Overwatch Promotes Bad Game Design

[Gordon_4_v1legacy]

Overwatch Promotes Bad Game Design

Overwatch is pretty and sounds nice, and from those perspectives it's a decent piece of art. But as a game, Overwatch is a poor example of game design. In advance, I will be for obvious reasons if you are familiar with the game, be comparing what Overwatch is doing to what Team Fortress 2 did and why it is not okay to give Overwatch the same treatment Team Fortress 2 received.

Issue 1: No Story Line

Overwatch has no story line. And when I say Overwatch I mean the game itself not the online lore with the videos and the drawings and the Jeff Kappy's tidbits in the Blizzard forums. They have all the necessary assets to make a proper storyline for the game. Online they have plenty of high quality animations and thorough lore, and in the game they have functional events built upon bots with their own bosses. So even though Overwatch COULD very easily have its own storyline, they choose not to. Why does everyone, and I mean EVERYONE in the gaming community, give them a free pass for that? TF2 was a puzzle piece to the Orange Box so you didn't lose money by not having a story in that game and later TF2 was made free, so it's fine they didn't have a story and the videos were a nice later touch. Overwatch on the other hand unabashedly uses content online you have to go out of your way to find and considering the difference in video views to game purchases, it is a concrete bet the vast majority of Overwatch players have not viewed most of the online related content. That content should have been included inside the game and been worked into a storymode. They could have even updated that storymode in chapters like how they are adding events with waves of bots; but they don't. Speaking of the events:

Issue 2: Giving but then Taking away Content

Team Fortress 2 has a Halloween and a Christmas event that come and go (mainly the Halloween one is what most people pay attention to). But otherwise, they rarely have a big event you can't access again once it is gone. A main example of this was the Mann vs Machine update in which players got permanent access to a you v waves of bots game. Now besides the obvious fact Overwatch ripped these concepts from TF2 which is acceptable given their broadness, what isn't acceptable is how they handled it. Overwatch had Lucio ball, Mei's Snowball game (admittedly not that great), the amazing Halloween robot waves, the even better bot waves from the anniversary. Now, why does nobody complain about the fact they then take away this content? Why is it okay for a game to regularly give you large doses of content in the form of game modes and skins, only to later take it away? That is a middle finger to me and makes me angry I have to wait for content in a game I paid for only for in many cases, it to never appear again. I bought the game assuming the developers would regularly update the game with content, but what I did not expect was they'd take it away and lock the content forever. And the only, way to get skins after that, is if you have an unreal amount of spare coins due to spending a lot or playing the game for an excessive amount of time. Now with Year of the Rooster it is shown that developers are aware of this as they kept the capture-the-flag mode in the arcade permanently afterwards. Why would they not do the same with all the other events? I bought a game expecting content to be added, and what I got was content added only to later be taken away.

Issue 3: Convoluted Character Abilities

Overwatch, is a game everyone and their mother's uncle seems to own. Yet, for some reason, when it comes to the core mechanics of the game being way too complicated, people don't complain about this either. Every single character comes with at least 2 unique alternate abilities and an ULT. Why not have at least one or two characters with no alternate abilities or just one? Why does every character HAVE to have an ULT? Why does every character NEED to have some unique ability rather than just be slightly-different? You could easily create many great new characters by just simplifying already existing characters to go from 4 alternate actions to just 2, 1, or none. Why does every single fucking character HAVE to have these extra complicated pieces that make the game that much more difficult for the typical person to enjoy because it's too hard to follow how every single piece is interacting with all the other enemy characters and abilities. There is a saying that less is more. I like variety, but too much makes the game hard to enjoy because it progressively becomes a convoluted mess. And to those of you who may have some doubts about this being a problem, I believe this next issue might make this issue a bit harder to ignore:

Issue 4: Buffing and Nerfing the Game Too Strongly Too Often

... I don't know where to begin with how ridiculous BAD, this problem is, but let me try and explain it concisely. Altering a weapon's power by 5-10% in damage or speed, that's a run-of-the-mill nerf or buff. Now, should they have play-tested more effectively and not had to buff/nerf it in the first place? Yeah, but it's an understandable mild error that is within the healthy realm of human nature when it comes to game design. Having to up a character's health by 25% (Zenyatta), destroying a character's ability to hook-and-kill in one go as was a key aspect of their character for more than a year (Roadhog), decreasing a character's heal rate from 100% to 50% (Ana), decreasing armor by 200 points and damage by 33% (D.Va), and this is just a handful from many other game-changing buffs and nerfs. These aren't subtle and they aren't balanced. This feels less like a Triple-A game and more like the beta for a game that isn't finished being tweaked. When your game is still being nerfed and buffed to such ridiculous degrees, a year after having been released, you know you fucked up balancing the numbers. Some characters are a joke while others are over-powered and this problem still isn't solved. When your fucking consumer, has to actively worry you will somehow break the character they main, you have failed as a game creator to treat your playerbase well. TF2 did mild nerfs and buffs on specific weapons and kept things subtle yet noticeable without making people paranoid. Hell, there are entire YouTube channels DEVOTED to reporting these nerfs and buffs not as something that is part of a poorly balanced game, but instead as AMAZING NEWS (like cumment and subscrub). It's a joke and it shows how poorly coded Overwatch fundamentally is and how much people have let the game trick them into thinking it is great when it is in fact incredibly flawed and poorly handled to an unacceptable degree. And speaking, of breaking the game regularly:

Issue 5: Developers Breaking Overwatch if you don't use it how they want you to

What I am about to get into is a more nuanced issue but when you deal with it, it will absolutely piss you off. I play Competitive often when I go on Overwatch. But once in a while a problem happens during a competitive match. My Internet has gone out. My PS4 encountered an error that automatically ejected the disk due to my eject button overheating. I have been called away by someone needing my immediate help. These are reasonable things and if we were dealing with a normal online game or even just a normal game, you would not be punished for these things. But OH NO NOT IN JEFF KAPLAN'S WORLD ************ YOU GOTTA PAY THE PRICE. If you leave too often for whatever reason whether purposeful or not, you can receive a great variety of punishments. Some of these include, temporary bans, giant experience point deducations (I got -75% for a console glitch), extended competitive bans, and permanent competitive bans. How dare the developers punish me for wanting to get up and not play their god damn game. How dare the developers threaten to break part of my game that I paid for, if my Internet sucks too often or if I have to go do something too often. I don't owe a damned thing to them yet the developers appear to stand by this mentality that it is a privilege, to play the game I bought. I bought the game, I should be able play it as I see fit WHEN I see fit. If the developers cannot understand this, then that is both unethical and a poor way of designing your game to handle leaving.

Conclusion

So, in short you have a game with no story line inside it, content that is given only to be later permanently taken away, characters with convoluted mechanics and designs, routine over-the-top buffing and nerfing of key elements of characters, and developers willing to break part of your game if you don't use it how they want you to even if it's not your fault. This, is bad game design. And by us unanimously praising this game, we allow Overwatch to promote bad game design.

Put. Down. Your. Crack. Pipe.

 

[DoPo]

I was referencing the fact you have to check outside sources for in game lore/story.

Oh, you mean like the game manuals that many lament are not around any more? Because one of the most frequently cited reasons why they were good is "because they have story in them". So, you're complaining that Destiny was the first big game that did the outside sources thing, even though people have actually been clamouring for this thing to come back for a long time before it was released?

 

[aegix drakan_v1legacy]

I was referencing the fact you have to check outside sources for in game lore/story.

Oh, you mean like the game manuals that many lament are not around any more? Because one of the most frequently cited reasons why they were good is "because they have story in them". So, you're complaining that Destiny was the first big game that did the outside sources thing, even though people have actually been clamouring for this thing to come back for a long time before it was released?

