|
Please be advised:
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 April 20 2016 00:47 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2016 00:43 Plansix wrote:On April 20 2016 00:36 Djzapz wrote:On April 19 2016 23:32 Plansix wrote:
Yawn, Twitch viewers and anecdotal evidence used as a metric for success and self affirmation that game person does not like is a failure. Its like everyone is pulling their talking points from the same place, as is always on the internet. People did the same for HotS and the game did turn out to be disastrously bad and boring... and it's now basically irrelevant, like one other Blizzard title that is meant to be competitive. Insert *Yeah, well, you know, that is just like your opinion man.jpg* The endless online argument that revolves around games being failures based on a metric created by poster claiming the game is a failure. People speculate and stuff like that. Then shitters show up and they bring up that people who speculate may be wrong. No shit. I could've said that too. That's a very safe position to take. Maybe yes, maybe no. Now I'm the most boring person ever, do I deserve a medal for pretending to be the voice of reason? NOBODY KNOWS, SHUT UP EVERYONE. The future is a secret. Shhh!
The key is to couch our opinion as that, an opinion. Not a declarative statement that the “game is a failure”. That is an opinion being passed off as fact. I get that people like to talk like that on the internet, but you don’t get to go back as say “That was clearly my just opinion.”
|
Played overwatch this last weekend. Seems really fun, though I wish the maps had some mechanic to divide teams' attentions. Fighting over a single point on the map at all times(even if that point changes position) made all the maps feel vaguely samey aside from considerations like openness-of-the-fighting-point and distance-from-my-base.
|
On April 19 2016 22:49 kongoline wrote:
i agree game is pretty shallow and i predict it will fail like heroers of storm did (similar reasons too)
I love it when people state their opinions like facts. "I don't like it, that's why it sucks and anyone who disagrees with me is wrong, because I say so!" 
I don't know it's just funny to me, when I think about what their life must be like.
Well, I guess that's what you get, when you're giving kids awards for essentially achieving nothing but participating..
Everybody is special and everyone's opinion matters.....well guess what you're not special and nobody cares about your opinion! It's neither important nor a fact!! So take your damn trophy and get lost!!
...gotta love George Carlin, that guy was a genius! 
|
On April 20 2016 00:52 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2016 00:47 Djzapz wrote:On April 20 2016 00:43 Plansix wrote:On April 20 2016 00:36 Djzapz wrote:On April 19 2016 23:32 Plansix wrote:
Yawn, Twitch viewers and anecdotal evidence used as a metric for success and self affirmation that game person does not like is a failure. Its like everyone is pulling their talking points from the same place, as is always on the internet. People did the same for HotS and the game did turn out to be disastrously bad and boring... and it's now basically irrelevant, like one other Blizzard title that is meant to be competitive. Insert *Yeah, well, you know, that is just like your opinion man.jpg* The endless online argument that revolves around games being failures based on a metric created by poster claiming the game is a failure. People speculate and stuff like that. Then shitters show up and they bring up that people who speculate may be wrong. No shit. I could've said that too. That's a very safe position to take. Maybe yes, maybe no. Now I'm the most boring person ever, do I deserve a medal for pretending to be the voice of reason? NOBODY KNOWS, SHUT UP EVERYONE. The future is a secret. Shhh! The key is to couch our opinion as that, an opinion. Not a declarative statement that the “game is a failure”. That is an opinion being passed off as fact. I get that people like to talk like that on the internet, but you don’t get to go back as say “That was clearly my just opinion.”
I made no such declaration and I'm not too concerned with people who do. Why flip out? Are you worried that people might mistake people's opinions as fact because they say them with a lot of conviction? If that's the case then those people are even dumber than whoever's spewing the opinion and I doubt you'll save them.
