Overwatch Promotes Bad Game Design

[Erttheking]

You know, I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and even agree with you on some points until you made point number six. Now I know you're not arguing in good faith.

 

[Epyc Wynn]

You know, I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and even agree with you on some points until you made point number six. Now I know you're not arguing in good faith.

Why do you believe point number six conveys that I am not arguing in good faith?

 

[Zhukov]

1. For the same reason soccer and chess don't have storylines.

2. Actually an understandable criticism. Doesn't bother me though. I'd rather not see the player base split between dozens of game modes. Besides, the event modes are pretty insubstantial. I'm generally tired of them before the event ends. How many people would still be playing Junkenstein's Revenge now?

3. HAHAHAHAHA.

4. Same standard complaints that are directed at every single game that undergoes balance changes. Nothing of interest here, moving on.

5. You should stay out of competitive. Quick play mode exists for you.

6. *sigh*

 

[Gizen]

You know, I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and even agree with you on some points until you made point number six. Now I know you're not arguing in good faith.

Why do you believe point number six conveys that I am not arguing in good faith?

Because it's a bullshit argument that in the best possible case displays a complete lack of understanding of what it means to create fiction as well as a lack of knowledge regarding the definition of of the word customization, and in the worst case is an attempt to use a flimsy mask of 'criticism' to poorly disguise an overt display of bigotry.

 

[Epyc Wynn]

You know, I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and even agree with you on some points until you made point number six. Now I know you're not arguing in good faith.

Why do you believe point number six conveys that I am not arguing in good faith?

Because it's a bullshit argument that in the best possible case displays a complete lack of understanding of what it means to create fiction as well as a lack of knowledge regarding the definition of of the word customization, and in the worst case is an attempt to use a flimsy mask of 'criticism' to poorly disguise an overt display of bigotry.

In the best case this response isn't from the person I asked, and in the worst case is a flimsy mask of 'anti-bigotry' to poorly disguise being a social justice warrior. If you would like to point out the specific ethnic or racial group I implied contempt for, I am all ears. Diversity for diversity's sake detracts meaning from the races, sexes, cultures, etcetera because they aren't being used to enhance individual characters but rather to enhance the overarching roster. It is far more bigoted to use these categories purely for the sake of being diverse rather than use them to extend from and enhance who the character is. Not that it is horribly offensive (hence why it isn't in the OP) but in doing so, one treats these categories as only meaningful insofar as they are varied rather than important on their own. That is why I call this an encyclopedic approach and I point this out as an issue not just because it was a bother in this game, but because I do not want to see a trend in the gaming industry where diversity is thrown in without a purpose backing each character. At that point the characters go from feeling fully developed to feeling like various categories from an encyclopedia mish-mashed together by a machine. It isn't hard to pump out thousands of incredibly diverse characters if you don't give a shit what defines them on an individual level.

I feel like I'm touching upon some greater philosophical argument on Collectivist Diversity versus Individualist Diversity. In Collectivist Diversity, one would have diversity for the sake of maintaining an overall sense of diversity for the collective of characters. However, in Individualist Diversity, one has a diversity of aspects within each individual character for the sake of enhancing each character regardless of how this relates to or affects other characters. In the former you have diversity for diversity's sake while in the latter you have diversity for the character's sake. If characters are treated as so unworthy of love that they are just soulless placeholders of needed collective diversity rather than crafted with legitimate concern for enhancing who they are through their own individual diversity of factors, then that's just shit character design and the kind of thing you would only ever do with background characters. Even then, I would feel sorry for the background characters that get treated as so meaningless. It might just be because I feel an odd empathy for these imaginary characters, but I feel they deserve personal attention in their crafting and enhancement without concern for if this maintains as diverse an identity as possible for Overwatch.

 

[Gizen]

You know, I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and even agree with you on some points until you made point number six. Now I know you're not arguing in good faith.

Why do you believe point number six conveys that I am not arguing in good faith?

Because it's a bullshit argument that in the best possible case displays a complete lack of understanding of what it means to create fiction as well as a lack of knowledge regarding the definition of of the word customization, and in the worst case is an attempt to use a flimsy mask of 'criticism' to poorly disguise an overt display of bigotry.

In the best case this response isn't from the person I asked, and in the worst case is a flimsy mask of 'anti-bigotry' to poorly disguise being a social justice warrior. If you would like to point out the specific ethnic or racial group I implied contempt for, I am all ears.

