Given how WC3 (along with literally every other Blizzard game ever made) took both its character models and the entire story of their games and changed them just enough that they actually lowered the bar for how little needs to be changed to not be sued, and the fact DOTA 2's characters look about as similar to WC3's then WC3's look to generic DnD ones, the comparison seems to fall flat, especially when one remembers the fact that Blizzard's original ideas bin is about as deep as a dried up kiddie pool.
And this is just the species stuff. I didn't even bother doing more character specific stuff, like comparing DOTA2's Alchemist-who-is-a-little-goblin-fellow-riding-a-giant-brute to Warcraft's Alchemist-who-is-a-little-goblin-fellow-riding-a-giant-brute for instance. I'll keep going tomorrow if you want.
I still have no idea why people are fighting in Overwatch. Makes it kind of hard to enjoy the cinematics they release when I don't know the basics of the conflict.
I still have no idea why people are fighting in Overwatch. Makes it kind of hard to enjoy the cinematics they release when I don't know the basics of the conflict.
Most of them are mercenaries now, like Reaper and Widowmaker. Some of them are still trying to fight the good fight, like Tracer and Winston. Others are trying to get to the bottom of what/who killed Overwatch in the first place (Soldier 76).
If you watched any of the Overwatch videos you'd know a good bit of this. There's a ton of world building goin on in them.
Most of them are mercenaries now, like Reaper and Widowmaker. Some of them are still trying to fight the good fight, like Tracer and Winston. Others are trying to get to the bottom of what/who killed Overwatch in the first place (Soldier 76).
If you watched any of the Overwatch videos you'd know a good bit of this. There's a ton of world building goin on in them.
So far, I've watched a few. Most notably, nowhere is there anything saying "This is why we fight" in this video here. Especially not what has them fight in some big brawl as they do ingame.
Most of them are mercenaries now, like Reaper and Widowmaker. Some of them are still trying to fight the good fight, like Tracer and Winston. Others are trying to get to the bottom of what/who killed Overwatch in the first place (Soldier 76).
If you watched any of the Overwatch videos you'd know a good bit of this. There's a ton of world building goin on in them.
So far, I've watched a few. Most notably, nowhere is there anything saying "This is why we fight" in this video here. Especially not what has them fight in some big brawl as they do ingame.
They're mercenaries or fighting against mercenaries, or if they're Junkrat they're just causing mayhem. Its not going to be perfect due to the way that the mechanics of the game work, but if you're askin for somethin that specific you're not goin to get an answer.
The way you're phrasin the question you want to know why you're in a team with X characters fighting Y characters while also wanting to know why X character would also be fighting their doppelganger on the other team, or multiple doppelgangers on the other team.
It'd be like asking about the story of ToR based off the pvp matches. That very specific thing isn't meant to make sense, it just exists inside the overall story.
They're mercenaries or fighting against mercenaries, or if they're Junkrat they're just causing mayhem. Its not going to be perfect due to the way that the mechanics of the game work, but if you're askin for somethin that specific you're not goin to get an answer.
The way you're phrasin the question you want to know why you're in a team with X characters fighting Y characters while also wanting to know why X character would also be fighting their doppelganger on the other team, or multiple doppelgangers on the other team.
It'd be like asking about the story of ToR based off the pvp matches. That very specific thing isn't meant to make sense, it just exists inside the overall story.
Oh, ok. That makes sense. I'm used to games spinning stories about what the characters do while you're playing, not about what the characters do when you're not playing. My mistake.
All this lore wasted on an FPS, if only Blizzard hadn't sold out to activision we might have gotten a ground breaking new mmo instead of 2 minute cutscenes. I don't want to go read wiki's to find out why my characters are fighting, I want it in the game I am playing. But we can't have lore in game in fps's :/
I still have no idea why people are fighting in Overwatch. Makes it kind of hard to enjoy the cinematics they release when I don't know the basics of the conflict.
Most of them are mercenaries now, like Reaper and Widowmaker. Some of them are still trying to fight the good fight, like Tracer and Winston. Others are trying to get to the bottom of what/who killed Overwatch in the first place (Soldier 76).
If you watched any of the Overwatch videos you'd know a good bit of this. There's a ton of world building goin on in them.
Annnnnnnd it all means fuck all in the game itself considering you'll have teams of enemies fighting alongside each other. Or, for that matter, faithful comrades pitted against each other. Or, for that other matter, a person pitted against their "evil clone."
