Evolve Will Have Lots of DLC

[Demonchaser27]

snip

When they say they couldn't make new special infected for left 4 dead they don't mean to imply that they literally can't. What they mean is that in left 4 dead every map had been designed with all of the special infected in mind, hence why left 4 dead 2 maps are very different from left 4 dead 1 maps and why left 4 dead 1 map had many edits done to them before being released for left 4 dead 2. If they were to make a new special infected for left 4 dead then they would have to either A. make the special infected in a way that it doesn't force them to edit any of their maps which would limit their options as all of the current special infect fill in every role needed. B. make it but also edit every map for left 4 dead. Then it would either have to be a free update (for a lot more work than it would take to make a couple of maps) or they would be forced to split up their non dlc players with their dlc players or only allow the players with the dlc to spawn as the new special infected, which could play a vital role in the new map design, then what happens if 1 team doesn't have anyone with that dlc would they just have to work without said special infected. I am not saying it's not possible to make a new special infected for left 4 dead it just a lot of work as every piece in left 4 dead was designed with every other piece in mind.

Now let's look at evolve, 4 changeable playable characters (as long as you have 1 of every role) apparently there will be 17 of these at launch so 5x4x4x4 combination of playable characters. Now they can just release a new playable character and as long as it fits its role (medic, supporter, assault or tracker) it can easily slot into the game. What's that like, it's like a moba you can just release a new character of any role and as long as their balanced don't have to worry about editing everything else. Same goes for the monster (which their will apparently be 5 of at launch) just make sure it's balanced and it can act as a replacement. That's what they mean with modular pieces, the only piece modular in left 4 dead was the map and that's why they only released maps for left 4 dead.

Well after having done some research, I can't seem to find any example of what your referencing here about Left 4 Dead. As far as playable characters went when I played, there were no classes. Everyone did what everyone else could do. So technically there would have been nothing wrong with adding a new character into that. As far as special infected I'm assuming your referencing Left 4 Dead 2, since I didn't play that one much. Because in the first game the special infected were set up so that they essentially just slapped them anywhere they felt like. The smokers were cool as long as they're was ANYWHERE with a long distance, sometimes though they didn't even hide them far away. The Boomer was placed in multiple environments, indicating that it didn't matter much what the environment looked like or played like. And on top of that The Hunter also was slapped anywhere they felt like. The only exception was the Tank. But that was just a limit because he had to fit through doors. (I.E. they didn't put him in small corridors with human sized doors much because he couldn't properly fit through them). Which is a very small hindrance, honestly.

Unless there is something that I'm missing, I don't see how if you made a "truly" new infected who uses drastically different abilities to the others, as opposed to a reconfiguration of existing infected, you wouldn't have to always make a new room to fit it. Unless these "modules" refer to a room layout? In which as long as I fit into that layout then my new infected can work, however this isn't getting rid of limitations, this is just planning for them. Which to me means one of two things:

1. They've already planned to make the "new" DLC infected and are essentially selling you something that was already made/planned during development of the original game you buy.

OR

2. They are still restricting themselves to particular map setups (modules), they just now made *more* map modules giving them slightly more freedom than they had with less map setups in Left 4 Dead, due to these new modules. But under this, it means that anything they release would have to be almost identical or partially related to enemies that are already in the game unless they *hold back* designs for later purchase which just doesn't really justify buying to me.

Either way though, I'll likely not play this game. Mainly because I just don't see it going down a good road. They are going to, as you said, have fixed classes (which is fine on its own) but will essentially release "new" playable characters that have to fit into these roles, which makes them almost the same as another character that was already available. At best they can combine a couple of classes abilities together, but that is still, as someone said earlier them just reconfiguring content I have already bought figuratively speaking (i.e. a "new" Medic that has the Assault guys rush move, that just uses an animation similar to the Tracker's shove back attack). Then they are doing essentially the same thing with maps and enemies. I would rather buy something completely new rather than a reconfiguration of something I already have. Modders can do that. This would be like if Mojang didn't allow Minecraft to spawn new map types, but just used the random generator to spawn a new map and then sell it as though they built it, when they didn't. And even if they did manually reconfigure the map themselves they would just be copying and pasting existing assets in a different configuration all around the map space, which means I'm paying for that which I already have in the game laid out differently.

 

[ZippyDSMlee]

DO NOT WANT!