All of them.

Diversity for diversity's sake detracts meaning from the races, sexes, cultures, etcetera because they aren't being used to enhance individual characters but rather to enhance the overarching roster.

That's bullshit. It's bullshit because it's flat out idiotic. Take any character in Overwatch, literally any character, and make that character a straight white man. Now tell me in what way you've enhanced that individual character. You can't, because it's impossible, and most comedically it's impossible using your very own logic. If the diversity of having a paraplegic brazilian is bad because it doesn't enhance that character in any meaningful way, then giving him working legs and making him a white american ALSO wouldn't enhance that character in any meaningful way either, because if being different is not something that adds depth, then neither is being the same. You're arguing that diversity is bad because it doesn't enhance the roster, and yet to remove diversity wouldn't enhance the roster in any way either, which means that diversity is not a problem.

If you're arguing that characters lack depth to their character, then make the statement that the characters lack depth and leave it at that (which, as an aside, has nothing to do with gameplay and thus wouldn't qualify as poor game design regardless). But you didn't make the statement that they lack depth, the statement you made is that diversty for diversity's sake is bad, which are two wholly unrelated issues. The fact that those issues are unrelated and yet you're trying to bring them together means that you either have no understanding of how to add depth to a character in the first place, or you're a closet bigot who's trying to use a lack of depth as an excuse to rail against diversity, or most likely both.

That is why I call this an encyclopedic approach and I point this out as an issue not just because it was a bother in this game, but because I do not want to see a trend in the gaming industry where diversity is thrown in without a purpose backing each character.

It's almost cliched at this point to give this as writing advice, but it hasn't stopped being true. The best way to write a character is to think of it as a person first and foremost, and the thing about people is that there isn't always a purpose beyond 'because that's the way it is'. A real life black man is not black for any purpose more complex than because his parents passed those genes onto him, and likewise a character in a work of fiction does not need any higher purpose to be black or female or gay or whatever than 'because he was born that way'. Now, a real life black man will likely go through very different circumstances in life than a white man, which may colour his view of the world, and thus his behaviour and personality and history may be tinted by his experiences, and a good writer will write a character that reflects that. If a character doesn't feel authentically black, you can fault the writer for bad writing, but you can't fault him for including diversity in the first place because diversity doesn't need a purpose any more complex than real life does.

So if your problem is that you think the writing is bad, then you can say the writing is bad, you can say it feels inauthentic, you can say the characters lack depth. However, if your problem is simply that the roster is diverse, then you have some deep-rooted prejudices. And once again, the fact that you jumped straight to the latter and declared it to be the problem is telling.

 

[Randomosity]

I only wish to address point number 5. Yes, the leaver penalty is harsh, but you need to consider one thing. You leaving the game ruins the experience for everyone else that was in that match. 11 over people have to deal with the consequences of you leaving. If you know you have hardware problems, don't play Comp. If you know you have shitty internet prone to cutting out, don't play comp. Why should 1 player rate so highly that they can ruin the experience for 11 other people and face no consequence.

Anyone who has enough emergencies happening around them that they can't finish a quick round of comp, and have to leave often enough to get banned, probably shouldn't be queuing in comp to begin with.

 

[Epyc Wynn]

You know, I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and even agree with you on some points until you made point number six. Now I know you're not arguing in good faith.

Why do you believe point number six conveys that I am not arguing in good faith?

Because it's a bullshit argument that in the best possible case displays a complete lack of understanding of what it means to create fiction as well as a lack of knowledge regarding the definition of of the word customization, and in the worst case is an attempt to use a flimsy mask of 'criticism' to poorly disguise an overt display of bigotry.

In the best case this response isn't from the person I asked, and in the worst case is a flimsy mask of 'anti-bigotry' to poorly disguise being a social justice warrior. If you would like to point out the specific ethnic or racial group I implied contempt for, I am all ears.

All of them.

Diversity for diversity's sake detracts meaning from the races, sexes, cultures, etcetera because they aren't being used to enhance individual characters but rather to enhance the overarching roster.

