JayWood2010
Member
I would say the game definitely deserves over a 90. Original and creative FPS, great character design/art style, and overall its just fun.
-
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
Salz01
Member
Your assuming it has a long life. It's not a fact.
veloxStrix
Banned
Eh, have issues, but this article is pretty silly. It talks about the mechanics behind the game, and it nails them for the most part. But then it tries to explain how those mechanics affect the characters and forces them into static roles. It describes Tracer as a harassment tool - pesky, but ultimately incapable of changing the tide of the game. Except we've seen Tracer play numerous roles in almost all competitive games. Her SMGs deal 120dps and reload fairly quickly - also note you can reload WHILE teleporting. She's fairly deadly, and her teleport can be used to traverse across gaps and sneak behind the enemy enabling strong flanks. Not a damning thing for an argument to die on, but it shows an imperfect understanding.
But then they go on to talk about the Ubercharge from TF2. The ONLY thing that can really compare to an ult, but the way they describe it makes it seem like TF2 is brimming with these mechanics. The author goes on to mention that Overwatch's abilities slowly charage no matter what - which is true, but they also charge faster if you are doing better. Better players are rewarded for their actions, but players who might not be doing much also have a chance to play. I think the worst conclusion the article attempt to draw up is that, "it (the Ult system) removes a great deal of the necessity for targeting specific players to consistently weaken the opposing team and thus makes the game’s dynamic less complex and interesting." This might be true, but ults can almost all be disrupted and dealt with. They are hardly the "be all, end all" of matches that the author is making them out to be. Pharah becomes immobile and can be sniped, McCree can simply be hidden from, Symmetra's teleporter can be killed, etc.
That's the main argument made by the author. "While players are ultimately rewarded with more Ultimates for playing well, someone poorly playing a character can still become the deciding factor in a match by simply pressing a button at a key moment." It ignores anything about the game. A poor player can LOSE you the game simply by pressing a button at the WRONG moment. And one ult will almost NEVER make up for a game where your team is constantly disjointed due to death. To even make that assumption, the author probably has a poor understanding of how to play the game itself - despite his knowledge of TF2.
They make a few more arguments - about player recognition (which is laughable to me; I've yet to have an issue), map design (this is debatable), and the difficulty of callouts because of map design (the monocolor buildings and distinct areas seem pretty easy to differentiate to me, so I'm again going to say that the author simply doesn't know callouts and then creates the idea that callouts are difficult to make for each map). Bafflingly, they then go on to complain about headshot damage. There might be a few points in there, but the majority of it is bunk arguments that seem like they are coming from the same people complaining that Bastion and Torbjorn need to be nerfed.
tl;dr Like the game, dislike the game, but don't use this article as a platform simply because it's hard to find things that actually criticize the game.
SmartWaffles
Member
It more likely than not will have a long life.
It is a fact.
kingofthedead45
Member
Fundamentally speaking they're very similar. You can get down to the semantics of it if you want but it's a fast frantic multi-player team/class based shooter. If you put two side by side and a person who doesn't really play games were to compare the two, they'd say the games are very similar imo.
thetrin
Hail, peons, for I have come as ambassador from the great and bountiful Blueberry Butt Explosion
How does the opinion of someone who doesn't play games factor in? People who don't play games find all kinds of wacky shit similar.
truestatic
Member
I think most people who've played both games would say they're pretty similar. Similar game modes, similar objectives, similar scale, similarities between class and character systems, similarities between some classes and characters to the point that they feel directly analogous, (medic and mercy, huntsman and hanzo, soldier and pharah, demoman and junkrat... I mean, seriously, they inevitably invite comparison.) I think it's really hard to say that they're only superficially similar. While Overwatch may have greater breadth in its characters offered than TF2, TF2 provide similar (or greater) breadth through customization within those classes.
Itchy//Tasty
Member
Although I don't see myself ever buying a competitive MP-only game as long as I live, congratulations to Blizzard for the scores! Game seems to be simply golden. I'll be watching some streams later to get a better sense of it.
TheKastorian
Member
Same here.
Hendrick's
If only my penis was as big as my GamerScore!
I don't have a problem with the game, I have a problem with the crazy praise it is getting from the press. According to the aforementioned review, the game should be for me and bring me back into first person shooters (a once favorite genre), sadly it has done no such thing. It's a fine game, I liked it well enough for the hour or so I played it, but it honestly didn't do any of the things that review claims.
http://www.gamespot.com/articles/all-overwatch-post-release-maps-and-heroes-will-be/1100-6432887/
I think his language was pretty clear. Cosmetic stuff is not that big a deal to me, and I could see them maybe putting stuff like that up, but that's about it.
