|
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 November 10 2014 03:22 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2014 03:14 YuiHirasawa wrote:On November 10 2014 02:00 Plansix wrote:On November 10 2014 01:52 Lokian wrote:
Really excited for this game. I'm all for the moba scene dying down and cycling back to FPS/MMOs or anything else for that matter. Played 2000 hours of dota and now heroes, and this is looking like something fresh.... even though it does look like a few games, the gameplay looks promising in terms of us getting taken cared of in the "fun + competitive" side of things. Other games are competitive but not fun, or the other way around, but Blizzard has a good eye on things like this (even tho SC2 isn't the best representation of that...)
A bit annoyed at the sexist calls from a few people. This game has way more female characters than other games if not most games. The character design of these females are misunderstood as "revealing sex objects" and in actuality it's more of "what looks bad ass," with emphasis on "ass." You have a lineup of sexy female characters and not as sexy characters... which I don't find what the big deal is... unless everyone's perception of the ideal female are covered up tomboys (which I highly doubt even within the female gaming community). I think everyone is fine with sexy female characters like on the ones in Overwatch. People just dont want Ivy from Soul Calibers. That goes form sexy to straight up pandering. And I don't see any problem with that. Video games like Metzen said in the previous quoteare are for everyone. It shouldn't be molded only for overweight and complexed women. In this case give some clothes to Illidan, Orcs and "debuff" all Blizzard characters muscles. We live in a very annoying era and freedom of speech is slowly fading away..Just a kind reminder that women used to loathe on video games and its players ("lol nerd") and now we have to keep them in mind when making a fantasy world.. Japan is the last free bastion of video games. I think I am going to quote George RR Martin when someone asked how he writes his women characters. In response he said: "We, I've always seen women as people." Heaven forbid that Blizzard put some through into their female characters and ask "would a girl/woman want to play this character".
I think Blizzard would know that answer better than most developers, considering the influx of female gamers that jumped into WoW and played for hundreds of hours. The answer's probably something like "it doesn't make much difference".
Although, there's a fun experiment you can do, if you really want to think about why female characters have the same kind of curvy body shapes...here's the splash screen from the Overwatch trailer, which of these characters do you immediately say are female? http://blogs-images.forbes.com/insertcoin/files/2014/11/overwatch111.jpg
Obviously you'll see Tracer and Mercy there. You'll probably also spot the conehead robot between them. Points if you noticed the blue-haired girl in the back next to Reinhardt. And I bet those are the only four anyone would ever point out as definitely female.
So, the fun part is pointing out the character in the Hazmat suit in the bottom left, the big red power-armoured character behind Bastion, the robot character on the far right, and especially the flying greenish character next to Reinhardt who has the exact same body shape and armour shape as Pharah (but notably isn't her, because that image is ex-Overwatch members, which she wasn't). None of those characters have any distinguishing features that automatically label them as male, but the most you'll probably get is "they're ambiguous".
Also, I don't think many people who know nothing about the game would even consider Winston or Bastion to be in the female category, even though from design there's no reason to assume a Gorilla character is male or female until you're explicitly told, and Bastion is actually ungendered canonically, and has nothing remotely male or female about it.
The fact of character design is that there's an automatic association that happens in people's heads that determines if a character is perceived as male or female (or neither). Sure, that's built from centuries and millenia of cultural influences telling you how men and women should appear, but the "why" is largely irrelevant when the intent of concept artists are trying to pack as much into first impressions of characters as they can...which usually means female characters are designed in a way that you will say, with certainty, that it's female purely on a glance.
Of course, there's exceptions, but those basically prove the point more than anything. Samus Aran from Metroid and Sheik from Ocarina of Time are probably the most famous "gotcha" moments where people get surprised by the gender reveal. And both of those are built entirely on the character designs being non-indicative of any gender.
|
this is Team Fortress 2 X Monday Night Combat :/
If there is no movement mechanic aside using hero skills this will be very boring very quickly
|
I can already smell everyone wanting to play the sniper girl and the reaper guy.. the pain...
|
On November 10 2014 04:06 deth2munkies wrote:
This game really looks like what Firefall PvP should have been IMO. It's actually really, really close aesthetically too.
Wasn't Firefall created by former Blizzard employees?
|
On November 10 2014 02:52 Yacobs wrote:
...text cut...
