Overwatch Getting Rave Reviews

Dude, check your salt levels and take off the tin foil hat. Blizzard let everyone who wanted to do so play the full game for hours and hours before it was released. Everyone who had interest knew exactly what they were getting into when they put down their forty dollars. The people who just jump on fads and let the hype wash over them burnt out before release day. Those cheering the game on are doing so because they have dropped a dozen or more hours into it, are having a blast, and think they are going to have a blast for a lot longer.

If you drop forty bucks based solely on the publisher that is fine, but stop projecting.

Where you going to put those goal posts?

I game on PC as well....SURPRISE!!!!

Either way....youre making things up in your head. Console ports are bc of games like Batman AK, MK etc.

And no one uses that term as an insult.....not that I've seen. Just a way to say the port wasn't worthy.

The same could be said if it worked the other way around.

Youre just reading into things to justify "console gamers r stoopid, hur dur!"

Salt levels ? Truth hurts. Now go pay for a game that could have been a F2P easily just because its coming from Blizzard and have fun with it. Let me have my opinion on this.

You are not offering your opinion, you are assigning one to people who disagree with you. If you decide what games you buy based on publisher instead of fun that is fine, but stop projecting.

lol Azatis is going to bitter for so many years, this game is going to be HUGE on PC.

How many months till he caves and becomes one of OW premiere players?

You basically retorted your post. It's not for you. Does that mean the people that it "is for" can't give it a 10?

@cainetao11: in the end ppl will give it their own score.

Even though it's not for me, I can judge a game for what it does....not for what it doesn't do like so many seem to do.

I don't like TF2 either, but I can see why others do. I just don't see it being a game worthy of a bunch of 10's. I have nothing against Blizzard and it's a multiplatform game so it's not like I have some sort of bias.

Objectively, in my eyes it seems like an 8 or 9. From what I played in the beta.

Just my opinion.

Well, it's fallen down to 94 on MC with only 11 reviews in. :P You might want to change your clickbait the thread title OP.

And you're entitled to it. Just saying others are as entitled to give it 10s or 1s. I mean have you ever given a game that wasn't for you a 10?

Down to a 94 on Metacritic (11 reviews) and 95 on OpenCritic (11 scored reviews, 15 reviews total.)

Not bad at all. I don't have much interest in the game, but maybe I'll check it out in a couple months at a discount.

What ? Im stating a VALID point that you and everyone around has no answer. I havent heard a decent answer yet. Also , i didnt jump on anyones opinion , you on the other hand jumped on mine. Seems that the salt is real over my opinion.

I stated again and again its my opinion , is that hard to understand that ? lol. Its that you dont like what im saying and at the same time what im saying makes sense ... so you getting salty bro , right ? Hehe ! But dont get so upset , its just an opinion as i said numerous times already.

And i agree with you 100% . If someone buys every shit just because its coming from X developer or X publisher out of fanboyism = pathetic. My opinion as well.

Why to be bitter ? Im just stating a valid point out of curiosity more than anything.

Also , when Overwatch SHOP becomes a reality ill be around to remind you what kind of marketing victims were you to spend 60$ for this.

I might give it a shot if it goes F2P. It's really hard for me to justify spending a lot of money on a shooter with no single player.

@AzatiS: Problem is, you cant put a price on fun, its an argument youll never win. Its like saying since GTAV is $60 all other games should lower their price to $30-50. The world dont work like that, i rather spend $60 on Kirby: Robobot then spend $60 on GTAV.

But if you want to wait for a price drop, then thats a good ideal too, most games do have great sales and the market is filled with great prices. I think people forget that TF2 didnt start out free.

This is a Blizzard game, what did you expect? enough said...

They call it overwatch because it's like standing over a toilet watching shit flush down it

Just like your money

@charizard1605 And this is why you don't crazy hype with just 5 reviews :P 94 with 11 reviews.

I predict more or less the same 93 as UC4, but we'll need quite a bit more reviews until the number finally settles. Would be a great sign if it managed to stay at 94 or even climb a bit from there.

