Overwatch Getting Rave Reviews

@trugs26: @AzatiS:They're purely cosmetic. This doesn't affect your experience with the game in the slightest bit.

@charizard1605

Hey. Hey. Remember when this was at 98 @MC with 5 reviews? Best game ever (this gen) status and all? Good times! :P

#NaughtyGodsPrevail #GetMCrektBlizzard

Looks like it's down to 91 on MC after 30 reviews. Seems char rejoiced too quickly initially. Still an epic game but in the end Naughty Gods prevail ;)

This game should not be AAA status. Offers nothing extraordinary , revolutionary or evolutionary. Its just a polished and well designed TF2 at full price. Thats my opinion

I predicted 82-85 meta based on 2 hours i played BETA even if i could play it safe and say 9 considering how many sites/critics going crazy with Blizzard games ( do you remember Polygons and Giant Bombs 10/10 for the PATHETIC Diablo 3 ? ) , But i didnt. If game drop from AAA status to AA ill be kinda close at least quality status wise ( which seems unlikely with so many 10/10 )

I mean , really guys ? 10/10 , the perfect game ? Diablo 3 Dejavu im having.

tf2 better

I know that. That still doesn't change my opinion. There's a lot of things in games I unlock that don't do anything functionally, but I unlock for completionists sake (i.e they give me a sense of progression) or because it looks cool. But it's ruined due to the monetised design. It disgusts me that a game comes out on launch for $40 with micro-transactions. I wouldn't mind if this sort of thing came out later on. But on day 1 along with the lack of content does not sit well with me.

10/10 status

As long as its polished and well designed , everything else doesnt matter. It only matters on other games..... Go figure.

@trugs26: They're also random unlocks. I don't understand how you get a sense of progression from that.

This is another Bioshock Infinite, critics seem to be praising it to the high heavens but the community is not so excited about it...

But it is so freaking weird to see people invest so much time trashing a multiplat.

I am expecting the score on Metacritic to drop even further... Down to 85 (at worst).

While I do like the game a lot (currently level 19), the lack of content sometimes does show its ugly head.
But it's a Blizzard game, so I am confident we will get really good DLC / Updates in the near future!

Exactly. The entire design of it is flawed because they wanted to monetise it. If they didn't monetise it, they wouldn't have made it so random in the first place. They could have designed it such that it would lead to a sense of progression.

Also, some randomness in collection-a-thons is fine to a degree. For example, fishing to get all the fish in the game has random elements since you can't control exactly what fish snaps your line. So randomness can be mixed with progression systems if designed properly.

It's a GOTY contender for me, I'm just loving it. I just want to keep playing.

IGN gave it 9.4 while Doom got 7.1. seriously how much Activision Blizzard Pay for this crap!!!

activision is publisher means game recieve high score no matter how bad it is. next is COD IW.

@dynamitecop: The community is eating this game up. What are you on about?

@trugs26: That doesn't make any sense. They are essentially care packages. The random unlocks would be there regardless if it was monetized.

buddy of mine prefers Battleborn and linked me t this interesting comparison

You are living under a rock or something?

It's sometimes beating out League of Legends on Twitch... its Subreddit has already passed the majority of games, including DoTA 2 and World of Warcraft.....

That's my point. They used assets for random unlocks so they could monetise it. They could have went with any other design model (i.e NOT random). I paid $40 for the game and they hide assets behind a monetised design model.

they dont impact gameplay so who cares? you're crying for the sake of crying.

I've already answered that question in my previous posts. They designed it as such that it has nothing to do with gameplay. That's the problem. They could have redesigned it such that it could be associated with a progression-unlock system. But instead they went for a monetised route suitable for F2P games. The problem here is that I've already paid $40 for the game, and they've locked away assets behind a monetised model. Furthermore, this is a VIDEO game. Visual properties are important, too, otherwise you may as well play as stick figures on wire frame terrain. We paid to have the characters animate, look good, as well as function properly too.

@trugs26: characters do look good, animate and function properly. You don't want to pay for chests? Don't, you'll still get cosmetic items. What's the problem? They already confirmed future characters and maps would be free.

Regardless of what they promise for later on, it's still a $40 game that lacks content AND has a montesied model (suitable for f2p games) on day 1. In other words, they have content hidden away in a game that lacks content. That might be fine for you, but it's not for me.

You're missing the point about my comment regarding characters that look good, animate and function properly. It was used to illustrate that visuals are important, because you wrote them off initially as unimportant: "they dont impact gameplay so who cares?". Therefore, if you agree with this sentiment, you shouldn't simply write off the cosmetic items simply because they don't impact gameplay. We pay for a VIDEO game, not functional logic.

@trugs26: it doesnt lack content. You pay for a video game and you get a video game. What's the problem?

Why is this game causing so much butthurt? Is it because it's multiplat? I bet half of the people here hating on it would be singing its praises if it was a PC exclusive.

This is a pretty dam good video.

@ghosts4ever: Doom's multiplayer is cancer. This game doesn't have a campaign but they never pretended to have one. Doom deserves its 7.1 based on its shitty MP.

Since when has MP only games not been worth a dollar? People pay $60 for SP only titles that last 8-9 hours or less and now MP games that you can get 100 hours out of aren't worth it? wtf are people talking about? If COD dropped the sp campaign no one would complain.

Played this game for 6 hours last night. The sun was up by the time I stopped. I'm officially addicted.

Everyone knows that it lacks content, but it's made up for because they promise free future updates. There's no arguing that it lacks content. My gripe isn't with the lack of content + free future updates, my problem is that they launch a content light game mixed together with a f2p model.

@trugs26: Except that you can acquire those unlocks without paying.

