|
On September 23 2015 03:44 Numy wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2015 03:18 jcarlsoniv wrote:On September 23 2015 03:16 Numy wrote:On September 23 2015 03:14 onlywonderboy wrote:
I'm gonna be so sad when they announce Overwatch is going to be F2P Can't wait for the F2P League of legends model........................... why is this still a thing I don't even. I know I've said it quite a few times, but I feel like the HiRez F2P model would be ideal*. *for consumers I don't see Blizzard ever doing this. They had the perfect chance to do that with HotS but instead went for the greedy approach. Why would they do that with Overwatch? The HiRez/Valve/PoE approach where cosmetics the main things being sold(along with small things to make life easier like Stash slots etc.) is the best approach for consumers and studio alike but for some reason it looks companies don't like doing it.
Unfortunately I think you're right. There's so much hype around it that any bad blood built by a shitty payment model will likely be overruled.
The only reason HotS survived at all, imo, was because of Battle.net integration as well as cross-game rewards. And Blizzard just pumping resources into the eSports scene, I suppose. I expect Overwatch to be similar, but it's probably a bit harder to do because it's a new universe/IP (Warcraft Universe rewards don't really make a ton of sense...).
|
Why would any company want to be fair to it's costumers when the costumers are still perfectly happy to pay silly amounts of cash in "micro transactions" and all they have to deal with is the occasional grumpy person on there forums they can ban from posting simply by calling the whole conversation "toxic"
|
United States47024 Posts
IDK, I really just don't have any hype for Overwatch. Blizzard has no track record making shooters so it's guaranteed they'll make design errors in a genre they have no experience in. So the only thing carrying it at all is the Blizzard name, but the Blizzard name just doesn't hold much weight to me with their recent release history.
Maybe it's just that I'm not into shooters, but even if I were, I feel like I'd be even more apathetic toward the possibility of Blizzard doing stuff wrong on their first attempt at a competitive shooter.
|
Well if they just copied and combined Wolf ET with TF2 I think it'll be amazing. Man I miss Wolf ET. What a game. What a fucking game.
Why is it that just because it's a blizzard game it's suddenly a competitive game too? That's worse than the forced competitive scene for HotS lol
|
Track record is a major factor in predicting the success and struggles of Overwatch but is there not the chance they just nail it?
|
On September 23 2015 04:55 Numy wrote:
Well if they just copied and combined Wolf ET with TF2 I think it'll be amazing. Man I miss Wolf ET. What a game. What a fucking game.
Why is it that just because it's a blizzard game it's suddenly a competitive game too? That's worse than the forced competitive scene for HotS lol
Because it's Blizzard, there will be a competitive scene, whether or not they have to manufacture it.
|
On September 23 2015 04:55 Numy wrote:
Well if they just copied and combined Wolf ET with TF2 I think it'll be amazing. Man I miss Wolf ET. What a game. What a fucking game.
Why is it that just because it's a blizzard game it's suddenly a competitive game too? That's worse than the forced competitive scene for HotS lol
hearthstone has a competetive scene
|
On September 23 2015 05:01 nafta wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2015 04:55 Numy wrote:
Well if they just copied and combined Wolf ET with TF2 I think it'll be amazing. Man I miss Wolf ET. What a game. What a fucking game.
Why is it that just because it's a blizzard game it's suddenly a competitive game too? That's worse than the forced competitive scene for HotS lol hearthstone has a competetive scene
Competitive streaming scene. Such a joke lol.
|
United States47024 Posts
On September 23 2015 04:59 mordek wrote:
Track record is a major factor in predicting the success and struggles of Overwatch but is there not the chance they just nail it?
Sure, but in a game that is constantly patched and changed, "just nailing" it doesn't mean a whole lot unless the company can recognize what they got right. It's not like how things used to be where a dev can get lucky and a game that's good stays good. With current F2P and constant content expansion models, developers are constantly mucking around with their games and trying to fix things--which they do, but they also break stuff if they aren't really clear on what works and what doesn't.