To say nothing of him singing the praises of TF2 earlier, when that game has zero plot in-game, and you have to check supplemental comics and stuff outside the game to get the story.

You know. Like Overwatch.

 

[DoPo]

I was referencing the fact you have to check outside sources for in game lore/story.

Oh, you mean like the game manuals that many lament are not around any more? Because one of the most frequently cited reasons why they were good is "because they have story in them". So, you're complaining that Destiny was the first big game that did the outside sources thing, even though people have actually been clamouring for this thing to come back for a long time before it was released?

To say nothing of him singing the praises of TF2 earlier, when that game has zero plot in-game, and you have to check supplemental comics and stuff outside the game to get the story.

You know. Like Overwatch.

Oh, I did mention it. Apparently, that's fine because the game isn't a AAA game. Also, it went free, therefore...justified?

 

[Epyc Wynn]

I was referencing the fact you have to check outside sources for in game lore/story.

Oh, you mean like the game manuals that many lament are not around any more? Because one of the most frequently cited reasons why they were good is "because they have story in them". So, you're complaining that Destiny was the first big game that did the outside sources thing, even though people have actually been clamouring for this thing to come back for a long time before it was released?

To say nothing of him singing the praises of TF2 earlier, when that game has zero plot in-game, and you have to check supplemental comics and stuff outside the game to get the story.

You know. Like Overwatch.

Oh, I did mention it. Apparently, that's fine because the game isn't a AAA game. Also, it went free, therefore...justified?

That is correct.

 

[aegix drakan_v1legacy]

To say nothing of him singing the praises of TF2 earlier, when that game has zero plot in-game, and you have to check supplemental comics and stuff outside the game to get the story.

Apparently, that's fine because the game isn't a AAA game. Also, it went free, therefore...justified?

That is correct.

on the other hand I don't like this idea that lore outside of the game itself should be considered canon.

Soo...you don't like outside-game lore being canon, except when it's not a AAA game?

But the second it's AAA, suddenly you can't forgive outside-game lore being canon?

Sounds to me like you don't mind it all that much, I guess?

 

[DoPo]

To say nothing of him singing the praises of TF2 earlier, when that game has zero plot in-game, and you have to check supplemental comics and stuff outside the game to get the story.

Apparently, that's fine because the game isn't a AAA game. Also, it went free, therefore...justified?

That is correct.

on the other hand I don't like this idea that lore outside of the game itself should be considered canon.

Soo...you don't like outside-game lore being canon, except when it's not a AAA game?

But the second it's AAA, suddenly you can't forgive outside-game lore being canon?

Sounds to me like you don't mind it all that much, I guess?

You don't understand - it's game design. Somehow.

 

[Gizen]

Oh, I did mention it. Apparently, that's fine because the game isn't a AAA game. Also, it went free, therefore...justified?

That is correct.

Bad game design is still bad game design even if it is hard to design a good game.

While the second quote was pulled from a response about the difficulty of designing a good game, surely it applies to more than just that? Afterall, price has nothing to do with game design, so clearly bad game design should still be bad game design regardless of how much the game costs. So can we add hypocrisy now to the list of your failings? Or are you seriously going to try to argue that the price of a game has some tie to its gameplay?

 

[Epyc Wynn]

Oh, I did mention it. Apparently, that's fine because the game isn't a AAA game. Also, it went free, therefore...justified?

That is correct.

Bad game design is still bad game design even if it is hard to design a good game.

While the second quote was pulled from a response about the difficulty of designing a good game, surely it applies to more than just that? Afterall, price has nothing to do with game design, so clearly bad game design should still be bad game design regardless of how much the game costs. So can we add hypocrisy now to the list of your failings? Or are you seriously going to try to argue that the price of a game has some tie to its gameplay?

If the game's starting price is 60 dollars, that sends the message the game has enough content to justify that pricing. Overwatch does not have the content to back that pricing. TF2 was a twenty dollar game since it was one of three games in the Orange Box. That conveys it is a game with less content. Overwatch did not start with a 40 dollar pricing as would be justified by the amount of content the game offers.

I am no longer going to be responding to you due to you yet again insulting me, after being asked to stop, and this time saying "So can we add hypocrisy now to the list of your failings?"

 

[Gizen]

If the game's starting price is 60 dollars, that sends the message the game has enough content to justify that pricing. Overwatch does not have the content to back that pricing.

Doesn't it? Are we not still talking about the game a year after release? Is it not still seeing enormous amounts of play a year after release? How many other games can you say that about? If you're still playing the game enough to ***** about it this much, how can you honestly say you haven't gotten 60$ worth of value out of it?

TF2 was a twenty dollar game since it was one of three games in the Orange Box. That conveys it is a game with less content.

The hell it does. There are free games that offer more content than the most expensive games on the market. There are 60$ games that will last you 5 hours or less. The price of a game has nothing to do with quantity, or even quality, of content and everything to do with market forces and development costs.

Overwatch did not start with a 40 dollar pricing as would be justified by the amount of content the game offers.

Actually, it did. It's been 40$ since launch on PC.

I am no longer going to be responding to you due to you yet again insulting me, after being asked to stop, and this time saying "So can we add hypocrisy now to the list of your failings?"

That's nice. I'm going to keep insulting you until you actually respond to the myriad list of reasons your logic is either flawed or entirely non-existant. So long as you continue to avoid and ignore every point brought against you, demonstrating that you haven't got a goddamned clue what the fuck you're talking about, I'm going to continue to call you out on it whether you respond to it or not.

 

[Zydrate]

That's nice. I'm going to keep insulting you until you actually respond to the myriad list of reasons your logic is either flawed or entirely non-existant. So long as you continue to avoid and ignore every point brought against you, demonstrating that you haven't got a goddamned clue what the fuck you're talking about, I'm going to continue to call you out on it whether you respond to it or not.

He kind of ignored my post too.
You're just kind of buying into the whole troll thing. Or to put in a more classy variation, a "contrarian" or "provocateur". He makes these kinds of discussions on purpose.

 

[Gizen]

He kind of ignored my post too.
You're just kind of buying into the whole troll thing. Or to put in a more classy variation, a "contrarian" or "provocateur". He makes these kinds of discussions on purpose.

Oh, I know, it's been a pretty obvious troll thread since the start, which is why I've made no effort whatsoever to avoid calling out stupidity where I'd normally attempt to be more polite, but the past few days have been filled with unrelated frustration and this gives me some much-needed catharsis. Ironically, it's also gotten me back into playing Overwatch and having a blast despite having not played it in months prior to seeing this thread, so that's amusing to me too.

 

[Epyc Wynn]

That's nice. I'm going to keep insulting you until you actually respond to the myriad list of reasons your logic is either flawed or entirely non-existant. So long as you continue to avoid and ignore every point brought against you, demonstrating that you haven't got a goddamned clue what the fuck you're talking about, I'm going to continue to call you out on it whether you respond to it or not.

He kind of ignored my post too.
You're just kind of buying into the whole troll thing. Or to put in a more classy variation, a "contrarian" or "provocateur". He makes these kinds of discussions on purpose.

In the future please keep your posts on topic and avoid inciting social drama in the forums.

 

[Gizen]

In the future please keep your posts on topic and avoid inciting social drama in the forums.

Says the guy who's consistently ignoring on topic discussion points solely so he can whine about how people are being mean to him.

 

[Randomosity]

Oh, I did mention it. Apparently, that's fine because the game isn't a AAA game. Also, it went free, therefore...justified?

That is correct.

Bad game design is still bad game design even if it is hard to design a good game.

While the second quote was pulled from a response about the difficulty of designing a good game, surely it applies to more than just that? Afterall, price has nothing to do with game design, so clearly bad game design should still be bad game design regardless of how much the game costs. So can we add hypocrisy now to the list of your failings? Or are you seriously going to try to argue that the price of a game has some tie to its gameplay?