That's bullshit. It's bullshit because it's flat out idiotic. Take any character in Overwatch, literally any character, and make that character a straight white man. Now tell me in what way you've enhanced that individual character. You can't, because it's impossible, and most comedically it's impossible using your very own logic. If the diversity of having a paraplegic brazilian is bad because it doesn't enhance that character in any meaningful way, then giving him working legs and making him a white american ALSO wouldn't enhance that character in any meaningful way either, because if being different is not something that adds depth, then neither is being the same. You're arguing that diversity is bad because it doesn't enhance the roster, and yet to remove diversity wouldn't enhance the roster in any way either, which means that diversity is not a problem.

If you're arguing that characters lack depth to their character, then make the statement that the characters lack depth and leave it at that (which, as an aside, has nothing to do with gameplay and thus wouldn't qualify as poor game design regardless). But you didn't make the statement that they lack depth, the statement you made is that diversty for diversity's sake is bad, which are two wholly unrelated issues. The fact that those issues are unrelated and yet you're trying to bring them together means that you either have no understanding of how to add depth to a character in the first place, or you're a closet bigot who's trying to use a lack of depth as an excuse to rail against diversity, or most likely both.

That is why I call this an encyclopedic approach and I point this out as an issue not just because it was a bother in this game, but because I do not want to see a trend in the gaming industry where diversity is thrown in without a purpose backing each character.

It's almost cliched at this point to give this as writing advice, but it hasn't stopped being true. The best way to write a character is to think of it as a person first and foremost, and the thing about people is that there isn't always a purpose beyond 'because that's the way it is'. A real life black man is not black for any purpose more complex than because his parents passed those genes onto him, and likewise a character in a work of fiction does not need any higher purpose to be black or female or gay or whatever than 'because he was born that way'. Now, a real life black man will likely go through very different circumstances in life than a white man, which may colour his view of the world, and thus his behaviour and personality and history may be tinted by his experiences, and a good writer will write a character that reflects that. If a character doesn't feel authentically black, you can fault the writer for bad writing, but you can't fault him for including diversity in the first place because diversity doesn't need a purpose any more complex than real life does.

So if your problem is that you think the writing is bad, then you can say the writing is bad, you can say it feels inauthentic, you can say the characters lack depth. However, if your problem is simply that the roster is diverse, then you have some deep-rooted prejudices. And once again, the fact that you jumped straight to the latter and declared it to be the problem is telling.

You have labelled what I have said as bullshit and "flat out idiotic" while calling me bigoted with deep-rooted prejudices.

Hatred, isn't an argument, and I suggest you rethink how you handle differences in opinion in the future. Implying people are racist for disagreeing and calling their arguments dumb, tends to not get one very far both online and especially in the real world.

Also "Take any character in Overwatch, literally any character, and make that character a straight white man. Now tell me in what way you've enhanced that individual character. You can't, because it's impossible, and most comedically it's impossible using your very own logic."

 

[Revolutionary]

You just described pretty much every game with moba-esque mechanics. Congrats.

 

[Wrex Brogan]

1: It's not exactly the type of game that lends itself to an in-depth story-telling experience. It's all just set dressing, really.

2: Microtransactions, ho! Yeah, it's bullshit, but I'd hardly staple the blame onto Overwatch, the AAA gaming industry has been pushing shit like this for years now. Blizzard just took it in an extra special direction with the event-locked stuff as well (which is also normal for them given World of Warcraft, so... you know).

3: Uhhhhh... no. Overwatch is an absurdly simple game to play and very few of the characters have any complex mechanics to them, Ults included. Adding more characters who are just simplified versions of existing characters is actually bad game design.

4: You try perfectly balancing 24 unique characters who are being played by literally millions of people at any given moment then. Also, having played WoW for so long, people complaining about nerfs/buffs falls a little deaf on my ears since Blizzard fans tend to react like they're getting murdered over a 2% nerf to a single ability.

5: Well, yeah, it's competitive. Blizzard has always been a little heavy-handed with it's approach to people dropping out of competitive matches, and could probably go for more incentives rather than punishments, but it's a general rule of thumb that you don't try competitive if you've got a shit connection or are getting pulled away from your console so frequently. Kinda rude to everyone else in the game, really.

6: Ahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha... oh, oh sweet jesus god no.

 

[Gizen]

Implying people are racist for disagreeing and calling their arguments dumb, tends to not get one very far both online and especially in the real world.

Actually, politics over the last several years has shown you that it actually gets you quite far in the real world, but that's neither here nor there.

