• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Question Never played Overwatch before, should I get Standard Edition for PC? worth $20?

EpicSurvivor

Senior member
Aug 14, 2012
991
43
91
Hey guys, Merry Christmas! I know I am Kinda late to the party but I was wondering if it was worth getting Overwatch Standard Edition or not for PC? Never played it. Big fan of MW2, MW3, BO2 and Black Ops 4 Type of online Multiplayer Games, not sure if this kinda falls under somewhat same category. For some odd reason it reminds me from what I've watched on Youtube like League of Legends but First Person Shooter lol.

Anyway, appreciate y'alls input.
Thanks
 

zink77

Member
Jan 16, 2012
98
11
71
Hey guys, Merry Christmas! I know I am Kinda late to the party but I was wondering if it was worth getting Overwatch Standard Edition or not for PC? Never played it. Big fan of MW2, MW3, BO2 and Black Ops 4 Type of online Multiplayer Games, not sure if this kinda falls under somewhat same category. For some odd reason it reminds me from what I've watched on Youtube like League of Legends but First Person Shooter lol.

Anyway, appreciate y'alls input.
Thanks
Overwatch would be ways too simple for your tastes. Overwatch is the first person shooter for newbs. It's hella boring, everytime I pick it up I regret I ever was baited into buying it when the free weekends happened.

If you're looking for an fps you'd be better off picking up Warframe off steam and checking out Quake champions if you want high adrenaline challenging multiplayer.
 

Aikouka

Lifer
Nov 27, 2001
29,933
594
126
I don't think there's anything wrong with getting it for $20. But a few things to keep in mind based upon the games you listed...
  • Overwatch is a team-based objective game. There is a Death Match mode, but it's meant to be more casual -- except when Blizzard randomly brings back Competitive Team Death Match.
  • Overwatch has a lot of varied heroes with far differing play styles. In other words, most heroes aren't your stereotypical run-n-gun. The hero that was designed to be CoD-like was Solider:76.
 

DigDog

Lifer
Jun 3, 2011
11,913
1,204
126
OW is visual diarrhea. If you are ok with that, it has a fairly health esports community, if a bit on the noob side.
 

EpicSurvivor

Senior member
Aug 14, 2012
991
43
91
I don't think there's anything wrong with getting it for $20. But a few things to keep in mind based upon the games you listed...
  • Overwatch is a team-based objective game. There is a Death Match mode, but it's meant to be more casual -- except when Blizzard randomly brings back Competitive Team Death Match.
  • Overwatch has a lot of varied heroes with far differing play styles. In other words, most heroes aren't your stereotypical run-n-gun. The hero that was designed to be CoD-like was Solider:76.
OW is visual diarrhea. If you are ok with that, it has a fairly health esports community, if a bit on the noob side.
Alright thanks for the input not 100% sure I am getting it yet. Going to wait a little bit.
 

WhiteNoise

Senior member
Jun 22, 2016
984
138
106
Great game and tons of fun. I don't agree that visually it is diarrhea. Its very cartoonish looking but otherwise looks great for what it is. There is a learning curve due to abilities and using them properly but it is a rather simple game otherwise.

I find it the perfect game when I'm bored and just want some mindless shooting fun. Game is well worth $20. I bought it at full price on the PS4 and PC. No regrets.
 

quikah

Diamond Member
Apr 7, 2003
3,425
307
126
I found it to be incredibly boring. The matches are too short for my taste and it seems to take forever to find a game.
 

EpicSurvivor

Senior member
Aug 14, 2012
991
43
91
Great game and tons of fun. I don't agree that visually it is diarrhea. Its very cartoonish looking but otherwise looks great for what it is. There is a learning curve due to abilities and using them properly but it is a rather simple game otherwise.

I find it the perfect game when I'm bored and just want some mindless shooting fun. Game is well worth $20. I bought it at full price on the PS4 and PC. No regrets.
I found it to be incredibly boring. The matches are too short for my taste and it seems to take forever to find a game.
Interesting, Just bought Black Ops 4 last week, loving it, but saw Overwatch on Battlenet on sale for $20 might wait till next time, watching gameplay on Youtube not too sure i like it actually. Kinda in between.
 

quikah

Diamond Member
Apr 7, 2003
3,425
307
126
Interesting, Just bought Black Ops 4 last week, loving it, but saw Overwatch on Battlenet on sale for $20 might wait till next time, watching gameplay on Youtube not too sure i like it actually. Kinda in between.
They have free weekend occasionally, might want to wait on that to try it out.

Just want to add that I can understand why people like it. There is a very obvious team dynamic that can happen in the game, it is pretty obvious on the competitive side. I personally don't care about that, so not for me.
 

Oyeve

Lifer
Oct 18, 1999
21,123
389
126
I have it on PC and play a few times a week. Almost a year now and I am only level 27. My son has had it since day one on PS4 and he is level 400+. I just do random battles and occasionally do an arcade event here and there. Its a good casual game/time killer. I am too old to play it as seriously as my son.
 

DigDog

Lifer
Jun 3, 2011
11,913
1,204
126
Let me give you an *accurate* review of OW.

It is a class based FPS. There are an abundance of visial effects whenever anyone uses a power or attacks, which means pretty much always; it's objective based too so fights come in waves with much power spam.
The balance of classes is dubious, with some situations being very one sided. It's just part of playing a certain class vs other specific classes.

The game has good netcode, good controls, a healthy playerbase, and plenty opportunity for fun, *if* you like the colorful explosions cluttering your view; you can just youtube some gameplay videos.

It's not my kind of game. Id rather play Quake Champions .. or Reflex Arena.
 

Zenoth

Diamond Member
Jan 29, 2005
5,081
103
106
At this point I'd say no, not even for $20. But there's both objective and subjective reasons for me to say that.

This is mostly a 'rant' but there's information you might find useful in the wall of text below, if you want to bother reading it:

Back in 2016 when it came out it became my bread and water for a solid 3 months or so, maybe more. I couldn't stop playing it. Then the first "competitive season" came out, and the effect it had on my friends list (which was sizeable by the time that game mode came out) was a major split. The majority of course wanted to then play in competitive mode (and only there, doing absolutely nothing else), and the few of us that remained and didn't care about "serious competition" ended up left in some corner to dry.

I kept playing (quick play mode) regularly enough after that, although it already started to feel "more of the same" by that point (regardless of the arrival of competitive mode or the 'split' in my friends list). All that for me happened before the very first new hero came out. Then, Ana was released; and that new hero release single-handily destroyed the already rather fragile-but-tolerable balance into oblivion. It made me stop playing for weeks, or possibly more than a month; can't recall.

Now I'm skipping a lot, but basically I "came back" a few times playing it. But ever since the release of the first competitive season I never played it again for more than maybe a few days in a row, only to stop for literally months after that. It's been like that ever since really. I do log-in from time to time (once every month or so) nowadays, usually just to check out the new heroes (almost all of which - on a side note - are bad, in my opinion; even in terms of design and lore) and the new maps when they do make those.

My biggest 'gripe' with Overwatch, however, is the fact that after nearly 2+ years (will be 3 years-old in May 2019 I believe, or around that time) there's still an incredible lack of PvE and Solo content. If I'm not mistaken it's probably the first 'big budget' Blizzard game I can think of that leaves us PvE / Coop / Solo players in the dust. I'll try to enumerate the things related to this lacking 'portion' of the game that comes to mind:

- There's no campaign, there's virutally no proper, coherent timeline of events in a fleshed-out lore background (it's a Blizzard game, let that sink in).

- Related to the above point, they do - sometimes - release a mini "story-based" mission (it's just a map, separated in 2 or 3 parts) that tells a very insignificantly small amount of "story" about the occurring event, and the characters (very negligible info) involved during said mission. However, they REMOVE those missions all the damn f'ing time. In other words, they are timed "event" game modes that always get removed after maybe 2 or 3 weeks whenever they do bother making those (and it is rather rare). And it's not always related to the actual 'proper lore' of the game's world and only is a nod to the seasonal event going on (Example: Junkenstein Revenge or whatever the name is, is a PvE Coop mission that doesn't have map variation at all, is an arena / horde game mode themed for Halloween and the costumes that the characters involved in the mission received for said Halloween event).

