It looks interesting but as a console gamer I doubt I'll get to play it. Which is disappointing. And I usually despise games like this that ONLY have multiplayer.
Can we just talk about what we think of Overwatch as a game? Please?
- Thread starter IllumInaTIma
- Start date
Recommended Videos
They specifically said that they did not make it a deathmatch game, or include that game type at all, because they felt it detracted from the teamwork in-game. IIRC, the two modes are base-capture and payload modes. I'd say when they specifically state their dislike for a game mode and provide a gameplay-based reason, it would be highly surprising if they decided to include it.Windcaler said:
It certainly does look intersting. I especially liked two "good" characters shown in the trailer ( Henry McCoy in gorilla buddy and hyper fast teleporter) and overall looks, but I will refrain from judgment untill I see gameplay and all the other characters/classes.
It is my understanding that Overwatch does indeed use a lot of Titan assets, or that it was set to potentially be a game mode inside Titan (IE the maps might have been for Titan BGs or something). If nothing else it gives you a fair idea of what Titan's aesthetic might have looked like, if not its game play.Jandau said:
From a Forbes article:
Love the Rikimaru Ramen hut on one of the maps. Nice little shout out. Perhaps a hint that the game has as much MOBA in its DNA as team shooter.
No, we can't just talk about it as a game. Because, you know, funny enough it doesn't exist in a social vacuum. Funny enough, nothing in this world exists in a social vacuum. And when you ask for people to pretend things exist in a social vacuum, you're being problematic.
Stop that. If someone has a problem with something you SHOULD listen, but at least do them the courtesy of not saying "Shut up I don't wan't anyone to talk about that stuff waa waa waa!!"
Stop that. If someone has a problem with something you SHOULD listen, but at least do them the courtesy of not saying "Shut up I don't wan't anyone to talk about that stuff waa waa waa!!"
This is a world, a culture, a society, a community. Sorry if your games have social issues and people need to talk about them.Kopikatsu said:
Oh wait, no I'm not.
And yet, funny enough whenever someone tries to box up the world they keep getting disappointed when the world won't fit in the box...slo said:
This thread was started with the title "Can we please just talk about Overwatch the game?" and while I think yes, we are all just talking about Overwatch the game it just so happens that problematic female character design is a part of that game, I believe that the person who started this thread's intent was to avoid that discussion.
And my answer to that is no, we cannot just ignore that part of the game. That is a part of the game. You cannot separate it. If you want to have a conversation about the game, and someone wants to talk about their problems with the character design, that is part of the game. Just because you don't want to hear it doesn't make it not true.
Make your own thread and talk about those issues. He's not telling you to shut up, it's just not what this thread is focused on. No one is stopping you, or even telling you not to. Seriously, go and do it. You obviously feel quite strongly about this so I'm curious to see what you have to say. Just don't do it here since that would be off topic and you'd be derailing the thread. I don't mean that the OP doesn't ever want to talk about those issues, it just means they want to focus on a specific aspect of the game.dragonswarrior said:
OT: This is probably the first multiplayer shooter in YEARS that has actually managed to interest me. I'm really liking the wide variety of characters. Also, apparently cartoony graphics and lack of gore means that you're game is only for 9-10 year olds. Who knew?
The problem is that these issues are a part of the game. You can't have a discussion about the game without having a discussion about these issues. An attempt to make a thread where those issues cannot be discussed but the rest of the game can be, whether intentional or not, is silencing. Now, while I do think discussing whether or not these issues should be discussed in this thread is a derailment, I honestly don't feel that my initial post was a derailment. I was responding directly to the OP's title. I also think that character design is a huge part of a game, and if someone has a problem with that character design, whatever the reason, that's a part of the gaming discussion. I really don't see a way to get around the OP trying to silence that part of the discussion.RedDeadFred said:
And I took exception to that.
No, we don't HAVE to talk about a problem if we don't want to, and no, we're not under any obligation to listen to you either. Complain about the problem all you want, but you don't have the right to have others be obligated to hear you.dragonswarrior said:
kind of reminds me of when Hearthstone came out; suddenly everyone wants to play a card game. now, with Overwatch, suddenly everyone wants to play an FPS. And in the case of Hearthstone, it's a crap card game (speaking as someone that's played a lot of different card games over the years). Overwatch looks quite good, but I hope we can look at it without knowing who made it and decide without the company name looming over it. like the game for the games merits, not because Blizzard made it.
Really? Because it seems that whenever the term is brought up or discussed it devolves a lot into the opposite.Fappy said:
A majority of the people I have seen discussing it have been mostly in favor of the designs with maybe a few nitpicks here and there. I've seen very little completely negative feedback about the designs besides a few people saying it was too bland or Pixar-y. I'm one of those feminists that think the "sexualization" is appropriate and well done for the characters and the general tone of the game.Rahkshi500 said:
Where in my post did I say you HAVE to listen? Nowhere. Where did I say you HAVE to talk about these problems? Nowhere. "Should" and "Have to" have very different meanings. If you dislike the fact that you should be participating in a discussion, that's not my problem. I also will not force you to.Rahkshi500 said:
However, I find you participating in this discussion anyway. Perhaps you are more interested than you wish to let on hmmm?
You also don't have the right to expect others to be quiet when you want them to be. Which is what my post was actually about. And you soooo clearly missed that, in such a blundering way that I am forced to wonder at the size of what is clearly an enormous chip on your shoulder... *sits back and wonders at the size of the chip on your shoulder*
Sigh... My point was not that we shouldn't discuss those topics, but rather that people were discussing EXCLUSIVELY those topics. When I was making this thread there were at least three threads discussing female character designs and not a single one discussing the game itself.dragonswarrior said:
Really?Danny Dowling said:
I've played a lot of different card games over the years too, and I think Hearthstone was a rousing success at accomplishing exactly what it set out to do. Which was to create a super-casual, easy to understand card game with a high tempo/pace. If you prefer a boggier card game with a laundry list of rules and conditions that's fine, those can be fun too. Doesn't make the alternative "crap".
Blizzard has the reputation they do because they've created a lot of hit games. Those games were hits because of their merits. It's not like Blizzard sprang into the industry as a neophyte developer with a glowing unearned reputation.
I have absolutely no issue with criticism of games along social lines, but if someone wants a thread to focus on game play discussion only that's fine too. Should probably respect OP's desire on that front.dragonswarrior said:
"Should" is to owe, or oblige, which is to expect others to listen to what you have to say, which is what I take issue with, because no, just like no one should be expected to be silent about something, I should not be expected to listen to someone about that same thing either if I don't want.dragonswarrior said:
Speaking of which, when did I ever say that I expect others to be quiet when I want them to be? Nowhere. Far from it, I participate in these discussions because I want to, not out of in an attempt to silence others, which is what you're assuming. And I didn't miss the point of your post; I didn't respond to it because I already know what the point was and agree with it. My response is a "by the same token" kind of retort.
I found more with Pokemon and UFS as card games than any other, Pokemon 2005-2007 is the best thing going I think to this day.BloatedGuppy said:
Blizzard have made decent games sure, but when the point I'm making is that I'm worried it'll be a case of people playing it or having interest in it just because it's from Blizzard and not because it's a decent FPS. If it isn't good by fps standards on release, will it still be popular? That's a worry. Basically beware the dickriders.