You know that Blizzard THROWS money at people right, especially youtubers and reviewers?
I'm not ballsy enough ( ) to go that far in my opinion, but I certainly won't claim to know your statement is any less true than my own opinion on these early scores.
That said, how do you feel about the scores relative to your experience (if any) with the game?
If you want a fun FPS go to Wolfenstein Enemy Territory and that is much better. Mostly player created content.
NEWS FLASH!"A bank was robbed the other day and a man opened fire on the customers being held hostage. One customer zig-zag sprinted until he found cover. When questioned later he explained that he was a hardcore gamer and knew just what to do!" Download my music for free! I release several albums per month as part of project "Thee Untitled" . .. some video game music remixes and cover songs done with instruments in there as well! http://theeuntitled.bandcamp.com/Check out my roleplaying blog, collection of fictional short stories, and fantasy series... updated on a blog for now until I am finished!https://childrenfromtheheavensbelow.blogspot.com/Watch me game on occasion or make music... https://www.twitch.tv/spoontheeuntitled and subscribe! https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCUvqULn678VrF3OasgnbsyA
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).
Are you pretending you didn't suggest that because we don't know how many are playing LoU - it could well be a similar amount? If so, then what is your point? Are you willing to acknowledge that a LOT more people are playing CS and TF2 than LoU or not? Be clear.
As for what young girls or old nerds enjoy - it means nothing at all in an objective sense. You're not the arbiter of quality - and neither are they. There's no such thing when it comes to games or art.
There are people and what they enjoy doing. That's it.
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?
There's a difference between equating and making a point through exaggeration.
To me, there's little relevant difference between Godfather vs Minesweeper and Overwatch vs Last of Us.
Many a game came out on release and received perfect scores. Those same games also began to creep down a bit once more and more reviews came in. Overwatch will not stay at 98% it is still very early.
Bioshock jumped out to a near 100% on release before settling at 96% Mass Effect 2 jumped out to a nearly 100% before settling into a 94% Half Life 2 when it released at near 100% before settling at a 96% GTA V did the same thing before it also settled into a 96%
In fact if you look at the top 20 games rated all time by Metacritic Blizzard is only on there once. (Diablo) Valve is on there 4 times out of the top 20, the most of any developer. I think it is clear there is no agenda. Some early reviewers (5) Just really like the game and to them it is a perfect example of what a team based hero shooter should be.
Update: It now sits at a 96%
The ending overall review score wasn't the crux of my argument. My argument had to do with reviewers taking very little time with the game (relatively) and throwing out the perfect 10. Those other games I mentioned (the ones universally touted as revolutionary or "top 10" all time in many instances) still didn't receive so many perfect reviews.
That's where my frustration lies. That's where my suspicion of bias (for those publications/reviewers) begins where, in the past, I had never really bought the idea. It already has as many 10s as Grand Theft Auto IV and more than the original Halo, Gamecube's Metro Prime, and N64's Goldeneye.
Combine so little time spent with the game with more 10s than Halo, HL2, or the vast majority of the Zelda series, and I start to smell something fishy with those 10s. I couple that with my personal experience with the game, and my opinion of those reviews is only reinforced.
Many a game came out on release and received perfect scores. Those same games also began to creep down a bit once more and more reviews came in. Overwatch will not stay at 98% it is still very early.
Bioshock jumped out to a near 100% on release before settling at 96% Mass Effect 2 jumped out to a nearly 100% before settling into a 94% Half Life 2 when it released at near 100% before settling at a 96% GTA V did the same thing before it also settled into a 96%
In fact if you look at the top 20 games rated all time by Metacritic Blizzard is only on there once. (Diablo) Valve is on there 4 times out of the top 20, the most of any developer. I think it is clear there is no agenda. Some early reviewers (5) Just really like the game and to them it is a perfect example of what a team based hero shooter should be.
Update: It now sits at a 96%
The ending overall review score wasn't the crux of my argument. My argument had to do with reviewers taking very little time with the game (relatively) and throwing out the perfect 10. Those other games I mentioned (the ones universally touted as revolutionary or "top 10" all time in many instances) still didn't receive so many perfect reviews.
That's where my frustration lies. That's where my suspicion of bias (for those publications/reviewers) begins where, in the past, I had never really bought the idea. It already has as many 10s as Grand Theft Auto IV and more than the original Halo, Gamecube's Metro Prime, and N64's Goldeneye.
Combine so little time spent with the game with more 10s than Halo, HL2, or the vast majority of the Zelda series, and I start to smell something fishy with those 10s. I couple that with my personal experience with the game, and my opinion of those reviews is only reinforced.
Help me out here.
How do you know how much time reviewers have spent with Overwatch?
How much time have YOU spent with Overwatch, that enables your opinion to be more correct than their opinion?
Are you pretending you didn't suggest that because we don't know how many are playing LoU - it could well be a similar amount? If so, then what is your point? Are you willing to acknowledge that a LOT more people are playing CS and TF2 than LoU or not? Be clear.
As for what young girls or old nerds enjoy - it means nothing at all in an objective sense. You're not the arbiter of quality - and neither are they. There's no such thing when it comes to games or art.
There are people and what they enjoy doing. That's it.
I'm not pretending to suggest anything, I said that we don't know how many people play TLOU today, but that we do know there have been over 9 billion matches played, and then asked what you think is required to define it as a "popular multiplayer experience." Whether or not it's as popular as CS really makes no difference. I highly doubt Overwatch will have as enduring a popularity as CS, if only because those kinds of large, diehard communities rarely exist outside of games that cannot be modded (not sure if Overwatch will make modding possible, but I think it's safe to say Blizzard hasn't, in the past, maintained as mod-friendly a track record as Valve). But that's not incredibly relevant.
