Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Overwatch is the only game you'll ever need....

MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Member LegendaryPosts: 8,505
edited May 2016 in Overwatch
....  According to early reviews.  The game currently sits at a 98% average on Metacritic.  That's substantially better than Baldur's Gate (1,  2 and Shadows of Amn), Planescape: Torment, Half-Life, Half-life 2, Diablo, The Witcher 3, The Last of Us and the original Unreal Tournament.

4 out of the 5 reviews listed on Metacritic (as of this post) gave the game a perfect score.  It's absolutely a perfect video game, it seems.  There's not a thing that anyone could do to make a better arena shooter; at least, according to Game Informer, The Escapist, and Destructoid.

Now, this thread isn't a rant to say the game is complete shite.  I enjoyed my time with it.  I think the game deserves a solid 7 or 8 out of ten.  But 4 perfect scores is laughable.  The game does nothing truly memorable.  It's an online-only arena shooter with personality-lite characters.

Again, I feel the game deserves universally positive reviews, but the perfect scores being given are ridiculous.  I know it's Blizzard, Game Informer, but at least try to look at the game without such an obvious fanboy bias.

Some of you may counter my rant by pointing out these reviews are very early and, thus, should be taken with a grain of salt anyways.  However, that only adds to my point.  These reviewers simply looked at the name behind the title, checked to see if there were any major bugs, and then slapped a perfect score on it as if the title put an obscure genre on the mainstream map and created hundreds of thousands of new gamers, attracted by its magnificence (the irony is, World of Warcraft actually did this, and Overwatch already has twice the number of perfect scores that World of Warcraft ever received).

I had never believed reviewers truly held such undue bias for Blizzard, even throughout the lifetime of WoW and its expansions.  But this.....  This has made me a believer.  Blizzard's made nothing but solid games since the release of WoW....  But merely solid.  Nothing truly extraordinary.  I wasn't aware that solid now equates to perfection in this industry.  I am disappoint.  :(

/endrant

image
«13456711

Comments

  • LilithMLilithM Member UncommonPosts: 82
    It's because it's a multiplayer only game, and it's good at it. Thus the multiplayers/pvp:ers/group lovers give it the highest score. Now if you ask people like me who despise mobas and pvp games in general I would not give it a high score.

    I want to actually enjoy the game itself, which a story allows me to do. Like enjoying a book or a movie. The group people just want to prove how "good" they are at something that does not really matter in the end. Overwatch is all about that.
  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Member LegendaryPosts: 8,505
    edited May 2016
    DMKano said:
    that's after the whopping FIVE critic reviews for PC




    See the user reviews - at 660 - that's more realisitc IMO.

     
    Oh I definitely agree with you.  However, that doesn't excuse what seems, to me, to be heavy bias in favor of the makers of the game.  As I mentioned, the game already has more perfect scores than World of Warcraft ever got (and also, more than Planescape: Torment and the Baldur's series ever got, despite the two IPs being consistently touted as some of the best experiences video games have to offer).

    That's the laughable part to me.  I'm happy to see the more realistic view from users, however.

    EDIT- I should clarify, when using WoW in my argument, that I use it because WoW truly did something special, not just within a genre, but for video gaming as a whole.  As such, I would never argue against giving it due praise.  However, Overwatch is nowhere near that, and it seems to me now Blizzard hasn't been truly held accountable to a realistic critical reception since then.  A game-changer in a decade passed does not warrant taking a soft approach to critiquing the company's subsequent releases.

    image
  • DKLondDKLond Member RarePosts: 2,273
    edited May 2016
    If there's one thing you can't rely on - it's early reviews for hyped games. However, I tend to rely on early critic reviews a lot more than early user reviews.

    But it's a mistake to compare reviews of games in different genres when it comes to the score. A review is supposed to take similar games into consideration when evaluating what a game has to offer, and there aren't that many great team-based arena shooters around. TF2 and Battleborn seem to be the primary competitors here.

    In that way, I'm sure Overwatch can be considered a great alternative.

    Personally, I dislike the entire genre and consider the strangely casual approach to a competitive shooter very strange indeed.

    As such, I will only ever be playing Overwatch when friends twist my arm to participate.
  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Member LegendaryPosts: 8,505
    I can see merit to your argument about comparing it to its genre competitors.  However, when compared to other, similar genres, I still see undue bias.

    The Last of Us had an astounding campaign, excellent multiplayer, and was a third-person shooter (so much closer to Overwatch's genre).  Objectively, the overall game had more depth.  It also did everything with much poise and polish.  Yet it, too, wasn't even able to manage so many perfect scores, much less so quickly.

    image
  • DKLondDKLond Member RarePosts: 2,273
    edited May 2016
    I can see merit to your argument about comparing it to its genre competitors.  However, when compared to other, similar genres, I still see undue bias.

    The Last of Us had an astounding campaign, excellent multiplayer, and was a third-person shooter (so much closer to Overwatch's genre).  Objectively, the overall game had more depth.  It also did everything with much poise and polish.  Yet it, too, wasn't even able to manage so many perfect scores, much less so quickly.
    Please don't tell me you think of Last of Us as a team-based arena shooter akin to Team Fortress 2 and Overwatch?

    I mean, if that's the case - you might as well include all games with a multiplayer mode.

    If you can't see how Overwatch compares with TF2 and Battleborn in a much, much more direct way than it does with LoU - then I don't know what to say.

    Except that I disagree in a very significant way.

    That said, I believe Last of Us was received very favorably. You're looking at early review scores. As I said, they're extremely unreliable. I bet they'll even out a bit after a few months.
  • monochrome19monochrome19 Member UncommonPosts: 723
    Maybe it got such great scores because I don't know ... its a good game? I know that's impossible, but bear with me. Maybe the reviewers weren't biased at all, if multiple people came to the same conclusion maybe its just a good game.
  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Member LegendaryPosts: 8,505
    edited May 2016
    DKLond said:
    I can see merit to your argument about comparing it to its genre competitors.  However, when compared to other, similar genres, I still see undue bias.

    The Last of Us had an astounding campaign, excellent multiplayer, and was a third-person shooter (so much closer to Overwatch's genre).  Objectively, the overall game had more depth.  It also did everything with much poise and polish.  Yet it, too, wasn't even able to manage so many perfect scores, much less so quickly.
    Please don't tell me you think of Last of Us as a team-based arena shooter akin to Team Fortress 2 and Overwatch?

    I mean, if that's the case - you might as well include all games with a multiplayer mode.

    If you can't see how Overwatch compares with TF2 and Battleborn in a much, much more direct way than it does with LoU - then I don't know what to say.

    Except that I disagree in a very significant way.

    That said, I believe Last of Us was received very favorably. You're looking at early review scores. As I said, they're extremely unreliable. I bet they'll even out a bit after a few months.
    The entirety of TLoU's multiplayer was a team-based arena shooter (it may have had a free-for-all mode, I don't remember it if it did).  Just because the pacing was different, it doesn't mean the multiplayer had no similarities worth mentioning.  

    Overwatch and Battleborn are only similar in that they're both first person, both have characters with abilities, and they were released in the same year.  Quite honestly, that's not a whole helluva lot in common.  They're compared more because they happen to be releasing near one another in first person view than anything else.

    image
  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Member LegendaryPosts: 8,505
    DMKano said:
    Maybe it got such great scores because I don't know ... its a good game? I know that's impossible, but bear with me. Maybe the reviewers weren't biased at all, if multiple people came to the same conclusion maybe its just a good game.

    There's a difference between a good game (scores in the 70%-80%) and an OUTSTANDING game (scores in the high 90% - and 100%)

    Overwatch is without a doubt a GOOD game.

    But is it an outstanding game worthy of 90%+?

    After several months - the metacritic composite scores will show the answer.
    Have to agree with Kano again- I said as much in my OP.

    It deserves a solid 7 or 8, of that I have no doubt.  But that isn't what irks me.

    image
  • DKLondDKLond Member RarePosts: 2,273
    edited May 2016
    DKLond said:
    I can see merit to your argument about comparing it to its genre competitors.  However, when compared to other, similar genres, I still see undue bias.

    The Last of Us had an astounding campaign, excellent multiplayer, and was a third-person shooter (so much closer to Overwatch's genre).  Objectively, the overall game had more depth.  It also did everything with much poise and polish.  Yet it, too, wasn't even able to manage so many perfect scores, much less so quickly.
    Please don't tell me you think of Last of Us as a team-based arena shooter akin to Team Fortress 2 and Overwatch?

    I mean, if that's the case - you might as well include all games with a multiplayer mode.

    If you can't see how Overwatch compares with TF2 and Battleborn in a much, much more direct way than it does with LoU - then I don't know what to say.

