Overwatch Watch: Another 35 Minutes Of Blizzard’s FPS

Blizzard are jolly good at observing trends in games, noting what other developers are doing, then reworking existing ideas to repackage into a polished and accessible game of their own. EverQuest and other MMORPGs became World of Warcraft, Hearthstone riffs heavily on Magic: The Gathering, Heroes of the Storm is one of the few interesting League of Legends/Dota-inspired doodads, and Overwatch [official site]… hm. I’m not sure Overwatch is working out so well.

More long gameplay videos showing complete rounds are arriving, and the more I see, the more I think Overwatch looks like an iffy attempt to combine MOBAs and Valve’s Team Fortress 2.

Here’s gunslinger McCree playing a round on a Payload mode map (escort a self-moving MacGuffin by standing near it). Somehow he makes a revolver look boring, and y’all know how much I like FPS revolvers.

Over here we have Hanzo, an archer whose wall-climbing does look pretty fun.

And here’s Mercy, a Team Fortress 2 Kritzkrieg Medic who of course wears tight armour highlighting her tracts of land.

I’m really not digging it. The characters are very MOBA-y and pretty disparate, which is more noticeable when folks fill the whole screen. The environment style has TF2-ish clean painterly texturing in places, but then fills the levels with props and guff. From what these videos show, the flow of battle looks… I don’t like it. It just looks a bit of a spammy mess.

Also, this ‘London’ accent is ear-splittingly awful.

No word on a release date yet, but you can sign up for the beta.


  1. subedii says:

    I still feel like they need to tidy up the visuals and make everything more readable.

    More visible than the last match on the night-time map, but still hard to discern and a tonne of screen clutter trying to make up for that. By the time McCree had the 5 kill streak message show, I didn’t even realise he had taken anyone out.

    Also: Tracer’s accent grates even in the videos for other characters.

    • LionsPhil says:

      Cor blimey guv’ner, fish and chip!

      Yeah, they seriously, seriously need to work on the readability of visuals. It’s an absolute killer.

      • Horg says:

        Specifically they need to reduce (preferably remove) the bloody screen (so real) when you take a hit. That practically removes all visibility and doesn’t convey any useful information, such as where the hit came from. It’s also quite hard to read the characters against the background most of the time, so they need to work on defining outlines. I don’t like the visual design of having to read the name plate above a players head to find out what team they are on, that feels like it was ripped straight from WoW and doesn’t work in a symmetrical FPS. Screen clutter is an issue but I didn’t find it as bad as the other points i’ve listed.

        • Xzi says:

          Each gameplay trailer I see for it makes me want to play it less and less. I can see the direction Blizzard is trying to go with it, but they’re combining two things that simply do not mix. The casual fun of unranked servers in TF2, and the (unnecessary/faux) competitiveness of MOBA team play. The result is a jumbled mess that neither of these groups is going to want to play unless some serious changes to the core gameplay are implemented.

  2. Wedge says:

    I’m not certain you’ve ever played TF2 if you’re complaining about the game looking like a “spammy mess”. However my concern so far is all the characters they’ve shown (save the medic, who mostly medics) seem to excel at killing from a distance with fast weapons, while having tools to avoid being in an unfavorable situation (teleport dash, wall climb, temporary invulnerability). The melee characters and especially the flying one with slow rockets just seem to get constantly destroyed. So far it’s really nothing like TF2 in that regard, as killing at range outside of the slow vulnerable Sniper was only possible with a few weapons/situations due to the damage falloff.

    • LionsPhil says:

      Maybe it’s just that it’s near-impossible to see what’s going on, but Hanzo seems to score a lot of hits with what looks like misses to me, including in the Mercy gameplay.

      I used to say all the “omg TF2 ripoff” comparisons were dumb, but apparently they got the Huntsman Sniper cloned perfectly! Ho ho ho, what japes.

      And then you get painful bits where he’s fighting Windowmaker in closer quarters and missing constantly.

      • Smoky_the_Bear says:

        Yeah I thought the same when I watched that floating monk person (don’t remember the name). Just firing stuff off and killing things even though it looked like he was missing by a mile. Melee came charging, he did a ton of damage, popped some invulnerability thing, then just spammed more stuff a few seconds later and it didn’t seem to matter where he aimed them, he picked up kills.

      • BooleanBob says:

        Read your comment and I was hoping Blizzard would have the sense of humour to actually call one of their characters Windowmaker, but.. alas.