Instead of answering my question, you again fall to the same red herring argument.
Good thing I never mentioned objectivity when I was speaking of my opinion on a game. I only mentioned that a certain title was objectively deeper than another because it provided an enjoyable multiplayer experience on top of an incredible singleplayer experience. One has just multiplayer... The other, multiplayer and singleplayer. Speaking as an overall title, the one that offers players both experiences is a deeper, more robust title. If you have an argument as to why the reverse is true, please make it.
I never claimed to be the arbiter of quality; I simply offered my opinion and then provided facts that I used to support my opinion (namely, the number of perfect scores various titles received). I do appreciate your taking it as facts, though (my life would be a lot easier if everyone I interacted with took my opinions as facts, haha!). However, explaining one's reasoning for arriving at an opinion does not equal claiming one's opinion as fact. Only one of us has seemingly submitted their opinion as a fact of life, and my opinions have been labeled and presented as such.
And as for the assertion that the difference between an absolute classic of a movie and minesweeper is the same as the difference between two video game titles that both include a team-based arena multiplayer... Well, we are all entitled to our opinions, and we don't all have to agree.
Are you pretending you didn't suggest that because we don't know how many are playing LoU - it could well be a similar amount? If so, then what is your point? Are you willing to acknowledge that a LOT more people are playing CS and TF2 than LoU or not? Be clear.
As for what young girls or old nerds enjoy - it means nothing at all in an objective sense. You're not the arbiter of quality - and neither are they. There's no such thing when it comes to games or art.
There are people and what they enjoy doing. That's it.
I'm not pretending to suggest anything, I said that we don't know how many people play TLOU today, but that we do know there have been over 9 billion matches played, and then asked what you think is required to define it as a "popular multiplayer experience." Whether or not it's as popular as CS really makes no difference. I highly doubt Overwatch will have as enduring a popularity as CS, if only because those kinds of large, diehard communities rarely exist outside of games that cannot be modded. But that's not incredibly relevant.
Instead of answering my question, you again fall to the same red herring argument.
Good thing I never mentioned objectivity when I was speaking of my opinion on a game. I only mentioned that a certain title was objectively deeper than another because it provided an enjoyable multiplayer experience on top of an incredible singleplayer experience. One has just multiplayer... The other, multiplayer and singleplayer. Speaking as an overall title, the one that offers players both experiences is a deeper, more robust title. If you have an argument as to why the reverse is true, please make it.
I never claimed to be the arbiter of quality; I simply offered my opinion and then provided facts that I used to support my opinion (namely, the number of perfect scores various titles received). I do appreciate your taking it as facts, though (my life would be a lot easier if everyone I interacted with took my opinions as facts, haha!). However, explaining one's reasoning for arriving at an opinion does not equal claiming one's opinion as fact. Only one of us has seemingly submitted their opinion as a fact of life, and my opinions have been labeled and presented as such.
And as for the assertion that the difference between an absolute classic of a movie and minesweeper is the same as the difference between two video game titles that both include a team-based arena multiplayer... Well, we are all entitled to our opinions, and we don't all have to agree.
You seem confused. I'm not saying LoU wasn't popular. I'm saying if it's as good or better than Overwatch for multiplayer gameplay - why aren't there more people playing it?
I know nothing about 9 billion matches started - that's your claim. I posted my source - Steam statistics. What's your source?
But I'm not talking about how many matches were started, but about how popular the game is for multiplayer right now - and how it doesn't compare to TF2 or CS. You seem to be saying that LoU is as good or better than those games, right?
You didn't say deeper - you said better:
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.
Try not to be a liar, as you will lose credibility instantly.
If we're just talking about opinions - then what's wrong with the opinions of the reviewers? If we're not talking about objective quality - but exclusively OPINIONS - then what's wrong here?
Many a game came out on release and received perfect scores. Those same games also began to creep down a bit once more and more reviews came in. Overwatch will not stay at 98% it is still very early.
Bioshock jumped out to a near 100% on release before settling at 96% Mass Effect 2 jumped out to a nearly 100% before settling into a 94% Half Life 2 when it released at near 100% before settling at a 96% GTA V did the same thing before it also settled into a 96%
In fact if you look at the top 20 games rated all time by Metacritic Blizzard is only on there once. (Diablo) Valve is on there 4 times out of the top 20, the most of any developer. I think it is clear there is no agenda. Some early reviewers (5) Just really like the game and to them it is a perfect example of what a team based hero shooter should be.
Update: It now sits at a 96%
The ending overall review score wasn't the crux of my argument. My argument had to do with reviewers taking very little time with the game (relatively) and throwing out the perfect 10. Those other games I mentioned (the ones universally touted as revolutionary or "top 10" all time in many instances) still didn't receive so many perfect reviews.
That's where my frustration lies. That's where my suspicion of bias (for those publications/reviewers) begins where, in the past, I had never really bought the idea. It already has as many 10s as Grand Theft Auto IV and more than the original Halo, Gamecube's Metro Prime, and N64's Goldeneye.
Combine so little time spent with the game with more 10s than Halo, HL2, or the vast majority of the Zelda series, and I start to smell something fishy with those 10s. I couple that with my personal experience with the game, and my opinion of those reviews is only reinforced.
Help me out here.
How do you know how much time reviewers have spent with Overwatch?