    Except that I disagree in a very significant way.

    That said, I believe Last of Us was received very favorably. You're looking at early review scores. As I said, they're extremely unreliable. I bet they'll even out a bit after a few months.
    The entirety of TLoU's multiplayer was a team-based arena shooter (it may have had a free-for-all mode, I don't remember it if it did).  Just because the pacing was different, it doesn't mean the multiplayer had no similarities worth mentioning.  

    Overwatch and Battleborn are only similar in that they're both first person, both have characters with abilities, and they were released in the same year.  Quite honestly, that's not a whole helluva lot in common.  They're compared more because they happen to be releasing near one another in first person view than anything else.
    Again, we could include dozens and dozens of games if we're being literal.

    We're talking about a very specific and "cartoony" casual approach to team-based shooters, with the emphasis on class roles and character personality.

    Quake and Unreal Tournament had team-based arena modes, too. So, they're the same games?

    Did LoU have that class/character emphasis?

    Also, did you just ignore my primary point about early reviews? Why are you so hung up over them?

  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Member LegendaryPosts: 8,505
    edited May 2016
    DKLond said:
    DKLond said:
    I can see merit to your argument about comparing it to its genre competitors.  However, when compared to other, similar genres, I still see undue bias.

    The Last of Us had an astounding campaign, excellent multiplayer, and was a third-person shooter (so much closer to Overwatch's genre).  Objectively, the overall game had more depth.  It also did everything with much poise and polish.  Yet it, too, wasn't even able to manage so many perfect scores, much less so quickly.
    Please don't tell me you think of Last of Us as a team-based arena shooter akin to Team Fortress 2 and Overwatch?

    I mean, if that's the case - you might as well include all games with a multiplayer mode.

    If you can't see how Overwatch compares with TF2 and Battleborn in a much, much more direct way than it does with LoU - then I don't know what to say.

    Except that I disagree in a very significant way.

    That said, I believe Last of Us was received very favorably. You're looking at early review scores. As I said, they're extremely unreliable. I bet they'll even out a bit after a few months.
    The entirety of TLoU's multiplayer was a team-based arena shooter (it may have had a free-for-all mode, I don't remember it if it did).  Just because the pacing was different, it doesn't mean the multiplayer had no similarities worth mentioning.  

    Overwatch and Battleborn are only similar in that they're both first person, both have characters with abilities, and they were released in the same year.  Quite honestly, that's not a whole helluva lot in common.  They're compared more because they happen to be releasing near one another in first person view than anything else.
    Again, we could include dozens and dozens of games if we're being literal.

    We're talking about a very specific and "cartoony" casual approach to team-based shooters, with the emphasis on class roles and character personality.

    Quake and Unreal Tournament had team-based arena modes, too. So, they're the same games?

    Did LoU have that class/character emphasis?

    Also, did you just ignore my primary point about early reviews? Why are you so hung up over them?

    Not the same, but if you're going to make an arena shooter, I don't advocate avoiding comparison to other arena shooters just because they slapped some extra flavor dialogue in there and borrowed from TF2.

    And no, but I thought the counter argument had already been made and was obvious- there are other, much more influential, deep, fun, and memorable games that couldn't even garner such praise at all, much less so quickly.  The differences in genres really don't matter for a numerical review score- it's like saying that a new 3D Pong should be raved about because, compared to other Pong offerings, it's better.  The lack of competion isn't relevant enough to justify the scores.

    EDIT- I should say the lack of competition in such a specific genre.  Obviously, forging an entirely new and unheard of genre should warrant major merit on its own.  But when you're not talking about shooters in general, or FPSs, or team-based FPSs, or even about just team-based arena FPSs, but class-based, team-based, arena FPSs....  That's pretty friggin specific.

    image
  • DKLondDKLond Member RarePosts: 2,273
    DKLond said:
    DKLond said:
    I can see merit to your argument about comparing it to its genre competitors.  However, when compared to other, similar genres, I still see undue bias.

    The Last of Us had an astounding campaign, excellent multiplayer, and was a third-person shooter (so much closer to Overwatch's genre).  Objectively, the overall game had more depth.  It also did everything with much poise and polish.  Yet it, too, wasn't even able to manage so many perfect scores, much less so quickly.
    Please don't tell me you think of Last of Us as a team-based arena shooter akin to Team Fortress 2 and Overwatch?

    I mean, if that's the case - you might as well include all games with a multiplayer mode.

