videogames101
Diamond Member
i turned off voice chat before even playing one game lmao, haven't heard any toxicity
-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
Overwatch
Page 7 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
NoSoup4You
Golden Member
Damn, played this for the first time today. It's siiiiick! 🙂 This is going to be painful when the beta ends until launch...
M0oG0oGaiPan
Diamond Member
nurturedhate
Golden Member
I really like this game but I just can't justify the $60 price tag. Feels like it should be closer to $30.
Zenoth
Diamond Member
I've played a solid 5 hours+ worth of matches today to finally have a good idea and 'feel' about this game. And, so far and overall, it's very fun. I do have a few negative points (slightly so), however. But the game always being 6 Vs 6, to me, is an unfortunate Blizzard-self-imposed limitation (in the name of "The Characters"; it's always about The Characters). Now keep in mind I will repeat myself a few times here... just trying to find the proper way to put in words what I think of on a couple of things:
In Blizzard's mentality, the maps themselves were designed with The Characters in mind first (as it was clearly stated and demonstrated in the short documentary about how Blizzard went from its canceled Titan to making Overwatch; at least the one I've watched from GameSpot). They are very (and rightly so) proud of the game's characters, how much they're individually fleshed-out, and distinguished among each other (and will be even more so over the coming months and certainly years). However, Blizzard also weirdly believes that because each one of their characters are so unique that game modes like Deathmatch and Team Deathmatch, and larger maps to accommodate more players for 8 Vs 8, 10 Vs 10 or 12 Vs 12 and so on - somehow - would 'remove' meaning and distinction from them (The Characters). Now, THAT part of their mentality is what I do NOT get.
After playing my matches today, I've had a good bunch of games in which we had two Pharahs, and two Bastions... and others with two of the same 'x' characters. It's not because they go to great lengths to the point of designing their maps specifically for a smoother and condensed 6 Vs 6 play style that - suddenly - two Widowmakers or a total of 3 or 4 McCrees (from both teams) would REMAIN somehow as distinct as if they would have been if there's only ONE (on each team). Not sure if I'm wording this properly, but do you guys get the gist of my points? I mean, why can't Blizzard just plain RESTRICT us to choose from just ONE of each character maximum if they are oh-so proud of them just because they're well designed? Doesn't that sound so... excuse me but... full of themselves? No? Is or that just me? Essentially, what I'm trying to say here is that what Blizzard does not want to see happen to their characters and - to a certain degree - to their maps is ALREADY there. It's almost as if they either don't want to acknowledge it, or if they know about it they probably think something along the lines of " Well, it's happening already, but it's there to such a low extent that it's barely noticeable and we just don't want to exacerbate the problem any further; let's just leave it as is ". Or, am I the only one perceiving the 'issue' the way I am?
So, to reiterate (TL;DR I suppose), my big point is the following:
- Overwatch's characters ARE superbly designed... BUT it's not because you have a game with great characters with fleshed-out stories for each of them, in a detailed world setting, that it means that there's straight up no place whatsoever for more classical game modes with larger maps (to accommodate more players).
- Even though I DO really like the game, overall, I DO feel that I would also have a lot of fun in 8 Vs 8, 10 Vs 10 or 12 Vs 12 games (it doesn't HAVE to be Deathmatch, or Team Deathmatch, it can STILL 'just' be objective-based maps; just larger ones).
- We currently already see same characters being chosen more than once. So what Blizzard seems to want to avoid IS already happening. Am I supposed to look at both Widowmakers on my team and think " Wow! BOTH of them are SOOOO unique! THIS one has a different skin! LOOK! LOOK! " ? ** 😵 ** (I genuinely do NOT get that mentality from Blizzard; it just doesn't compute with my brain cells right now). Look, I DO love your characters Blizzard, but I DON'T CARE if I see 6 Winstons in my team in a would-be 10 Vs 10 match. I JUST. DON'T. MIND. ABOUT. IT. As much as I don't mind seeing 4 Scouts and 5 Soldiers in Team Fortress 2 on my team, even though I absolutely love that game's characters and their respective stories. Because... side note Blizzard: Valve also did pretty much what you guys are doing, but just a couple of years earlier; and TF2's characters have NOT sort of "magically lost" their distinction just because we can play 16 Vs 16 24/7 2FORT with Insta Spawn.
So, with all this said (and I suppose that's the most important part, ultimately) do I like Overwatch? Yes. It's a fun game. But I wish we could have more straightforward game modes if we felt like playing those, AND, I also wish that the current objective-based maps (or new ones) could be reworked / extended to accommodate more players for 8 Vs 8's, 10 Vs 10's, 12 Vs 12's. I DO love me some more action on-screen from time to time. And if I wanted to go back to the 'vanilla' 6 Vs 6, then I would. On a side note, does anyone else remember back when TF2 was freshly-released? Because I do. I was there and playing it when the Orange Box was released. And by default, the official servers (for a good while after release) ONLY allowed a maximum of 12 Vs 12 matches (regardless of the maps) ... just saying (TF2 has changed a lot since then, and TF2's characters haven't 'lost' their respective charm have they? I know they haven't for me).
In Blizzard's mentality, the maps themselves were designed with The Characters in mind first (as it was clearly stated and demonstrated in the short documentary about how Blizzard went from its canceled Titan to making Overwatch; at least the one I've watched from GameSpot). They are very (and rightly so) proud of the game's characters, how much they're individually fleshed-out, and distinguished among each other (and will be even more so over the coming months and certainly years). However, Blizzard also weirdly believes that because each one of their characters are so unique that game modes like Deathmatch and Team Deathmatch, and larger maps to accommodate more players for 8 Vs 8, 10 Vs 10 or 12 Vs 12 and so on - somehow - would 'remove' meaning and distinction from them (The Characters). Now, THAT part of their mentality is what I do NOT get.
After playing my matches today, I've had a good bunch of games in which we had two Pharahs, and two Bastions... and others with two of the same 'x' characters. It's not because they go to great lengths to the point of designing their maps specifically for a smoother and condensed 6 Vs 6 play style that - suddenly - two Widowmakers or a total of 3 or 4 McCrees (from both teams) would REMAIN somehow as distinct as if they would have been if there's only ONE (on each team). Not sure if I'm wording this properly, but do you guys get the gist of my points? I mean, why can't Blizzard just plain RESTRICT us to choose from just ONE of each character maximum if they are oh-so proud of them just because they're well designed? Doesn't that sound so... excuse me but... full of themselves? No? Is or that just me? Essentially, what I'm trying to say here is that what Blizzard does not want to see happen to their characters and - to a certain degree - to their maps is ALREADY there. It's almost as if they either don't want to acknowledge it, or if they know about it they probably think something along the lines of " Well, it's happening already, but it's there to such a low extent that it's barely noticeable and we just don't want to exacerbate the problem any further; let's just leave it as is ". Or, am I the only one perceiving the 'issue' the way I am?
So, to reiterate (TL;DR I suppose), my big point is the following:
- Overwatch's characters ARE superbly designed... BUT it's not because you have a game with great characters with fleshed-out stories for each of them, in a detailed world setting, that it means that there's straight up no place whatsoever for more classical game modes with larger maps (to accommodate more players).
- Even though I DO really like the game, overall, I DO feel that I would also have a lot of fun in 8 Vs 8, 10 Vs 10 or 12 Vs 12 games (it doesn't HAVE to be Deathmatch, or Team Deathmatch, it can STILL 'just' be objective-based maps; just larger ones).
- We currently already see same characters being chosen more than once. So what Blizzard seems to want to avoid IS already happening. Am I supposed to look at both Widowmakers on my team and think " Wow! BOTH of them are SOOOO unique! THIS one has a different skin! LOOK! LOOK! " ? ** 😵 ** (I genuinely do NOT get that mentality from Blizzard; it just doesn't compute with my brain cells right now). Look, I DO love your characters Blizzard, but I DON'T CARE if I see 6 Winstons in my team in a would-be 10 Vs 10 match. I JUST. DON'T. MIND. ABOUT. IT. As much as I don't mind seeing 4 Scouts and 5 Soldiers in Team Fortress 2 on my team, even though I absolutely love that game's characters and their respective stories. Because... side note Blizzard: Valve also did pretty much what you guys are doing, but just a couple of years earlier; and TF2's characters have NOT sort of "magically lost" their distinction just because we can play 16 Vs 16 24/7 2FORT with Insta Spawn.
So, with all this said (and I suppose that's the most important part, ultimately) do I like Overwatch? Yes. It's a fun game. But I wish we could have more straightforward game modes if we felt like playing those, AND, I also wish that the current objective-based maps (or new ones) could be reworked / extended to accommodate more players for 8 Vs 8's, 10 Vs 10's, 12 Vs 12's. I DO love me some more action on-screen from time to time. And if I wanted to go back to the 'vanilla' 6 Vs 6, then I would. On a side note, does anyone else remember back when TF2 was freshly-released? Because I do. I was there and playing it when the Orange Box was released. And by default, the official servers (for a good while after release) ONLY allowed a maximum of 12 Vs 12 matches (regardless of the maps) ... just saying (TF2 has changed a lot since then, and TF2's characters haven't 'lost' their respective charm have they? I know they haven't for me).
Last edited:
M0oG0oGaiPan
Diamond Member
$40 if you buy it direct from blizzard. There are 3rd party sites that have it cheaper. Cd keys has the origins edition for around $38 if you use a new customer 5% off code.
https://us.battle.net/shop/en/product/overwatch - standard edition
Aikouka
Lifer
Deathmatch would be awful in Overwatch. A good number of the characters are designed to support other characters. Essentially, you'd limit yourself to mostly Offense and Defense characters as no one would touch the Tank or Support characters. (Except maybe Roadhog.) Team Deathmatch might be okay, but you kind of get that in the Skirmishes.
As for the map sizes, my guess is that they don't want multiple map sizes because it stretches content too thin. If you've got a group of 12 people, they can only queue up for a 12v12 map, which means they won't be able to play on any map designed for a lower number of players. You may say, "Well, just allow that number of players on any map!" Yeah... the current maps are too small and are not designed for double the number of players.
Yeah, I think you might be. Blizzard doesn't care if you go six Mei. In fact, I'm sure they'd say it's A-Mei-Zing! As I mentioned above, they don't want certain game modes because they don't want a character to be completely neglected.
Zenoth
Diamond Member
@ Aikouka
Yeah I get how it doesn't really fit for pure free-for-all Deathmatch, and I do agree on that one. For Team Deathmatch... I suppose it doesn't fit either if there's simply no objectives at all (since they designed the game - and mostly the maps - with that type of game play in mind). What I really think would work (well, for me anyway) would be to simply have more players with the current game modes, in the current - but extended - maps. What I have in mind is something similar (not identical) to how maps grow in size in the Battlefield series (strictly speaking about the technical level here, about how the map accommodates more players and doesn't have to be completely redesigned from zero just because you add an extra 12 players to the maximum count). Now, yeah, I do understand the basics here of course. I know that if Blizzard was to one day allow more players in their current game modes (without touching Deathmatch or Team Deathmatch with a kilometer-long stick) that they WOULD have to bring back their maps into their level editor to redesign [a lot of] stuff. From rooms sizes to elevations height, 'camping spots', choke point numbers / alternative paths... down to the number of and positioning of health power-ups. They would definitely have to readjust a lot. My 'gripe' is just that from the start, during development (so at this point it's "too late" unless they do change a bit of their mind on the whole maximum players subject) they simply went "Ok, we feel that 6 Vs 6 is the right spot for everything; now let's design EVERYTHING around that, and ONLY that".
I think it's just me then. I'm used to big(ger) maps, with more players. And I'm saying I'm "used to" that sort of shooter multiplayer setting because it's just a personal preference in the end. The only other multiplayer shooter I've played with a 'limited' number of players (in any game modes and maps) was Quake III Arena (used to play that one on both the Dreamcast and PS2, but I don't remember the PC version ever featuring any options in Q3A to allow for something like 12 Vs 12 or higher, and without mods... correct me if I'm wrong though; just going by memory here).
After Q3A, I 'moved to' Unreal Tournament, first on consoles (Dreamcast and PS2), then on PC (still own my retail version). On PC, UT opened my eyes and mind to large scale multiplayer (starting with modded UT99, and then mostly UT2004) ... and I do believe that it is exactly where it all started for me (where my love for big scale online shooter matches began). I never really looked back after that, and never remained "content" with low players count. In fact and in retrospect... now that I'm typing this I'm realizing that my "complaint" is pretty much the same one I had with TF2 when I first played it. I remember loving TF2, mostly for its general Pixar-style design, its music, its charming characters, its humor and so on. I praised it mostly, except when it came to that 12 Vs 12 limitation (initially that is, doesn't apply today at all anymore I know). Thankfully, it's different now and if I want some action with 32 players in 2FORT, I can. But if I want (and I do sometimes want that) to just have a calmer, more strategic and coordinated 8 Vs 8, 10 Vs 10 or 12 Vs 12 Payload match then I have the choice to go for that too. The same happened with Battlefield, without exaggeration I'd say that I'm going for the 64 players maps (with servers that are always nearly full) about 90% of the time. And one of the major (certainly not the only one though) reasons as to why I completely skipped Star Wars: Battlefront was due to the lack of 32 Vs 32 maps (or modes for that).
So yeah I guess it makes sense if I look at it from the retrospective point of view. It's just because I essentially conditioned myself to stick with high players count in most similar (online shooter) games. Now I have (and will manage) to accept (more than just tolerate) this 'vision' from Blizzard. It's more condensed, perhaps more strategic, less 'chaotic' and more focused. Now anyway... as I said I already DO like the game very much. I'll just have to work on a new mindset for it specifically (I.E. telling myself that it's very well balanced the way it is, was designed to be played as is and doesn't need more players... and if I want that I should simply go play something else).
Yeah I get how it doesn't really fit for pure free-for-all Deathmatch, and I do agree on that one. For Team Deathmatch... I suppose it doesn't fit either if there's simply no objectives at all (since they designed the game - and mostly the maps - with that type of game play in mind). What I really think would work (well, for me anyway) would be to simply have more players with the current game modes, in the current - but extended - maps. What I have in mind is something similar (not identical) to how maps grow in size in the Battlefield series (strictly speaking about the technical level here, about how the map accommodates more players and doesn't have to be completely redesigned from zero just because you add an extra 12 players to the maximum count). Now, yeah, I do understand the basics here of course. I know that if Blizzard was to one day allow more players in their current game modes (without touching Deathmatch or Team Deathmatch with a kilometer-long stick) that they WOULD have to bring back their maps into their level editor to redesign [a lot of] stuff. From rooms sizes to elevations height, 'camping spots', choke point numbers / alternative paths... down to the number of and positioning of health power-ups. They would definitely have to readjust a lot. My 'gripe' is just that from the start, during development (so at this point it's "too late" unless they do change a bit of their mind on the whole maximum players subject) they simply went "Ok, we feel that 6 Vs 6 is the right spot for everything; now let's design EVERYTHING around that, and ONLY that".
I think it's just me then. I'm used to big(ger) maps, with more players. And I'm saying I'm "used to" that sort of shooter multiplayer setting because it's just a personal preference in the end. The only other multiplayer shooter I've played with a 'limited' number of players (in any game modes and maps) was Quake III Arena (used to play that one on both the Dreamcast and PS2, but I don't remember the PC version ever featuring any options in Q3A to allow for something like 12 Vs 12 or higher, and without mods... correct me if I'm wrong though; just going by memory here).
After Q3A, I 'moved to' Unreal Tournament, first on consoles (Dreamcast and PS2), then on PC (still own my retail version). On PC, UT opened my eyes and mind to large scale multiplayer (starting with modded UT99, and then mostly UT2004) ... and I do believe that it is exactly where it all started for me (where my love for big scale online shooter matches began). I never really looked back after that, and never remained "content" with low players count. In fact and in retrospect... now that I'm typing this I'm realizing that my "complaint" is pretty much the same one I had with TF2 when I first played it. I remember loving TF2, mostly for its general Pixar-style design, its music, its charming characters, its humor and so on. I praised it mostly, except when it came to that 12 Vs 12 limitation (initially that is, doesn't apply today at all anymore I know). Thankfully, it's different now and if I want some action with 32 players in 2FORT, I can. But if I want (and I do sometimes want that) to just have a calmer, more strategic and coordinated 8 Vs 8, 10 Vs 10 or 12 Vs 12 Payload match then I have the choice to go for that too. The same happened with Battlefield, without exaggeration I'd say that I'm going for the 64 players maps (with servers that are always nearly full) about 90% of the time. And one of the major (certainly not the only one though) reasons as to why I completely skipped Star Wars: Battlefront was due to the lack of 32 Vs 32 maps (or modes for that).
So yeah I guess it makes sense if I look at it from the retrospective point of view. It's just because I essentially conditioned myself to stick with high players count in most similar (online shooter) games. Now I have (and will manage) to accept (more than just tolerate) this 'vision' from Blizzard. It's more condensed, perhaps more strategic, less 'chaotic' and more focused. Now anyway... as I said I already DO like the game very much. I'll just have to work on a new mindset for it specifically (I.E. telling myself that it's very well balanced the way it is, was designed to be played as is and doesn't need more players... and if I want that I should simply go play something else).
Last edited:
Aikouka
Lifer
I'd say there are two points...
1. Larger maps with larger teams would probably just end up having each team split into sub-teams for the various sections. In other words, while you're playing a larger map, you're still playing it with a small team. Also, larger maps may not work so well with the idea of focusing players on the objective. The only thing that may work is a multi-point capture point map.
2. Similar maps with larger teams would end up with a real mess at the objective. Things can already get a bit crazy with 6v6, but going up to 12v12 would just be a bit crazy and hard to follow.
1. Larger maps with larger teams would probably just end up having each team split into sub-teams for the various sections. In other words, while you're playing a larger map, you're still playing it with a small team. Also, larger maps may not work so well with the idea of focusing players on the objective. The only thing that may work is a multi-point capture point map.
2. Similar maps with larger teams would end up with a real mess at the objective. Things can already get a bit crazy with 6v6, but going up to 12v12 would just be a bit crazy and hard to follow.
paperfist
Diamond Member
I wonder how Blizzard would feel about that after all the money they threw at the game.
Not knocking you at all, but it always makes me wonder how companies who always have their games on sale for half price make any money.
videogames101
Diamond Member
I feel like Overwatch could have been developed in 1/4 the time for 1/4 the price. It's missing many features and has limited game modes.
That being said, it's not not fun?
That being said, it's not not fun?
Aikouka
Lifer
The thing is... we have no idea what its development time was, because it was essentially something created out of assets and concepts from Titan. Titan was rumored to be this MMO set in a variation of the current world, which is probably where all the locations come from. That's probably also part of the reason why it may cost more than some expect as they've got to try to recoup the losses from scrapping a huge game. It's pretty rare for Blizzard to just drop a game so far into development. The only scrapped game that got further was StarCraft Ghost, and we're sort of seeing that with the recently released Nova: Covert Ops missions for StarCraft II.
zerocool84
Lifer
I've been having tons of fun with Overwatch today. Played about 4hrs. Feels like TF2 which to me is great, before TF2 got all crazy with the drops and such. I'm definitely gonna pick it up on release. Only issue is that with so many characters, some will never be touched. Playing the beta there's some you hardly see played so I'm sure upon release we are going to see a couple patches to buff or nerf certain classes so others get played more. I've generally stuck with 4 or 5 different characters changing up when I need to.
KidNiki1
Platinum Member
i don't understand why i keep seeing $60 thrown around (not just on this forum) as the price for this game.
the game is $39.99.
edit: i just saw that M0oG0oGaiPan already said this, i missed it in the walls of text it was sandwiched in.
Last edited:
They're releasing 3 versions: Basic ($40), Origin Edition ($60), and some super duper amazeballs collector edition ($120?). The Origin Edition is the default one that's being promoted for the PC, and is the only one available for consoles. All the same game, just different digital eye candy with the non-basic ones.
KidNiki1
Platinum Member
yeah, i know all this. but since this is the PC gaming forum, idk, i figured people would know that the cheapest version of the game, for PC, is 39.99.
[DHT]Osiris
Lifer
I could be remembering wrong, but I'm pretty sure that when I went to buy it, the $40 version was the default purchase option presented. I had to change to buy the origins version. I could be wrong, but it's hardly a feat of mental mastery to discern what the different versions are. The differences are laid out very clearly on the main Overwatch page.
SunnyD
Belgian Waffler
This. I tried it yesterday, played as a soldier and kicked ass (which is unusual for me in any shooter). Then i switched to a Reinhardt (randomly) to check out a different class. I was less than impress(ed)(ive).
Compared to TF2, there's just too many character choices.
darkewaffle
Diamond Member
There is such a thing as too many characters (eg: LoL) but there's only about 20 in Overwatch and there's not an egregious amount of overlap in terms of what each one brings to the table. I played a lot during the beta and the only noticeably underplayed characters were Zenyatta and Symmetra imo, possibly Zarya. That's a pretty good distribution though and, especially in the case of support characters, they simply will never be played as heavily because most people just want to deal damage.
Zenoth
Diamond Member
I've read on the Overwatch's forums (from players, not from Blizzard) that our accumulated EXP and everything we've unlocked during the Beta will be reset at launch. Is that true? If that's the case I just won't bother anymore until I feel like buying it (and here I thought what I was doing would actually count, heh).
Worthington
Golden Member
yeah, I believe its a full reset on launch
Aikouka
Lifer
Hm... people are really missing out, because Zenyatta and Zarya can be a lot of fun. Although, the biggest problem is that both of them (and arguably all healers) require a lot of good battle sense. With Zarya, you need to hope that your team is a bit more aggressive, as you want them to get hit while your shield is on them. It's not uncommon to play as Zarya and watch your teammate duck behind a wall as soon as you shield them. You can only gain 50% charge from a single shield, so only being able to effectively shield yourself will not be enough. A fully charged Zarya is a real force to be reckoned with!
As for Zenyatta, he can deal a ton of damage, and that's even more so with Discord Orb on an enemy. Ended up getting a Play of the Game yesterday on him for taking out an enemy Tracer (100 to 0, finished with a kick to the face), Roadhog (about 40 to 0) and Pharah (100 to 0, was high up in the air). Although, Zenyatta can be frustrating when you're playing with a team that just tends to ignore you as he doesn't have a lot of health (150; 50 health + 100 shields).
Back during the closed beta, I found myself playing the same characters over and over. So, I made myself a rule. The game always puts you on a random character when the match starts. My rule was that I had to choose that character unless (1) there was already one in the group, or (2) the choice didn't make sense for the map. However, if I hit 1 or 2, I had to choose from the same pool (i.e. if no Bastion, choose another Defense).
Yes, supposedly. However, everything was supposed to reset between closed beta and open beta, but I still have my win count. I mean... how else would I have 600+ wins at level 20-something? I also retained all of my credits from the closed beta. So, I don't know if this was just a mistake or maybe a little nicety that they did for closed beta players. I'll avoid spending my credits... just in case.
lupi
Lifer
they did a partial reset from closed beta to open beta and will do a full reset from open beta to release.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