Nonetheless it really is the case that Blizzard is once again making very curious decisions, and it's fair to say that many of those will discourage many people from playing. First the pretty hefty pricepoint for a game that was initially thought to be a f2p title, then the lack of customizability in a FPS of all genres, the absence of fan mapmaking tools or private servers, the incredibly low tick rate making for poor hitscan reg, let alone my own complaints about how games play out in general. I don't think it means the game is "dead" before it hatched, but holy shit do I think there are grounds for complaining. Every time I see Blizzard yap about how they took feedback into account, I can't help to laugh, and I think it's justified. Blizzard couldn't care less about feedback, FFS, that much is clear.
If you can't see that those shortcomings may lead to the game selling fewer copies, and may lead many players from getting bored of it pretty quick, then we have to agree to disagree. I think people are bashing their heads against the wall, I think I am - but it's because there have been times when complaining to certain developers actually turned out to be good. Some games were made better when people complained enough and the dev listened. It's a damn shame Blizzard wouldn't budge on some of their shit decisions. No mapmaking in a FPS, jesus fucking christ is this the 1990's. It's a huge asset for a community.
On April 20 2016 01:02 thePunGun wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2016 22:49 kongoline wrote:
i agree game is pretty shallow and i predict it will fail like heroers of storm did (similar reasons too) I love it when people state their opinions like facts. " I don't like it, that's why it sucks and anyone who disagrees with me is wrong, because I say so!" I don't know it's just funny to me, when I think about what their life must be like. Well, I guess that's what you get, when you're giving kids awards for essentially achieving nothing but participating..everybody is special and everyone's opinion matters.....well guess what you're not special and nobody cares about your opinion! It's neither important nor a fact!! So take your damn trophy and get lost!! ...gotta love George Carlin, that guy was a genius!
"I predict X" is not a statement of fact, and "I don't like it, that's why it sucks and anyone who disagrees with me is wrong, because I say so!" is not at all representative of what the guy said.
I think it's hilarious that your statement is much more of your opinion being stated as a fact. You start of by miscaratirizing what he said VERY badly, so from a complete strawman, you build this complete fiction that he was raised that way. So you distort the guy's argument, and then you blame his parents for something he didn't even say. That's fucking glorious. And then you even state that no one cares as if it was a fact! 10/10 irony is real good job.
|
On April 20 2016 01:03 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2016 00:52 Plansix wrote:On April 20 2016 00:47 Djzapz wrote:On April 20 2016 00:43 Plansix wrote:On April 20 2016 00:36 Djzapz wrote:On April 19 2016 23:32 Plansix wrote:
Yawn, Twitch viewers and anecdotal evidence used as a metric for success and self affirmation that game person does not like is a failure. Its like everyone is pulling their talking points from the same place, as is always on the internet. People did the same for HotS and the game did turn out to be disastrously bad and boring... and it's now basically irrelevant, like one other Blizzard title that is meant to be competitive. Insert *Yeah, well, you know, that is just like your opinion man.jpg* The endless online argument that revolves around games being failures based on a metric created by poster claiming the game is a failure. People speculate and stuff like that. Then shitters show up and they bring up that people who speculate may be wrong. No shit. I could've said that too. That's a very safe position to take. Maybe yes, maybe no. Now I'm the most boring person ever, do I deserve a medal for pretending to be the voice of reason? NOBODY KNOWS, SHUT UP EVERYONE. The future is a secret. Shhh! The key is to couch our opinion as that, an opinion. Not a declarative statement that the “game is a failure”. That is an opinion being passed off as fact. I get that people like to talk like that on the internet, but you don’t get to go back as say “That was clearly my just opinion.” I made no such declaration and I'm not too concerned with people who do. Why flip out? Are you worried that people might mistake people's opinions as fact because they say them with a lot of conviction? If that's the case then those people are even dumber than whoever's spewing the opinion and I doubt you'll save them. Nonetheless it really is the case that Blizzard is once again making very curious decisions, and it's fair to say that many of those will discourage many people from