Overwatch will spend it's entire existance trying to justify itself.

[the_dramatica]

Overwatch launched shamelessly challenging tf2. It then announced it's capping the FOV at 65 "so that nobody has an unfair advantage." I'd imagine next that phariah will be showcased and she won't be able to rocketjump, and I have no idea what they could do after that.

 

[Bob_McMillan]

Huh, that's going to get the Glorious PC Master Race's cooling fans in a twist. But seriously, that sounds like an incredibly low FOV.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

65 is super low.

That said, Blizzard has a long and storied history of getting their games mercilessly mocked by PC Gamers during the development process and then selling eleventy billion copies at launch, so I'm pretty sure they'll come out of it just fine.

 

[AlouetteSK]

Too bad I won't be able to physically play that game then if the cap is 65. Anything below 90 makes me nauseous. Don't know how anyone can stand otherwise. Seriously, how do you cope?

 

[Silence]

Fuck, I was excited for this game.

I won't play it with FoV 65.

I hope Blizzard realizes that this is incredibly dumb and stupid.

 

[Zhukov]

Dude, it's a Blizzard game. It'll do fine.

Let me use my magnificent powers of pattern recognition to tell you exactly how this will go:

The mighty minds of the internet will wear their pale, chubby fingers down to bleeding stubs as they bemoan each and every facet of the game as a travesty and a grievous affront to all True Gamers.

Then the game will come out and it will be bought and played by a metric fuckton of people. Many of the aforementioned mighty minds likely among them.

PS. And just to be clear, I'm not saying this out of some fanboyish impulse to defend Blizzard or their decisions. I was largely unimpressed by SC2:WoL, I didn't buy HotS or D3, and I don't play WoW, Hearthstone or that new MOBA of theirs.

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

It then announced it's capping the FOV at 65 "so that nobody has an unfair advantage."

Fuck it then. I won't go anywhere near it.

 

[Lightspeaker]

I was expecting the OP to be something about the high number of major shooters in the market, or about the fact it already has a successful direct competitor and how difficult it will be to get people to switch, or a comment about how Blizzard responded to criticism of diversity in it. Was very confused for a moment heh.

Seriously though, 65 FOV? Really? Some people actually feel ill at lower FOVs. This is absurd.

 

[Aerosteam]

But why 65 though? Why not give everyone like 100?

Edit: So they are giving everyone like 100. OP is just talking about vertical FOV, something no one ever talks about. :|

 

[Grey Edwards]

Say whatever numbers you want. The gameplay looks just fine to me.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNq4nTA3eMg

Also, why would Pharrah need to rocket jump? She has a jetpack to fly with. Just because the maps and objectives are similar to TF2, doesn't mean the gameplay is. Every character has a few, very game altering abilities.

If there's one thing Blizzard has been doing well for decades, it's taking an existing game type and then significantly improving upon it at the base level.

 

[Silentpony_v1legacy]

NO! Not Overwatch! We had such high-hopes for this new DLC vector!
I was really looking forward to paying $2 for one-use items!

 

[Aethryl]

From the research I've been able to find only about 1/4 of the population benefits from over 60 FPS.

That said I would be unsurprised if that 1/4 was heavily concentrated in younger ages which happens to coincide with Blizzard's core market (haven't found anything on FPS perception distribution vs age group however).

It is an interesting question on how much of the population and/or market can perceive the difference between 60 and 90 fps.

 

[Aeshi]

From the research I've been able to find only about 1/4 of the population benefits from over 60 FPS.

That said I would be unsurprised if that 1/4 was heavily concentrated in younger ages which happens to coincide with Blizzard's core market (haven't found anything on FPS perception distribution vs age group however).

It is an interesting question on how much of the population and/or market can perceive the difference between 60 and 90 fps.

FoV, not FPS. There's a slight difference between the two.

 

[Aethryl]

From the research I've been able to find only about 1/4 of the population benefits from over 60 FPS.

That said I would be unsurprised if that 1/4 was heavily concentrated in younger ages which happens to coincide with Blizzard's core market (haven't found anything on FPS perception distribution vs age group however).

It is an interesting question on how much of the population and/or market can perceive the difference between 60 and 90 fps.

FoV, not FPS. There's a slight difference between the two.

Now I feel silly. Hmm I don't really have enough experience with FPS games to know if I would find this annoying or not.

 

[The Madman]

Jeez, and here I am being some dowdy pleb thinking it actually looks pretty fun and looking forward to giving it a try. I'm sorry, I'll correct my thinking to the proper cynical internet mindset immediately.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

What? Blizzard's capping the FOV at 65? 65 is so low for FOV! How dare they?! I don't game under... 70 FOV!

 

[Cowabungaa]

What? Blizzard's capping the FOV at 65? 65 is so low for FOV! How dare they?! I don't game under... 70 FOV!

Field of view. A lot of people get motion sickness when it's too low, I guess because it's so much more narrow than we have in real life.

I don't exactly find it comfortable either, so it seems that I'll be giving Overwatch a pass as well then. Which is a shame, because I loved how it looked.

 

[LordLundar]

Now I feel silly. Hmm I don't really have enough experience with FPS games to know if I would find this annoying or not.

The narrower FoV can cause disorientation and in people who are particularly sensitive, motion sickness. 90 degrees is the standard FoV to avoid most incidents on PC while 80 is the standard for consoles to optimize performance. Why Blizzard is using an angle as narrow as 65 is baffling but then again, Blizzard developer's design choices being baffling is normal at this point.

 

[Aerosteam]

Jeez, and here I am being some dowdy pleb thinking it actually looks pretty fun and looking forward to giving it a try. I'm sorry, I'll correct my thinking to the proper cynical internet mindset immediately.

If you're someone how can't play a game with a low FOV without feeling sick within a minute then damn right you should.

 

[Remi fa Sola]

I usually just lurk around here but this time I might have something to add! I actually am one of these people who gets severely sick without the FOV properly adjusted. You start to feel like vomiting. It doesn't come instantly, often it takes an hour to kick in. It also takes about an hour and some fresh air to pass. I imagine it varries per person.

Minecraft somehow is the WORST, possibly because I keep pushing myself to keep playing. Anyway, I tried to find what is causing it, but no one knows. The best explanation (which is just a theory mind you) is that its a defensive measure your brain takes because it thinks you've been poisoned and are hallucinating. It starts to make you throw up to get the poison out.

So yeah, I'm pretty dissapointed a dev would restrict there game in such a way...