Huh...did I start this? What monster did I unleash in this discussion thread?
Oh well:
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.
-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.
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.
Oh well:
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.")Lightknight said:
Probably just "training" between global conflicts and whatnot. Pretty simple excuse companies make in this kind of scenario.Xeorm said:
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.
Ah, the old "Blizzard used to be darker" argument. Per the above points:Samtemdo8 said:
-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.
I'm still miffed about that by the wayZontar said:
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.
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.Zontar said:
