Overwatch Promotes Bad Game Design

[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.