truestatic
Member
Is that post 100 or post 1000? 20 levels of quick boxes is nice but it may be a one time deal for the enormously overwhelming majority of the player base.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Overwatch - Review Thread
- Thread starter orthodoxy1095
- Start date
Oh boy.
Why do so many people still lose their heads over reviews?
Ooooh you're the yooka laylee interview guy, never mind then.
GenericUser
Member
Scores are perfectly ok I think. With the beta I had the chance to make my own opinion about the game so I don't have to rely on numbers. It's just not my game. Best of wishes to all who enjoy the game.
Best of both worlds (not that the MP in Doom is bad)
Spring Drive
Banned
Amazing scores. Congrats Blizzard. The confusion between this and Battleborne and stuff has led me to keep my head 100% out of this discussion, but damn if these scores aren't convincing.
nah m8
How exactly is it bullshit if it doesn't actually impact the gameplay in any way? It's just cosmetic.
I haven't even played this game and it's clear microtransactions are extraneous and not core to the experience.
It's the same with Rainbow Six Siege. Sure, you can spend a fiver to unlock all the Operators. Or you can play the game for 2 hours and have fun and unlock all the Operators. Because microtransactions exist doesn't mean the game is F2P.
The terms "F2P" and "microtransactions" are mutually exclusive. Every F2P game has microtransactions, but microtransactions don't only occur in F2P games.
nah m8
How exactly is it bullshit if it doesn't actually impact the gameplay in any way? It's just cosmetic.
I haven't even played this game and it's clear microtransactions are extraneous and not core to the experience.
It's the same with Rainbow Six Siege. Sure, you can spend a fiver to unlock all the Operators. Or you can play the game for 2 hours and have fun and unlock all the Operators. Because microtransactions exist doesn't mean the game is F2P.
The terms "F2P" and "microtransactions" are mutually exclusive. Every F2P game has microtransactions, but microtransactions don't only occur in F2P games.
10/10 seems like a weird score for Overwatch.
It's deserving I'm sure, as it seems to execute what it sets out to achieve near flawlessly.
But knowing that the game will surely improve in the next months and even years it could be better, because it almost assuredly will be. And "it could be better" isn't generally conducive to a 10/10.
Anyway, good job Blizzard.
It's deserving I'm sure, as it seems to execute what it sets out to achieve near flawlessly.
But knowing that the game will surely improve in the next months and even years it could be better, because it almost assuredly will be. And "it could be better" isn't generally conducive to a 10/10.
Anyway, good job Blizzard.
truestatic
Member
You could apply this to literally any game though. Any game could feasibly have more outstanding content. Surely somethings worth a 10/10?
Then you just rewrite the review to 11!
Spring Drive
Banned
The way I see it, a 10/10 is the new industry standard and game to beat in a certain category
orthodoxy1095
Banned
For some reason, I think everyone who hates microtransactions (which are cosmetic and have no impact on your experience by the way!) would change their tune if games actually cost what they should.
xviper
Member
this game is perfect and i personally would give it 9\10, but it's only a multiplayer game for full price and i don't see lots of people complaining like what happened with Titanfall and Rainbow six siege, is it just because it's from Blizzard ?? don't tell me because it's so good ?? no, Titanfall gameplay is still the best FPS gameplay ever made and it got so much hate because of the lack of content and no SP campaign much like Overwatch who got none hate
truestatic
Member
Cosmetics do t affect game balance, but they affect experience. I think that's a fair assertion. Everyone wants to look cool, and have the hard to get thing. But I'm gettin a bit pedantic.
truestatic
Member
Loads of people in this thread have brought up the value proposition. It's also been the focus of two other threads: one asking specifically why overwatch gets a pass, and the other drawing parallels between it and SFV. I think people here are definitely giving it its share of criticism for this aspect, and it'll probably also be a fairly common note in reviews as more of them are posted.
excaliburps
Press - MP1st.com
Not sure if anyone cares, but for us (PlayStation LifeStyle), we talked about the score a fair bit before landing on the 10.
We addressed the "issues" which were:
Depth and content might be suspect months down the road.
No offline mode of any kind.
Playerbase retention since if it loses players, the game will be dead since there's no offline mode (well, there is the practice and AI matches)
Our argument on how those three concerns panned out:
Depth and content might be suspect months down the road.
- Blizzard has confirmed and announced that future heroes and maps, modes will be free, so that kinda solves the depth issue. And like it or not, Blizz's reputation is something we trust given their history of supporting their games.
No offline mode of any kind.
- Blizz announced Overwatch as a hero shooter through and through. People already know that it's a multiplayer-only game and they know what they're getting into. In short: people who are buying it have accepted it's online only (for the most part, I think).