.......or there could just be a team comprised of six of the same character.
Such is the way of MOBA's, though: when the game starts the story doesn't mean anything at all. A shooter MOBA will be no different.
OT:
I got a kick out of this comment from the youtube page for this video:
We are blizzard fans. We are patient. We are non-streamers. We are Onlywatch.
Strange to see all this storytelling in a game without a storymode. Shame.
Xeorm said:
I still have no idea why people are fighting in Overwatch. Makes it kind of hard to enjoy the cinematics they release when I don't know the basics of the conflict.
Really? Because you seem to mean that you miss the days when Blizzard made nothing but Diablo, Starcraft, and Warcraft. For the record, here's some cinematics from those series:
An entirely new property unrelated to the above three came out and has a different, more cartoony style to it, but that doesn't somehow remove the existence of everything else they've made recently.
Does not help when Blizzard demeans the iconography of the old games. (Looks at Candy costume Muradin Bronzbeard in Heroes of the Storm) This Overwatch game just does not feel like a Blizzard game to me.
Now:
1. World of Warcraft is the one thing I like best about their current cinematics. I did not mind Mist of Pandaria because it was not all "Kung Fu Panda" silly.
2. Starcraft 2 is reletively consistant with the old games in terms of looks. The only thing I did not like is how they changed the look of the Zerg. I feel they made them a bit cartoony and way to spiky.
3. You know unlike alot of people I really did not mind Diablo 3 from a Story Perspective and gameplay. I had fun with the campaign and was engaged with the plot. I just thought Diablo himself looked silly.
I really don't see how people can Claim Blizzard is ripping of VALVE... I mean come on, this is Valve who literally stole a WC3 mod and are making a shit ton of money off of it. Fair disclaimer: I LOVE(d) Blizzard and I LOVE Valve, so I do like both a lot. In this case though Valve is definitely the light fingered fellow, Blizzard hasn't lifted their stuff from other people.
OT: Really not excited for OverWatch at all, doesn't seem like it will be worth a full game price for just PvP. That and not getting into the Beta I sure as hell won't drop that kinda dough on something I might hate.
I really don't see how people can Claim Blizzard is ripping of VALVE... I mean come on, this is Valve who literally stole a WC3 mod and are making a shit ton of money off of it.
Is it really stealing when they purchased it fairly? I mean that's like saying Disney stole Star Wars.
And I'm not saying Overwatch is a copy of TF2, I'm simply stating the fact the formula for advertising it is a copy of that used for TF2. Which, unless someone can point to an FPS from before 2007 that used YouTube videos to present the characters and free online Graphic Novels to give people lore of the setting, is a simple statement of fact.
Blizzard hasn't lifted their stuff from other people
I really don't see how people can Claim Blizzard is ripping of VALVE... I mean come on, this is Valve who literally stole a WC3 mod and are making a shit ton of money off of it.
Is it really stealing when they purchased it fairly? I mean that's like saying Disney stole Star Wars.
And I'm not saying Overwatch is a copy of TF2, I'm simply stating the fact the formula for advertising it is a copy of that used for TF2. Which, unless someone can point to an FPS from before 2007 that used YouTube videos to present the characters and free online Graphic Novels to give people lore of the setting, is a simple statement of fact.
Blizzard hasn't lifted their stuff from other people
OK I might have been heavy handed with the stealing comment, but they literally used the EXACT products from WC3. And the whole ideas from them.
Also comparing StarCraft to WH40k is completely disingenuous. I've played both games quite a bit and the only thing they have in common for the most part are Space Marines fucking shit up. And the Space Marines in SC are a far cry from WH40K. The games also play totally differently, the lore is pretty damn different, there are similarities but I'm thinking back to the South Park episode of "Simpsons did it." Everything will bear some similarities to something else, but you can't call the SC to WH40K nearly as similar as the DotA to WC similarity.
As to the second portion.... This guy already answered that:
Hawki said:
None of which is exclusive to either game. Strife, League of Legends, Smite, Dawngate, and Infinite Crisis all use(d) the same tactic, despite the lack of story within the game itself. Even when a story does exist within the main game, the same tactic can be used (e.g. WildStar - cartoony aesthetics, use of graphic novels and videos for world, characters, etc.) There's also the fact that not a single TF2 video has ever engaged in worldbuilding or utilized sequential narrative in relation to each other, whereas both Overwatch cinematics so far have (the original cinematic utilizes characterization, worldbuilding, and 3 act structure, whereas the one in this thread builds off narrative threads and gives closure to them (e.g. Gibraltar).