playing. First the pretty hefty pricepoint for a game that was initially thought to be a f2p title, then the lack of customizability in a FPS of all genres, the absence of fan mapmaking tools or private servers, the incredibly low tick rate making for poor hitscan reg, let alone my own complaints about how games play out in general. I don't think it means the game is "dead" before it hatched, but holy shit do I think there are grounds for complaining. Every time I see Blizzard yap about how they took feedback into account, I can't help to laugh, and I think it's justified. Blizzard couldn't care less about feedback, FFS, that much is clear. If you can't see that those shortcomings may lead to the game selling fewer copies, and may lead many players from getting bored of it pretty quick, then we have to agree to disagree. I think people are bashing their heads against the wall, I think I am - but it's because there have been times when complaining to certain developers actually turned out to be good. Some games were made better when people complained enough and the dev listened. It's a damn shame Blizzard wouldn't budge on some of their shit decisions. No mapmaking in a FPS, jesus fucking christ is this the 1990's. It's a huge asset for a community. Show nested quote +On April 20 2016 01:02 thePunGun wrote:On April 19 2016 22:49 kongoline wrote:
i agree game is pretty shallow and i predict it will fail like heroers of storm did (similar reasons too) I love it when people state their opinions like facts. " I don't like it, that's why it sucks and anyone who disagrees with me is wrong, because I say so!" I don't know it's just funny to me, when I think about what their life must be like. Well, I guess that's what you get, when you're giving kids awards for essentially achieving nothing but participating..everybody is special and everyone's opinion matters.....well guess what you're not special and nobody cares about your opinion! It's neither important nor a fact!! So take your damn trophy and get lost!! ...gotta love George Carlin, that guy was a genius! "I predict X" is not a statement of fact, and " I don't like it, that's why it sucks and anyone who disagrees with me is wrong, because I say so!" is not at all representative of what the guy said. I think it's hilarious that your statement is much more of your opinion being stated as a fact. You start of by miscaratirizing what he said VERY badly, so from a complete strawman, you build this complete fiction that he was raised that way. So you distort the guy's argument, and then you blame his parents for something he didn't even say. That's fucking glorious. And then you even state that no one cares as if it was a fact! 10/10 irony is real good job.
The guy started with "I agree ---->followed by opinion "fail like heroes" so how did heroes fail? Then why can I play it everyday and find people to play with me? how does anything he said reflect reality? I'm sorry but that guy clearly took the assumption train to self-opinionated valley...
edit: I'm a numbers guy, numbers never lie (although errors can happen we're all just human unfortunatley). That's why I
tend to overreact when people state their interpretation of reality as a fact. My gf usually elbows me in the ribs whenever I get carried away in my so called "real life". 
|
"Interesting" stuff happening in this thread.
But I do share the sentiment, if Blizzard approaches the game like they did SC2 where they were too prideful to listen to the pro community, it can only be bad for the game in the long term. At the same time it might also be a thing of them being so big, it's hard to implement and digest changes at a fast rate. Even when you look at SC2's test servers most of the time the patches were quite mild from what you'd expect. I'd go crazy if I had a test server, I mean look at dota icefrog/valve have used the game as an experiment numerous times -- and all for the better in the long-term I'd say.
Another thing to consider this will be the first time Blizzard has really forayed into a FPS genre, something they really haven't done before.(SC:Ghost being a 3rd person game) Concurrently, the focus seems to be less on FPS elements and more on ability usage. We'll see either way.
The guy started with "I agree ---->followed by opinion "fail like heroes" so how did heroes fail? Then why can I play it everyday and find people to play with me? how does anything he said reflect reality? I'm sorry but that guy clearly took the assumption train to self-opinionated valley...
Perhaps, his point still kind of stands. I think what he meant it 'failed' as an e-sport. There's no other kind of failure he could be talking about, barring design decisions blizzard made with the game, but that's entirely subjective. I'm pretty sure we can agree HotS can't compete with LoL/DotA in terms of viewership or competitive opportunities, but perhaps blizzard never intended that for the game anyway.