      • mrbright01 says:

        See that small circle around the aiming dot? That’s your hit box, I think. Within that circle is a hit (The kill cam for Reaper in the first video is the easiest way to spot it). I suspect the dot is for head shots and the like, based on how often folks drop when that happens to be over their head. I could be wrong, but that seems to be what is happening.

        • EhexT says:

          Yeah it is. Fixed sized circle in which you auto-hit is making long range duels hilariously bad (because you basically can’t miss). And if you watch the first video, the circle balloons to almost about a quarter of the screen when he view point player uses his fast firing abililty. It’s basically a “I wanna hit everything in front of me with 6 shots now” button with an extremely short cooldown.

          Skill required in our shooter? Hell no is Blizzards response apparently.

  3. tangoliber says:

    I like how they have made the characters seem very different from each other. I will give the game a shot, but I don’t think it will be as good as Dirty Bomb.

  4. XhomeB says:

    This thing looks so… soulless. Devoid of any charm. “Contemporary” Blizzard in a nutshell.

    • konrad_ha says:

      So I’m not the only one feeling this.

    • 2helix4u says:

      Yeah, I think this is what I’m feeling here.

      I think Diablo 3 and Hearthstone skirt this somewhat, both look and feel fun to play despite problems or whatever.
      This looks really dull, something that Blizzard had basically been the kings at avoiding for ages. I played a little of the Heroes of the Storm stuff and that is… well, its not good. It has the same bland modern feel as overwatch does and it has several GLARING longterm issues with it that basically stem from blizzard modernising MOBAs by removing some things it turns out are actually there for a reason. (By which I mean forcing you to level individual characters and having no gold gain or items, giving you nothing to do while dead and no way to swap up your game)

  5. Horg says:

    ”Also, this ‘London’ accent is ear-splittingly awful.”

    Saands loike Alice needs a toim ao’.

  6. RARARA says:

    Hearing Tracer talk… I’m getting Ace Combat 6 “Fly with the angels!” level cringe.

  7. Frye2k11 says:

    Can’t wait to try this one out.

    I find that class based multiplayer in the MMO way (and to a lesser extent the DOTA way) has become all about playing the meta; doing your homework on reddit or some forum, choosing the strongest class every patch, spending your traits ‘the right way’, watching videos. No criticism, done it myself, but I just can’t be arsed anymore.

    I don’t mind playing more twitchy-skill games, where improvisation during battle and plain fps skill becomes more important than the information war.

    • Artificial says:

      I feel pretty much the same way. It’s pretty much the sole reason why I gave up with Hearthstone. Don’t want following the meta being such a big part of whether you’re any good at the game or not.

  8. The_invalid says:

    It… looks okay I guess. Although the first video of McCree had me a bit concerned. All the way through the match, it looked like the player’s team were making consistent progress. The payload was almost constantly moving in their team’s favour, yet there was no particular indication that they were losing. All of a sudden, the round finished and “DEFEAT” was flashed up on screen without any clue as to why this team were defeated. This, to me is the sort of thing that’s going to make or break a casual team-based multiplayer. If there’s no clear visual feedback on the state of the match, the whole thing is just going to devolve into a hot mess.

    • trashmyego says:

      Huh? Did you not notice the timer at the top of the screen next to the two colored bar that clearly displays the progress of the payload? The match ended when the timer hit zero. No mystery, everything was extremely clear.

      • The_invalid says:

        Actually, I completely missed that first time round. I’m re-watching that match again just to see if I wasn’t paying attention, but I still can’t quite understand why Blue are losing when they *seem* to have fairly consistent control of the payload.

        • trashmyego says:

          They’re not actively defending it or staying with it. Each time one of the characters says they’ve got the payload, it means it wasn’t moving before that. And it keeps happening, especially with the perspective we have, of him recapturing it but leaving it to chase after someone like a cat with ADHD. I saw very little strong team play around the payload itself, but instead in the hallways and surrounding rooms going for kills more so than the objective.

  9. Not_Id says:

    Well, if it had hats for sale I’d buy it.
    Or if I could buy keys to unlock crates with nothing of any value in, I’d buy it.
    If it had a character that reminded me of Jericho Cross from Darkwatch, I’d buy it.

    Darkwatch sounds a lot like Overwatch to me.

    I’m out.

  10. Stevostin says:

    Weapon’s feel seems awful. No punch. I like the kill cam though.

  11. tamccullough says:

    I’m actually excited about it. Looks like a good successor to TF2.

    TF2 got to where it is because of the community.

    If Blizzard wants to displace it, they’ll need to listen to theirs.

    The whole Overwatch universe is reminding me of Giant Robo for some reason.

    And if they’re mixing Giant Robo with TF2, that’s cool with me.

  12. Alamech says:

    I love how ‘Mercy’ flaps her wings a bit while ‘Hanzo’ and ‘McCree’ (Bampf!) pull out their bland-bad-ass lines, silence is golden.

  13. Dances to Podcasts says:

    For some actually knowledgeable analysis, check out this guy’s channel: link to youtube.com

  14. Spluff says:

    I disagree with the comments on the clutter. I had absolutely no problem following what was going on, and considering that the game has been described as a cross between TF2 and MOBAs, it is a lot clearer than both of those.

    • ironhorse says:

      It is *NOT* “clearer” than TF2.. not by a long shot?? TF2 is clean and simplistic and is not obscuring. The most obscuring particle effects are rockets, and you can distinctly determine which class you are fighting from a distance. Everyone knows TF2 was designed by distinct silhouettes first. That’s how “readable” TF2 is.

      I was interested in this game before the actual gameplay videos began to come out.
      Every video shown so far of Overwatch demonstrates that it’s a visual mess with spammy effects and shit all over the HUD – clutter galore.

      Having to outline the enemy team because there’s that much going on in the scene and on the screen (to include key prompts??) is a giant red flag.. Shame.

      • trashmyego says:

        The outlining of the enemy team is one of the archer’s abilities. Whenever he shoots the arrow that pulses out the blue light, it’s providing vision of enemy players to the team. It’s a mechanic and not evidence of any issue when it comes to clutter. And when it comes to distinct silhouettes, they’re here in spades. And know what are also distinct here? The particle effects. It took the first video for me to recognize the unique effects of both enemies and teammates in the other two. You’re really digging hard for reasons to complain about a game you’ve yet to play, at least be fruitful and make some kind of rational case with your time.

        • subedii says:

          The outlining of the enemy team is one of the archer’s abilities. Whenever he shoots the arrow that pulses out the blue light, it’s providing vision of enemy players to the team. It’s a mechanic and not evidence of any issue when it comes to clutter.

          What he’s referring to is separate from that. Enemy characters do in fact have an outline on them, and it’s necessary because otherwise you can’t see them as clearly. And that is down to the lighting.

          link to i116.photobucket.com

          I agree that the characters have unique designs and outlines (and that’s good), but the problem seems to be that they’ve gone with what could nominally be called a slightly more ‘realistic’ lighting / shading model which frequently leaves characters in shadow or otherwise obscured and harder to discern, hence the need for the border and other HUD elements.

          TF2 actually has very unrealistic lighting / shading of characters, and even corridors are well lit, because everything’s designed with a core goal to be very visible. See the section on Dedicated Rim Lighting.

          link to valvesoftware.com

          In situations where a character has moved away from the light sources in the game level, rim lighting based solely on Phong terms from local light sources may not be as prominent as we would like. For this reason, we also add in the dedicated rim lighting term shown on the right side of Equation 2…

          Unlike photorealistic games, which place a major emphasis on micro details for realism, we feel that our impressionistic approach favors the audience of fast-paced action games who typically play a game like Team Fortress 2 many thousands of times and are more concerned with perceiving gross shape and shading as emphasized by our focus on distinctive silhouettes and rim lighting.

          There’s other PDF’s and videos you can look up on this topic. Basic paraphrasing could be that the characters are actually lit from nowhere at times, but in such a way that it doesn’t look visually ‘wrong’ and is in keeping with the style of the rest of the visuals.

          And that’s leaving aside all the other screen noise they’ve put on the HUD. Nobody’s “digging hard” for a reason to dislike this game. I thought it was awesome that Blizzard was doing it, and thought the intro they did for it was amazing (when Blizzard announces a game, it STAYS announced). However the more I see of it, the more I’m hoping they they re-work a few of their core aesthetic design decisions (ignoring other potential concerns about gameplay).

          Watching the videos, I get the feeling that they really liked the idea of the cartoon visuals that games like TF2 and similar espoused, but haven’t necessarily gotten down the thought processes that went into crafting them.

          • subedii says:

            Adding to that, It’s also far harder to discern who’s on which team without the HUD elements displayed. There’s colour differences between the two sides, but it’s not as pronounced, and on darker characters it just isn’t as discernible. So they had to go with the UT3 way of resolving things instead, which is adding on HUD elements to try and mark out who’s on your team and who isn’t (enemy names, character borderlines).

            Then there are the aforementioned particle effects. Could be worse, but I do think they could still be toned down a bit.

            It’s funny for me to even say that, because Blizzard actually specifically kept those kinds of effects in check in Starcraft 2, because their stated design goal was to make sure that even in the chaos of hundreds of units battling it out, you’d still have everything clean and readable. I get the feeling they lost a bit of that priority here.

          • Kitsunin says:

            I suspect having a very wide variety of character designs and having visually distinct teams are factors which can’t agree. Using UI elements to distinguish friend from foe is pretty common practice though, your Battlefields and CoD’s just splash a big fat nametag over your allies instead of making them look visually distinct, and they have far less of an excuse when you’ve got CS as an obvious example of how to do it in a more realistic setting.

          • Horg says:

            ”I suspect having a very wide variety of character designs and having visually distinct teams are factors which can’t agree.”

            Not really true, Valves colouring, lighting and outlining techniques can transfer to an infinite number of character designs. Using floating coloured name plates is pretty much the laziest way to solve the problem and just contributes to the screen clutter. It’s also damn hard to read when you get multiple name plates overlapping. Each character should be visually distinct enough on its own to not need a team coloured name plate.

          • Kitsunin says:

            I’m not so sure that’s true, though I’d probably have to see a proper analysis to be sure.

            Having only nine classes ensures TF2 can make each one very visually distinct from both the angle of silhouettes (so you can tell a medic apart from an engineer), allowing them to put an extreme emphasis on colors to differentiate teams (so you can tell a blu medic from a red medic).

            If you have, as there might be sometime in the future, like forty characters, it remains extremely important to be able to tell any two apart, but it becomes very difficult to use only silhouettes to do so. Already Pharah and Mercy have somewhat similar builds, with their robosuits and flying devices, only because one of them is fully colored and other more cleanly white, would I describe them as entirely visually distinct. On the flip side you can very easily differentiate teams by using UI elements.

            Perhaps they could do better, but so many games don’t even have the faintest beginnings of an excuse yet fail to make teams distinct, that I’m more than willing to give them the benefit of the doubt.

          • Horg says:

            It should be obvious that the fake character lighting technique is transferable to any model you want. There really is no excuse to not use it considering the evidence of how well it works in combination with TF2s level lighting. Telling teams apart in TF2 was highly intuitive due to the amount of model space given over to the saturated pastel team colour palate. Overwatch should adopt a similar design so that blue McCree and red McCree can be distinguished at a distance. You can have any character design you want work with that style as long as enough space is given over to team colouring.

        • ironhorse says:

          You’re wrong about the outlines, as subedii pointed out. Which may explain how you don’t see an issue ;)
          Saying TF2 is far more readable and was designed as such from the ground up is not the same as speaking on the silhouettes of Overwatch. (ignoring the issue regarding the amount of classes they have)
          Even if the particle effects are distinct, that doesn’t mean there isn’t an ocean of them in every video.

          Seriously.. try watching 5 minutes of any Overwatch gameplay video and count the frequency of large colorful particle effects or obscuring HUD elements. Then compare against TF2 and you’ll see why I have a bit of a problem with someone attempting to draw parallels.

          It’s not “digging” to point out what is not just plainly obvious to anyone, but soo obnoxiously obscuring and obtrusive it begins to border that line where I wonder if it was done to create a lower skill ceiling. Especially if you consider how important readability was to that development team’s design pillars in the past…

          I’ll predict this much : It’s not going to gain any competitive traction if it doesn’t resolve some of that nonsense. Zilch. None.

  15. Kitsunin says:

    It took watching a couple videos before I properly understood what was going on. After that, I have to say this looks excellent. It ISN’T very unreadable, though I agree there’s a bit too much UI type stuff (button prompts!).

    Go back and watch TF2 for your first time ever again (oh wait, that’s impossible!) and you would find it’s somewhat difficult to read at first, plus there’s quite a bit more going on with Overwatch seeing as each hero has at least two firing modes, two abilities, and a melee, rather than just 1-2 guns and a melee weapon, with very rare secondary firing modes.