And bear in mind this is Valve, the masters of appropriating mods as their own, with TF2 being the prime example. Half-Life is the exception rather than the rule here.
Obviously there are similarities between the two, but Valve hardly has a monopoly on the above concepts. Same reason why Battleborn and Paladins shouldn't be called Overwatch copies even if Overwatch beat them to the limelight.
Blizzard isn't the ones who came up with DOTA, they, like Valve for Counter Strike and TF1, bought a mod from people who had created a fun little game using their own game's engine with modified mechanics.
As for what Hawki said, I already replied to him that those other games also used the TF2 formula. While Valve doesn't have a monopoly on the concept, it would be a lie to state those other games didn't copy the TF2 model due to the fact it has worked fairly well for TF2. I think Infinite Crisis is the only real exception to that given its place in the DC multiverse.
Blizzard isn't the ones who came up with DOTA, they, like Valve for Counter Strike and TF1, bought a mod from people who had created a fun little game using their own game's engine with modified mechanics.
As for what Hawki said, I already replied to him that those other games also used the TF2 formula. While Valve doesn't have a monopoly on the concept, it would be a lie to state those other games didn't copy the TF2 model due to the fact it has worked fairly well for TF2. I think Infinite Crisis is the only real exception to that given its place in the DC multiverse.
The original Dota was made in WC3 using WC3 assets. Blizzard had no involvement with it whatsoever outside of providing the tools for people to play the game (and not getting shitty with tournaments and the like). When it came time for them to make the original Heroes of the Storm (back when it was called Blizzard All-Stars, or Blizzard DotA) they had an in staff team make a map using the current Starcraft 2 editor. This evolved into them using a heavily modified WoW engine for the current version of Heroes.
Ain't that strange, really. Heck, the entire concept arguably goes back to tabletop games such as DnD and Warhammer. Both sets of games (at least the latter) effectively have a static universe, but stories are told within the universe, outside the mechanics of the game (which again in the latter is, is more "choose two armies, fight.")
Xeorm said:
I still have no idea why people are fighting in Overwatch. Makes it kind of hard to enjoy the cinematics they release when I don't know the basics of the conflict.
Probably just "training" between global conflicts and whatnot. Pretty simple excuse companies make in this kind of scenario.
Or, as was stated here, perhaps the video was from their glory days and now things have changed.[/quote]
The matches in Overwatch have a PvP context, but the participents in them aren't necessarily present, or at least, on the assigned sides. For instance, Watchpoint: Gibraltar is based on Winston getting a drone into orbit. The attacking side has to get the drone to launch, the defenders have to stop it. Canonically, Winston has to be on the attacking side. In terms of gameplay, he can be on any side, in any number. Think of it like, say, Halo 2 multiplayer, which could have Spartans and sangheili on the same side. Makes no sense, but it's not obligated to, given its multiplayer status.
Samtemdo8 said:
LifeCharacter said:
Samtemdo8 said:
Ah I miss the days when Blizzard used to be "darker"
Really? Because you seem to mean that you miss the days when Blizzard made nothing but Diablo, Starcraft, and Warcraft. For the record, here's some cinematics from those series:
An entirely new property unrelated to the above three came out and has a different, more cartoony style to it, but that doesn't somehow remove the existence of everything else they've made recently.
Does not help when Blizzard demeans the iconography of the old games. (Looks at Candy costume Muradin Bronzbeard in Heroes of the Storm) This Overwatch game just does not feel like a Blizzard game to me.
Now:
1. World of Warcraft is the one thing I like best about their current cinematics. I did not mind Mist of Pandaria because it was not all "Kung Fu Panda" silly.
2. Starcraft 2 is reletively consistant with the old games in terms of looks. The only thing I did not like is how they changed the look of the Zerg. I feel they made them a bit cartoony and way to spiky.
3. You know unlike alot of people I really did not mind Diablo 3 from a Story Perspective and gameplay. I had fun with the campaign and was engaged with the plot. I just thought Diablo himself looked silly.
Ah, the old "Blizzard used to be darker" argument. Per the above points:
-The whole argument often ignores the existence of Lost Vikings, Blackthorne, and Rock n' Roll Racing. While Blackthorne could be called "dark" (in that it has a commando shooting space orcs with a shotgun, with chained, enslaved Androthi in the background), that's really stretching it.
