Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 05-03-2016, 02:57 PM
RandMcnally is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Posts: 7,740

Overwatch


Who is playing? The semi-open/closed beta started. It is so much fun. I'm enjoying it despite the fact that I completely suck. It's going to take me a long time to learn all the various heroes and be able to switch as intended.
  #2  
Old 05-03-2016, 04:10 PM
Ace331 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Texas
Posts: 54
I plan on trying it out. But I thought the Beta didnt start until the 5th? Wasn't very thrilled with the Battleborn Beta. Not sure if I'll be picking that one up or not.
  #3  
Old 05-03-2016, 04:27 PM
RandMcnally is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Posts: 7,740
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ace331 View Post
I plan on trying it out. But I thought the Beta didnt start until the 5th? Wasn't very thrilled with the Battleborn Beta. Not sure if I'll be picking that one up or not.
If you preordered you get to get in a few days earlier.
  #4  
Old 05-03-2016, 04:48 PM
Johnny Bravo's Avatar
Johnny Bravo is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: The Swamp
Posts: 7,785
I played in a few of the free weekends.

I'm a little disappointed, to be perfectly honest. I can't but feel like I was playing this almost 10 years ago when it was called Team Fortress 2. Yes, it's polished to that perfect Blizzard shine, but it's still a very typical class-based shooter.

HotS managed to innovate in enough ways that it is (IMO, anyway) a standout in the MOBA genre. I don't see Overwatch doing anything new in the class-based shooter genre other than being really shiny, and I think Blizzard is tacitly acknowledging that with the 40 dollar price point.

Having said ALL THAT, it's still fun with a stack of friends.

Last edited by Johnny Bravo; 05-03-2016 at 04:52 PM.
  #5  
Old 05-03-2016, 06:50 PM
SenorBeef is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 28,273
I'll give it a try when the open beta starts. I'd like a new TF2 that wasn't TF2, a class based, objective based high (by modern standards) TTK shooter, but the little bit of gameplay I watched looked kinda janky and unimpressive. But I'll give it a try and probably organize some games over the weekend.
  #6  
Old 05-03-2016, 07:11 PM
smiling bandit is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 16,955
I was surprised to learn there were no PvE elements, since the way the game was built made it feel like a natural addition.

May have the best cutscenes evar seen, though.
  #7  
Old 05-03-2016, 07:29 PM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 85,105
I didn't realize they had any free weekends. I've been thinking I might want to try it out, because I like most of what Blizzard does. But on the other hand, I wasn't a big fan of TF2, so there's a good chance I won't like Overwatch either, so there's no way I'm going to spend forty bucks or whatever it is just to try it out.

In any event, though, I'm enjoying soaking up the lore. Do the in-game cutscenes feature anyone other than Tracer, Winston, Widowmaker, and guy-who-looks-like-Doom-whose-name-I-can't-remember?
  #8  
Old 05-04-2016, 10:11 AM
Peanut Gallery is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 663
I'll try the free weekend.

Does anybody know if it is going to be a buy-it-once game with ongoing updates included, or a coin-op style money sucker like HOTS? Are new heroes, maps, game types, etc going to be offered as paid DLC or simply added to something you already bought?

If pay-once, I'll probably buy it at $40 (the first time paying full price for a game in I don't even know how long). If pay-forever, no thanks. I continue to be puzzled that that is even a successful model for games these days.
  #9  
Old 05-04-2016, 10:29 AM
RandMcnally is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Posts: 7,740
I'd be surprised if they make you pay for DLC and the like. They said the reason that they were doing a 40 dollars upfront, not f2p, model is because the game hinges on everyone having access to all the heroes. If they start being gated off then the game wouldn't work. So it'd be weird to go against that.
  #10  
Old 05-04-2016, 11:45 AM
SenorBeef is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 28,273
Last I read, a few months ago, they were being very cagey about post-launch monetization. Maybe that's changed this year, but they very well might try to make you pay $20 and then extra for future content.
  #11  
Old 05-04-2016, 04:37 PM
Palooka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Eastern Ontario
Posts: 2,561
It's buy-it-once with cosmetic DLC.
  #12  
Old 05-04-2016, 06:43 PM
Frylock is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 19,731
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peanut Gallery View Post

Does anybody know if it is going to be a buy-it-once game with ongoing updates included, or a coin-op style money sucker like HOTS?
You spent money on HotS?
  #13  
Old 05-04-2016, 07:24 PM
SenorBeef is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 28,273
Why do people try to shame others who spend money on F2P games? You know those games wouldn't exist if not for people who were willing to spend, right?

