Zero Punctuation: Overwatch vs Battleborn

[hermes]

It wasnt someone saying "sexist" it was someone saying "I don't think she would pose like that."

"I don't think she would pose in such a sexist way".

It's not sexist, it's just sexually suggestive.

Right you are, but the outcry was over sexism, not the perception of what Tracer's "character" would and wouldn't do.

Actually, no. The original complain was because it was "out of character".

The "character" everyone decided she had before the game was even out, sure.

Exactly.

At that point, Blizzard, with its team of dozens of profesional concept artists, animators, game designers, inbetweeners, etc... was the only one that could judge if someone was indeed "out of character"; and they thought there was more merit to that opinion (and those of their team) than the one of random Internet people.

 

[Erttheking]

It wasnt someone saying "sexist" it was someone saying "I don't think she would pose like that."

"I don't think she would pose in such a sexist way".

It's not sexist, it's just sexually suggestive.

Right you are, but the outcry was over sexism, not the perception of what Tracer's "character" would and wouldn't do.

Actually, no. The original complain was because it was "out of character".

The "character" everyone decided she had before the game was even out, sure.

Considering the beta and a couple of shorts containing Tracer were out by the time the comment was made, I'm pretty sure people had a good handle on her character.

 

[Worgen]

snip

snip

snip

Was it bad that Blizzard responded the way they did? Yes and no. I think it's both troubling that Blizzard can be so easily influenced by a single opinion, especially in a team-shooter like Overwatch where balance is king, but I also think it's good that they pay attention to their community.

Ugh, dude. The part of the complaint they listened to was that it was out of character for her. Plus they apparently weren't happy with that pose anyway. Hell, its totally possible they were already working on the new pose before the poster had actually posted and it just coincided with the poster and the internet being what it was immediately realized this meant blizzard had bowed down to a single complaint of sexism and we should all vote for trump to save us from not being able to see breasts in a video game.

 

[hermes]

It wasnt someone saying "sexist" it was someone saying "I don't think she would pose like that."

"I don't think she would pose in such a sexist way".

It's not sexist, it's just sexually suggestive.

Right you are, but the outcry was over sexism, not the perception of what Tracer's "character" would and wouldn't do.

Actually, no. The original complain was because it was "out of character".

The "character" everyone decided she had before the game was even out, sure.

Well all we know of Tracer's character is what we've gotten from the various trailers and shorts - all (or most) of which were released prior to the game itself since there's no narrative framework in the game to inform us of her traits. Plus since the complaint came from a closed beta tester they were basing their opinion on the in-game information as well.

I'm with Yahtzee on this - to me it just shows what little faith Blizzard had on what they were doing.

Yeah, Blizzard should handle betas like every other company handles betas, not as a way to show things to the public, tune things up and test it with a larger player base; instead it should be marketing material tied in to preorders, special editions and stores promotions once the game is so close to be released there is nothing of consequence they could change.

I mean, how dare them show the public an unfinished product and change something that is in development. Everybody knows people don't make mistakes on works in progress, that is why lack of confidence and fear of political pressure are the only reasons one can change something before it is finished.

 

[Neurotic Void Melody]

I wonder if Blizzard will bow to my single complaint that the game's too fucking expensive and random loot crates with microtransactions are a seriously insulting business practice in the way of illusory progression? As I am not paying for overpriced repetition. No? Oh well, maybe they aren't that soft on criticism as I hoped.

 

[reciprocal]

Look at her poses here. Which one sounds out? You have 3 cocky playful poses then one where she is just standing there almost saying "look at my butt." Its not playful, its not cocky, it just is, there is no character to it.

I'm sorry but for me the one standing out is when she is sitting down and has her goggles removed xD

Were it not for this drama around the butt, I would really not see much of a difference between the first pose and other 2 standing ones. I keep hearing how that pose is out of character for her or something, but I guess I'm not squinting hard enough to see it.
Again, out of those 4, the one that stands out is the one where the speedster's sitting down and very much immobile, at least in all the standing ones, whether she shows her butt or not, she is ready to run off in an instant.

