Any Other Barb Bros Try OVERWATCH BETA?

Barbarian
Curious.

Tried it, disgusted.

Objectively, it's not a bad game. But it most certainly is a bad competitive shooter.

It represents the uglier design tendencies that Blizzard started pushing with Diablo III -- too many concessions to the console market, prioritizing graphics over mechanics, and devaluing player skill. I've played few team-based FPS games where individual player skill mattered so little.

I suspect players who like MOBAs (which are also, objectively, a terrible games, a terrible genre) will find something familiar and warm in Overwatch. But if you're like me and came from Quake and TF2 where aim, precision, movement, and mechanics take priority, well, this is a highly polished turd.
Have to disagree here.

I had so much fun playing tracer.
I wouldn't say overwatch is a comp game. Its fun tho. And team work is huge. The right comp and your snipers can just lawl pwn and win. I have a blast playing it on Thursday night. Only appealing class for me was hanzo. Actually have to aim and predict where the opponent will go. It isn't a gun aim shoot class.

I went on a 20 mill streak it felt good my last game. But my mom concern is. What will this game have to offer in the near future. Sure it will be fun to play for a while. But what Halle a after? Ranked games ? Ranks? Prizes? What will they do to stop all sorts of cheats? Warden? It has proven to us that warden has a lot of faults.

Over all its a fun game. But choosing overwatch vs counter strike global offensive. I'll stick to csgo where aim precision team work gets you results. Can't gun aim shoot to win in that game. Ranks ensure I'm always playing against people around my skill Level. Vac system is flawless and bans people with no mistakes. The overwatch system in csgo allows the community to pick out cheaters and bracers as well.

Blizzard has a long way to go. In order to actually have a competitive and legit game. They should look at some of the companies out there that make sure everyone has a good experience during playing. Just because it's fun now what will it be. A month from release.
Blizzard is very good at taking games with a lot of depth but limited appeal, and making them more accessible for the masses (casualizing, in other words). Is it good or bad? The elitists (1-5% of the gaming population, not enough of a customer base to actually run a business with...) will say it's bad. The rest of the people will love it. And Blizzard will rake in the cash, hand over fist.

D3 is a casualization of D2
Hearthstone is a casualization of Magic The Gathering
Overwatch is as casualization of the entire FPS genre.

And you know what? I think it's pretty good for what it does. I don't have Korean Starcraft Nerd reflexes, nor do I care to actually "practice" my FPS skills. So I enjoy(ed) Overwatch when I tried it. It'll never satisfy even the Callerdoody crowd, but I found it just fine. Same was how my girlfriend loves Super Mario Kart and I play Forza Mosport. Yet I recognize both series of games are pretty good in their own way.
Imo the best game blizzard has made to date and that is saying something. It feels so rewarding even playing support if played right. The game is infinitely better in groups too.
I'm going to download it and have a try at it. i think it'll be good. i was a big fan of team fortress back in the day, and this seems similar.

I am glad to see some innovation from Blizzard though outside of the standard re-releasing of a re-vamped version of an old game!
oh it's fun as hell
05/06/2016 04:48 PMPosted by Shady
Have to disagree here.

I had so much fun playing tracer.


I think you're missing the point. Your level of enjoyment with the game likely stems from what you want out of a team-based shooter. If you're having fun, that's great. My point was that it's a bad competitive shooter, and that's a whole other bag.

05/07/2016 01:27 PMPosted by Samir
Blizzard is very good at taking games with a lot of depth but limited appeal, and making them more accessible for the masses (casualizing, in other words). Is it good or bad? The elitists (1-5% of the gaming population, not enough of a customer base to actually run a business with...) will say it's bad.


I agree that's what Blizzard does (except with Star Craft, thank God), but I'd also say it's a bad model for competitive shooters. And if the shooter's mechanics are solid enough, it's unnecessary. Counter Strike's mechanics are rock solid; good DM, aim, map awareness, movement, and team work are required to play the game well. The game rewards individual and collective skill. The same can be said of Team Fortress 2, a game whose competitive modes are radically different from the pub experience. Those games appeal to both the casual mass market and the niche competitive audience and reward both. They're high skill-ceiling games.