- To come back to the point above: the removal of PvE / Coop content is a major offender. I do not understand the logic, the point, the purpose. It's stupid. There's no other ways to cut it.

- Now, there's a mode where you get to create your own game, with your own rules. It's basically Overwatch's take on "Mutators" in the Unreal Tournament series. Low gravity, faster spawn times, no cooldowns if you want... etc. So, in that game mode you can set up A.I. bots to have your own custom made version of what amounts to PvE content. However, that aspect of that game mode has been left barely touched ever since they implemented that game creation mode.

- There's 25+ heroes by now in the game I think? Well, there's I believe 10 or 11 heroes in the bots list, maybe less. Not to mention that the A.I. itself has barely been worked on, since most of them don't even USE their abilities at all (Reaper A.I. never, ever uses Shadow Step or whatever the name is, the teleport ability; it was simply not even coded in Reaper's A.I.).

- But it gets worse. If I want to set up a game where anyone can join, but I also want to include bots in the meantime, then I have to manage the whole thing manually as the game unfolds, because they didn't bother to work on that (they truly don't give a shit about PvE and A.I., it's that simple). For example, I want a 6 V 6. Fine, but no one joins the game immediately. So what can I do? I can add bots in both team's available slots (for now). Fine. So I add 5 bots in my team, 6 in the enemy team.

All the slots are filled. Following me? Good. So I start up the match, I play. The stupid bots do their things and I can at least "play Overwatch" at bit. However, I did set up my game so that people can join if they want. So what DOES happen when people want to join? They get sent in SPECTATORS slots (if I did set those up). Now, in the actual available game's Browser list, MY game will show up to people as being FULL, that's because they didn't bother to differentiate between "filled up by humans who just join" Vs "filled up by bots".

In other words, there's no system in place to allow players to REPLACE a bot by filling up a slot that the bot(s) occupy. So HOW does a match host deal with that? Well, I HAVE to set up at least 2 Spectator slots (2, because having just one isn't enough when it just so happens that at least two persons tried to join my match at around the same time), and wait until an actual player gets sent to Spectators. When that does happen, I have to act fast, and manually, right in the middle of action sometimes and of course, I die more often than not if I do that; but I have to. So I have to open up my menu, and manually remove a bot from my team's slots and THEN the person who might still be in Spectators mode "automatically" gets sent into the now-available slot that I just liberated myself.

However, on top of that, the problem is that usually players do not join matches and expect to get into Spectators mode, so more often than not when someone attempts to join and gets in the spectators seat for even just 10 seconds what do they do? Well of course, they leave my game. But I already did free up a slot, so I have to go back in AGAIN, and manually re-add another bot because I just lost my damn time trying to free up a slot and died for it, but I have to repeat the process otherwise my team will now be missing a player if I don't re-add one again.

It's an absolute mess, and there's essentially no development time put into it. No care, no passion.

This portion of Overwatch (PvE / Coop / Solo / Vs A.I.) is absolute trash, basically non-existent and looks like the laughing stock of the industry when you compare this "arena shooter" to the grand daddies in the veins of Unreal Tournament, Quake and Tribes. If a company like Blizzard can't bother with their players base whom happen to have been mostly PvE or single-player players for years (since Diablo 1 or 2, or since StarCraft 1 and around those golden years of the company) then they are missing a MAJOR point.

- So all in all, it is no exaggeration to say that Blizzard sends a clear message: If you want PvE / Solo (permanent, non seasonal, non timed-event based content) / set up your own 'fun custom mutators match with bots; if you want to understand what the Hell is actually going on in the world of Overwatch with a story, lore and campaign, then this game is not for you. "We prefer to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on occasional once-per-6 months CGI shorts that essentially tell almost no real story, but look pretty good". They expect me to read some 'Overwatch comic' where I get to learn the sexual orientation of one character and consider that "lore"? No. No Blizzard. I don't care.

Anyway, my rant only applies if you also like that sort of content in your action FPS games. I played a crap ton of UT99 and UT2004 back then, but still today they are mountains that stand out in the crowd when you compare those classics to something as fast-food and low effort in content variety (and PERMANENTLY present content that just gets added over time) as Overwatch. I genuinely had a lot of fun with it at first, but that's just because I apparently and innocently so believed that it would just get improved upon over time since it was a Blizzard game.

