Destructoid reviews Overwatch

How does *this* makes you feel?

Kinda weird considering that Overwatch has been fully out for less than 24 hours. I guess the Open Beta's a good enough indicator for them.

+Good music
+Runs well on all platforms
+Good graphics
+Good sound design/voice acting
+Games are short but sweet
+Lots of character variety
+Good maps
+Pay to play so no BRs or RUS (for now)

-Movement feels extremely limited for every character (no rocket jumping, no real advanced movement mechanics besides Lucio/Hanzo/Genji
-No server browser (for now)
-No comp mode on launch
-12 maps, with three for each gametype. Twice as much as TF2 on release, but unless they update frequently it's going to get stale. No dust2 or 2fort here, mostly "just good" maps

Solid 9 right now, but if they continue to update with new characters/maps, keep up on balance patches, and make sure all these updates are paid for by idiots buying loot boxes, I can see this being 9.5 a year or so down the road.

SJWs like SHITFAGGOTS? Who would've guessed.

This.

Makes me feel nothing cause honestly I would have been very surprised had this game gotten anything but a 10 from Destructoid

it has fat butch lesbian with pink hair in it, it's an auto-ten, I don't give a fuck about the sjw boogeyman stuff but let's face it that's literally how Destructoid works

Who cares what a game gets inspiration from as long as the end product is good?

>game journalists like it

So, it's automatically bad. Good to know, I didn't waste my money.

Surely you also complain when those game designers put too many boring white men in video games as well, right? Because you're just a stickler for originality and not someone with an agenda.

Blizz drones will defend anything. They're playing a reskinned TF2 game and will defend it till the bitter end.

>DeCucktoid giving western SJW bait good score

I'm shocked

>They're playing a reskinned TF2 game and will defend it till the bitter end.
What is there to defend?

>as long as the end product is good
shame that never ended up happening

I'm not surprised it's getting good critical review.
Critics are casuals and Overwatch's flaws are apparent to a casual player.

Overwatch is a class based game and class based games need to have good balance.
And Blizzard just isn't capable of the subtle balanced required.

In a short amount of time, OP heroes will be discovered and exploited. Then nerfed to unplayable levels.
Then rinse and repeat until all heroes are nerfed and Blizzard gives up.
That's how Blizzard does it.

I personally think that Widowmaker will become super obnoxious in time when people start to get good at her.
She's just too good at everything.

>no game is perfect

I wish this meme would end. Yeah, let's pretend Dark Souls and Bloodborne don't exist

>10/10
Means absolutely fuck all nowadays where everything below a 9 is considered utter shit

How come blizzard never has good balance? It's obvious that they're bad at it, and it's not like a company can't hire new balancers or rethink their balancing philosophy, but it's been like this for a decade.

It makes perfect sense.

Every contemporary Blizzard game appeals to the lowest common denominator.

>WoW is the McDonalds of MMOs
>Hearthstone is the retard's Magic the Gathering
>Heroes of the Storm is a somehow more dumbed down version of League of Legends
>Diablo 3 is the most casualized game of its kind in the genre
>Overwatch is just an ultra-casualized shooter mixed with a MOBA
Blizzard succeeds by pandering hard to people who want easy games.

But game journalists also liked Bayo2

Does that mean that's also a bad game?

all of them but tf2 ones look like fucking retards
excluding torbjorn, dorf aesthetic always gets me going

I'd say it's probably because they really don't want true balance.
They want a scenario where more people buy there things and sometimes that means making the playerbase unhappy.
So long as they keep playing, the it's "perfectly" balanced.
Players like OP things for a time.
It allows for bad players (which always make up a majority of the playerbase) to feel powerful.

>pure video game ecstasy
>microtransactions of upwards of 40 bucks are in the game

paid review/10

Reaffirms that Overwatch is SJW shit for sissy little white westerncucks.

>Let's pretend Morrowind doesn't exist
FTFY

paid review

If you saw how much booty there is in the game, you'd disagree.
Just because Zarya is in the game, it doesn't mean ever other character wears a niqab

>Players like OP things for a time.
this is entirely correct
nothing like picking a hero/class/unit/whatever that's completely fucking broken and shitting on all servers with it until its nerfed and things return to normal

it's like a little holiday event

>completely optional cosmetic items that don't affect the gameplay in any way, shape nor form.

Well blizzard kissed the SJW ring, so of course is gonna get good reviews.

I mean it could be a 10/10 game for the first few hours. Then it's gets boring and you never want to play it again. But how would you know if your goal is to publish the review ASAP.

