Author
|
Topic: Overwatch (Read 239375 times)
|
Malakili
Terracotta Army
Posts: 10596
|
I honestly think it has a lot to do with pride. Starcraft used to be THE eSport. Starcraft 2 even kicked off the current wave of popular eSports/streaming stuff in 2010. Then it mostly fell off. Hearthstone is their most popular "competitive" game now in terms of players and stream viewers.
DOTA 2 and League of Legends with Counter-Strike sometimes making splashes,are about it right now in terms of truly popular eSports. Starcraft 2 is on life support, I don't think anyone actually cares about Hearthstone that doesn't actively play it, Heroes of the Storm is dead on arrival for competitive play, and a host of other games that developers have tried to force have basically fallen flat.
|
|
|
|
Margalis
Terracotta Army
Posts: 12335
|
The thing about the successful eSports games is that they are usually have the dial turned pretty far towards complex and impenetrable, whereas Blizzard games have the dial turned the other way.
It sounds weird that a game that is complex and impenetrable could be a big eSport but look at American football - most people have never played a version of the sport that is close to the game at the pro level (by that I mean with real rules, pads, etc) and the rules of football are complex as shit. But still popular.
The thing that makes Blizzard games easy to pick up and play is part of what makes them not great for eSports imo. Even SC2 suffered from the "deathball" mechanics where the ultimate battle comes down to everyone selecting every unit and A-moving towards each other. (That's a simplification, but not by that much)
Overwatch probably has a better chance of being an eSport than HOTS, but I still think it's unlikely. It will probably end up being about the same as competitive Rocket League, which is to say that it kind of exists, but nobody really takes it seriously or makes money off of it.
|
vampirehipi23: I would enjoy a book written by a monkey and turned into a movie rather than this.
|
|
|
Megrim
Terracotta Army
Posts: 2512
Whenever an opponent discards a card, Megrim deals 2 damage to that player.
|
Star2 sucked because it was designed by people who made warcraft 3, and not the original starcraft. So it really was a replication of warcraft in spaaaaace, imo.
Additionally, people tend to conflate money making with professional competition. I think pretty much any game worthy of competing-in has to inspire the passion for competition in the first place. Soccer, american football, poker, chess, etc. are fun. They generate challenge and provide the room to build and excel in skill and ability, but are also perfectly capable of being scalable. I think now, video game makers almost run the risk of overpushing and overhyping the 'esports' aspect. It comes across as completely inauthentic and needy in the desire to be seen as deep and complex.
There is something to be said for stepping back and letting the game speak for itself, while quietly providing the tools for people scale up if they want to.
* edit:
the one thing I forgot to add, from a purely mechanical point of view, overwatch is weakly designed in that ammo isn't a resource. I've started playing a lot of junkrat lately and holy shit does the tf2 demo seem balanced by comparison.
|
|
« Last Edit: June 07, 2016, 09:47:28 PM by Megrim »
|
|
One must bow to offer aid to a fallen man - The Tao of Shinsei.
|
|
|
Falconeer
Terracotta Army
Posts: 11124
a polyamorous pansexual genderqueer born and living in the wrong country
|
I am starting to think Overwatch can really make it as an eSport. Maybe it'll just be the MASSIVE push (meaning: money) they will invest into it, or the goddamn hype, or the fact that the game looks like it has a good and tight design behind it fooling enough people because of all the counters and counter-counters and the ability to change team composition on the fly, the fact that eSports are growing across the board, and of course the ridiculous events and prices that I am sure will come soon, but I wouldn't be surprised if this one actually made it and ended up dominating mainstream things for the next five to ten years.
|
|
|
|
Malakili
Terracotta Army
Posts: 10596
|
Star2 sucked because it was designed by people who made warcraft 3, and not the original starcraft. So it really was a replication of warcraft in spaaaaace, imo.
Starcraft 2 didn't really play much of anything like Warcraft 3.
|
|
|
|
Sophismata
Terracotta Army
Posts: 543
|
Starcraft 2 sucked because it tried to be too many things to too many people.
|
"You finally did it, you magnificent bastards. You went so nerd that even I don't know WTF you're talking about anymore. I salute you." - WindupAtheist
|
|
|
Malakili
Terracotta Army
Posts: 10596
|
It's also quite a lot better in its current iteration than it was in the Wings of Liberty era.
|
|
|
|
Megrim
Terracotta Army
Posts: 2512
Whenever an opponent discards a card, Megrim deals 2 damage to that player.
|
Star2 sucked because it was designed by people who made warcraft 3, and not the original starcraft. So it really was a replication of warcraft in spaaaaace, imo.
Starcraft 2 didn't really play much of anything like Warcraft 3. It plays exactly like warcraft 3, sans heroes.
|
One must bow to offer aid to a fallen man - The Tao of Shinsei.
|
|
|
Malakili
Terracotta Army
Posts: 10596
|
Warcraft 3 has WAY more emphasis on microing individual units. The economy works way differently (and has since Wings of Liberty). Damage types work way differently. I mean they are incredibly different games to the point where I barely even know what you're talking about.
|
|
|
|
Merusk
Terracotta Army
Posts: 27449
Badge Whore
|
You build things, gather resources, and send armies/ scouts out while managing their abilities at the micro level. All the while while focusing on a build strategy for a win. Clearly they are the same game.
|
The past cannot be changed. The future is yet within your power.
|
|
|
Lakov_Sanite
Terracotta Army
Posts: 7590
|
I am starting to think Overwatch can really make it as an eSport. Maybe it'll just be the MASSIVE push (meaning: money) they will invest into it, or the goddamn hype, or the fact that the game looks like it has a good and tight design behind it fooling enough people because of all the counters and counter-counters and the ability to change team composition on the fly, the fact that eSports are growing across the board, and of course the ridiculous events and prices that I am sure will come soon, but I wouldn't be surprised if this one actually made it and ended up dominating mainstream things for the next five to ten years.
That and it's actually fun to play.
|
~a horrific, dark simulacrum that glares balefully at us, with evil intent.
|
|
|
Sir T
Terracotta Army
Posts: 14223
|
Hmm... people are saying that its Warcraft in space. Maybe they should change the name to reflect that. Like maybe call it Spacecraft.
|
Hic sunt dracones.
|
|
|
Fabricated
Moderator
Posts: 8978
~Living the Dream~
|
Unless Overwatch develops an interesting pro meta it's dead on arrival as an esport.
No amount of pushing could save StarCraft 2 from fading towards obscurity. I recall hearing a handful of "pro" players who moved onto other games basically saying that the only reason anyone played it competitively was because Blizz put so much money into tournaments and the like- that it was in fact borderline unenjoyable to play.
|
"The world is populated in the main by people who should not exist." - George Bernard Shaw
|
|
|
Falconeer
Terracotta Army
Posts: 11124
a polyamorous pansexual genderqueer born and living in the wrong country
|
Unenjoable to play? Well that is clearly not the case with Overwatch, so there's that.
|
|
|
|
Venkman
Terracotta Army
Posts: 11536
|
No matter how much money Blizzard puts in, an eSport is defined by the sponsors. They will only show up for the spectators, and those will only be there if it's fun to watch as a social experience, and not just to watch YouTube videos for research.
Overwatch is a fun game, and they definitely want it to be a spectated eSport with sponsors for a new revenue stream beyond just their Paymium model.
But it's not really up to them at this point. It's popular and has gotten good coverage. But they need people to start watching it more.
|
|
|
|
Falconeer
Terracotta Army
Posts: 11124
a polyamorous pansexual genderqueer born and living in the wrong country
|
I am sure you will all say that this doesn't happen, but try to pay attention to it:
- People noticed that it's easier to win on defense. Turrets, more turrets, and in general an easier task. - People want to win, because they are like that, and because it gives more XP, which means more boxes. And better stats, so bragging right. - People know that if you Defend on a map, then you have to Attack right after. - People defend, then quit and go look for another game. - Often times this makes the re-match fold, sending you back to the title screen. - Basically, if you don't pay attention, you play more attack than defend across the board due to morons.
Does it matter? Not necessarily. But oh, humans.
|
|
|
|
Malakili
Terracotta Army
Posts: 10596
|
The funny thing is that when you have an even semi-competent team, attack is easier to win.
|
|
|
|
Jeff Kelly
Terracotta Army
Posts: 6921
I'm an apathetic, hedonistic, utilitarian, nihilistic existentialist.
|
The idea that there is a meta has pretty much guaranteed that this happens in all multiplayer games. As soon as a dedicated fan base discovers a new meta and it leaks/is discussed on the net everyone else jumps on it to stay competitive or at least to not get totally steamrolled. Rinse and repeat once a new meta is discovered to counter the current one or once aspects of the game get rebalanced and the current meta won't work any longer.
For me a meta that completely dominates gameplay is always a sign that there is only a limited number of strategical and tactical options and probably fewer than people would like. The obsession of playing the most optimal/perfect build nonwithstanding great games usually don't converge to a single meta at a time but instead offer several competing options with different trade-offs that are all equally influenced by changes in game balance or player familiarity.
Blizzard unfortunately has always been pretty weak when it comes to systems or game mechanics that allow for different viable strategic or tactical setups and builds at a time. Usually there's always one build and/or setup that turns out to be by far the best for a particular character or team each time they rebalance game mechanics in for example Hearthstone or WoW. Which also explains why People are so obsessed with the current meta.
|
|
|
|
Merusk
Terracotta Army
Posts: 27449
Badge Whore
|
It's a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy on Blizzard's part, too, as they work out kinks or advantages in the current meta, guaranteeing another will take its place. This is where their refine strategy fails them, because being a little more organic with the buffs/ nerfs instead of laser-focused on that one particular issue/ meta would work out better long-term.
For example, they're looking at buffing D.Va based on metrics. She dies too quickly and doesn't do enough damage according to the metrics so one of the two is going to get buffed.
D. is by no means weak if she's being played by a good player. There's lots of bad players out there, though, and they're using tanks to stay in the fight longer, skewing metrics. Especially D. since she has a "die one" get out of jail free card. (Mech dies but she can hang out until she gets another.)
Their approach to the "problems" with D.Va guarantee she'll be super-strong in the hands of good players because they're focusing on buffing her based on metrics rather than figuring out what good players are doing and making it easier for bad players to do the same.
Ignoring obvious problems like, "McCree is using fan-shot 90% of the time and eating tanks when flash-bang is up, so we should probably fix that." .
|
The past cannot be changed. The future is yet within your power.
|
|
|
Sir T
Terracotta Army
Posts: 14223
|
Could that be becasue they are looking at metadata pulled from averages of multiple games rather than looking at actual in game replays?
|
Hic sunt dracones.
|
|
|
Malakili
Terracotta Army
Posts: 10596
|
There is always going to be a meta in any game. There is a meta in football, there is a meta in basketball. One of the reasons the Warriors have had so much success is that they "broke" the meta by being able to shoot such a high percentage. Sports don't use that terminology but a meta is just the result of their being good and bad ways to do things. Counter-Strike's meta revolves around the rifles in the game. No one cares that shotguns suck in competitive play 95% of the time. That's ok!
With regard to balance and tweaks, I 100% agree. A minimalist approach is best. I really dislike it when games are constantly being tweaked. Let players find solutions except when things are really busted.
I think it does have to to with analytics and the desire to get the numbers rather than the game to "look right."
|
|
|
|
MrHat
Terracotta Army
Posts: 7432
Out of the frying pan, into the fire.
|
Ignoring obvious problems like, "McCree is using fan-shot 90% of the time and eating tanks when flash-bang is up, so we should probably fix that." .
Pretty sure that the post that mention D.Va buffs also mentions McCree nerfs. I can't decide if I really enjoy this game because I'm procrastinating and playing with friends or if it's fun. Is there a difference?
|
|
|
|
Jeff Kelly
Terracotta Army
Posts: 6921
I'm an apathetic, hedonistic, utilitarian, nihilistic existentialist.
|
Maybe you just don't like playing the same characters on the same maps over and over again?
Maybe I'll write down my views on progression systems in competitive shooters at some point and why I think that it's a sign that most multiplayer shooters are inherently boring and need a pseudo-progression to stay interesting. I don't think Overwatch would be as interesting if it didn't include the levelling and loot box mechanics. Just like prestige in COD and other similar unlock mechanics.
There's a Neogaf thread discussing the latest Jimquisition video (where Jim Sterling shares his views about microtransactions and the slot-machine nature of the loot boxes) and the general consensus seems to be that people want the levelling and progression systems and the unlocks and that they probably wouldn't play a game that didn't have those systems in place. This also means that most people in that thread defend Blizzards decision to put loot boxes and microtransaction in the game, because without them the game would be less interesting to play.
It was quite shocking to me to read that many posts by people basically claiming that Overwatch would be a lot less interesting and that they probably wouldn't be playing the game if there was no progression but "just" the gameplay and maps.
|
|
|
|
Falconeer
Terracotta Army
Posts: 11124
a polyamorous pansexual genderqueer born and living in the wrong country
|
It's not Overwatch problem though. It's ALL games' problem, save for very few exceptions. "Progression", "unlocks" and "achievements" are three of the most important keywords for all humans in the 21st Century, and very few things that do not have any of that, or do not toy around with any of that, manage to retain interest for longer than a couple of weeks. We live in an achievement unlock culture, where a lot of things don't seem to count unless they are photographed and shared. Even when a clear progression or an achievement isn't warranted by an actual interface though (we are not speaking only about games here), it can still be awarded or implied by a social context. I am not saying that people have lost all interest in activities that do not make them feel like they are "leveling up" somehow, but with so many billion ways to entertain themselves and only 24 hours in a day, a lot of people are choosing to only invest their time into things that don't feel like they are completely "disconnected" from the flow, the feed, the matrix, the progression. Yes people should play games because they are having fun WHILE they do it, and this is how it was. Now, it's important to know that the hours they invested at least amounted to something and didn't just disappear forever.
Without levels, or the implied social levels you gain within a specific community by playing a lot, so many games wouldn't be as popular as they are now. In fact, why are people even wondering how would Overwatch be like without levels? What would all the other games that are popular now be like without any form of progression? Given how much our perception of everything has changed over the past 20 years since the internet revolutionised the way we interact with each other (and with ourselves), I think it would be shocking to see a game with NO progression mechanics of any kind manage to be succesful and most importantly prove to have sticking power.
With all that said, I have unlocked all the things I care for in Overwatch and I am still playing a whole damn lot because so far the matches are great fun. The boxes are were a cool bonus, but not one cell of my brain is thinking about the loot crates while I am shooting and trying not to be shot. I am sure lots of people wouldn't play Counterstrike GO if it didn't have levels and weapon skins, but I doubt that would say much about how interesting the game is.
|
|
|
|
Merusk
Terracotta Army
Posts: 27449
Badge Whore
|
Could that be becasue they are looking at metadata pulled from averages of multiple games rather than looking at actual in game replays?
That could be what it is. While data collection is excellent, it's not the end-all. You can't just look at a pile of data and derive a game plan from it. You need to parse it down and categorize it. The methodology and philosophy you have when doing that will affect the outcome of your decisions. If you aren't aware of this when doing it, you're going get fucked results. If I have a pile of data that says "Character Y wins 75% of encounters with all 5 other characters" but that character is selected 90% of the time in low-ranked games and never in high-ranked games because a more-difficult-to-play character shuts them down entirely, it's probably not a problem with the character. I don't realize that if I don't compare the right stats, though. I only see that first big number. Of course, it's all speculation without seeing the data collected and how its parsed. That IS the approach used to balance games, however. They've got the data and they look at it as a whole. The question is where do they expect player performance to come into play. We saw with WoW raids that Blizzard FREQUENTLY expected players to perform at far higher levels than the average actually does. Ignoring obvious problems like, "McCree is using fan-shot 90% of the time and eating tanks when flash-bang is up, so we should probably fix that." .
Pretty sure that the post that mention D.Va buffs also mentions McCree nerfs. I can't decide if I really enjoy this game because I'm procrastinating and playing with friends or if it's fun. Is there a difference? I didn't mean to say they were ignoring it, but that the finesse approach should be ignored when you realize, "Oh, well this is wholly fucked, we've got to do a big change to fix it." Such as they are doing with McCree.
|
|
« Last Edit: June 09, 2016, 07:44:48 AM by Merusk »
|
|
The past cannot be changed. The future is yet within your power.
|
|
|
Malakili
Terracotta Army
Posts: 10596
|
I don't know if loot boxes keep people playing or not, but when I first played in the beta none of the progression stuff had even been added yet and it was pretty damned fun. Generally speaking I'd like most of the "progression" related stuff to get out of games that aren't about progression. RPGs are based on levels. I don't need it my shooters, my strategy games, my card games (HEX I'M LOOKING AT YOU), or anything else. Reminds me of: ![](https://art.penny-arcade.com/photos/807503965_rBNbP/0/2100x20000/807503965_rBNbP-2100x20000.jpg)
|
|
« Last Edit: June 09, 2016, 07:46:58 AM by Malakili »
|
|
|
|
|
Merusk
Terracotta Army
Posts: 27449
Badge Whore
|
I don't play for progression. If anything I'm more pissed I can't just nab a skin I want and have to grind for it than motivated by it.
|
The past cannot be changed. The future is yet within your power.
|
|
|
Nija
Terracotta Army
Posts: 2136
|
Hey don't be afraid to pull the trigger on Torb on O sometimes. I see way too many people turret humping in this game. He has one of the best guns IN THE GAME!
Advance with your team. Shit out a turret and get it to level 2 and WALK AWAY. Put it in random places. Never return to it. Kill people and drop armor. If you have a Symmetra +25 shields and +75 armor on your Genjis and Tracers fucking SUCKS for the defenders.
|
|
|
|
KallDrexx
Terracotta Army
Posts: 3510
|
If progression was so necessary for a game to succeed, than TF2 would have never been as popular as it was, nor dota, nor rocket league, etc....
Trying to say that its' a given that a games as a whole aren't as fun without it is handwaving around bad design. Not saying that's the case with Overwatch, but progression is most certainly not a requirement for games in general to be successful.
|
|
|
|
Rendakor
Terracotta Army
Posts: 10131
|
Rocket League has all kinds of unlocks as you play. The cool thing about DotA (and MOBAs in general) is that it condenses the entire ding-gratz joy of progression into a single hourish session.
|
"i can't be a star citizen. they won't even give me a star green card"
|
|
|
KallDrexx
Terracotta Army
Posts: 3510
|
Rocket League has all kinds of unlocks as you play. The cool thing about DotA (and MOBAs in general) is that it condenses the entire ding-gratz joy of progression into a single hourish session.
Rocket league's collectables were fully unlockable after 10 hours of playing at release. People didn't build up their 50+ hours of gameplay by stopping and only coming back when new collectibles came out.
|
|
|
|
palmer_eldritch
Terracotta Army
Posts: 1999
|
I don't like teams where nobody stands in the box.
Go and stand in the box, fuckers. Don't all run off and search for that perfect sniping position. Stand in the box.
When my team is standing in the box and the other team is climbing up walls outside it, I know we're going to win. It doesn't matter how good they are at sniping, if they're letting us have the box then they've lost.
|
|
|
|
Venkman
Terracotta Army
Posts: 11536
|
Progression is not the only thing, but it's glaringly obvious in crowded fields when a game doesn't have it. The game needs to be fun. But it's the progression that keeps us coming back between sessions, or at least shows the results of doing so. I don't have any interest in buying loot boxes in Overwatch. But I get the appeal. It's just a legitimized form of the RMT we all did or considered doing for the latest MMO foozle. And it works well in many types of games. So why shouldn't companies do it? It's not Overwatch problem though. It's ALL games' problem, save for very few exceptions. "Progression", "unlocks" and "achievements" are three of the most important keywords for all humans in the 21st Century, and very few things that do not have any of that, or do not toy around with any of that, manage to retain interest for longer than a couple of weeks. We live in an achievement unlock culture, where a lot of things don't seem to count unless they are photographed and shared.
I see it as just technology catching up with mass desire. Anything with a bit of skill and luck is going to eventually have a system of rewards and ranks for those who get invested in it. We need to know our invested time is worth it. Sometimes all we need is for someone to tell us how awesome we are. Other times a little bar chart will do just fine.
|
|
|
|
Rendakor
Terracotta Army
Posts: 10131
|
Rocket League has all kinds of unlocks as you play. The cool thing about DotA (and MOBAs in general) is that it condenses the entire ding-gratz joy of progression into a single hourish session.
Rocket league's collectables were fully unlockable after 10 hours of playing at release. People didn't build up their 50+ hours of gameplay by stopping and only coming back when new collectibles came out. Maybe it's because I sucked, but I was still unlocking shit when I stopped playing. Pretty sure I had more than 10 but less than 50 hours logged.
|
"i can't be a star citizen. they won't even give me a star green card"
|
|
|
Malakili
Terracotta Army
Posts: 10596
|
We need to know our invested time is worth it. Sometimes all we need is for someone to tell us how awesome we are. Other times a little bar chart will do just fine.
It generally has precisely the opposite effect on me. I know whether or not my time playing a game was worth it. When a game starts telling me how awesome I am or giving me bars to fill, it starts to give me the sneaking suspicion the game is trying to trick me into playing rather than just being worth playing for the game. In that sense I could say it actually cheapens the time spent, or at least feels like it does. I played about a bazillionty hours of Quake 3, Counter Strike and Team Fortress ~15 years ago without it ever even occurring to me that there should be some kind of cross-session progression.
|
|
|
|
|
![](http://forums.f13.net/Themes/f13/images/blank.gif) |