@cainetao11: I thought BF2 was near a 10.

I really don't play too much of a game if I know it's not for me.

In all honesty, Tribes 2 and A Link to the Past and Goldeneye are the only games I would consider giving 10's to.

I really don't worry too much with scores other than this forum or if someone asks specifically.

If I enjoy it, I enjoy it....personally I don't really think beyond that.

Well Uncharted 4's reign as highest rated current gen game didn't last very long... :P

@AzatiS: Nobody cares that Blizzard made it.

@PurpleMan5000: Multiplayer offers more replay value than singleplayer. I don't understand this logic.

$40, and this is going to have free maps/heroes. Only cosmetics will be in the shop. It's blizzard, bro.

It won't go F2P. Also it's not hard for me to justify that, I've been doing it since Q3A, TF2, BF1942, UT, etc..

Tacked on terrible SP is for casual noobfests like BF/COD.

Eh, to each his own. Some people value a good, well made SP experience far more than even the greatest MP experiences available. It is what it is.

It has 4% less, without that 4%, it's not "best game ever" - but "good".

Still 2% more than Team Fortress 2.

I have never played a multiplayer shooter for more than 15 or so hours. They are fun for a short time, but they always end up being the same thing over and over. This would be ok if the game launched at around $20, but by the time most shooters reach that price point, the multiplayer is already pretty dead.

You have said time and time again that people only like it because it is made by Blizzard and calling them pathetic for doing so. If you don't think that qualifies as "jumping on anyone's opinion" or assigning people who disagree with you their opinions and so forth there isn't much to say.

I understand. My point was does anyone believe a game that isn't for them deserves a 10? I doubt many do.

That's total bullshit and typical hermit delusions. Rockstar got big because of GTA III on PS2, every single 3D GTA game sold better on PlayStation, by a large margin.

I agree but on the other hand there are many having fun with SF5 as we speak. So fun isnt something subjective to the individual ? I mean , i barely could stand play OW for 2 hours straight before i uninstall it.

Anyways , thats not my point. Play what you like , pay what you like.

Man I'm so glad at these high scores, best MP i played since TF2!

The lack of modes is a silly comparison, because it ignores the nature of it being a class based multiplayer. And an actual one, not like faux-class based game the way Call of Duty and Battlefield are or something. So simply doing team deathmatch with these mechanics wouldn't really fit the strengths of the gameplay system. They could do it, but I mean just take a look at BF4. It's mecahnics aren't that well suited for just straight TDM, it has TDM, and it's kind of a shit mode in that game.

Likewise things like CTF would require certain classes to out right being dropped, Lucios would have some major advantages in a CTF type play mode. So the modes thing is a bit of a wash, the lack of single player wasn't the only problem with Street Fighter V, because it wasn't just missing a single player. It was basic multiplayer shit, you didn't have versus lobbies for anything more than 2 people, in fucking Street Fighter. It was missing basic features that its predecessors had.

Overwatch, as far as basic stuff it's not missing anything. All the communication features are there (unlike Rainbow Six Siege, Destiny), proper lobbying systems are there (unlike Street Fighter), and all of the maps and future classes are guaranteed free. Unlike Street Fighter which has a grind, unlike Titanfall which had a season pass, unlike Battlefront which is EA shit.

Besides the concept that it plays beautifully, the modes it does have fit the general ebb n flow of that game beautifully and 12 maps in the context of modern multiplayer games for the last 10 years, isn't exactly below par. Unlike Street Fighter where it's one thing for it to be missing single player, but no fucking lobbies and it doesn't have basic teaching tools? For a fighting game? No that shit does not fly. Not when Killer Instinct of all games has an absurdly good fighting game teaching tool, not when Arcsystems consistently makes a great teaching engine, and not when Namco always been clowning cats in that department at least.

I agree Street Fighter V is a pretty great game, but a lot of its criticisms were justified, where as some of the knocks you're presenting against Overwatch is you fishing because you didn't like the game.

And the blizzard fanboy argument would not fly.