Blizzard "just nailed" a lot of stuff with the Hearthstone initial release, despite it having problems. But I would argue that they didn't have a great handle on what they did wrong and right, so it turns out that subsequent patches and expansions have resulted in some gameplay issues getting fixed, some getting improved, some getting broken, and some getting even worse.
|
On September 23 2015 04:52 TheYango wrote:
IDK, I really just don't have any hype for Overwatch. Blizzard has no track record making shooters so it's guaranteed they'll make design errors in a genre they have no experience in. So the only thing carrying it at all is the Blizzard name, but the Blizzard name just doesn't hold much weight to me with their recent release history.
Maybe it's just that I'm not into shooters, but even if I were, I feel like I'd be even more apathetic toward the possibility of Blizzard doing stuff wrong on their first attempt at a competitive shooter.
I think they're doing it right so far - ie, they're getting people hyped up on their character work rather than the game mechanics themselves. That seems pretty blizzard imo.
|
On September 23 2015 04:55 Numy wrote:
Well if they just copied and combined Wolf ET with TF2 I think it'll be amazing. Man I miss Wolf ET. What a game. What a fucking game.
Why is it that just because it's a blizzard game it's suddenly a competitive game too? That's worse than the forced competitive scene for HotS lol
I thought I was the only one here who played ET.
There is pretty much nothing about that game I didn't like.
Hitting the ricochet grenade multikills as an engi, killsprees on the rambo medic with the adrenaline, covert ops hijinks, so much fun.
|
United States47024 Posts
For a game that's ostensibly a mutiplayer-only competitive game, character work feels just like fluff to me.
|
On September 23 2015 05:13 Doctorbeat wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2015 04:55 Numy wrote:
Well if they just copied and combined Wolf ET with TF2 I think it'll be amazing. Man I miss Wolf ET. What a game. What a fucking game.
Why is it that just because it's a blizzard game it's suddenly a competitive game too? That's worse than the forced competitive scene for HotS lol I thought I was the only one here who played ET. There is pretty much nothing about that game I didn't like. Hitting the ricochet grenade multikills as an engi, killsprees on the rambo medic with the adrenaline, covert ops hijinks, so much fun.
Man ET is in my top 3 list of greatest FPS ever made honestly. Everything in that game was no only awesomely fun but also scaled with skill. Arg I miss it so much :<. Rambo medic with adrenaline was my go to but sometimes you just have to bust out the crazy engi kill sprees for shits and giggles.
The list for anyone curious is prob CS 1.3,Quake 3(Modded the best but unmodded still amazing) and Wolf ET. Tribes 2 is honorable mention as I never got to play enough of it.
|
On September 23 2015 05:14 TheYango wrote:
For a game that's ostensibly a mutiplayer-only competitive game, character work feels just like fluff to me.
Universe building is a big part of Blizzard's system. BW was great, but what got a lot of people (including me) into the game was the campaign and design. Few people just looked at the mechanics without loving the game itself. Hearthstone got a lot of momentum from the Warcraft nostalgia.
From a competitive scene, it doesn't really matter. If you're just trying to get your game on a stage with millions of dollars, then who cares what the setting is. If you want players, it's extremely important imo.
|
On September 23 2015 05:14 TheYango wrote:
For a game that's ostensibly a mutiplayer-only competitive game, character work feels just like fluff to me.
I was mostly talking about their marketing so far. That is to say that they're focusing on their character work, which everyone knows blizzard has good experience with, as opposed to focusing on their fps mechanics, which everyone knows blizzard does not have good experience with.
|
On September 23 2015 05:23 Requizen wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2015 05:14 TheYango wrote:
For a game that's ostensibly a mutiplayer-only competitive game, character work feels just like fluff to me. Universe building is a big part of Blizzard's system. BW was great, but what got a lot of people (including me) into the game was the campaign and design. Few people just looked at the mechanics without loving the game itself. Hearthstone got a lot of momentum from the Warcraft nostalgia. From a competitive scene, it doesn't really matter. If you're just trying to get your game on a stage with millions of dollars, then who cares what the setting is. If you want players, it's extremely important imo.