 

[nuba km]

snip

left 4 dead had to be made so you can use each special infected anywhere, that's why it was carefully designed, how do you make a room that allows,(versus mode) a playable character that dies in basically one hit, a playable character who pounces and pins a player to the ground and a playable character that drags people long distances. That's just for left 4 dead 1, and then you also have to make sure that no point of the map is easily abused by one of these characters and keep a nice flux in safety and danger for the other team. Also no point can be safe enough from these characters that the players feel safe. Having played hundreds of hours on versus mode I can tell you that any point of map can be used by a special infected but it is way more effective on many occasions to wait for them to reach 1 or 2 rooms down the map. Also left 4 dead 2 maps are a lot more open space then left 4 dead 1 maps, not by accident but purposely so to keep both the spitter and charger balanced but their roles to split up the enemy team is still necessary. Both the spitter and charger are needed for this role simply because the change in environment often means that at each point one of the two is significantly better at doing said job. The left 4 dead 1 maps in left 4 dead 2 have many small edits made in them to keep the charger from destroying the survivors in corridors. Also any character added to the game would just be a skin not a new playable character, any character they could add with different effect let's say slower but more health would not be an interesting change to gameplay.

1. They've already planned to make the "new" DLC infected and are essentially selling you something that was already made/planned during development of the original game you buy.

OR

2. They are still restricting themselves to particular map setups (modules), they just now made *more* map modules giving them slightly more freedom than they had with less map setups in Left 4 Dead, due to these new modules. But under this, it means that anything they release would have to be almost identical or partially related to enemies that are already in the game unless they *hold back* designs for later purchase which just doesn't really justify buying to me.

1. Or they make the game then once it is being shipped turn their heads to a white board and go 'so now that the game is complete let's see what we additional content we can make' e.g. mechromancer in borderlands 2 which while thought of while the game was in development wasn't being developed until the game had shipped and contained new mechanics (deathtrap and all the moves that came with it and anarchy are 2 examples)

2. I think you are misunderstanding modular in this context, they don't mean diablo style modular maps where they make a whole bunch of small parts which can be slammed together semi randomly to make something playable. modular means interchangeable i.e. they can make a new monster without worrying how it interacts with any of their other monster mechanics as their will only be 1 monster at a time. Same goes for any of the classes. You seem to have this idea that they can just reasonably include every idea they have into the main game and sell it for $60. I mean 17 playable characters and 5 monsters is a lot considering that so far every announced character is extremely different but does their role.

(each class has more abilities then I am mentioning)

Medic: keeps team alive
medic 1 uses a healing gun to do this, medic 2 can't heal but can raise players back form the dead, each medic has a different set of weapons (one has a sniper which creates weak point on the monster) they also have other unique abilities (one can generate a a.o.e. cloak field). as you see both fit the role but do it in very different ways which changes how you play them or play with them or how you play against them.

Assault: damage
assault 1 has 2 medium damage long range high accuracy weapons that means as long as he has a line of sight of the monster he can do reasonable damage (don't know his abilities). Assault 2, has dual flamethrowers and gas grenades, this allows him to flush out the monster from hiding places and control its movement using the threat of high damage.

Support: supports
Support 1 has a gun that provides a high resistance shield as long as you?re aiming at a player. Support 2 can detach his head and use it as a uav (which is useful as your ui doesn't show where allies are so using this you can either help track the monster or locate lost teammates).

Tracker: find the creature
tracker 1 has a harpoon gun which slows down the creature allowing your team to catch up with it and he also has a cage deployer which creates a spherical force field (about 200m radius) trapping the monster and forcing it to fight your team (lasts about 30 sec). tracker 2 has a pet which can help fight but also continually tracks the creature meaning your team always knows roughly were it is forcing the monster to keep moving.

As you can see having set roles doesn't force characters to play the same, just think about any time you had a large group of people complete the same task, it gets done in different ways.

 

[Atmos Duality]

Welp, Evolve just went onto the list of games I won't touch at launch.
Just too many warning signs.

I don't think that designing a game with DLC in mind means they're going to milk it - it could just mean that they designed the game in a modular manner so that it was easy for them to include DLC. Most software projects aspire to be modular as it allows flexibility and usually means that the design is clean.

While technically true, that's an extremely optimistic take of the situation when you consider the larger scale trends in DLC practices across the rest of the industry.

The fact that Ashton specifically claims

"At the end of the day, it's a business and it has to make sense, but we believe that we've built a game that does support that really well--more so than any game ever before."

is cold comfort for those of us who have seen that before. I cannot think of a developer who has gone the "it's a business" route who also hasn't used that as justification for milking their customers.

It might not even be intentional on their part either; what sounds like a statement of confidence for their product to them, could sound arrogant to the paying customer. Especially if they're already familiar with the price gouging practices common to the rest of the business.

I'm going to wait and see, but after this announcement, my gut tells me that Evolve isn't likely to be worth my money or time.

 

[BlindMaphisto]

I think in this post free dlc world we just need to come to terms with evaluating the worth of a game based on what is there rather than what we think should be there. If the game turns out to be huge amounts of fun you'll probably be glad they have an infrastructure in place to sell more of it and the financial incentive will actually cause them to make more. Just trying to look on the bright side.

