Wish I had the money to buy a nice PC to play this on, but alas I do not.
Yeah. I can't play anything newer than 2005 on my PC. Even Half-Life 2 pushes its limits.
Well that sucks!
I hope you guys realise that Jim Sterling was trolling with that article...
"Fun validated by critics" That statement, even as a joke, makes me sad because some people actually beleave that.
Um... You know the Jim Sterling article was completely joking, right? Everything about the article was in the spirit of silliness
Only bad thing about Overwatch would have to be microtransactions. There should not be any in a fully priced game. If OW were free-to-play, go for it. But we had to pay to get the game. Theres the argument that they need funding for servers and updates and new content, new content could easily be brought out as DLC, and judging by how the core game is received, people would be more than happy to buy any DLC put out for this game
The boxes only give out cosmetics, nothing to even benefit your game play... Not to mention you even get a box for every level you get anyways. So if you're playing the game, you'll get the skins/icons you want without spending a dime, eventually.
If anything everyone should be happy with how well done it is compared to every other games micro transactions right now... lol
Halo 5 was the exact same way (Except with an actual story), and Dragon Age 3, and Mass Effect 3, and countless other games. They're not going to build in a reward system that gives you packs of free stuff that could be used for microtransactions and then not make microtransactions. What do you think this is, 2005 where games shipped complete?
The fact that the loot system is set up to give you mostly sprays so it makes you want to buy more loot boxes in the hopes that you get the skin you want is the problem. Its a paid game with free-to-play psychology. Just tweak the loot algorithms and the system would be fine. But there should not ever be microtransactions in a full-priced game.
no game is really game of the year as there are hundreds of different sites and shows giving out the award
But still, Fallout 4, The Witcher 3, and Bloodborne are almost unanimously more worthy of the title than Destiny: The Taken King, Arkham Knight, or Godzilla.
Over watch is different its something that hasn't bin regurgitated by every other developer on a yearly and monthly basis, I think that is what is bringing a refreshing genre back to the cycle, now only we have to wait tell Ubisoft and every other AAA creators out their to shit out the same big mac and force us to eat and put different toppings on it and calling it NEW!
I'm not a huge fan of Overwatch. I want to like it, but multi is not something that can hold me all that much these days. For me a game of the year doesn't necessarily have to be a game with high scores, which for a lot of awards is often the case as well.
Hell the year Fable 2 came out it didn't get huge scores but it still got GoT from a few places, and I seriously think a lack of single player/ campaign might hurt it a bit. But that's my opinion. All I know is that I'll be playing a lot of sp games for a while, whilst the hype dies down and I get my friends back.
Join the conversation! Log in to post a comment.