    • mrbright01 says:

      YES! Thank you! Like many games, the UI will not make total sense until you actually play, or barring that, genuinely focus on learning it. It took me about 5 minutes for the HUD in the first video to make enough sense that I stopped focusing on the UI and started watching the match, and the most frustrating thing I found in that case was when the person playing didn’t see an opponent, which is OK, because the same happened for them too. It’s a game that allows a touch of stealth, not with crap stealth mechanics, but by design.

      It’s dark and dangerous and difficult to see, just like an actual fight? *GASP* You mean to tell me I won’t have TF2 nerds talking about how epic they are, but instead complaining about getting stomped because they have to actually play “Spot the Foe” during a fight? Excellent! Go buy a hat, and let us have something that is not “Re-skinned TF2.”

      Looking through the comments, this feels like a “Teabag the Game with Everyone” moment. A couple posts made genuine, and from my view, perfectly reasonable complaints, but most of them boil down to “This is not ,” which is insufficient.

      The best part is watching people complain about it not being TF2 Enough, shortly after others complain that it’s Just Too TF2. Take a chill pill and wait to see how the game is when they hit the beta. Or, you know, go play TF2.

      • subedii says:

        It’s dark and dangerous and difficult to see, just like an actual fight? *GASP* You mean to tell me I won’t have TF2 nerds talking about how epic they are, but instead complaining about getting stomped because they have to actually play “Spot the Foe” during a fight? Excellent! Go buy a hat, and let us have something that is not “Re-skinned TF2.”

        The discussion is centered primarily around the visuals. The issue isn’t that the game is deliberately trying to be vague and confusing in its visuals, it’s that it’s doing so and then attempting to compensate for that by throwing additional visual HUD elements on top of of the visuals to try and disambiguate everything. In some ways it’s a solution to a pre-created problem.

        The reason that TF2 comes up repeatedly (and really, you could probably replace a lot of the discussion with Monday Night Combat as well) is because these are issues that TF2 solved years ago. They’re clearly taking at least some design elements from Valve’s game, there’d be no shame in taking those solutions as well and putting their own spin on them.

        As for the crack about hats well… let’s just say we don’t know what Overwatch’s payment model is going to be, but if it follows Heroes of the Storm then it’s likely to be free-2-play. At which point I wouldn’t rule out cosmetics being part of the package.

        And which again, is all the more reason to nail down the visual design early on. Valve went a little too far with TF2’s cosmetics and it’s muddied some of what they accomplished with the visuals in that game (another reason I was excited about Overwatch). Judging by DOTA 2 they seem to have learned to try and keep things a bit more in check. I’m hoping Blizzard can do the same.

    • derbefrier says:

      yeah i think it looks great. after watching quite a few videos It doesnt seem so hard to see whats going on to me.
      I am concerned with balance of melee vs ranged though since it seems all the ranged have some quick escape move they can spam. We’ll have to wait to see some melee classes in action i guess to see if that worry is unfounded or not.

  16. John O says:

    It looks like one of the toy sets I had as a kid. “Buy the magic castle and you get two action figures, the evil gunslinger and princess tits!”

  17. Renegade says:

    I’m really hoping this game succeeds where Super Monday Night Combat failed. It was the only Moba type game I really enjoyed untill Blizzard’s HOTS came out but it really wasn’t marketed very well, it’s easy to see from the comments as people are making comparisons to TF2 instead of SMNC.

    • subedii says:

      Haha, that’s a fair point. Logically MNC might be a better comparison in some ways, but everyone always forgets about MNC.

      That said, I watch the payload and control point videos, and honestly it really does bring TF2 to mind first for me before anything else. If it was more MOBA style, there’d be things like Creeps and Towers and Leveling to contend with, a whole lot of extra metagame.

      • Kitsunin says:

        It looks like it’s in the middle ground between MNC and TF2. It has TF2 style objectives with MNC style character designs. I have to say that the abilities and weapons look tons more fun and unique when compared to MNC, but I think 90% of that is just the really high-budget animations.

  18. scab says:

    What? The curtains..?

  19. EhexT says:

    And let’s not overlook the hilarious “we have ammo in our game! see the ammo display! 6/6 shots!” fake ammo display that never counts down ammo remaining. Infinite ammo because having resources to consider is hard.

    • Kitsunin says:

      Or because having a limited ammo pool is in no way necessary to the core experience of an FPS, and they didn’t feel it really fits with their game? The counter is there to tell you how until you need to reload, that’s all.