Overwatch could be that. But it isn't. It's a MOBA in FPS clothing.

05/07/2016 01:27 PMPosted by Samir
It'll never satisfy even the Callerdoody crowd,


From a competitive standpoint, this isn't the crowd to worry about. That crowd is purchasing yearly installments of a game whose fundamentals consist of a watered down version of CS. The crowd to please is the CS, TF2, and Quake crowd.

05/07/2016 11:55 PMPosted by Bliss
i was a big fan of team fortress back in the day, and this seems similar.


This is nothing like Team Fortress, either Classic or 2. This is a completely different game.

For those who aren't aware, here's a quick breakdown of the fundamentals of each and why I think Overwatch is a bad competitive shooter. For the purpose of this discussion, we'll use Quake/Quake 3 as gold standards.

Quake/Quake 3/Team Fortress and Team Fortress 2 offer the following as base game mechanics:

- Movement Based control depending on player input:
    - Bunny hopping, strafe jumping, rocket/nade jumping, air strafing, and crouch jumping to name a few


- Emphasis on precision and aim
    - Zero auto-aim or assist


- Emphasis on map control and awareness
    - Item pickups, choke points, respawns, and do forth


One could argue that CS incorporates many of these same elements, but Overwatch is of a different mold from the slower, more methodical tactical shooter that is CS. One could also argue that Overwatch has a heavy emphasis on map control and awareness, but health packs, often located out of combat zones (and thus making the control of them less of a priority), seem to be the only pickup.

And what does Overwatch offer in return?

Coordination? Team-based play? Try comp TF2. Try Clan Arena at a high level.

Really, I can't think of anything Overwatch offers a player unless you're looking for that MOBA feel. And here, at last, is my point: Overwatch is a low skill-ceiling game and that's bad for a competitive shooter.

And to get an idea of what I mean, take a look at the following:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VpiNDxssUL0
Quake Done Quickest: The Movie

The level of skill and knowledge required to do what these players are doing is otherworldly. You can't break Overwatch in this way. Mind you, there were no classes in Quake. There was just you, the player, and your manual input skill.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4P1M-_5XOCw
TF2 Top 10 Plays of the Month for Jan 0216

Here are the 10 best plays from TF2's competitive scene. Look at that. JUST LOOK AT THAT. The aim, the movement skill, the precision. If you know anything about TF2 or have ever played it for more than an hour, you know how hard it is to pull off these plays.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4pSDv1czMdo
Quake 3 CA Grand Finals: WatchThis vs dream, QuakeCon 2013

It's a long one so feel free to skip around. But know this. You will never see this level of play in Overwatch. And that's a damn shame.
I love blizzard games, but if you want an over watch type game made by a company with FPS chops look up battle born, made by gearbox which is the company responsible for the epicness that is Borderlands1/2.
It's really odd reading your comparissons with TF2 because I've read a couple of reviews from TF2 players saying that they really enjoyed Overwatch...

...but I like Samir's take:
05/07/2016 01:27 PMPosted by Samir
D3 is a casualization of D2
Hearthstone is a casualization of Magic The Gathering
Overwatch is as casualization of the entire FPS genre.
I tried playing wizard few days back and can't even bring myself to complete the "basic journey" thing. Something about being forced into using Set A + Legendaries XYZ and the retardedly high multipliers from the bonuses...

Hearthstone is cool if you have time (or money) for the grind. The draft arena mode seemed pretty balanced...as long the player knows how to build the deck with what RNG offers.

Overwatch and Heroes of the Storm are just somewhat weird when compared to the "traditional" games of their respective genres. When compared to DotA2 and LoL, HotS is pretty lackluster when it comes to mechanics/strategy but that's where it shines: it's a game you can play for fun without having to worry too much with getting screwed / raged at by the lack of game knowledge or mechanics.

