Yes but this game precisely sums-up the blizzard’s recent moves. I’m not found of computer card games but afaik, other card games available are way more intricate and have way more depth than Heartstone does. Even compared to LoL (which is already quite shallow compared to original dota or dota2, AoN…) Heroes of the Storm is also very sweetened. And that’s what overwatch will be for a FPS, that’s for sure. TF2 has failed on doing a good casual arcade fps. Vets with good techniques (RocketJumps…) always get on top of the charts and casual players get 1/2 ratio at best. Blizzard found a breach where they can provide rewarding fun for casuals by taking good ideas from other games and exploit it.
Since diablo 3, this casual thinking of blizzard is like a running gag.
They drag all the casual community because they are very good at targeting them by providing shallow games with the illusion of vast choices. Intricacy is rarely a matter of vast characters choices in a fps. CS series has been the AK/M4/AWP trinity since its beginging but it’s surely more intricate than 95% of the FPS production (and I hate to say that).
And no, Dota and Lol are definitely not balanced and never will be. Check their comp scene character occurrences. That’s not what I call balanced games.
Blizzard's Overwatch Anyone?
Spookify is the one who complains 
. My opinion of the game and the same goes for pixel (at least it used to) is that the merc meta is very shallow and in need of the most attention in order to make DB a truly fulfilling experience. I personally feel that the gunplay has a good enough skill ceiling for the moment, aside from the shotguns, nade launchers, etc which are in need of mechanics tweaks imo as they are highly inconsistent with most other weapons. I’m always relying on much more than raw aim, which is why players like spookify will complain when you can’t just b-line into a bunch of good players and expect to win. I’ve spent much more time playing as the underdog and against good players that the transition between a pub stomp and a vet pug is mostly seamless. The difficulty of getting kills will drastically rise as the player skill increases simply because there’s a lot better execution and intelligent play.
As for the lack of depth… the abilities are what define the mercs, but without a more meaningful connection between abilities and the rest of the game (maps, objs, etc) they will fall flat. This is why I think stuff like ability synergies, counters, ults, and more creative freedom of use would vastly improve the experience. As it stands the game will get repetitive quickly unless all you desire is a fun solo fragging experience, which DB does deliver very well, however as a spectator I’d much rather play DB than watch it. There’s a big difference between a large quantity of content and a variety of uniquely functioning content. The abilities in DB themselves need a lot more work in order to make them feel truly unique amongst each other and to the experience on a meta/team level in a much more strategical manner. This why OW interests me as it appears to have taken a lot of forethought into catalyzing this type of non-repetitive team dynamic in order to create a unique variety of interesting situations (where as in DB these can start to feel overly repetitive and disconnected). As far as the weapon play goes I’d have to play it before judging ofc, but I expect it to be a bit less intensive.
The dream for me is to have the hardcore skill based gunplay of DB combined with a deeper ability/merc meta, where in the abilities functioned in a manner that created strategical opportunities that would require gun skill to fully capitalize upon. Essentially having regular abilities have more of a debuff/support function than standalone flat damage, with the addition of less frequent ultimates actually dealing true damage- and having all ability efficiency scale based on a more intuitive/skillful execution of the player and coordination amongst their teammates in unison. Just my opinion of course.
It looks super casual, but fun.
However I seriously hope they size down the weapon models. I know Blizzard loves over sizing things, but weapons that big have no place in a multiplayer shooter.
And I’m not too much of a fan of their one shot ultimate abilities, looks pretty bullshit. As well as their CC abilities, looks annoying.
[quote=“Litego;7464”]
And I’m not too much of a fan of their one shot ultimate abilities, looks pretty bullshit. As well as their CC abilities, looks annoying.[/quote]
I seriously can’t imagine to get stunned for 3 secs in a fps. In usual mobas, due to the camera position, you have time to react and it allows you to escape/counter. In a fps, if things happen in your back, you’re going to have a very bad time.
[quote=“Litego;7464”]It looks super casual, but fun.
However I seriously hope they size down the weapon models. I know Blizzard loves over sizing things, but weapons that big have no place in a multiplayer shooter.
