| It has basically stayed the same since beta but more stuff is due to added soon. If you didn't like it in beta then I wouldn't recommend it, but personally I've already racked up over 40 hours and I'm still enjoying it. |
 |
| It's a good game for casual play that u can play when ur bored |
| Get Overwatch now and buy Killing Floor 2 when it has a huge sale, like probably this christmas. |
| Given that it's insanely overpriced, evidentially no. Unless you happen to have a bunch of friends willing to play it with you all the time for casual fun I wouldn't recommend it |
  |
Unknown- said: I haven't played it since the beta and I wondered if it's changed. I'm also interested in Killing Floor 2 and I don't want to buy both of them All the content was available during the beta. So it's exactly the same maps, pvp modes, and so on, so you should be able to decide from that if it's worth it for you or not :). |
 |
| If you don't play just one hero and try them all out to have some fun then yes. |
 |
HaXXspetten said: Given that it's insanely overpriced, evidentially no. Unless you happen to have a bunch of friends willing to play it with you all the time for casual fun I wouldn't recommend it We don't complain when single player only games are 40 to 60 dollars. Why do we complain when multiplayer only games are? If they provide the same playtime, it seems trivial. |
| New skins coming out sometime this summer, as well as competitive mode at the end of June. Game has only been out a few weeks. |
| If you're not poor and can shell out either 40 or 60 dollars, then yes it's very worth it. It's the most fun I've had in a while and the community so far is very toxic free. Can't say it will remain toxic free though with competitive mode coming up soon. Remember that you get free shit too and the microtransactions have no effect on the actual game. |
   I envy your delusion; I wish I could live in it  |
Protaku said: If you're not poor and can shell out either 40 or 60 dollars, then yes it's very worth it. It's the most fun I've had in a while and the community so far is very toxic free. Can't say it will remain toxic free though with competitive mode coming up soon. Remember that you get free shit too and the microtransactions have no effect on the actual game. Is that so? Community seems REALLY toxic so far. Buncha tea bagging and trash talking going on. It's sorta dumb lol Anyway, other than that, it's a pretty fun game. There should be an update coming sometime this month, I think. If not, next month |
    |
Olem said: Protaku said: If you're not poor and can shell out either 40 or 60 dollars, then yes it's very worth it. It's the most fun I've had in a while and the community so far is very toxic free. Can't say it will remain toxic free though with competitive mode coming up soon. Remember that you get free shit too and the microtransactions have no effect on the actual game. Is that so? Community seems REALLY toxic so far. Buncha tea bagging and trash talking going on. It's sorta dumb lol Anyway, other than that, it's a pretty fun game. There should be an update coming sometime this month, I think. If not, next month Well it's not 100% toxic free, but compared to something like League of Legends it's quite docile. Maybe you're just playing or talking with the wrong people. I have more time in the game already than I'd like to admit and have rarely come across anyone whose seriously toxic. If anything, I'm the toxic person usually since someone has to fill the void lol. |
I envy your delusion; I wish I could live in it |
Protaku said: Well it's not 100% toxic free, but compared to something like League of Legends it's quite docile. Maybe you're just playing or talking with the wrong people. I have more time in the game already than I'd like to admit and have rarely come across anyone whose seriously toxic. If anything, I'm the toxic person usually since someone has to fill the void lol. Only played LoL for a short period so can't say much there. Dunno, maybe I'm just unlucky with running into these guys. Hopefully it's just the people who wanna play competitively, cause it's always something like "Why the f- do we have x character" or something along those lines and the usual rekt or get good comments. Tbh, I don't really mind it, but that's just my own experience with the community so far. Besides, this feels normal for an fps anyway lol |
| |