Anyway, the beta is open now through Monday. I'm going to give it a try tonight. Contact me on steam or battle.net (senorbeef#1394) if interested.
  #14  
Old 05-04-2016, 07:41 PM
Johnny Bravo's Avatar
Johnny Bravo is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: The Swamp
Posts: 7,785
I think I mentioned it elsewhere, or maybe to a friend offboard, but Blizzard is doing a great job of making me want to know more about the Overwatch universe even if I'm not super excited about the game itself.

https://comic.playoverwatch.com/en-u...-dragon-slayer
  #15  
Old 05-04-2016, 10:57 PM
Frylock is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 19,731
Quote:
Originally Posted by SenorBeef View Post
Why do people try to shame others who spend money on F2P games?
I guess I can see why it came across that way but I was just jokingly trying to suggest that he was wrong to imply you _have_ to pay money to enjoy HotS.
  #16  
Old 05-04-2016, 11:01 PM
Frylock is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 19,731
Just played some Overwatch. Seems fun but couldn't quite understand a couple of things.

1. When I searched for a game, it just dropped me right into the middle of a battle already in progress. What up with that?

2. What _exactly_ are the win conditions? Something about defending and attacking objectives, I understand that. But I was in a game where we were defending, and the count kept going up in favor of the enemy team even though we were on the objective the whole time--I thought the count is supposed to freeze if both teams are on it. What up with that?

3. Voice chat--is there a way to play a game with voice chat _not_ enabled for _anyone_? I'll never be able to use it due to how my gaming situation is set up in my house, so I'll be very annoying to be on a team with if everyone else is expecting voice chat.

4. What's all this about changing heroes mid battle? Do good players do this? Why? Under what circumstances? When you change, do you start back at the beginning or in the middle of things?

5. What is a "spray" in the loot box? I couldn't figure out what it does.
  #17  
Old 05-05-2016, 07:07 AM
Frylock is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 19,731
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frylock View Post
Just played some Overwatch. Seems fun but couldn't quite understand a couple of things.

1. When I searched for a game, it just dropped me right into the middle of a battle already in progress. What up with that?
I now know that when someone quits a game, rather than replacing them with an AI, it finds a player looking for a game and drops them in.

Spent a lot of time with the game last night. Really really fun. Also, I am super, super awful at it.

I couldn't make D.Va last more than a few seconds once engagements began. And she's supposed to be a tank.
  #18  
Old 05-05-2016, 11:01 AM
RandMcnally is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Posts: 7,740
So I've played for a few hours today. I don't think I like it.
  #19  
Old 05-05-2016, 11:10 AM
Frylock is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 19,731
Quote:
Originally Posted by RandMcnally View Post
So I've played for a few hours today. I don't think I like it.
What did you not like?
  #20  
Old 05-05-2016, 11:35 AM
SenorBeef is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 28,273
I actually like it a decent bit.

Pros:
1. The game engine is fundamentally solid. It processes inputs well (you wouldn't believe how many games don't have a consistent mouselook, they all have some sort of bullshit tweak that they think makes things better because they're all retarded), runs extremely smoothly.

2. I like the character design. The MOBA-ish 2 abilities + ultimate setup actually works pretty well. I've only played about half the characters, but they all feel like they have personality, play differently, and fulfill a niche so far.

3. I like the aesthetics and the maps. All the maps have a significantly different feel to them. The art assets are all pretty good.

Cons:

1. The TTK is too low. I've been on the lookout for a reasonable-TTK shooter for about a decade now and apparently it will never materialize. I understand that people playing awkwardly on a gamepad with their little flippers can't aim worth a shit, and if you give players a lot of health, they end up running around each other unable to kill each other firing wildly and it looks retarded. So you have to make the TTK super low so that when they manage to get their little flipper paddles on target for a tenth of a second, someone dies.

But that means when accurate players on PC shoot at each other, they just die instantly. Why do we have to play with the same balance? Why not double or triple the PC version's effective health so we can actually have some back and forth firefights with movement and abilities and teamwork?

2. Not enough game modes. A game like this should really diversify into more novel modes and not just three. It's well suited for a variety of game modes especially with its style of matchmaking. The weekly brawl format thing may improve on this.

3. It made the same fucking obvious retarded mistake that TF2 did with attack/defense maps by treating them as two separate events. Attacking side has, say, 8 minutes to win. Then they win at 6:32. So the map flips over. Do you have 6:32 on the clock to see if you can beat the enemy time? No, you have 8 minutes. So both sides can win and the times are never compared. Which means that neither side wins. Even though it does one team attacking, then roles are flipped, these are essentially two completely separate events that have nothing to do with each other.

