Cup of coffee and a bowl of Capn Crunch, 5/10.
Absolutely no reason for a score that low unless the coffee was bad or the milk was spoiled. gitgud
Cup of coffee and a bowl of Capn Crunch, 5/10.
And that's fine. It just means the game isn't for you. I tire of grinding to unlock stuff and would rather just play for fun. Especially with MP games since having to unlock characters, weapons, upgrades etc. just makes it an unbalanced mess and leaves those of us with less time to play always behind the people who play a ton. So the other players aren't only more skilled/experienced, but also have better gear and characters. That's not fun to me. But there's a huge market for those games, so I'm glad they're out there. Just like I'm glad their are games like Overwatch that are more focused on balance and just playing for fun.
Honestly I hate that in hospitals "On a scale of 1 to 10 how would you rate the pain?" Fucking painful or I wouldn't be in hospital lol.
Capn Crunch a 5/10? Was it not name brand? Or did the coffee suck? lol.
Nah. I'll probably be playing Soldier 76 when there's already 2 though
Which is why I think scores are redundant and it's much better to just read the opinion of the reviewer and look at the objective facts rather than scroll to the score and the summary.
I just think scores are pointless in reviews, I always have, come to think of it, I can't think of any gaming sites that don't use a scoring system?
Are there any?
This is one of the dumbest posts in the thread. It's not even original though, it's the same ridiculous nonsense that people repeat in every review thread.Overwatch may be a good game but no game should ever get a 10/10, perfect is not achievable, nothing is perfect also critics are biased towards certain companies and the scoring reflects that.
So it wasn't the coffee that affected your overall score?
It's not a big deal. I can rate my breakfast this morning out of 10.
When you visit the doctor and they ask you your pain level, do you say "scores are stupid"?
What was your breakfast review?
Your assuming it has a long life. It's not a fact.
Get back to work, we've got more Overwatch to play tonight.
They shouldn't, because nothing is perfect, perfection is an impossibility from a logical stand point.
How is this game for someone who hasn't played multiplayer shooters since Rainbow Six: Vegas and is basically terrible at them?
People have said this is quite accessible though? I suck at MP and was looking at buying it, I really don't want to get "rekt" lol.
I think we need to specify the PC version will have a long life. I'm still unsure about consoles.
I think we need to specify the PC version will have a long life. I'm still unsure about consoles.
They shouldn't, because nothing is perfect, perfection is an impossibility from a logical stand point.
Nothing wrong with that at all, doing you is more important than appeasing randoms.
This is literally the exact opposite of how a game like Overwatch should be played, and it makes me sad to see similar posts from selfish players not willing maximize their team comp.
Thirdly, you may think a 10/10 does not mean perfect but to me, from a mathematical point of view, when you give something an absolute out of an absolute it is literally saying it the the best it can be, there is nothing can improve upon it at this point in time (or ever) it is rated as flawless or considered perfect because if that wasn't the idea then why give it a 10?
This is literally the exact opposite of how a game like Overwatch should be played, and it makes me sad to see similar posts from selfish players not willing to maximize their team comp.
Agreed. Worst kind of mentality. This is a game where proper team-comp is essential. Don't be so self-centered that you'd negatively impact everyone else's experience for your own satisfaction. If that's your style, Battlefront, CoD, Halo and other games that promote lone-wolf gameplay are available to you. This is a team game where objective control dictates wins and losses; not your KDA. Play the game the way it's meant to be played and don't fuck over the 5 randoms that have to suffer through your narcissism. If the team clearly needs a healer/tank, how about you stop sniping while your team is desperately trying to cap a point with 1 minute on the clock you orangutan.
My point that a 10/10 represents what I consider to "flawless" or perfect because surely any flaws or imperfections should be accounted for when scoring something and that should be reflected in the score?
Again, I play the objective. In every multiplayer game I play, I play the objective. Point needs to be held down? I hold it down. Payload needs to be escorted? I escort it. I get a lot of kills along the way because I keep people from contesting the objective. I see you getting hurt? I run over to you and drop Soldier's AoE healing thing if I can. During the beta, I was on the winning team far more often than not. Just because I'm not playing different characters in different situations doesn't mean I can't or don't contribute to the team, and I think it's really shitty of you guys to act as if I or anyone else needs to go play a different game just because we're not playing exactly the way you want us to play. If I don't want to be a tank, I'm not going to play a tank. Same goes for healers, snipers, builders, or even other offensive characters. I play Soldier, and I do it pretty damn well, and if you're going to jump down people's throats for not switching characters, I'd say you're being a pretty terrible teammate.