-The whole "this property used to be darker" argument...okay, let's look at the above examples:
Diablo: The intro shows the ruins of a town (likely Tristram) that has been overrun with demons, its inhabitants slaughtered.
Diablo III: You come across a town (Wortham) whose inhabitants ARE being slaughtered (by fellow humans no less).
Difference: Atmosphere. D1 and D2 often have the character coming into a place after the key event has unfolded, whereas D3 has events folding concurrently with the story. That doesn't constitute things being less dark.
StarCraft: The Amerigo has a marine being impaled by a hydralisk, riffing off Alien.
StarCraft II: The Daelaam ark has a queen burst out of Lassara, riffing off Alien.
Difference: Portrayal. Same content, different portrayal. And to those who say "there's not enough blood," I point you to the difference between Alien and Alien vs. Predator: Resurrection. One uses gore minimally, to great effect. The other uses gore liberally, to the point where I actually felt ill watching it.
Warcraft: Arthas kills his father
World of Warcraft: Grom kills Mannaroth, Thrall zaps Garrosh to oblivion, Putress unleashes the Plague of Undeath at the Wrathgate, etc.
Conclusion: ...yeah, WoW became "child friendly" when, exactly?
Now, in fairness, there ARE differences that can be cited between the three. From WC1 to WoW, we've had a scenario where the outcome of events is decided more on the level of the individual, and less on the level of armies - even by WC3 the focus was more on characters. SC1 has a dismal, depressing ending, whereas SC2 is generally more upbeat, though with plenty of loss along the way. D3...well, I like D3, and I admit that a lot of it has to do with the fact that D3 is far more an adventure story than the others. But even by RoS, nope, back to genocide, angels of darkness, Diablo being freed, etc. The one constant I can cite in all three is that there's less liberal use of blood in cinematics, but I don't mind overmuch due to the reasons cited.
-Which brings us to Overwatch. So either Blizzard is going back to its roots (Blackthorne, Lost Vikings, Rock n' Roll Racing), or doing something different (WC, SC, D). And like those three, I don't think Overwatch should preclude dark stories told within it, when there's plenty of opportunity for that. We've already seen robots trying to exterminate humanity, backstabbing and betrayal within Overwatch itself, exploitation of the masses in Rio, etc.
-And to top off, what's wrong with Candy King Muradin? It's HotS. HotS is about the least serious game you can get. There's plenty of 'dark' skins as well, but I don't see how a bit of tongue in cheek is demeaning anything.
Zontar said:
Is it really stealing when they purchased it fairly? I mean that's like saying Disney stole Star Wars.
But no, Disney didn't "steal" Star Wars. But DotA is far more nebulous. I wouldn't call it stealing, but I would call it appropriation, given that DotA 1 was made with in-game assets from a non-Valve game, and that DotA 2 has done little to distinguish itself in terms of visuals or lore. For instance, suppose someone made a fan film for Star Wars using Star Wars assets. Another company obtains the rights to said fan film, and the new product bears all the same resemblances to Star Wars, even if it's obstensibly set in a different universe. There's a precedent for this in Red vs. Blue, but RvB has at least distinguished itself with its own storyline and characters over the years. So far, DotA 2 hasn't.
Zontar said:
Starcraft is literally Warhammer 40k with a new coat of paint. I think that counts as 'lifting'.
Hah hah...no. Inspired? Sure. Same how SC also draws inspiration from Alien, Starship Troopers, mythological sources (e.g. C'thulu) and arguably Firefly (even if it actually predates it), and the same reason how W40K draws off works like Dune, Foundation, Judge Dredd, Alien, and mythological sources (again, C'thulu). But there's far too many differences between the works to call it a ripoff.
And Terenas was killed in the orc ending of Warcraft II. In this case, repetition of an action doesn't diminish either action, especially since Grom killing Mannaroth in both cases has thematic significance, albeit for different reasons.
I couldn't disagree with you more on Kerrigan - I personally love how they developed (key word, "developed") her character. Same reason I don't accuse BW of "ruining" her SC1 character.
Ah yes, HotS. I fail to see how this is an "embarassment." Besides, the no. of "serious skins" is in far greater no. than "silly skins" (a shame, IMO) - apart from ETC, Murky, and Stitches, every character that I can recall has more "serious" skins than "silly" ones. In Muradin's case, we have a 3:1 ratio in favour of "serious," and yet he's "ruined" by one skin that dares to be humorous.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