    If you can't see how Overwatch compares with TF2 and Battleborn in a much, much more direct way than it does with LoU - then I don't know what to say.

    Except that I disagree in a very significant way.

    That said, I believe Last of Us was received very favorably. You're looking at early review scores. As I said, they're extremely unreliable. I bet they'll even out a bit after a few months.
    The entirety of TLoU's multiplayer was a team-based arena shooter (it may have had a free-for-all mode, I don't remember it if it did).  Just because the pacing was different, it doesn't mean the multiplayer had no similarities worth mentioning.  

    Overwatch and Battleborn are only similar in that they're both first person, both have characters with abilities, and they were released in the same year.  Quite honestly, that's not a whole helluva lot in common.  They're compared more because they happen to be releasing near one another in first person view than anything else.
    Again, we could include dozens and dozens of games if we're being literal.

    We're talking about a very specific and "cartoony" casual approach to team-based shooters, with the emphasis on class roles and character personality.

    Quake and Unreal Tournament had team-based arena modes, too. So, they're the same games?

    Did LoU have that class/character emphasis?

    Also, did you just ignore my primary point about early reviews? Why are you so hung up over them?

    Not the same, but if you're going to make an arena shooter, I don't advocate avoiding comparison to other arena shooters just because they slapped some extra flavor dialogue in there and borrowed from TF2.

    And no, but I thought the counter argument had already been made and was obvious- there are other, much more influential, deep, fun, and memorable games that couldn't even garner such praise at all, much less so quickly.  The differences in genres really don't matter for a numerical review score- it's like saying that a new 3D Pong should be raved about because, compared to other Pong offerings, it's better.  The lack of competion isn't relevant enough to justify the scores.
    To me, it makes a ton of sense to compare the game you're reviewing to other games that offer much the same experience - instead of games that may look similar on the surface, but are really completely different experiences.

    That said, I don't mind that those games are taken into consideration at all, just as long as their similarities are kept relevant.

    To me, it sounds like you're obsessing over this based on nothing at all. You're upset that Overwatch has been well received during this incredibly unreliable early period. I have no idea why this is so important to you.

    I've played Overwatch - and it's certainly a quality game that deserves a high score if you're into the genre, which is how it should be reviewed.

    As for exactly how good it is, that's entirely subjective in the end - and just because YOU think other games are better or similarly good, that means absolutely nothing to others.

    People have different tastes and preferences.

    But let's wait a few months before we start pointing fingers. At this stage, nothing is certain.
  • DragnelusDragnelus Member EpicPosts: 3,486
    LilithM said:
    It's because it's a multiplayer only game, and it's good at it. Thus the multiplayers/pvp:ers/group lovers give it the highest score. Now if you ask people like me who despise mobas and pvp games in general I would not give it a high score.

    I want to actually enjoy the game itself, which a story allows me to do. Like enjoying a book or a movie. The group people just want to prove how "good" they are at something that does not really matter in the end. Overwatch is all about that.
    Whats your point? If thats the group, than its good for what it is made. No need for ppl who dont like those game to give it a number is it? Thats obviously.

    I like soccer, I dont like korfball, you wont see me at that match nor will I make a comment /review/rate that sport. 

    And yeh for pvping, having some fun with friends, its really good. I was wanted to train alone in the trainingsroom, but got an party invt when I enetered with discord info and before I knew it I was in a friendly party and had fun.

    Fun times 



  • DKLondDKLond Member RarePosts: 2,273
    edited May 2016
    DMKano said:
    DKLond said:
    If there's one thing you can't rely on - it's early reviews. However, I tend to rely on early critic reviews a lot more than early user reviews.

    But it's a mistake to compare reviews of games in different genres when it comes to the score. A review is supposed to take similar games into consideration when evaluating what a game has to offer, and there aren't that many great team-based arena shooters around. TF2 and Battleborn seem to be the primary competitors here.

    In that way, I'm sure Overwatch can be considered a great alternative.

    Personally, I dislike the entire genre and consider the strangely casual approach to a competitive shooter very strange indeed.

    As such, I will only ever be playing Overwatch when friends twist my arm to participate.

    Overwatch is a very SAFE game from Blizzard - take the TF2 formula, add heroes, add some Unreal Tournament feel to the gameplay.

    Give it the AAA Blizzard polish, smooth gameplay, no bugs, no mess - it's what players expect from Blizzardm and they delivered here.