In order for a competetive game to exist there need to be a lot of people who watch it which requires a lot of people to play it at least for a while. Again look at hearthstone. Game quality doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is having a big enough viewerbase.
|
United States47024 Posts
On September 23 2015 05:23 Requizen wrote:
Universe building is a big part of Blizzard's system. BW was great, but what got a lot of people (including me) into the game was the campaign and design.
Bolded is the key though. BW had a campaign and singleplayer allowing these aspects to properly be expressed and represented in the gameplay experience. The story and the universe mattered because Blizzard presented it to you within the game.
This simply isn't enough "non-gameplay" game time in a multiplayer-only competitive game to actually express these elements. If we compare to LoL or DotA, the lore there is pretty much all extra and very few people pay any attention to it whatsoever. And the reason is because none of the lore is actually part of playing the game.
Universe building is only useful insofar as the gameplay itself can actually reflect it. 99% of people who play a game just play the game. They don't comb wikis or read the manual or documentation for tidbits of lore. So if your game isn't designed in a way that actually can present the lore THROUGH gameplay, it's not going to do it at all for the vast majority of your playerbase.
|
On September 23 2015 06:17 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2015 05:23 Requizen wrote:
Universe building is a big part of Blizzard's system. BW was great, but what got a lot of people (including me) into the game was the campaign and design. Bolded is the key though. BW had a campaign and singleplayer allowing these aspects to properly be expressed and represented in the gameplay experience. The story and the universe mattered because Blizzard presented it to you within the game. This simply isn't enough "non-gameplay" game time in a multiplayer-only competitive game to actually express these elements. If we compare to LoL or DotA, the lore there is pretty much all extra and very few people pay any attention to it whatsoever. And the reason is because none of the lore is actually part of playing the game. Universe building is only useful insofar as the gameplay itself can actually reflect it. 99% of people who play a game just play the game. They don't comb wikis or read the manual or documentation for tidbits of lore. So if your game isn't designed in a way that actually can present the lore THROUGH gameplay, it's not going to do it at all for the vast majority of your playerbase.
Useful for what, though?
edit: as in, to what end goal?
|
United States47024 Posts
The end goal of any decision made by a game designer to put something in a game--to enrich the game and make it more fun/meaningful to play.
Which means what I said is a given--something you create that doesn't reflect in the game in any way cannot enrich the game for anyone who doesn't go out of their way to find what you've created outside the game. Which represents the overwhelming minority of your playerbase--most people who play a game just play the game. You can create an entire world filled with deep compelling characters, but ultimately if this doesn't come out in the gameplay, people aren't going to see it.
|
On September 23 2015 06:17 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2015 05:23 Requizen wrote:
Universe building is a big part of Blizzard's system. BW was great, but what got a lot of people (including me) into the game was the campaign and design. Bolded is the key though. BW had a campaign and singleplayer allowing these aspects to properly be expressed and represented in the gameplay experience. The story and the universe mattered because Blizzard presented it to you within the game. This simply isn't enough "non-gameplay" game time in a multiplayer-only competitive game to actually express these elements. If we compare to LoL or DotA, the lore there is pretty much all extra and very few people pay any attention to it whatsoever. And the reason is because none of the lore is actually part of playing the game. Universe building is only useful insofar as the gameplay itself can actually reflect it. 99% of people who play a game just play the game. They don't comb wikis or read the manual or documentation for tidbits of lore. So if your game isn't designed in a way that actually can present the lore THROUGH gameplay, it's not going to do it at all for the vast majority of your playerbase.
I disagree. I think setting and universe building matters a lot to way more than 1% of the playerbase. I think you're overvaluing the number of tryhards who just play to win and not for enjoyment. People play shitty League champions because they like them, not everyone is Challenger and only playing meta characters.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