Overwatch seems to follow HotS's trend. It will most likely not have a big competitive scene but casuals will certainly enjoy it due to the simplicity...plus the benefit of having all characters available from the get-go, unlike HotS where you have to grind.
05/08/2016 06:24 PMPosted by Eduw
It's really odd reading your comparissons with TF2 because I've read a couple of reviews from TF2 players saying that they really enjoyed Overwatch...


By players I assume you mean YouTube gamers. I'm talking about pro TF2 players. Here's what I mean, a video where Clockwork, arguably the best Scout in NA, discusses some of the problems with Overwatch as a competitive FPS:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QsH0ZXWeZZs

Skip to 1:25:00 for the beginning of the Overwatch discussion.

Of course, Clockwork's opinion is not necessarily representative of all or most TF2 pro opinions. And to be fair, I don't really think Blizzard is attempting to make Overwatch a big-name competitive shooter. It's just disappointing that it sets the skill ceiling so low. The Ultimates, the auto-aim abilities, and the lack of movement options make the game feel like a step back from Quake 3. The recent multiplayer beta for DOOM felt the same way -- an arena shooter crippled by terrible movement, loadouts, lack of map pickups, and xp progression.

...but I like Samir's take [. . .] ]Overwatch seems to follow HotS's trend. It will most likely not have a big competitive scene but casuals will certainly enjoy it due to the simplicity


I agree. But my point was that Overwatch could do this while also appealing to (and rewarding) casual players a la TF2. And the fact that it doesn't is truly disappointing.
I just gave my input about the gamę from my perspective. I enjoy a competitive game that's all. And unless overwatch will have some kind of rating. There will be a lot of casual players not happy. Who would want to play vs an elite player game avmfter game while you are more of casual mediocre.

My point is overwatch is a fun game. But down the road it needs some kind of rating so you can group up with people your skill level. That's all.
05/08/2016 07:13 PMPosted by Free
And to be fair, I don't really think Blizzard is attempting to make Overwatch a big-name competitive shooter. It's just disappointing that it sets the skill ceiling so low. The Ultimates, the auto-aim abilities, and the lack of movement options make the game feel like a step back from Quake 3.
I really don't think it's aiming for the the competitive scene...at least not currently.

HotS is the dumbed-down MOBA that exists alongside with LoL and DotA2, two games way more popular and refined. I'm betting the same for Overwatch with CS / TF2 (I don't really know how popular it is nowadays).

Can't forget the history Blizzard has with shipping poorly-developed games: D3 was terrible for at least a whole year and RoS for a couple of months, and yet people played like hell due to the novelty. Odds are that Overwatch will be shipped like this (+ a ranked mode) and improved as time passes.
i started out in Starcraft Broodwar elite gaming circles so i'm well versed in high intensity game play, but i have to say, quake 3 put us broodwar players to shame. high level quake three game play is !@#$ING RIDICULOUS! these people like rocket jump constantly around the map, time their movements to the second and hit people with direct missles hits, like shooting in advance and projecting their path and still making direct hits. while both players are moving at high speed too. seriously the skill of those quake 3 players is ridiculous.

its actually kind of disapointing for myself to see the era of the true cyber athlete and professional gamer decline. they just simply don't make games in that same way anymore. its all about mass appeal and automation these days. they take alot of the skill and competitive avenues out of the games.

/end rant.
Speaking of competitive gaming. HYDRA WINS DREAMHACK SC2. FOR THE QUEEEEEN!

Oh..on topic.

I dunno I actually think competition in a game like Overwatch will be great to watch. When you play the game during a beta, it isn't seeing organized group play, composition priority, and map positioning. All you are seeing is people running around picking their favorite characters.

The game has a low floor (i.e. easy to pick the game up and play a few matches) but has a high ceiling (i.e. very high skill gap at higher levels).

Not to mention Blizzard will throw tons of money at this game to blow up the competitive scene.

I think this is this the closest thing that TF2 has to a modern-day successor.
05/09/2016 09:08 AMPosted by Pri
The game has a low floor (i.e. easy to pick the game up and play a few matches) but has a high ceiling (i.e. very high skill gap at higher levels).


High skill ceiling? In what way?

I ask because I'm arguing that Overwatch is a low-skill ceiling game.

