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.
The only thing they really "followed" on was this DotA-clone craze.
Well, they also copied Warcraft/Starcraft races from Warhammer/WH40k. Gameplaywise I would agree though. Even though their titles don't create a new genre they always managed to revolutionise the existing one.
On November 08 2014 07:40 The_Red_Viper wrote: [quote] 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?
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.
Yes, that is true, "physically impossible for a human to reach the skill cap so there's always room for improvement". But it would be extremely boring.
So you cannot reject this 1-button idea on the basis of it being too easy, or not having enough to do.
You can only reject it on the basis of boringness, unfunness, and the emphasis it puts on an uninteresting and unimpressive skill.
Blizzard wants its diverse fans to feel 'equally represented' by Overwatch's heroes
Blizzard's new team-based multiplayer shooter, Overwatch, is set in a futuristic version of Earth, but it's not so separated by time and space as StarCraft, or as fantastical as Warcraft and Diablo. The game's diverse cast of characters come in a variety of shapes and sizes, genders and non-genders, ethnicities and ages. Look at the game's 12 confirmed characters, and you'll see an eclectic bunch.
That's by design, the developer says. It wants players to feel well-represented by its cast of men and women (and robots and gorillas).
During a press conference at BlizzCon today, Blizzard's Chris Metzen and Jeff Kaplan were asked about the representation of women in their new game and their approach to designing female characters. Metzen responded that Overwatch is indicative of a change in how Blizzard thinks about and designs its heroes.
"We've heard [from] our female employees and ... even my daughter tools me out about it," he said. "We were looking at old Warcraft stuff on YouTube, a cinematic ... and my daughter is like, 'Why are they all in swimsuits?' And I'm like 'Ugh, I don't know, honey.'
"I think we're clearly in an age where gaming is for everybody," he continued. "We build games for everybody. We want everyone to come and play. Increasingly, people want to feel represented, from all walks of life, boys and girls, everybody. We feel indebted to do our best to honor that. There's a lot of room for growth, but specifically with Overwatch, over the past year we've been very cognizant of ... trying not to over-sexualize the female characters. I don't know that we've over-sexualized the male characters. But it's something that we're very sensitive to."
"We want that to be a part of who we are, what our brand looks like and appears to our community. Mike [Morhaime] talked in a roundabout way to that in his speech this morning. So it's something we're very cognizant of. We want girls to feel kick-butt, equally represented."
"We want everybody to feel kick-butt," Kaplan added.
Overwatch characters
Metzen was also asked about how nervous he and the Overwatch team were in launching a new property, the company's first in a long time. Instead of recounting nervousness, Metzen talked with a sense of relief about what games like Overwatch are doing for Blizzard's company-wide morale and sense of creativity.
"For a lot of years, World of Warcraft, it blew up so insanely. We had no idea what that would do," he said. "While that business got its feet under it — honestly, we almost became the World of Warcraft company for a while there... I think we did really good work, but there was a spark that got eaten by the scale of this mammoth business. What you see happening, the last couple years, with Hearthstone and Overwatch, I feel like: We didn't go anywhere, but we're back. I feel like this studio's sense of raw energy and creativity, the focus and appreciation for smaller scale projects, has been rekindled.
"World of Warcraft is our most precious product, we obviously have a great team driving that business, but you start to see this spark now, smaller points of engagement that are totally driven by passion, by people geeking out of their minds. You can feel it around the studio. It's wonderful. After 20-something years it's the coolest time to be at this place."
Blizzard wants its diverse fans to feel 'equally represented' by Overwatch's heroes
Blizzard's new team-based multiplayer shooter, Overwatch, is set in a futuristic version of Earth, but it's not so separated by time and space as StarCraft, or as fantastical as Warcraft and Diablo. The game's diverse cast of characters come in a variety of shapes and sizes, genders and non-genders, ethnicities and ages. Look at the game's 12 confirmed characters, and you'll see an eclectic bunch.
That's by design, the developer says. It wants players to feel well-represented by its cast of men and women (and robots and gorillas).
During a press conference at BlizzCon today, Blizzard's Chris Metzen and Jeff Kaplan were asked about the representation of women in their new game and their approach to designing female characters. Metzen responded that Overwatch is indicative of a change in how Blizzard thinks about and designs its heroes.
"We've heard [from] our female employees and ... even my daughter tools me out about it," he said. "We were looking at old Warcraft stuff on YouTube, a cinematic ... and my daughter is like, 'Why are they all in swimsuits?' And I'm like 'Ugh, I don't know, honey.'
"I think we're clearly in an age where gaming is for everybody," he continued. "We build games for everybody. We want everyone to come and play. Increasingly, people want to feel represented, from all walks of life, boys and girls, everybody. We feel indebted to do our best to honor that. There's a lot of room for growth, but specifically with Overwatch, over the past year we've been very cognizant of ... trying not to over-sexualize the female characters. I don't know that we've over-sexualized the male characters. But it's something that we're very sensitive to."
"We want that to be a part of who we are, what our brand looks like and appears to our community. Mike [Morhaime] talked in a roundabout way to that in his speech this morning. So it's something we're very cognizant of. We want girls to feel kick-butt, equally represented."
"We want everybody to feel kick-butt," Kaplan added.
Overwatch characters
Metzen was also asked about how nervous he and the Overwatch team were in launching a new property, the company's first in a long time. Instead of recounting nervousness, Metzen talked with a sense of relief about what games like Overwatch are doing for Blizzard's company-wide morale and sense of creativity.
"For a lot of years, World of Warcraft, it blew up so insanely. We had no idea what that would do," he said. "While that business got its feet under it — honestly, we almost became the World of Warcraft company for a while there... I think we did really good work, but there was a spark that got eaten by the scale of this mammoth business. What you see happening, the last couple years, with Hearthstone and Overwatch, I feel like: We didn't go anywhere, but we're back. I feel like this studio's sense of raw energy and creativity, the focus and appreciation for smaller scale projects, has been rekindled.
"World of Warcraft is our most precious product, we obviously have a great team driving that business, but you start to see this spark now, smaller points of engagement that are totally driven by passion, by people geeking out of their minds. You can feel it around the studio. It's wonderful. After 20-something years it's the coolest time to be at this place."
On November 08 2014 07:47 Steveling wrote: [quote]
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.
Yes, that is true, "physically impossible for a human to reach the skill cap so there's always room for improvement". But it would be extremely boring.
So you cannot reject this 1-button idea on the basis of it being too easy, or not having enough to do.
You can only reject it on the basis of boringness, unfunness, and the emphasis it puts on an uninteresting and unimpressive skill.
Yes, the point being that it's all subjective after that. I would prefer to have more and different things to do in a game rather than less.
On November 08 2014 07:53 paralleluniverse wrote: [quote] 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.
Yes, that is true, "physically impossible for a human to reach the skill cap so there's always room for improvement". But it would be extremely boring.
So you cannot reject this 1-button idea on the basis of it being too easy, or not having enough to do.
You can only reject it on the basis of boringness, unfunness, and the emphasis it puts on an uninteresting and unimpressive skill.
Yes, the point being that it's all subjective after that. I would prefer to have more and different things to do in a game rather than less.
you can simply have less but more interesting things to do. having more may deter your enjoyment for the things that you find interesting.
For example, if the FPS requires you to reload every bullet and you have to do QTE everytime you reload, that would be incredibly annoying.
On November 08 2014 07:56 ahswtini wrote: [quote] 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.
Yes, that is true, "physically impossible for a human to reach the skill cap so there's always room for improvement". But it would be extremely boring.
So you cannot reject this 1-button idea on the basis of it being too easy, or not having enough to do.
You can only reject it on the basis of boringness, unfunness, and the emphasis it puts on an uninteresting and unimpressive skill.
Yes, the point being that it's all subjective after that. I would prefer to have more and different things to do in a game rather than less.
you can simply have less but more interesting things to do. having more may deter your enjoyment for the things that you find interesting.
For example, if the FPS requires you to reload every bullet and you have to do QTE everytime you reload, that would be incredibly annoying.
I agree completely. I was mostly referring to the auto-aim comment but this quote chain is way too long now. Obviously you could do some silly shit like 1 press of +foward key would take a one step forward and holding it down wouldn't do anything so essentially to move you'd have press your forward key for 1 step etc. Finding a good balance between things to do is the important part like i wrote 4 pages ago.
Blizzard wants its diverse fans to feel 'equally represented' by Overwatch's heroes
Blizzard's new team-based multiplayer shooter, Overwatch, is set in a futuristic version of Earth, but it's not so separated by time and space as StarCraft, or as fantastical as Warcraft and Diablo. The game's diverse cast of characters come in a variety of shapes and sizes, genders and non-genders, ethnicities and ages. Look at the game's 12 confirmed characters, and you'll see an eclectic bunch.
That's by design, the developer says. It wants players to feel well-represented by its cast of men and women (and robots and gorillas).
During a press conference at BlizzCon today, Blizzard's Chris Metzen and Jeff Kaplan were asked about the representation of women in their new game and their approach to designing female characters. Metzen responded that Overwatch is indicative of a change in how Blizzard thinks about and designs its heroes.
"We've heard [from] our female employees and ... even my daughter tools me out about it," he said. "We were looking at old Warcraft stuff on YouTube, a cinematic ... and my daughter is like, 'Why are they all in swimsuits?' And I'm like 'Ugh, I don't know, honey.'
"I think we're clearly in an age where gaming is for everybody," he continued. "We build games for everybody. We want everyone to come and play. Increasingly, people want to feel represented, from all walks of life, boys and girls, everybody. We feel indebted to do our best to honor that. There's a lot of room for growth, but specifically with Overwatch, over the past year we've been very cognizant of ... trying not to over-sexualize the female characters. I don't know that we've over-sexualized the male characters. But it's something that we're very sensitive to."
"We want that to be a part of who we are, what our brand looks like and appears to our community. Mike [Morhaime] talked in a roundabout way to that in his speech this morning. So it's something we're very cognizant of. We want girls to feel kick-butt, equally represented."
"We want everybody to feel kick-butt," Kaplan added.
Overwatch characters
Metzen was also asked about how nervous he and the Overwatch team were in launching a new property, the company's first in a long time. Instead of recounting nervousness, Metzen talked with a sense of relief about what games like Overwatch are doing for Blizzard's company-wide morale and sense of creativity.
"For a lot of years, World of Warcraft, it blew up so insanely. We had no idea what that would do," he said. "While that business got its feet under it — honestly, we almost became the World of Warcraft company for a while there... I think we did really good work, but there was a spark that got eaten by the scale of this mammoth business. What you see happening, the last couple years, with Hearthstone and Overwatch, I feel like: We didn't go anywhere, but we're back. I feel like this studio's sense of raw energy and creativity, the focus and appreciation for smaller scale projects, has been rekindled.
"World of Warcraft is our most precious product, we obviously have a great team driving that business, but you start to see this spark now, smaller points of engagement that are totally driven by passion, by people geeking out of their minds. You can feel it around the studio. It's wonderful. After 20-something years it's the coolest time to be at this place."
Cinematic trailer makes it look more like a kid's movie than a game. If you're wondering, no I don't think past trailers look like they'd be for movies. Looks like it would be a good movie, too; kinda "meh" feelings as a game.
Funny how the two people with teleportation use guns instead of melee; that's absolutely silly in my view. of course nearly everything about nearly all the heroes is silly, so I suppose that it's not saying much.
Game-wise it could have potential but depends how unique the gameplay is over other current stuff (like TF2). I've always wanted to play a fast-paced first person multiplayer game where players have a large array of active abilities (at least 3-4, but preferably 8+). I don't see there being too many abilities in _this_ game though considering that they seemingly chose to go hero-arena style where there's a huge number of heroes but very few abilities per hero. This is a way overdone system in my opinion! One of the bigger issues I have with the game is with the ultimate. It seems like they're difficult or impossible to counter, and don't require significant or any skill to use. Casual heaven perhaps, but competitively nonsense.
I've wanted a game similar to this for a really long time (since playing Nox), but I think the gameplay isn't necessarily close enough to what I wanted. It mostly just seems like Team Fortress (or TF2 specifically) with a twist. I am however looking forward to "clones" of this that critics will undoubtedly label them as. Personally I feel that it's just been such a long overdue genre that it couldn't be considered a clone, but that's kinda erroneous reasoning.
Overall it still looks like a great game that I'd try though. I am just disappointed that it didn't expand even further beyond Team Fortress territory (I'm not saying it didn't expand, just that it didn't go far enough).
Blizzard wants its diverse fans to feel 'equally represented' by Overwatch's heroes
Blizzard's new team-based multiplayer shooter, Overwatch, is set in a futuristic version of Earth, but it's not so separated by time and space as StarCraft, or as fantastical as Warcraft and Diablo. The game's diverse cast of characters come in a variety of shapes and sizes, genders and non-genders, ethnicities and ages. Look at the game's 12 confirmed characters, and you'll see an eclectic bunch.
That's by design, the developer says. It wants players to feel well-represented by its cast of men and women (and robots and gorillas).
During a press conference at BlizzCon today, Blizzard's Chris Metzen and Jeff Kaplan were asked about the representation of women in their new game and their approach to designing female characters. Metzen responded that Overwatch is indicative of a change in how Blizzard thinks about and designs its heroes.
"We've heard [from] our female employees and ... even my daughter tools me out about it," he said. "We were looking at old Warcraft stuff on YouTube, a cinematic ... and my daughter is like, 'Why are they all in swimsuits?' And I'm like 'Ugh, I don't know, honey.'
"I think we're clearly in an age where gaming is for everybody," he continued. "We build games for everybody. We want everyone to come and play. Increasingly, people want to feel represented, from all walks of life, boys and girls, everybody. We feel indebted to do our best to honor that. There's a lot of room for growth, but specifically with Overwatch, over the past year we've been very cognizant of ... trying not to over-sexualize the female characters. I don't know that we've over-sexualized the male characters. But it's something that we're very sensitive to."
"We want that to be a part of who we are, what our brand looks like and appears to our community. Mike [Morhaime] talked in a roundabout way to that in his speech this morning. So it's something we're very cognizant of. We want girls to feel kick-butt, equally represented."
"We want everybody to feel kick-butt," Kaplan added.
Overwatch characters
Metzen was also asked about how nervous he and the Overwatch team were in launching a new property, the company's first in a long time. Instead of recounting nervousness, Metzen talked with a sense of relief about what games like Overwatch are doing for Blizzard's company-wide morale and sense of creativity.
"For a lot of years, World of Warcraft, it blew up so insanely. We had no idea what that would do," he said. "While that business got its feet under it — honestly, we almost became the World of Warcraft company for a while there... I think we did really good work, but there was a spark that got eaten by the scale of this mammoth business. What you see happening, the last couple years, with Hearthstone and Overwatch, I feel like: We didn't go anywhere, but we're back. I feel like this studio's sense of raw energy and creativity, the focus and appreciation for smaller scale projects, has been rekindled.
"World of Warcraft is our most precious product, we obviously have a great team driving that business, but you start to see this spark now, smaller points of engagement that are totally driven by passion, by people geeking out of their minds. You can feel it around the studio. It's wonderful. After 20-something years it's the coolest time to be at this place."
Blizzard wants its diverse fans to feel 'equally represented' by Overwatch's heroes
Blizzard's new team-based multiplayer shooter, Overwatch, is set in a futuristic version of Earth, but it's not so separated by time and space as StarCraft, or as fantastical as Warcraft and Diablo. The game's diverse cast of characters come in a variety of shapes and sizes, genders and non-genders, ethnicities and ages. Look at the game's 12 confirmed characters, and you'll see an eclectic bunch.
That's by design, the developer says. It wants players to feel well-represented by its cast of men and women (and robots and gorillas).
During a press conference at BlizzCon today, Blizzard's Chris Metzen and Jeff Kaplan were asked about the representation of women in their new game and their approach to designing female characters. Metzen responded that Overwatch is indicative of a change in how Blizzard thinks about and designs its heroes.
"We've heard [from] our female employees and ... even my daughter tools me out about it," he said. "We were looking at old Warcraft stuff on YouTube, a cinematic ... and my daughter is like, 'Why are they all in swimsuits?' And I'm like 'Ugh, I don't know, honey.'
"I think we're clearly in an age where gaming is for everybody," he continued. "We build games for everybody. We want everyone to come and play. Increasingly, people want to feel represented, from all walks of life, boys and girls, everybody. We feel indebted to do our best to honor that. There's a lot of room for growth, but specifically with Overwatch, over the past year we've been very cognizant of ... trying not to over-sexualize the female characters. I don't know that we've over-sexualized the male characters. But it's something that we're very sensitive to."
"We want that to be a part of who we are, what our brand looks like and appears to our community. Mike [Morhaime] talked in a roundabout way to that in his speech this morning. So it's something we're very cognizant of. We want girls to feel kick-butt, equally represented."
"We want everybody to feel kick-butt," Kaplan added.
Overwatch characters
Metzen was also asked about how nervous he and the Overwatch team were in launching a new property, the company's first in a long time. Instead of recounting nervousness, Metzen talked with a sense of relief about what games like Overwatch are doing for Blizzard's company-wide morale and sense of creativity.
"For a lot of years, World of Warcraft, it blew up so insanely. We had no idea what that would do," he said. "While that business got its feet under it — honestly, we almost became the World of Warcraft company for a while there... I think we did really good work, but there was a spark that got eaten by the scale of this mammoth business. What you see happening, the last couple years, with Hearthstone and Overwatch, I feel like: We didn't go anywhere, but we're back. I feel like this studio's sense of raw energy and creativity, the focus and appreciation for smaller scale projects, has been rekindled.
"World of Warcraft is our most precious product, we obviously have a great team driving that business, but you start to see this spark now, smaller points of engagement that are totally driven by passion, by people geeking out of their minds. You can feel it around the studio. It's wonderful. After 20-something years it's the coolest time to be at this place."
Yeah, but it does seem they are making an effort. It's arguably better than other Blizzard games. Not there yet though.
I can't see how it's any better than the usual. Every single female character is a big breasted fit lady with tight clothes, most often than not with a lot of exposed skin. It's not exactly a problem, but I can't see a reason why what they say is true. World of Warcraft was better at it than this, specially the early design before they made some races prettier by popular demand.
Blizzard wants its diverse fans to feel 'equally represented' by Overwatch's heroes
Blizzard's new team-based multiplayer shooter, Overwatch, is set in a futuristic version of Earth, but it's not so separated by time and space as StarCraft, or as fantastical as Warcraft and Diablo. The game's diverse cast of characters come in a variety of shapes and sizes, genders and non-genders, ethnicities and ages. Look at the game's 12 confirmed characters, and you'll see an eclectic bunch.
That's by design, the developer says. It wants players to feel well-represented by its cast of men and women (and robots and gorillas).
During a press conference at BlizzCon today, Blizzard's Chris Metzen and Jeff Kaplan were asked about the representation of women in their new game and their approach to designing female characters. Metzen responded that Overwatch is indicative of a change in how Blizzard thinks about and designs its heroes.
"We've heard [from] our female employees and ... even my daughter tools me out about it," he said. "We were looking at old Warcraft stuff on YouTube, a cinematic ... and my daughter is like, 'Why are they all in swimsuits?' And I'm like 'Ugh, I don't know, honey.'
"I think we're clearly in an age where gaming is for everybody," he continued. "We build games for everybody. We want everyone to come and play. Increasingly, people want to feel represented, from all walks of life, boys and girls, everybody. We feel indebted to do our best to honor that. There's a lot of room for growth, but specifically with Overwatch, over the past year we've been very cognizant of ... trying not to over-sexualize the female characters. I don't know that we've over-sexualized the male characters. But it's something that we're very sensitive to."
"We want that to be a part of who we are, what our brand looks like and appears to our community. Mike [Morhaime] talked in a roundabout way to that in his speech this morning. So it's something we're very cognizant of. We want girls to feel kick-butt, equally represented."
"We want everybody to feel kick-butt," Kaplan added.
Overwatch characters
Metzen was also asked about how nervous he and the Overwatch team were in launching a new property, the company's first in a long time. Instead of recounting nervousness, Metzen talked with a sense of relief about what games like Overwatch are doing for Blizzard's company-wide morale and sense of creativity.
"For a lot of years, World of Warcraft, it blew up so insanely. We had no idea what that would do," he said. "While that business got its feet under it — honestly, we almost became the World of Warcraft company for a while there... I think we did really good work, but there was a spark that got eaten by the scale of this mammoth business. What you see happening, the last couple years, with Hearthstone and Overwatch, I feel like: We didn't go anywhere, but we're back. I feel like this studio's sense of raw energy and creativity, the focus and appreciation for smaller scale projects, has been rekindled.
"World of Warcraft is our most precious product, we obviously have a great team driving that business, but you start to see this spark now, smaller points of engagement that are totally driven by passion, by people geeking out of their minds. You can feel it around the studio. It's wonderful. After 20-something years it's the coolest time to be at this place."
Yeah, but it does seem they are making an effort. It's arguably better than other Blizzard games. Not there yet though.
I can't see how it's any better than the usual. Every single female character is a big breasted fit lady with tight clothes, most often than not with a lot of exposed skin. It's not exactly a problem, but I can't see a reason why what they say is true. World of Warcraft was better at it than this, specially the early design before they made some races prettier by popular demand.
Better in the sense that there are more female characters compared with male characters than usual. Some of the tight and light clothing would be expected based on the role, regardless of whether it's male or female, such as an assassin. And while it's fine that some characters are attractive, I agree that as you said, there is room for improvement, and I would expect to see improvements with future character design. At least they acknowledge it as a goal.
I'm not really an fps player, but I will play this game for sure. Damn the cinematic trailer is like Pixar made it. If I didn't know it was from Blizzard I would've guess it's from pixar.
5/15 female characters is a pretty standard distribution actually. Not too diferent from some fighting games. People like saying LoL is sexist but 50% of the human characters are female. Even in Blizzard titles you could often choose the gender of the character, or the distribution was similar, 3/7 in D2 for example.
Distribution matters less than how they are portrayed anyway. There is a reason why people complain far more about LoL than games where all characters are male like TF2.
Blizzard wants its diverse fans to feel 'equally represented' by Overwatch's heroes
Blizzard's new team-based multiplayer shooter, Overwatch, is set in a futuristic version of Earth, but it's not so separated by time and space as StarCraft, or as fantastical as Warcraft and Diablo. The game's diverse cast of characters come in a variety of shapes and sizes, genders and non-genders, ethnicities and ages. Look at the game's 12 confirmed characters, and you'll see an eclectic bunch.
That's by design, the developer says. It wants players to feel well-represented by its cast of men and women (and robots and gorillas).
During a press conference at BlizzCon today, Blizzard's Chris Metzen and Jeff Kaplan were asked about the representation of women in their new game and their approach to designing female characters. Metzen responded that Overwatch is indicative of a change in how Blizzard thinks about and designs its heroes.
"We've heard [from] our female employees and ... even my daughter tools me out about it," he said. "We were looking at old Warcraft stuff on YouTube, a cinematic ... and my daughter is like, 'Why are they all in swimsuits?' And I'm like 'Ugh, I don't know, honey.'
"I think we're clearly in an age where gaming is for everybody," he continued. "We build games for everybody. We want everyone to come and play. Increasingly, people want to feel represented, from all walks of life, boys and girls, everybody. We feel indebted to do our best to honor that. There's a lot of room for growth, but specifically with Overwatch, over the past year we've been very cognizant of ... trying not to over-sexualize the female characters. I don't know that we've over-sexualized the male characters. But it's something that we're very sensitive to."
"We want that to be a part of who we are, what our brand looks like and appears to our community. Mike [Morhaime] talked in a roundabout way to that in his speech this morning. So it's something we're very cognizant of. We want girls to feel kick-butt, equally represented."
"We want everybody to feel kick-butt," Kaplan added.
Overwatch characters
Metzen was also asked about how nervous he and the Overwatch team were in launching a new property, the company's first in a long time. Instead of recounting nervousness, Metzen talked with a sense of relief about what games like Overwatch are doing for Blizzard's company-wide morale and sense of creativity.
"For a lot of years, World of Warcraft, it blew up so insanely. We had no idea what that would do," he said. "While that business got its feet under it — honestly, we almost became the World of Warcraft company for a while there... I think we did really good work, but there was a spark that got eaten by the scale of this mammoth business. What you see happening, the last couple years, with Hearthstone and Overwatch, I feel like: We didn't go anywhere, but we're back. I feel like this studio's sense of raw energy and creativity, the focus and appreciation for smaller scale projects, has been rekindled.
"World of Warcraft is our most precious product, we obviously have a great team driving that business, but you start to see this spark now, smaller points of engagement that are totally driven by passion, by people geeking out of their minds. You can feel it around the studio. It's wonderful. After 20-something years it's the coolest time to be at this place."
I feel like this is the story/world from titan put into game play ideas they had from sc: ghost.
could be fun, but I'm quite curious about a new blizzard IP that doesn't have an apparent focus on character development (I don't really have a better way to describe what I mean - "where's the story"). I guess a lot of "popular" games these days don't really focus on that (cs:go, mobas etc) and HS/heros borrow from previous IP so that feels different.
On November 09 2014 22:15 SKC wrote: 5/15 female characters is a pretty standard distribution actually. Not too diferent from some fighting games. People like saying LoL is sexist but 50% of the human characters are female. Even in Blizzard titles you could often choose the gender of the character, or the distribution was similar, 3/7 in D2 for example.
Distribution matters less than how they are portrayed anyway. There is a reason why people complain far more about LoL than games where all characters are male like TF2.
LoL isn't seen as sexist because of the male/female distribution but because of how most females look.
EPT
