Turns out that seeing you try to pretend you have even the slightest clue what is and is not bad game design is just as painful as seeing you try to talk about diversity. Just accept that you're terrible at Overwatch, that you are not the intended audience of every game ever made, that you don't have a goddamned clue how to develop a game, and move on.Epyc Wynn said:
Overwatch Promotes Bad Game Design
- Thread starter Epyc Wynn
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Issue 1: No Story Line
I have to admit that I do find it kinda funny that a game like Star Wars Battlefront can get lambasted from left, right and centre for not having a story mode and charging full price, but then Overwatch can do the same and get a free pass.
There isn't anything wrong with being multiplayer exclusive, though. So long as your game is good at what it does. Which is exactly what Overwatch is.
I certainly wouldn't mind a singleplayer story, mind you.
Issue 2: Giving but then Taking away Content
This is... kinda bullshit.
Adding skins, then taking them away. Adding modes, then taking them away. It makes the game feel a lot more static, outside of the occasional hero or map release.
Sure, its always exciting when a new event is available, but other than that, if you jump into Overwatch right now, it is mostly the same game it was a year ago in terms of content, other than a couple of extra heroes and maps. I don't know why they don't keep these skins around (albeit at a much lower drop rate), or the cool modes as a rotating tavern brawl.
Issue 3: Convoluted Character Abilities
No.
Maybe there is a reason that nobody is complaining about this?
What is is about any of these abilities that is confusing or convoluted to you?
Issue 4: Buffing and Nerfing the Game Too Strongly Too Often
Its not like Overwatch's sandbox is static forever. They add new heroes, they add new maps. Each hero has a lot more going on that just a gun and a healthpool, a la TF2.
Overwatch, I'd argue, has more in common with a MOBA than a regular shooter, and as such, the approach to balance is altered accordingly.
Can it be frustrating to play D.Va one week, only to find out that she has been completely overhauled the next? Sure, but at the same time, its not like these changes are unfounded, and the meta is shifting all of the time. It would be irresponsible of Blizzard to just ignore it.
Besides, balance changes keep the game fresh.
Issue 5: Developers Breaking Overwatch if you don't use it how they want you to
I understand that life can get in the way sometimes, but if that is a regular occurrence, maybe don't play the mode where you get punished for leaving?
Issue 6: Diversity for Diversity's Sake
This is the kicker.
Overwatch isn't diverse because diversity's sake. Overwatch is diverse because it was set up as a world organisation, and as such it represents multiple different countries and cultures.
From a gameplay standpoint, it is useful because each character looks and sounds different, so it can be easy to distinguish, say, a Mercy from a Zarya just by listening or at a glance.
Besides, how would no diversity be better? What if everyone was the same Mr Soldier Man? Do you expect Blizzard to write a paragraph about each character about why they were born in their individual countries, or why they are their gender, or why they are old or young?
Im genuinely stuck as to why you think this is an issue.
EDIT: Wow, this thread certainly blew up, and I only noticed after commenting. It has also proven to be absolutely hilarious. Props to Gizen for giving me one hell of a laugh.
I have to admit that I do find it kinda funny that a game like Star Wars Battlefront can get lambasted from left, right and centre for not having a story mode and charging full price, but then Overwatch can do the same and get a free pass.
There isn't anything wrong with being multiplayer exclusive, though. So long as your game is good at what it does. Which is exactly what Overwatch is.
I certainly wouldn't mind a singleplayer story, mind you.
Issue 2: Giving but then Taking away Content
This is... kinda bullshit.
Adding skins, then taking them away. Adding modes, then taking them away. It makes the game feel a lot more static, outside of the occasional hero or map release.
Sure, its always exciting when a new event is available, but other than that, if you jump into Overwatch right now, it is mostly the same game it was a year ago in terms of content, other than a couple of extra heroes and maps. I don't know why they don't keep these skins around (albeit at a much lower drop rate), or the cool modes as a rotating tavern brawl.
Issue 3: Convoluted Character Abilities
No.
Maybe there is a reason that nobody is complaining about this?
What is is about any of these abilities that is confusing or convoluted to you?