    But, where is the innovation - like maybe destructible/interactive environments, or progression of sorts, some depth beyond the TF2+hero formula?

    Certainly Blizzard with their budget and talented pool of devs could have done more here, but again they went for the simpler and safer route.

    The game will sell a lot, and it will be a huge success for Blizzard, but IMO they missed a chance to have the same if not greater success with taking a bit more risk and adding more innovation and depth into the mix

    Just my 2c
    Everything they release is safe and of very limited innovation. That's their entire approach.

    But they're generally extremely good at providing polish and stability. They have the resources to wait forever before releasing, so as long as people don't mind repetition - and if you look at Hollywood, you know they love it - their games will be received well.

    It's pretty simple.
  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Member LegendaryPosts: 8,505
    edited May 2016
    DKLond said:
    To me, it makes a ton of sense to compare the game you're reviewing to other games that offer much the same experience - instead of games that may look similar on the surface, but are really completely different experiences.

    That said, I don't mind that those games are taken into consideration at all, just as long as their similarities are kept relevant.

    To me, it sounds like you're obsessing over this based on nothing at all. You're upset that Overwatch has been well received during this incredibly unreliable early period. I have no idea why this is so important to you.

    I've played Overwatch - and it's certainly a quality game that deserves a high score if you're into the genre, which is how it should be reviewed.

    As for exactly how good it is, that's entirely subjective in the end - and just because YOU think other games are better or similarly good, that means absolutely nothing to others.

    People have different tastes and preferences.

    But let's wait a few months before we start pointing fingers. At this stage, nothing is certain.
    Of course!  My post was a rant, which I attempted to make clear on the last line of my OP.  However, I still submit that, for the game to receive so many perfect scores, it should be compared to other games given such high praise.  If it's the cream of the gaming crop, so to speak, it should stand up to those games in its own field.  I highly doubt the subsequent reviews will be anything less than a 7 or 8 (which I'm fine with), and we may get more 10s.  

    I don't think Overwatch even begins to warrant a perfect score, lack of direct competition or not.  And, if many of the other titles I've mentioned weren't good enough in their own right to warrant four major publications giving it a 10....  Well, that's where I begin to take notice.

    image
  • DKLondDKLond Member RarePosts: 2,273
    DKLond said:
    DKLond said:
    DKLond said:
    I can see merit to your argument about comparing it to its genre competitors.  However, when compared to other, similar genres, I still see undue bias.

    The Last of Us had an astounding campaign, excellent multiplayer, and was a third-person shooter (so much closer to Overwatch's genre).  Objectively, the overall game had more depth.  It also did everything with much poise and polish.  Yet it, too, wasn't even able to manage so many perfect scores, much less so quickly.
    Please don't tell me you think of Last of Us as a team-based arena shooter akin to Team Fortress 2 and Overwatch?

    I mean, if that's the case - you might as well include all games with a multiplayer mode.

    If you can't see how Overwatch compares with TF2 and Battleborn in a much, much more direct way than it does with LoU - then I don't know what to say.

    Except that I disagree in a very significant way.

    That said, I believe Last of Us was received very favorably. You're looking at early review scores. As I said, they're extremely unreliable. I bet they'll even out a bit after a few months.
    The entirety of TLoU's multiplayer was a team-based arena shooter (it may have had a free-for-all mode, I don't remember it if it did).  Just because the pacing was different, it doesn't mean the multiplayer had no similarities worth mentioning.  

    Overwatch and Battleborn are only similar in that they're both first person, both have characters with abilities, and they were released in the same year.  Quite honestly, that's not a whole helluva lot in common.  They're compared more because they happen to be releasing near one another in first person view than anything else.
    Again, we could include dozens and dozens of games if we're being literal.

    We're talking about a very specific and "cartoony" casual approach to team-based shooters, with the emphasis on class roles and character personality.

    Quake and Unreal Tournament had team-based arena modes, too. So, they're the same games?

    Did LoU have that class/character emphasis?

    Also, did you just ignore my primary point about early reviews? Why are you so hung up over them?

    Not the same, but if you're going to make an arena shooter, I don't advocate avoiding comparison to other arena shooters just because they slapped some extra flavor dialogue in there and borrowed from TF2.