Maybe I'm just a pervert who can't jack off to a slightly differently pose..Oh wait I can, quite easily. Never mind it's all good!

I think all the characters have a sit down pose, but it still works since its playful.

Having played Overwatch, there's very few characters with sit-down poses. Only Roadhog and maybe D-va and Torb if you want to count sitting on other things. There's quite a few over-the shoulder poses, though and there's a lot of kneeling poses.

Her sitting down pose is definitely the most out-of-character. I don't think I've ever seen her sit down outside of that pose. In most cases, you are often staring behind her as she dashes ahead of your team to get killed or dashes around you as she flanks you. Sitting down in a spot is extremely uncharacteristic of her (Widowmaker 1-shot bodyshot, previously). I don't see any of the other poses being any less playful than the sitting one.

I've been cruising the Overwatch forums since the game came out and I've never seen the developers apologise for McCree and Widowmaker being overpowered despite the numerous posts made prior to the recent nerf either. In fact, they kept real quiet about the potential changes until the last week. Aren't these players just as important?

OT: I believe Battleborn has more depth than Overwatch and potentially a higher skill ceiling. However, if you are in Australia just give up on Battleborn. In the time it takes to get into a Battleborn game, you've probably completed several rounds in Overwatch.

 

[ItsNotRudy]

I wonder if Blizzard will bow to my single complaint that the game's too fucking expensive and random loot crates with microtransactions are a seriously insulting business practice in the way of illusory progression? As I am not paying for overpriced repetition. No? Oh well, maybe they aren't that soft on criticism as I hoped.

It's kind of funny that people complain about lottery boxes that are completely optional and also bring completely free and optional content to the game. Let the impatient children waste cash on these boxes and further development and play your game. It doesn't affect you in anyway, unless you're petty enough to care about other people having more tags/skins than you (how would you even notice?)

It's not an MMO, so why do you need progress? The objective is to have fun in each of your games. What would -any- kind of progress even look like? Stronger characters? New skills? That's good for balance.

Also, it's onloy $39 on PC. Not that bad for a highly polished game. How do you decide if something is "too expensive" anyway? Obviously 10 million people disagree with this sentiment, or they shouldn't have bought it.

If you're on console then... well you should be used to the whole "pay more for less" deal by now.

 

[Samtemdo8_v1legacy]

Buffy the Vampire Slayer (The Best TV Show Ever Made!)

No that would be The Sopranos and the Wire and anythign on HBO really.

And the first 3 Star Trek shows.

And Seinfeld.

 

[Azure23]

I love how this game pisses off people on both sides of the "I'm very serious about gender politics" spectrum, and you have a gajillion people who are playing it and having fun with it, it's probably made a ton of money already, proving truly how small the group of screaming malcontents truly is.

I'm not so sure about both sides. The people who get painted with the SJW brush seem to be having a great time playing the game and shipping all the female characters with each other.

You can't prove to me that Zarya doesn't have a huge dick with which she makes sweet and tender love to Mercy! YOU CANT! But for real though, I had a great Mercy for my last match and ended up team killing on the point with Zarya. Ran in, dropped shields on Mercy and I, dumb enemies shot and charged my shields, Mercy switched to damage buff, and I unloaded. They melted, it was beautiful.

And a romance that will last a thousand years (or at least until a better single target support comes out) was born.

 

[qeinar]

Kinda confused when he mentioned the price point.. battleborn is 60 usd while overwatch is 40?

 

[Entropy_kC]

I hate everything about overwatch.

I hate online multiplayer only games because 3 months from now the servers will be dead and the game will be worthless. It's already dropped by 50% since launch.

LOL yeah you just proved how you know absolutely nothing about the game. 7 million initial sales with 10 million active players at the last update. It's increased by 50% not decreased.

Just like how League of Legends, Dota2, CSGO etc. are all multiplayer only and died 3 months after launch. Oh wait... don't let your incredible bias hit you on the way out.

 

[MrFalconfly]

I hate everything about overwatch.