| Its pretty fun for me actually even though I usually strongly prefer single player games with an emphasis on storytelling and character interaction. I just assumed it would be like any other FPS game that I typically hate playing and become bored of very quickly but I like it . Plenty of different heroes with various abilities to learn and the team focused aspect of the game makes it pretty fun to me. Although sometimes you'll run across teams of people who are all friends and practice all the time with eachother they'll steamroll this shit out of you if you're just a newb with no friends like me. It really depends on your budget to determine if a game is woth it or not. Any person with a normal job could afford either version pretty easily but the $40 PC version played a huge role in me getting it I don't think I would have payed the full $60 for a multiplayer game I wasn't sure if I would like or not. I'm 25 with close to a full time job so I could have afforded either version. If you have no job or just very limited money like you got a little for a birthday present or allowance or whatever the hell you got it from and your like trying to decide between overwatch and another game, I'd usually go with the strong quality single player game instead. Since I already been working on a big backlog of steam games and nothing else single player wise has come out that catch my interest recently there was nothing competing with Overwatch for me to make the decision to buy it. In general I'm not the player that sinks a gigantic amount of hours into Overwatch though. I don't really want to sink all my free time into one multiplayer game so I sort of use it as a change of pace game to balance out my single player games and other stuff I do like watching anime read manga . Its a highly addictive game its easy to simply keep playing more matches as you always think you can do better the next time in my case anyway. |
midnightbladeJun 20, 2016 7:17 PM
 |
| It just looks like another shooter. It's got a bit of a casual twist on it, which makes it more appealing, but the gameplay isn't anything new. The real crime is its price tag. Like I'm paying $60 for a shooter that's been done 100 times before. Last time I bought a shooter that looked different, I came out upset and $60 poorer. Not wasting that kind of money on a genre I don't enjoy that much again. And for those wondering, the shooter I bought was Splatoon. It's fucking shit. |
 |
| If you like fitting in and playing meme games, sure. |
 |
| it's like a modern version of team fortress for 64,99 €/49,99 €. maybe once it's cheaper....could take a while with Activision Blizzard as publisher |
 |
| If you want to support the already horrible practices of the gaming corporate giants, then it's totally worth it. |
 |
Elegade said: The irony of having a kancolle avatar with this post attached to it.If you want to support the already horrible practices of the gaming corporate giants, then it's totally worth it. |
|
Syrup- said: Elegade said: The irony of having a kancolle avatar with this post attached to it.If you want to support the already horrible practices of the gaming corporate giants, then it's totally worth it. It's not Ironic because I don't play Kantai. Only reason I like Kantai is because I'm a fan of Battleships, especially the Yamato class. I also don't understand Japanese to play the Kantai Browser, and even If I did, I'd rather play world of warships or somethinf with actual gameplay. |
|
Elegade said: Syrup- said: The irony of having a kancolle avatar with this post attached to it. It's not Ironic because I don't play Kantai. Only reason I like Kantai is because I'm a fan of Battleships, especially the Yamato class. I also don't understand Japanese to play the Kantai Browser, and even If I did, I'd rather play world of warships or somethinf with actual gameplay. Right, but you recognize the irony, correct? I think everyone agrees them ships are kawaii as fuck (been becoming a Hagurofag of late, actually), but the game itself is a cancerous wart on the gaming industry right next to pachinko machines. |
|
| Really though, Overwatch wouldn't be anywhere near as hyped if it wasn't made by Blizzard. Because there is nothing that makes the game stand out from so many other shooters that came before it. It really just feels like a remake of Team Fortress 2 When I first saw the announcement trailers during Blizzcon 2014 I was expecting it to be a free to play game, because that's really what it looked like. If Hearthstone was one and turned out to be one of the biggest hits of all time in gaming, then it's not like it should have been a foreign concept for Blizzard to do the same thing here. I mean I've been a huge fan of Blizzard for almost my entire life but in this particular case it just feels like all the critics are giving it a pass solely because it's a Blizzard game and they're worried about backlash if they hated on it or something. Like the fact that this game is up with the likes of Witcher 3 and similar on Metacritic is just a joke |
| |