I DID believe it. Because I was among the few originally when it was out who said that despite the overall low amount of content (because when it came out it really did NOT have a lot of content to offer, besides playing Quick Play and Mystery Heroes and one or two other modes) that stuff would simply be ADDED to it over time (of course, including new heroes, and maps). Well, Heroes and some Maps are permanent. Indeed, some maps DO belong to timed-events that do get removed later on (can't play in that London map during the Null Sector event mission, as in not only is that mission timed and always removed eventually when it does come out, but the map itself doesn't stay for us to choose to play in it with other game modes anyway; so there, some maps can't even stay permanently).

So the gist is that it never really "got any better" despite new heroes (again, I don't even like most of them to start with; the original roster had a fantastic quality pass made on it over the years of development and it shows; there's only 2 in the new post-release cast that I think show that some effort was put into them to look genuinely unique... but that one is extremely subjective I know) and maps. There's no campaign, I don't actually CARE about any of the characters since I don't know them, nor their past in enough amount and exposure via lore, and CGI shorts are not a viable source of info nor is it the same as experiencing a character's story via... oh you know... gameplay in an actual campaign?

So anyway, the only positives I can think of at this point have essentially not really moved from when it came out, which are:

1) Good music (but is subjective)
2) Good overall art style and character designs (I do dislike most of the new heroes, albeit not all of them; and I do think that the original roster is generally very good)
3) It's flashy and bombastic / chaotic at times (not always though; mostly depends on game mode and how many heroes unleash their big abilities at once in your field of view; it's situational). I do like that aspect since I used to spend hours in UT2004 custom servers playing absolutely chaotic Monster Invasion modes with exaggerated Mutator effects. I don't mind the 'visual clutter' of effects and particles much, but this is subjective; it's definitely not for everyone.
4) And, well... as a positive if you DO enjoy multiplayer ONLY, then yeah I could say this is a good game to get for maybe $20, sure.

That's about it. Where Overwatch for me was originally easily a solid 9/10 game (including the prospect of seeing it being improved upon with added content over time) it quickly went down the drain for me and is now only a rather mediocre experience. I wouldn't give it more than a "barely passable" 5.5 or maybe 6/10 if I'm being very generous with it.
 
Last edited:

JTsyo

Lifer
Nov 18, 2007
10,949
239
106
At this point I'd say no, not even for $20. But there's both objective and subjective reasons for me to say that.

This is mostly a 'rant' but there's information you might find useful in the wall of text below, if you want to bother reading it:

Back in 2016 when it came out it became my bread and water for a solid 3 months or so, maybe more. I couldn't stop playing it. Then the first "competitive season" came out, and the effect it had on my friends list (which was sizeable by the time that game mode came out) was a major split. The majority of course wanted to then play in competitive mode (and only there, doing absolutely nothing else), and the few of us that remained and didn't care about "serious competition" ended up left in some corner to dry.

I kept playing (quick play mode) regularly enough after that, although it already started to feel "more of the same" by that point (regardless of the arrival of competitive mode or the 'split' in my friends list). All that for me happened before the very first new hero came out. Then, Ana was released; and that new hero release single-handily destroyed the already rather fragile-but-tolerable balance into oblivion. It made me stop playing for weeks, or possibly more than a month; can't recall.

Now I'm skipping a lot, but basically I "came back" a few times playing it. But ever since the release of the first competitive season I never played it again for more than maybe a few days in a row, only to stop for literally months after that. It's been like that ever since really. I do log-in from time to time (once every month or so) nowadays, usually just to check out the new heroes (almost all of which - on a side note - are bad, in my opinion; even in terms of design and lore) and the new maps when they do make those.

My biggest 'gripe' with Overwatch, however, is the fact that after nearly 2+ years (will be 3 years-old in May 2019 I believe, or around that time) there's still an incredible lack of PvE and Solo content. If I'm not mistaken it's probably the first 'big budget' Blizzard game I can think of that leaves us PvE / Coop / Solo players in the dust. I'll try to enumerate the things related to this lacking 'portion' of the game that comes to mind:

- There's no campaign, there's virutally no proper, coherent timeline of events in a fleshed-out lore background (it's a Blizzard game, let that sink in).

