Joshua from XO.TV digs into Overwatch. He's not impressed with this Team Fortress 2 clone.
Thank you. It saddens me nobody has the balls to say it how it is. Shameless game, no content. I'd rate it much higher if it wasn't 80 dollars Canadian, just to have a, "single player", version launch next year like we are certainly to see. ...Just to pay for it again...
I'm glad you agree... a lot of gaming sites have been giving it 10/10 and I honestly don't understand why. Mind you... when a website gives a game with as little content as Overwatch a 10 and has adverts for said game all over their website, well... one can only assume that it's being paid for.
True, it's shocking the amount of bending over for this game because it's 'Blizzard' while Titanfall, SWBF, SFV and evolve get literally crucified by reviewers for the same stuff. If Blizzard's sister company Activision did it they would likely have been crucified themselves!
Thank the god someone rated it fairly....I mean it's fucking ridiculous...10/10....I mean not even masterpieces like the witcher 3 don't manage to pull them off so easily....I mean look at the reviews of blood and wine.. it's around 8 /10...almost no game should be rated so high...that's why you should take all reviews with a pinch of salt.... ALL. People have become so rabid and obsessed over this game....it's a pitty because they are promoting and supporting shitty practices that were condemned in previous multi-player only games full priced with microtransactions by the very same people....just remember of Rainbow six siege,Evolve,Battlefront EA.... And I'm not saying that the game is bad nor that Rainbow six siege,Evolve,Battlefront EA are better than it... All I'm saying is don't hail nor ignore their shady tactics but condemn them and point them out... I n my opinion the game is an 7,5... Due to almost no variety in missions,no campaign(so far),microtransactions and stupid progression system...gameplay is awesome the graphics are awesome the heroes are awesome but it's not a 10.
I can't imagine how a single player campaign would work for this game. Would each character have their own story or would it be split into 2 stories. One with the Overwatch/former overwatch squad and another with the mercenaries.
It doesn't take balls to be critical of whatever the new hotness is... So shameless that they always said thered be no singleplayer and released the full game as an extended open beta for anyone to try it before launch.
And that's just your opinion...
it's an opinion... I'm still amazed uncharted 4 got as many 10's as it did as well. Overwatch however is a fantastic shooter, it's not a 10 or 9 but it's a solid 8.
If any game ever deserved a 10 it's TLOU and U4.
TLoU yes. uncharted 4? no way, it adds literally nothing to the series and stumbles badly story wise. Just because it has very high production value doesn't mean it should be given those ridiculous scores.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. To me, 40$ for probably 400-1000 hours is a pretty good deal. People that don't like a genre for what it is and reviewing it low is fine, but claiming that people who enjoy the game have no balls @jassionpc, and then agreeing with such a comment as a 'respectable review site' is a bit much to swallow.
The authors summary does nothing but complain that this is a team fortress 2 clone, but aside from that, doesn't give the reader a clear view on why you gave it a 6/10. Furthermore the author complains about map design a la temple of anubis, but fails to point out in overwatch you're encouraged to swap heroes on the fly to counter attacking or defending. Essentially git gud. The lack of content can be forgiven as there is no season pass and future maps and characters will be free in the future. I could see this as a 7/10 right now, but a 9/10 easily in the future. The author should have also noted that this is still a great addicting game and say it's up to the reader to invest now or wait for more content before purchasing. This review is lacking, while saying we should just go play team fortress 2, it doesn't even try to point out how the two of them, are fundamentally different. Sorry you missed the point author. Better luck on your next one.
Hello kaizokuspy, Thanks for taking the time to provide feedback, we really appreciate it! To be honest... I think you missed the point of the review. If you read the review, then I'd think you'd notice that there really isn't a whole lot that Overwatch does differently from Team Fortress 2. The areas where the game does attempt to diversify itself, it falls flat on its face (as I discuss in the review). Also the "feature" of swapping characters on the fly isn't any different from TF2 or indeed any other objective based feature. If you've been lead to believe that it is unique to Overwatch by Blizzard's extensive marketing team, then I feel slightly sorry for you. At the end of the day maps like Temple of Anubis are just incredibly frustrating, especially with a public group, both for attackers and defenders. Swapping a character doesn't solve that issue. If you believe that swapping characters solves an issue with a map's poor design, then I don't know how I can help you. Ultimately, if you enjoy the game that's great! I'm happy for you! In fact I enjoyed it to... until I started looking beyond the polish. That's when I started to realize just how bare bones and flawed the experience is. Anyway... thank you for your feedback! I really do appreciate it! I hope you have fun with Overwatch! Kind regards, Joshua
How exactly is the map of anubis flawed? It requires different heroe synergies to either attack or defend properly. It's phara map so the map layout reflects the jetpack aspect of hers. To attack a Reinhardt mercy, 2 phara, a junkrat, and a widow maker are ideal, but that's just for attack. Defending a bastion, torbjorn, phara, mercy, dva, and mccree are good to have. Either way, it's not really frustrating if you use your head and communicate. That's what this game requires. 6v6 communication and strategy, otherwise it will be infuriating. I've played tf2, where they are different are the heroes with different abilities, vs 6 characters that have items that change their playstyle. Furthermore the clear benefit of this game is for next gen consoles as they don't run team fortress 2. That is where I find the value of this game. Sure the game borrows heavily from other games, but why is that bad if it creates an enjoyable experience that isn't found on the current platform. PC gamers may be hard pressed to find a reason, but the huge market will be the consoles and competitive pc scene. This game is no more bare bones than say rocketleague. It is in the same vein of repetition and what will have you coming back is it's competitive nature, which is more than a refreshing break from cod bro shooters. This is the major issue with your review. It is written clearly from a PC mindset and doesn't reflect the choice console users have.
Hard to argue with the TF2 comparisons, however as a primarily console using gamer im glad overwatch came out because TF2 was amazing on The Orange Box. I still think the game warrants its price and critical acclaim tho. The situation reminds me of someone who thought Bioshock got too much credit because of ppls lack of exposure to system shock.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and reviewing a game like Overwatch can be tough due to the fact that Blizzard post-lanch support is historically extremely strong, and you can't really score a game on features that are "coming soon" (i.e. SF V). I disagree pretty fundamentally with most of the points here - as slamming Blizzard for "cloning" TF2 is kind of missing the point of what Blizzard does well. They wanted a better CCG so they made Hearthstone, they wanted a better Everquest so they made WoW. They honestly don't blow up the spot with new and innovative genres, but at the same time to say they pretty much carbon copied TF2 is a bit reductive. "The core gameplay, the art style, the map-flow, the modes, the sound design, all of this has been directly taken from Team Fortress 2 with very little iteration done to it." - Saying that this is all detrimental to Overwatch somewhat lessens the value of TF2 as well. I personally see more inspiration from than I see ripping off of, and to say the game is light on content to me is just false, as there are still maps I haven't played, modes that rotate weekly, and enough heroes to keep me wanting to try a new push with a new character during each match. We could be extremely reductive and say that Battlefield is ripping off Call of Duty year after year, but saying that Overwatch essentially does nothing to better the team-based FPS is just short-sighted. Couple that with some pretty glaring spelling and grammar issues and the review just rubbed me the wrong way. To XO's credit, I did read the whole review and it got me to stay on the site for a little bit - and kudos for having a contrarian viewpoint and sticking with it.
I mighthave liked this game if it were more MOBA like Battleborn. Like basically I wanted a better Battleborn. Heck I like would have settled for a more MMO type experience like a streamlined Destiny but with an actual matchmaking component for Raids. A solid PvP would be nice too. But when I played the demo it just seemed like an unbalanced mess. I had no idea what was going on and the game isn't really clear from the jump at least in my opinion. I've heard you have to really strategize how you play and choose the right type of character but I'm not really interested in all that. Give us equal starts, mix in objectives, and let's see which team is more skilled. I suppose that's why I still think Halo 5 is hands down the best arena FPS available.
It is heavily reccomended you play against bots, in tutorial, training, or user vs bots to get the hang of the game. Against other players who understand the game ins and outs, it will be extremely disheartening to try and just jump into quickplay
Never heard of this site until now and this truly could just be more clickbait. The more I read, the more I believe this to be true, that or the author just completely is missing the mark on some points. Sure, this game needs to be flushed out but it's also insanely fun. I'm not one for FPS, but I keep going back to this game, so Blizzard obviously did something right. And it's easy to level in this game, so I don't get where they're saying you can spend a long time playing and not get a lootbox from leveling. The microstransactions are also cosmetic, that means they don't affect the gameplay at all, and no one forces you to buy them. I personally think buying them is stupid, but if you've got the money and can't wait for a new skin on the characters, then that's on the buyer, not the seller.
Most reviews they do are like this...controversial click bait just fir the sense of it. Worse than Gamingbolt
I greatly enjoy the game, but I agree to a certain extent. This is definitely a modern take on Team Fortress 2. However, it is also a TIMELY take on Team Fortress 2. FPS has been a bit stale since the Call of Duty occupation during last gen and continuing on into this gen (but to a slightly lesser extent). Games now are just now trying to break out of that (Wolfenstein, Doom (very mid-90's style shooters making a terrific comeback))...and with the games that only offer pvp at full price. Games like Titanfall, Evolve, Rainbow 6: Siege, and a few others have been slowly conditioning the consumer that only offering pvp is a thing and a think worth paying full price for. (Can argue quality of those games...but you catch my drift). Here comes along Overwatch . . . A Blizzard polished, take on TF2 and arena style shooters (hell, most kids in their 20's now weren't too old when TF2 even came out and was super popular), at this 90's era throw back time frame . . . . with a solid game design that you don't have to be a twitch player god to contribute and propel your team to win . . . and you are going to have a winner. (And this really is an important thing to point out....In Overwatch . . . you DO NOT have to be awesome as a twitch shooter player...if you pay attention to whats going on, the abilities of your character, you can do well...so it caters to lots of players and different skill sets). Everyone can walk away feeling like a hero. Where as in the above-mentioned games and others, you can get trounced....and stay trounced. I do think it is shameful that many reviewers are all giving it 10/10 when they have eviscerated games that have done very similar things. Regardless, while I think 6 is a little too low considering how well the game does play and run . . . I understand the sentiment.
While I respect everyone's opinions, I've been playing every day ever since it came out. For being a MP only game, I've gotten more play time out of this then some $60 "full games" as people would say. In my opinion as long as a game keeps you busy and entertained you're getting your monies worth.
This troll site again. Not getting any click from me!
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.