I hate online multiplayer only games because 3 months from now the servers will be dead and the game will be worthless. It's already dropped by 50% since launch.

LOL yeah you just proved how you know absolutely nothing about the game. 7 million initial sales with 10 million active players at the last update. It's increased by 50% not decreased.

Just like how League of Legends, Dota2, CSGO etc. are all multiplayer only and died 3 months after launch. Oh wait... don't let your incredible bias hit you on the way out.

He's got a point though.

It's multiplayer only, which essentially means there's absolutely no guarantee that it'll last any kind of period.

If it had an offline (as in, proper offline, no internet required offline) singleplayer mode, then you could power it up any day, regardless of the status of any servers.

 

[Spider RedNight]

Wow, this video seems to have a lot more comments than normal, I guess people really want to weigh in on which game they pref.... it's about the fucking butt again. Can't you guys just go read through one of the old threads where you already brought up all of these arguments several times? Just go read one of your old posts, pat yourself on the back, say "mhmm, I showed that person, they must surely believe my side now", and MOVE ON. I feel as if I've transcended to a new level of disappointment.

You took the words right outta my mouth, though reading through this argument (again) was somewhat amusing for the first few replies. Then it just got redundant.

OT: Multiplayer things are definitely not my gig and since I actually like the first three Borderlands games, I naturally felt an inclination towards Battleborn, which works in my favour because it DOES have single player and a story.

Granted, I had to be dragged into playing the game by a buddy of mine which makes me think that neither of them are worth it. I'll just go back to my single player games. And nice try, people who try to explain away that Overwatch isn't all style and little substance. It is.

 

[Kawalorn]

I'm not so sure about both sides. The people who get painted with the SJW brush seem to be having a great time playing the game and shipping all the female characters with each other.

No, not really: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1234757

 

[Neurotic Void Melody]

It's kind of funny that people complain about lottery boxes that are completely optional and also bring completely free and optional content to the game. Let the impatient children waste cash on these boxes and further development and play your game. It doesn't affect you in anyway, unless you're petty enough to care about other people having more tags/skins than you (how would you even notice?)

It's not an MMO, so why do you need progress? The objective is to have fun in each of your games. What would -any- kind of progress even look like? Stronger characters? New skills? That's good for balance.

Also, it's onloy $39 on PC. Not that bad for a highly polished game. How do you decide if something is "too expensive" anyway? Obviously 10 million people disagree with this sentiment, or they shouldn't have bought it.

If you're on console then... well you should be used to the whole "pay more for less" deal by now.

*Le Sigh* Blizzard doesn't need defending, random loot boxes are the poorest attempt at player rewards, and let's not pretend the addition of microtransactions are an act of kindness from this company to all those people who already played for the full game so they can pay even more money if they happen to be unfortunate enough to have a life outside of gaming. If it was really for the consumer and not a cheap attempt at fleecing the haves-and-have-nots psychology for unnecessary extra pocket lining, then they would be made available through other means that wouldnt cost the player more than they already have paid.
Now, maybe I just have a sense of the value of money, due to not being from a privileged background and having to watch where my money goes while watching out for people who are trying to fool you that their product is totes worth the value they're telling you (and these people are pretty much everywhere). If you have the disposable cash and don't care where it ends up, then that's your choice, but you cannot convince me that this product is pro-consumer and especially that it's worth my money and time. Compared to all the other full priced games that exist, this is barebones and repetative while it still hoping for the player to shell out more money. This is the profiteering intent that is on display.
Lastly, argumentum ad populum is a fallacious argument, 10 million people may buy this title, but it doesn't imply their opinion, and it doesn't make them right. More people tune in to the X-factor, does that mean that the programme is now something worth everybody's time?

 

[Erttheking]

I'm not so sure about both sides. The people who get painted with the SJW brush seem to be having a great time playing the game and shipping all the female characters with each other.

No, not really: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1234757

I fail to see how this displays that they are not enjoying the game.

 

[RaikuFA]

I hate everything about overwatch.

I hate online multiplayer only games because 3 months from now the servers will be dead and the game will be worthless. It's already dropped by 50% since launch.

