280°

Why Overwatch 2 is such a groundbreaking sequel

Overwatch 2 is coming only around four or so years from the original. While this seems odd and unique for Blizzard, Overwatch 2 is doing something more sequels should learn from.

Read Full Story >>
gamerevolution.com
CorndogBurglar1681d ago

Like what? Creating new characters and maps for the same exact game and then charging $60 for it instead of just releasing a proper expansion for the existing game?

Magic_Spatula1681d ago

Exactly. Everything they showed could have just been an expansion. Nothing about it warrants a new full priced game. Story mode, co-op missions, and a perk system. All of that could have easily been add-on content, but Activsion Blizzard gotta get them sheep somehow.

FlyingFoxy1681d ago

Valve did the same thing with L4D2, that game basically could've been an expansion as well. They were quick enough to rush that out to make money.. and now that we actually want a new title in the series we hear nothing of it.

NoneYuh1681d ago

They didn’t even say if/what it will cost. The game has been out for 3 years and has released multiple events/characters and maps for free. So even if they charge $60 for this large story expansion then I don’t see the issue. Especially when pvp will be cross compatible so there isn’t a split up of the player base.

Salooh1681d ago (Edited 1681d ago )

They could of released this ''sequel'' 2 years ago. I lost my interest with this studio. I'm probably buying it since i still like overwatch, i will give them the benefit of the doubt but i highly doubt that my final impression will change, so my expectations of overwatch 3 is 0, they chose quantity over quality and i don't appreciate that.

spicelicka1680d ago

Not to mention a game that was already overpriced. Most games at $60 have a campaign, multiplayer mode, a lot more content, and graphics far superior.

DonDon30001678d ago

You know the price? How so?

CorndogBurglar1677d ago

Psychic powers. You should get some. They are useful.

DonDon30001677d ago (Edited 1677d ago )

@Cornball Sucker: Side Kick powers? Get behind me boy. You're delusional. It'll be $30 expansion for OW1 players, $40-60 for the noobs.

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 1677d ago
KeenBean3451681d ago

The only reason they are letting players transfer over cosmetics is because the game isn't changing at all. Same art style and almost identical character models. It just looks like a $30 expansion that loads of games get (Warframe, Paladins, Fortnite, etc) that they will charge $60 for, nothing groundbreaking imo

Germaximus1681d ago

LOL Literally could have been done in a patch.

Show all comments (28)
90°

Can We Stop Normalizing 5v5 Hero Shooters Before It's Too Late?

The 5v5 hero shooter genre has been milked dry by gaming studios, and it's high time we agree to put an end to it.

Redgehammer1d 5h ago

I miss the 8v8 matches we had on 56k modems. What is up with 5v5? And as an aside, why don’t games come with a peer to peer hosting option? TF2 is still kicking on Xbox, due to a Peer to peer option. Modern internet is plenty strong.

Rynxie2h ago

I miss the 20 vs 20 (R1). 30 vs 30 (R2). 12 vs 12 (kz2). 16 vs 16 (kz3). 128 vs 128 (MAG). Those were the days. Now we have these crap 5 vs 5 and 6 vs 6with small maps.

JEECE1h ago

32 player and 64 player matches are a lot of fun. Big enough that you feel like there is a lot going on and the "front lines" ebb and flow organically, but small enough where you feel like you are actually having an impact on the game when you are playing well.

JEECE2h ago

I am fully guilty of this too, so I'm not trying to call people out, but it is interesting how in modern gaming (for purposes of this issue, roughly the last 10 years), the gaming community thinks there should only be 1-2 games in a particular subgenre, even if they come out multiple years apart from one another. This is particularly true with multiplayer; often when I see a game announcement I think "oh my gosh, ANOTHER one of these," but if I really sit and think about it, there are only one or two good, established games in that subgenre, and usually they have been around for awhile. Not saying it's wrong, and I'm probably not going to change, but in 2007 I never would have seen a game announcement and thought "oh my gosh I'm so burnt out on this type of game, I played one in 2002 and then there was another successful one in 2004."

CrimsonWing692h ago

I mean, I don’t like them, but I’m not going to say it needs to be stopped by or not be “normalized.” Like what does that mean, not be a standard genre?

Here’s the thing, if people like them and they’re selling, more power to them. Just don’t forget about traditional single player games. The day the industry moves away from that is the day I hang up the towel on the hobby.

derek2h ago

This is all centered around Concord and a desire to sideline the game before anyone has a chance to play it. How narrow-minded can these media types be? There was a lot of effort put into making this game and I presume the devs are looking forward to people trying it out and deciding whether they want to buy it. This article is an attempt by media to force their views on gamers as to whether or not they should give a new game a try. It's toxic and is consistent with alot of the outrage campaigns that hit this space often. I have never played Overwatch or any online games really since the ps3, so the "we hate/ are tired of hero shooters" talk means nothing to me. Am I not allowed to try it out and have an opinion of my own?
If the game fails to attract an audience then so be it, nothing ventured nothing gained. But unreserved critcism of a game you have not played by so called journalists is problematic.

JEECE1h ago

While you aren't wrong that there is a more targeted effort against Concord than you would normally expect, I don't think this reaction is entirely limited to journalists. I think a lot of gamers react this way to new games in an established subgenre, particularly multiplayer games. When I saw Concord, my eyes glazed over and I thought "we don't need another one of these," as if I'm super burned out games like this. But that makes no logical sense, because Overwatch is like 8 years old (I know there was a sequel more recently but for multiplayer purposes it seems to have effectively been an update to the original game), I barely played it at all, and I haven't played any other similar games that released since. Yet I feel exhausted by the prospect of another one (and it seems many others do too). My guess is it has a lot to do with just how tedious and job-like multiplayer games have become. In 2005 it didn't seem like a bad thing to see a new multiplayer game in a genre you liked, because you felt like you could bounce back and forth. Now that essentially every multiplayer game seems to require a ton of tedious grinding at the outset, the "cost" of starting a new one feels much higher.

60°

Overwatch 2's Big Matchmaking Changes Explained

Overwatch 2's newest update for Season 10 comes with big changes and additions to the game's competitive matchmaking and progression.

Read Full Story >>
gamerant.com
80°

Overwatch 2 ditches another PvE game mode

Blizzard Entertainment has recently announced the discontinuation of the Hero Mastery Gauntlet mode in Overwatch 2.

Read Full Story >>
apptrigger.com
LG_Fox_Brazil17d ago

They will probably focus 100% on the pvp because if Marvel Rivals steals their spot it will be very hard to recover it

jeromeface16d ago

Marvels IP roster is much more interesting than overwatch's... and I'm willing to bet a better developer than actvision/blizzard. If Rivals has a PvE mode its over.