The Artisan
Member
holy shit yo, critical acclaim?
Gipsy Danger
Member
Blizzard are still supporting Diablo 2. I think it's a safe assumption Overwatch will be just fine.
Except you missed the part where each TF2 characters have a primary, secondary and a special melee weapon while Overwatch only has one weapon for each + a standard melee.
And then you have the fact that there are multiple options for each of these three weapon slots for each characters. The total permutations of weapons and equipments available in TF2 easily outnumbers Overwatch right now so your claim that isn't really based on anything solid.
Pakoe
Member
Me not caring about reviews isn't what the reponse comment is about, i was merely adding my opinion to the whole skins discussion.
Hence me not just stating that i don't care about reviews and ending it at that.
TheRedSnifit
Member
Overwatch revolves around counters, TF2 doesn't. That's the biggest difference.
I mean, TF2 has counters, but nobody goes "They have a Scout, we'd better run an Engineer!" Soldier, Demo, Medic, and maybe Sniper don't even have real counters. You're supposed to run mobile, high-DPS generalists and only switch to specialized classes in specific situations. Overwatch is much, much more reliant on rock/paper/scissors gameplay.
Why do you actually care tho. Don't have a problem with the crazy praise it's getting--it's a good game that people like. Just because you disagree doesn't mean you should have a "problem" with the praise it's getting. Chill, man.
Subpar Spatula
Banned
It's similar to Heroes of the Storm depth issue; yes, there is variety but Blizzard also put the spin to make things more accessible which causes skill to sometimes be meaningless IE ultimate charges persist through death, the lack of ammo as well shifts how people play the game. This is why Quake, Chess, etc have more depth even though it has less variety.
New trend: people want good, fun games... have mediocre reviews. Gotcha.
And for the all the counters
1. It is an unfinished product. Really? What do you expect then? At least all the additions will be free.
2. Has no single player. Blizzard's always was open with this and is trying to build a lore in a cool way. Shorts, comics, etc.
3. Shady micro-transactions. How is shady pay for a dress?
4. It is shallow. Nope. Lore already explained above.
5. It has no longevity. It's been out for a day.
6. The match system is too quick. The match's length are too short. Yeah... because the game is designed the way so you could try all the heroes instead of marry one like all the other MP FPS.
And people should read this:
http://www.wired.com/2016/05/overwatch-first-impressions
And for the all the counters
1. It is an unfinished product. Really? What do you expect then? At least all the additions will be free.
2. Has no single player. Blizzard's always was open with this and is trying to build a lore in a cool way. Shorts, comics, etc.
3. Shady micro-transactions. How is shady pay for a dress?
4. It is shallow. Nope. Lore already explained above.
5. It has no longevity. It's been out for a day.
6. The match system is too quick. The match's length are too short. Yeah... because the game is designed the way so you could try all the heroes instead of marry one like all the other MP FPS.
And people should read this:
http://www.wired.com/2016/05/overwatch-first-impressions
Codiox
Member
Can somebody PLEASE explain this to me, i dont get it:
Why is this game getting so much good reviews?
I played the last beta for a couple of hours and found it really mediocre (for multiple reasons i will not get into detail to prevent getting roasted).
I don't see what this game does have to make it so exceptional good.
After the beta i thought "okay, i have seen all of the game now, why should i buy it?" .
For me it just looks so much like a standard mp shooter without much variation on unlockables that matter and many weapons.
This is no post to bash/flame the game, im really interested in getting the clue of this game, because until now i feel like the only guy in the room who doesnt know why this game is so much praised and good.
Why is this game getting so much good reviews?
I played the last beta for a couple of hours and found it really mediocre (for multiple reasons i will not get into detail to prevent getting roasted).
I don't see what this game does have to make it so exceptional good.
After the beta i thought "okay, i have seen all of the game now, why should i buy it?" .
For me it just looks so much like a standard mp shooter without much variation on unlockables that matter and many weapons.
This is no post to bash/flame the game, im really interested in getting the clue of this game, because until now i feel like the only guy in the room who doesnt know why this game is so much praised and good.
Maybe im getting old 
I can definitely see not caring for the game but why do you think it is a standard shooter? I find it unique enough to recommend to people who don't typically care for standard shooters.
The_Afroman
Member
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.
can you point me towards the 21:9 fix?
Can somebody PLEASE explain this to me, i dont get it:
Why is this game getting so much good reviews?
I played the last beta for a couple of hours and found it really mediocre (for multiple reasons i will not get into detail to prevent getting roasted).
I don't see what this game does have to make it so exceptional good.
After the beta i thought "okay, i have seen all of the game now, why should i buy it?" .