      • EhexT says:

        Then don’t have a lying indicator and treat your players with a modicum of respect? If you they inifnite ammo, don’t show ammo remaining in the bank when there is an infinite amount. Is an infinity symbol out of Blizzards art budget?

        • Spluff says:

          This is silly. Why would they add a random infinity symbol to the HUD to indicate infininite ammo for this character when every class has infinite ammo? The x/6 shots is perfectly understandable, it’s telling you how many bullets out of the maximum of 6 you have left.

    • ffordesoon says:

      Let me know when you’re done grinding that axe.

  20. Zorganist says:

    It could be there to remind players how much ammo there is in a full clip.

  21. ffordesoon says:

    I think it could be pretty awesome. It’s obviously not there yet, but infinite money buys infinite iteration time, and Blizzard has infinite money.

    That said, I do sort of wish Blizzard would put out an interesting single-player game that’s actually single-player. By which I mean a game with a finite single-player campaign and nothing else. Like, not training for multiplayer, or a multiplayer game you can solo until the inevitable story-concluding raid, or a game built for co-op you happen to also be able to play single-player, or a single-player game with an online metagame. A straight-ahead single-player campaign with a beginning, middle, and end, replayable only in the sense that you can go through it again if you want.

    The reason I say this is because, just once, I’d like to see what modern Blizzard could do when freed from the constraints of trying to create the next Twitch/eSports sensation. Like, what sort of game would Blizzard’s master craftsfolk put out if they knew from the beginning that they could release a single self-contained game and – give or take a few patches – move on? That anything they introduced in single-player wouldn’t have unintended repercussions in multiplayer? That they wouldn’t have to worry about auction houses and grey-market weapons trading and all that shit?

    I realize it’s against every prevailing trend in this industry, and for wholly understandable reasons. But I think Blizzard has built up enough inertia and fuck-you money at this point that they could get away with it, and I’d love to see them try.

  22. Continuity says:

    I can tell just by looking at the opening screenshot that this isn’t worth playing, which means it will never be released knowing blizzard.

  23. Enkinan says:

    These videos are better than the first one I saw a few weeks back, I’m pretty excited to try it out.

  24. Harzel174 says:

    I think it’s a bit of a false equivalence to compare silhouetting in Overwatch to TF2. The latter is very keenly focused on conveying classes because that’s what the entire game is focused around, and there’s only 9 characters to choose from, so it’s easy to keep a mental reference of what outline means what during play. Overwatch is deliberately taking the focus off that strict assignment of “class + role = how you play” and has many, many more characters to be aware of, so trying to box themselves in on character design strikes me as a profoundly bad move. However, that being said, there IS a silhouette theme happening in Overwatch that focuses more on the general archetypes of the heroes, namely how tanks are big and bulky, fragile damage dealers are thin and lithe, and support falls somewhere in the middle with size and/or have irregular profiles. So in TF2 you can look at a group of enemies and see two soliders, a heavy, and an engie and know what you need to know, and in Overwatch you can see two damage, a tank, and a support and get the same tactical information in either case. I also think Overwatch does a decent job of communicating effects, e.g. shields very obviously look like shields.

    In that respect I don’t see any fundamental issues, but there are a few “little goes a long way” tweaks that need to happen, such as the screen splatter, team distinction, etc. Death rates/weapon damage are dials that can be tuned in and aren’t super concerning. As for the game being super spammy, well, payload maps and “look at how awesome this hero is!” videos aren’t the best examples to counter that. Everyone I’ve spoken to who’s actually played the game says it’s really fun.

    Also why is it that everyone complains about the obviously tongue-in-cheek campy cockney accent but not the obviously tongue-in-cheek campy gravel-throated cowboy or obviously tongue-in-cheek campy german (reinhert)? Some of you are complaining about a lack of charm but… that’s it right there. It’s a bunch of self-aware tropes and genre savvy characters blowing each other up in the most comic book fashion possible.

  25. Bonedancer says:

    I’m not taking issue with any of the design points people have made, but I know for me there’s a massive intelligibility difference between playing a game on my nice big monitor, and watching a tiny embedded video.

    I’m still interested, I’m still looking forward to giving Overwatch a go, and any declarations of “This is irredeemable garbage” or “This is so good it will destroy all other FPS games in one searing flash of light” are premature, to say the least.

    Not to mention that the game that launches will be tweaked and polished and nudged for its entire lifespan.

    TL;DR – let’s just wait and see, shall we?