If the game's starting price is 60 dollars, that sends the message the game has enough content to justify that pricing. Overwatch does not have the content to back that pricing. TF2 was a twenty dollar game since it was one of three games in the Orange Box. That conveys it is a game with less content. Overwatch did not start with a 40 dollar pricing as would be justified by the amount of content the game offers.

I am no longer going to be responding to you due to you yet again insulting me, after being asked to stop, and this time saying "So can we add hypocrisy now to the list of your failings?"

Not that my other points have even been addressed, but I'm gonna comment on this as well. Price point doesn't matter. There are free games with more content than most full priced triple A games. There is only 1 thing that dictates the price of a game. That one thing is what people are willing to pay for said item. That is why you see some Triple A games end up in the bargain bin after a few months, while others barely see a dip in their price a year later. Overwatch can keep a $40 or $60 price tag because people are willing to pay it.

The quantity or quality of content is wholly unrelated to the price tag.

 

[Epyc Wynn]

Oh, I did mention it. Apparently, that's fine because the game isn't a AAA game. Also, it went free, therefore...justified?

That is correct.

Bad game design is still bad game design even if it is hard to design a good game.

While the second quote was pulled from a response about the difficulty of designing a good game, surely it applies to more than just that? Afterall, price has nothing to do with game design, so clearly bad game design should still be bad game design regardless of how much the game costs. So can we add hypocrisy now to the list of your failings? Or are you seriously going to try to argue that the price of a game has some tie to its gameplay?

If the game's starting price is 60 dollars, that sends the message the game has enough content to justify that pricing. Overwatch does not have the content to back that pricing. TF2 was a twenty dollar game since it was one of three games in the Orange Box. That conveys it is a game with less content. Overwatch did not start with a 40 dollar pricing as would be justified by the amount of content the game offers.

I am no longer going to be responding to you due to you yet again insulting me, after being asked to stop, and this time saying "So can we add hypocrisy now to the list of your failings?"

Not that my other points have even been addressed, but I'm gonna comment on this as well. Price point doesn't matter. There are free games with more content than most full priced triple A games. There is only 1 thing that dictates the price of a game. That one thing is what people are willing to pay for said item. That is why you see some Triple A games end up in the bargain bin after a few months, while others barely see a dip in their price a year later. Overwatch can keep a $40 or $60 price tag because people are willing to pay it.

The quantity or quality of content is wholly unrelated to the price tag.

Even though I disagree on that notion as price tag should be directly related to if you're going to get your fortune's worth in content, either way Overwatch does lack content by only having a few characters and online maps with no storyline and event-locked content. There is a reason people felt it was lacking on launch and I still find it lacking.

 

[Gizen]

Even though I disagree on that notion as price tag should be directly related to if you're going to get your fortune's worth in content, either way Overwatch does lack content by only having a few characters and online maps with no storyline and event-locked content. There is a reason people felt it was lacking on launch and I still find it lacking.

And yet there's also a reason why people are still playing it in droves. If you feel it doesn't have enough content to justify the price, it's as simple as not buying the game. It's not like the contents of the game are a secret, you know what you're getting going into it, so either you think that's enough content to justify the purchase or you don't. Considering its ridiculous sales numbers, obviously most people would say it has more than enough content. Furthermore, to say Overwatch only has 'a few' characters is nonsense when it has a very solid sized roster for the type of game it is, event-locked content is event-locked for a specific reason, and a story mode would not only be superflous, but it would actively make the game worse by subtracting from the part of the game that everyone wants to play. There's a reason why, just a couple years ago, people would regularly ***** about superflous multiplayer modes unnecessarily tacked on to single player experiences for no good reason, dragging the whole game down as a result. The same thing goes both ways.