    And no, but I thought the counter argument had already been made and was obvious- there are other, much more influential, deep, fun, and memorable games that couldn't even garner such praise at all, much less so quickly.  The differences in genres really don't matter for a numerical review score- it's like saying that a new 3D Pong should be raved about because, compared to other Pong offerings, it's better.  The lack of competion isn't relevant enough to justify the scores.
    To me, it makes a ton of sense to compare the game you're reviewing to other games that offer much the same experience - instead of games that may look similar on the surface, but are really completely different experiences.

    That said, I don't mind that those games are taken into consideration at all, just as long as their similarities are kept relevant.

    To me, it sounds like you're obsessing over this based on nothing at all. You're upset that Overwatch has been well received during this incredibly unreliable early period. I have no idea why this is so important to you.

    I've played Overwatch - and it's certainly a quality game that deserves a high score if you're into the genre, which is how it should be reviewed.

    As for exactly how good it is, that's entirely subjective in the end - and just because YOU think other games are better or similarly good, that means absolutely nothing to others.

    People have different tastes and preferences.

    But let's wait a few months before we start pointing fingers. At this stage, nothing is certain.
    Of course!  My post was a rant, which I attempted to make clear on the last line of my OP.  However, I still submit that, for the game to receive so many perfect scores, it should be compared to other games given such high praise.  If it's the cream of the gaming crop, so to speak, it should stand up to those games in its own field.  I highly doubt the subsequent reviews will be anything less than a 7 or 8 (which I'm fine with), and we may get more 10s.  

    I don't think Overwatch even begins to warrant a perfect score, lack of direct competition or not.  And, if many of the other titles I've mentioned weren't good enough in their own right to warrant five major publications giving it a 10....  Well, that's where I begin to take notice.
    I'm still a bit confused.

    Who says it's the cream of the gaming crop?

    It could be the cream of the cartoony-casual-teambased-arena-shooter crop, perhaps. We won't know if that's the general attitude until the game has been out for a few months.

    Just like Football Manager 24124 might be the cream of the football manager crop. It doesn't mean either is better than Last of Us or Witcher 3. Last of Us was about the singleplayer experience - not the multiplayer experience, by the way.

    Beyond that, your opinion doesn't have to mean that differing opinions represent a conspiracy. That would be slightly arrogant of you to suggest, don't you think?
  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Member LegendaryPosts: 8,505
    That's because Football Manager 20XX (whichever year is highest rated), even being the cream of its very specific genre crop, still didn't receive this kind of praise at all.

    That's because, while the game is very much the best in its genre....  It very clearly can't hold a candle to experiences games such as Planescape or TLOU provide.

    And that's what irks me.  Give the game praise, it's due.  But I dislike seeing it implied that Overwatch delivers a better overall gaming experience than a game such as TLOU or Planescape, genres be damned.

    image
  • DKLondDKLond Member RarePosts: 2,273
    edited May 2016
    That's because Football Manager 20XX (whichever year is highest rated), even being the cream of its very specific genre crop, still didn't receive this kind of praise at all.

    That's because, while the game is very much the best in its genre....  It very clearly can't hold a candle to experiences games such as Planescape or TLOU provide.

    And that's what irks me.  Give the game praise, it's due.  But I dislike seeing it implied that Overwatch delivers a better overall gaming experience than a game such as TLOU or Planescape, genres be damned.
    It's clear to me that you think your opinion is fact - and that whatever you deem better should receive better scores from other people than yourself.

    To me, that's incredibly arrogant and short-sighted.

    If LoU multiplayer is so great - then why aren't more people playing it? Why are games like Counterstrike and Team Fortress 2 still played by many thousands every day?

    As for the implication that Overwatch delivers a better OVERALL gaming experience than game X - that's a complete fabrication that has nothing to do with scoring a game outside of that imagined context.

    You might as well claim that Godfather provides a better OVERALL experience than playing Minesweeper - because it might have received a better score in some early reviews. That makes absolutely no sense at all. Last of Us and Overwatch are about as different from each other as you can get with a modern 3D game.

    Games have context and people have preferences. Multiplayer-specific games provide a variety of different experiences - and all of them are different from singleplayer-specific games.

    It's really not that complicated.
  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Member LegendaryPosts: 8,505
    edited May 2016
    Why aren't more people playing it?  I don't know, mostly because we have no idea how many people are still playing it.  Naughty Dog's site does list lifetime stats, and it shows over 9 billion games played so far.  How much do you need to qualify it as a popular multiplayer experience?