Playerbase retention since if it loses players, the game will be dead since there's no offline mode (well, there is the practice and AI matches)
- My reviewer made a good case that we don't dock points on a game for speculation. Fair enough.
And us giving it a 10 doesn't mean it's a "perfect" game...not one game is. I gather, the same can be said for other publications. It's just a fun, super polished, game. I can already see here that some don't like it, while others love it. No opinion is wrong and is what makes us humans fun to interact with, no?
We addressed the "issues" which were:
Depth and content might be suspect months down the road.
No offline mode of any kind.
Playerbase retention since if it loses players, the game will be dead since there's no offline mode (well, there is the practice and AI matches)
Our argument on how those three concerns panned out:
Depth and content might be suspect months down the road.
- Blizzard has confirmed and announced that future heroes and maps, modes will be free, so that kinda solves the depth issue. And like it or not, Blizz's reputation is something we trust given their history of supporting their games.
No offline mode of any kind.
- Blizz announced Overwatch as a hero shooter through and through. People already know that it's a multiplayer-only game and they know what they're getting into. In short: people who are buying it have accepted it's online only (for the most part, I think).
Playerbase retention since if it loses players, the game will be dead since there's no offline mode (well, there is the practice and AI matches)
- My reviewer made a good case that we don't dock points on a game for speculation. Fair enough.
And us giving it a 10 doesn't mean it's a "perfect" game...not one game is. I gather, the same can be said for other publications. It's just a fun, super polished, game. I can already see here that some don't like it, while others love it. No opinion is wrong and is what makes us humans fun to interact with, no?
MMaRsu
Member
Haha what balance problems????
truestatic
Member
Mei and bastion need buffed.
King Gilga
Member
Yes you are.
Both CS GO and LoL support 21:9 and are infinitely more competitive than overwatch will ever be.
Its not like OW is ever going to become a popular 'esport' anyways.
Damn, that's one glowing review.
SHOTS FIRED, SHOTS FIRED!
"Cap'n da shieldz ain't holdinz any longah!"
"DAMAHGE REPPORT!"
"Damahge repport machine iz broken Cap'n!"
"WUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUT????"
I think Overwatch has a more than good chance to become popular in ESports
It's not bullshit if it's purely cosmetic and provides you something that you can get in your own time for free. If it's mere existence bugs you then you need to change your line of thought because it's a problem from your side. How do you think the developers who keep working on this game for the next 3-5 years or more and release contents for free for that duration of its life, going to get paid ?
Games didn't have micro transactions in the "good ol days" because
1) They barely supported the game post release, let alone do it for years.
2) They charged for it via monthly subscription.
The alternative to the current model in the game is either charge for each piece of content that comes out and provide a season pass each year. Or have a subscription model.
I'm sure by the looks of how much you hate cosmetic microtransactions, you'll be happier to go for the alternative and keep paying for the game after you buy it for new content, but unfortunately most won't be happy with it.
King Gilga
Member
Have you watched any of the beta tourney streams?
As super fun as it is to play, It's just not a fun game to spectate.
GameSpot 9.0/10
http://www.gamespot.com/overwatch/
http://www.gamespot.com/overwatch/
I personally think that is true for absolutely every game, but I am sure that the game will find a couple tens of thousands of fans who will love to watch it.
Overwatch isn't the only game with a competitive focus.
Should they also lock down the game to One FoV, one resolution, one graphics setting, one mouse setup ? Because not everyone will play at max FoV and some people can play at the lowest settings to make the graphics simpler, increase the resolution and play on their big monitor to see far away stuff clearly or use high DPI mouse while most players just use a simple mouse.
You see how it incorrect that line of thinking is.
excaliburps
Press - MP1st.com
Spring Drive
Banned
Which game will get the most awards this year: Uncharted 4 or Overwatch?
Birgitte2004
Member
What makes Overwatch less fun to spectate than CS:GO?
KZXcellent
Member
UC4, easy. I can see Overwatch winning best Multiplayer and the occasional GOTY but UC4's is a gorgeous cinematic game. It's basically GOTY bait.
It deserves it too, UC4 is FANTASTIC.
I hope these review scores put to bed the daft idea that multiplayer only games can't be absolutely excellent. "No single-player, no buy" has always rankled me as an irritatingly stupid thing to say.
The game does some great things and the beta was a huge amount of fun. I'll definitely think about picking it up at some point.
The game does some great things and the beta was a huge amount of fun. I'll definitely think about picking it up at some point.
i imagine Uncharted 4.
not a knock against OW - i am absolutely loving it - but i do think single player games tend to be in the space for GOTY discussions more often than strictly MP ones.
both games are 10/10 level gaming, though.
orthodoxy1095
Banned
It's possible that they might get similar numbers of GOTY awards. But Uncharted 4 will overall get more with the awards it wins for animation, graphics, story writing, etc.