 

[Strazdas]

You should know that quick shoddy sequels aren't exclusive to gaming, they are in everything. The first game not being made to accommodate a sequel, and it having to be pumped out quick means they tend to suffer in both story and gameplay.
However not all series suffer from this, Gust pushes out yearly Atelier games and their quality is in no way lesser, and in fact Totori (2010) is worlds better than Rorona (2009) is.
Not that its a bad thing regardless, its like if they started pumping out yearly Yakuzas...would the quality decline...likely but you know its still a Yakuza game so I'd really not care.

The public cannot act as a cohesive unit in dealing with such things, they will as they always have let companies do such things.

You know how long they've done that, and its not just been them. Resident Evil for example had things like Dual Shock editions, and "X editions" (think that'd count), and I doubt it stops there.
Its been a thing forever and you're taking a stand like they are just know turning the wheel.

Yes, other industries suffer from this too and i agree that costumers are the ones letting it happen. Im not taking a stand like it just happened. i was always taking this stand against bad practices. You however seem to try real hard to excuse them.

 

[Rozalia1]

Yes, other industries suffer from this too and i agree that costumers are the ones letting it happen. Im not taking a stand like it just happened. i was always taking this stand against bad practices. You however seem to try real hard to excuse them.

It isn't a "bad practice" which is what you fail to see. Not listening to your customers unhappy with certain things would be bad practice yes...however you're a tiny minority not even worth thinking about. Catering to you and losing money, now that would be a bad practice.

Hey I'm a Ziggler guy so I know how it is to be part of such a group, however you have to take a more neutral standpoint and see things how they really are.

 

[Strazdas]

Yes, other industries suffer from this too and i agree that costumers are the ones letting it happen. Im not taking a stand like it just happened. i was always taking this stand against bad practices. You however seem to try real hard to excuse them.

It isn't a "bad practice" which is what you fail to see. Not listening to your customers unhappy with certain things would be bad practice yes...however you're a tiny minority not even worth thinking about. Catering to you and losing money, now that would be a bad practice.

Hey I'm a Ziggler guy so I know how it is to be part of such a group, however you have to take a more neutral standpoint and see things how they really are.

So people who dont like their games being taken apart and sold in peaces for more profit os a minority not even worth thinking about?

And yes, gutting your game to sell it for more later is bad practice.

There is no reason to take neutral standpoint (not like you do that either).

 

[Rozalia1]

So people who dont like their games being taken apart and sold in peaces for more profit os a minority not even worth thinking about?

And yes, gutting your game to sell it for more later is bad practice.

There is no reason to take neutral standpoint (not like you do that either).

When they can in no way negatively effect your income yes. Loss of their "sales" (quotations because such people are unreliable from the get go, they either won't buy your game anyway...or will whatever you do), does not overtake the value of all the extra money you're making.

Makes more money, people don't care. Small minorities don't change that.

Spoiler

Slander! (and here I state this is in no way aggressive because of an exclamation point, because such things need to be said apparently).
In what way is my view not neutral when I can accept why things are done, while you want companies to spite themselves for seemingly your own amusement.
Company's aim is to make money, you want them to throw away means of making money for what? Morals? Art? Can you feed worker's families, and pay your shareholders with that? Nowhere in business do they do such things, they squeeze people dry everywhere unless of course in the cases of good government business/regulation, but no use going into to that.

All in all I can take issue with energy companies, rail companies, and the like squeezing people to make every penny. After all those companies shouldn't even exist in the first place...but gaming companies? Come now.

 

[Strazdas]

When they can in no way negatively effect your income yes. Loss of their "sales" (quotations because such people are unreliable from the get go, they either won't buy your game anyway...or will whatever you do), does not overtake the value of all the extra money you're making.

Makes more money, people don't care. Small minorities don't change that.

Spoiler

Slander! (and here I state this is in no way aggressive because of an exclamation point, because such things need to be said apparently).
In what way is my view not neutral when I can accept why things are done, while you want companies to spite themselves for seemingly your own amusement.
Company's aim is to make money, you want them to throw away means of making money for what? Morals? Art? Can you feed worker's families, and pay your shareholders with that? Nowhere in business do they do such things, they squeeze people dry everywhere unless of course in the cases of good government business/regulation, but no use going into to that.

All in all I can take issue with energy companies, rail companies, and the like squeezing people to make every penny. After all those companies shouldn't even exist in the first place...but gaming companies? Come now.

Profit is the ultimate goal of a company, but not of humanity. Yes, they will not care as long as they can make profit, which is why this is where we should hit them. Hence my original comment about me not buying the game.

By taking position of the company (they only need to make money, your opinion is irrelevant minority, ect) you take sides in the conversation and stop being neutral.

 

[Rozalia1]

Profit is the ultimate goal of a company, but not of humanity. Yes, they will not care as long as they can make profit, which is why this is where we should hit them. Hence my original comment about me not buying the game.