Issue 4: Buffing and Nerfing the Game Too Strongly Too Often
Its not like Overwatch's sandbox is static forever. They add new heroes, they add new maps. Each hero has a lot more going on that just a gun and a healthpool, a la TF2.
Overwatch, I'd argue, has more in common with a MOBA than a regular shooter, and as such, the approach to balance is altered accordingly.
Can it be frustrating to play D.Va one week, only to find out that she has been completely overhauled the next? Sure, but at the same time, its not like these changes are unfounded, and the meta is shifting all of the time. It would be irresponsible of Blizzard to just ignore it.
Besides, balance changes keep the game fresh.
Issue 5: Developers Breaking Overwatch if you don't use it how they want you to
But... you do? I don't really play competitive modes, but I can't remember the last time I played one where you would not get punished for leaving. If you're in the middle of a game, and you suddenly abandon the rest of your team - intentional or not -, that puts them at a severe disadvantage, and is generally pretty shitty for everyone involved, because 9 times out of 10, it will probably throw the game.
I understand that life can get in the way sometimes, but if that is a regular occurrence, maybe don't play the mode where you get punished for leaving?
Issue 6: Diversity for Diversity's Sake
This is the kicker.
Overwatch isn't diverse because diversity's sake. Overwatch is diverse because it was set up as a world organisation, and as such it represents multiple different countries and cultures.
From a gameplay standpoint, it is useful because each character looks and sounds different, so it can be easy to distinguish, say, a Mercy from a Zarya just by listening or at a glance.
Besides, how would no diversity be better? What if everyone was the same Mr Soldier Man? Do you expect Blizzard to write a paragraph about each character about why they were born in their individual countries, or why they are their gender, or why they are old or young?
Im genuinely stuck as to why you think this is an issue.
EDIT: Wow, this thread certainly blew up, and I only noticed after commenting. It has also proven to be absolutely hilarious. Props to Gizen for giving me one hell of a laugh.
There isn't too many elements, though. Most people agree that every character has just enough abilities. Each one has just enough options to be able to make an impact on their own, and few enough abilities that you can tell at a glance what every character is capable of.Epyc Wynn said:
This is like saying "Dark Souls is bad game design because there are too many weapons and spells and styles and the shoulder button controls and d-pad to switch weapons is too much at once, why didn't they just have like 3 weapons and spells so it's not so overwhelming", which would be wrong, as Dark Souls has some of the best and careful design in the biz.
If you feel overwhelmed by Overwatch's abilities, then it's not for you. I'd recommend you stick to stuff like the new Unreal Tournament. Because everyone else enjoys the depth that Overwatch provides while maintaining just the right level of simplicity that almost anyone can jump in and understand how to play.
And again, the game shifts a lot. No matter how good you are a designing, when you have that many characters and hundreds of thousands of people playing your game, the players will find a way to break your game. Even Nintendo, reigning kings of fun games, had to intervene with smash 4 because some characters (lookin' at you Diddy) were untouchable.
So no, I don't think the buffs and nerfs were overkill. They helped make the game more fun. They've reached a point where every character is viable and useful, depending on the map you're on. If anything, Blizzard is showing fantastic game design sense.
Just because the game isn't for you doesn't mean you should claim it has "bad design".
Lol, "bad game design". More like "game design I don't agree with and since this is popular I'm hella concerned now".
Calm thyself. None of these issues are particularly new nor are they particularly worrisome.
1. Quake 3 and Unreal Tournament were in the same situation. Games don't need elaborate storylines to grab you, especially if they are designed as sports and not single player story experiences. No story is better than shit story, and a good, polished multiplayer experience is better than a mediocre multiplayer coupled with a mediocre single-player. This is arguably smart game design.
2. I take it you've never played MMOs before. World of Warcraft among most others has the same types of events. Seasonal content is not new nor is it any kind of problem.
And the game has indeed added content since you bought it, so please don't be dishonest like that.
3. Whenever you make a character more simple than the entire roster it becomes more boring by comparison. Mercy has this problem. Since Overwatch is a tightly balanced game where no class is supposed to be crap tier or underused, this is a concern. Having inconsistent characters that are all over the place with their ease of use is a balance problem and can definitely constitute "bad game design".