A high skill ceiling means that given the same character and game mechanics, players who invest more time and practice into the game will be able to perform vastly superior to players who have invested less. A good example is Quake 3 where (as Bliss pointed out), highly skilled players are able to control their strafe jumping speed and direction while lining up long-distance rail shots on relatively small hit box opponents. They do this while monitoring power-ups, collecting weapons, and fighting with a variety of weapons freely available to all players. Go into a Quake Live server and compare the accuracy of the lowest and highest scoring player. The only difference there is skill.

Or take TF2 where players where less skilled Soldiers can't hope to perform the complex air-strafes, air-shots, and tactical maneuvering capable by highly skilled players. Compare an ESEA Invite Scout to a pubber -- same loadouts, same character skill sets, but a world of difference in aim, accuracy, movement, prediction, and team coordination.

These examples can only exist because Quake and TF2 generally have high skill ceilings.

Now compare two Soldier 76 players in Overwatch. How much skill ceiling exists when the UItimate auto-aims his weapon? Or McCready's Ultimate? Or Reaper's? These types of game mechanics and the lack of universal movement options mean that the difference between a highly skilled player and a noob is nowhere close to that found in Quake, UT, TF2, etc.

For the record, I'm not saying that's necessarily a bad thing for games in general. It is, however, bad for a game with competitive aspirations, if that's what Overwatch is; it would be like Star Craft 3 having auto-commands for units you assemble -- no need to micro anymore!

05/09/2016 09:08 AMPosted by Pri
I think this is this the closest thing that TF2 has to a modern-day successor.


But it's nothing like TF2. TF2 is entirely based on movement and dedicated team roles. There's not much off-classing in TF2 (and none in the Highlander format) and while movement options vary between classes, they also (with the exception of Medic) focus on accessing vertical terrain and speed.

I played comp TF2 for years and I don't know how to say it without going into the fine, fine details, but these games are nothing alike below the surface of class-focused team combat.

05/09/2016 03:05 AMPosted by Bliss
i started out in Starcraft Broodwar elite gaming circles so i'm well versed in high intensity game play, but i have to say, quake 3 put us broodwar players to shame. high level quake three game play is !@#$ING RIDICULOUS! these people like rocket jump constantly around the map, time their movements to the second and hit people with direct missles hits, like shooting in advance and projecting their path and still making direct hits. while both players are moving at high speed too. seriously the skill of those quake 3 players is ridiculous.

its actually kind of disapointing for myself to see the era of the true cyber athlete and professional gamer decline. they just simply don't make games in that same way anymore. its all about mass appeal and automation these days. they take alot of the skill and competitive avenues out of the games.

/end rant.


Feeling this, Bliss. I truly am.

On the one hand, it's good that games become more accessible. And if Overwatch is trying to be that -- an FPS game that leves the playing field -- that's awesome. But if it's trying to slip into the competitive scene with this dumbed-down casual approach, that's not awesome. It's bad. And it would reflect poorly on the company's understanding of what makes a competitive FPS in the first place. I wish companies wouldn't throw away the high skill ceiling aspects to them, without which we wouldn't have CS, TF2, Quake, StarCraft, etc.

I know there's a lot to be said about Overwatch and MOBAS -- the game is, essentially, a MOBA in shooter form, albeit less so than Battleborn (which I also despise). But I also absolutely detest MOBAS and CCGs. To me, the only things worse than WoW are Heartstone and LoL/Dota.
High skill ceiling? In what way?

I ask because I'm arguing that Overwatch is a low-skill ceiling game.

A high skill ceiling means that given the same character and game mechanics, players who invest more time and practice into the game will be able to perform vastly superior to players who have invested less.


For some roles yes. You are right there isn't much skill gap (i.e. healers and certain freebie tanks)...but take two Tracers? One GG and another Noob? Trust me you will see a huge difference. Hell even some healers require good positioning otherwise you will just get pulled by Roadhogg or targeted out.

Soldier 76 is a generic FPS class that is meant to be a beginner all-around DPS w/ reasonable survivability.

Ultimates are something that will have to be built around and feared to some extent. League of legends is proof of that.