I'm not calling you a racist for disagreeing with me. In fact I never called you a racist at all, I called you a bigot specifically because your visible prejudices seem to be touching on a little bit of everything in general, and I called you that for stating that 'diversity for diversitys's sake is bad'. That in order for a character to have a disorder, a sexuality, or a specific culture tied to them, it must be for some grand purpose. It must have some 'real meaning' and 'add meaning to the character'.

For the purposes of showing you your own prejudices, let's use culture as an example because it's the easiest. It is not possible to write a character utterly divorced from any culture. It just isn't. Even fantasy worlds have their own cultures, and even characters and stories that don't make a big deal of theirs will have one running in the background influencing their behaviour. So the fact that you're calling culture out is an implication that you don't mean all cultures in general but non-default ones specifically, with the default being commonly accepted as American. American IS still a culture though, and by all logic should be held to the same strict standards of imparting some deep meaning on the characters. But I don't see you going around to every single work of fiction calling out their usage of american culture, despite it often lacking any real deep meaning, and likewise you're not ragging on the usage of culture in Overwatch so much as your ragging on the diversity of culture. The usage of non-default cultures. Foreign cultures.

That's prejudice.

Real life prejudice is very very rarely the overt, cartoonishly obvious shit like nazis or people going around shouting racial slurs in broad daylight. It's more minor, subtle things that people often don't even realize they have.

The bigotry comes into play when we have literally every single person in this thread telling you your opinions are either misguided or flat out wrong, and you demonstrate intolerance by, instead of pausing and reflecting on if you're maybe incorrect, instead you double down and start piling on even more bullshit. It's noteworthy that of all the detailed responses people have made to your points, you haven't actually responded to or debated any of them.

Also "Take any character in Overwatch, literally any character, and make that character a straight white man. Now tell me in what way you've enhanced that individual character. You can't, because it's impossible, and most comedically it's impossible using your very own logic."

Alright, two responses to this. First and foremost, I figured that using the magical tool we like to refer to as context that I wouldn't have to go into super exact specifically worded detail about this, but since context, like customization and depth, is apparently not a word that you understand, allow me to clarify.

"Take any character in Overwatch who is not already a straight white man, literally any character, and make that character a straight white man. Now tell me in what way you've enhanced that individual character."

Second, and more importantly, explain in what way does Soldier: 76 exhibit more depth and characterization than every other character in Overwatch; and, assuming you can even do that, explain how him being white, male, straight, and american contributes to that, what specifically it does to enhance his characterization and give it additional depth. THEN, if you can accomplish both of those goals, proceed to describe how the roster would be enhanced if:
- Lucio was white, american, and not physically disabled
- Tracer was male, straight and american
- Symmetra was male, white, american, and not autistic

 

[bjj hero]

Wynn, Wynn, Wynn. Is this what the cool kids do now? Say something is bad because it is popular?

1: I prefer games do what they are meant to do well. Poorly tacked on MP modes to solid single player games are at best just a waste of resources. This is the same. Ive not played the single player campaign on a MP shooter to completion since COD4. I have no issue with no ingame story. This is not that sort of game, chess has no story mode, it is still a great game.

2: Im that miserable bastard who thinks you should not be able to pay gold for skins etc. My most valuable skin? The track and field skin for Tracer, a charecter I rarely use. It is special because it is genuinely rare... Unlike reapers mariachi skin that everyone one bought in the early days. I think it adds to the game, some things are rare. Im also glad they narrow the play modes, other shooters drop tons of content and fragment the player base to pieces.

3: This game is accessable enough that my 8 year old could pick it up, know what he is doing and have fun. Sure some charecters need a higher skill level to play but there is something for everyone. Easy to pick up and hard to master is a good combination. If you want simple then play soldier.

4: If Blizzard continue to support this game then they need to keep rebalancing it. A new charecter changes every thing and can throw the balance way off. Look at Ana kicking off triple tank meta. The change ups keep the game fresh, it changes team comps, who your main is and strategies to win. I feel this is one of OWs strengths.

5: I dont think the leavers penalty is harsh enough. If you play comp, make sure you have put 40 minutes aside to play undisturbed. Otherwise play quick play or arcade. Your leaving ruins 11 other players experience so you should be penalised for doing that. The penalties are minor. Docked some SR and you have to wait a few minutes to play comp. So go play QP for a round and quit whining.