After vanilla WoW, and maybe TBC, Blizzard's strategy very clearly changed. They no longer took nascent genres and made the definitive version. Rather, they started taking mature genres and trying to just release "same game you've played but by Blizzard!" Starcraft 2, Diablo 3, all the WoW expansions, Hearthstone. None of these did anything to advance their genres, none of them introduced anything new gameplay-wise. They all, however, were more simplified than past versions.
...text cut...
Claiming that Hearthstone did nothing to advance the genre of digital card games could not be further from the truth - its a revolution if anything. Did you even play it and compare it to other card games???
You do have some points though, the WoW expansions are indeed without any revolutionary idea, its their cash cow. And that's fine too, there are still tons of people enjoying that content, so why not give them what they want?
SC2 is a game aimed at a genre that's basically dead, and even if it is not revolutionarym at least in my opinion, it's a very well made game and I give them a lot of credit for being the only ones making big investments in a niche genre.
Diablo III is the one point where I wholeheartedly agree, it was a disaster at launch, and was a game without soul, very untypical of the Blizz of old.
|
Revolutionary ideas hold risk, why would Blizzard take a risk on WoW when they can let their competition take the risk and if its a good idea they take it and implement it on their own (often done better then originally)
|
my impression of Overwatch is that it's a first person Bloodline Champions
wonder how the hit scan characters are going to be balanced against heavily skill based characters that don't have hit scan weapons
|
United States7166 Posts
I'm not sure I've ever been more excited for a game yet. I wonder when we can start playing an alpha or beta
|
I think one of the subtler influences LoL seems to have on this game are attractive and diverse female heroes.
A lot of the female champions in LoL are very popular as character designs / personality outside of their in-game function and values, especially with the various (sexy?) skins.
Don't want to have this post bait into a recent "video game discussion", but I think that it's positive that this game will (hopefully have) a sizeable number of female characters.
|
Ya. Number is great. The fact that they're not all sterotypical sex-bombs is the even better part. Tracer seems cool, without really being classically sexy at all. Pharah is a knight in shining armor (I actually watched the trailer without sound the first time and assumed male; which is awesome). Mercy is middle of the road. We do have one WC-style sexy (Symmetra) and one SC-style sexy (Widowmaker). But that's fine, as long as it's not the only way women are depicted in universe.
|
On November 10 2014 02:52 Yacobs wrote:
I don't get why people rationalize a game announcement like this with the statement that "Blizzard has always made casual games." Because that's just false.
Warcraft 1 and 2 were not casual games. War2, probably the beginning of the Blizzard golden age, was simply polished and well-designed. Everything about it, start to finish, was more appealing than the competition. Furthermore, they were perfecting a genre that was not at all played out. They made a serious contribution to RTS with War2 which they continued with Starcraft.
Starcraft was not, in any shape or form, casual. It was just a perfectly made RTS. When something is perfectly made, it appeals to a broader audience. They were advancing the genre further.
Diablo wasn't even made by Blizzard but it fit into their design ethos well enough for them to acquire the company pre-release. Again, not a casual game. Very dark atmosphere, it was decently difficult, it didn't have a cute storyline to draw casuals in. Diablo 2 just took that game and expanded the loot and character building aspects to heavy degrees. Similar to their RTS titles, they were blazing a trail in the genre (loot action RPG). These were games that no one had ever played before.
Same with War3. Again, they brought something unique to the table while making sure the game was polished. It was a little simpler than Starcraft and I personally was disappointed with it upon its release but it was a new type of RTS that people hadn't seen before.
WoW vanilla. Here's where it starts to get a little more open for interpretation. Some people will say that just took Everquest and casualized. Other people say they just refined the formula so it made more sense. In any case, the success of WoW contributed to the overall transformation of Blizzard into something that behaves more like a big corporation.
After vanilla WoW, and maybe TBC, Blizzard's strategy very clearly changed. They no longer took nascent genres and made the definitive version. Rather, they started taking mature genres and trying to just release "same game you've played but by Blizzard!" Starcraft 2, Diablo 3, all the WoW expansions, Hearthstone. None of these did anything to advance their genres, none of them introduced anything new gameplay-wise. They all, however, were more simplified than past versions.