Mercy is hot as fuck though

Blizzard going all out on the press once more

The fact there's even a 40+ dollar option in the game isn't a good thing. Wait until they make an update where exclusive items that aren't cosmetic are introduced.

But Dark Souls has Lost Izalith, and Bloodborne's chalice dungeons are mediocre. They are okay for optional content, but they could easily be better.

Map/character updates will be free.

Nah, what they're going to do is the same as Heroes of the Storm and Hearthstone.
You can use in game currency or real money to buy new Heroes.

So it's technically still "free", as you can buy everything ingame.
But there's going to be a $30 dollar option to buy a new hero instead of the 100,000 gold option.

New heroes and maps will be free.

>it's good for its genre
red flag

It's free if you plan on playing for a decade or two while Mr. Monopoly here gets them all in a day

this is some hard dickriding. Don't get me wrong the game is super fun but it's 9/10 at best
>some absolutely terrible map design
>character imbalances
>game fails to inform you what mode you're even playing when you start a match

That's the plan.
Blizzard was very smart to say "Everything is free!" before launch.

But once everyone has bought the game, then they roll out of the real money store

>10/10
Right, nah. It's around a 7/10 for how much they're asking for. Which is not bad, but new content may raise that like in Splatoon.

>"No game is perfect"
>Proceeds to give it a perfect rating, not even 24 hours after release

DROPPED

>>some absolutely terrible map design
This.
The maps are just terrible. So bland. I don't mean that aesthetically. They look fine. But Blizzard clearly has no experience with how to create FPS maps.

Compare it to TF2.
So many more memorable choke points.

>No game is perfect
>10/10

You guys need to grow up. I dont play mobas or fps, but these acronyms are immature and unfunny.

>YFW Overwatch gets a higher metacritic than Uncharted 4

>honestly believing this
dark souls is nothing but roll attack rinse repeat and ive played every demon, dark 1/2/3. if youre proud of yourself being "gud" at it, stop.

>That shitty desperate acronym

Sounds like a 12 year old came up with it

You people get more pathetic each day

I think what even makes me more mad about it is the maps are all designed around a single specific mode and some of them don't even feel like they fit the mode they were designed for. Anubis is a great example of that, the first thing you hit is a choke point and then you hit another choke point for the second cap. Turns pretty much every game into a stalemate.

nah, nintendo doesn't pay for good reviews

10/10 doesn't mean perfect.

Yeah the maps are pretty bad
I mean on average they're just subpar, but the differences between them feel almost nonexistent aside from the aesthetics
chokepoint with two side paths, open area, chokepoint, etc

though the areas in hollywood and route 66 with all the houses are pretty fun and feel distinct, at least for me

I don't understand if souls fags are THIS retarded or they're just baiting.

Great. Even better that it pisses off TF2 babbies so much.

>gaming "journalism"

It doesn't.

reminder to filter SHITFAGGOTS

I ironically love Reaper's design

I feel like Blizzard were being intentionally edgy as fuck when making him considering that he looks exactly like the kind of doorknob who would think his look is cool.

>Let's remove one of our 10 possible rating scores, even though we only really use 5 of them.
What's the point of having a 10-point scale if it's impossible to rate anything 10 points?

Wow is this fucking reddit? No one cares about your fucking review.

> Anubis is a great example of that, the first thing you hit is a choke point
It's even worse, the first thing you hit is an open area filled with bits of cover, but you're retarded if you actually try to defend it instead of just backing up to the chokepoint

which sort of signifies a problem that might not just be part of poor map design, though perhaps it's because the respawn time is so onesided in that area that it's best to not fight "on equal ground"

3 out of 3 reviews so far are all "100"

>Dark souls
>perfect
that title belongs to Catherine and Advanced Wars

>No game is perfect
>kirby super star ultra exists

This desu senpai

how can blizzard be so blatant, we need a remake of this gif

>it's not fake
Ridiculous

lmao

Fuck I bought it, liked it and now I have to hate it.

Such is life.

10 should mean perfect but the review itself states that the game isn't perfect.
Yes it does.

There is some Rocket Jumping in this game.

Bastion with his ult, Solider 76, Zarya, Pharah can with her concussive blast and Junk Rat. Might be more.

Then there have been precisely 0 10/10s in human history.

The Destructoid comments are already disagreeing with the review.

>it's impossible for a subjective person to really like a game and give it a high score

>rating in */5 or */10 instead of */100
Pretty retarded to be honest

Exactly.

>10 should mean perfect
why have a 10 point rating system that's really just 9/9? 10 is just the highest score possible, but it doesn't mean that it's a flawless game that possibly cannot be overcome, because perfection really doesn't exist so it makes no sense to account for it in your rating system.

