Shadow1980 said:
Yeah, well, you're short, Ed. Seriously, though, you may have no problem with MP-only games, online-only games, or microtransactions in full-price games. But I personally don't like the idea of a game being dependent on an internet server. One day, the official servers will be shut down, and that, as they say, is that. I don't really play much in the way of MP games anyway aside from Halo and occasionally Battlefield; I'd much, much rather have a compelling single-player experience any day of the week. And as far as microtransactions go, do you watch the Jimquisition by any chance? My opinions on what is and is not worthwhile about video games would disqualify any MP-only game, any online-only game, and/or any "fee-to-pay" game from being eligible for GOTY, no matter how fun its core mechanics may be. It's a matter of principle in regards to what I think games should be. |
Haha, yes I do watch a lot of Jim's work(not all of it) and I definitely agree that microtransactions should not be in Overwatch. I'm not excusing it in any way, hell I think anyone who's seen me rant on Gears of War 4 knows that I bring up a lot of the same exact points Jim brought up with Gears of War 4. I'm going to give you the respect you deserve for clearly being intellectual and i'll give you a long detailed response to the problems I had with what you have said so far.
The first thing I must bring up is that my biggest problem is your idea that Overwatch is less valuable because it's multiplayer only. You named it in your criticisms and then in the same paragraph said "so a game that represents everything I find wrong with the industry..." which implies multiplayer only is one of the things you find wrong in the industry. Yet I have to ask, how much better is Doom? Doom was released for 60$ on all platforms, got bashed for it's terrible multiplayer component before it released with it's beta form, and is virtually only looked upon as a single player experience. Yet, Gamers everywhere act like Doom, a game that is only known for it's single player experience, is exceptable as a single player centric experience for the GOTY award, but Overwatch isn't. Overwatch is a multiplayer title, it has more than 15 million players, it gets continous updates with new maps and characters, it has more replayability for most people than Doom, and unlike Doom there is more than one play style to it. So I have to ask again...how does Doom have more value than Overwatch? Even if we're looking at it from a content perspective, Doom's campaign is the only content 99% of the community cares about, mostly because of how badly recieved it's multiplayer was. And it retailed for 60$ on ALL platforms. So I have to ask even if we're looking at this for how much content or value there is ... does Doom really win either of those categories? Not really. If you like the poorly recieved multiplayer, good for you, more content for you. But that hardly seems to justify the 20$ more you have to pay for Doom at launch then you had to for Overwatch on the PC platform. So a 12 hour campaign that has no story, no real replayability for MOST people, and no good multiplayer mode is worth more than a game that has a huge attach rate , different playstyles, and new content added every few months? Yea, ... doesn't really seem like a good argument. Both games rely entirely on fun, the difference is that on the PC overwatch came out at 40$ and got updated content, whereas Doom came out at 60$ with a 12 or so hour campaign with a multiplayer factor no one cared about. Hardly seems worth the value argument because, when you complained about overwatch being multiplayer only I can assure you were saying "Doom is better because it's a single player game" subconciously rather than "Doom is better because it's a complete game", unless you're one of the smallest of minorities that really believes the multiplayer is worth the extra 20$.
About the microtransactions, I have to say that once again I agree and initially I was wishing I could get loot boxes much quicker in Overwatch. There's a few things worth mentioning though. Overwatch is not retailed at a full 60$ price on PC, admittadely the publisher did a scummything and put it at 60$ because they new that the console market would by a worthless 60$ edition with minor cosmetic packages and a few prizes that ironically can only be redeemed if you have a PC for other blizzard games. But I still think the 40$ price tag on Overwatch's most popular platform is worth mentioning, most Doom fans are on PC, most Blizzard fans are on PC, which one got access to the smaller price tag? Blizzard players.
It's also worth mentioning that Overwatch's microtransaction system is much fairer. It takes too long to level up in the regular quick match mode, but as soon as you unlock competitive mode(it takes too long...took me around 11-13 hours) you get loot boxes in about 3 matches if you do good and 4 if you do bad. You get a loot box every time you level up which is a lot faster once you play competitive and it's much more fair than say Halo 5 and Gears of War 4(both retailed at 60$). And unlike most free dlc excuses that are terrible ... Overwatchs updates seem mostly worth it. Sombra and Ana as far as we know might or might not have been planned before the game came out and if they weren't that just shows how much time the team is putting into the game even after launch. But even if they were planned, the game would require an unnecessary 6 or 9 month delay to get them in their on release date. I"ve always talked about how games should just be delayed if developers plan content before they come out, but in the case of Overwatch this transaction system allows them to look at what is working and what isn't in the game, and design a character around it. And as much as I think they could have done this all without a microtransaction system, it is understandable why they'd want to get money from people who already own the game. They'd have to rely on their new characters being popular enough to sell millions of more copies in order to justify doing so many updates, the reality is just having a great attach rate doesn't guarantee a return on investment. DO i like it? Hell no but it's certiainly more understandable than Gears 4 or Halo 5.
