We will be closing this General thread in 24 hours. It will remain searchable.
After that we will require new threads to discuss topics.
Questions should go in the stickied Q&A thread, screenshots and PotG will go in the PotG sticky, QQ/Rage/Complaints should go in the QQ/Rage thread. If you want to talk about maps or strategies open a new thread.
Any comments or concerns will be logged please forward them to ZeromuS. This new forum is still fluid so we will try this out. General TL rules will still apply to new threads.
On November 09 2014 04:39 Spaylz wrote: So, can this be considered as Blizzard's equivalent of "Your move, Gabe"?
Blizzard has always (and by that ever since WoW, maybe earlier) been the reiteration company when it comes to games. Rarely do they spearhead genres instead they are more reactive with their games.
On November 09 2014 04:39 Spaylz wrote: So, can this be considered as Blizzard's equivalent of "Your move, Gabe"?
Blizzard has always (and by that ever since WoW, maybe earlier) been the reiteration company when it comes to games. Rarely do they spearhead genres instead they are more reactive with their games.
Hearthstone was a pretty good "spearhead" in my opinion. The art style reminds me of knack but i think it is inconsistent. The game looks too much like a cartoon for little children. Even in the trailer(one with the hooded kid and gauntlet) none of the bullets hurt their target. Widowmaker and Reaper looks dark though.
On November 09 2014 04:39 Spaylz wrote: So, can this be considered as Blizzard's equivalent of "Your move, Gabe"?
Blizzard has always (and by that ever since WoW, maybe earlier) been the reiteration company when it comes to games. Rarely do they spearhead genres instead they are more reactive with their games.
Hearthstone was a pretty good "spearhead" in my opinion. The art style reminds me of knack but i think it is inconsistent. The game looks too much like a cartoon for little children. Even in the trailer(one with the hooded kid and gauntlet) none of the bullets hurt their target. Widowmaker and Reaper looks dark though.
I thought we were well past the "cartoons means little children" phase of culture. Is that seriously still a thing?
On November 09 2014 04:39 Spaylz wrote: So, can this be considered as Blizzard's equivalent of "Your move, Gabe"?
Blizzard has always (and by that ever since WoW, maybe earlier) been the reiteration company when it comes to games. Rarely do they spearhead genres instead they are more reactive with their games.
Hearthstone was a pretty good "spearhead" in my opinion. The art style reminds me of knack but i think it is inconsistent. The game looks too much like a cartoon for little children. Even in the trailer(one with the hooded kid and gauntlet) none of the bullets hurt their target. Widowmaker and Reaper looks dark though.
I thought we were well past the "cartoons means little children" phase of culture. Is that seriously still a thing?
No, i watch anime, am 24 years old and i did not say anything like that. I wrote "cartoon for little children"
On November 09 2014 04:39 Spaylz wrote: So, can this be considered as Blizzard's equivalent of "Your move, Gabe"?
Blizzard has always (and by that ever since WoW, maybe earlier) been the reiteration company when it comes to games. Rarely do they spearhead genres instead they are more reactive with their games.
Hearthstone was a pretty good "spearhead" in my opinion. The art style reminds me of knack but i think it is inconsistent. The game looks too much like a cartoon for little children. Even in the trailer(one with the hooded kid and gauntlet) none of the bullets hurt their target. Widowmaker and Reaper looks dark though.
I thought we were well past the "cartoons means little children" phase of culture. Is that seriously still a thing?
No, i watch anime, am 24 years old and i did not say anything like that. I wrote "cartoon for little children"
Well, then you'll have to explain how it looks like something "for little children".
On November 09 2014 04:39 Spaylz wrote: So, can this be considered as Blizzard's equivalent of "Your move, Gabe"?
Blizzard has always (and by that ever since WoW, maybe earlier) been the reiteration company when it comes to games. Rarely do they spearhead genres instead they are more reactive with their games.
Hearthstone was a pretty good "spearhead" in my opinion. The art style reminds me of knack but i think it is inconsistent. The game looks too much like a cartoon for little children. Even in the trailer(one with the hooded kid and gauntlet) none of the bullets hurt their target. Widowmaker and Reaper looks dark though.
I thought we were well past the "cartoons means little children" phase of culture. Is that seriously still a thing?
No, i watch anime, am 24 years old and i did not say anything like that. I wrote "cartoon for little children"
You means cartoon for little children like MLP right?
On November 09 2014 04:39 Spaylz wrote: So, can this be considered as Blizzard's equivalent of "Your move, Gabe"?
Blizzard has always (and by that ever since WoW, maybe earlier) been the reiteration company when it comes to games. Rarely do they spearhead genres instead they are more reactive with their games.
The only thing they really "followed" on was this DotA-clone craze.
Looks a little bit like TF2, but mostly in the art style I think. Seems like it's trying to be a moba combined with an fps. Very cool, I'll definitely check it out.
I reserve a final opinion until I play it (like all games) but I find it hard usually to get hyped up about online only FPS games because usually I use the single player to get myself hyped up to keep playing it online against other people but if the gameplay is super solid then maybe this will be an exception to the rule.
On the gameplay itself it does seem weird to have a game focused more on proper ability usage then proper aim and accuracy but proper ability usage is a skill in and of itself so I am not to worried about a low skill cap.
On November 09 2014 06:28 Isualin wrote: Hearthstone was a pretty good "spearhead" in my opinion.
A lot of the core gameplay of Hearthstone is the same as most MtG-type CCG's on the market. Not that that's bad, but it does still support Blizzards philosophy of polish over innovation.
On November 09 2014 11:21 aksfjh wrote: The only thing they really "followed" on was this DotA-clone craze.
Well, you could make the argument for Heroes of the Storm, yeah. I wouldn't say that's fair here, though, unless "having abilities" is the defining feature of DotA/LoL? Unless you're saying that they tend NOT to take their designs from other games and that this is a special case, in which case I'd still disagree. Since WoW, HS, HotS, and now this have all had the main part of their design taken from other companies' games. They have some of the best games in the respective genres, but they did take them.
On November 09 2014 12:18 Adreme wrote: On the gameplay itself it does seem weird to have a game focused more on proper ability usage then proper aim and accuracy but proper ability usage is a skill in and of itself so I am not to worried about a low skill cap.
This is the reason I'm so hyped up about this game. As odd as it sounds, I think first-person shooter games have focused TOO much on shooting lately. I'm looking at it a little like Mass Effect's gameplay, which merges gunplay with constant use of abilities to make for one of the best gaming experiences I've had (obviously not JUST for the fighting, though).
On November 09 2014 11:21 aksfjh wrote: The only thing they really "followed" on was this DotA-clone craze.
Well, you could make the argument for Heroes of the Storm, yeah. I wouldn't say that's fair here, though, unless "having abilities" is the defining feature of DotA/LoL? Unless you're saying that they tend NOT to take their designs from other games and that this is a special case, in which case I'd still disagree. Since WoW, HS, HotS, and now this have all had the main part of their design taken from other companies' games. They have some of the best games in the respective genres, but they did take them.
So, if they don't literally create a new genre of game, they're automatically labeled as a "reactive" developer?
On November 08 2014 07:35 Steveling wrote: Have you guys read what reaper's ulti skill does? This can't be more casual, which in itself is not a bad thing, just saying.
Yeah i know right, a short ranged aoe dmg spell is literally casual. I am sure you won't find any of that in the hardcore games you play !
It's a fps game, you are supposed to aim at stuff. I have never seen something like this in any fps game ever, for obvious reasons.
It's far more than an the typical cross-hair-over-enemy-then-click-fast FPS game.
They appear to be expanding the FPS genre, vastly improving the gameplay, like they did with the MOBA genre.
here we go again
It's been mentioned that Overwatch has a form of auto-aim.
I did talk about this subject in the past:
Example 1: Adding auto-aim to CS:GO (removing complexity) Aiming is a huge part of CS:GO, it's one of the most important skills in the game. Does adding auto-aim dumb down the game, reduce skill or kill depth? No. The game will still require just as much skill as it does now. Instead of being about aiming, auto-aim would shift the game to be about positioning, strategy, flashing and firing with maximum lethality (minimizing recoil). The team with more skill in avoiding situations where they will be killed by the opponent's auto-aim by being at the right place at the right time would win. The skill of correct positioning would be absolutely critical. So playing CS:GO with auto-aim would require the same amount of skill it requires now, it just emphasizes different types of skills, like positioning.
No doubt, we will have losers (as in people who literally lose in a game of Overwatch) that get annihilated and utterly dominated by their auto-aiming opponents while hypocritically saying that the game is too easy.
This is one of the dumbest things I have ever read. And this is even on a starcraft board where we have immediate disprove in form of BW-->SC2. In the beginning people argued that the "removal" of macro in SC2 would shift the game towards more attractive things. More micro, more drops etc. Did this ever happen? No. Players in SC2 just have less stuff to do, less apm needed. CS with auto aim would be indredible boring. Most weapons are insanely accurate with the first shot. With auto aim it would just come down to split seconds of reaction timing to hit the trigger. Just comes down to who shoots first wins. And nades would be completly useless with autoaim.
It did shift the game towards more interesting things like micro. In fact, people's micro still has huge room for improvement as players still haven't mastered micro like this:
If you don't think the removal of micro has shifted the types of skill required to play the game and just removed things to do, then what do you think pros are doing in SC2? Twiddling their thumbs?
On November 08 2014 07:35 Steveling wrote: Have you guys read what reaper's ulti skill does? This can't be more casual, which in itself is not a bad thing, just saying.
Yeah i know right, a short ranged aoe dmg spell is literally casual. I am sure you won't find any of that in the hardcore games you play !
It's a fps game, you are supposed to aim at stuff. I have never seen something like this in any fps game ever, for obvious reasons.
It's far more than an the typical cross-hair-over-enemy-then-click-fast FPS game.
They appear to be expanding the FPS genre, vastly improving the gameplay, like they did with the MOBA genre.
here we go again
It's been mentioned that Overwatch has a form of auto-aim.
I did talk about this subject in the past:
Example 1: Adding auto-aim to CS:GO (removing complexity) Aiming is a huge part of CS:GO, it's one of the most important skills in the game. Does adding auto-aim dumb down the game, reduce skill or kill depth? No. The game will still require just as much skill as it does now. Instead of being about aiming, auto-aim would shift the game to be about positioning, strategy, flashing and firing with maximum lethality (minimizing recoil). The team with more skill in avoiding situations where they will be killed by the opponent's auto-aim by being at the right place at the right time would win. The skill of correct positioning would be absolutely critical. So playing CS:GO with auto-aim would require the same amount of skill it requires now, it just emphasizes different types of skills, like positioning.
No doubt, we will have losers (as in people who literally lose in a game of Overwatch) that get annihilated and utterly dominated by their auto-aiming opponents while hypocritically saying that the game is too easy.
This is one of the dumbest things I have ever read. And this is even on a starcraft board where we have immediate disprove in form of BW-->SC2. In the beginning people argued that the "removal" of macro in SC2 would shift the game towards more attractive things. More micro, more drops etc. Did this ever happen? No. Players in SC2 just have less stuff to do, less apm needed. CS with auto aim would be indredible boring. Most weapons are insanely accurate with the first shot. With auto aim it would just come down to split seconds of reaction timing to hit the trigger. Just comes down to who shoots first wins. And nades would be completly useless with autoaim.
It did shift the game towards more interesting things like micro. In fact, people's micro still has huge room for improvement as players still haven't mastered micro like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXUOWXidcY0
If you don't think the removal of micro has shifted the types of skill required to play the game and just removed things to do, then what do you think pros are doing in SC2? Twiddling their thumbs?
Ok this is really silly now, the micro in that video is just not possible for a human being (and the limitation of the input device)
But yeah overall i agree with you, generally speaking the importance of skills shift, obviously the design of the game has to allow it too (for example units in a rts).
I would never want auto aim in csgo though, it just isn't designed with it in mind.
On November 09 2014 14:17 aksfjh wrote: So, if they don't literally create a new genre of game, they're automatically labeled as a "reactive" developer?
Well now you're just being difficult.
Sticking to existing genres is fine, but, these days, the biggest things Blizzard tends to add to their games are accessibility and the refinement that their budget can allow. That's completely fine, and it makes for very successful games, many even more so than the ones they've borrowed from, but few are the features they implement that many of us haven't seen done elsewhere to varying degrees of success (sometimes from their own older works).
That all said, I count myself a fan of most of their work. I don't think I've played a game they released that I didn't think I got my money's worth.
On November 08 2014 07:35 Steveling wrote: Have you guys read what reaper's ulti skill does? This can't be more casual, which in itself is not a bad thing, just saying.
Yeah i know right, a short ranged aoe dmg spell is literally casual. I am sure you won't find any of that in the hardcore games you play !
It's a fps game, you are supposed to aim at stuff. I have never seen something like this in any fps game ever, for obvious reasons.
It's far more than an the typical cross-hair-over-enemy-then-click-fast FPS game.
They appear to be expanding the FPS genre, vastly improving the gameplay, like they did with the MOBA genre.
here we go again
It's been mentioned that Overwatch has a form of auto-aim.
I did talk about this subject in the past:
Example 1: Adding auto-aim to CS:GO (removing complexity) Aiming is a huge part of CS:GO, it's one of the most important skills in the game. Does adding auto-aim dumb down the game, reduce skill or kill depth? No. The game will still require just as much skill as it does now. Instead of being about aiming, auto-aim would shift the game to be about positioning, strategy, flashing and firing with maximum lethality (minimizing recoil). The team with more skill in avoiding situations where they will be killed by the opponent's auto-aim by being at the right place at the right time would win. The skill of correct positioning would be absolutely critical. So playing CS:GO with auto-aim would require the same amount of skill it requires now, it just emphasizes different types of skills, like positioning.
No doubt, we will have losers (as in people who literally lose in a game of Overwatch) that get annihilated and utterly dominated by their auto-aiming opponents while hypocritically saying that the game is too easy.
This is one of the dumbest things I have ever read. And this is even on a starcraft board where we have immediate disprove in form of BW-->SC2. In the beginning people argued that the "removal" of macro in SC2 would shift the game towards more attractive things. More micro, more drops etc. Did this ever happen? No. Players in SC2 just have less stuff to do, less apm needed. CS with auto aim would be indredible boring. Most weapons are insanely accurate with the first shot. With auto aim it would just come down to split seconds of reaction timing to hit the trigger. Just comes down to who shoots first wins. And nades would be completly useless with autoaim.
It did shift the game towards more interesting things like micro. In fact, people's micro still has huge room for improvement as players still haven't mastered micro like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXUOWXidcY0
If you don't think the removal of micro has shifted the types of skill required to play the game and just removed things to do, then what do you think pros are doing in SC2? Twiddling their thumbs?
Ok this is really silly now, the micro in that video is just not possible for a human being (and the limitation of the input device)
But yeah overall i agree with you, generally speaking the importance of skills shift, obviously the design of the game has to allow it too (for example units in a rts).
I would never want auto aim in csgo though, it just isn't designed with it in mind.
Obviously it's physically impossible for a human, which is EXACTLY why there's always room for improvement, to push it further and closer to that, while not being able to reach it. Conversely, if humans can do that, then micro is solved and there's no room for improvement in that skill.
On November 08 2014 07:35 Steveling wrote: Have you guys read what reaper's ulti skill does? This can't be more casual, which in itself is not a bad thing, just saying.
Yeah i know right, a short ranged aoe dmg spell is literally casual. I am sure you won't find any of that in the hardcore games you play !
It's a fps game, you are supposed to aim at stuff. I have never seen something like this in any fps game ever, for obvious reasons.
It's far more than an the typical cross-hair-over-enemy-then-click-fast FPS game.
They appear to be expanding the FPS genre, vastly improving the gameplay, like they did with the MOBA genre.
here we go again
It's been mentioned that Overwatch has a form of auto-aim.
I did talk about this subject in the past:
Example 1: Adding auto-aim to CS:GO (removing complexity) Aiming is a huge part of CS:GO, it's one of the most important skills in the game. Does adding auto-aim dumb down the game, reduce skill or kill depth? No. The game will still require just as much skill as it does now. Instead of being about aiming, auto-aim would shift the game to be about positioning, strategy, flashing and firing with maximum lethality (minimizing recoil). The team with more skill in avoiding situations where they will be killed by the opponent's auto-aim by being at the right place at the right time would win. The skill of correct positioning would be absolutely critical. So playing CS:GO with auto-aim would require the same amount of skill it requires now, it just emphasizes different types of skills, like positioning.
No doubt, we will have losers (as in people who literally lose in a game of Overwatch) that get annihilated and utterly dominated by their auto-aiming opponents while hypocritically saying that the game is too easy.
This is one of the dumbest things I have ever read. And this is even on a starcraft board where we have immediate disprove in form of BW-->SC2. In the beginning people argued that the "removal" of macro in SC2 would shift the game towards more attractive things. More micro, more drops etc. Did this ever happen? No. Players in SC2 just have less stuff to do, less apm needed. CS with auto aim would be indredible boring. Most weapons are insanely accurate with the first shot. With auto aim it would just come down to split seconds of reaction timing to hit the trigger. Just comes down to who shoots first wins. And nades would be completly useless with autoaim.
It did shift the game towards more interesting things like micro. In fact, people's micro still has huge room for improvement as players still haven't mastered micro like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXUOWXidcY0
If you don't think the removal of micro has shifted the types of skill required to play the game and just removed things to do, then what do you think pros are doing in SC2? Twiddling their thumbs?
Ok this is really silly now, the micro in that video is just not possible for a human being (and the limitation of the input device)
But yeah overall i agree with you, generally speaking the importance of skills shift, obviously the design of the game has to allow it too (for example units in a rts).
I would never want auto aim in csgo though, it just isn't designed with it in mind.
Obviously it's physically impossible for a human, which is EXACTLY why there's always room for improvement, to push it further and closer to that, while not being able to reach it. Conversely, if humans can do that, then micro is solved and there's no room for improvement in that skill.
Why not have just have 1 button that everyone clicks. Who can manage to click it the the most times is the winner. It's physically impossible for a human to reach the skill cap so there's always room for improvement.
739
58
45
EPT