Overwatch is now just "Team Fortress 2.. but by Blizzard!" That's not to say it won't be enjoyable... but defending Blizzard as the same company they've always been is just plain delusional. Especially when the focus of their press release is how they want to bring FPS to as broad an audience as possible (a genre that is ALREADY accepted by a hugely wide audience). That sounds like a business plan, not a design goal.
gues around which time these events happend
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/starcraft-2/128252-a-short-history-of-activision-blizzard-or-how
|
China6329 Posts
On November 10 2014 04:25 TwiggyWan wrote:
this is Team Fortress 2 X Monday Night Combat :/
If there is no movement mechanic aside using hero skills this will be very boring very quickly
I already saw wall climbing, grappling, double jump and teleportation in the trailers, the maps seemed are designed with verticality in mind so there is nothing to worry about.
|
If I'd be Gaben, I'll hire a bunch of designers and convert TF2 concept to an asymmetric Dota-like FPS and release it before Blizz does.
Probably it'll take 2+ years for Blizz to release this game and Valve can release their own flavor before Blizz considering their FPS background and Source++++ engine.
Being first would be huge in that contest.
|
On November 10 2014 22:00 Laserist wrote:
Probably it'll take 2+ years for Blizz to release this game
How so? Beta starts in a few months
|
On November 10 2014 22:22 Big G wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2014 22:00 Laserist wrote:
Probably it'll take 2+ years for Blizz to release this game How so? Beta starts in a few months
I refer the legacy of Blizzard games that take years to develop. Maybe they took their lesson and don't miss their opportunities this time.
|
On November 10 2014 22:31 Laserist wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2014 22:22 Big G wrote:On November 10 2014 22:00 Laserist wrote:
Probably it'll take 2+ years for Blizz to release this game How so? Beta starts in a few months I refer the legacy of Blizzard games that take years to develop. Maybe they took their lesson and don't miss their opportunities this time.
Blizzard has specifically stated they are trying to get away from that and focus on smaller, shorter term projects. They said this after release hearthstone to rousing success. So I wouldn't be shocked if overwatch comes quickly.
|
On November 10 2014 22:00 Laserist wrote:
If I'd be Gaben, I'll hire a bunch of designers and convert TF2 concept to an asymmetric Dota-like FPS and release it before Blizz does.
Probably it'll take 2+ years for Blizz to release this game and Valve can release their own flavor before Blizz considering their FPS background and Source++++ engine.
Being first would be huge in that contest.
Not sure if Gaben rolls that way. That being said competition would be good for business and ultimately good for us. The more people jump on the train the less bs Activision can get away with.
That being said and while the idea of crossing FPS and Dota-game-elements isnt terribly new (Nosgoth for example) and pretty obvious considering the recent success of borderlands 2 and Dota-games, the gameplay trailer looks fun.
HD-Trailer really got me. At first I was hyped for a HD-CGI trailer, then the introduction happened and I thought "meh, another d3-style low cost trailer consisting mainly of a few colored artworks and then I got my HD pixar-style trailer. Awesome :D
|
On November 10 2014 22:49 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2014 22:31 Laserist wrote:On November 10 2014 22:22 Big G wrote:On November 10 2014 22:00 Laserist wrote:
Probably it'll take 2+ years for Blizz to release this game How so? Beta starts in a few months I refer the legacy of Blizzard games that take years to develop. Maybe they took their lesson and don't miss their opportunities this time. Blizzard has specifically stated they are trying to get away from that and focus on smaller, shorter term projects. They said this after release hearthstone to rousing success. So I wouldn't be shocked if overwatch comes quickly.
Does smaller/shorter Projects mean releasing unfinnished stuff?
Hearstone --> basically released in Beta.
SC2 --> Released unfinnished (Bnet.2.0).
D3 --> Unfinnished and just bad (addon fixed most of it).
|
In addition to those, fully completing SC2 required 5 years after the first release, still waiting for LoTV.
I mean, I sold out to the game with the current VODS and I'll probably try and possible pour 15-20 bucks initially without hesitate.
|
It looks great, I'm excited.
With all the abilities going around, I can't help but think there will be some seriously OP shit, and I wonder if multiple people can play a certain character, or if it gets locked when 1 players picks it?
Looking forward to it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