There is no such thing as a perfect game. So if 10/10 meant perfect, it would not only be a totally useless score but it would make your scale irregular.

A review scale should look like this.

0---1---2---3---4---5---6---7---8---9---10

Where 0 and 10 are within the realm of possibility and there is logical consistency. IE, an 8/10 is as much better than a 6/10 as a 5/10 is to a 3/10.

If 10/10 meant perfect, then your scale would, at best, look like this.

0---1---2---3---4---5---6---7---8---9-----------------...10

There is no upward limit to how good a game can be so 10 would be an infinitely high mark. The scale effectively becomes 0-9 with the /10 a pointless formality. If you attempted o maintain consistency, then 0 would be an infinitly low mark and each number would have infinite space between them.

...----------5----------...

That'd be your scale. So at the end of the day, you just have to choose, somewhat arbitrarily, where 10 and 0 should lie and each person's scale may be different.

----------0--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--10
-----0---1---2---3---4---5---6---7---8---9---10
0----1----2----3----4----5----6----7----8----9----10

These 3 people might have the exact same feelings toward a game, but end up giving it different scores because of how they've internalized their scale.

A 10 means it is the best game of its type in existence at the time of rating. If you believe that to be true of overwatch you are simply wrong. Objectively.

>A 10 means it is the best game of its type in existence at the time of rating.
No it doesn't

>giving a 10/10 to a game with less content and gameplay modes than team shooters made in the early 2000s

>giving a 10/10 to a game that implemented a FTP-style microtransaction system on day 1 while charging you $40/60 for the core game- trying to incentivize people to gamble for content that they already bought by making the rng a horrendous slog

>giving a 10/10 to a game that held and open beta and then did fuck-all balancing on release despite a few characters clearly needing it

This is the future we chose, and it fucking sucks.

>literally triggered by opinions

This is easily the GOTYAY

Yes it does. If you are going to rate a game higher than another game it needs to be a better game.

I forgot Destructoid even existed.

>he dissagreed with my idiocy
>he must be triggered
Nah bruv you're just retarded

That doesn't make your first statement true.
Rating Overwatch 10/10 doesn't mean games you have previously rated 10/10 are now 9/10.

>best of it's type in existence

no
it means it's as good as the best, which means there are multiple

9.999999... = 10

checkmate, atheists

seriously though if you think 10/10 means absolutely flawless you're a fucking mong and need to re-evaluate your life.

He literally says, "I'm back... in black..."
That solidified it for me as a parody.

You could even see that she had a genuine intention, but her place isn't in this industry. It's in a bar surrounded by SJWs drowning in alcohol angry at "cis white males" while she writes her own books.

that's why video game journalism is a joke, reviews should be made by a group of 5-10 people and the final score should be the average score

Is he fucking implying 2fort is a good map?

10/10 means it is the new point of comparison. Other 10/10s should now reference the new 10/10 as the top of the scale and unless they are absolutely equivalent then they are no longer 10/10. Now if you hive a game a time of reference for example Zelda OoT at time of release was probably a 10 out of 10. If we look at it today its probably a 7/10

>only tf2 characters can hold miniguns and heavy weapons like that
>only tf2 characters can make turrets and the class that makes them can't be called engineers

The mercy and scout comparisons are fair in my opinion.

also

>reaper is pyro

make your own niche games journalism site with this model im sure it will be wildly successful

>5 star system
>not superior
1 star for complete garbage, 2 stars for bad, 3 for average, 4 for "everyone who likes *genre* should play it", 5 for "masterpiece, everyone should play it", and this is for sorting the game in a larger archive of reviews, or to quickly get a general idea of what the reviewer thinks of it before you actually play it, so you don't spoil the experience. Then the actual review does a thorough analysis of the game.
At 10 stars you have twice as many shades(and the 5 star is pretty comprehensive already) and the percentage system just illustrates the ridiculousness of attempting to objectively numerically rank video games, like it's possible to actually determine if a game is worth 84% or 82%.

It depends entirely on what the stars mean, but my point is that it's dumb to have a score that never actually gets used. And I don't think overwatch is 10/10, it's probably a 4, maybe a 3 for me (out of 5).

OoT is still a 10/10.

After score inflation a 10 is now like a 8

>mfw will buy this piece of shit game because I have very close friends which I play a lot with that will eventually buy it

Apparently the open beta wasn't suffering enough, but hopefully my friends will drop LoL for OW so i guess it's not that bad.

blizzdrone scum do not think with genuine progression in mind