Syrup- said: Elegade said: It's not Ironic because I don't play Kantai. Only reason I like Kantai is because I'm a fan of Battleships, especially the Yamato class. I also don't understand Japanese to play the Kantai Browser, and even If I did, I'd rather play world of warships or somethinf with actual gameplay. Right, but you recognize the irony, correct? I think everyone agrees them ships are kawaii as fuck (been becoming a Hagurofag of late, actually), but the game itself is a cancerous wart on the gaming industry right next to pachinko machines. Sure, I guess. But its still a stretch though considering I don't even play Kantai. I guess you could argue that because I have Kantai in my peofile pic, that I am advertising for Kantai, but that' s still a bit far fetched. |
|
lucjan said: It just looks like another shooter. It's got a bit of a casual twist on it, which makes it more appealing, but the gameplay isn't anything new. The real crime is its price tag. Like I'm paying $60 for a shooter that's been done 100 times before. Last time I bought a shooter that looked different, I came out upset and $60 poorer. Not wasting that kind of money on a genre I don't enjoy that much again. And for those wondering, the shooter I bought was Splatoon. It's fucking shit. It's $40, several people in this thread have already mentioned that. |
|
HaXXspetten said: Really though, Overwatch wouldn't be anywhere near as hyped if it wasn't made by Blizzard. Because there is nothing that makes the game stand out from so many other shooters that came before it. It really just feels like a remake of Team Fortress 2 I actually don't give a damn about Blizzard. I don't tend to like their games and everyone raving about them like they could do no wrong always pissed me off. This game could be made by EA and I wouldn't like it any less. Overwatch is an incredibly solid game. People complain all the time that games are released now with bugs. So far Overwatch has only had like 2 and one of them is already patched out. Besides that, it's the best damn shooter we've probably ever seen. The visuals are great but what really makes it good is how well it all plays. They're even trying to improve their game that's already so great. To me the Blizzard tag was actually a negative point, but I couldn't fool myself, this game is dripping with quality, some of the highest quality in the industry. The icing on the cake is that I know they'll be supporting it for years to come, with their WoW reputation on the line, a game that I never liked. |
HaXXspetten said: If you understood the genre more in general, you should know that the game going F2P is the worst route a FPS could ever possibly go. Making a game go B2P removes (well, mitigates) one of the biggest killers for FPS games in general and that's hacking. Devs have said they likened Overwatch to classic shooters like Quake and Team Fortress 2, and TF2 used to be B2P you know?Really though, Overwatch wouldn't be anywhere near as hyped if it wasn't made by Blizzard. Because there is nothing that makes the game stand out from so many other shooters that came before it. It really just feels like a remake of Team Fortress 2 When I first saw the announcement trailers during Blizzcon 2014 I was expecting it to be a free to play game, because that's really what it looked like. If Hearthstone was one and turned out to be one of the biggest hits of all time in gaming, then it's not like it should have been a foreign concept for Blizzard to do the same thing here. I mean I've been a huge fan of Blizzard for almost my entire life but in this particular case it just feels like all the critics are giving it a pass solely because it's a Blizzard game and they're worried about backlash if they hated on it or something. Like the fact that this game is up with the likes of Witcher 3 and similar on Metacritic is just a joke |
 |
| It's the meme game of the year, just like how Undertale was. I wouldn't pay for a game without singleplayer and that is pretty much a F2P game in all but the pricetag Blizzard added. The best part is the porn/SFM works, and you can get that for free if you know where to look. |
95PercentCaim said: Yeah but the thing is TF2 was also part of The Orange Box, which tons of people obviously bought for the sake of the Half Life 2 continuations. So it was kind of a like free bonus game that came with it (alongside Portal I might add)HaXXspetten said: If you understood the genre more in general, you should know that the game going F2P is the worst route a FPS could ever possibly go. Making a game go B2P removes (well, mitigates) one of the biggest killers for FPS games in general and that's hacking. Devs have said they likened Overwatch to classic shooters like Quake and Team Fortress 2, and TF2 used to be B2P you know?Really though, Overwatch wouldn't be anywhere near as hyped if it wasn't made by Blizzard. Because there is nothing that makes the game stand out from so many other shooters that came before it. It really just feels like a remake of Team Fortress 2 When I first saw the announcement trailers during Blizzcon 2014 I was expecting it to be a free to play game, because that's really what it looked like. If Hearthstone was one and turned out to be one of the biggest hits of all time in gaming, then it's not like it should have been a foreign concept for Blizzard to do the same thing here. I mean I've been a huge fan of Blizzard for almost my entire life but in this particular case it just feels like all the critics are giving it a pass solely because it's a Blizzard game and they're worried about backlash if they hated on it or something. Like the fact that this game is up with the likes of Witcher 3 and similar on Metacritic is just a joke |