And I’m not too much of a fan of their one shot ultimate abilities, looks pretty bullshit. As well as their CC abilities, looks annoying.[/quote]
Hmmm, I suppose that the CCs would depend on the TTK. Forge had quite a few CCs, but the long TTK meant that you would rarely die inside a single CC, but if you were getting chained, you could get locked down and focused by multiple players with no escape. But I actually enjoyed that, you had to be careful not to overextend (in many ways it felt like a MOBA, but with a 3rd person shooter style of play).
I agree on OHK ultimates, I would rather these were used to amplify gameplay (team wide Berserk, UDamage, speed boost etc) instead of being low skill, high effect aoe damage abilities (like the Assault Shockwave in Firefall 
).
I’ve been playing TF2 again a lot recently, and I still love the game, because first and foremost the game is fun. When you aren’t having fun playing a game, winning becomes more important, as it might be the only satisfaction you will get.
So far Overwatch looks like it has a lot of potential, but it will mostly depend on the same stuff every game does, TTK, how good the engine is, how good the maps are, how good the abilities and classes sync together etc. But given the game modes on offer, they are clearly aiming at the TF2 playerbase, which works for me, considering TF2 is nearly 8 years old, it is about time someone did.
[quote=“B. Montiel;7472”][quote=“Litego;7464”]
And I’m not too much of a fan of their one shot ultimate abilities, looks pretty bullshit. As well as their CC abilities, looks annoying.[/quote]
I seriously can’t imagine to get stunned for 3 secs in a fps. In usual mobas, due to the camera position, you have time to react and it allows you to escape/counter. In a fps, if things happen in your back, you’re going to have a very bad time.[/quote]
I agree, but there are ways around that. For example, in TF2, using a Taunt switched you from a 1st person view into a 3rd person view (and locked you in place for the duration). CC could work like that in a 1st person FPS, as long as being stunned for 3 secs didn’t always result in death.
Reading you, I just wondered how is based the character selection. It’d make sense, due to the strong “moba spirit” and the high number of characters available, that you may have to choose it for the whole game. Not to mention, the usual player base which is generally reluctant to play support characters…
[quote=“B. Montiel;7533”][quote=“immenseWalnut;7521”]
Wall of text
So far Overwatch looks like it has a lot of potential, but it will mostly depend on the same stuff every game does, TTK, how good the engine is, how good the maps are, how good the abilities and classes sync together etc. But given the game modes on offer, they are clearly aiming at the TF2 playerbase, which works for me, considering TF2 is nearly 8 years old, it is about time someone did.
Wall of text
[/quote]
Reading you, I just wondered how is based the character selection. It’d make sense, due to the strong “moba spirit” and the high number of characters available, that you may have to choose it for the whole game. Not to mention, the usual player base which is generally reluctant to play support characters…[/quote]
I have no idea to be honest, right now Overwatch is little more than a distant hope. The maps could be awful, the ultimates could be far too low skill/high effect, the raw damage from a hitscan weapon could be far too high, and support characters could be very much lacking etc.
From a TF2 perspective, the easiest way to ensure players choose the support classes is to give them the lowest skill floor (as in the TF2 Medic healing gun) so that it doesn’t take much effort to get involved, even if you can’t aim or have no idea what you’re doing. The great thing with TF2 is that every class has its own skill floor/skill ceiling so you can pick and choose which class to play at any time (I suck as Sniper when drunk, but I can seriously main an Engineer )
My hope is that the actual gunplay in Overwatch is low skill enough that even bad players can be effective (as they can be in a MOBA) but the usage of timing, abilities, counters etc, can shape the way a match unfolds.
The hilarious part is, I hate playing MOBAs, but I love the design and the teamwork/co-operation, and I want to see that translated into an FPS game.
[quote=“B. Montiel;7274”][quote=“S7ven;7124”]
Hearthstone isn’t an fps.
[…]
I doubt that it would be tough to balance. DOTA and LoL have many characters and they’re all balanced. Balancing is just a matter of constant tweaking. The rule you mention can always be broken by skill and familiarity of a class. Dropping down a healing station can help you take out a slayer merc as Aura, and using your WASDing can allow you to take down slayers as Proxy.
