Can we just talk about what we think of Overwatch as a game? Please?

[BloatedGuppy]

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.

Blizzard games have enjoyed high levels of popularity in large part because of their polish, accessibility, and quality design. Warcraft and Starcraft were the preeminent games in their genre, World of Warcraft was a pop cultural sensation that redefined expectations for the MMO, and Diablo remains the gold standard for isometric ARPGs despite many attempts to dethrone it (and a stumble out of the gate for III).

If the game isn't any good I won't be playing it, but due to Blizzard's pedigree I think it's unlikely it'll be anything other than solid. As to whether or not people choose to play it due to developer cache, why the fuck would that matter to me? People can do whatever they want with their time and money. I think DOTA is a superior title to LoL, but I don't spend time losing sleep over the latter game's significantly larger fanbase.

 

[Laser Priest]

To me it looks like Blizzard trying to compete with Team Fortress 2 style games by doing what every Blizzard game does: Sucking the personality out of goddamn everything and replacing it with the most generic shit they can cobble together.

Frankly, I think Blizzard is up there with Platinum as one of the worst devs that somehow continues to be successful and this game looks like all of their shitty ways thrown onto a new genre.

 

[bliebblob]

I was iffy at first, then it quickly grew on me but then I realized two things...

One: even though nothing official has been said on the matter yet, this reeks of free-to-play. And instead of going on a 3-page rant about that, I'll just semi-steal an opinion from Jim sterling: it is not an inherently bad business model, but the industry has mucked it up so bad the mere mention of it makes me worried. As in: "What limey, greedy shenanigans are they going to pull this time?"

Two: apparently there can be multiple copies of the same hero in a game. I'd much rather have seen them go the moba route where that's not possible (afaik) because even in team fortress 2 that always kind of bothered me. Yes, yes I can already hear the counterarguments: "But bliebblob, is that really so strange in a gameworld where X and Y are a thing?" And heck, you've probably got a point. So let's bypass that particular tarpit and instead go straight for the gameplay reason I dislike it. I simply like it better if when I say, destroy a sentry nest, I know for a fact there won't be another one for a while. Because I just killed the engineer, not an engineer. I feel it gives more sense of accomplishment when you take out a opponent because you're forcing the other team to deal with the complete absense of that class for a while. And that in turn injects some more tactics into the game, since it can be greatly exploited by a clever team.

 

[IllumInaTIma]

Two: apparently there can be multiple copies of the same hero in a game. I'd much rather have seen them go the moba route where that's not possible (afaik) because even in team fortress 2 that always kind of bothered me. Yes, yes I can already hear the counterarguments: "But bliebblob, is that really so strange in a gameworld where X and Y are a thing?" And heck, you've probably got a point. So let's bypass that particular tarpit and instead go straight for the gameplay reason I dislike it. I simply like it better if when I say, destroy a sentry nest, I know for a fact there won't be another one for a while. Because I just killed the engineer, not an engineer. I feel it gives more sense of accomplishment when you take out a opponent because you're forcing the other team to deal with the complete absense of that class for a while. And that in turn injects some more tactics into the game, since it can be greatly exploited by a clever team.

I was also hoping for that. Primarily because it seemed like there were at least two heroes playing similar role. As in, there are at least two kinds of snipers with Widowmaker and Hanzo, at least two kinds of engineers with Thorbjorn and Symmetra, at least two kinds of medics with Mercy and Zenyatta etc. But then again, it might cause a lot of disbalance.

 

[dragonswarrior]

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.

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*

"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.

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.

Aaahhh, a by the same token kinda post, gotcha. I apologize for my rude words. And I'm also sorry for the implication that you expect others to be quiet. That actually wasn't my intention, but it pretty clearly came out like that, and I apologize.

Now yes, I actually do think folks have an... well, not an obligation. I do think there is a subtle difference between "should" and "obligation". Should can imply that it's simply a good idea, or the right thing to do. Whereas obligation implies something you have to do. I don't think that "should" means you HAVE to, but I do think it means you should. Everyone should listen, and really think. I often find that it seems these debates are so "urgh" with neither side getting anywhere because neither side is really listening to the other side, or responding to their points, or listening to the facts, or etc...

So yea, I stand by "should listen".

 

[Rahkshi500]

Aaahhh, a by the same token kinda post, gotcha. I apologize for my rude words. And I'm also sorry for the implication that you expect others to be quiet. That actually wasn't my intention, but it pretty clearly came out like that, and I apologize.

Now yes, I actually do think folks have an... well, not an obligation. I do think there is a subtle difference between "should" and "obligation". Should can imply that it's simply a good idea, or the right thing to do. Whereas obligation implies something you have to do. I don't think that "should" means you HAVE to, but I do think it means you should. Everyone should listen, and really think. I often find that it seems these debates are so "urgh" with neither side getting anywhere because neither side is really listening to the other side, or responding to their points, or listening to the facts, or etc...

So yea, I stand by "should listen".

It's okay. I apologize too that my initial post may have came off strongly and rude as well.

I guess I can see why you would stand by that position. It's just that in my experience, both "should" and "obligation" are often conflated together, and by technical definitions can mean the same thing, that I guess I kinda assumed that's what you meant as well. But yeah, I can give others the courtesy of listening to what they want to say, even if it's something I don't agree with.

 

[SweetShark]

Seriously, it is like Pixar made a FPS game. A good looking one as well.
We need more unique artistic direction like this.
Not only Anime and Muscular dudes all the time.....

 

[RedDeadFred]

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.

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.

And I took exception to that.

Look, I am fairly certain I see where you're coming from. The OP's title was a little vague and you are correct, social issues are part of the game. I'm pretty sure that what they meant (and I'm sure you realize this too) is they want to talk about the actual gameplay of it. I fully agree with you that social issues in games should be talked about, it's just that the OP doesn't want to talk about them in this thread. That is understandable since sometimes, it's good to just talk about the mechanics of a game.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

It's a TF2 knock-off. What else is there to talk about, if not skins and their design?

Tracer = Scout
Reinhardt = Heavy
Torbjorn = Engineer
Widowmaker = Sniper
Mercy = Medic

etc.

Filling a similar role as is not the same as them being equal to each other.

snip

I see more similarities than differences is what I'm going for. Apparently so do a lot of people.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/138581-Team-Fortres-2-Overwatch-Mash-up-Fan-Art-And-Video

 

[EvilRoy]

It's a TF2 knock-off. What else is there to talk about, if not skins and their design?

Tracer = Scout
Reinhardt = Heavy
Torbjorn = Engineer
Widowmaker = Sniper
Mercy = Medic

etc.

Well balance and gameplay are still worth talking about, although I suppose there isn't enough information quite yet. Although I object to the implication that a TF2 knock off is necessarily a bad thing - I don't know if you've played TF2 recently, but it has slowly but surely become a bit of a mess. Item bloat, persistent balance problems, severe performance issues and art style degradation have really changed the game from the original form.

It would be good to see what blizzard can produce with regards to a more modern attempt at a team based FPS. Free to play or not, I think many players would happily make the change for performance improvements alone, although I personally feel they need more random crits.

 

[deleted+75193]

DELETED