| |
| The other thing is that TF2 sucked. |
HaXXspetten said: "This priced game came in a priced bundle so it's like a free bonus game". Is this what you're saying? Because that's ludicrous.95PercentCaim said: Yeah but the thing is TF2 was also part of The Orange Box, which tons of people obviously bought for the sake of the Half Life 2 continuations. So it was kind of a like free bonus game that came with it (alongside Portal I might add)If you understood the genre more in general, you should know that the game going F2P is the worst route a FPS could ever possibly go. Making a game go B2P removes (well, mitigates) one of the biggest killers for FPS games in general and that's hacking. Devs have said they likened Overwatch to classic shooters like Quake and Team Fortress 2, and TF2 used to be B2P you know? Epjsode 2 was sold seperately. And Portal was just as much of a surprise hit as TF2 to the gaming industry. So no, people didnt buy the Orange Box just because of Half Life, they bought it because it was a delicious fucking deal that offered three new games from a Triple A developer. Thrashinuva said: Leave thy presense.The other thing is that TF2 sucked. |
|
Bobby2Hands said: lucjan said: It just looks like another shooter. It's got a bit of a casual twist on it, which makes it more appealing, but the gameplay isn't anything new. The real crime is its price tag. Like I'm paying $60 for a shooter that's been done 100 times before. Last time I bought a shooter that looked different, I came out upset and $60 poorer. Not wasting that kind of money on a genre I don't enjoy that much again. And for those wondering, the shooter I bought was Splatoon. It's fucking shit. It's $40, several people in this thread have already mentioned that. I don't read threads I comment in lol Anyway for some reason I was directed towards the Origin edition when looking the game up. $40 is cheaper but still too expensive. Maybe $30. I'm just very cautious with shooters. |
|
Thrashinuva said: The other thing is that TF2 sucked. It really didn't. TF2 still relies a lot more on individual skill then Overwatch does. With the abilities having more weight on the outcome than actually mechanical aim. You can carry a match as a TF2 player. It's exceptionally harder in Overwatch. Not to mention the movement is another level in TF2, compared to overwatch. But they are two different games in the end. kingatomsk said: cause said: We don't complain when single player only games are 40 to 60 dollars. Why do we complain when multiplayer only games are? If they provide the same playtime, it seems trivial. We don't? If a 60 dollar game can be beaten casually in less than 6 hours, people will complain. The thing is single player games are easier to evaluate beforehand, relatively speaking. Multiplayer only games have more variables, such as being developer dependent (updates, servers life support) and the current playerbase (quantity and quality). If people rated correctly, you would be correct. There's a stigma in the gaming world where games must be F2P now if they're multiplayer only. For some god forsaken reason. Even if you end up spending 200 hours on them. "Ew I have to pay for this game! With it's high quality look, high quality character cast, generous future free updates, and numerous other quirks! Unbelievable! I'd rather pay for another SINGLE PLAYER ONLY GAME that takes me 20 hours to beat! That's worth my 60 dollars plus more if I get the SEASON PASS aka rip off the consumer early before we actually make the DLC!" It boggles my mind people jump on the F2P bandwagon just because they became gamers in the age of the F2P greed model. SH4kun said: It's the meme game of the year, just like how Undertale was. I wouldn't pay for a game without singleplayer and that is pretty much a F2P game in all but the pricetag Blizzard added. Like take for example this person here. A perfect example of these people who circlejerk around the F2P model, despite the F2P model being the greediest model in existence unless it's done by Valve. You either pay with months of your time and continue to pay with time to unlock all the content and future content via in-game grinding currrency, or pay a boatload of money. Remember all new content is full price! All for what? To finally play the whole game eventually? Months or hundreds of dollars? Cool that seems like a good investment! Idiotic. Like I'm all for rating a game based on it's merits. But people who rate based on simply that it's single or multiplayer only, are absolutely the most idiotic voices in the gaming critic scene on this planet. |
