You know, that's not really a response, nor have you really talked to anyone about how these characters are diverse for sake of being diverse, other than they just somehow are.Epyc Wynn said:
Overwatch Promotes Bad Game Design
- Thread starter Epyc Wynn
- Start date
I don't know I've never played it. It looks interesting but I'm not a huge fan of multiplayer. It would be cool if they made a single player game out of it because the characters seem to have a lot of potential
Lol I should have stopped reading where I saw you describe overwatch as complicated.Epyc Wynn said:
Overwatch is one of the most babies first FPS games I've ever seen with the high tier competitive level mostly being about timing your ultimates. Was watching Euros play in the league the other night both running 3 tank 2 healer 1 flex comps.
But stupidly I kept reading, and saw THIS complaint. I hate more than ever diversity being forced for diversities sake because I think it's a slap in the face. The way Bioware handled Dorian which everyone praised them for I actually was appalled. In a world where nobody cares about gay relationships at all, somehow a dope characters entire story arc was about the struggles of being gay. Was awful. To this day I want a Dorian DLC that gives him an actual side quest like everyone else got.
But the criticism of heavy handed SJW agenda pushing for overwatch? ... Where? Some of the characters are black some are white some are fucking robots. This is a game where the fights and "wars" are across the globe. Did you expect only one type of nationality/personality? Is that retarded Tumblr picture supposed to be evidence of something? I can probably google any game franchise I can think of and find some sort of genderswap, sexswap, tentacle porn of it, is that a condemnation on the franchise?
I really don't understand your point at all, it makes zero sense to me.
Except you don't know shit about game design either.Epyc Wynn said:
Point 1, as multiple people have pointed out, has nothing to do with game design to begin with, and if you really wanted to try and stretch it to get anywhere close, it would actually become a positive game design choice. To do a story mode that's actually good would require making a single player experience, and time and resources spent on that would take away from the multiplayer aspect of the game. They decided that, since the focus of the game was its multiplayer, they would rather dedicate all that design time and resources to the multiplayer in order to make it the best it could be, rather than tacking on a single-player mode that they obviously weren't invested in that would likely have resulted in the multiplayer component being made worse through lost development time.
Point 2 is another issue that has cropped up in other multiplayer only games, and that content isn't kept permanent for a reason. They want the main game to be the focus and to be what the majority of people play. Those side game modes divert players away from the main game mode. While this is fine in limited durations because they increase interest in the game and give more stuff for people to do, in the long run multiple game modes like this would eventually fracture the playerbase, resulting in longer wait times to get into a game, and even more horribly unbalanced games than you already get when you eventually do. Alternatively you can avoid fracturing the playerbase by not making any new game modes, but then you're limiting yourself from pursuing potentially entertaining new future ideas. So the optimal solution to both keep the playerbase concentrated in the main game while also offering side modes is to offer them for limited durations and cycle them in one at a time.
Point 3 is just you bitching about how you wish Overwatch was a different game. That's nice, go play a different game then. If you think 3-5 abilities is just too complex for you, this isn't your game. There are many, many simpler, less complicated shooters out there for you to go play. God forbid you ever play League of Legends, where there's over 130 different unique characters, and every character has a passive, 3 normal abilities, a 4th ultimate ability, the ability to take 2 out of 10 additional summoner spells to choose from, and the ability to buy up to 7 items, each of which could potentially have their own ability as well. You'd lose your goddamned mind. And of course noting that Overwatch intentionally takes a lot of inspiration from MOBAs like League of Legends and Blizzard's own Heroes of the Storm... Seriously, you're complaining how it's too complicated for the typical person to enjoy but the fact that the game is so popular serves as definitive proof that is ISN'T coo complicated for the typical person to play, and the fact that LoL, a considerably MORE complicated game is the defacto ruler of the competitive multiplayer space and has been for years, indicates that your 'typical person' isn't opposed to some complexity. It's just you who it's too complicated for, and you know what? That's totally fine. Not every single game is for every single person. If it's too complicated for you, go play a different game, but only a selfish prick would accuse a game of 'poor game design' because it dares to try and appeal to an audience that isn't you.
Point 4 is more of just you bitching about how you wish Overwatch was a different game. Once again, using LoL as an example, that game receives a new balance patch every 2 weeks, and it remains super popular. Overwatch, by contrast, is balanced at half that frequency. Balancing tweaks, and indeed frequent balancing tweaks keep the game fresh and lively for people to come back to on a regular basis and ensure they're always having to stay on the ball, which helps maintain an active playerbase so that people don't get bored of things being the same and drift off to other games. You can argue that Blizzard does a shitty job of balancing things, and I'm not gonna argue with you on that point because Blizzard has a long history of sub-par balancing jobs, but that doesn't mean that the decision to do frequent balancing patches is poor game design.