I think Diablo and games of its ilk are complete and utter nonsense, as they are shallow, boring, mindless skinner boxes that exchange gameplay depth for a loot grind to take advantage of the fact that gamers are in fact, shit. I've never so much as installed World of Warcraft, much less played it. And while Starcraft 2 is pretty rad, Blizzard's CG commercials and their stories? basically crap that only gamers can like. I like Overwatch, because it's a well made video game. I have no investment in the narrative of Blizzard the all mighty.

3 would never have been a thing if it weren't for the success of the first on the PC.

The original wasn't even ported to the original Playstation until a year after its PC release. My consolite friends at the time had no idea what the game even was when it was first released on the Playstation because Rockstar didn't have the advertising budget they have these days. They were also more focused on the JRPGs and fighting games of the era.

Rockstar was already coming up after the success of the first two GTA titles. 3 simply allowed them to get even bigger due to the shift to 3D and a bigger advertising campaign.

Successful multiplat titles almost always sell better on closed platforms due to there being less competition from other titles and fewer available genres.

PC gaming has a library spanning decades and PC gamers have more diverse tastes due to the size of the library, the number of genres, and the range of platform power.

no SP, no buy

Gpuking, you going to play Overwatch on thumbsticks?

sorry but U4 trashes it

This thread was a lesson to those that didn't know, on how metacritic and opencritic work (any aggregate site like Rotten tomatoes, etc), and hopefully a lesson on not to get to enthusiastic when only five reviews sprout. Need more reviews to compile before we know the final score.

One way to look at it is with school. The first two weeks of class you get a 100% on five papers, but you are still a long way before the semester is over. It's too early to claim that 4.0 average so early. I explained being cautious and to use the waiting game with metacritic a few years ago as a matter of fact.

94/100 metascore w/12 reviews = http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/overwatch?ref=hp

----

93/100 openscore w/ 14 reviews = http://opencritic.com/game/1673/overwatch

Overwatch at metacritic is now only at a 94/100 with 12 Reviews, well under the expected 60+ reviews still incoming which will also presumably lower the final metascore.

Mark my words, the score is going to go DOWN as more critics are compiled, which is typical of metasites.

I heard that Rockstar Red Dead Redemption game was really good, too bad it never released for PC despite numerous rumors and petitions.

yay that was very unexpected from R*, mods would have made this game even more interesting.

Let's hope RDR2 gets PC version :)

It was really good indeed and too bad Rockstar didn't bother optimizing their win32 dev version and releasing it on PC, given how well gta V for example sold on PC, even with the late release(well at least it turned out to be the superior version). On PC the game could still be alive today as open world games tend to have longer lifespan thanks to mods, like you can still mod Skyrim to look acceptable on PC up to this day, but man booting Skyrim on ps3? I wouldn't think about that for a second.

Indeed, the score will more or less start to drop but I think it will be somwhere between 85-90.

Edited the topic title again

GTA 1 was released in October 1997 for PC and in the middle December 1997 for PS1. This is at best a month and not anywhere close to a year. The NA version of it came out later in 1998 for PC and PS1, so I hope you weren't going to use the EU release date for the PC version and the NA release date for the PS1 version. Even then, it wouldn't be close to a year.

The same goes for the second title, only around a month difference in release dates.

Awh wanna move the goalpost, huh?

Same here, GTA games are like Bethesda games, 1000 times better on PC thanks to all these mods. I'm still hoping for Rockstar to make a HD Remaster for RDR and hopefully that will also come to PC then.

Haha I still have my PS3 version of GTA V, which became unplayable after playing the PC version. Mouse + Keyboard makes a huge difference already as long as you're not in a car, heck, even when you're in a car and want to shoot at someone, it's just so much better with m+kb. Not to mention the thousands of high quality mods that are available.

@charizard1605: Hey remember when this was at 98 with 5 reviews? Good crazy hype times! :P

This game should be free to play, plain and simple. Not enough in the game to explain or justify a $60 price point. Main reason it's getting all this attention is because it's blizzard, if it was any other company making the game it probably wouldn't get this much hype and attention.