- Related to the above point, they do - sometimes - release a mini "story-based" mission (it's just a map, separated in 2 or 3 parts) that tells a very insignificantly small amount of "story" about the occurring event, and the characters (very negligible info) involved during said mission. However, they REMOVE those missions all the damn f'ing time. In other words, they are timed "event" game modes that always get removed after maybe 2 or 3 weeks whenever they do bother making those (and it is rather rare). And it's not always related to the actual 'proper lore' of the game's world and only is a nod to the seasonal event going on (Example: Junkenstein Revenge or whatever the name is, is a PvE Coop mission that doesn't have map variation at all, is an arena / horde game mode themed for Halloween and the costumes that the characters involved in the mission received for said Halloween event).

- To come back to the point above: the removal of PvE / Coop content is a major offender. I do not understand the logic, the point, the purpose. It's stupid. There's no other ways to cut it.

- Now, there's a mode where you get to create your own game, with your own rules. It's basically Overwatch's take on "Mutators" in the Unreal Tournament series. Low gravity, faster spawn times, no cooldowns if you want... etc. So, in that game mode you can set up A.I. bots to have your own custom made version of what amounts to PvE content. However, that aspect of that game mode has been left barely touched ever since they implemented that game creation mode.

- There's 25+ heroes by now in the game I think? Well, there's I believe 10 or 11 heroes in the bots list, maybe less. Not to mention that the A.I. itself has barely been worked on, since most of them don't even USE their abilities at all (Reaper A.I. never, ever uses Shadow Step or whatever the name is, the teleport ability; it was simply not even coded in Reaper's A.I.).

- But it gets worse. If I want to set up a game where anyone can join, but I also want to include bots in the meantime, then I have to manage the whole thing manually as the game unfolds, because they didn't bother to work on that (they truly don't give a shit about PvE and A.I., it's that simple). For example, I want a 6 V 6. Fine, but no one joins the game immediately. So what can I do? I can add bots in both team's available slots (for now). Fine. So I add 5 bots in my team, 6 in the enemy team.

All the slots are filled. Following me? Good. So I start up the match, I play. The stupid bots do their things and I can at least "play Overwatch" at bit. However, I did set up my game so that people can join if they want. So what DOES happen when people want to join? They get sent in SPECTATORS slots (if I did set those up). Now, in the actual available game's Browser list, MY game will show up to people as being FULL, that's because they didn't bother to differentiate between "filled up by humans who just join" Vs "filled up by bots".

In other words, there's no system in place to allow players to REPLACE a bot by filling up a slot that the bot(s) occupy. So HOW does a match host deal with that? Well, I HAVE to set up at least 2 Spectator slots (2, because having just one isn't enough when it just so happens that at least two persons tried to join my match at around the same time), and wait until an actual player gets sent to Spectators. When that does happen, I have to act fast, and manually, right in the middle of action sometimes and of course, I die more often than not if I do that; but I have to. So I have to open up my menu, and manually remove a bot from my team's slots and THEN the person who might still be in Spectators mode "automatically" gets sent into the now-available slot that I just liberated myself.

However, on top of that, the problem is that usually players do not join matches and expect to get into Spectators mode, so more often than not when someone attempts to join and gets in the spectators seat for even just 10 seconds what do they do? Well of course, they leave my game. But I already did free up a slot, so I have to go back in AGAIN, and manually re-add another bot because I just lost my damn time trying to free up a slot and died for it, but I have to repeat the process otherwise my team will now be missing a player if I don't re-add one again.

It's an absolute mess, and there's essentially no development time put into it. No care, no passion.

This portion of Overwatch (PvE / Coop / Solo / Vs A.I.) is absolute trash, basically non-existent and looks like the laughing stock of the industry when you compare this "arena shooter" to the grand daddies in the veins of Unreal Tournament, Quake and Tribes. If a company like Blizzard can't bother with their players base whom happen to have been mostly PvE or single-player players for years (since Diablo 1 or 2, or since StarCraft 1 and around those golden years of the company) then they are missing a MAJOR point.