In summary, if you found the content lacking at launch, don't buy it at launch. If you still find the content now, don't buy it now. If you found the content lacking and not able to justify a 60$ (or 40$ on PC price point) and you still bought it anyways just to ***** about it, then you are a fucking idiot.

 

[Randomosity]

Oh, I did mention it. Apparently, that's fine because the game isn't a AAA game. Also, it went free, therefore...justified?

That is correct.

Bad game design is still bad game design even if it is hard to design a good game.

While the second quote was pulled from a response about the difficulty of designing a good game, surely it applies to more than just that? Afterall, price has nothing to do with game design, so clearly bad game design should still be bad game design regardless of how much the game costs. So can we add hypocrisy now to the list of your failings? Or are you seriously going to try to argue that the price of a game has some tie to its gameplay?

If the game's starting price is 60 dollars, that sends the message the game has enough content to justify that pricing. Overwatch does not have the content to back that pricing. TF2 was a twenty dollar game since it was one of three games in the Orange Box. That conveys it is a game with less content. Overwatch did not start with a 40 dollar pricing as would be justified by the amount of content the game offers.

I am no longer going to be responding to you due to you yet again insulting me, after being asked to stop, and this time saying "So can we add hypocrisy now to the list of your failings?"

Not that my other points have even been addressed, but I'm gonna comment on this as well. Price point doesn't matter. There are free games with more content than most full priced triple A games. There is only 1 thing that dictates the price of a game. That one thing is what people are willing to pay for said item. That is why you see some Triple A games end up in the bargain bin after a few months, while others barely see a dip in their price a year later. Overwatch can keep a $40 or $60 price tag because people are willing to pay it.

The quantity or quality of content is wholly unrelated to the price tag.

Even though I disagree on that notion as price tag should be directly related to if you're going to get your fortune's worth in content, either way Overwatch does lack content by only having a few characters and online maps with no storyline and event-locked content. There is a reason people felt it was lacking on launch and I still find it lacking.

You're talking to a guy going to school for accounting and finance here. That is what pricing of a game is. No one in the industry, at the very least on the triple A side of things, prices a game based on content. I will say I agree with you on the notion that you should only pay a price that you feel you will get your money's worth. That is fair, we all do that. This isn't limited to just games. Every product and service we buy, we gauge whether or not we are going to get our money's worth from said item or service. The problem with that is the simple fact that said point of view is the consumer side.

Everyone values things differently. For you, 24 heroes, some maps, and the arcade mode might not be enough for the $60 (or $40) price tag. That is fair. It is your money, spend it how you please, but on the other side, the market has clearly spoken. Overwatch is a success. This is not an opinion. Overwatch is still wildly popular over a year after launch, and it has clearly made Blizzard money. The simple truth is that the market doesn't agree with you. Overwatch is worth every penny because people are willing to pay that much for it.

We can go back and forth all day, but at the end of the day, the ultimate price of anything you see is what people are willing to pay for it. Lets side step video games for a moment and look at CCG and Tabletop. Magic: The Gathering has cards that will say for hundreds, even thousands of dollars. All MTG cards are printed on the same cardboard with the same ink. So why are some cards so much more expensive? Because people are willing to buy it for that price. Some with Warhammer 40k. Why are little plastic figures so expensive? Because enough people agree that it is worth it for said price.

Now I'm not going to call you and idiot, or a racist, or any of that nonsense. Debate breaks down when we resort to personal insults. I will say that I find your issues to be more personal gripes than faulty game design. Opinions are fine, but I feel like you should work on conveying your points better. With what I've read in this thread, when pressed to defend your stance, you were a little too vague and tended not to engage your opponent's points directly. Perhaps do a bit more thinking on the specifics and details, and come back swinging with a truly solid argument. You clearly feel strongly enough about this topic to make this thread and defend your point for four pages. I would personally like to see you go in depth and truly address the points made counter to your own.

 

[Basement Cat]

It's been...interesting, folks. Time to move on, though.