Again, I play the objective. In every multiplayer game I play, I play the objective. Point needs to be held down? I hold it down. Payload needs to be escorted? I escort it. I get a lot of kills along the way because I keep people from contesting the objective. I see you getting hurt? I run over to you and drop Soldier's AoE healing thing if I can. During the beta, I was on the winning team far more often than not. Just because I'm not playing different characters in different situations doesn't mean I can't or don't contribute to the team, and I think it's really shitty of you guys to act as if I or anyone else needs to go play a different game just because we're not playing exactly the way you want us to play. If I don't want to be a tank, I'm not going to play a tank. Same goes for healers, snipers, builders, or even other offensive characters. I play Soldier, and I do it pretty damn well, and if you're going to jump down people's throats for not switching characters, I'd say you're being a pretty terrible teammate.
If I don't want to be a tank, I'm not going to play a tank. Same goes for healers, snipers, builders, or even other offensive characters.
But what if your team needs a healer, or a tank? Better off losing as long as you get to play my favorite hero.... right?
This is going off topic from OP so I'll just stop now, but if you have this mentality you are a bad teammate plain and simple and the reason why this game can be frustrating for other players.
Oh give me a break, I didn't insult your intelligence. You could very well be a smart individual. But your "opinion" on this subject isn't intelligent.Ok, firstly thank you for insulting my intelligence because of my opinion on review scoring, shows your level of maturity.
I never said you were insulting the game. I'm not interested in your thoughts on the game, I'm interested in quashing this boneheaded, annoying horseshit about "perfect scores" that continues to pop up in every damn review thread.Secondly, I am not trying to insult the game so don't take it personally, I intend on picking it up so no need to get mad towards me.
What are you talking about? A "mathematical point of view"? What does that even mean? This isn't math class. We're talking about review scales. You don't get to decide what they mean.Thirdly, you may think a 10/10 does not mean perfect but to me, from a mathematical point of view, when you give something an absolute out of an absolute it is literally saying it the the best it can be, there is nothing can improve upon it at this point in time (or ever) it is rated as flawless or considered perfect because if that wasn't the idea then why give it a 10?
Simply put: this is our highest recommendation. There’s no such thing as a truly perfect game, but those that earn a Masterpiece label from IGN come as close as we could reasonably hope for. These are classics in the making that we hope and expect will influence game design for years to come, as other developers learn from their shining examples.
A 10 represents the finest of the fine, an exemplar of its genre, and the current game of its type to beat. While nothing in life is perfect, these games come as close to the ideal as one can get. Such a score is not given lightly, and is reserved for true pinnacles of the medium. A pinnacle can be relative – another game may eventually come that bests it, but for now, this is the kind of stuff the industry ought to strive for.
10s aren't perfect, since nothing is, but they come as close as you could get in a given genre. The new game to beat in its sector, we're talking pure videogame ecstasy here.
A score of 10 is the highest recommendation we can give. 10s represent ambitious games that succeed in ways few games have, and that we expect will be part of the gaming conversation for some time. These are the "must-plays." However, this is not a "perfect" score. We've never played a perfect game. Except for The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past.
It might have a few flaws, but everything comes together to deliver an incredible, compelling and enjoyable gaming experience that shouldn’t be missed.
Phenomenal – Mind-blowing. Redefines its genre.
If you're asking if I'd rather enjoy the game I payed for than be beholden to a bunch of people I don't know, the answer is yes. If you're asking if I just want to run an gun and not play objective/help my team, the answer is no. The idea of me performing at my absolute best and making far more of an impact than I would playing as any other character making me a "bad teammate" is absurd, and I'd gladly want nothing to do with this game or its community if most people felt that way (which they fortunately do not, as it's just an extremely shitty way of interacting with people).