How much time have YOU spent with Overwatch, that enables your opinion to be more correct than their opinion?
Considering they were release day reviews- less than the other reviewers who have subsequently posted (less than perfect) reviews. The game, as turtle mentioned, has already dropped by 2 points on its average.
I think it would logically follow that reviews posted further into the future would reasonably allow for more time spent with the game than those posted the day of release. However, I've also never been a fan of release day reviews thought I understand their significance and justification to the general public.
EDIT- As for my time spent with the game, I played it every day of its open beta. Did I enjoy it? Yup. Was I blown away by a perfect arena shooter? Not nearly.
Many a game came out on release and received perfect scores. Those same games also began to creep down a bit once more and more reviews came in. Overwatch will not stay at 98% it is still very early.
Bioshock jumped out to a near 100% on release before settling at 96% Mass Effect 2 jumped out to a nearly 100% before settling into a 94% Half Life 2 when it released at near 100% before settling at a 96% GTA V did the same thing before it also settled into a 96%
In fact if you look at the top 20 games rated all time by Metacritic Blizzard is only on there once. (Diablo) Valve is on there 4 times out of the top 20, the most of any developer. I think it is clear there is no agenda. Some early reviewers (5) Just really like the game and to them it is a perfect example of what a team based hero shooter should be.
Update: It now sits at a 96%
The ending overall review score wasn't the crux of my argument. My argument had to do with reviewers taking very little time with the game (relatively) and throwing out the perfect 10. Those other games I mentioned (the ones universally touted as revolutionary or "top 10" all time in many instances) still didn't receive so many perfect reviews.
That's where my frustration lies. That's where my suspicion of bias (for those publications/reviewers) begins where, in the past, I had never really bought the idea. It already has as many 10s as Grand Theft Auto IV and more than the original Halo, Gamecube's Metro Prime, and N64's Goldeneye.
Combine so little time spent with the game with more 10s than Halo, HL2, or the vast majority of the Zelda series, and I start to smell something fishy with those 10s. I couple that with my personal experience with the game, and my opinion of those reviews is only reinforced.
Help me out here.
How do you know how much time reviewers have spent with Overwatch?
How much time have YOU spent with Overwatch, that enables your opinion to be more correct than their opinion?
Considering they were release day reviews- less than the other reviewers who have subsequently posted (less than perfect) reviews. The game, as turtle mentioned, has already dropped by 2 points on its average.
I think it would logically follow that reviews posted further into the future would reasonably allow for more time spent with the game than those posted the day of release. However, I've also never been a fan of release day reviews thought I understand their significance and justification to the general public.
You're not answering my question.
How long have you played Overwatch and how do you know how long THEY have played it?
You're saying you think they're biased and that Overwatch doesn't deserve those high scores.
You must have been playing more - since you apparently know what it deserves.
Wait, there are people that actually read reviews and give them merit? What is this, the 90s? The gaming media hasnt been trust worthy in a long time and metacritic is no better than Yelp, just a bunch of stuck up arses that think they know what they are talking about.
Have you seen their highest rated movies list? Its almost all garbage.
"People who tell you youre awesome are useless. No, dangerous.
They are worse than useless because you want to believe them. They will defend you against critiques that are valid. They will seduce you into believing you are done learning, or into thinking that your work is better than it actually is." ~Raph Koster http://www.raphkoster.com/2013/10/14/on-getting-criticism/
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Are you pretending you didn't suggest that because we don't know how many are playing LoU - it could well be a similar amount? If so, then what is your point? Are you willing to acknowledge that a LOT more people are playing CS and TF2 than LoU or not? Be clear.
As for what young girls or old nerds enjoy - it means nothing at all in an objective sense. You're not the arbiter of quality - and neither are they. There's no such thing when it comes to games or art.
There are people and what they enjoy doing. That's it.
I'm not pretending to suggest anything, I said that we don't know how many people play TLOU today, but that we do know there have been over 9 billion matches played, and then asked what you think is required to define it as a "popular multiplayer experience." Whether or not it's as popular as CS really makes no difference. I highly doubt Overwatch will have as enduring a popularity as CS, if only because those kinds of large, diehard communities rarely exist outside of games that cannot be modded. But that's not incredibly relevant.
Instead of answering my question, you again fall to the same red herring argument.
Good thing I never mentioned objectivity when I was speaking of my opinion on a game. I only mentioned that a certain title was objectively deeper than another because it provided an enjoyable multiplayer experience on top of an incredible singleplayer experience. One has just multiplayer... The other, multiplayer and singleplayer. Speaking as an overall title, the one that offers players both experiences is a deeper, more robust title. If you have an argument as to why the reverse is true, please make it.
I never claimed to be the arbiter of quality; I simply offered my opinion and then provided facts that I used to support my opinion (namely, the number of perfect scores various titles received). I do appreciate your taking it as facts, though (my life would be a lot easier if everyone I interacted with took my opinions as facts, haha!). However, explaining one's reasoning for arriving at an opinion does not equal claiming one's opinion as fact. Only one of us has seemingly submitted their opinion as a fact of life, and my opinions have been labeled and presented as such.
And as for the assertion that the difference between an absolute classic of a movie and minesweeper is the same as the difference between two video game titles that both include a team-based arena multiplayer... Well, we are all entitled to our opinions, and we don't all have to agree.
You seem confused. I'm not saying LoU wasn't popular. I'm saying if it's as good or better than Overwatch for multiplayer gameplay - why aren't there more people playing it?
I know nothing about 9 billion matches started - that's your claim. I posted my source - Steam statistics. What's your source?