Point 5 is you getting mad that you left too many games and got punished for it. Good, I'm glad you got punished. It's a team game, if I'm on your team and you leave mid-game, you are fucking me over, and you're also fucking over whoever gets thrown into the game to replace you after your team was left at a disadvantage. Yes, you paid for the game, but so did I, and so did everyone else playing, and just because you paid doesn't mean you get to screw over the other people who also paid. That shit needs to be discouraged. Emergencies happens and you had to leave for something beyond your control? Good thing the game doesn't instantly punish you after the very first time it happens. If it's happening so frequently that you are being punished, what that means is you should probably work on fixing your console or your network connection before you play, and if you can't fix them then you probably shouldn't be playing a multiplayer only competitive team game. And you say normal games don't do that but that's flat out untrue, because using LoL as yet another example, which is still the biggest competitive multiplayer game out there and thus easily classified as 'normal', they do that too. The games which don't punish you for leaving mid-game tend to either be not teamwork oriented, not highly competitive, or bad. So for the purposes of maintaining their status as a competitive team oriented game, Overwatch punishing you for leaving too many games is not poor game design, it's good game design.
And then point 6 of course, as we established, is just a load of bullshit with some prejudicial undertones. Also, just like point 1, it has absolutely nothing to do with game design to begin with, and you even basically admitted this when you brought it up, so don't even start trying to frame this as being all about game design.
And you've yet to explain how that's a bad thing. If every character was the exact same as they are now except there was no diversity in culture and they were all white men, would the game be better for it? Or because you keep insisting that 'white male' is not the default (even though it is), what if every character in Overwatch had the exact same personality and playstyle but they were all gay black women, would the game be better for it? Would making them all less diverse make the game better? Because if that answer is no (and you've yet to explain how it wouldn't be), then that means that diversity for the sake of diversity isn't inherently bad but rather just a neutral character design choice. Neutral and Bad are not synonyms.
Oh, absolutely, TF2 gets the design down too and proves that you can potentially do it. However, once we are in the territory of 9 dudes with different frames, you also have to wonder why there's only one black guy and no other ethnicity other then Caucasian in there. It can absolutely be done, but TF2 is also a decade old at this point and in a clusterf*ck situation (of which there are many in TF2 and Overwatch), the added visual distinctions apart from silhouette in Overwatch makes it quite a bit easier to correctly pick out targets in OW compared to TF2. TF2 is still great in the design department, but OWs diversity arguably makes its' design better for those situations were you really need to hit a specific opponent.Neverhoodian said:
Oh my. Oh my my my. This post and its "reasoning" is absolutely laughable. Let's break it down [https://hydra-media.cursecdn.com/overwatch.gamepedia.com/0/0b/L%C3%BAcio_-_Oh%2C_let%27s_break_it_down%21.ogg], shall we?
Event that bestows maps/game-modes that go away after a set date? Check.
Boxes full of stuff that can only be accessed during the event? Check.
Access to said boxes of stuff disappears after event? Check.
In fact, it's arguable that Valve do it worse. While both give you stuff for free, the chances of actually acquiring event items in TF2 via crafting/drops is extremely low. Every event box you open in OW is guaranteed to have at least one event item (even if it is just a shitty player icon). Not to mention the fact that the drop rates in OW's loot boxes are very predictable, meaning you can acquire a pretty decent amount of the content during an event, so long as you play a few hours every day. TF2's drop rates are hard limited per week, and crafting is limited to how much you're willing to sacrifice out of your inventory and the drop rate.
Also: MvM was not an event. MvM was a new game-mode added for variety. That's why it still exists. The reason CTF stayed post-YotR was because people almost universally clamoured for it to stay during the event. Blizz acquiesced despite their own misgivings about the mode.
Once again, weakening your own non-argument.
It's called BALANCE. It's called VARIETY. It's called not making a grey-brown sludge like every other grey-brown sludge out there. Go play Cock of Doody if you want to be the same as everyone else. Overwatch is a class-based shooter ffs, abilities and ults are how it works. Holy jumping fuck...
Overwatch is a skill-based shooter designed from the ground up to be an e-sport, and coming out on top relies on mastering the abilities, strengths and counters of the characters on each team. None of which is hard if you expend more than two seconds of brain power. If this is too complicated for you, then perhaps you should just drop OW altogether, 'cos it's either that or:
Weird that.
Stop crying and git gud.
/thread
You mean just like TF2? Oh my god! Shock! Going F2P has absolutely nothing to do with it. That is so completely and utterly irrelevant, bringing it up only weakens your argument. This is a non-issue. Yes, Blizz chose to focus on making a multiplayer game, rather than split resources on two different modes, just like Valve did.Epyc Wynn said:
Clearly you've missed the point of limited-time events. And once again, shock horror, Valve do almost exactly the same thing.Epyc Wynn said:
Event that bestows maps/game-modes that go away after a set date? Check.