4. Some of the most egregious examples you present are actually half-truths. You're being dishonest again. Ana suffered a 50% nerf to the bonus heal rate of a certain ability that granted bonus healing rate for a short time. Dva recieved a damage nerf that was balanced by an increase in pellet count, leaving her overall damage quite similar. Armor was taken away but replaced with health. But you know all these already, you're just deliberately choosing to artificially inflate your argument's worth. Which is otherwise not a big deal.
5. Competitive is a special game mode that takes itself very seriously. That is how it should be. Leaver penalties exist because they should exist. None of this is depriving you of any of your rights, they are limitations and rules that you should be fully aware of once you enter the game.
You bought the game knowing you're not gonna get to play it in absolutely any way you want. Something MMO players have been doing since MMOs have existed. Welcome to the online community.
Calm thyself. None of these issues are particularly new nor are they particularly worrisome.
1. Quake 3 and Unreal Tournament were in the same situation. Games don't need elaborate storylines to grab you, especially if they are designed as sports and not single player story experiences. No story is better than shit story, and a good, polished multiplayer experience is better than a mediocre multiplayer coupled with a mediocre single-player. This is arguably smart game design.
2. I take it you've never played MMOs before. World of Warcraft among most others has the same types of events. Seasonal content is not new nor is it any kind of problem.
And the game has indeed added content since you bought it, so please don't be dishonest like that.
3. Whenever you make a character more simple than the entire roster it becomes more boring by comparison. Mercy has this problem. Since Overwatch is a tightly balanced game where no class is supposed to be crap tier or underused, this is a concern. Having inconsistent characters that are all over the place with their ease of use is a balance problem and can definitely constitute "bad game design".
4. Some of the most egregious examples you present are actually half-truths. You're being dishonest again. Ana suffered a 50% nerf to the bonus heal rate of a certain ability that granted bonus healing rate for a short time. Dva recieved a damage nerf that was balanced by an increase in pellet count, leaving her overall damage quite similar. Armor was taken away but replaced with health. But you know all these already, you're just deliberately choosing to artificially inflate your argument's worth. Which is otherwise not a big deal.
5. Competitive is a special game mode that takes itself very seriously. That is how it should be. Leaver penalties exist because they should exist. None of this is depriving you of any of your rights, they are limitations and rules that you should be fully aware of once you enter the game.
You bought the game knowing you're not gonna get to play it in absolutely any way you want. Something MMO players have been doing since MMOs have existed. Welcome to the online community.
I can see it's pretty useless to try and engage TC in any way, so, I'll just have a discourse with other people instead.
I'd first like to preface this by saying I don't actually play Overwatch and I'm not familiar with the intricacies of characters and abilities. Still, since this is about game design, I can definitely talk in broad strokes.
It is "accepted" because you don't generally need a story mode for any game ever. Especially if you're focusing on multiplayer.
Why you chose to point at Destiny I do not know, nor do I know why it's somehow a "new" phenomenon.
Roadhog is really just a variation of the Pudge character from DotA: Allstars - high HP, the most distinctive ability is a hook ability - a long-range trickshot that can pull an enemy to him. The same archetype shows up in Heroes of the Storm as Stitches - also high HP, has a hook ability. Roadhog is another variation of it. In fact, you can very clearly see the resemblance as all three share the same body type - very heavy frame. Sure, you can point out that Pudge and Stitches do come from the same base - Pudge used the abomination model in Allstars, Stitches is an actual abomination, yet the WC3 abomination doesn't have a hook ability. It was something introduced in DotA and stuck around.
So, yes - he's a tank. Bruisers don't tend to be the main tank, but can definitely classify as secondary, at least. In some cases, you can have a bruiser as your main and only tank, but it requires a team composition to back this up - generally very high damage characters, so they deal with the enemies, as the enemies try to deal with the bruiser. In such cases, the bruiser is usually expendable - their job is to just stay around enough for their team to pick off some enemies, this when the bruiser is dead, the team can deal with the remains. Or alternatively, you can have supports that have damage mitigation/HP recovery abilities to keep the bruiser in the fight.