But I'm not talking about how many matches were started, but about how popular the game is for multiplayer right now - and how it doesn't compare to TF2 or CS. You seem to be saying that LoU is as good or better than those games, right?
You didn't say deeper - you said better:
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.
Try not to be a liar, as you will lose credibility instantly.
If we're just talking about opinions - then what's wrong with the opinions of the reviewers? If we're not talking about objective quality - but exclusively OPINIONS - then what's wrong here?
Please explain.
My source is NaughtyDog's own website. Feel free to check it.
I'm saying overall, TLOU is as good as those games because of the experience it provides. A large portion of that experience is finite single player story. Add to that the fact the, as far as I know, modding TLOU wasn't possible or supported by the development team, and I don't really see what your point is. It's pretty obvious that modding support increases a game's longevity by a significant amount- just look at the Elder Scrolls series.
I wasn't referring to Godfather or Minesweeper in that example- I said that TLOU is an overall deeper title than Overwatch because it provides a fun multiplayer on top of an absilutely incredible single player experience- Overwatch offers no single player experience whatsoever. If you'd like to nitpick at the word "deep," then we can call it a more robust title, if that seems more accurate to you. Either way, TLOU objectively offers the player more options in terms of its overall experience than does any strictly multiplayer game due simply to the fact that it includes an entirely separate singleplayer experience.
I offered supporting evidence for my issue with their opinions. Based on the opinion I was able to form, coupled with the ones that these later reviewers seem to align with.... Multiplied with how reviewers from these same publications scored other titles that were downright revilutuonary... I start to get the feeling that those 10s may be as much for Blizzard itself as they are for Overwatch. That's my opinion, and the score comparisons are the facts I used to support it. Is that clear enough?
EDIT- it's late and I'm posting from my phone, so excuse the typos.
Are you pretending you didn't suggest that because we don't know how many are playing LoU - it could well be a similar amount? If so, then what is your point? Are you willing to acknowledge that a LOT more people are playing CS and TF2 than LoU or not? Be clear.
As for what young girls or old nerds enjoy - it means nothing at all in an objective sense. You're not the arbiter of quality - and neither are they. There's no such thing when it comes to games or art.
There are people and what they enjoy doing. That's it.
I'm not pretending to suggest anything, I said that we don't know how many people play TLOU today, but that we do know there have been over 9 billion matches played, and then asked what you think is required to define it as a "popular multiplayer experience." Whether or not it's as popular as CS really makes no difference. I highly doubt Overwatch will have as enduring a popularity as CS, if only because those kinds of large, diehard communities rarely exist outside of games that cannot be modded. But that's not incredibly relevant.
Instead of answering my question, you again fall to the same red herring argument.
Good thing I never mentioned objectivity when I was speaking of my opinion on a game. I only mentioned that a certain title was objectively deeper than another because it provided an enjoyable multiplayer experience on top of an incredible singleplayer experience. One has just multiplayer... The other, multiplayer and singleplayer. Speaking as an overall title, the one that offers players both experiences is a deeper, more robust title. If you have an argument as to why the reverse is true, please make it.
I never claimed to be the arbiter of quality; I simply offered my opinion and then provided facts that I used to support my opinion (namely, the number of perfect scores various titles received). I do appreciate your taking it as facts, though (my life would be a lot easier if everyone I interacted with took my opinions as facts, haha!). However, explaining one's reasoning for arriving at an opinion does not equal claiming one's opinion as fact. Only one of us has seemingly submitted their opinion as a fact of life, and my opinions have been labeled and presented as such.
And as for the assertion that the difference between an absolute classic of a movie and minesweeper is the same as the difference between two video game titles that both include a team-based arena multiplayer... Well, we are all entitled to our opinions, and we don't all have to agree.
You seem confused. I'm not saying LoU wasn't popular. I'm saying if it's as good or better than Overwatch for multiplayer gameplay - why aren't there more people playing it?
I know nothing about 9 billion matches started - that's your claim. I posted my source - Steam statistics. What's your source?
But I'm not talking about how many matches were started, but about how popular the game is for multiplayer right now - and how it doesn't compare to TF2 or CS. You seem to be saying that LoU is as good or better than those games, right?
You didn't say deeper - you said better:
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.
Try not to be a liar, as you will lose credibility instantly.
If we're just talking about opinions - then what's wrong with the opinions of the reviewers? If we're not talking about objective quality - but exclusively OPINIONS - then what's wrong here?
Please explain.
My source is NaughtyDog's own website. Feel free to check it.
I'm saying overall, TLOU is as good as those games because of the experience it provides. A large portion of that experience is finite single player story. Add to that the fact the, as far as I know, modding TLOU wasn't possible or supported by the development team, and I don't really see what your point is. It's pretty obvious that modding support increases a game's longevity by a significant amount- just look at the Elder Scrolls series.
I wasn't referring to Godfather or Minesweeper in that example- I said that TLOU is an overall deeper title than Overwatch because it provides a fun multiplayer on top of an absilutely incredible single player experience- Overwatch offers no single player experience whatsoever. If you'd like to nitpick at the word "deep," then we can call it a more robust title, if that seems more accurate to you. Either way, TLOU objectively offers the player more options in terms of its overall experience than does any strictly multiplayer game due simply to the fact that it includes an entirely separate singleplayer experience.
I offered supporting evidence for my issue with their opinions. Based on the opinion I was able to form, coupled with the ones that these later reviewers seem to align with.... Multiplied with how reviewers from these same publications scored other titles that were downright revilutuonary... I start to get the feeling that those 10s may be as much for Blizzard itself as they are for Overwatch. That's my opinion, and the score comparisons are the facts I used to support it. Is that clear enough?