I mean, I'm with you. Games should be played and enjoyed but nowadays every MP title is judged by how many people watch it on twitch or the pro scene it employs, among other things.
|
The difference between Overwatch and HotS or SC2 is that Overwatch is more fun than rival similar titles (TF2, Battleborn), whereas HotS and SC2 are not more fun than Dota, League or SC:BW. I think that this game could end up being Blizzard's most successful title in years with more longevity than either HotS or SC2.
|
On April 20 2016 01:36 Meta wrote:
The difference between Overwatch and HotS or SC2 is that Overwatch is more fun than rival similar titles (TF2, Battleborn), whereas HotS and SC2 are not more fun than Dota, League or SC:BW. I think that this game could end up being Blizzard's most successful title in years with more longevity than either HotS or SC2.
I don't see it eclipsing Hearthstone in the long run tho so it won't be the most successful title in years.
|
I think the most important part is that it is something different and not trying to work it's way into an already saturated market. And it leverages Blizzards greatest abilities, which are to make accessible games with amazing, larger than life characters, that also have depth for those who are looking for it that.
On April 20 2016 01:39 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2016 01:36 Meta wrote:
The difference between Overwatch and HotS or SC2 is that Overwatch is more fun than rival similar titles (TF2, Battleborn), whereas HotS and SC2 are not more fun than Dota, League or SC:BW. I think that this game could end up being Blizzard's most successful title in years with more longevity than either HotS or SC2. I don't see it eclipsing Hearthstone in the long run tho so it won't be the most successful title in years.
Its also a think that can just exist beside hearthstone, since the markets are totally different.
|
On April 20 2016 01:39 Plansix wrote:I think the most important part is that it is something different and not trying to work it's way into an already saturated market. And it leverages Blizzards greatest abilities, which are to make accessible games with amazing, larger than life characters, that also have depth for those who are looking for it that. Show nested quote +On April 20 2016 01:39 Gorsameth wrote:On April 20 2016 01:36 Meta wrote:
The difference between Overwatch and HotS or SC2 is that Overwatch is more fun than rival similar titles (TF2, Battleborn), whereas HotS and SC2 are not more fun than Dota, League or SC:BW. I think that this game could end up being Blizzard's most successful title in years with more longevity than either HotS or SC2. I don't see it eclipsing Hearthstone in the long run tho so it won't be the most successful title in years. Its also a think that can just exist beside hearthstone, since the markets are totally different.
No where did I say they can't exist together or that Overwatch can't be successful. I think it will do very well but you can't call it their most successful title in years if it doesn't beat Hearthstone.
|
It won't beat Hearthstone for the title of 'most succesful recent blizz game' but that's mainly because there was no good TGC client available so far. Wizards of the coast are idiots and I bet they're kicking themselves when they look at HS. Hearthstone came at a really good time and it's also warcraft-themed which is a big bonus for the blizzard fans in general.
There's some alternatives to Overwatch but I agree, none of them are going to be in overwatch's way. On the other hand SC2 had a huge potential as well, living up to the legacy of BW was going to be a hard effort anyway, but I don't think it achieved what it should've. I guess the other thing to say is that the RTS-genre has been on the decline since WC3 so perhaps it's not just blizzard's fault.
|
On April 20 2016 01:42 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2016 01:39 Plansix wrote:I think the most important part is that it is something different and not trying to work it's way into an already saturated market. And it leverages Blizzards greatest abilities, which are to make accessible games with amazing, larger than life characters, that also have depth for those who are looking for it that. On April 20 2016 01:39 Gorsameth wrote:On April 20 2016 01:36 Meta wrote:
The difference between Overwatch and HotS or SC2 is that Overwatch is more fun than rival similar titles (TF2, Battleborn), whereas HotS and SC2 are not more fun than Dota, League or SC:BW. I think that this game could end up being Blizzard's most successful title in years with more longevity than either HotS or SC2. I don't see it eclipsing Hearthstone in the long run tho so it won't be the most successful title in years. Its also a think that can just exist beside hearthstone, since the markets are totally different. No where did I say they can't exist together or that Overwatch can't be successful. I think it will do very well but you can't call it their most successful title in years if it doesn't beat Hearthstone.
