Home › Game Forums › Overwatch
Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Overwatch is the only game you'll ever need....
MadFrenchie
Member LegendaryPosts: 8,505
.... 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
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
Comments
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
It deserves a solid 7 or 8, of that I have no doubt. But that isn't what irks me.
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?
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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."
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.
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.
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).