You still seem confused. You started out saying LoU multiplayer was similar to the other games. Right? Here:
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 is more or less multiplayer-only - so the review is exclusively about how good it is as a multiplayer game.
It's not rocket science.
So, you're now claiming that LoU multiplayer would be just as popular as TF2 and CS if it had modding, or what?
So, LoU had more depth because it had more features? I'm not sure that's how you measure depth.
Overwatch has a ton of classes with unique abilities - that's another kind of depth. Robust seems to be a completely different concept.
Even so, what has depth got to do with quality? Wouldn't that depend on what you enjoy? Some people love Quake - and others love Europa Universalis. Who's right to love either?
Since you refuse to answer my question when it comes to hours played - I'm going to have to assume you have no evidence whatsoever.
It's essentially you having a problem with differing opinions that are very likely to be more informed than your own opinion.
If you approach the game objectively, it's well visualized and characterized, has pretty decent music, and was a nearly bug free experience even during a beta and an open beta (I did have server disconnection issues every few games when I was grouped, never when solo). Aside from that, as a fan of shooter games where your accuracy and tracking matter to a much greater degree, I can't enjoy what is essentially MOBA team fighting placed on a single objective map, with character abilities that can wipe entire teams at the press of a button with little if no handling required.
Myself and a few others keep seeing this compared to TF2 much to our chagrin, and it's true that the objectives, class-based team play, and aesthetic styles are somewhat similar. It certainly feels like a newer game. But even for TF2, considered casual by many fans of other FPS's, the shooting still matters a hell of a lot more than in comparison to Overwatch. Your ability to track and place accurate shots is the largest determining factor for victory in TF2, and is rarely dependent on coordinated positioning or the use of abilities outside of small team competitive play and maybe one or two specific classes in specific situations, of which the positioning would matter very little without the aforementioned capacity to shoot well (moot at best in modes like Highlander, or general public servers).
And that's probably where some of the divide comes from when I think about why I don't enjoy the Overwatch experience, as I can relate to MOBA's having little appeal. It draws more from the PvP you'll find in Blizzards' HotS, making the game more focused upon character ability combinations or knowing when to use your instant kill or auto-aimed ultimates, and less focused upon the importance of shooting. Which may or may not be what you wanted, though is probably exactly what you were looking for based on the overwhelmingly positive reviews both anecdotal and professional. I can't agree, however. I was hoping for a shooter and got a PvP arena game, so I probably won't be playing it again until they eventually fold under the pressure of a F2P system in a year or two, or if it goes on sale for an absurdly reasonable price.
While the effort and attention to detail probably deserves what they're charging, I couldn't afford more than five dollars for a game that leaves me more frustrated than content, and focuses on the things I don't enjoy.
"This is life! We suffer and slave and expire. That's it!" -Bernard Black (Dylan Moran)
You still seem confused. You started out saying LoU multiplayer was similar to the other games. Right? Here:
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 is more or less multiplayer-only - so the review is exclusively about how good it is as a multiplayer game.
It's not rocket science.
So, you're now claiming that LoU multiplayer would be just as popular as TF2 and CS if it had modding, or what?
So, LoU had more depth because it had more features? I'm not sure that's how you measure depth.
Overwatch has a ton of classes with unique abilities - that's another kind of depth. Robust seems to be a completely different concept.
Even so, what has depth got to do with quality? Wouldn't that depend on what you enjoy? Some people love Quake - and others love Europa Universalis. Who's right to love either?
Since you refuse to answer my question when it comes to hours played - I'm going to have to assume you have no evidence whatsoever.
It's essentially you having a problem with differing opinions that are very likely to be more informed than your own opinion.
I never avoided it, you just missed the edit to my earlier post. I don't know how many hours because I don't usually track my hours /played on my games. I know I played several matches every day of the open beta.
We could go into more detail about the depth of the two's multiplayer all we like, but the fact remains that TLOU has an incredibly stunning experience that Overwatch simply cannot match because it's multiplayer only.
It's funny you mention it- because I absolutely believe TLOU's multiplayer potential would have been exponentially better had it actively supported mods- but then again, I think every game would be a better overall experience if gamers were able to mod it to their tastes.
I'm not even sure what you're getting at with the first comment of your post. It seemed to be going in one direction, but then you dropped that point and TLOU completely to say that Overwatch is more or less multiplayer only. That's partially true: the game is exclusively multiplayer. That's a limiting feature. As far as all the classes go- they're simply a different method by which to offer options to a player. No more or less effective, it seems to me, than, say, Battlefields combination of 4 classes that can each use 4 different types of primary weapons that each, in themselves, contain 10+ individual weapons. Not to mention the class specific array of gadgets. So it's really got pretty standard depth to it, if you ask me. Battleborn certainly has more, considering the helix upgrades that can change the way you play each unique character. TF2 has also added multiple weapon for each of its classes serving very different functions; one more way to offer options. Certainly, in that context, Overwatch's classes are nothing to truly set it apart.
So I guess my question for anyone who disagrees would be this: what, in your opinion, sets the game apart from any other related title that makes it more deserving of perfect scores than, say, the original Halo?
So, what is need is a generic MobaFPS with a shitload of aim assist, hitboxes large as the world, the most GENERIC game modes ever made and an art direction made for 8yo girls fans of gardians of the galaxy ? Sure. Keep loving blizzard blindly whatever they do.