I'd first like to preface this by saying I don't actually play Overwatch and I'm not familiar with the intricacies of characters and abilities. Still, since this is about game design, I can definitely talk in broad strokes.
In no way, shape or form has Destiny been the first game without a story mode introduced inside it. I can point at multitude of examples: Pong and Tetris come to mind, but if we are talking about competitive online games, how about stepping back to around the start of the millenium with Unreal Tournament. Since the OP contains many comparisons to Team Fortress 2 I definitely have to point out that doesn't have a story mode, either. I've played Team Fortress Classic and I assure you, it had even less story in the game than TF2. I've not played the original Team Fortress but I'd hazard a guess that's also the case. There is also DotA, Leage of Legends and many others that came out way before Destiny.Lufia Erim said:
It is "accepted" because you don't generally need a story mode for any game ever. Especially if you're focusing on multiplayer.
Why you chose to point at Destiny I do not know, nor do I know why it's somehow a "new" phenomenon.
Yet, if we apply OP's logic, then that cast is WRONG! Why have a black Irish man? Why have a Russian? Why have an Australian? Those are characteristics that don't compliment their characters at all.Neverhoodian said:If you'll allow me to play Devil's Advocate for a second, may I remind you that TF2's cast consists mainly of "gruffy 30-something white dudes with 5 o'clock shadows," and I never had any problems telling them apart thanks to their distinctive silhouettes:Gethsemani said:
Don't get me wrong, I agree with your argument as a whole. I'm just saying you CAN have a (mostly) racially homogeneous cast in a class-based shooter and make them distinctive from one another.
That's a variation of tanks called "bruiser". They are, as you described them, high HP characters that have high DPS. Their role is to get into the enemies faces and force the enemy team to waste effort taking them down, instead of the squishier characters. In more PvE oriented games, you'd have some sort of warrior with aggro mechanic, but in PvP, you cannot force players to attack a target via artificial means, hence you make one character seem big and scary.Broderick said:
Roadhog is really just a variation of the Pudge character from DotA: Allstars - high HP, the most distinctive ability is a hook ability - a long-range trickshot that can pull an enemy to him. The same archetype shows up in Heroes of the Storm as Stitches - also high HP, has a hook ability. Roadhog is another variation of it. In fact, you can very clearly see the resemblance as all three share the same body type - very heavy frame. Sure, you can point out that Pudge and Stitches do come from the same base - Pudge used the abomination model in Allstars, Stitches is an actual abomination, yet the WC3 abomination doesn't have a hook ability. It was something introduced in DotA and stuck around.
So, yes - he's a tank. Bruisers don't tend to be the main tank, but can definitely classify as secondary, at least. In some cases, you can have a bruiser as your main and only tank, but it requires a team composition to back this up - generally very high damage characters, so they deal with the enemies, as the enemies try to deal with the bruiser. In such cases, the bruiser is usually expendable - their job is to just stay around enough for their team to pick off some enemies, this when the bruiser is dead, the team can deal with the remains. Or alternatively, you can have supports that have damage mitigation/HP recovery abilities to keep the bruiser in the fight.
Being Irish while being black while being theme around explosives is a perfect balance and shows Valve knows their shit with character design. Having the most formidable character be a simple straight-forward Russian guy made sense. These characteristics completely complemented their characters.DoPo said:
Overwatch isn't as tasteful about it. It'd be a little difficult to pinpoint precise places you go 'wrong' with character design but I can fairly easily point out when the elements are working well and TF2 made that easy. Overwatch... is a bit all over the place and I feel any idiot coulda mixed several different features and characteristics together like Overwatch did. Some character designs don't fall into this rut for instance the concepts of Zenyatta and Tracer are fantastic in all aspects in personality, features, and gameplay mechanics because everything about them screams purpose and consistency.
Being Irish has nothing to do with explosives...unless you refer to IRA.Epyc Wynn said:
Being black also has nothing to do with explosives.
Being black has nothing to do with being Irish, either.
The only thing that the demoman has related to explosives is his eyepatch, which can easily point to a mishap. But the other two factors? They have nothing that fits the core theme of the character. In fact, they seem to be there for "diversity's sake", as you would put it - why else would he be both black AND Irish?