In TF2, if the teams were balanced, on most maps, the attacking side would always win. Then the teams would flip, and the attacking side won again. So who won that? No one. You all just went through the motions of attacker always winning.

The most obvious thing to do is to give the side that defended the same amount of time the attackers took to attack. Then you'd have a winner every game. This means that king of the hill style maps are the only ones in which one team will always actually win.
  #21  
Old 05-05-2016, 11:41 AM
SenorBeef is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 28,273
At first glance, Overwatch isn't as bad as TF2 in the "attackers always win" style of attack maps. It seemed closer to 50/50 for attackers and defenders than like 90/10 for TF2. So there will end up being more clear winners, with one side succeeding on attack and then succeeding on defense too. But it's still fundamentally stupid not to compare results by each team to determine the winner. You can definitely still end up with attacker wins/flip/attacker wins or defender wins/flip/defender wins frequently.
  #22  
Old 05-05-2016, 11:51 AM
SenorBeef is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 28,273
Oh, another plus, the "play of the game" replay system is a lot of fun. I wish it had better heuristics than just "made a lot of kills quickly", but it's a really cool concept, along with the commendations at the end of the game, although I don't know what those actually do.

And I'm not sure if it's a pro or con yet, but not having a scoreboard is definitely interesting. It gets you focused more on team objectives than individual stats, and doesn't make support classes or classes in general that succeed by doing something other than making kills feel less appreciated. I do wish it came with an extended awards screen, just not the 4 that pop up.
  #23  
Old 05-05-2016, 11:58 AM
Johnny Bravo's Avatar
Johnny Bravo is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: The Swamp
Posts: 7,785
Quote:
Originally Posted by SenorBeef View Post
I wish it had better heuristics than just "made a lot of kills quickly"
It definitely does, though they're pretty opaque.

During the last open beta window, I had a moment where I was playing Reinhardt on one of the "push the payload" maps. An enemy McCree walked out onto a bridge overhead (and at a pretty far distance) and popped his ultimate. Just as he started saying, "it's high noon," I used my little rocket launcher attack and killed him before he could begin shooting anybody.

Some algorithm clearly figured out that I'd interrupted an ult with a low-percentage kill shot and awarded me the play of the game for it.

edit: An alternate possibility is that the overall game stats sucked and I got the play of the game because I was also racking up "push the payload" points during the kill, which increased by score during that time window. I hope that's not the case.

Last edited by Johnny Bravo; 05-05-2016 at 11:59 AM.
  #24  
Old 05-05-2016, 12:06 PM
RandMcnally is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Posts: 7,740
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frylock View Post
What did you not like?
I don't think I like how twitchy it is. Whether I die or I kill someone it seems anticlimatic with how quick everything moves.

I'll give it a few more plays before I make up my mind.
  #25  
Old 05-05-2016, 03:56 PM
Razrak is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frylock View Post

5. What is a "spray" in the loot box? I couldn't figure out what it does.

I was wondering this too. I googled and found this:

"A spray is a graffiti-like tag that you can place onto the environment for other players to see. The default keybinding is T"
  #26  
Old 05-05-2016, 04:16 PM
SenorBeef is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 28,273
Oh you sweet summer children, not growing up in a world in which you could spray goatse everywhere.

The magic of sprays

Obviously Blizzard is never going to allow people to upload their own sprays, but this is a cool system with the class-specific sprays that still let you make your mark.

Another very big pro that I forgot to mention: It would appear that nothing you can unlock actually affects gameplay. Too many games create the stupid grinding treadmill where you have to play to unlock things that affect how well you can play the game. Power ups, mods, etc. I hate that trend in gaming. You should have access to the same stuff that everyone has access to from the start, otherwise it's just a "shit on new players" experience. The only unlocks in this game are cosmetic which is fine.

Another con... I don't know why they allow 2+ of the same hero on a team. Character design feels more like a MOBA in this game than a class. You're not playing an archetype but a particular hero with their own personality. In TF2, it was necessary to allow multiple players per class simply because you could have a 32+ player game with only 9 classes. But in this game it's all 6v6 with 21 classes - there's no reason not to limit one player per hero and it feels really weird that they don't do that.
  #27  
Old 05-05-2016, 04:34 PM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 85,105
Quote:
Quoth Senor Beef:

At first glance, Overwatch isn't as bad as TF2 in the "attackers always win" style of attack maps. It seemed closer to 50/50 for attackers and defenders than like 90/10 for TF2.
Right now, maybe. Will that stay the same as people gain more familiarity with the game (characters, maps, and gameplay in general)? Maybe, maybe not. And if it doesn't stay the same, then a time comparison would make sense.