[/quote]
Yes but this game precisely sums-up the blizzard’s recent moves. I’m not found of computer card games but afaik, other card games available are way more intricate and have way more depth than Heartstone does. Even compared to LoL (which is already quite shallow compared to original dota or dota2, AoN…) Heroes of the Storm is also very sweetened. And that’s what overwatch will be for a FPS, that’s for sure. TF2 has failed on doing a good casual arcade fps. Vets with good techniques (RocketJumps…) always get on top of the charts and casual players get 1/2 ratio at best. Blizzard found a breach where they can provide rewarding fun for casuals by taking good ideas from other games and exploit it.
Since diablo 3, this casual thinking of blizzard is like a running gag.
They drag all the casual community because they are very good at targeting them by providing shallow games with the illusion of vast choices. Intricacy is rarely a matter of vast characters choices in a fps. CS series has been the AK/M4/AWP trinity since its beginging but it’s surely more intricate than 95% of the FPS production (and I hate to say that).
And no, Dota and Lol are definitely not balanced and never will be. Check their comp scene character occurrences. That’s not what I call balanced games.[/quote]
CS:GO isn’t intricate on it’s own - its become intricate over time through the exploitation of many features of the game that weren’t thought about when it was published. If any game is around as long as CSGO, there are bound to be aspects of the game that become discovered. That’s why LoL is constantly patching stuff.
Here’s a spectrum, with League of Legends and DOTA on the left, and Quake/Unreal Tournament on the right. They represent what are, in my mind, the two essential multiplayer game genres, strategy and knowledge, and aim and mobility, etc.
Team Fortress 2 is above the spectrum to the right close to Quake, Dirty Bomb is under TF2, so it’s a much more direct descendant of Quake though still to the left of it.
Overwatch is much further over the to the LoL side, something like 2/3 of the way there from Quake.
Shitty analogy aside, Overwatch will be MUCH different from DB and TF2, so no reason not to play all three amazing games.
I’m looking forward to being among the first to test Overwatch. : )
Oh, and guys, don’t forget about Battleborn.
HUH?! What’s Battleborn?
It’s supposed to be a first person MOBA. IMO it seems casual. And colorful. And something I’d like to play : o
Holy crap! The weapon models in Battleborn are even bigger than in Overwatch. I don’t understand why developers keep doing this, it looks like shit, and it blocks half your view.
i just came from a round of DB and damn this battleborn looks so slow. Looks like SeriousSam tourist at 30% speed
I’ve heard the opposite from people inside the alpha. As for Overwatch, there have been some controversial statements about the design of the game, such as locking the field of view.
I’ve heard the opposite from people inside the alpha. As for Overwatch, there have been some controversial statements about the design of the game, such as locking the field of view.[/quote]
Not only are they locking it, but they’re locking it to something as ridiculous as 90. That’s console level peasant FoV. It was default in the 90s on 4:3 monitors, the equivalent for todays 16:9 monitors is 106.
If they stick with it I don’t think I’ll be getting the game after all. Can’t support retardation like that.
I’ve heard the opposite from people inside the alpha. As for Overwatch, there have been some controversial statements about the design of the game, such as locking the field of view.[/quote]
Not only are they locking it, but they’re locking it to something as ridiculous as 90. That’s console level peasant FoV. It was default in the 90s on 4:3 monitors, the equivalent for todays 16:9 monitors is 106.
If they stick with it I don’t think I’ll be getting the game after all. Can’t support retardation like that.[/quote]
actually 90 is pretty normal for pc In my experience. Many games have 90 as max yfov. Console fov is 60
I’ve heard the opposite from people inside the alpha. As for Overwatch, there have been some controversial statements about the design of the game, such as locking the field of view.[/quote]
Not only are they locking it, but they’re locking it to something as ridiculous as 90. That’s console level peasant FoV. It was default in the 90s on 4:3 monitors, the equivalent for todays 16:9 monitors is 106.