If you want a fun FPS go to Wolfenstein Enemy Territory and that is much better. Mostly player created content.
actually i concider enemy territory to be one of the best fps games i played so far, anyway: it is quite outdated.
plus, i REALLY enjoy playing overwatch, it IS fun. more fun tho if you play with some friends and don't have to rely on (unranked) random noobishness (yes, that is a word now!)
it's way faster than ET tho, but it's team capabilities come quite close, and quite frankly, blizzard did an awesome job there, polishwise and especially the character detail (and i am not talking about skins but their emotes and stuff)
"I'll never grow up, never grow up, never grow up! Not me!"
You still seem confused. You started out saying LoU multiplayer was similar to the other games. Right? Here:
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 is more or less multiplayer-only - so the review is exclusively about how good it is as a multiplayer game.
It's not rocket science.
So, you're now claiming that LoU multiplayer would be just as popular as TF2 and CS if it had modding, or what?
So, LoU had more depth because it had more features? I'm not sure that's how you measure depth.
Overwatch has a ton of classes with unique abilities - that's another kind of depth. Robust seems to be a completely different concept.
Even so, what has depth got to do with quality? Wouldn't that depend on what you enjoy? Some people love Quake - and others love Europa Universalis. Who's right to love either?
Since you refuse to answer my question when it comes to hours played - I'm going to have to assume you have no evidence whatsoever.
It's essentially you having a problem with differing opinions that are very likely to be more informed than your own opinion.
I never avoided it, you just missed the edit to my earlier post. I don't know how many hours because I don't usually track my hours /played on my games. I know I played several matches every day of the open beta.
We could go into more detail about the depth of the two's multiplayer all we like, but the fact remains that TLOU has an incredibly stunning experience that Overwatch simply cannot match because it's multiplayer only.
It's funny you mention it- because I absolutely believe TLOU's multiplayer potential would have been exponentially better had it actively supported mods- but then again, I think every game would be a better overall experience if gamers were able to mod it to their tastes.
I'm not even sure what you're getting at with the first comment of your post. It seemed to be going in one direction, but then you dropped that point and TLOU completely to say that Overwatch is more or less multiplayer only. That's partially true: the game is exclusively multiplayer. That's a limiting feature. As far as all the classes go- they're simply a different method by which to offer options to a player. No more or less effective, it seems to me, than, say, Battlefields combination of 4 classes that can each use 4 different types of primary weapons that each, in themselves, contain 10+ individual weapons. Not to mention the class specific array of gadgets. So it's really got pretty standard depth to it, if you ask me. Battleborn certainly has more, considering the helix upgrades that can change the way you play each unique character. TF2 has also added multiple weapon for each of its classes serving very different functions; one more way to offer options. Certainly, in that context, Overwatch's classes are nothing to truly set it apart.
So I guess my question for anyone who disagrees would be this: what, in your opinion, sets the game apart from any other related title that makes it more deserving of perfect scores than, say, the original Halo?
No, no facts remain. Your opinion remains.
Personally, I think Last of Us is ten times the game Overwatch is - but that's neither here nor there. My opinion isn't objective truth.
As for hours played, you still haven't mentioned how you know you've played more than the reviewers. Conclusively, you have no evidence whatsoever.
As for your opinions of depth, that's cool - but it's not fact. It's a bunch of opinions. Nothing more.
I'm not the right one to ask about Overwatch and I don't necessarily disagree. But based on my time with the beta, it's clearly a polished quality title - and that's all I need to know. But it's not for me.
My point is, simply, that we have no evidence that reviews are biased - and we have no way of establishing objective fact when it comes to which game is better.
I have no interest in Overwatch at all, as it's not my kind of game. To go on about why I don't like it would be a bit too selfish for my tastes.
I don't mind making it clear, but I don't need to invent conspiracy theories or fabricate nonsense about "depth" to make myself feel better.
That's because I can accept that people like different things for different reasons, and it doesn't mean they're "wrong" or they have bad taste. They're just different from me.
Oh, and as much as I loved Last of Us - that was almost entirely due to the writing and the acting. The gameplay was "ok" - but nothing special at all. So, I can certainly understand why some people who're not heavily into story found it less than spectacular. That said, I seem to remember it getting some of the best scores of all time.
Don't need some review months later to have already made my opinion on the game or see other peoples. Everyone has had months to watch every youtuber/streamer play the game.
But for me personally i will pay no attention to either since its in the genre/mechanics that is FPS gameplay.
I will be keeping a lookout over the coming weeks to see how much hacking is reported... one of the worst things plaguing FPS's/gameplay as of late.
I have no faith in any development studio lately to fix the problem... from small to big studios like Ubisoft's The Division are all suffering the same problem and more it goes on, the more people seem to be joining in.
the first 5 reviews are gonna be either from fanboys or payment reviewers...It's typical.. nothing to see there....
OmaliMMO Business CorrespondentMemberUncommonPosts: 1,177
"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."
I'll let you in on an industry secret: That's not how review scores work.
Comments
That said, how do you feel about the scores relative to your experience (if any) with the game?
If you want a fun FPS go to Wolfenstein Enemy Territory and that is much better. Mostly player created content.
NEWS FLASH! "A bank was robbed the other day and a man opened fire on the customers being held hostage. One customer zig-zag sprinted until he found cover. When questioned later he explained that he was a hardcore gamer and knew just what to do!" Download my music for free! I release several albums per month as part of project "Thee Untitled" . .. some video game music remixes and cover songs done with instruments in there as well! http://theeuntitled.bandcamp.com/ Check out my roleplaying blog, collection of fictional short stories, and fantasy series... updated on a blog for now until I am finished! https://childrenfromtheheavensbelow.blogspot.com/ Watch me game on occasion or make music... https://www.twitch.tv/spoontheeuntitled and subscribe! https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCUvqULn678VrF3OasgnbsyA
거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다
As for what young girls or old nerds enjoy - it means nothing at all in an objective sense. You're not the arbiter of quality - and neither are they. There's no such thing when it comes to games or art.
There are people and what they enjoy doing. That's it.
To me, there's little relevant difference between Godfather vs Minesweeper and Overwatch vs Last of Us.
That's where my frustration lies. That's where my suspicion of bias (for those publications/reviewers) begins where, in the past, I had never really bought the idea. It already has as many 10s as Grand Theft Auto IV and more than the original Halo, Gamecube's Metro Prime, and N64's Goldeneye.
Combine so little time spent with the game with more 10s than Halo, HL2, or the vast majority of the Zelda series, and I start to smell something fishy with those 10s. I couple that with my personal experience with the game, and my opinion of those reviews is only reinforced.
How do you know how much time reviewers have spent with Overwatch?
How much time have YOU spent with Overwatch, that enables your opinion to be more correct than their opinion?
Instead of answering my question, you again fall to the same red herring argument.
Good thing I never mentioned objectivity when I was speaking of my opinion on a game. I only mentioned that a certain title was objectively deeper than another because it provided an enjoyable multiplayer experience on top of an incredible singleplayer experience. One has just multiplayer... The other, multiplayer and singleplayer. Speaking as an overall title, the one that offers players both experiences is a deeper, more robust title. If you have an argument as to why the reverse is true, please make it.
I never claimed to be the arbiter of quality; I simply offered my opinion and then provided facts that I used to support my opinion (namely, the number of perfect scores various titles received). I do appreciate your taking it as facts, though (my life would be a lot easier if everyone I interacted with took my opinions as facts, haha!). However, explaining one's reasoning for arriving at an opinion does not equal claiming one's opinion as fact. Only one of us has seemingly submitted their opinion as a fact of life, and my opinions have been labeled and presented as such.
And as for the assertion that the difference between an absolute classic of a movie and minesweeper is the same as the difference between two video game titles that both include a team-based arena multiplayer... Well, we are all entitled to our opinions, and we don't all have to agree.
I know nothing about 9 billion matches started - that's your claim. I posted my source - Steam statistics. What's your source?
But I'm not talking about how many matches were started, but about how popular the game is for multiplayer right now - and how it doesn't compare to TF2 or CS. You seem to be saying that LoU is as good or better than those games, right?
You didn't say deeper - you said better:
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.
Try not to be a liar, as you will lose credibility instantly.
If we're just talking about opinions - then what's wrong with the opinions of the reviewers? If we're not talking about objective quality - but exclusively OPINIONS - then what's wrong here?
Please explain.
I think it would logically follow that reviews posted further into the future would reasonably allow for more time spent with the game than those posted the day of release. However, I've also never been a fan of release day reviews thought I understand their significance and justification to the general public.
EDIT- As for my time spent with the game, I played it every day of its open beta. Did I enjoy it? Yup. Was I blown away by a perfect arena shooter? Not nearly.
How long have you played Overwatch and how do you know how long THEY have played it?
You're saying you think they're biased and that Overwatch doesn't deserve those high scores.
You must have been playing more - since you apparently know what it deserves.
So, please answer my question.
Have you seen their highest rated movies list? Its almost all garbage.
"People who tell you youre awesome are useless. No, dangerous.
They are worse than useless because you want to believe them. They will defend you against critiques that are valid. They will seduce you into believing you are done learning, or into thinking that your work is better than it actually is." ~Raph Koster
http://www.raphkoster.com/2013/10/14/on-getting-criticism/
Nothing is perfect.....
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
I'm saying overall, TLOU is as good as those games because of the experience it provides. A large portion of that experience is finite single player story. Add to that the fact the, as far as I know, modding TLOU wasn't possible or supported by the development team, and I don't really see what your point is. It's pretty obvious that modding support increases a game's longevity by a significant amount- just look at the Elder Scrolls series.
I wasn't referring to Godfather or Minesweeper in that example- I said that TLOU is an overall deeper title than Overwatch because it provides a fun multiplayer on top of an absilutely incredible single player experience- Overwatch offers no single player experience whatsoever. If you'd like to nitpick at the word "deep," then we can call it a more robust title, if that seems more accurate to you. Either way, TLOU objectively offers the player more options in terms of its overall experience than does any strictly multiplayer game due simply to the fact that it includes an entirely separate singleplayer experience.
I offered supporting evidence for my issue with their opinions. Based on the opinion I was able to form, coupled with the ones that these later reviewers seem to align with.... Multiplied with how reviewers from these same publications scored other titles that were downright revilutuonary... I start to get the feeling that those 10s may be as much for Blizzard itself as they are for Overwatch. That's my opinion, and the score comparisons are the facts I used to support it. Is that clear enough?
EDIT- it's late and I'm posting from my phone, so excuse the typos.
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 is more or less multiplayer-only - so the review is exclusively about how good it is as a multiplayer game.
It's not rocket science.
So, you're now claiming that LoU multiplayer would be just as popular as TF2 and CS if it had modding, or what?
So, LoU had more depth because it had more features? I'm not sure that's how you measure depth.
Overwatch has a ton of classes with unique abilities - that's another kind of depth. Robust seems to be a completely different concept.