Maybe, but why not not-Russian?Epyc Wynn said:
And what about the sniper - why have him as Australian? Is this also just for "diversity's sake"? I don't see anything to suggests he needs to be one.
See, this is sort of the weakness here - requiring justification for backgrounds is a bit weak. What if somebody is Indian, Irish, or whatever - they are a distinct character and work as one. If you look at any other game with a big character roster, you'd find a bunch of oddball characters, too - in Mortal Kombat you have a bunch of ninjas that can do supernatural stuff, a four armed dude, reptilian humanoid, some robots, some humans that do almost supernatural feats. None of them require justification for their backgrounds - people just accept it. In Guilty Gear you have an even more eclectic collection of characters - some little girl that can whack you with whales, a gay man that uses a pool cue as a weapon and can summon billiard balls, a crossdressing boy who has a yo-yo as his main offense, extremely tall guy who wears a paper bag on his head and has a giant scalpel, also he can apparently summon random things like hammers and bombs on a whim, like some sort of cartoon characters, etc. In DotA: Allstars, which is (sort of) set in the Warcraft universe, you have Warcraft characters, but also people from real world mythology, like Zeus, then people from other works of fiction like Lina Inverse and some completely random ones. They use models from the base game because...that's what they can work with, but I've yet to hear people complain about their backstories not fitting. In Dota 2 the characters were changed to remove ties to other IPs (like Lina Inverse is now just Lina) and new backstories were created but...there is very little need for justification again. Zeus is still there and he's still the Zeus from the Greek mythos. Now let's look at Unreal Tournament - the characters don't even have classes, you are just choosing a skin. Yet you can choose from several different types of humans and even aliens. They have a bit of a backstory (super bare-bones), so if we go about trying to justify their inclusion...we cannot, really. Does that mean they are there for "diversity's sake" as well? Same can be said about Quake 3 multiplayer - why would you have a walking eye or Tank Junior in the same place, or Anarchy or any of the others.
DoPo said:
Epyc Wynn said:
Uhhhh? Irish? Are you suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuure?DoPo said:
A perfect balance of... what, exactly? Not only are you objectively wrong, it is a perfect example of blurting out a point, and then backing it up with a boatload of nothing, as well as showing your blind defense for TF2 without really fact checking anything.Epyc Wynn said:
Black and Scottish is associated with more active "explosive" personalities that's why it makes sense. As for fact-checking... what do you want me to check?Laggyteabag said:DoPo said:Epyc Wynn said:Uhhhh? Irish? Are you suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuure?DoPo said:
A perfect balance of... what, exactly? Not only are you objectively wrong, it is a perfect example of blurting out a point, and then backing it up with a boatload of nothing, as well as showing your blind defense for TF2 without really fact checking anything.Epyc Wynn said:
Epyc Wynn said:Black and Scottish is associated with more active "explosive" personalities that's why it makes sense. As for fact-checking... what do you want me to check?Laggyteabag said:DoPo said:Epyc Wynn said:Uhhhh? Irish? Are you suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuure?DoPo said:
A perfect balance of... what, exactly? Not only are you objectively wrong, it is a perfect example of blurting out a point, and then backing it up with a boatload of nothing, as well as showing your blind defense for TF2 without really fact checking anything.Epyc Wynn said:
Sooooo, stereotypes? Because that's what you just justified, is that it matches some sort of vague stereotype it makes for good design. Not really helping with the earlier accusation of you being kind of prejudiced, also echoing undead what do you consider bad about specific Overwatch characters, because most of them are kind of similar in following national stereotypes: the Chinese scientist, Korean gamer, two Japanese characters that are basically tropes, the American cowboy, the big friendly German bear, the Russian weightlifter (sort of a female Zangief). I'm curious which characters you think don't fit the model you've accepted with Demoman and why you think that is actual bad game design and not just a design you personally don't like.
I only popped into the thread out of morbid curiosity and any real conversation I could make barring the following has passed.
With that said,
Comparing Siege to OW is apples and oranges in this regard.