By taking position of the company (they only need to make money, your opinion is irrelevant minority, ect) you take sides in the conversation and stop being neutral.

But you won't, as a singular entity you can affect nothing. There is not such a large group behind you, thus its irrelevant whatever stand you decide to take. Things you abhor make more money, losing your business is thus irrelevant.

Spoiler

No sides honest, I'm honest Roz. Merely telling you how things are, and why your claims of it being bad, or them being wrong are incorrect. Only in a clearly biased world view can they be such things, and I'd not have to "take the side" of business if people in threads such as this weren't such marks for themselves.
I'm as left wing as it gets, but the bias is simply too strong that I have to bring good sense to such things.

 

[Strazdas]

But you won't, as a singular entity you can affect nothing. There is not such a large group behind you, thus its irrelevant whatever stand you decide to take. Things you abhor make more money, losing your business is thus irrelevant.

Spoiler

No sides honest, I'm honest Roz. Merely telling you how things are, and why your claims of it being bad, or them being wrong are incorrect. Only in a clearly biased world view can they be such things, and I'd not have to "take the side" of business if people in threads such as this weren't such marks for themselves.
I'm as left wing as it gets, but the bias is simply too strong that I have to bring good sense to such things.

As a singular entity my weight is very small, however any mass of people is made up out of single entities working together. If everyone who did not like DLCs would do it, it would not be a group they can ignore. I believe in leading by example, and thus i do myself what i want others to do.

You dont understand how taking sides work. im not here to be your teacher.
..
..
..
Wait, are you going around calling people marks again? and "marks for themselves"? how does that even work?

 

[Reaper195]

The more I hear about this game, the less I want to have anything to do with it. Exclusively focused on multiplayer, no story (Both of which killed my interest in left 4 Dead pretty damn quickly), dlc focused, enough content o keep me interested for a couple of hours since I get incredibly bored simply playing with other people online quickly, etc. I would have slightly less of a problm with this, since each to their own, but too many games are coming out like this. Destiny sounded cool until they gave out more details which made it sound a bit too much like an MMO. Which BUngie were all "No, it's not one.". Except the more details they give out, the more it sounds like exactly that. The Division was cool until it turned out to be exactly the same.

 

[Rozalia1]

As a singular entity my weight is very small, however any mass of people is made up out of single entities working together. If everyone who did not like DLCs would do it, it would not be a group they can ignore. I believe in leading by example, and thus i do myself what i want others to do.

You dont understand how taking sides work. im not here to be your teacher.
..
..
..
Wait, are you going around calling people marks again? and "marks for themselves"? how does that even work?

Which is still minuscule. Won't happen, they know it, I know it, you know it.

No lesson required as I know bringing sense to things isn't taking a side.

Honest question? Being a mark for yourself is very common amongst people...I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding in the conclusions you draw from my posts if that is such a conundrum to you.
I'm not going to "ortonize" it for you here as that'll just be me getting another warning and I'd rather not. Message me on what exactly you want explained if you're genuinely interested.

 

[Nurb]

Why is an independent trying so hard to be hated? This is an EA level dick move

"Fuck you, pay me!" is all they're saying here. They know because it's an online game, they can force all the DLC they want.

Before I just didn't care about the game, but now, because of this and the way they made it with a big middle finger to customers, not buying it isn't enough. I want the game to fail in the worst way. Them going bankrupt would be an added bonus.

 

[Strazdas]

Honest question? Being a mark for yourself is very common amongst people...I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding in the conclusions you draw from my posts if that is such a conundrum to you.
I'm not going to "ortonize" it for you here as that'll just be me getting another warning and I'd rather not. Message me on what exactly you want explained if you're genuinely interested.

Yes, i honestly want to know why are you calling people marks (and sometimes shills). Whether it be a different understanding of the word, attempt to insult under the radar or a Confidence trick [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confidence_trick] reference. Because right now it looks like your simply insulting people.

 

[Rozalia1]

Yes, i honestly want to know why are you calling people marks (and sometimes shills). Whether it be a different understanding of the word, attempt to insult under the radar or a Confidence trick [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confidence_trick] reference. Because right now it looks like your simply insulting people.

Now you're just being dishonest. I've not lobbed "shill" at anyone here on the escapist ever, and no people in news articles aren't escapist members if that is what you're going to start referencing.
Besides I have nothing against shills as we've gone into time and time again, so if you are trying to imply I've been insulting people with that...well it doesn't really fit does it?
Its a little odd that you and the rest get to fling shill at whoever you like without question, yet when I state that a guy is shilling that crowd starts coming down on me for it...me thinks there is some favoritism going on there in regards to certain developers...but again people make their own life choices.

Why don't you tell me how you think I'm using it first. There is enough clues in other words I've used to tell you, so I can only assume you just aren't familiar with that nomenclature to begin with.