Boxes full of stuff that can only be accessed during the event? Check.
Access to said boxes of stuff disappears after event? Check.
In fact, it's arguable that Valve do it worse. While both give you stuff for free, the chances of actually acquiring event items in TF2 via crafting/drops is extremely low. Every event box you open in OW is guaranteed to have at least one event item (even if it is just a shitty player icon). Not to mention the fact that the drop rates in OW's loot boxes are very predictable, meaning you can acquire a pretty decent amount of the content during an event, so long as you play a few hours every day. TF2's drop rates are hard limited per week, and crafting is limited to how much you're willing to sacrifice out of your inventory and the drop rate.
Also: MvM was not an event. MvM was a new game-mode added for variety. That's why it still exists. The reason CTF stayed post-YotR was because people almost universally clamoured for it to stay during the event. Blizz acquiesced despite their own misgivings about the mode.
Once again, weakening your own non-argument.
Too compli... Convolu... Why do characters have...Epyc Wynn said:
It's called BALANCE. It's called VARIETY. It's called not making a grey-brown sludge like every other grey-brown sludge out there. Go play Cock of Doody if you want to be the same as everyone else. Overwatch is a class-based shooter ffs, abilities and ults are how it works. Holy jumping fuck...
Overwatch is a skill-based shooter designed from the ground up to be an e-sport, and coming out on top relies on mastering the abilities, strengths and counters of the characters on each team. None of which is hard if you expend more than two seconds of brain power. If this is too complicated for you, then perhaps you should just drop OW altogether, 'cos it's either that or:
Hmm, it's almost like these changes are tested on the PTR by a limited number of people, then rolled out to the public at large. It's almost like seeing how these changes interact in both quickplay and comp, with each and every character, at both low and top levels of play, in every possible composition, can't be done in a limited fashion. It's almost like making these changes balances the viability of each hero. It's almost like these changes provide a constantly shifting meta, keeping the game varied and interesting. It's... it's almost like the devs care about not letting the game die.Epyc Wynn said:
Weird that.
Comp is for serious players looking for serious play. That system is in place to punish consistent leavers, so they don't get matched with people and ruin more games. If your internet it shitty, if you can't commit, if you know your hardware is faulty, then stay the hell out of comp and you won't get slapped by the system. Stick to QP or No Limits. It's nothing to do with "using the game how the devs want you to". I don't think I've ever heard a more idiotic statement in relation to gaming.Epyc Wynn said:
Conclusion: You're talking out your arse with nothing to back it up, and anyone with half an ounce of sense can refute you. Your arguments break down to opinion or just plain uninformed bullshit.Epyc Wynn said:
Stop crying and git gud.
/thread
Alright then.Epyc Wynn said:
Thing is, we've been arguing about diversity in video game character on this forum for literally years now. Many of us have had this debate dozens of times. We've danced this dance many a time and we know all the steps. Hence the sighs and fuck nos and whatnot.
I only replied at all to make the soccer and chess comparison regarding stories. And I already felt like a bit of an idiot for wasting that many words on your thread. I wasn't about to get into an extended exchange with you. I've seen the incoherent shitposting nonsense you've been slinging throughout this forum. I think any debate with you is a waste of time. Which means, yes, I'm wasting my time right now typing this. Guess I'm a slow learner.
Taking into account your posting history I suspect you're only doing this to get a rise out of people. The Tumblr jab reinforces this suspicion. I could be wrong, but who the fuck cares?
So yeah, I think "*sigh*" just about sums it up.
He'd be really fucking boring.Epyc Wynn said:
Like.... Completely. Move to player, press left mouse until dead. Nothing else.
If you think having 5 abilities per character is "Too complicated" I have to question what mechanics aren't? I've played OW since before release, and even when it FIRST came out and I just started it all was straight forward.
Fat princess is a 20 dollar indie game designed around casual and co-op play, all it's classes are simplistic, the strategy is in the much larger team comps. What you are suggesting would be like me suggesting they add a technical character like Genji or Symmetra to Fat Princess, it would likely not work well. what works for one game does not necessarily work for another, the design you proposed (doomfist) would be a mess and either too easy to CC and thus worthless, or have passive immunity to CC and thus neutralize too many other class tools and be poorly balanced. Overwatch already has simple noob friendly characters like Soldier 76 and Bastion, cutting down abilities further would go against how the game was designed, really how much more simple a character do you need than Bastion, it's basically shoot, self repair, and occasionally bring out an AOE weapon.Epyc Wynn said:
The problem seems to be that you are mistaking game design you don't like for "Bad game design", I have disliked the last few Call of Duty multiplayer titles for a number of design decisions, but they are not bad game design, it is just a design that I personally do not find as enjoyable as games like Overwatch, or Rainbow 6: siege. The fact that so many find Overwatch's complexity just fine, or even too simplistic (those used to the complexity of MOBAs) would indicate that Blizzard has found a workable combination between basic FPS and MOBA levels of complexity, that you dislike it does not make it bad. You seem to prefer simpler and more casual games, and that's not a bad thing, but it doesn't mean that more complex games with competitive balancing and the inevitable meta that results is bad game design, that it is based on literally one of the most popular and profitable games on the planet(LoL) would indicate that it is very good game design, people like the competitive meta, balancing, shifting of character tiers, and the back and forth of that style of game.