- So all in all, it is no exaggeration to say that Blizzard sends a clear message: If you want PvE / Solo (permanent, non seasonal, non timed-event based content) / set up your own 'fun custom mutators match with bots; if you want to understand what the Hell is actually going on in the world of Overwatch with a story, lore and campaign, then this game is not for you. "We prefer to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on occasional once-per-6 months CGI shorts that essentially tell almost no real story, but look pretty good". They expect me to read some 'Overwatch comic' where I get to learn the sexual orientation of one character and consider that "lore"? No. No Blizzard. I don't care.

Anyway, my rant only applies if you also like that sort of content in your action FPS games. I played a crap ton of UT99 and UT2004 back then, but still today they are mountains that stand out in the crowd when you compare those classics to something as fast-food and low effort in content variety (and PERMANENTLY present content that just gets added over time) as Overwatch. I genuinely had a lot of fun with it at first, but that's just because I apparently and innocently so believed that it would just get improved upon over time since it was a Blizzard game.

I DID believe it. Because I was among the few originally when it was out who said that despite the overall low amount of content (because when it came out it really did NOT have a lot of content to offer, besides playing Quick Play and Mystery Heroes and one or two other modes) that stuff would simply be ADDED to it over time (of course, including new heroes, and maps). Well, Heroes and some Maps are permanent. Indeed, some maps DO belong to timed-events that do get removed later on (can't play in that London map during the Null Sector event mission, as in not only is that mission timed and always removed eventually when it does come out, but the map itself doesn't stay for us to choose to play in it with other game modes anyway; so there, some maps can't even stay permanently).

So the gist is that it never really "got any better" despite new heroes (again, I don't even like most of them to start with; the original roster had a fantastic quality pass made on it over the years of development and it shows; there's only 2 in the new post-release cast that I think show that some effort was put into them to look genuinely unique... but that one is extremely subjective I know) and maps. There's no campaign, I don't actually CARE about any of the characters since I don't know them, nor their past in enough amount and exposure via lore, and CGI shorts are not a viable source of info nor is it the same as experiencing a character's story via... oh you know... gameplay in an actual campaign?

So anyway, the only positives I can think of at this point have essentially not really moved from when it came out, which are:

1) Good music (but is subjective)
2) Good overall art style and character designs (I do dislike most of the new heroes, albeit not all of them; and I do think that the original roster is generally very good)
3) It's falshy and bombastic / chaotic at times (not always though; mostly depends on game mode and how many heroes unleash their big abilities at once in your field of view; it's situational). I do like that aspect since I used to spend hours in UT2004 custom servers playing absolutely chaotic Monster Invasion modes with exaggerated Mutator effects. I don't mind the 'visual clutter' of effects and particles much, but this is subjective; it's definitely not for everyone.
4) And, well... as a positive if you DO enjoy multiplayer ONLY, then yeah I could say this is a good game to get for maybe $20, sure.

That's about it. Where Overwatch for me was originally easily a solid 9/10 game (including the prospect of seeing it being improved upon with added content over time) it quickly went down the drain for me and is now only a rather mediocre experience. I wouldn't give it more than a "barely passable" 5.5 or maybe 6/10 if I'm being very generous with it.
Wow, not sure I care enough about anything to write so much about it. Thanks for your run down.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
345
126
There are some big flaws with the game, but also great things. I'd say it's worth it for the good things. I'm actually playing it as I post this.

The flaws are mostly around things like long queue times and bans from player votes, the gameplay is quite good, I don't like shooters much and like this.
 

Aikouka

Lifer
Nov 27, 2001
29,933
594
126
To come back to the point above: the removal of PvE / Coop content is a major offender. I do not understand the logic, the point, the purpose. It's stupid. There's no other ways to cut it.
There was no "removal" of PVE content. Blizzard was pretty clear that Overwatch was intended to be a Multiplayer game, and apart from the co-op PVE event during Overwatch Archives, it remains so. I mean... you can't blame the company if you bought it expecting it to be one thing, and are now complaining that it's not that.
 