With that said,
Except that's not falling short, that's the point of the aesthetic from a games design standpoint, you're not meant to be able to instantly deduce on sight who everyone is, you have to look more closely or tag them. That's why you have the scouting phase at the start of the round, so the attackers can attempt to figure out what they're up against. That also includes finding out whos on the opposing side based on what devices are in play like Mute's jammers or Mira's glass. Conversely, it incentivizes the defenders to monitor the cameras or have someone counterflank.Gethsemani said:
Comparing Siege to OW is apples and oranges in this regard.
Not only stereotypes - it's stereotypes that link to the character theme by dream logic. Because "angry" doesn't actually relate to "explosives" in any way - it only does when you call it "explosive personality". If that's the case, then smart characters should use blades, because they are sharp while conversely, stupid ones, being dull should use clubs and other non-bladed tools.EternallyBored said:
The point is being consistent with what is at the core of their design. It isn't about the stereotype, it's about the consistency. I am not talking about having "Russian" or "Chinese" at the core of things as that genuinely does lead to stereotypes which are shallower than if you center things around a more abstract concept. Lemme give some examples based on this principle, without focusing on lore and instead strictly focusing on the game itself.undeadsuitor said:
Tracer's core theme is freedom so she has her speed, time movement, low HP to indicate her weight doesn't slow her down, and not letting negativity hold her back as negativity is in general associated with not feeling free. Roadhog's core theme is brutality which WAS shown through a brutal hook-and-kill, in addition to the scary mask, psychotic yet oddly controlled behavior, high DPS (at close range), and his stomach sticking out like "yeah, you wanna stop me from fucking you up you gotta work for it" which is further emphasized by him then drinking his health back. Those are (or WERE) excellent examples and until this nerf, most people considered Roadhog the best realized character both through his design and gameplay execution.
The problem is most of the characters seem to have certain attributes just to seem diverse in relation to other characters and then some stereotypical quirks from their respective countries are tacked onto them. That creates characters that are just existing for the sake of being diverse rather than existing with a core sense of purpose about them like Tracer and Roadhog exemplify.
Pointing out how a race or country acts on a general scale is not the same as insinuating how one is superior or inferior. In this case these stereotypes are highly relevant to the character design aspect of the game and considering how central character designs are to Overwatch, it is important the subject is mentioned. I kindly ask you please talk about the game rather than repeatedly call me racist.Gizen said:
Yeah, it is actually. There's a reason people fight against stereotyping. Even positive stereotypes can have detrimental effects, and in this case it's not even a positive one to begin with, as an 'explosive personality' is typically considered a negative trait since it implies a person who struggles to control their emotions and has difficulty thinking before acting.Epyc Wynn said:
You're right, these stereotypes are highly relevant t the character design aspect of the game... and? The argument you've currently decided to side with is that diversity must be justified in order to be used, and that valid justification is to appeal to stereotypes. I'm arguing against that because it's bullshit and pointing out the obvious racist undertones in order to support my point. I'm arguing character design just as much as you are, but unlike you I'm actually bothering to explain my arguments. A guy can't just be black or scottish, or else that's diversity for the sake of diversity, which is clearly bad somehow for reasons you've yet to explain anywhere. No, he has to be black/scottish in order to compliment a personality stereotypically associated with black/scottish people. It doesn't matter that it's (tangentially) related to game design, that's still racist. It's not even subtle racism like you were doing before, it's just blatant at this point.
I've spoken about the game multiple times at this point, but you have this tendency to not respond when I do (that whole 'arguing in bad faith' thing again), and so at this point I've pretty much said all there really needs to be said on the issue, and what I'm neglecting, other people are pointing out so I don't have to.
On the other hand, everytime I point out that you're saying something prejudiced, you tend to be very quick to respond, and so since that's where there keeps being an actual opening for a debate, that's where I'm going to keep going. So the solution would be simple I think: If you don't want me to keep going after you for saying racist shit, stop saying racist shit.
I was referencing the fact you have to check outside sources for in game lore/story. Not multiplayer only games. I dont know what you know about destiny but there is an APP for cellphones which holds 95% of the story and lore of the game.DoPo said:I can see it's pretty useless to try and engage TC in any way, so, I'll just have a discourse with other people instead.