Even so, what has depth got to do with quality? Wouldn't that depend on what you enjoy? Some people love Quake - and others love Europa Universalis. Who's right to love either?
Since you refuse to answer my question when it comes to hours played - I'm going to have to assume you have no evidence whatsoever.
It's essentially you having a problem with differing opinions that are very likely to be more informed than your own opinion.
Myself and a few others keep seeing this compared to TF2 much to our chagrin, and it's true that the objectives, class-based team play, and aesthetic styles are somewhat similar. It certainly feels like a newer game. But even for TF2, considered casual by many fans of other FPS's, the shooting still matters a hell of a lot more than in comparison to Overwatch. Your ability to track and place accurate shots is the largest determining factor for victory in TF2, and is rarely dependent on coordinated positioning or the use of abilities outside of small team competitive play and maybe one or two specific classes in specific situations, of which the positioning would matter very little without the aforementioned capacity to shoot well (moot at best in modes like Highlander, or general public servers).
And that's probably where some of the divide comes from when I think about why I don't enjoy the Overwatch experience, as I can relate to MOBA's having little appeal. It draws more from the PvP you'll find in Blizzards' HotS, making the game more focused upon character ability combinations or knowing when to use your instant kill or auto-aimed ultimates, and less focused upon the importance of shooting. Which may or may not be what you wanted, though is probably exactly what you were looking for based on the overwhelmingly positive reviews both anecdotal and professional. I can't agree, however. I was hoping for a shooter and got a PvP arena game, so I probably won't be playing it again until they eventually fold under the pressure of a F2P system in a year or two, or if it goes on sale for an absurdly reasonable price.
While the effort and attention to detail probably deserves what they're charging, I couldn't afford more than five dollars for a game that leaves me more frustrated than content, and focuses on the things I don't enjoy.
"This is life! We suffer and slave and expire. That's it!" -Bernard Black (Dylan Moran)
Give me a better loot wh0ring game like Borderlands please!
New players can get a welcome package and old/returning players can also get a welcome back package and 7 days free subscription time! Just click here to use my referral invitation
We could go into more detail about the depth of the two's multiplayer all we like, but the fact remains that TLOU has an incredibly stunning experience that Overwatch simply cannot match because it's multiplayer only.
It's funny you mention it- because I absolutely believe TLOU's multiplayer potential would have been exponentially better had it actively supported mods- but then again, I think every game would be a better overall experience if gamers were able to mod it to their tastes.
I'm not even sure what you're getting at with the first comment of your post. It seemed to be going in one direction, but then you dropped that point and TLOU completely to say that Overwatch is more or less multiplayer only. That's partially true: the game is exclusively multiplayer. That's a limiting feature. As far as all the classes go- they're simply a different method by which to offer options to a player. No more or less effective, it seems to me, than, say, Battlefields combination of 4 classes that can each use 4 different types of primary weapons that each, in themselves, contain 10+ individual weapons. Not to mention the class specific array of gadgets. So it's really got pretty standard depth to it, if you ask me. Battleborn certainly has more, considering the helix upgrades that can change the way you play each unique character. TF2 has also added multiple weapon for each of its classes serving very different functions; one more way to offer options. Certainly, in that context, Overwatch's classes are nothing to truly set it apart.
So I guess my question for anyone who disagrees would be this: what, in your opinion, sets the game apart from any other related title that makes it more deserving of perfect scores than, say, the original Halo?
it is quite outdated.
plus, i REALLY enjoy playing overwatch, it IS fun. more fun tho if you play with some friends and don't have to rely on (unranked) random noobishness (yes, that is a word now!)
it's way faster than ET tho, but it's team capabilities come quite close, and quite frankly, blizzard did an awesome job there, polishwise and especially the character detail (and i am not talking about skins but their emotes and stuff)
"I'll never grow up, never grow up, never grow up! Not me!"
Personally, I think Last of Us is ten times the game Overwatch is - but that's neither here nor there. My opinion isn't objective truth.
As for hours played, you still haven't mentioned how you know you've played more than the reviewers. Conclusively, you have no evidence whatsoever.
As for your opinions of depth, that's cool - but it's not fact. It's a bunch of opinions. Nothing more.
I'm not the right one to ask about Overwatch and I don't necessarily disagree. But based on my time with the beta, it's clearly a polished quality title - and that's all I need to know. But it's not for me.
My point is, simply, that we have no evidence that reviews are biased - and we have no way of establishing objective fact when it comes to which game is better.
I have no interest in Overwatch at all, as it's not my kind of game. To go on about why I don't like it would be a bit too selfish for my tastes.
I don't mind making it clear, but I don't need to invent conspiracy theories or fabricate nonsense about "depth" to make myself feel better.
That's because I can accept that people like different things for different reasons, and it doesn't mean they're "wrong" or they have bad taste. They're just different from me.
Oh, and as much as I loved Last of Us - that was almost entirely due to the writing and the acting. The gameplay was "ok" - but nothing special at all. So, I can certainly understand why some people who're not heavily into story found it less than spectacular. That said, I seem to remember it getting some of the best scores of all time.
But for me personally i will pay no attention to either since its in the genre/mechanics that is FPS gameplay.
I will be keeping a lookout over the coming weeks to see how much hacking is reported... one of the worst things plaguing FPS's/gameplay as of late.
I have no faith in any development studio lately to fix the problem... from small to big studios like Ubisoft's The Division are all suffering the same problem and more it goes on, the more people seem to be joining in.
I'll let you in on an industry secret: That's not how review scores work.