Having said that, I became sure you were trolling when I read this:

Issue 6: Diversity for Diversity's Sake

This is a bit more of a subjective and political point so it isn't in the OP, but I never liked this encyclopedic approach to diversity that Overwatch took. Psychological disorders, sexualities, sexes, ages, cultures, fandoms, these are the ingredients to create the perfect little girls these are being treated less as unique aspects of the characters carefully used with a real meaning behind them, and more like customization features. There is nothing wrong with a character having a disorder or a sexuality or a culture tied to them. But, if the character has a disorder or sexuality or any other core feature added to them not because it enhances their character's meaning, but instead because it enhances the overall diversity of the cast, that is not improving the character roster, it's just diversity for diversity's sake. I mean, this point is pretty self-explanatory if you take 5 minutes to look through this roster and contemplate the lore and backgrounds tied to each of these characters. In a good story whether written, drawn, or in a video game, I expect for each character to exist for a reason and have corresponding quirks and traits that add necessary related depth. But if each character's depth is just, one extra new trait, quirk, mental disorder, sexuality, sex, culture, fandom, or physical quirk like being a robot or a monkey... for the sake of diversity rather than making a truly great character, doesn't that take away from the overall unique meaning of each character? Overwatch treats entire countries and ways of life as only worth using as customization options rather than as important places and ways of living that deserve their own unique appreciation outside of being there for the sake of being there. On the other hand this game doesn't have an in-game storyline so maybe I shouldn't even care about the meaning behind the characters in the first place.

Wow. "Diverse" is not a bad thing? This is a game with a diverse roster of charecters and play styles. Each charecter is very different. We are not talking COD "do I take the AK 47 or M 4", its tracer or Winston. So why not be a very varied cast? In an international team then why would they not all have different nationalities and backgrounds? It would be more strange if they were all white, hetro, male Americans. None of this is "customisation". You cannot change who the charecters are so I dont get that comment. I also dont understand how you expect a single trait to "enhance" a charecter. They just are.

I personally think its well done, Tracer doesnt run around doing cliched "lesbian" things. She does her job and her sexuality has little impact. Its like if her bio read "eyes green". Its part of her, but isnt relevant to being in Overwatch and shape everything she does. That is how it should be, I fail to see your criticism.

 

[Gethsemani_v1legacy]

You have labelled what I have said as bullshit and "flat out idiotic" while calling me bigoted with deep-rooted prejudices.

Hatred, isn't an argument, and I suggest you rethink how you handle differences in opinion in the future. Implying people are racist for disagreeing and calling their arguments dumb, tends to not get one very far both online and especially in the real world.

Also "Take any character in Overwatch, literally any character, and make that character a straight white man. Now tell me in what way you've enhanced that individual character. You can't, because it's impossible, and most comedically it's impossible using your very own logic."

So are you going to reply to his argument or are you just going to deliver a Tu Quoque and use tone policing? Because Gizen's criticism of your stance is very valid. In what way exactly is it bad that characters are made diverse for the sake of diversity alone? How is it bad design compared to just making every character (bar a token woman and black guy) a white dude? How is making all white dudes any better? The idea that diversity for its' own sake is bad hinges on the assumption that the current hegemony of Caucasian Male as "default" or "standard" is in fact good and has merit. It is not very hard, whether you are an "SJW" or not, to make several arguments against this hegemony.

For arguments sake, let me also tell you why it is good game design to have a diverse, easily recognizable cast: It makes it easier to identify your opponents at a moments glance. When you see the olive skinned woman in a Sari you know that's Symmetra. When you see the gorilla you know that's Winston. When the petite girl zips by you that's Tracer and the Robot beside you is Bastion. This is not only good game design, this is arguably great game design. The amount of visual and aural design that goes into making the player instantly recognize a character is staggering. Overwatch uses its' diversity to great effect to aid the player in understanding what they are facing and who their team mates are playing as. Had the entire cast been gruffy 30-something white dudes with 5 o'clock shadows, you can bet your ass that you'd never get the same instinctive recognition of who's attacking you. For comparison, just look at Rainbow Six: Siege, which does a decent job at distinctive design, yet falls short because almost all characters are wearing shades of black and brown and wearing huge body armors.

 

[Erttheking]

You know, I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and even agree with you on some points until you made point number six. Now I know you're not arguing in good faith.