If you go on twitch, there are high-level players that are formulating teams and playing at extremely high levels. Including creating specific team comps for specific maps as well as counter compositions.

One thing that is extremely interesting to me is the "back and forth" of the game. In League of Legends (sorry I keep using this example but this is the closest comparison since they have 5 man comps and ultimates), you pick 1 character and stick with it until the match is over.

In Overwatch, the team composition is always changing so ti is important to know what chars counter other chars and what comps counter other comps.

You simply don't see high level play when pubstomping so seeing the competitive potential may be difficult.

This game will be extremely competitive at high levels.
Games that focus too much on reflexes and keyboard abilities are neither fun to play nor fun to watch for bigger audiences.

The games you detest mostly require some brain to achieve acceptable level of mastery and a lot of practice to master. The game you like are the ones that brain wont help you enter and lack of keyboard skills and reflexes will just shut you out.

Speaking of skill-ceiling. Tracer is the highest skill-ceiling character I've played in all the games I've played. Tracer is able to kill anything below 200hp if your accuracy is 100%. The amount of reflexes, knowledge of the map and positioning required to be a untouchable tracer is very high.
05/09/2016 11:59 AMPosted by Pri
For some roles yes. You are right there isn't much skill gap (i.e. healers and certain freebie tanks)...but take two Tracers? One GG and another Noob? Trust me you will see a huge difference. Hell even some healers require good positioning otherwise you will just get pulled by Roadhogg or targeted out.


Point taken--Tracer is one of the characters that requires more skill than others. One could say that about Pyros in TF2. But the mechanics still have a decidedly lower skill ceiling. What I'm saying is that a GG Tracer and a noob Tracer are not as far apart as a GG Scout and noob Scout, nor a veteran Quake player with LG/Rail vs a noob with the same weapons. There are fewer variables (no movement-based skill sets outside the intended mechanics, etc).

05/09/2016 11:59 AMPosted by Pri
If you go on twitch, there are high-level players that are formulating teams and playing at extremely high levels. Including creating specific team comps for specific maps as well as counter compositions.


I have. And time will tell. But so far it looks nowhere near as intricate and complex as the most basic round of CS.

However, you're right on the money with this:

05/09/2016 11:59 AMPosted by Pri
Ultimates are something that will have to be built around and feared to some extent. League of legends is proof of that.


05/09/2016 11:59 AMPosted by Pri
One thing that is extremely interesting to me is the "back and forth" of the game. In League of Legends (sorry I keep using this example but this is the closest comparison since they have 5 man comps and ultimates), you pick 1 character and stick with it until the match is over.


The influence of MOBAS is heavy. And it's precisely this influence that I feel detracts from the shooter part of the game.

05/09/2016 12:01 PMPosted by Shady
Games that focus too much on reflexes and keyboard abilities are neither fun to play nor fun to watch for bigger audiences.


It may be your opinion that high skill ceiling games are not fun, but it's absolutely not true that the're not fun to watch, at least for a great many folk. Star Craft? A national sport in Korea and massive viewship here in the States. CS:GO? Massive international viewership.

05/09/2016 12:01 PMPosted by Shady
The games you detest mostly require some brain to achieve acceptable level of mastery and a lot of practice to master.


Do you mean MOBAs? I'll grant you that. They're just not for me. I despise the game play.

05/09/2016 12:01 PMPosted by Shady
The game you like are the ones that brain wont help you enter and lack of keyboard skills and reflexes will just shut you out.


This is also false. If you don't think it takes a lot of work upstairs to master the intricacies of Quake, TF2, Star Craft, and CS, you've either never played them or have let your bias write the check.
It takes brain work for the games you mentioned. But the limiting factor is your keyboard skills.

For the games you detest
The formula would be
Performance = Keyboard skills% X Brain Work%^2

For the games you like
The formula becomes
Performance = Keyboard skills%^2 X Brain Work%

The focus is different and it caters to different audiences.
SC2 audience is not that big compared to MOBAs. I don't think CS:GO can compete with MOBAs either.

Join the Conversation

Return to Forum