DrMrLordX

Lifer
Apr 27, 2000
17,434
6,425
136
There was no "removal" of PVE content. Blizzard was pretty clear that Overwatch was intended to be a Multiplayer game, and apart from the co-op PVE event during Overwatch Archives, it remains so. I mean... you can't blame the company if you bought it expecting it to be one thing, and are now complaining that it's not that.
Even TF2 has things like Mann vs. Machine. A game mode like that in Overwatch would be incredibly popular. Blizzard has more than enough resources to make it happen.
 

Zenoth

Diamond Member
Jan 29, 2005
5,081
103
106
There was no "removal" of PVE content. Blizzard was pretty clear that Overwatch was intended to be a Multiplayer game, and apart from the co-op PVE event during Overwatch Archives, it remains so. I mean... you can't blame the company if you bought it expecting it to be one thing, and are now complaining that it's not that.
There was removal of PvE content.

- Junkenstein's Revenge is PvE, they bothered to make it for an event; they remove it after the event is gone. It's timed, it's there for a time. Then it's gone. They remove it. Then re-do for the following year's Halloween event, then remove it again. If that's not "removal" of PvE content I don't know how else to refer to it. You'd prefer it if I said that they re-add content for 2 weeks every year instead?

- Uprising is PvE (Null Sector map in London / King's Row), they made it for the "lore" surrounding that little moment in time in the game's universe with Torbjorn, Cadet Tracer, Mercy and Reinhardt (excluding the version of the mode where you can play as any hero). If I'm not mistaken that one specifically made two appearances, and each time it was removed after the event was over. That is removal of content.

- Retribution is PvE, that one I only had the occasion to play it twice since I happened to not be able to "make it in time" during the event's duration to play it more. But I did play it twice. It was PvE, and lore-related. And just like Junkenstein's, and Uprising, it had a separate mode where you could play as any hero instead of playing the 'fixed heroes' variation. And it only lasted until its related event was over. They removed it. And they will remove it again in the future the next time they do that event.

When I bought OW I did NOT buy it for a campaign or for PvE content. I participated to the Open Beta (it was about a week-end long, and if I recall correctly they extended it due to high popularity for a few days after). I appreciated the game for what it was initially. Not for what I "expected it" to become two years down the road. No one right in their mind buys games for what they could potentially become later on, that's stupid. You are the one assuming I bought it "expecting" something out of it. I didn't. I accepted the game "as is" from the beginning, otherwise I wouldn't have bought it.

PvE did not exist in the game when it was released, I did not 'expect' it to be there; I didn't even know it was ever going to happen even in the slightest extent to start with. But obviously I "wished" for it, of course, given that the game was from Blizzard ("expecting", and wishing for something is different). And their games always had PvE in some form or another, and had an actual coherent story for them in the form of a campaign (being good or not is another thing, but it was there); despite the fact that some of them were or had a mode for online play. Me wishing for Blizzard to simply follow in their own footsteps was only natural. That's like saying that me expecting Nintendo making a Mario Bros game is asking for too much. We're talking about Blizzard here. They sure as hell did change in recent years. I'm sure I'm not the only one here who - by now two years+ later - is actually surprised to see that OW does not even have Bots support in its Deathmatch mode, and not a SINGLE permanently-available Coop PvE map, Not. One.

I never complained about the initial absence of PvE. Ever, and I'll defend myself for that one for as long as needed. Like everyone who participated in the Open Beta (to reiterate) before its release the only thing I knew about it (besides the original promotion CGI intro to the "world of OW" in the museum with the two kids) was that it was all about MP. I accepted it, I LOVED it for a solid 3 months; but I did believe that Blizzard would - over time - add content to the game, SOME of which would be PvE and perhaps one day could consist of some sort of mini campaign; at least for SOME of the characters (I.E. the actual original OW founders for example). The lack of varied content originally that I did refer to was all about MP in my mind (I.E. not enough maps, or game modes; without specifically "expecting" or crying for any modes with bots, for example) when the game was released. I simply thought (like an idiot, today I do realize) that Blizzard would eventually, after maybe a year, or two, implement some sort of mini campaign. And that doesn't even specifically mean Coop-based PvE.