Why do you believe point number six conveys that I am not arguing in good faith?

I think everyone else has given pretty good explanations. I see no need to repeat what they've said.

 

[takanabanana]

1) Games don't need a story to be fun. Stories can improve games, but they aren't 100% necessary.
2) Seasonal events keep people coming back. I wouldn't have played the game after the initial month after release if not for the seasonal events. Sure, if you're new or you missed a couple events, you miss out on some content, but there's always more content on the way.
3) Having a character without an ult would be a huge balance problem. They'd either be too weak without the burst of power that an ult gives, or too consistently good because their other abilities are buffed too high to compensate. Plus, having similar controls for the entire cast makes it easier for players to learn each character.
4) Some problems with balancing aren't obvious from casual playtesting. It could take weeks, months, even years to figure out something is broken, or isn't playing how the developers want. Balance isn't simple, and it'll take a while before the buffs and nerfs end.

On a side note, you do remember that Valve completely changed how some weapons work almost a decade after the game released? Just saying.

5) I think most of your points, but this one especially, come from the fact that you don't play a ton of multiplayer-only games. This is pretty average for most competitive game modes. As an example, if you play a competitive game of Counter-Strike: Global Offensive and are disconnected for whatever reason, you have only 3 minutes to reconnect before you automatically abandon the match and are barred from playing competitive for a set amount of time, starting at half an hour and increasing to an entire week for repeat offenses. It's not completely fair, but it's the most fair to the most people.
6) I'm pretty sure I shared this video in the Discord server, but just in case you didn't see it yet: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rjFm2qPRtq0

I'm not really sure why you give TF2 a free pass on all of these, seeing as how you acknowledge it has many of the same flaws. Hope to hear back from ya

 

[Epyc Wynn]

You know, I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and even agree with you on some points until you made point number six. Now I know you're not arguing in good faith.

6: Ahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha... oh, oh sweet jesus god no.

6. *sigh*

The entire notion of 'diversity for the sake of diversity' being a bad thing is a bullshit complaint with no substance behind it, but then the rest of your complaints have been nothing but whiny bitching so it shouldn't be a surprise.

6. That's only true if you believe that being an american straight white male is the default state of being for humans, and you need an "excuse" to have your characters be anything other than that.

Because it's a bullshit argument that in the best possible case displays a complete lack of understanding of what it means to create fiction as well as a lack of knowledge regarding the definition of of the word customization, and in the worst case is an attempt to use a flimsy mask of 'criticism' to poorly disguise an overt display of bigotry.

So are you going to reply to his argument or are you just going to deliver a Tu Quoque and use tone policing? Because Gizen's criticism of your stance is very valid. In what way exactly is it bad that characters are made diverse for the sake of diversity alone? How is it bad design compared to just making every character (bar a token woman and black guy) a white dude? How is making all white dudes any better? The idea that diversity for its' own sake is bad hinges on the assumption that the current hegemony of Caucasian Male as "default" or "standard" is in fact good and has merit. It is not very hard, whether you are an "SJW" or not, to make several arguments against this hegemony.

I'm gonna say these are all pretty piss poor responses. Let's see... we got someone calling it not an argument in good faith without giving a reason even upon request. Another guy typed a long string of "AHAHAHA"s and says "no" while a later person simply types a roleplayed *sighs*. The user Gizen called issue 6 a bullshit complaint with no substance while calling all the other points whiny bitching and they thus conclude issue 6 being bullshit "shouldn't be a surprise;" well I guess a series of thought-out points on why a video game's design is flawed can be chalked up to whiny bitching like any other criticism in the world can if you don't agree with it. DaCosta insists I HAVE, to be claiming the American White Male is the default state of being... because... reasons; I suppose promoting putting thought into the diverse aspects of fictional characters for the character's sake rather than the sake of diversity in relation to other characters is actually a basis for real life racist misogyny... because they say so. Gizen comes back swinging, calling this a bullshit argument and me a bigot because, pfft, who needs arguments when you can just insult the the opponent's arguments and the opponent. Gethsamani, the user aptly labelled "Hardcore Feminazi" under their username, proceeds to defend Gizen's arguments as valid, (because apparently basic argument ethics don't matter) and then proceeds to reiterate how justifying diversity, in a fictional video game, requires assuming the Caucasian Male is "default." They then repeat the word hegemony a couple times to really drive home this point that I have to be a bigot to think characters should be diverse for their own special reasons rather than be diverse for the sake of an overall roster.