LOL yeah you just proved how you know absolutely nothing about the game. 7 million initial sales with 10 million active players at the last update. It's increased by 50% not decreased.

Just like how League of Legends, Dota2, CSGO etc. are all multiplayer only and died 3 months after launch. Oh wait... don't let your incredible bias hit you on the way out.

Yet we also have Titanfall, Evolve, MAG, whatever last years CoD and Battlefield are, Battleborn and hopefully soon Overwatch. How many of those 10 million registered still play it?

OT: I'm kind of glad people are starting to talk shit about this game. It needs it badly and hopefully soon more companies can stop focusing on online only shooters to chase that CoD dragon and work on actual games.

 

[Sheo_Dagana]

Huh, the Battleborn servers are dead? That's odd, I generally have no issue finding a match on Xbox Live, but I have no idea what the PC servers are like and that seems to be where Yahtzee spent most of his time.

I found this particular review to be hilariously observant and I'm glad that he gave both games a fair shake and shit on them equally for the things that they did wrong. Frankly, I'm Team Battleborn all the way myself, but I like Gearbox. They're charming in a way that Blizzard stopped being a while ago, but it's clear that they're also on the downswing because, lets face it, the writing in Battleborn isn't quite as good as Borderlands.

I do like Overwatch, though. It's a fun game, but I like Battleborn's reward system better.

EDIT: It's worth pointing out that Battleborn recently introduced fancy skins that can only be bought with currency purchased with real money via microtransactions. =/ I'm actually really disappointed by this but not entirely surprised either.

 

[Silvanus]

I was wondering whether this thread had yet been subsumed into a Tracer-butt conversation, and I'm pleasantly surprised to see... that it's only partly so!

As was said before, y'can't genuinely believe it's because one person complained, particularly when the dev explicitly said they were already thinking along those lines in their response to that one person. You're not that silly.

 

[ItsNotRudy]

*Le Sigh* Blizzard doesn't need defending, random loot boxes are the poorest attempt at player rewards, and let's not pretend the addition of microtransactions are an act of kindness from this company to all those people who already played for the full game so they can pay even more money if they happen to be unfortunate enough to have a life outside of gaming. If it was really for the consumer and not a cheap attempt at fleecing the haves-and-have-nots psychology for unnecessary extra pocket lining, then they would be made available through other means that wouldnt cost the player more than they already have paid.

It's not really a defense of, rather than showing I really don't care about the boxes. I don't play to level or unlock boxes. People who do are missing the point of the game. I just genuinely don't understand the fuss about optional crappy boxes. Whoever has the cash, let them buy it. Regardless of the strategy being considered scummy, it does not hinder gameplay or harm anyone, which is all I care about.

Now, maybe I just have a sense of the value of money, due to not being from a privileged background and having to watch where my money goes while watching out for people who are trying to fool you that their product is totes worth the value they're telling you (and these people are pretty much everywhere). If you have the disposable cash and don't care where it ends up, then that's your choice, but you cannot convince me that this product is pro-consumer and especially that it's worth my money and time.

I also did not come from money and I find the game is worth my time/money. I play it average maybe 5-8 hours a week and still find it fun. In the end what both of us are saying, be it in favour or against the game's merits, are just our opinions. I don't like Ass. Creed either and don't find it worth more than $20, others happily buy it and it's bland reiterations for $60 a pop as soon as the first screenshots emerge.

Compared to all the other full priced games that exist, this is barebones and repetative while it still hoping for the player to shell out more money. This is the profiteering intent that is on display.
Lastly, argumentum ad populum is a fallacious argument, 10 million people may buy this title, but it doesn't imply their opinion, and it doesn't make them right. More people tune in to the X-factor, does that mean that the programme is now something worth everybody's time?

I am on PC so the game isn't "full priced" (which would be $60) but $39. That's quite okay for me. People need to learn that their only voice and vote is their wallet. If you don't support a product, then not buying it is your only meaningful contribution. Regardless of the shady practices they enact, I know people genuinely enjoy x-factor, so I can't comment on that.