DangerDog wrote on Oct 9, 2014, 17:08:

HorrorScope wrote on Oct 9, 2014, 16:43:
It's $60? Ya, no.

+ DLC, timed exclusive DLC for xbox one no less.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/136058-Evolve-Will-Have-Lots-of-DLC

fuck DLC... put that all into the game BEFORE you ship it please.

HorrorScope wrote on Oct 9, 2014, 16:43:
It's $60? Ya, no.

+ DLC, timed exclusive DLC for xbox one no less.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/136058-Evolve-Will-Have-Lots-of-DLC

It's $60? Ya, no.

Agent.X7 wrote on Oct 9, 2014, 16:32:
The first alpha was awful. Also, this game seems more like something you would pay $19.99 for, not $60.

I have played a preview version in late July and it was quite cool. It was well balanced and learning strategies for both sides was a lot of fun.

The first alpha was awful. Also, this game seems more like something you would pay $19.99 for, not $60.

I really want to play the alpha becuz i was teased with getting accepted for the alpha but was busy when they had it available for just a few days only.

1. Looks fun. A little cooridorish from the gameplay link.
2. However man you have to unload a lot of lead to kill Goliath, so what happens when it becomes one v one, seems impossible for the soldier to win.
3. If successful, I'll take Predator 6v1 in the futua.
4. Biggest strike, their website doesn't allow you to leave by hitting back. Is this 1995? That shit ass game? lol

The list of games my HTPC (gtx285) could not run at or near max graphics settings as of the beginning of THIS year was exactly ZERO... and now it's suddenly ALL of them and it's not even a matter of them running poorly, they simply don't launch. You don't see a problem with that? It never got to a point where I ever even had to run a game on "low". Sure I have to disable DoF or AO sometimes, but the games still work perfectly fine without those options (key word here, options) because they are merely eye-candy. Eye candy that should be readily disabled if I choose to.

Is it not optimal? Or simply not optimized... There is a huge difference there. All these new games seem to have arbitrarily raised required specs.. as if there is any game out there that really needs a quad core processor when most games (especially ports) still don't even take advantage of 2 threads, let alone 4+.

Every card released just before DX11 dropped supports dx10/10.1, which is not 12 years old and owners of those cards have been completely shafted by this "forced upgrade". Having the OPTION is all I want... especially since the game engines didn't just suddenly stop running dx9, they chose to disable it. One of the most popular games in the world still supports DX8 FFS. I'll decide how low I have to turn the graphics down to reach an acceptable level of performance... but without the option to do so I'm simply shafted. What they have created here is a new arbitrarily raised floor. Nvidia/ATI are very likely behind this drop of DX9 support, who else would be?

One of the foundations of PC gaming was and always has been backwards compatibility. That no longer seem to be the case and it's very sad.

Apparently what should have actually been done was to buy a console 5 years ago instead of a pc graphics card. I would be in the same exact position right now, $400 behind being able to play the newest games on my TV.

Meh... Time to finally check out those in-home streaming options I guess. :/

I suspect dropping DX9 simply reflects that an API released in 2002 is possibly not optimal for hardware running a title launched in 2015.

2 different teams, controlling different characters with different skills, attempting different objectives simultaneously. Asymmetrical, just like L4D. Symmetrical shooters are TF2, CS, CoDoodie etc. Pretty obvious.

As for the notion that 4v1 isn't "fun"... well, it's hardly 4v1 in the traditional sense, considering the 1 is a ridiculously more powerful monster than the 4 regular players in every phase of the game except the first ~minute of the match. So... yes... I suppose if you play by yourself all the time then a Co-Op team shooter is probably not the best use of your time. Just like pubs got consistently steamrolled in L4D if you didn't have a few friends to play with.

I was in the last beta, and this game is tons of fun. I'm just disappointed that it's "yet another next-gen" game dropping DX9 support for no reason whatsoever.

I'd feel alot better about the netcode if it was not running on CryEngine. Source (L4D) may look dated, but backwards compatibility and netcode were things it never, ever, ever had a problem with. It's just sad to see the new console generation being used as an excuse to stop developing DX9 completely (which really doesn't follow in a logical sense since they are still making 360/ps3 versions of the game like shadows of mordor did).

Can someone please refresh Giants Citizen Kabuto? Even the original game with updated graphics? Then throw it on Steam? I would love to replay that game with newer tech. I feel like this game borrows elements from Giants CK.

That game was a blast. It's unbalanced multiplayer, hilarious dialogue with the Meccs and their British accent. The nudity patch for the Reapers. All good fun

MDB wrote on Oct 9, 2014, 10:15:
Because it's 1v4. Which is about as fun as it sounds.

Durr, how does that work? I could see it working a few different ways. For example, Golden Gun in N64's Goldeneye was fun, because one guy had a gun that was a one-hit kill, but was a glowing ball on the radar if I recall.

Another fun 1vsSeveral is DungeonLand, which is a Unity game that is a bit like an Action RPG with 4 player co-op as the main mode. But there is a Dungeon Master mode where another player is the Dungeon Master and can summon different monsters and traps, and is trying to keep the four co-op players from getting to the end.

Edit: Nevermind, the site finally loaded - it is four humans of different classes vs a giant monster. Sounds fun for a few rounds.

Because it's 1v4. Which is about as fun as it sounds.

Why is it always an "asymmetrical shooter" and not symetrical?