I'm fairly sure the reason they don't allow for 21:9 is because of how some of the ultimate abilities work.
QuantumSquid
Member
If you consider level 19 to be part of the 'quick boxes' levels of progression, and level 20 and all the levels that follow it only take a tiny amount of XP more than 19 to reach, then why do you only consider the first 20 levels to be quick? The levels that follow the first 20 are pretty much just as fast as the last few levels of 1-20.
Blizzard isn't trying to give players a taste and then deprive them so they feel the need to buy into the microtransactions, that was never their goal.
whatevermort
Member
This argument is insane. It might be the best balanced multiplayer game I've ever played. (Reminds me of Shadowrun 2007 in that respect - that game was ridiculously tight.) The arguments about the balance issues are bizarre, all seemingly based around either 1) Bastion as a meme 2) people playing multiple versions of the same character - something that's not nearly as hard to counter as some are acting 3) somebody not liking a character or not knowing what to do when facing off against them (Mei, Widowmaker, so many blockable Ults).
Bingo, a lot of games going forward will be rated against and compared to overwatch going forward.
No different than witcher 3 and open worlds
Wolfenstein/Doom for single player campaigns.
Games become standards with high scores in what they truly excel in.
Salz01
Member
Not sure if anyone cares, but for us (PlayStation LifeStyle), we talked about the score a fair bit before landing on the 10.
We addressed the "issues" which were:
Depth and content might be suspect months down the road.
No offline mode of any kind.
Playerbase retention since if it loses players, the game will be dead since there's no offline mode (well, there is the practice and AI matches)
Our argument on how those three concerns panned out:
Depth and content might be suspect months down the road.
- Blizzard has confirmed and announced that future heroes and maps, modes will be free, so that kinda solves the depth issue. And like it or not, Blizz's reputation is something we trust given their history of supporting their games.
No offline mode of any kind.
- Blizz announced Overwatch as a hero shooter through and through. People already know that it's a multiplayer-only game and they know what they're getting into. In short: people who are buying it have accepted it's online only (for the most part, I think).
Playerbase retention since if it loses players, the game will be dead since there's no offline mode (well, there is the practice and AI matches)
- My reviewer made a good case that we don't dock points on a game for speculation. Fair enough.
And us giving it a 10 doesn't mean it's a "perfect" game...not one game is. I gather, the same can be said for other publications. It's just a fun, super polished, game. I can already see here that some don't like it, while others love it. No opinion is wrong and is what makes us humans fun to interact with, no?
But yet, you 'speculate' that the future content will be enough to solve the depth issue. Especially win Blizzard hasn't given any details of the future content other than saying, maps, modes, heroes. All of which could cause an imbalanced mess.
Hendrick's
If only my penis was as big as my GamerScore!
Oh god, the Doritos really went straight to this reviewers head. Ridiculous hyperbole. The game is for everyone? Bridging the gap? Revitalize jaded gamers? Hardly.
100. so literally 20% of all boxes you ever get are 'quick' by your definition, and by everyone else's definition 4 cosmetics every 1.5 hours is never all that bad. Especially since once you start getting duplicates the coins rack up pretty quickly and you can fill in whichever blanks you want.
I had fun with the free beta weekends, but it just wasn't enough to make me want to drop $40. The game has some real flaws in my view that affect it's longevity. This particular guy does a pretty good job identifying and articulating many of them--warning; very long, detailed, and controversial review (also potentially already posted): http://ettugamer.com/2016/05/13/overwatch-beta/.
Why do some people in this forum seem so upset by how good Overwatch is? It may well not be a game for you, and that's all good, but it is a special game that has a long life ahead of it.
truestatic
Member
Pardon me, I'm not actually that concerned about it. I leveled quite quick during beta, and don't find it to be at all onerous. I was just curious what the 'prestige' threshold was. I'd seen it quoted as 1000 earlier on either this or the OT, and thought that if that was the case, the '20 quick crates' would be pretty inconsequential as a repeated thing. I suspect a lot of people still won't get a second pass at them, but it's not something that troubles me.
A lot of people do seem pretty misled by Blizzard's statements on the 'additional content is free,' line, which definitely was more to reassure that we wouldn't be nickled and dimed, and didn't suggest that there'd be a wealth of it to come.
Like which? McCree?
The game has an FoV slider where you can have varying levels of FoV which can affect it as well yet it's there, so I don't see how that correlates really.
Not to mention the fact that you can play in 21:9 through a widescreen fix, it's just not officially supported through ingame options. If Blizzard starts banning people for using it then I guess what you said is true but if they don't then I don't see how there is any correlation as I said.