Overwatch can't beat a massively successful and accessible f2p game, especially not in term of viewership. Have you watched Overwatch? It fucking sucks as a spectator game.
|
On April 20 2016 01:45 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2016 01:42 Gorsameth wrote:On April 20 2016 01:39 Plansix wrote:I think the most important part is that it is something different and not trying to work it's way into an already saturated market. And it leverages Blizzards greatest abilities, which are to make accessible games with amazing, larger than life characters, that also have depth for those who are looking for it that. On April 20 2016 01:39 Gorsameth wrote:On April 20 2016 01:36 Meta wrote:
The difference between Overwatch and HotS or SC2 is that Overwatch is more fun than rival similar titles (TF2, Battleborn), whereas HotS and SC2 are not more fun than Dota, League or SC:BW. I think that this game could end up being Blizzard's most successful title in years with more longevity than either HotS or SC2. I don't see it eclipsing Hearthstone in the long run tho so it won't be the most successful title in years. Its also a think that can just exist beside hearthstone, since the markets are totally different. No where did I say they can't exist together or that Overwatch can't be successful. I think it will do very well but you can't call it their most successful title in years if it doesn't beat Hearthstone. Overwatch can't beat a massively successful and accessible f2p game, especially not in term of viewership. Have you watched Overwatch? It fucking sucks as a spectator game.
Please take a deep breath and read the conversation again.
Then realize your barking up the wrong tree.
Thank you.
|
I'm pretty sure hearthstone isn't a success because it's a masterpiece of a spectator game. lmao. it's a decent tgc game at the right time at the right place with warcraft theme.
What I'm saying a game can easily be a shit spectator game and still "succeed". Look at LoL. Percentage based there's far more people playing than watching, compared to say a game like SC2 where the majority of people actually watched the game instead of played it.
|
On April 20 2016 01:47 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2016 01:45 Djzapz wrote:On April 20 2016 01:42 Gorsameth wrote:On April 20 2016 01:39 Plansix wrote:I think the most important part is that it is something different and not trying to work it's way into an already saturated market. And it leverages Blizzards greatest abilities, which are to make accessible games with amazing, larger than life characters, that also have depth for those who are looking for it that. On April 20 2016 01:39 Gorsameth wrote:On April 20 2016 01:36 Meta wrote:
The difference between Overwatch and HotS or SC2 is that Overwatch is more fun than rival similar titles (TF2, Battleborn), whereas HotS and SC2 are not more fun than Dota, League or SC:BW. I think that this game could end up being Blizzard's most successful title in years with more longevity than either HotS or SC2. I don't see it eclipsing Hearthstone in the long run tho so it won't be the most successful title in years. Its also a think that can just exist beside hearthstone, since the markets are totally different. No where did I say they can't exist together or that Overwatch can't be successful. I think it will do very well but you can't call it their most successful title in years if it doesn't beat Hearthstone. Overwatch can't beat a massively successful and accessible f2p game, especially not in term of viewership. Have you watched Overwatch? It fucking sucks as a spectator game. Please take a deep breath and read the conversation again. Then realize your barking up the wrong tree. Thank you.
"I think it will do very well but you can't call it their most successful title in years if it doesn't beat Hearthstone." -You
My point is it could be considered their most successful title in years without beating Hearthstone in terms of viewership if it was successful financially and somehow led to a healthy competitive scene, which I doubt will happen. But IDK what metric you're thinking about for "beating hearthstone". So no I didn't misunderstand you, I was indirectly asking for clarification. How does Overwatch need to "beat" Hearthstone?
I ask because people have vastly different standards for what success is. For Blizzard it's financial success. For some it's viewership. For some it's sustainability... etc.
