Blizzard needs to give me more than a big brawly bro to bring me back to the fold.
This is a companion discussion topic for the original entry at https://waypoint.vice.com/en_us/article/a3d3zb/why-doomfist-wont-bring-me-back-to-overwatch
Blizzard needs to give me more than a big brawly bro to bring me back to the fold.
At the end of the day, no amount of content is going to make you past a skill plateau. Characters are not exactly ways to deal with the lack of personal progression, but they’re very good at refreshing the game and pulling players back in just like when an MMO drops content.
It’s ok to accept you got as much mileage as you could from Overwatch. I know I’m happy with my 60 hours or so. I also don’t get as much reward from being better than, say, a fighting game where it is immensely rewarded.
What keeps me going with Overwatch is how it feels and reminded me of my TF2 days. Yeah, the game isn’t going to reward you for getting better but looks to open yourself up to new things over time.
From their PTR announcement:
If they had made this announcement 7 months ago I’d probably still be playing, but they didn’t. They just kept on blizzarding and kept on doing what they always do and so I have no desire to ever go back. On the plus side I get to play other games, enjoy the fan art and hope one day they come to their senses and just make an animated series.
I thought Overwatch was going to do that for me but I realized quickly that what I liked most about TF2 was the in game communities. The game play in Overwatch is really good and the out of game community is great, but it’s not a game where I can keep going back to the same server over and over again where I get familiar with the regulars and build relationships with them.
In a way it’s sad that what many consider the spiritual sequel to TF2 is a game that has no dedicated servers, no plugins, and no custom maps.
Your post specifically reminded me of a good Errant Signal highlighting the differences between Overwatch and TF2. A good watch if you have the time:
(I’ve hovered over this post for a good 20 minutes worried it sounds overly harsh and that is not my intent! Please read the following with a heavy academic voice mulling over the criticism of a game!!!)
Is this an Overwatch problem? I think it’s perfectly okay to not like a game, and say something is not “my thing” but this article and the one prior frame it as an Overwatch flaw instead of simply something the author lost interest in.
Gold rank is about the area mechanical skill will take you in Overwatch; to go higher means getting in team chat and working together. I watch a lot of Overwatch videos and accuracy is not a big factor in rank. Sure a few heroes like Widow and Genji have a high mechanical skill cap, but most do not. Positioning, target priority, ultimate usage, combos, etc are needed to move higher.
I also read the articles impling that extrinsic rewards are better than intrinsic and I don’t subscribe to that. They are two different ways of getting a reward and will apply to different people different ways. If you prefer extrinsic rewards there is nothing wrong with that, but games like Overwatch probably won’t hold interest for long.
If the reason you do not wish to turn on voice chat in a competitive game is the toxicity you will encounter, then you could lay fault at Overwatch’s design as it does little to stem this currently. If you mute players then you cannot coordinate and are right back in the “Elo Hell” described.
You could also look at the MMR/SR system of ranking an individual in a team game and whether that can be done fairly. What does it say if a player looses multiple games and thus fall in the ranks, but has 3-4 gold medals in each of those games? Can stats alone tell you if that player is a lone wolf screwing over the team for stat glory or was the only player on the team taking risks for the objective? (Though if someone wrote this I’d want to see a good bit of hard data too because we all believe we are better than our score says!)
Cameron’s feelings on Overwatch are valid, but I don’t think that rewards are the cause. I see a lot of writing and posts about “i’m no longer interested in game X” lay the blame and burden at the game’s design but very few just saying “game X isn’t for me”. I personally didn’t find Zelda: BotW satisfying or rewarding to finish yet I would say it just isn’t a game for me before saying there is something wrong with the game itself.
I can however fully agree with Cameron that Mei is bae and perfect for every team comp! =p
It’s totally fine to be done with a game. A lot of games I beat or have my fill of and never go back to them. Sometimes there will be a game like Titanfall that while entertaining just doesn’t compel me to play night after night.Plus I find the breakneck speed of that game very stress inducing.