    My opinion has only been that these reviews seem biased.  I've supported that opinion by comparing the game to other truly groundbreaking titles throughout the years and noting how Overwatch has already received more perfect scores despite doing very little of anything new or remarkable.  I'm not saying "omg, it got positive reviews?  This game sucks!"  I'm saying "wait, this game has already received more "perfect" reviewer opinions than many games that redefined their genre?  Games that, decades later, still make top 10, nay, top 3 lists?"  That's where my realism forces me to say "give me a break."

    image
  • AstropuyoAstropuyo Member RarePosts: 2,167
    I just don't think anyone should even care to counter. But I'm just clicking the scrolling bar~ it's a game mon. Not a creed or a religion.
  • DKLondDKLond Member RarePosts: 2,273
    edited May 2016
    Why aren't more people playing it?  I don't know, mostly because we have no idea how many people are still playing it.  Naughty Dog's site does list lifetime stats, and it shows over 9 billion games played so far.  How much do you need to qualify it as a popular multiplayer experience?

    My opinion has only been that these reviews seem biased.  I've supported that opinion by comparing the game to other truly groundbreaking titles throughout the years and noting how Overwatch has already received more perfect scores despite doing very little of anything new or remarkable.  I'm not saying "omg, it got positive reviews?  This game sucks!"  I'm saying "wait, this game has already received more "perfect" reviewer opinions than many games that redefined their genre?  Games that, decades later, still make top 10, nay, top 3 lists?"  That's where my realism forces me to say "give me a break."
    According to Steam, there are 165.000 players playing Counterstrike right now. Are you seriously suggesting there are that many people playing multiplayer Last of Us right now?

    That alone tells me you must be be from another planet, called the Planet of Willful Ignorance.

    In any case, so far - the only evidence you've provided for this supposed "bias" is that you don't agree that Overwatch is that good. Also, what kind of review has no bias at all?

    You ignore that we're talking about completely different games of completely different genres. You completely ignore that people can enjoy multiplayer games like Overwatch just as much as you enjoyed playing that interactive novel called Planescape Torment, written by the most overrated writer in the gaming industry.

    In short, you're incredibly conceited - and you're willfully ignorant of how people like different things for different reasons.
  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Member LegendaryPosts: 8,505
    edited May 2016
    DKLond said:
    You might as well claim that Godfather provides a better OVERALL experience than playing Minesweeper - because it might have received a better score in some early reviews. That makes absolutely no sense at all. Last of Us and Overwatch are about as different from each other as you can get with a modern 3D game.

    Games have context and people have preferences. Multiplayer-specific games provide a variety of different experiences - and all of them are different from singleplayer-specific games.

    It's really not that complicated.
    Not at all. Actually, the inverse: Godfather is a better overall gaming experience (due to a myriad of features, one of the biggest being the game's scope compared to Minesweeper), and, as such, deserves higher review scores.  Not the other way around.

    image
  • DKLondDKLond Member RarePosts: 2,273
    edited May 2016
    DKLond said:
    You might as well claim that Godfather provides a better OVERALL experience than playing Minesweeper - because it might have received a better score in some early reviews. That makes absolutely no sense at all. Last of Us and Overwatch are about as different from each other as you can get with a modern 3D game.

    Games have context and people have preferences. Multiplayer-specific games provide a variety of different experiences - and all of them are different from singleplayer-specific games.

    It's really not that complicated.
    Not at all. Actually, the inverse: Godfather is a better overall gaming experience (due to a myriad of features, one of the biggest being the game's scope compared to Minesweeper), and, as such, deserves higher review scores.  Not the other way around.
    I'm talking about Godfather the movie.

    In any case, you entirely missed the point. That you can't compare the two directly and expect the resulting individual score to reflect the quality of the other thing being scored.
  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Member LegendaryPosts: 8,505
    DKLond said:
    Why aren't more people playing it?  I don't know, mostly because we have no idea how many people are still playing it.  Naughty Dog's site does list lifetime stats, and it shows over 9 billion games played so far.  How much do you need to qualify it as a popular multiplayer experience?

    My opinion has only been that these reviews seem biased.  I've supported that opinion by comparing the game to other truly groundbreaking titles throughout the years and noting how Overwatch has already received more perfect scores despite doing very little of anything new or remarkable.  I'm not saying "omg, it got positive reviews?  This game sucks!"  I'm saying "wait, this game has already received more "perfect" reviewer opinions than many games that redefined their genre?  Games that, decades later, still make top 10, nay, top 3 lists?"  That's where my realism forces me to say "give me a break."
    According to Steam, there are 165.000 players playing Counterstrike right now. Are you seriously suggesting there are that many people playing multiplayer Last of Us right now?