Maybe using the words "subjective" and "political" and "diversity" triggered an animal instinct in some of you to abandon basic argumentation ethics and give short snide remarks as some of you might be used to doing in political contexts, rather than deliver neutral reasonable retorts. Maybe these words triggered a reaction that some of you just HAVE to convey the person who disagrees with you is a bigot and be rude to them and if they complain about that rudeness it means they are running from the arguments. But there is nothing, and I mean NOTHING bigoted about wanting characters to have purpose behind their designs. Where some of you got white male as somehow being a default state of being, I can only assume came from a quite sexist racist source of thought somewhere far outside the realm of anything I have said or implied.

Issue 6 deals with a philosophical divide between wanting a roster of characters varied in relation to each other, and wanting a roster of varied qualities relative only to the character at hand for the sake of enhancing the character. In the former you have soulless placeholders promoting the collective group's overall sense of diversity. In the latter you have soulful character designs promoting how each character is unique in their own way without having to necessarily be diverse in relation to everyone else. It is incredibly ignorant to call this line of thought on fictional character design bigoted and it is incredibly unethical to imply I am racist or sexist for promoting it. The point of argumentation is to talk out the logic of two viewpoints, not attack the credibility of the person disagreeing as if this is combat rather than a discussion.

 

[Epyc Wynn]

1) Games don't need a story to be fun. Stories can improve games, but they aren't 100% necessary.
2) Seasonal events keep people coming back. I wouldn't have played the game after the initial month after release if not for the seasonal events. Sure, if you're new or you missed a couple events, you miss out on some content, but there's always more content on the way.
3) Having a character without an ult would be a huge balance problem. They'd either be too weak without the burst of power that an ult gives, or too consistently good because their other abilities are buffed too high to compensate. Plus, having similar controls for the entire cast makes it easier for players to learn each character.
4) Some problems with balancing aren't obvious from casual playtesting. It could take weeks, months, even years to figure out something is broken, or isn't playing how the developers want. Balance isn't simple, and it'll take a while before the buffs and nerfs end.

On a side note, you do remember that Valve completely changed how some weapons work almost a decade after the game released? Just saying.

5) I think most of your points, but this one especially, come from the fact that you don't play a ton of multiplayer-only games. This is pretty average for most competitive game modes. As an example, if you play a competitive game of Counter-Strike: Global Offensive and are disconnected for whatever reason, you have only 3 minutes to reconnect before you automatically abandon the match and are barred from playing competitive for a set amount of time, starting at half an hour and increasing to an entire week for repeat offenses. It's not completely fair, but it's the most fair to the most people.
6) I'm pretty sure I shared this video in the Discord server, but just in case you didn't see it yet: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rjFm2qPRtq0

I'm not really sure why you give TF2 a free pass on all of these, seeing as how you acknowledge it has many of the same flaws. Hope to hear back from ya

1. True, but critics shouldn't give free passes on not having a full amount of content, as on-launch Overwatch felt like a barren wasteland. It would be a bad trend in the industry to lose out on content such as a storyline because of critics not calling games out for not having it.

2. I am aware of the reasoning behind season events as it gives something unique to do you can't normally do and thus attracts people. However, I believe once an event is over, its contents should be kept as people should be able to have the content they paid for (people bought this game expecting to receive significant free downloadable content later on). They make new events regularly anyway so it is not as if they could not add a new thing to do each time they want an event anyway.

3. Well, in theory you could have a character with slightly above-average abilities in exchange for having no ULT, but it would be tricky to balance that character in a way where they aren't OP or useless. Mainly I'm just not a fan of the alternate abilities though and would prefer characters that keep it simple by not having them (similar to how Legend of the Fat Princess handled character classes (((i luv dat game)))).

4. Yeah, but part of being a decent game designer is being able to pick up issues. Blizzard handles these far worse than the average FPS does and should not get a free pass on poor balancing just because it's hard. If it was easy to make good games then everyone would do it. Feels like they take advantage of meta changes not for the sake of improving gameplay but instead to SHAKE IT UP LOLOL. It is like getting free advertising when YouTubers then report on the ups and downs of these changes.