daveJun 22, 2016 4:17 AM
cause said: If people rated correctly, you would be correct. There's a stigma in the gaming world where games must be F2P now if they're multiplayer only. For some god forsaken reason. Even if you end up spending 200 hours on them. "Ew I have to pay for this game! With it's high quality look, high quality character cast, generous future free updates, and numerous other quirks! Unbelievable! I'd rather pay for another SINGLE PLAYER ONLY GAME that takes me 20 hours to beat! That's worth my 60 dollars plus more if I get the SEASON PASS aka rip off the consumer early before we actually make the DLC!" It boggles my mind people jump on the F2P bandwagon just because they became gamers in the age of the F2P greed model  I'm actually glad Overwatch is not F2P, helps keep out players who aren't really that interested in the game. Kids these days don't remember shelling out $40 for a Genesis game that might be so hard you could never even beat the second level. So you would wind up just playing the same two levels for hours and that was all you got. |
|
Unknown- said: Have fun mate. I decided to buy it. Sometimes I want to play a quick game but I am tired of mobas and I don't have many competitive shooters on PC. I think it's a wonderful game and I was hooked the second I played the beta. I think it's kinda like the same situation as SFV: technically lacks "content", but what it has makes it totally worth it. |
cause said: SH4kun said: It's the meme game of the year, just like how Undertale was. I wouldn't pay for a game without singleplayer and that is pretty much a F2P game in all but the pricetag Blizzard added. Like take for example this person here. A perfect example of these people who circlejerk around the F2P model, despite the F2P model being the greediest model in existence unless it's done by Valve. You either pay with months of your time and continue to pay with time to unlock all the content and future content via in-game grinding currrency, or pay a boatload of money. Remember all new content is full price! All for what? To finally play the whole game eventually? Months or hundreds of dollars? Cool that seems like a good investment! Idiotic. Like I'm all for rating a game based on it's merits. But people who rate based on simply that it's single or multiplayer only, are absolutely the most idiotic voices in the gaming critic scene on this planet. You're talking about replayability. Replayability =/= actual content. The game has 21 heroes (each with a couple of skills) and 12 maps (three for each game mode). Because of the fact that you could swap with another heroe if you wish, you can actually experience a lot of heroes in the same game. Add that to the fact is somewhat fast paced and matches last 15 minutes (average length) instead of the usual 25-30 minutes in other F2P genres. What does that means? Let's say that hypothetically, you play only a single heroe per map (since the mentality is to stick to a single heroe/champion/whatever to "main it", so to speak) and try out all 21 heroes and have played at least once in every single map. That's right; you could actually see all the content Overwatch has to offer in less than 6 hours and that's only if we assume you only play a single heroe per match. If you actually tried 2 per map and tried that for all 12 maps, you would actually see all the content this game has to offer in 3 hours, which is actually shorter than Firewatch, a walking simulator that released this year with an average of 3-4 hours of length. You're probably gonna argue and say "b-but each match is actually different because it has many variables and different heroe combinations yada yada". That's a part of replayability, having different outcomes and different paths to solve the same dilemma (winning the match in this case) is something that has been done in RPGs for a long time now, the difference being that to see the entire content of such gigantic games (like Witcher, Fallout NV/3/4 or any Elder Scrolls) the amount of hours can actually reach the triple digits in your first playthrough. So you see, there is actually a big difference between paying 60 dollars for a full game (that you can actually play as much as you want, even if the quality of said replayability is not exactly the same) which has a lot of content and paying 60 dollars for a game that lacks it. Mind you, I don't really care if you actually feel is worth your money (good for you, I guess) not do I care if the game is successful or not (I suppose the shilling and advertisement paid off) and would actually go as far as to say the actual content (I mean, the little it has) is somewhat polished, but I don't think you should really take the opinion of people who don't share yours to heart that much. I already gave my reasoning as to why I believe is not worth it for me to own something so very lacking that also uses a cash shop even though it has a B2P model already. |