If they stick with it I don’t think I’ll be getting the game after all. Can’t support retardation like that.[/quote]
actually 90 is pretty normal for pc In my experience. Many games have 90 as max yfov. Console fov is 60[/quote]
Actually no. As I said 90 was the standard for 4:3 monitors, 90 on 16:9 monitors is not the same, and to get the same FoV as that you’d need 106.
Console games use 60 vertical FoV which translates to 91 horizontal FoV. When talking about FoV, most people refer to horizontal, so 90 is what consoles actually use. Common misconception there. People think FoV is FoV, but it’s sometimes displayed in horizontal and sometimes vertical and sometimes it’s something completely different.
Some examples:
- Frostbite engine uses vertical, this includes battlefield and medal of honor. 90 FoV there is actually 121. BF is quite liberal with their FoV slider. 76 is 106, which is the PC standard.
- Source engine uses horizontal based on 4:3, this means that 90 FoV in TF2 or CS is 90 in 4:3, 100 in 16:10, 106 in 16:9 and 152 in 16:9 triple monitor setups (yes you get 152 in CSGO if you get 3 monitors).
- Quake Live and I guess the Id Tech Engine works the same as source engine, calculates FoV based on 4:3. Which makes sense as Source is an evolution of Id Tech. I assume IW Engine (Call of Duty) is the same, as it’s also an evolution of Id Tech.
- Unreal Engine uses horizontal FoV and doesn’t care about your aspect ratio. So 5:4 is the optimal aspect ratio. The wider your monitor is the less vertical FoV you get. Triple monitor is just a zoomed in mess because it applies 90 horizontal FoV across all 3 monitors. So in Unreal Engine games you want your monitor to be a square. Some games have been programmed to fix this, don’t know if DB has, but BRINK fixed it.
- CryEngine (Crysis) uses vertical FoV, same as Frostbite.
As you see, 90 FoV can mean so many different things depending on which engine and game you’re talking about. But the PC standard is as has been mentioned multiple times here 90 in 4:3 which is the same as 106 in 16:9. Now if Blizzard mean 90 in 4:3 and 106 in 16:9 then ok, I’m fine with that, but if they mean a locked 90 horizontal FoV like Unreal Engine does it, then I’m not ok with that. Maybe I should check up which engine it’s running on, that’ll probably answer my question.
Edit: It’s their own engine, so who knows what that means.
[quote=“Litego;10918”]
Edit: It’s their own engine, so who knows what that means.[/quote]
[quote=“richRevelation;10932”][quote=“Litego;10918”]
Edit: It’s their own engine, so who knows what that means.[/quote]
http://i.imgur.com/XxqRhkq.png[/quote]
Yeah it’s a ridiculous statement, especially considering how low 92 FoV actually is. It sounds like a locked horizontal FoV at 92 regardless of aspect ratio, which is terrible.
They’re locking it because they think people are too stupid to use a slider, it’s absurd! It’s like locking the sensitivity for the same reason. FoV is a preference just like sensitivity, it is also based on your own monitor setup which obviously isn’t the same for everyone. Then they talk about advantage, as if that’s why people change their FoV. It has nothing to do with an advantage. High and low FoV both have their advantages, it’s just about what you prefer.
[quote=“Litego;10935”][quote=“richRevelation;10932”][quote=“Litego;10918”]
Edit: It’s their own engine, so who knows what that means.[/quote]
http://i.imgur.com/XxqRhkq.png[/quote]
Yeah it’s a ridiculous statement, especially considering how low 92 FoV actually is. It sounds like a locked horizontal FoV at 92 regardless of aspect ratio, which is terrible.
They’re locking it because they think people are too stupid to use a slider, it’s absurd! It’s like locking the sensitivity for the same reason. FoV is a preference just like sensitivity, it is also based on your own monitor setup which obviously isn’t the same for everyone. Then they talk about advantage, as if that’s why people change their FoV. It has nothing to do with an advantage. High and low FoV both have their advantages, it’s just about what you prefer.
[/quote]
I like that in DB it actually is a preference. In Quake-like titles there was never any reason to go low FOV, but here low FoV is def. an advantage at long distance, while high FoV is an advantage at short. To each their own.