|
On April 20 2016 01:51 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2016 01:47 Gorsameth wrote:On April 20 2016 01:45 Djzapz wrote:On April 20 2016 01:42 Gorsameth wrote:On April 20 2016 01:39 Plansix wrote:I think the most important part is that it is something different and not trying to work it's way into an already saturated market. And it leverages Blizzards greatest abilities, which are to make accessible games with amazing, larger than life characters, that also have depth for those who are looking for it that. On April 20 2016 01:39 Gorsameth wrote:On April 20 2016 01:36 Meta wrote:
The difference between Overwatch and HotS or SC2 is that Overwatch is more fun than rival similar titles (TF2, Battleborn), whereas HotS and SC2 are not more fun than Dota, League or SC:BW. I think that this game could end up being Blizzard's most successful title in years with more longevity than either HotS or SC2. I don't see it eclipsing Hearthstone in the long run tho so it won't be the most successful title in years. Its also a think that can just exist beside hearthstone, since the markets are totally different. No where did I say they can't exist together or that Overwatch can't be successful. I think it will do very well but you can't call it their most successful title in years if it doesn't beat Hearthstone. Overwatch can't beat a massively successful and accessible f2p game, especially not in term of viewership. Have you watched Overwatch? It fucking sucks as a spectator game. Please take a deep breath and read the conversation again. Then realize your barking up the wrong tree. Thank you. "I think it will do very well but you can't call it their most successful title in years if it doesn't beat Hearthstone." -You My point is it could be considered their most successful title in years without beating Hearthstone in terms of viewership if it was successful financially and somehow led to a healthy competitive scene, which I doubt will happen. But IDK what metric you're thinking about for "beating hearthstone". So no I didn't misunderstand you, I was indirectly asking for clarification. How does Overwatch need to "beat" Hearthstone?
No one is talking about viewership except for you. You are arguing against points not on is making.
|
|
|
On April 20 2016 01:54 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2016 01:51 Djzapz wrote:On April 20 2016 01:47 Gorsameth wrote:On April 20 2016 01:45 Djzapz wrote:On April 20 2016 01:42 Gorsameth wrote:On April 20 2016 01:39 Plansix wrote:I think the most important part is that it is something different and not trying to work it's way into an already saturated market. And it leverages Blizzards greatest abilities, which are to make accessible games with amazing, larger than life characters, that also have depth for those who are looking for it that. On April 20 2016 01:39 Gorsameth wrote:On April 20 2016 01:36 Meta wrote:
The difference between Overwatch and HotS or SC2 is that Overwatch is more fun than rival similar titles (TF2, Battleborn), whereas HotS and SC2 are not more fun than Dota, League or SC:BW. I think that this game could end up being Blizzard's most successful title in years with more longevity than either HotS or SC2. I don't see it eclipsing Hearthstone in the long run tho so it won't be the most successful title in years. Its also a think that can just exist beside hearthstone, since the markets are totally different. No where did I say they can't exist together or that Overwatch can't be successful. I think it will do very well but you can't call it their most successful title in years if it doesn't beat Hearthstone. Overwatch can't beat a massively successful and accessible f2p game, especially not in term of viewership. Have you watched Overwatch? It fucking sucks as a spectator game. Please take a deep breath and read the conversation again. Then realize your barking up the wrong tree. Thank you. "I think it will do very well but you can't call it their most successful title in years if it doesn't beat Hearthstone." -You My point is it could be considered their most successful title in years without beating Hearthstone in terms of viewership if it was successful financially and somehow led to a healthy competitive scene, which I doubt will happen. But IDK what metric you're thinking about for "beating hearthstone". So no I didn't misunderstand you, I was indirectly asking for clarification. How does Overwatch need to "beat" Hearthstone? No one is talking about viewership except for you. You are arguing against points not on is making.
I'm asking by what metric ffs, my point is "if not viewership then what" and your answer is "not viewership".
This is ridiculous.