On the other hand, I can see the possibility of an attacking team winning extremely quickly via some sort of low-percentage backdoor rush, and then trying to meet that time yourself wouldn't seem very fun. And in the second game, everyone would know just how much time they need, while they wouldn't in the first, which would probably make a difference (though which way is harder to see: It'd depend on details of how the game plays).
  #28  
Old 05-05-2016, 07:59 PM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 85,105
...And, it looks like I won't be trying the free weekend after all. There's no Mac version.

  #29  
Old 05-08-2016, 03:44 PM
SenorBeef is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 28,273
Beta got extended for a day, runs through tomorrow.
  #30  
Old 05-09-2016, 07:27 AM
Boozahol Squid, P.I. is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Durham, NC
Posts: 3,714
Quote:
Originally Posted by SenorBeef View Post
Another con... I don't know why they allow 2+ of the same hero on a team. Character design feels more like a MOBA in this game than a class. You're not playing an archetype but a particular hero with their own personality. In TF2, it was necessary to allow multiple players per class simply because you could have a 32+ player game with only 9 classes. But in this game it's all 6v6 with 21 classes - there's no reason not to limit one player per hero and it feels really weird that they don't do that.
I think that the reason for allowing multiple heroes is to avoid the issue in MOBAs where a new player starts to feel competent with one single hero, and then suddenly finds that he's not having a good time because he's been blocked out from that. I have noticed that the game puts a little number underneath the hero based on the order you selected him, so you can encourage someone to pick a different character based on the fact you had 'dibs,' so to speak.

Just like the game will let a team play with all support classes, but will let them know that they're missing the parts of a balanced loadout, I think it's nice for the game to provide that information without railroading certain choices.
  #31  
Old 05-09-2016, 07:45 AM
Johnny Bravo's Avatar
Johnny Bravo is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: The Swamp
Posts: 7,785
I've gotten a lot more time in over the free beta.

In a group of 4-6, this game is a lot of fun. However, I only enjoy playing a few characters and don't really see myself breaking into too many more. I was the same way in TF2. The few times I've gone in and played solo matches, I've gotten bored almost instantly and have stopped after one or two matches.

I haven't yet decided if the lack of deliberate progression is a dealbreaker or not. Yes, you can save your paltry gold to eventually buy skins that you want, but the gold itself comes in at an inconsistent rate. The skins are also 95% "hidden" purchases in that you mostly only see them when you're watching yourself die on the killcam.

Not being able to level characters, pick loadouts, buy items, or make any of the other choices (during or between matches) that I've come to expect from modern shooters leaves me a little cold.

Finally, the loot boxes are incredibly frustrating. What's this? Another four sprays? Wow! Just awful.
  #32  
Old 05-09-2016, 11:53 AM
HookerChemical is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 1,258
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Bravo View Post
I played in a few of the free weekends.

I'm a little disappointed, to be perfectly honest. I can't but feel like I was playing this almost 10 years ago when it was called Team Fortress 2. Yes, it's polished to that perfect Blizzard shine, but it's still a very typical class-based shooter.

HotS managed to innovate in enough ways that it is (IMO, anyway) a standout in the MOBA genre. I don't see Overwatch doing anything new in the class-based shooter genre other than being really shiny, and I think Blizzard is tacitly acknowledging that with the 40 dollar price point.

Having said ALL THAT, it's still fun with a stack of friends.
I agree with everything but the last line because I didn't play with a group of friends, just random matches.

It's a well-polished step from TF2. I enjoy how easy it is to get into, but it's not a game I would play much and I won't spend the $60 Blizzard is asking. I'm simply not good enough at online FPS to enjoy playing anything other than a tank or healer, and even then, I'm limited by anything that requires much accuracy. It's fun enough that I'd pick up and play every now and then if I had it, but not fun enough to drop that much money on it.

The team shooter meets MOBA abilities is a solid iteration on the TF2 template. It takes a bit to learn each character, but not too much that it makes learning unfun.

The most fun I had was playing Winston and jumping onto enemy snipers and going apeshit on them while my barrier keeps their annoying allies off me. It's quite satisfying.
  #33  
Old 05-09-2016, 01:53 PM
SenorBeef is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 28,273
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Bravo View Post
I haven't yet decided if the lack of deliberate progression is a dealbreaker or not. Yes, you can save your paltry gold to eventually buy skins that you want, but the gold itself comes in at an inconsistent rate. The skins are also 95% "hidden" purchases in that you mostly only see them when you're watching yourself die on the killcam.

