@kazeswen: Apparently that one dude didn't actually manage to steal that flag. While in line on Monday, I was talking to another attendee about it and she saw SE chase him down and demand it back. Hahaha.
@computernoises: My friend saw one dude make off with one of the flags, but they were apparently very adamant about collecting the plushies, hoodies, and other flags back. Hilarious.
My friend went to this panel today. Apparently SE passed out a bunch of cool merch to attendees, snapped a picture of all the stoked fans, and then asked for everything back.
@zenity: Good grief, are you going to make me cite every single game in which the scores line up or just use "it's not cool to hate on tW3" as your argument? I used it as an example, there are plenty more like it. Battleborn just came out and is holding steady around 7, is it not a competitive multiplayer game? Based on your argument, why does its scores balance, if user averages are "complete garbage"? I said in my post, *MOST* game scores balance out. There's a large discrepancy here and that should be noted, regardless of your personal feelings and opinions towards Overwatch. The internet gives you this great aggregation tool and "nobody should care"? Because you personally enjoy Overwatch? Okay.
I'm not saying "don't buy overwatch!!1!", I'm saying that the reviewers' and users' mindsets don't seem to be in-line here and that the value of the game seems to be the defining factor; and my evidence supports that. If you want to buy Overwatch, then ****ing buy it, I don't give a rat's ass.
For what it's worth, I enjoyed my time with Overwatch, I was hyped on trailers and news from the beginning, and devoted hours in line to play it at PAX. But personal bias need to be set aside to properly evaluate the value/essence of the game. The final product seems rather barebones, with a heavy emphasis on microtransactions after requiring a $60+ usd purchase price. If you like it, fine, but don't discount the facts because you don't agree with them.
@viffex: Perhaps Battleborn wasn't the most fitting title to use in my post--I mainly wanted to express how the scores are balanced on another recent release, similarities in gameplay aside.
@Mogan: I know how Metacritic works, that's why I'm citing it. What I'm saying is that, with *most* games, the user and reviewer scores balance (roughly) out. If people shouldn't put stock in user averages, then why does the Witcher 3 have a 92 reviewer and a 91 user score? If the reviewers and users are in sync, then the scores balance out, despite the trolls. Metacritic is a great tool to gauge the overall reception and worth of a game for this very reason.
It's concerning that the meta-scores for this game range around a 7 from users and over 9 from reviewers. Battleborn's scores are consistent at 7. Reminds me of the whole ME3 fiasco.
I'm also assuming that Gamespot received a review copy (and perhaps codes or something for some microtransaction assets?) which thus negates the minimal worth of the game. There's just too little content here to justify a $60+ USD purchase PLUS the hamfisting of microtransactions.
If anything, Overwatch should have been a FTP downloadable title with a plethora of microtransactions. Or at least a severe reduction of selling price: perhaps $20 as a download or $40 as a disc.
BF1's trailer is just designed better, frankly. The substance material helps, but the cutting is better, the sound is better, etc. Also the whole "pay an extra 20-60 bucks for this remaster" tacked on at the end there is DEFINITELY contributing to the dislikes. If that's not a marketing ploy to suddenly go "wait, here have the remaster for free, we listened look we're great", I'll lmfao.
Swoopalz's comments