| Is Overwatch worth it? ... no The game is fun for about 2 days and gets old WAY too fast. Great 2 days though but I can hardly justify a purchase like that |
 |
| I mean if you only consider the amount of time you need in order to experience all of the content, then maybe multiplayer only non-mmo games aren't for you to begin with. |
Thrashinuva said: I mean if you only consider the amount of time you need in order to experience all of the content, then maybe multiplayer only non-mmo games aren't for you to begin with. Not really. Finding something that, in your opinion, is not worth your money doesn't mean that you can't enjoy it. I played a couple of F2P games that I had quite a bit of fun with them (Smite, LoL, Dota 2, HoN) but ultimately I didn't feel like they did something good enough for me to make me actually spend my money on them. Overwatch is the same deal. If you feel that it deserves it, then go for it. I don't. |
SH4kun said: Thrashinuva said: I mean if you only consider the amount of time you need in order to experience all of the content, then maybe multiplayer only non-mmo games aren't for you to begin with. Not really. Finding something that, in your opinion, is not worth your money doesn't mean that you can't enjoy it. I played a couple of F2P games that I had quite a bit of fun with them (Smite, LoL, Dota 2, HoN) but ultimately I didn't feel like they did something good enough for me to make me actually spend my money on them. Overwatch is the same deal. If you feel that it deserves it, then go for it. I don't. That's nice and all, but you're trying to make the argument that Overwatch is not a full game, based on how quickly you can witness all the assets within the game. You're also trying to make the argument that without similar opinions on these matters that this game simply can't be recommended. You've established a "fact" with your own opinions as evidence. You don't seem to like multiplayer only games, and that's fine. No criticism there. You don't seem to like Overwatch and that's fine too. You don't recommend the game, based on your own experiences, which is fair. We can disagree about the worthiness of the game, and that's fine. But you've laid out and assumed that your own feelings on what consists of a full game, is what everyone should feel as well, and base their judgement on that. |
SH4kun said: You're comparing a single player walking simulator with a massive multiplayer online first person shooter. Fucking sit down and think about that for a moment. That's so weak of an analogy that I can only assume you're trying really really hard to make a shitpost come across as a serious one. You're talking about replayability. Replayability =/= actual content. The game has 21 heroes (each with a couple of skills) and 12 maps (three for each game mode). Because of the fact that you could swap with another heroe if you wish, you can actually experience a lot of heroes in the same game. Add that to the fact is somewhat fast paced and matches last 15 minutes (average length) instead of the usual 25-30 minutes in other F2P genres. What does that means? Let's say that hypothetically, you play only a single heroe per map (since the mentality is to stick to a single heroe/champion/whatever to "main it", so to speak) and try out all 21 heroes and have played at least once in every single map. That's right; you could actually see all the content Overwatch has to offer in less than 6 hours and that's only if we assume you only play a single heroe per match. If you actually tried 2 per map and tried that for all 12 maps, you would actually see all the content this game has to offer in 3 hours, which is actually shorter than Firewatch, a walking simulator that released this year with an average of 3-4 hours of length. So you see, there is actually a big difference between paying 60 dollars for a full game (that you can actually play as much as you want, even if the quality of said replayability is not exactly the same) which has a lot of content and paying 60 dollars for a game that lacks it. Mind you, I don't really care if you actually feel is worth your money (good for you, I guess) not do I care if the game is successful or not (I suppose the shilling and advertisement paid off) and would actually go as far as to say the actual content (I mean, the little it has) is somewhat polished, but I don't think you should really take the opinion of people who don't share yours to heart that much. I already gave my reasoning as to why I believe is not worth it for me to own something so