For me it just looks so much like a standard mp shooter without much variation on unlockables that matter and many weapons.
This is no post to bash/flame the game, im really interested in getting the clue of this game, because until now i feel like the only guy in the room who doesnt know why this game is so much praised and good.
Maybe im getting old
Its super polished and every hero has interesting interactions with all the other heroes.
It ok not to like a popular game
you arent missing out just go and play one of the other many critically acclaimed games that you enjoy Can somebody PLEASE explain this to me, i dont get it:
Why is this game getting so much good reviews?
I played the last beta for a couple of hours and found it really mediocre (for multiple reasons i will not get into detail to prevent getting roasted).
I don't see what this game does have to make it so exceptional good.
After the beta i thought "okay, i have seen all of the game now, why should i buy it?" .
For me it just looks so much like a standard mp shooter without much variation on unlockables that matter and many weapons.
This is no post to bash/flame the game, im really interested in getting the clue of this game, because until now i feel like the only guy in the room who doesnt know why this game is so much praised and good.
Maybe im getting old
Because a lot of people are absolutely exhausted by games that have millions of unlockables that don't really matter. Cosmetic unlockables are fun but don't give the illusion of complexity and that's absolutely refreshing in a huge way. I loathe games like Battlefield and CoD because they shower me with shit that seems like it'd be important but 90% of it doesn't really matter.
At it's core, the game set out to do a very specific thing and did that specific thing very well. It's essentially why DOOM got good review scores and was generally well-received. People just expected something wildly different from Overwatch and I don't really understand why.
TheRedSnifit
Member
It's definitely very mechanically simple, which is generally frowned upon by competitive shooter players. There are also a bunch of mechanics, particularly ults, that completely remove the need for competent DM skills. Widowmaker wallhacks, aimbot ults, stuns (fuck stuns in any FPS, seriously), etc.
Codiox
Member
because to me it looks like that. this is the problem, please tell me why it isnt a generic standard shooter? i doesnt see it!
Is this game designed to be a casual shooter? like a mobile game or something?
truestatic
Member
Fair point, that's a pretty big difference, but I'd still say they have waaay more in common, especially since that rock/paper/scissors nature probably doesn't come out super strong in most people's experience - it'll obviously be more and more apparent at higher and higher levels of play.
Can somebody PLEASE explain this to me, i dont get it:
Why is this game getting so much good reviews?
I played the last beta for a couple of hours and found it really mediocre (for multiple reasons i will not get into detail to prevent getting roasted).
I don't see what this game does have to make it so exceptional good.
After the beta i thought "okay, i have seen all of the game now, why should i buy it?" .
For me it just looks so much like a standard mp shooter without much variation on unlockables that matter and many weapons.
This is no post to bash/flame the game, im really interested in getting the clue of this game, because until now i feel like the only guy in the room who doesnt know why this game is so much praised and good.
Maybe im getting old
It is an intrinsically satisfying, well polished game with a lot of cool characters, many of whom operate in fairly non-standard ways. It occupies a fairly unpopulated niche, and offers (to most people, but not everybody) enough depth and variety to keep people wanting to play, even though on paper it may not seem to have a great quantity of content.
Can somebody PLEASE explain this to me, i dont get it:
Why is this game getting so much good reviews?
I played the last beta for a couple of hours and found it really mediocre (for multiple reasons i will not get into detail to prevent getting roasted).
I don't see what this game does have to make it so exceptional good.
After the beta i thought "okay, i have seen all of the game now, why should i buy it?" .
For me it just looks so much like a standard mp shooter without much variation on unlockables that matter and many weapons.
This is no post to bash/flame the game, im really interested in getting the clue of this game, because until now i feel like the only guy in the room who doesnt know why this game is so much praised and good.
Maybe im getting old
Did you play with every character? Like, literally every character? A lot of peoples first problems are that they play with 1-2 characters that they think look cool, and then it gets stale.. then they start to fall off the train.
Every character is different in many ways, and to find the ones that 'click' with you you'll have to play through them all. This is also a very team-based game.. so basically the better your team is, the better you usually do and the better time you have. Having people to talk to makes it x100000 better since you can coordinate strategies based on your characters.
It's a fun game made very well. There's a reason Team Fortress is still going on over a decade later. This is as if Team Fortress and Pixar had a love child.
I mean, yes and no. It's not like a mobile game but it definitely feels like it's meant to be more casual. Matches are shorter to let you jump in-and-out without dedicating 45 minutes - 1 hour to a game. That alone is enough to make it super fun for me. Time will tell if there's enough there to cultivate a competitive scene (which I think there will be), but it's 100% not a generic shooter. The hero variety alone makes it a hugely different game compared to CoD, Battlefield and... Uh. Whatever else has come out I guess.