@trugs26: it's not a f2p model. All characters and maps are available for everyone. So are the cosmetic items

Not for me I guess :(. I am not getting what is special about this game,or any blizzard game for that matter. Not saying what they make sucks, but critics act like every game they make is the second coming...

@SexyJazzCat: I've already acknowledged and addressed that in my posts. You're not adding anything new to the conversation.

@mems_1224: Randomised blind bags with cosmetic items that you pay for is a common model for f2p games. Overwatch mixed this together with a typical upfront purchase game model.

Yeah thats not a thing. Many people thing is had crap tons of content. They played it for hundreds of hours in the closed beta, played more in the open, and then paid for it to play some more. I would say it has a lot more content then a closed single player game like those found in the Uncharted series.

As for the "f2p model" you might have a point if it was 2009. These days you can find such things in flag ship IPs like Madden and CoD.

Is that supposed to be a flattering comparison?

it is two mega $60 franchises I knew do similar things off the top of my head. Hate on both all you want, I play neither, but calling it f2p is just either very ignorant or intentional misrepresentation. F2p may have shown the big boys that gamers will spend tons of cash on nothing worth a darn, but almost everyone runs with it these days. Heck, isn't that stuff in CS now?

I think Overwatch is rad, but let's not front like the loot box system is good. First of all the currency you will use to get shit is a rare as **** drop, because I'm about 9 to 10 hours into the game in terms of playtime and I'm sub 300 in currency. Second of all the loot boxes actually will give me duplicates, which is absurd. The loot boxes are spread out across when I level up, and then added bonus, I can't buy what I want individually, and instead have to buy loot boxes for the opportunity to buy my shit.

Having a microtransaction model to offset the cost of DLC so I get free maps n characters? Sure, I'm cool with that. Making it less shitty is not an unreasonable thing to ask though. Because I would like to get the night commando thing for my boy Soldier 76, but i'm still at sub 300 credits, and that shit is a thousand. And for 10 hours of gameplay, I expect a better ramp up than that.

Even Street Fighter V does more for me to earn the video games space bucks.

@jg4xchamp: why would you want to waste 1k on the most boring character when you can get that sick ass safari Winston?

Yo that's besides the point, the point is I gotta wait an eternity just to spend 1k on any of my characters, and that's just the skin. I can barely buy voices, spray paint shit, or any of that stuff as is. And given that loot boxes only give you 4 random things, and said random things can be duplicates (fucking zenyata gives me so many of her fucking skins over n over again, fucking bitch), it's bullshit. Even hats in TF2 aren't that nonsense.

@jg4xchamp: IDK man, maybe I just don't care about cosmetic shit in this game. Yea, it looks cool but I'm not itching to constantly unlock shit. If I get something nice, cool but it doesn't really bother me if I get garbage. I think I've only gotten two gold skins so far and I'm like 23 but it hasn't bothered me.

There isn't all that much cosmetic content right now so of course they're gonna make the ramp to get it rough. It's still a better system than some actual free to play games like Smite. I've put way more money into Smite than I should have because you can only get the dope skins by spending money and of course Im gonna make this tiny Hindu God into a tiny rapper who beat boxes when he uses his abilities and turns into a giant baby

Not claiming the loot system is good (even if for the record duplicate drops give you currency to spend on what you want) just that some of the claims made seemed willfully obtuse. At the end of the day however I don't care about an in game cash shop as long as it doesn't sell power. If people want to drop ten thousand real life dollars to play as Winston in a bikini then why the heck should I care? They can charge a billion dollars for a hat for all I care, so long as no one can buy an advantage.

The lack of singleplayer campaign kills this game. This game's just another Titanfall.

That's like saying "There isn't enough RTS in my Racing Sim ... so the game is worth s*it" ... not every shooter needs SP or MP for that matter at the same time.

In reality, the game is doing very well, because funnily enough, MP shooters are more popular than SP shooters... so why waste time on a SP campaign, when they was never the design intent of the game?

There's a reason why they're doing "free" updates. It's because there isn't much there. It has 4 modes with 3 maps in each mode, and 16 characters. That's it. That's the entire game. Most shooters have a fully fledged single player campaign, 16 maps where each map is playable is every mode (and each map often gets changed such that it is suitable for the map), more modes, and in games where there's multiple characters, you'll see games like Time Splitters with 150 characters or Smash Bros. which has over 50.

While I haven't played Madden or CoD in a while, those games are packed full of content on day 1. Again, my issue with Overwatch is the combination of lacking in content, charging $40, and mixing it with a F2P model.

@trugs26: so then don't play it. Move on with your life. You're not going to convince anyone of anything here.

Your numbers are wrong, so you clearly don't know enough about the game to judge it's content. The F2P model comment is over half a decade out of date, so maybe you just don't know much about gaming in general. Are you just trolling?

The comment about how games you don't even play have loads of content on day one is also super silly for the record. You might want to try playing games before you decide what they have, what they lack, and what everyone thinks about them.

It's a good game. Why would I not play it? I could easily say something similar to you, but this is a forum, isn't this what we're here for? Discussion on video games?

Please, correct the numbers instead of dancing around the matter and not engaging in the argument. I'd rather be corrected than belittled. I've writing off the top of my head, so I can be off with some of the numbers. But I doubt I'm so far off that it completely invalidates my point. For example, looking up the number of characters, it's 21 characters. Big whoop, my point still stands.

Regarding your second comment: I don't buy every iteration of CoD or Madden. Only gamers who are avid fans of those genres do that. I buy them every few years, and I read up on what they're all about, so I'm fairly informed on the matter. From the games I did play, and the things I've read up on, they are fully realised games packed with content. Again, correct me if I'm wrong instead of not engaging in the discussion.

@trugs26: madden and cod both have microtransactions as well. Also, you're not discussing anything, you're just repeating the same statement over and over