very lacking that also uses a cash shop even though it has a B2P model already. Define "full game". SH4kun said: Chess has done this long before RPGs have and you can literally get the rules and game down in a matter of minutes. Are you ignoring the very factor that differentiates multiplayer games with the games you listed? That being social interaction? You're probably gonna argue and say "b-but each match is actually different because it has many variables and different heroe combinations yada yada". That's a part of replayability, having different outcomes and different paths to solve the same dilemma (winning the match in this case) is something that has been done in RPGs for a long time now, the difference being that to see the entire content of such gigantic games (like Witcher, Fallout NV/3/4 or any Elder Scrolls) the amount of hours can actually reach the triple digits in your first playthrough. Do you genuinely think the AI you play with in Skyrim are comparable to actual humans in a multiplayer game of Counter Strike or Overwatch? Do you truly believe you can experience the entirety of a "multiplayer" game only through game assets? And are we really going for the quantity argument in an entertainment medium? Have we forgotten that quality always trumps quantity when it comes to entertainment media? The amount of assets and lines of text a game has does not mean shit. Fallout New Vegas can take hundreds of hours with the amount of assets it contains but that's all meaningless when it's a broken buggy piece of shit mess that makes a legit playthrough of the game impossible. Also, please, keep the stutterposting at /v/. |
|
| It's a good game to kill your boring hours i bet. |
 V I S I T M Y 【P R O F I L E 💕】 |
Like I'm all for rating a game based on it's merits. But people who rate based on simply that it's single or multiplayer only, are absolutely the most idiotic voices in the gaming critic scene on this planet. It's like I'm psychic or something. |
Thrashinuva said: That's nice and all, but you're trying to make the argument that Overwatch is not a full game, based on how quickly you can witness all the assets within the game. You're also trying to make the argument that without similar opinions on these matters that this game simply can't be recommended. You've established a "fact" with your own opinions as evidence. You don't seem to like multiplayer only games, and that's fine. No criticism there. You don't seem to like Overwatch and that's fine too. You don't recommend the game, based on your own experiences, which is fair. We can disagree about the worthiness of the game, and that's fine. But you've laid out and assumed that your own feelings on what consists of a full game, is what everyone should feel as well, and base their judgement on that. That was bad wording on my part. What I mean with it was that a "newly released" game at 60 dollars/euros/whatever and was complaining about how that can actually have more content than Overwatch (which in this case 60 on consoles). I can't actually say with a straight face that games release "full" with the DLC garbage we have these days, when if you actually want to buy a game with the maximum amount of content you have to buy the "Definitive Extreme Deluxe Edition" or whatever that comes like a year or two after the original release. Since your entire post follows that premise, I apologize for making you waste your time because of my mistake. I will repeat myself with the whole "not enjoying multiplayer games" however. I enjoy pretty much all genre and play all of them (or most of them) and I certaintly do enjoy multiplayer games (for a quick match, for example). The fact that I'm gonna pay for them is another matter (only one I actually paid for was WoW an that was in my high school days), so that misunderstanding is on your end, not mine. 95PercentCaim said: You're comparing a single player walking simulator with a massive multiplayer online first person shooter. Fucking sit down and think about that for a moment. That's so weak of an analogy that I can only assume you're trying really really hard to make a shitpost come across as a serious one. Define "full game". I'm comparing the length or content of both games only, nothing more nothing less. I already explained in my previous post that in other cases (Overwatch in this scenario) even if it has a low amount of content, the quality of it's replayability is higher (even if you could replay Firewatch for 200 hours if you wanted to even when is only a 3-4 hours experience). The thing with "full game" I already explained previously. Chess has done this long before RPGs have and you can literally get the rules and game down in a matter of minutes. Are you ignoring the very factor that differentiates multiplayer games with the games you listed? That being social interaction? I'm not ignoring it. I would