If you're asking if I'd rather enjoy the game I payed for than be beholden to a bunch of people I don't know, the answer is yes. If you're asking if I just want to run an gun and not play objective/help my team, the answer is no. The idea of me performing at my absolute best and making far more of an impact than I would playing as any other character making me a "bad teammate" is absurd, and I'd gladly want nothing to do with this game or its community if most people felt that way (which they fortunately do not, as it's just an extremely shitty way of interacting with people).
Blizzard has always excelled at delivering enjoyable games with beautiful presentations, and Overwatch shows that it can extend this talent to genres that its never visited before. This might be its first shooter, but it has a remarkable fun factor that you would expect from only the most elite shooter-oriented developers.
In a team based game where roles matter, completely refusing to ever change characters is the same thing as ignoring the objectives. It's also ruining your own fun by reducing your chances of actually winning matches.
Yeh we're the ones being shitty suggesting you play the game the way it was designed to be played, why else would all the characters work so well together and have appropriate counters for each, why else would it allow you to switch characters when every time you spawn? But just keep spinning that idea that we're the ones being shitty.
But what if your team needs a healer, or a tank? Better off losing as long as you get to play your favorite hero.... right?
This is going off topic from OP so I'll just stop now, but if you have this mentality you are a bad teammate plain and simple and the reason why this game can be frustrating for other players.
The game you're describing doesn't sound very fun. It sounds like I have to do a bunch of things that I don't like to do, and am not good at doing. Overwatch, the game I play a ton during its open beta, was extremely fun, and I won plenty, despite doing the exact opposite of what I am apparently "required" to do. I do my job well, yet because I'm not constantly jumping between characters that I'm not good with and/or do not like, something that would pose an actual detriment to my team, I'm being shitty? And the people that are telling me that I need to go play another game, that I'm doing a disservice to my team despite helping them win most of the time, that I'm playing the game wrong and am a shitty teammate for the sole fact that I only play one character, aren't being shitty? That sounds really backwards to me, and I would never treat anyone I play games with in such a manner.
Oh give me a break, I didn't insult your intelligence. You could very well be a smart individual. But your "opinion" on this subject isn't intelligent.
I never said you were insulting the game. I'm not interested in your thoughts on the game, I'm interested in quashing this boneheaded, annoying horseshit about "perfect scores" that continues to pop up in every damn review thread.
What are you talking about? A "mathematical point of view"? What does that even mean? This isn't math class. We're talking about review scales. You don't get to decide what they mean.
IGN: 10=MASTERPIECE
Jimquisition: 10=Sterling
Destructoid: 10=Flawless Victory
Polygon: 10
USgamer: 10 (5)=Phenomenal
Gaming Trend: 10 (100)=Phenomenal
Angry Joe: 10=Fantastic
GameSpot: 10=Essential
Yeh like I said, it's shitty to main a character in this game. There's no denying the game is clearly designed around switching characters to deal with the enemy team. You can keep trying to deny that the game is designed that way but it clearly is. You're right though that it's shitty people telling you to play something else.
I didn't say that the game isn't designed to be played that way, it clearly is. I'm saying that you do not have to play that way to make a meaningful contribution to your team, and as far as I concerned, I would be a much worse teammate if I did play the way the game was designed because I'd be running around doing a horrible job at what I'm supposed to be doing. I just don't get the argument that I HAVE to change characters/roles in order to be a good teammate, and that not doing so makes me a bad one, when that couldn't be further from what I experienced. If I suck at doing something, who exactly am I helping by doing it? I'd be wasting a spot on my team, wasting their time, and I wouldn't be having any fun. No one benefits from that situation, where as when I play with the one character I'm actually good with, my team usually wins, and I'm having fun. I don't see any scenario where the former can be perceived as preferable to the latter.
In the offhand chance that Michael Thomsen reviews Overwatch and has a contrarian opinion on it, can we all please ignore and not lose our shit like in the UC4 thread?Did The Washington Post weigh in with their 4/10 yet?
Don't put yourself down so much, maybe you should at least try and stop being such a defeatist.
How am I being a defeatist? I like Soldier. Soldier is extremely fun to play as. I'm good at playing Soldier. I tried the other characters plenty, I'm perfectly happy playing only as Soldier, and I win more when I only play as Soldier. Staying in my lane presents the highest net benefit to both me and the people on my team, I don't see why I should needlessly meddle with that.
That is begin defeatist though. The only way you'll ever get good with the other 20 characters is by playing with them.