I'd first like to preface this by saying I don't actually play Overwatch and I'm not familiar with the intricacies of characters and abilities. Still, since this is about game design, I can definitely talk in broad strokes.
In no way, shape or form has Destiny been the first game without a story mode introduced inside it. I can point at multitude of examples: Pong and Tetris come to mind, but if we are talking about competitive online games, how about stepping back to around the start of the millenium with Unreal Tournament. Since the OP contains many comparisons to Team Fortress 2 I definitely have to point out that doesn't have a story mode, either. I've played Team Fortress Classic and I assure you, it had even less story in the game than TF2. I've not played the original Team Fortress but I'd hazard a guess that's also the case. There is also DotA, Leage of Legends and many others that came out way before Destiny.Lufia Erim said:
It is "accepted" because you don't generally need a story mode for any game ever. Especially if you're focusing on multiplayer.
Why you chose to point at Destiny I do not know, nor do I know why it's somehow a "new" phenomenon.
Yet, if we apply OP's logic, then that cast is WRONG! Why have a black Irish man? Why have a Russian? Why have an Australian? Those are characteristics that don't compliment their characters at all.Neverhoodian said:If you'll allow me to play Devil's Advocate for a second, may I remind you that TF2's cast consists mainly of "gruffy 30-something white dudes with 5 o'clock shadows," and I never had any problems telling them apart thanks to their distinctive silhouettes:Gethsemani said:
Don't get me wrong, I agree with your argument as a whole. I'm just saying you CAN have a (mostly) racially homogeneous cast in a class-based shooter and make them distinctive from one another.
That's a variation of tanks called "bruiser". They are, as you described them, high HP characters that have high DPS. Their role is to get into the enemies faces and force the enemy team to waste effort taking them down, instead of the squishier characters. In more PvE oriented games, you'd have some sort of warrior with aggro mechanic, but in PvP, you cannot force players to attack a target via artificial means, hence you make one character seem big and scary.Broderick said:
Roadhog is really just a variation of the Pudge character from DotA: Allstars - high HP, the most distinctive ability is a hook ability - a long-range trickshot that can pull an enemy to him. The same archetype shows up in Heroes of the Storm as Stitches - also high HP, has a hook ability. Roadhog is another variation of it. In fact, you can very clearly see the resemblance as all three share the same body type - very heavy frame. Sure, you can point out that Pudge and Stitches do come from the same base - Pudge used the abomination model in Allstars, Stitches is an actual abomination, yet the WC3 abomination doesn't have a hook ability. It was something introduced in DotA and stuck around.
So, yes - he's a tank. Bruisers don't tend to be the main tank, but can definitely classify as secondary, at least. In some cases, you can have a bruiser as your main and only tank, but it requires a team composition to back this up - generally very high damage characters, so they deal with the enemies, as the enemies try to deal with the bruiser. In such cases, the bruiser is usually expendable - their job is to just stay around enough for their team to pick off some enemies, this when the bruiser is dead, the team can deal with the remains. Or alternatively, you can have supports that have damage mitigation/HP recovery abilities to keep the bruiser in the fight.
Team fortress 2 wasn't a full price AAA game. It was part of the orange box or bought standalone for 20 or 30 dollars before going free to play.
Hard to say. It's easy for me to point out characters that do it well because I actually care about those characters. Hard to discuss the other characters that do it poorly when their designs either disappoint me or bore me so much I don't want to give them my mental energy. Also not sure whether I'd want to do this purely based on the game, or do this while also taking into account video lore and general lore tidbits, as the lore has genuinely made me dislike certain character designs significantly more; on the other hand I don't like this idea that lore outside of the game itself should be considered canon.[quote= said:
I just want to say, old Roadhog was bad game design. Instant kill combos are not fun for anyone except the player using it. Old Hog's solo flanking encouraged bad habits and bad play. It flew in the face of team play, as Hog didn't need to work with his team in the slightest. Hog rewarded bad positioning, discouraged interplay between heroes, ignored teamwork, and quite frankly countered too many heroes. Reaper should win duels against Hog, Reaper is a tank buster, that is his job.