Not being able to level characters, pick loadouts, buy items, or make any of the other choices (during or between matches) that I've come to expect from modern shooters leaves me a little cold.
I utterly despise what people like you have done to gaming. "What's my incentive to play if I'm not put in a skinner box?!" - once upon a time the incentive to play games was because you enjoyed the gameplay. Now because of this attitude, no game can simply be the best game it can be in order to be as fun as possible. No, now the game has to lock everything down behind an artificial progression system because modern gamers apparently get no enjoyment from the actual process of playing the game, but only because it says OMG YOU GOT +1 + 1 +1 HERE'S A NEW THING FOR YOU! +1 +1 +1!!! LEVEL UP!!!!

One of the best things about this game is that the unlockable stuff is only cosmetic, and they're not hiding equipment or abilities behind an artificial progression system. It is utterly baffling to me that anyone would think that's a negative.


Quote:
Originally Posted by HookerChemical View Post
It's a well-polished step from TF2. I enjoy how easy it is to get into, but it's not a game I would play much and I won't spend the $60 Blizzard is asking.
It's a $40 game.
  #34  
Old 05-09-2016, 02:03 PM
HookerChemical is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 1,258
Quote:
Originally Posted by SenorBeef View Post
It's a $40 game.
I appears I was looking at the XBox and PS pricing. That's closer to what I might pay, but I so rarely play FPS anymore. I might pick it up for half that.

If team FPS games are your jam, it looks like a solid game. 15 years ago, I would have picked it up. Heck, 15 years ago, I did pick up TF2 (plus the rest of the Orange Box) for $60.

The good thing is that if I do decide to pick it up later, I don't have to worry about being underpowered because all the purchases/finds are cosmetic. The last time I dipped into TF2, it felt like a very different game and most people seemed to be running around with gear that had been created in the time since I had last played. I was far behind the learning curve of what that gear did and how it adjusted play and in acquiring my own gear and it simply turned me off.
  #35  
Old 05-09-2016, 02:22 PM
Johnny Bravo's Avatar
Johnny Bravo is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: The Swamp
Posts: 7,785
Quote:
Originally Posted by SenorBeef View Post
I utterly despise what people like you have done to gaming. "What's my incentive to play if I'm not put in a skinner box?!"
Um, wow. No. My complaint is that I cannot choose what I am progressing towards. The rewards are completely at random. I want to unlock stuff for D.va because I'm playing D.va. My problem isn't that the rewards are cosmetic; my problem is that they're indiscriminate.

My other concerns (leveling, loadouts, and so on) are game design choices and have little-to-nothing to do with reward structures depending on what type of game we're talking about. When I say I want to level my characters and abilities, I'm talking about doing it within the confines of the game like in a MOBA, because I tend to feel that matches become static and dull after a while without the ability to react beyond "pick a new character with a new set of static abilities."

Seriously man, dial it back with your "despise"-o-meter.
  #36  
Old 05-09-2016, 02:40 PM
SenorBeef is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 28,273
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Bravo View Post
Um, wow. No. My complaint is that I cannot choose what I am progressing towards. The rewards are completely at random. I want to unlock stuff for D.va because I'm playing D.va. My problem isn't that the rewards are cosmetic; my problem is that they're indiscriminate.

Quote:
Not being able to level characters, pick loadouts, buy items, or make any of the other choices (during or between matches) that I've come to expect from modern shooters leaves me a little cold.
Pick loadouts? Loadouts of what? Different skills and abilities and perks and equipment that you unlock, generally.

You claim you were talking about in-match level ups, like in a MOBA, but then you specifically say "during or between matches", which contradicts that.

The very thing you mean by "modern shooters" is that they've followed Call of Duty's formula and they're skinner boxes. You're constantly levelling up and unlocking things.

If not, what are these "modern shooters" that you describe, that only allow in-match choices without locking things like abilities, perks, and equipment through an xp treadmill?

Quote:
Finally, the loot boxes are incredibly frustrating. What's this? Another four sprays? Wow! Just awful.
If you could unlock shit quicker, you'd probably say "I've unlocked everything I want, what incentive do I have to keep playing?" - and if not you, lots of people would.

Anyway, give me a break. You want the game to have loadouts, levelling up, and other choices (between matches) just like you've come to expect from "modern shooters" - if you weren't talking about having a Call Of Duty style progression system, you expressed yourself incredibly poorly. This feigned outrage that I somehow read you all wrong is very silly.

Last edited by SenorBeef; 05-09-2016 at 02:40 PM.
  #37  
Old 05-09-2016, 02:58 PM
Johnny Bravo's Avatar
Johnny Bravo is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: The Swamp
Posts: 7,785
Good god, why don't you chill out and take me at my word rather than deconstructing my post like we're in GD? This isn't the Hague and I'm not on trial for crimes against SenorBeef's preferred style of gaming.

Although if you must know, off-topic though it may be, I have enjoyed playing games with Skinner Box progression in them. I also play console games! I understand that I am in your view destroying the game industry but I have to admit that I am not overly concerned.

Give me a break, indeed.

Last edited by Johnny Bravo; 05-09-2016 at 03:03 PM.
  #38  
Old 05-09-2016, 03:09 PM
SenorBeef is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 28,273
I took you at your word the first time, in which you said you wanted a game more like "modern shooters" with progression. Only after I said something judgmental about that did you say I was wrong and that I was jumping to conclusions. I wasn't. Everything I reacted to was right there in your post about what you felt was missing from the game.

You didn't say "yep, you're right, we like different things, I want xp progression in my game", you said "oh no, I didn't say anything like that, how ridiculous of you to jump to conclusions like that! what's wrong with you!"
  #39  
Old 05-09-2016, 03:49 PM
Airk is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 2,969
I have no interest in playing this game, but wow would I go see a feature film. Tons of good character.
  #40  
Old 05-09-2016, 04:37 PM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 85,105
Quote:
Quoth HookerChemical:

The most fun I had was playing Winston and jumping onto enemy snipers and going apeshit on them while my barrier keeps their annoying allies off me. It's quite satisfying.
Please. You went scientistshit on them. The racial slur isn't necessary.
  #41  
Old 05-09-2016, 05:45 PM
smiling bandit is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 16,955
Quote:
Originally Posted by SenorBeef View Post
You didn't say "yep, you're right, we like different things, I want xp progression in my game", you said "oh no, I didn't say anything like that, how ridiculous of you to jump to conclusions like that! what's wrong with you!"
It's a worthy discussion, but don't make something that trivial so personal.

Leaving that aside, one of the big things that progression systems do is to add some level of long-term goals to the game. When it comes down it, Overwatch has no story, no goal, and nothing else really to add to the experience. If you want TF2-style matches and nothing else, then TF2 has gotcha covered. Even if you, personally, don't like it, having that long-term element to grow into gives players something they can aspire to beyond getting the next kill. Sure, the moment-to-moment gameplay needs to be there. But it may not even enough to keep people interested if the game lacks anything else. They also tend to narrow the options for new players to several good but not exceptional choices that help them get into the game.

You're certainly not obligated to like the, but these systems went into games like CoD and its clones for a reason, and that reason isn't limited to just the blander modern military shooter games.
  #42  
Old 05-09-2016, 05:49 PM
Jragon's Avatar
Jragon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Miskatonic University
Posts: 10,578
Edit: nm, I should read the whole conversation first

Last edited by Jragon; 05-09-2016 at 05:50 PM.
  #43  
Old 05-09-2016, 06:08 PM
Jragon's Avatar
Jragon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Miskatonic University
Posts: 10,578
Quote:
Originally Posted by SenorBeef View Post
I utterly despise what people like you have done to gaming. "What's my incentive to play if I'm not put in a skinner box?!" - once upon a time the incentive to play games was because you enjoyed the gameplay. Now because of this attitude, no game can simply be the best game it can be in order to be as fun as possible. No, now the game has to lock everything down behind an artificial progression system because modern gamers apparently get no enjoyment from the actual process of playing the game, but only because it says OMG YOU GOT +1 + 1 +1 HERE'S A NEW THING FOR YOU! +1 +1 +1!!! LEVEL UP!!!!

One of the best things about this game is that the unlockable stuff is only cosmetic, and they're not hiding equipment or abilities behind an artificial progression system. It is utterly baffling to me that anyone would think that's a negative.
This isn't what a skinner box is. A skinner box is, by definition, random. A progression system isn't a skinner box because you know exactly how long until you can get what you want. TF2's hats and Dota 2's cosmetic items are skinner boxes. So is Overwatch's loot crate system (though I don't think those give repeats so it's alleviated somewhat).

I don't like progression systems in multiplayer FPS games (except maybe Planetside where it serves a purpose given how big the game is), but they're not skinner boxes.

Edit: I heard Battleborn had a progression system where the more you play a certain character the more of their backstory you unlock. They could do that with little Overwatch cutscenes for each character and that would be cool. Though the obvious problem with that is people playing the hero they want the cutscene for rather than what the team needs.

Last edited by Jragon; 05-09-2016 at 06:09 PM.
  #44  
Old 05-09-2016, 06:22 PM
Idle Thoughts is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Arizona
Posts: 12,266

Mod Note


Quote:
Originally Posted by SenorBeef View Post
I utterly despise what people like you have done to gaming. "What's my incentive to play if I'm not put in a skinner box?!" - once upon a time the incentive to play games was because you enjoyed the gameplay. Now because of this attitude, no game can simply be the best game it can be in order to be as fun as possible. No, now the game has to lock everything down behind an artificial progression system because modern gamers apparently get no enjoyment from the actual process of playing the game, but only because it says OMG YOU GOT +1 + 1 +1 HERE'S A NEW THING FOR YOU! +1 +1 +1!!! LEVEL UP!!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by SenorBeef View Post
Pick loadouts? Loadouts of what? Different skills and abilities and perks and equipment that you unlock, generally.

You claim you were talking about in-match level ups, like in a MOBA, but then you specifically say "during or between matches", which contradicts that.
...

If you could unlock shit quicker, you'd probably say "I've unlocked everything I want, what incentive do I have to keep playing?" - and if not you, lots of people would.

Anyway, give me a break. You want the game to have loadouts, levelling up, and other choices (between matches) just like you've come to expect from "modern shooters" - if you weren't talking about having a Call Of Duty style progression system, you expressed yourself incredibly poorly. This feigned outrage that I somehow read you all wrong is very silly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SenorBeef View Post
I took you at your word the first time, in which you said you wanted a game more like "modern shooters" with progression. Only after I said something judgmental about that did you say I was wrong and that I was jumping to conclusions. I wasn't. Everything I reacted to was right there in your post about what you felt was missing from the game.

You didn't say "yep, you're right, we like different things, I want xp progression in my game", you said "oh no, I didn't say anything like that, how ridiculous of you to jump to conclusions like that! what's wrong with you!"

I know you're a passionate guy about gaming and games, but you are seriously coming off over the line here a little. Let's dial back the outrage and anger and all that that you're displaying a little in your posts. The Pit is the place to take issue with posts and posters that get a person worked up enough to start to come off sounding a little insulting.
In short, just ease up a small bit beyond this post, please. Just a note, that's all... not a warning..
and if you wish to discuss this note, please do so in ATMB or PM.
  #45  
Old 05-09-2016, 06:26 PM
SenorBeef is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 28,273
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jragon View Post
This isn't what a skinner box is. A skinner box is, by definition, random. A progression system isn't a skinner box because you know exactly how long until you can get what you want. TF2's hats and Dota 2's cosmetic items are skinner boxes. So is Overwatch's loot crate system (though I don't think those give repeats so it's alleviated somewhat).

Maybe there's some technical misunderstanding that I have, but my layman's understanding, but from wikipedia

Quote:
[URL="An operant conditioning chamber permits experimenters to study behavior conditioning (training) by teaching a subject animal to perform certain actions (like pressing a lever) in response to specific stimuli, such as a light or sound signal. When the subject correctly performs the behavior, the chamber mechanism delivers food or another reward. In some cases, the mechanism delivers a punishment for incorrect or missing responses."]An operant conditioning chamber permits experimenters to study behavior conditioning (training) by teaching a subject animal to perform certain actions (like pressing a lever) in response to specific stimuli, such as a light or sound signal. When the subject correctly performs the behavior, the chamber mechanism delivers food or another reward. In some cases, the mechanism delivers a punishment for incorrect or missing responses.
It doesn't say anything about randomness on the page, and in fact, suggests the opposite - that consistency leads to conditioning. Do an actual, get a reward.

My point is - games used to be designed based on the engagement of their gameplay. Primary concerns were providing a fun experience. But the trend in gaming is to get people hooked directly via little dopamine release conditioning the same way people often react to drugs or gambling. The sensation of progressive, of getting some reward, of constantly seeing your level go higher or getting some sort of minor unlock like a new sight for your gun or a new cosmetic trumps the actual quality of gameplay for a lot of people.

So you have a lot of games designed now where activating this little dopamine conditioned response is the primary goal, and creating an interesting game through the merits of gameplay is no longer the primary goal. This is most obvious in mobile gaming, which is a wasteland of F2P conditioning nonsense, but the trend has been making its way around the gaming world.

Yes, it works, it works in the same way that slot machines work, even though slot machines are the dumbest fucking thing you could possibly do with your time. You don't go to slot machines for compelling gaming experiences, you do it because you get sucked into a conditioned cycle of little dopamine releases. That doesn't mean that it's a good thing.

It trades good gameplay for little addiction boxes, so those of us who don't get some sort of life validation from seeing our XP go up and some new teal skin for my third holo sight get the shaft, since the cost of shifting game design in that direction is worse gameplay.

