Aaron Keller pledged to improve the game for “players who are playing now.”

  • 520
    link
    fedilink
    61 year ago

    The original Overwatch, which had none of this shit and was a one-off payment, was killed off in favour of OW2

    • Primarily0617
      link
      fedilink
      -2
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      leaving a negative review because of that would by definition be review bombing, because at that point you’re not reviewing the game, but external context that surrounds it

      • 520
        link
        fedilink
        5
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Not really. Reviewing the game as OW with enshittification is a perfectly reasonable review of OW2 in and of itself.

        Especially if the publishers made the one-off purchase version unusable just to push people onto the enshittified one.

        • Primarily0617
          link
          fedilink
          -11 year ago

          “i liked overwatch 1” is not a valid review of the game overwatch 2, and people leaving reviews to that effect en-masse is pretty textbook review bombing

          • 520
            link
            fedilink
            3
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Yes it is. It’s perfectly valid.

            It says that the changes in Overwatch 2 are unpopular with the reviewer.

            If the changes were positive or even unnoteworthy, that review wouldn’t be there

            • Primarily0617
              link
              fedilink
              01 year ago

              if you’re reviewing specific things you don’t like, that’s reviewing a product

              leaving a negative review because “OW1 was killed off” isn’t doing that

              if you want to discuss specific things you don’t like, please provide some that would reasonably justify OW2 being literally the worst reviewed game on steam rn

              • 520
                link
                fedilink
                3
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                leaving a negative review because “OW1 was killed off” isn’t doing that

                Leaving a review because “OW1 was killed off” and the intended transition route was a drastically inferior product, is in fact reviewing a product.

                Context is actually an important part of reviews. Orcarina or Time looks like a shit game today, and needs the context of being a late 90’s innovator to fully appreciate it. Likewise, a BoTW clone would look fantastic, a game changer, even…if a certain 2017 game hadn’t already set the benchmark.

                Calling something an inferior version of its predecessor, which was cynically shut down to push people to this inferior product, is worthy review information. It tells people that a superior product existed, and all this new product is, is the enshittification of it.

                • Primarily0617
                  link
                  fedilink
                  11 year ago

                  you’re reviewing a different product

                  ow1 was shut down to avoid splitting the playerbase. when kaplan went on record saying that he’d fought to get ow1 owners a copy of ow2 for free everybody loved it, but now it’s bad, actually? yes that makes sense

                  Orcarina or Time looks like a shit game today

                  comparing the entire landscape of gaming to a game is a very different thing to comparing it to a specific game

                  it would be like if somebody reviewed Baldur’s Gate 3 by saying it was bad just because they liked the source powers from Divinity 2. as part of a review maybe it works, sure but as the bedrock and sole item of substance, it’s useless.

                  your entire argument so far has been “I preferred the previous game therefore OW2 deserves to be the worst reviewed game on steam”. even ignoring the fact that you’ve failed to articulate any differences past a vague notion of not liking that it’s free-to-play, that’s an almost laughably braindead take

                  • 520
                    link
                    fedilink
                    1
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    you’re reviewing a different product

                    And making comparisons between the two products is perfectly valid.

                    ow1 was shut down to avoid splitting the playerbase.

                    I’m sorry, are you an Activision/Blizzard employee?

                    I ask because only one of their employees could come up with such a bullshit statement. The core gameplay loops aren’t different enough to cause that kind of split, and OW2 Is free-to-play. Anybody that wanted to voluntarily jump from OW1 to OW2 could have freely done so at literally no cost, if they so wanted.

                    They shut down OW1 to a) pump up the numbers for OW2 and b) to get OW1 players forcibly exposed to their F2P market.

                    when kaplan went on record saying that he’d fought to get ow1 owners a copy of ow2 for free everybody loved it, but now it’s bad, actually? yes that makes sense

                    Definitely an Activision/Blizzard employee. Nobody else would miss the disingenuity of making such a statement about a free-to-play game.

                    comparing the entire landscape of gaming to a game is a very different thing to comparing it to a specific game

                    And my point is, taking into account the landscape, even in a macro level such as Activision’s own behaviour with the series, including this very game, is relevant context worthy of being part of a review.

                    it would be like if somebody reviewed Baldur’s Gate 3 by saying it was bad just because they liked the source powers from Divinity 2. as part of a review maybe it works, sure but as the bedrock and sole item of substance, it’s useless.

                    Your analogy falls flat because Divinity and BG, though they share much of the same inspirations and development staff, are very different games. OW2 is basically OW1 with some minor tweaks and microtransactions.

                    The problem with OW2’s mtx though is that the game makes it as hard as possible to ignore its microtransaction nature as possible, and they willingly hamper the user experience to do so.

                    Other than the MTX, OW2 is so similar to OW1, that without it, these reviews would be saying that they’re essentially the same game. So what they’re saying now, that it’s OW1 enshittified, is valid.

                    your entire argument so far has been “I preferred the previous game therefore OW2 deserves to be the worst reviewed game on steam”.

                    If that’s what you took away from my comments, then I’m afraid you cannot read. That, or you’re unable to discern from different users. All I’ve said was that people calling OW2 basically enshittified OW1 is not review bombing, because it’s a valid review.

                    even ignoring the fact that you’ve failed to articulate any differences past a vague notion of not liking that it’s free-to-play

                    Because there are very few differences and none of them are improvements. Like the shrinking of team sizes and available modes.

                    Also, F2P can be predatory as fuck, and Activision/Blizzard have most certainly been so here. they’ve even broken sales laws in countries like Australia.