5. If it's the MMO industry's standard to poorly handle people leaving then the industry is at fault for having such a poor standard. It is not hard to put in place a system for rewarding people who stay nor is it hard to keep temporary bans restrained without causing people unnecessary suffering and frustration. Blizzard needs to learn some restraint rather than set a poor standard.

6. . . .

Issue 6 Part 2: EVERYONE WATCH THIS VIDEO HOLY SHIT

 

[DaCosta]

I'm gonna say these are all pretty piss poor responses. Let's see... we got someone calling it not an argument in good faith without giving a reason even upon request. Another guy typed a long string of "AHAHAHA"s and says "no" while a later person simply types a roleplayed *sighs*. The user Gizen called issue 6 a bullshit complaint with no substance while calling all the other points whiny bitching and they thus conclude issue 6 being bullshit "shouldn't be a surprise;" well I guess a series of thought-out points on why a video game's design is flawed can be chalked up to whiny bitching like any other criticism in the world can if you don't agree with it. DaCosta insists I HAVE, to be claiming the American White Male is the default state of being... because... reasons; I suppose promoting putting thought into the diverse aspects of fictional characters for the character's sake rather than the sake of diversity in relation to other characters is actually a basis for real life racist misogyny... because they say so. Gizen comes back swinging, calling this a bullshit argument and me a bigot because, pfft, who needs arguments when you can just insult the the opponent's arguments and the opponent. Gethsamani, the user aptly labelled "Hardcore Feminazi" under their username, proceeds to defend Gizen's arguments as valid, (because apparently basic argument ethics don't matter) and then proceeds to reiterate how justifying diversity, in a fictional video game, requires assuming the Caucasian Male is "default." They then repeat the word hegemony a couple times to really drive home this point that I have to be a bigot to think characters should be diverse for their own special reasons rather than be diverse for the sake of an overall roster.

Maybe using the words "subjective" and "political" and "diversity" triggered an animal instinct in some of you to abandon basic argumentation ethics and give short snide remarks as some of you might be used to doing in political contexts, rather than deliver neutral reasonable retorts. Maybe these words triggered a reaction that some of you just HAVE to convey the person who disagrees with you is a bigot and be rude to them and if they complain about that rudeness it means they are running from the arguments. But there is nothing, and I mean NOTHING bigoted about wanting characters to have purpose behind their designs. Where some of you got white male as somehow being a default state of being, I can only assume came from a quite sexist racist source of thought somewhere far outside the realm of anything I have said or implied.

Issue 6 deals with a philosophical divide between wanting a roster of characters varied in relation to each other, and wanting a roster of varied qualities relative only to the character at hand for the sake of enhancing the character. In the former you have soulless placeholders promoting the collective group's overall sense of diversity. In the latter you have soulful character designs promoting how each character is unique in their own way without having to necessarily be diverse in relation to everyone else. It is incredibly ignorant to call this line of thought on fictional character design bigoted and it is incredibly unethical to imply I am racist or sexist for promoting it. The point of argumentation is to talk out the logic of two viewpoints, not attack the credibility of the person disagreeing as if this is combat rather than a discussion.

The reason for me saying that was: that was your argument. That there needs to be a special reason for the characters, members of a multinational organization, to be different from one another.

Funny how you wrote yet another wall of text complaining that people are calling you a bigot, yet still haven't justified how having a diverse cast of characters is somehow a bad thing, or how a cast that's not diverse would somehow be better than what we have.

 

[Rick Blood]

Reading this thread, I don't care to reply to most points. There seems little point in doing so, you don't seem likely to change your mind and it's all be said before. However I have to comment on one you may see if this isn't just some troll...

Point 5.

I don't play competitive in any of these games myself typically, in part for this very reason, but it's VERY important for it to be taken seriously or remotely competitively. Do you know how many games have or have had rage quit issues? It doesn't matter if they'd get a bonus for sticking around, they'd still quit if it didn't have it's own negative. Quite often they would quit so early in a game because they perceive it as a lost cause, when it was still VERY EASILY turned around. I played a bit when competitive was first released, and you had people quitting purely because the first round of King of the Hill was lost... Good luck coming back from that 5v6.
There needs to be something to convince people not to quit, and they actively recommend you don't play it if you have an unstable system/connection. Now you could argue Blizzard's approach is poorly designed, but the general system does need to be in place. They actually made it stricter as time went on because it wasn't preventing the issue enough.