You play a character and you get a pretty different experience. Having a loadout doesn't make a game better when you either don't provide enough unlockables to keep people happy or you have a lot that really, really, really don't matter.
Codiox
Member
so, the heros in this game is what makes this game so awesome? i only tried every character out to see what for weapons they got, and sticked with the mecha woman with the RPG launcher for the beta. i didnt like that you only got one weapon / char though.
Can somebody PLEASE explain this to me, i dont get it:
Why is this game getting so much good reviews?
I played the last beta for a couple of hours and found it really mediocre (for multiple reasons i will not get into detail to prevent getting roasted).
I don't see what this game does have to make it so exceptional good.
After the beta i thought "okay, i have seen all of the game now, why should i buy it?" .
For me it just looks so much like a standard mp shooter without much variation on unlockables that matter and many weapons.
This is no post to bash/flame the game, im really interested in getting the clue of this game, because until now i feel like the only guy in the room who doesnt know why this game is so much praised and good.
Maybe im getting old
Well, first of all why does a game need to have unlockables? That's a very recent introduction to gaming and people were very happy with online shooters for many years before that.
Also, there is so much depth that is not apparent at first. Many hero abilities interact with each other in unique ways, the maps have a ton of alternate paths for characters with different traversal skills. No two match plays out the same way because the 20+ characters are all so different and varying team compositions lead to unique scenarios.
On top of that, the game is ridiculously polished. It has all kind of quality of life features, looks and controls great, and the time to kill/match length/reward system etc. are all super satisfying. It's also super charming. What was the appeal of TF2 when it first released? That one didn't have any unlockables or weapon variety either and it had a lot less classes. Yet it still was one of the best multiplayer shooters of all time for mostly the same reasons.
I really don't understand why people are having such a hard time getting this game, especially those who have tried it. You might not like it, but the appeal is pretty apparent.
MrCookiepants
Member
lol, Pixar would never create such atrocious character designs.
Seriously I don't get how more people aren't turned off by the aesthetics. I've never seen a game so lacking identity. Everything about it is anonymous.
The hero variety is what makes the game "awesome." You aren't really meant to just try each character out once--but hey, if that's what you do that's what you do. Genji's way of harassing a team behind enemy lines is pretty different from how Tracer does it. Looking at the weapons is basically "step one" to figuring their shit out. Only getting 1-ish per character is the point, though. They have a toolset that works with that character. If you need a glut of weapons to keep your attention than Overwatch won't be for you--and that's okay!
W-what. I can easily look at a character's silhouette alone (which is how I figure out who I'm going for since I play as Mercy) and tell you who's who. In design alone it's more diverse than most shooters and most games because I can, at a glance, look at the character and tell you exactly what I can expect out of them. That comes from playing for... 3 hours maybe? I don't agree with the Pixar comparison but the game's designs are far from anonymous.
D
Deleted member 752119
Unconfirmed Member
Same. As well as not having to quit long matches when the dogs need to go out or whatever else comes up.
haha what?
Well I doubt Overwatch will come close to the amount of post launch support TF2 has gotten the past 8 years (especially if they never allow the community to make content like skins and maps love Valve does with TF2 and Blizzard has to keep making everything themselves) but yeah I think Blizzard will do right by Overwatch and give it a lot more support then most games.
Rockandrollclown
lookwhatyou'vedone
What? I mean I can see the design/art style not being appealing to everyone, but there is a shitload of variety/personality to the various heroes.
Team Fortress 2 didn't already do that?
Ricerocket
Member
That's the point... you're playing a character who specializes in certain weaponry/abilities. If you didn't like it, try another character...
"After the beta i thought "okay, i have seen all of the game now, why should i buy it?" . "
You can't even be bothered to remember the only character you played as Pharah, And that she can fly, and has a conc shot that knocks people around? But you only know she has an rpg... you really don't play games much huh so weird that you're trying so hard to understand this game specifically right now after you hated the beta.
truestatic
Member
TF2 was part of the "greatest value purchase of all time" Orange Box, or only... $20 on its own? The value proposition was way different, and people adjusted their demands accordingly.
justjustin
Member
I know absolutely nothing about this game, but this looks like it will be to Counter-Strike what Heroes of the Storm is to Dota 2. If so, count me in! Dota and CS have long matches with lots of strategy and depth, but often I just want to run around and blow stuff up; faster games, lighter strategy, but with essentially the same highs and lows. Blizzard's been really smart to fill that role instead of trying to outright surpass those games.