|
On April 20 2016 01:51 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2016 01:47 Gorsameth wrote:On April 20 2016 01:45 Djzapz wrote:On April 20 2016 01:42 Gorsameth wrote:On April 20 2016 01:39 Plansix wrote:I think the most important part is that it is something different and not trying to work it's way into an already saturated market. And it leverages Blizzards greatest abilities, which are to make accessible games with amazing, larger than life characters, that also have depth for those who are looking for it that. On April 20 2016 01:39 Gorsameth wrote:On April 20 2016 01:36 Meta wrote:
The difference between Overwatch and HotS or SC2 is that Overwatch is more fun than rival similar titles (TF2, Battleborn), whereas HotS and SC2 are not more fun than Dota, League or SC:BW. I think that this game could end up being Blizzard's most successful title in years with more longevity than either HotS or SC2. I don't see it eclipsing Hearthstone in the long run tho so it won't be the most successful title in years. Its also a think that can just exist beside hearthstone, since the markets are totally different. No where did I say they can't exist together or that Overwatch can't be successful. I think it will do very well but you can't call it their most successful title in years if it doesn't beat Hearthstone. Overwatch can't beat a massively successful and accessible f2p game, especially not in term of viewership. Have you watched Overwatch? It fucking sucks as a spectator game. Please take a deep breath and read the conversation again. Then realize your barking up the wrong tree. Thank you. "I think it will do very well but you can't call it their most successful title in years if it doesn't beat Hearthstone." -You My point is it could be considered their most successful title in years without beating Hearthstone in terms of viewership if it was successful financially and somehow led to a healthy competitive scene, which I doubt will happen. But IDK what metric you're thinking about for "beating hearthstone". So no I didn't misunderstand you, I was indirectly asking for clarification. How does Overwatch need to "beat" Hearthstone?
Will it get more twitch views then Hearthstone (after the initial first week hype)? Doubtful
Will it have more players then Hearthstone? probably not.
Will it make more money then Hearthstone? Unlikely (even tho Hearthstone is f2p casual players spend a lot of money on games like that)
Hence, while it will probably be 'successful' it won't be more successful then Hearthstone.
I don't follow the competitive Hearthstone scene so sure maybe Overwatch will beat that (I doubt it since I agree with you that its a bad spectator game) but that alone is imo not enough.
|
On April 20 2016 01:55 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2016 01:54 Plansix wrote:On April 20 2016 01:51 Djzapz wrote:On April 20 2016 01:47 Gorsameth wrote:On April 20 2016 01:45 Djzapz wrote:On April 20 2016 01:42 Gorsameth wrote:On April 20 2016 01:39 Plansix wrote:I think the most important part is that it is something different and not trying to work it's way into an already saturated market. And it leverages Blizzards greatest abilities, which are to make accessible games with amazing, larger than life characters, that also have depth for those who are looking for it that. On April 20 2016 01:39 Gorsameth wrote:On April 20 2016 01:36 Meta wrote:
The difference between Overwatch and HotS or SC2 is that Overwatch is more fun than rival similar titles (TF2, Battleborn), whereas HotS and SC2 are not more fun than Dota, League or SC:BW. I think that this game could end up being Blizzard's most successful title in years with more longevity than either HotS or SC2. I don't see it eclipsing Hearthstone in the long run tho so it won't be the most successful title in years. Its also a think that can just exist beside hearthstone, since the markets are totally different. No where did I say they can't exist together or that Overwatch can't be successful. I think it will do very well but you can't call it their most successful title in years if it doesn't beat Hearthstone. Overwatch can't beat a massively successful and accessible f2p game, especially not in term of viewership. Have you watched Overwatch? It fucking sucks as a spectator game. Please take a deep breath and read the conversation again. Then realize your barking up the wrong tree. Thank you. "I think it will do very well but you can't call it their most successful title in years if it doesn't beat Hearthstone." -You My point is it could be considered their most successful title in years without beating Hearthstone in terms of viewership if it was successful financially and somehow led to a healthy competitive scene, which I doubt will happen. But IDK what metric you're thinking about for "beating hearthstone". So no I didn't misunderstand you, I was indirectly asking for clarification. How does Overwatch need to "beat" Hearthstone? No one is talking about viewership except for you. You are arguing against points not on is making. I'm asking by what metric ffs, my point is "if not viewership then what" and your answer is "not viewership". This is ridiculous.
How much money the game makes for Blizzard, which isn't publicly available, so we don't talk about it. Or that people are playing and enjoying the game, because you can always find a match of Hots.
You don't just got to pick the number that you like and then try to drag it into every discussion. You are just talking past people, rather than to them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