certainly not pay to play chess however, since, like you said, the rules and the game itself can be played in a matter of minutes. Do you genuinely think the AI you play with in Skyrim are comparable to actual humans in a multiplayer game of Counter Strike or Overwatch? Do you truly believe you can experience the entirety of a "multiplayer" game only through game assets? Content wise? Yes. Mastering the game itself is another matter, of course, but that's where replayability comes in. You can complete games without mastering their combat system. And are we really going for the quantity argument in an entertainment medium? Have we forgotten that quality always trumps quantity when it comes to entertainment media? The amount of assets and lines of text a game has does not mean shit. Fallout New Vegas can take hundreds of hours with the amount of assets it contains but that's all meaningless when it's a broken buggy piece of shit mess that makes a legit playthrough of the game impossible. Both are important though. Is no good to have a really well polished game that only lasts 3 hours (or only has that amount of content to explore) and is not good to have a borefest that lasts for 40-50 hours, balance is needed for a game to really be great. |
| No it is not worth it. Its easy mode "children's first TF2" kind of game. You can get same experience in TF2 for free instead of paying 50 bucks for a game with no singleplayer and three fucking maps. |
 |
Fai said: No it is not worth it. Its easy mode "children's first TF2" kind of game. You can get same experience in TF2 for free instead of paying 50 bucks for a game with no singleplayer and three fucking maps. There's twelve maps and the game is $40. At least get your facts straight first. |
|
| @SH4kun I was hoping you'd get my point but oh well I guess I didnt elaborate enough. Okay, why do you read visual novels? If you wanted a good story, why not just read a fucking book? If you had a good retort, you would say it's because visual novels have more interaction. For a book, you simply read the passage given to you, turn to the next page, read, turn the page, read, rinse repeat, whatever. But visual novels are different. They have a relevant graphic to accompany the text, character portraits, animations, sound FX, voice actors reading the lines for you, a UI, branching paths, etc. Because of these features, characters may feel more human, more relateable. The tragic character that was brutally murdered during the climax of the story is thus, all the more impacting now that it has a face and a voice that we can recognize this character with. Because of these features, there is more immersion that one can obtain within the visual novel. Thus, there's a reason why visual novels like Steins; gate cost more than the average book despite having less words or in your case "actual content". Because it has more degrees of interaction in it that makes a visual novel; from the graphics to the sound effects to the voice acting. Now take a wall from Team Fortress 2 for example. In that game, it only serves as an obstruction. You can use it for cover and maybe bounce demoman grenades off of it, but that's about it. Overwatch; however, gives you more options of interaction with that generic wall. You can skate across it with Lucio, wall climb it as Genji/Hanzo, turn it into a sentry nest for Symettra or use it for Junkrat's concussion mine. Rather than create a hundred useless assets which only serve little to no function, Overwatch is making assets that allow more degrees of interaction. "Actual content", in this case, should not just be about how many assets you get to experience within a game, the "actual content" should be the many ways by which you interact with other players and the game itself. Cut the bullshit about Firewatch having just as much content as Overwatch, because unlike Overwatch, you can barely do jackshit with the assets in that walking simulator. Cut the bullshit about it not being a "full game" due to its 12 maps either, because unlike Call of Duty, Team Fortress 2, Firewatch, The Witcher, or whatever fucking else game there is, you can do so many things with the maps and gameplay that Overwatch provides in comparison. This argument also extends towards fighting games, MOBAs, and schmups. |
PeenusWeenusCaimJun 23, 2016 1:43 PM
|
More topics from this board
» Do you guys enjoy fighting games? ( 1 2 )Dumb - Feb 11 |
51 |
by juanlqr
»»
3 hours ago |
|
» Favorite gaming cover art?_Nette_ - 6 hours ago |
0 |
by _Nette_
»»
6 hours ago |
|
» What is your favorite Elder Scrolls game?Ex-Aid - Yesterday |
4 |
by _Nette_
»»
7 hours ago |
|
» Is MAL ever going to update it's UI?Pineapplepirate - Dec 19, 2020 |
31 |
by Timeline_man
»»
11 hours ago |
|
» Rate The Last Game You Finished. ( 1 2 3 4 5 ... Last Page )Crzy_Minus - Apr 23, 2015 |
3719 |
by creepylurker
»»
Yesterday, 2:02 PM |