I loved OW1. But this seems like a product I'll gladly play only casually and likely spend $0 on. Seems rushed (no PvE? Less fluff?), and even though I'm not a new player, the game is aggressively anti-new player for some reason. Blizzard has completely lost its way. D4 will likely be even a paid game w/ both an in-game store and battle pass. While more common these days for non-f2p games to have microtransactions, that's still "soulless dev/publisher 101".
I think it is being done to discourage "smurf accounts". I'm all for it.
@mrbojangles25: It's basically people who have ranked up and are looking for a variety of motives to rank higher than where they are currently at. They may ultimately benefit, but ultimately it saturates a game with zombie accounts, and may keep other players from ranking higher than they should. In OW, it's an epedemic. And you notice that with people that have played for a long time, but can't get out of certain tier ranking because of this practice. You often hear about many individuals being regarded as better than their rank states, however due to the many "smurf"accounts that are infront of them, they can't rank up. It takes the joy out of competitive play and ultimately the game gets a bad rap because of it.
"Similarly, for those jumping into Overwatch 2 without having owned the original Overwatch, it has now been revealed that you will have to play through 100 matches before you are able to use the entire roster of characters--a choice I find completely bizarre, even if I do understand the intentions behind it. The team calls this decision part of the game's First Time User Experience, which is meant to slowly onboard and acclimate new players to the game. However, the idea that players need to log in 10 to 20 hours and prove themselves in order to unlock other heroes feels unnecessary and a bit insulting."
My first reaction to this paragraph was in agreement with it. However I thought about it, and I'm happy they did this. This is the ultimate "smurf" deterrent. As hard as it is to take, I accept it for all of the right reasons. Ultimately, how will this effect the bottom line? If Gamepass is any indication, I think revenues will be just fine. Also, this could mean that the OW League is looking to get a bit more serious in its talent aquisition. Remeber, OG players are 6 years older now and are STILL putting in a lot of time in the game. Reviewers of OW2 need to look at the entire ecosystem of Overwatch, as it sounds like the developers will be heavily incorporating the OW universe this time around.
Since playing the beta, I'm happy to see that the inflated stats have been turned down. Hopefully, players are more focused on winning than putting up stats. Many of the tweaks were welcomed, especially for healers as I think healers got a lot more love in OW2. The new game modes are a great addition as well. Although the game feels like it's missing "something" yet you can't put your finger on it; 5v5 is a welcomed adjustment. However, I chalk this to the idea that there is room for growth for OW2. Ultimately, I think that was the aim in this sequel/updated title. Also, I've put in approximately 2000hrs (somewhere in that range) in the game.
Uh, hello.... Street Fighter 2, one of the most influential video games in the history of video games, is missing from this list. It's these obvious omissions that make your writers/editors look bad.
Referring to sequel as 1.5 is not good, even if it isn't a "bad thing". Overwatch already feels like Overwatch 1.5. This game receives complete updates, including in the graphical space, which is the first I've noticed in any game. Some of the more recent updates feel like the game was rebuilt from the ground up, especially on consoles where the graphics seem to improve year-over-year. Overwatch 2 will feel like Overwatch at launch, but with the Microsoft purchase, cross play, and additional online features, Overwatch 2 will come into its own within 6-9 months of release... and that's not a bad thing.
GIO-007-XBL's comments