars that start 50% of the time, and no one thinks they deserve to pass a test for getting 50% of the questions right.

So why do people think 50 should be the average for video game scores?

100-90 is exceptional
89-80 is great
79-70 is good
69-60 is acceptable
59-0 is failing/unacceptable/garbage/not worth differentiating

This is how life actually works, pretty much across the board.

And the biggest problem with this is, aside from an arbitrary number being different, what actual, tangible benefit would adopting such a system provide to consumers, developers, or publishers?

What would actually be different? If anything it would just make people more averse to checking out perfectly decent games because they would now have a lower score just for the purpose of appeasing people who think the middle should also be the average.

This is pretty much my thinking. I mean come on as much as we get disappointed and like to harp on games, I haven't played a game in a long time that was 5/10 bad. Think about that as meaning "half satisfactory". I have played quality games that I didn't like that were personally 5/10s, but I can't really be that personal when I'm trying to make an evaluation for others to see right?

 

[gamelova]

Is this game recommended if you don't have friends to play with?

 

[Skid 4 Dead]

Is this game recommended if you don't have friends to play with?

Who needs friends when you got GAF!