Multiplayer does not exclude PvE anyway, not sure why it matters if Blizzard ever "said" that OW was supposed to be (and remain) a multiplayer game, and that in and of itself making any difference about how a multiplayer game can (and many do) have PvE content. S'not because I log-in to an always-online MP game that it means it shouldn't have PvE in it. So yes, they do remove the very little PvE content that they bothered to make for it to start with. The only thing I would be "expecting" from them at this point is to have the decency to KEEP the damn modes in a separate PvE content menu somewhere. If I feel like bashing a bunch of A.I. Omnics with Reinhardt in Null Sector even if it's just for 2 or 3 matches every week or so, can I? No. Because it has been removed. I have to wait for it for another year to pop up if I still care for it at that point. If I feel like having casual fun with Torbjorn protecting the gate in Junkeinsten's Revenge tomorrow, can I? Nope.

Anyway, you and others can see it differently if you want. To me, it's removal of content after its introduction. If they took the time and resources to make those modes to start with then why removing it? (I know, it's for money, loot boxes, events; it's a very psychological thing and helps give them those sudden bursts of MTX money whenever those events pop up again a year later with new skins; it's obvious, but I hate it).
 

EpicSurvivor

Senior member
Aug 14, 2012
991
43
91
So I decided to pass on Overwatch but saw on Blizzard they had Diablo 3 on sale for $10 for the Holidays and decided to buy that instead Lol I know they are nothing in common but hey, I saw it on Blizzard, figured I'd give it a try never played Diablo before. Game looks great. Liking it so far
 

DrMrLordX

Lifer
Apr 27, 2000
17,434
6,425
136
More power to you then. Hope you like it. Diablo 2 was probably a better game, but it's so old now that it's hard to recommend it.
 

Aikouka

Lifer
Nov 27, 2001
29,933
594
126
Anyway, you and others can see it differently if you want. To me, it's removal of content after its introduction. If they took the time and resources to make those modes to start with then why removing it? (I know, it's for money, loot boxes, events; it's a very psychological thing and helps give them those sudden bursts of MTX money whenever those events pop up again a year later with new skins; it's obvious, but I hate it).
I don't call it "removal" because the modes aren't gone. While it's semantic, I consider a removal of a feature to be considered a permanent change. In this case, they're specifically part of events that revolve and come back every year. Now, you can argue that the PVE events make the game better and that's why Blizzard should either (a) do more of them, or (b) not cycle them with their respective events. That's fine, but I don't blame Blizzard for creating game modes that are meant to serve as a seasonal draw. I'd argue that same semantic point if someone said that Digital Extremes "removes" Prime items ever so often with their Disney-esque "vaulting". Although, at least with Blizzard, you know when they're coming back. :p

Now, what I think is really worth looking at is... if the PVE modes are so fun that people really want them, that makes you ask... is the core game loop good enough?
 

MrSquished

Lifer
Jan 14, 2013
10,611
6,950
136
I pretty much prefer battlefield style shooters but overwatch was surprising fun even though it's way outside the style of game I thought I liked. Totally worth 20 bucks.
 

repoman0

Diamond Member
Jun 17, 2010
3,432
1,797
136
Overwatch is great because I can hop into a game with five other real life friends who aren't big FPS nerds and have a great time. It works well both casually like that and can be played at a higher level too if you care. I'm level ~250 or so (150-200 hours?) and have always played with friends ... probably not as fun solo queuing but that goes for every game.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
345
126
I don't call it "removal" because the modes aren't gone. While it's semantic, I consider a removal of a feature to be considered a permanent change. In this case, they're specifically part of events that revolve and come back every year. Now, you can argue that the PVE events make the game better and that's why Blizzard should either (a) do more of them, or (b) not cycle them with their respective events. That's fine, but I don't blame Blizzard for creating game modes that are meant to serve as a seasonal draw. I'd argue that same semantic point if someone said that Digital Extremes "removes" Prime items ever so often with their Disney-esque "vaulting". Although, at least with Blizzard, you know when they're coming back. :p

Now, what I think is really worth looking at is... if the PVE modes are so fun that people really want them, that makes you ask... is the core game loop good enough?
Blizzard just pulled that crap with WoW items - they picked a bunch and said they're going to be withdrawn from sale, but might be sold again at some point, but now is your last chance to buy them. These are digital items like mounts there is no reason to 'withdraw' except a cash grab to get people to want to get them because they'll lose the chance to.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY