Overwatch

I got OW Torb, Combat Mercy, Cadet Tracer and Blackwatch Mccree. The rest i had enough coin to buy (Even though i barely use them)

Didn't get any legendaries, but then again, I didn't get a chance to play a whole ton, so that's not unexpected. I have enough coins from a ways back to buy one, but... just not feeling it, really. Mercy's and Rein's are kinda cool, but I already have ones for them that I like better.

Still completely baffled that Blizzard is axing the only real story stuff the game itself has ever had.

I've also noticed that Competative doesn't favor supports or other heroes that don't do as much damage/kills, but are still as useful and I think the issue is more that its harder to quantify a lot of those traits.

For example, Widowmaker probably won't have the same kills as, say, DPS characters like 76, but she could easily be the MVP if she killed their Lucio and Mercy every single time they were in her sights.

Or Reind could stand their with his shield and soak up damage, but he might otherwise not really have kills and damage done. But his presence is what kept the enemy from pushing further up for a good 3 mins of the match.

Another one might be Symmetra. I've had games where I don't always get kills off my turrets, but the enemy quickly realized where my turrets were and that kept them from pushing forward for a really long time even if the turrets themselves never actually killed anyone.

The problem is there's no easy way to quantify a lot of that.

You know... I'm gonna catch an inferno for this, but I'm saying it anyway. I would have really preferred Overwatch as what the very first trailer made it out to be. A singleplayer/cooperative game (think missions like Uprising, but more and better), with the competitive game modes we got instead as an optional multiplayer of sorts (think Mass Effect/Gears of War/Battleborn, but as PVP).

In terms of what that translates to in practice: a game where "The world could always use more heroes" stands for something more than just "two teams of 6 fight each other over payload/control point/each other's flags", "for canon, look stuff up from official site and the webcomics" and "let's one-up Valve really freaking hard this time". I mean, I like Overwatch even as it is. But it really missed out on the potential of what it could have been, and it wouldn't even have needed to sacrifice on the part of the competitive gaming, had Blizzard played their cards right. But no. I'd really like to know what was actually going on inside the Overwatch dev team's minds when they started their work.

Would you prefer Overwatch to have a more established campaign mode?

At least the lore would move at a steady pace.

Seriously, having an interesting story told in suplementary material isn't good for the game IMO.

At the very least we need signs of actual progress within the game than just new characters & skins.

Sadly Uprising brought something of that measure.

Seconding Arilou here. The lore being like 95% detached from the game itself has always struck me as insanely bizarre. I mean, its MMO roots are really showing in that the game itself is incredibly bare bones compared to all the stuff its skins and locations seem to imply that we're missing out on. It's like we've gone back in time and Blizzard somehow thinks that Warcraft 1 levels of in-game explanation are acceptable in this day and age.

Hopefully we do get that Netflix animated series. Would that be acceptable as a means to tell the story?

I don't know.

I don't like things being told outside of the main game.

A consistent source in-game is needed lest you run the issue of Final Fantasy XV & its movie tie-in.

Well this is a different situation but still.

A campaign mode is something Overwatch could definitely make use of.

I do hope that the King's Row Uprising and Junkenstien's Revenge were essentially betas for some of the tech a campaign mode would have to make heavy use of, and they've already been in heavy development for it for some time.

Ideally the main campaign would push the story forward, while events like Uprising fill out the backstory.

A campaign mode could work very well for Overwatch, looking at Uprising. We could probably have a bunch of Uprising/Junkenstein's Revenge-esque missions.

It would also be good for making the console version not completely unplayable without the obligatory paid online service.

edited 1st May '17 6:36:03 PM by Konkfan7

That might be interesting.

Also. Limitless is back and I'm reminded of my love hate relationship with it.

Enemy team had nothing but Torbs and Syms and cheaped out the entire match.

One of the easiest counters to SymTorb cheese...is Pharah and Junkrat spam. Junkrat can bounce his bombs into Torb turret enclosures, and Sym literally cannot do anything against Pharah.

I find D.Va or Mei spam to be more annoying - the former because of D.Va's "last chance" pilot form, and Mei...well, need I say more? And unlike Sym's snail energy balls, Mei can shoot down Pharahs with her sniper icicle shots.

Yeah we tried Pharah and Junkrat. The turrets chewed through us every time we tried to get close.

I feel like an "Overwatch Chronicle" would do some good. Instead of just short descriptions, get down into the dirt of every character's backstories, Overwatch's operations, a detailed timeline etc. All of the stuff that a campaign mode wouldn't be able to tell in a non-cumbersome manner. As for the modern and future story, a campaign would be good so long as it could avoid the usual failings of a multiplayer-focused game's campaign.

I would love it if they would take some cues from Star Craft II's campaign.

An in-game fully detailed encyclopedia would be great.

Just look at Destiny, a very detailed & comprehensive amount of lore but none of it is in the game despite the fact you unlock the lore in-game. You have to look on the games website for stuff you unlock again in-game which is pretty fucked up.

This event was pretty rubbish for me, loot-wise. Only good thing I scored was Torbjorn's Highlight Intro.

I got Widow's skin, both of Torbjorn's and Bastion's. Of course I didn't get Genji's which was the only one I cared about.

As of this writing, event's still up, because Blizz mistakenly ended the event earlier than intended.

Event will conclude (for real) on May 2, 5PM Pacific Daylight Time.

Get going.

Guess that means I bought that Mercy skin a day earlier than I should've. I just know I'm gonna get it to drop from my very next lootbox.

Speaking of gameplay and the story, I wanted to make sure I get what's going on here.

The matches are not canon, that's obvious—no Talon/OW/Junkers/whatever team-ups.

Now, are the maps themselves supposed to be the non-canon "simulation" of famous events? Or are they supposed to be new hot-spots of action with a non-canon cast?

"What drugs are Rotpar abusing?" Let me clarify my jibber-jabber with examples:

• Einchenwald—is this supposed to be the siege from the Omnic Crisis or some new attack on the castle?
• Hanamura—Overwatch taking down the Shimada clan or a new event? I don't think it's supposed to be Genji meeting Hanzo.

What do you guys think? The biggest problem is that there's "modern" stuff all over the maps—the newspapers talking about Sombra, dead knight on the throne, etc. But is the game basically taking the modern locations and then using a non-canon cast for "Overwatch's Greatest Hits"?

edited 2nd May '17 4:39:08 AM by Rotpar

I'd say some of the maps depict specific events, albeit with characters that weren't nessesarily there (Route 66 for example is the Deadlock gang attemptingg to steal a nuke).

Others (like Oasis) I think are just Po I in the Overwatch world that aren't meant to depict any events at all.

At minimum they need to put all the story in the game itself, they put all the World of Warcraft shorts for Legion accessible in the game itself for example.