I take long breaks from Overwatch from time to time, but I always feel like I’m missing out when I do. I just love a lot of the character designs (from both a mechanical and visual aesthetic standpoint) it just clicks with me like few multiplayer games have; I don’t like multiplayer by and large.
Also not that it matters too much, cause it’s such a subjective thing, but I love Doomfist’s design. Even forgetting the huge fuck-off gauntlet just watching people run around a map shooting a gun from his lil’ baby fist gets me all hot and bothered.
I guess in my case I didn’t really cared if the game was on a dedicated servers or not, I just had fun. What Overwatch did for me was open up to plan my moves in a first person game without making it hard. I was playing way more classes and characters than in TF2 where I was only going for 3.
I stopped playing Overwatch really just because I picked up PLAYERUNKNOWN’S BATTLEGROUNDS instead, and Spla2n is going to wholly take over in 2 weeks.
To me, it was fun when everyone was still figuring stuff out. Once the meta formed and ranked play came out there was just way too much toxicity. I feel like just like MOBAs you’re better off if you have a full party of people to play with.
I stopped playing because there is nothing to play for as well. I’m a plat/diamond solo player. There is no reason to play other than my own desire which is super-ceded by almost any other game with progression systems in it. I think it’s intrinsic in highly competitive people more than others though. I can play overwatch and I can play rainbow six siege but only one tends to reward my personal skill and mastery with greater rewards and progression.
I’ve been curious about how R6: Siege would be for me, as it seems like a bizarre blend of what appeals about Overwatch as well as a bit of what appeals from PUBG; highly objective based gameplay + the finality and intensity of PUBG. Do you reckon that’s an accurate takeaway from that?
How have you felt about previous Rainbow Six games?
The reality is that R6: Siege is those plus the moba-trinsic roster of similar but ultimately unique characters for you to attach yourself to for the purpose of mastery. The game is difficult to a Tom Clancian fault. You can win a match. You can lose a match. The game is set up in rounds(best of 5/7) and you can change characters in between rounds so that adds an extra mind game the longer the match goes on(hard/soft counters etc). At the same time communication is paramount but also incredibly curt. Too much talking is distracting. Bad or loose information fucks people over. The game has the same knowledge curve as a moba but is far more punishing in it’s gameplay than something like PUBG. You need to have the right tool for the right job and your team(if you’re in ranked) needs to know what you’re doing. Sometimes the key is a sniper rifle, sometimes it’s a drone, sometimes it’s explosives. I play it because it’s SATISFYING. No win is easy. No match is won by anyone talking shit or blaring music. Nobody ascends without the skill and effort to get there.
The answer to that is that I’ve not played a R6 game ever before. Is Siege a good entry point? Is there a similar, possibly even narrative focused experience, in the catalog? (like R6 Vegas 2 or something of that caliber)
Vegas and Vegas 2 are more narrative focused and they had great MP when they came out. As far as Siege, it’s as good an entry as any. They have training modes called situations and terrorist hunts that allow you to learn the characters(and earn enough currency to unlock half of them for free). Siege was just on steam sale so it’s unfortunate you missed it, but if you want a tactile competitive shooter, it’s right up there with CSGO but without bunny hopping and playing the same exact map for 20 fucking years.
If you can get past what can be the most toxic community I’ve ever seen then it’s a game with a lot of depth but keep in mind it’s a game of rote memorization, it’s not as much about aiming skill than it is about learning every spot, every corner, every window in order to not get shot randomly through two walls. Also, the matchmaking is wack, you WILL be paired up against gun warriors who are lv125 even if you’re lv1. Maybe they fixed it up now but it drove me past my limits.
Also don’t get the starter edition, it’s just not worth it as the grind is steep to unlock characters, get the full game or you will be stuck with 2 characters for a very long time.
I mean, you see some shit playing against Aussies in Overwatch. It’s nasty.
Thanks for the tip about the starter edition, it absolutely puts getting this game off the table for now but maybe one day in future!