    That alone tells me you must be be from another planet, called the Planet of Willfull Ignorance.

    In any case, so far - the only evidence you've provided for this supposed "bias" is that you don't agree that Overwatch is that good. Also, what kind of review has no bias at all?

    You ignore that we're talking about completely different games of completely different genres. You completely ignore that people can enjoy multiplayer games like Overwatch just as much as you enjoyed playing that interactive novel called Planescape Torment, written by the most overrated writer in the gaming industry.

    In short, you're incredibly conceited - and you're willfully ignorant of how people like different things for different reasons.
    That's funny, I never even implied more people played TLoU than Counter-Strike.  That's simply a red herring argument.  I'll leave out the name calling, though, as that seems to be your forte.

    People (mostly, I assume, young girls) can have just as much fun playing the Kardashian mobile game as either of us do Overwatch.  Does that mean that mobile game, with its predatory microtransactions, is as good as Overwatch in a general sense (which is why reviews are written- to provide players with a general, if subjective, overview of its quality)?  I don't think so, but it seems to follow from your counter-argument (as I understand it).

    image
  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Member LegendaryPosts: 8,505
    edited May 2016
    DKLond said:
    DKLond said:
    You might as well claim that Godfather provides a better OVERALL experience than playing Minesweeper - because it might have received a better score in some early reviews. That makes absolutely no sense at all. Last of Us and Overwatch are about as different from each other as you can get with a modern 3D game.

    Games have context and people have preferences. Multiplayer-specific games provide a variety of different experiences - and all of them are different from singleplayer-specific games.

    It's really not that complicated.
    Not at all. Actually, the inverse: Godfather is a better overall gaming experience (due to a myriad of features, one of the biggest being the game's scope compared to Minesweeper), and, as such, deserves higher review scores.  Not the other way around.
    I'm talking about Godfather the movie.

    In any case, you entirely missed the point. That you can't compare the two directly and expect the resulting individual score to reflect the quality of the other thing being scored.
    Surely you aren't attempting to equate two completely separate forms of entertainment as being as closely related as two genres within the same form of entertainment and, as such, the two separate and distinct forms should share a single yardstick of review?

    image
  • scorpex-xscorpex-x Member RarePosts: 1,030
    ....  According to early reviews.  The game currently sits at a 98% average on Metacritic.  That's substantially better than Baldur's Gate (1,  2 and Shadows of Amn), Planescape: Torment, Half-Life, Half-life 2, Diablo, The Witcher 3, The Last of Us and the original Unreal Tournament.

    4 out of the 5 reviews listed on Metacritic (as of this post) gave the game a perfect score.  It's absolutely a perfect video game, it seems.  There's not a thing that anyone could do to make a better arena shooter; at least, according to Game Informer, The Escapist, and Destructoid.

    Now, this thread isn't a rant to say the game is complete shite.  I enjoyed my time with it.  I think the game deserves a solid 7 or 8 out of ten.  But 4 perfect scores is laughable.  The game does nothing truly memorable.  It's an online-only arena shooter with personality-lite characters.

    Again, I feel the game deserves universally positive reviews, but the perfect scores being given are ridiculous.  I know it's Blizzard, Game Informer, but at least try to look at the game without such an obvious fanboy bias.

    Some of you may counter my rant by pointing out these reviews are very early and, thus, should be taken with a grain of salt anyways.  However, that only adds to my point.  These reviewers simply looked at the name behind the title, checked to see if there were any major bugs, and then slapped a perfect score on it as if the title put an obscure genre on the mainstream map and created hundreds of thousands of new gamers, attracted by its magnificence (the irony is, World of Warcraft actually did this, and Overwatch already has twice the number of perfect scores that World of Warcraft ever received).

    I had never believed reviewers truly held such undue bias for Blizzard, even throughout the lifetime of WoW and its expansions.  But this.....  This has made me a believer.  Blizzard's made nothing but solid games since the release of WoW....  But merely solid.  Nothing truly extraordinary.  I wasn't aware that solid now equates to perfection in this industry.  I am disappoint.  :(

    /endrant
    You know that Blizzard THROWS money at people right, especially youtubers and reviewers?  You know Meta is hilariously easy to fix in your favor right (at least in the short term)?
Sign In or Register to comment.