Last edited by SenorBeef; 05-09-2016 at 06:27 PM.
  #46  
Old 05-09-2016, 06:56 PM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 85,105
Consistent conditioning produces quicker results, but random sporadic conditioning produces longer-lasting results. Current practice is generally to start with consistent reinforcement, but to then start gradually tapering it off.

Though I'm not sure this is really relevant to gaming, which has no rewards beyond the game itself.
  #47  
Old 05-09-2016, 07:13 PM
magnusblitz is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 2,328
Quote:
Originally Posted by SenorBeef View Post
3. It made the same fucking obvious retarded mistake that TF2 did with attack/defense maps by treating them as two separate events. Attacking side has, say, 8 minutes to win. Then they win at 6:32. So the map flips over. Do you have 6:32 on the clock to see if you can beat the enemy time? No, you have 8 minutes. So both sides can win and the times are never compared. Which means that neither side wins. Even though it does one team attacking, then roles are flipped, these are essentially two completely separate events that have nothing to do with each other.
I would've sworn that TF2 did properly do this (i.e., second attacking team got the same amount of time it took the first attacking team to win, if they did win) but admittedly it's been a while since I've played. But I completely agree that it's silly design.

---

For me so far, Overwatch feels like a less-good version of TF2. Maybe it's just because I played so much TF2 back in the day that Overwatch doesn't have the same novelty, but I think it stems from some different design aspects. I liked that TF2 had both larger team sizes (10v10 or 12v12 was what I usually played) and a smaller amount of classes/characters. Because the characters were more tightly designed, it felt like there was more of a rock/paper/scissors design element, and tactics/strategy was just as important as being able to aim/shoot/etc. There's a reason there was no "rifleman" class in TF2, because it's difficult to balance such a character that's useful in every situation. Overwatch throws that all out with including characters like Soldier 76 or McCree.

Maybe I just sorta suck at the game, but what made me like TF2 was I could still succeed and help the team... play spy and blow up that sentry nest, or play pyro and do a good job of banzai charging the enemy team and delaying their advance. When it's only 6v6 you can't really do that, you really need to stick with the team (especially if you're running around on your own and come across someone like McCree, Mei or Reaper). This also means that when you're doing your job but your teammates are morons, it's more likely you'll get completely rolled and feel powerless.

Lastly, the whole experience/loot box thing is stupid. If it was free to play, that'd be one thing, but if I'm gonna be charged $40 they could have all the sprays/voice lines/poses etc unlocked from the start. I agree with Johnny Bravo that having it at least be tied to the character you're playing would be a nice start.
  #48  
Old 05-09-2016, 07:24 PM
RandMcnally is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Posts: 7,740
So I've decided that I like the game well enough to play with friends but that's about it. I'm not willing to put the effort required to get good. My main obsession is still Heroes of the Storm. I'm already a try-hard, I don't have the time for two games like that.
  #49  
Old 05-09-2016, 07:47 PM
magnusblitz is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 2,328
One more thing... this game really needs a good wiki/reference site. There's a lot of interactions and details that can't be figured out from the very short in-game descriptions of abilities and weapons. For example, I didn't realize until reading it on other message boards that energy weapons go through Reinhardt's shield, or that Junkrat's tire can climb up walls. I still don't know if Zarya's primary fire has infinite range or not. Stuff like that. The Gamepedia one is alright but not quite as detailed as I'd like yet.

Last edited by magnusblitz; 05-09-2016 at 07:50 PM.
  #50  
Old 05-09-2016, 08:32 PM
smiling bandit is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 16,955
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
Consistent conditioning produces quicker results, but random sporadic conditioning produces longer-lasting results. Current practice is generally to start with consistent reinforcement, but to then start gradually tapering it off.
Not exactly. In both the early and late stages, randomness is important because it causes the subject to perform the action more than he or she would otherwise choose to. That is, at both points the subject might want the reward ten times, but because he or she cannot be sure of getting that reward for each action, the individual must act much more often than otherwise.

Quote:
Though I'm not sure this is really relevant to gaming, which has no rewards beyond the game itself.
It is, because a number of games incorporate this kind of system in order to get players to act more often. I don't think it's actual relevant to the kind of system Senor Beef was discussing, but games like Diablo and Borderlands have used it, for example, to promote the loot grind. And of course, many other games such as MMO's, or Team Fortress 2 also use randomized drops in a different context. In all these systems, players are rewarded for playing longer with better drops, but in a randomized context so they can never be sure of getting what they want - but on average the time to get something "good" increases later in the game.

This isn't the only instance of trying to use Skinner boxes in games by any means, but it's one of the most obvious. For many people, however, this kind of system is a complete bore.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:45 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017