EDIT: I should add your other idea of a mode that eliminates ultimates and abilities would be equally silly, maybe it could work as a for fun thing wacky mode like Lucio ball, but not as a permanent game mode. Many of the characters are balanced around their abilities so taking them away would not do anything to fix the meta it would just make different characters top or bottom tier, mostly characters with strong abilities like tracer or sombra would become trash, it would also make the entire support class mostly worthless everyone would be picking attackers and maybe a few tanks. Characters weapons were mostly not meant to function on their own, some characters rely more on stronger default weapons and others who rely on abilities or powerful ultimates.
So one game made something rather simplistic, so every game should do that? Also I'm 100% positive I literally COULD NOT put as many hours of gameplay into Fat Princess as I did into Overwatch. FP may be fun for 10,20, hell even 200 hours. But I doubt people have put thousands of hours into that game, if they have the number is probably MUCH smaller than the OW %.Epyc Wynn said:
Except for issue 2 (which is debatable if it's free content) and issue 5 (although that kind of punishments are standard in online competitive games), these "issues" seem to be personal preferences on features rather than good/bad game design. I'm not saying Overwatch is perfect (I haven't played and, really, which game has perfect game design anyways?), but that's kinda overreacting.
And then number 6 is... highly debatable (except for being completely subjective). In my eyes, the diversity of these characters' appearance and background isn't dissimilar to Pokemon's (gameplay-wise they are unnecessary, but the choice made the game much more interesting).
And then number 6 is... highly debatable (except for being completely subjective). In my eyes, the diversity of these characters' appearance and background isn't dissimilar to Pokemon's (gameplay-wise they are unnecessary, but the choice made the game much more interesting).
Issue 4 didn't trigger anything with you? More often than not I notice the game's characters feel broken or imbalanced because of certain nerfs and buffs. Not to mention, if they were going to do such big changes, they should've done them BEFORE the game released. They shouldn't get away with selling a beta like a triple-A title because it sends a message that the gaming industry can half-ass a game and maybe sorta fix it later unless gamers call them out for it. Why does this game get away with that while other games don't? I understand fixing some huge bugs or glitches within the first month but this has been going on for a year now.CaitSeith said:
That only applies if you're never ever going to add anything new to the game ever and have no plans to support it in the future. Perfect balance is a goal to strive for that is impossible to ever actually attain, and ongoing support requires regular balance updates, especially when new characters or maps are introduced that complicate the balancing process because nothing is ever balanced on its own, its balanced in relation to everything else.Epyc Wynn said:
League of Legends. Seriously, I'm just going to start responding to every post you make with League of Legends.
And it will continue to go on forever or until Blizzard abandons the game entirely and stops supporting it because that's how game support and ongoing balance works.
Triggered? Nope, sorry. A major component from the online multiplayer games experience is the other players themselves. That's a factor very difficult to predict before releasing (even with beta testing, as the diversity of player's skills isn't comparable with such small group sample), and I heard they have been adding new characters since then, so major changes sound like something to be expected just for that alone. But take this one from me with a grain of salt. I'm not as familiar with competitive online multiplayer games as to know how frequently that kind of fixes happen (I remember how multiplayer patches in Warcraft 3 made its balance very different to the single-player, to the point of the former having a whole new armor type that didn't exist on the later).Epyc Wynn said:
His relationship with Junkrat appears to be incredibly begrudging and I would not be surprised if he ever tried murdering Junkrat. Roadhog wears a black rubber mask akin to what you would expect from a psycho assassin. As for your post, the interesting thing is, I wasn't talking about who his character is based on some lore and videos that aren't in the game. I'm talking about who he is inside the game. When you ignore all that extra lore, what you have is a character heavily defined as a fat slow psycho assassin who begrudgingly deals with Junkrat with some sparse positive moments between them. But that does not make me think Roadhog is a team player. That makes me think Roadhog does work with people, but is used to working alone. Thanks to these new changes the meaning to his character from within the game itself, has been completely undermined. He can't kill effectively and he is not independent like he used to be. I get angry just looking at his character ever since what was done to change who he was.undeadsuitor said: