Overwatch Promotes Bad Game Design

[EternallyBored]

Why have a black Irish man?

Being Irish while being black

Being Irish has nothing to do with explosives...unless you refer to IRA.

Being black also has nothing to do with explosives.

Being black has nothing to do with being Irish, either.

Uhhhh? Irish? Are you suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuure?

Being Irish while being black while being theme around explosives is a perfect balance and shows Valve knows their shit with character design.

A perfect balance of... what, exactly? Not only are you objectively wrong, it is a perfect example of blurting out a point, and then backing it up with a boatload of nothing, as well as showing your blind defense for TF2 without really fact checking anything.

Black and Scottish is associated with more active "explosive" personalities that's why it makes sense. As for fact-checking... what do you want me to check?

Sooooo, stereotypes? Because that's what you just justified, is that it matches some sort of vague stereotype it makes for good design. Not really helping with the earlier accusation of you being kind of prejudiced, also echoing undead what do you consider bad about specific Overwatch characters, because most of them are kind of similar in following national stereotypes: the Chinese scientist, Korean gamer, two Japanese characters that are basically tropes, the American cowboy, the big friendly German bear, the Russian weightlifter (sort of a female Zangief). I'm curious which characters you think don't fit the model you've accepted with Demoman and why you think that is actual bad game design and not just a design you personally don't like.

 

[Ninjamedic]

I only popped into the thread out of morbid curiosity and any real conversation I could make barring the following has passed.

With that said,

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.

Except that's not falling short, that's the point of the aesthetic from a games design standpoint, you're not meant to be able to instantly deduce on sight who everyone is, you have to look more closely or tag them. That's why you have the scouting phase at the start of the round, so the attackers can attempt to figure out what they're up against. That also includes finding out whos on the opposing side based on what devices are in play like Mute's jammers or Mira's glass. Conversely, it incentivizes the defenders to monitor the cameras or have someone counterflank.

Comparing Siege to OW is apples and oranges in this regard.

 

[DoPo]

Sooooo, stereotypes? Because that's what you just justified, is that it matches some sort of vague stereotype it makes for good design.

Not only stereotypes - it's stereotypes that link to the character theme by dream logic. Because "angry" doesn't actually relate to "explosives" in any way - it only does when you call it "explosive personality". If that's the case, then smart characters should use blades, because they are sharp while conversely, stupid ones, being dull should use clubs and other non-bladed tools.

 

[Gizen]

Black and Scottish is associated with more active "explosive" personalities that's why it makes sense.

And you were confused as to why I said you were making racist implications?

 

[Epyc Wynn]

Sooooo, stereotypes? Because that's what you just justified, is that it matches some sort of vague stereotype it makes for good design. Not really helping with the earlier accusation of you being kind of prejudiced, also echoing undead what do you consider bad about specific Overwatch characters, because most of them are kind of similar in following national stereotypes: the Chinese scientist, Korean gamer, two Japanese characters that are basically tropes, the American cowboy, the big friendly German bear, the Russian weightlifter (sort of a female Zangief). I'm curious which characters you think don't fit the model you've accepted with Demoman and why you think that is actual bad game design and not just a design you personally don't like.

Don't forget the Indian Tech Support, the black DJ, TWO flavors of explosive violent Aussies, hyper intelligent gorilla, non-violent Swiss and Buddha robot

I mean I love Overwatch, I think they did an amazing job in creating these characters and making those cliches work for them.

But yeah if "stereotypes" are what make compelling characters, OW has got that in the bag

The point is being consistent with what is at the core of their design. It isn't about the stereotype, it's about the consistency. I am not talking about having "Russian" or "Chinese" at the core of things as that genuinely does lead to stereotypes which are shallower than if you center things around a more abstract concept. Lemme give some examples based on this principle, without focusing on lore and instead strictly focusing on the game itself.

Tracer's core theme is freedom so she has her speed, time movement, low HP to indicate her weight doesn't slow her down, and not letting negativity hold her back as negativity is in general associated with not feeling free. Roadhog's core theme is brutality which WAS shown through a brutal hook-and-kill, in addition to the scary mask, psychotic yet oddly controlled behavior, high DPS (at close range), and his stomach sticking out like "yeah, you wanna stop me from fucking you up you gotta work for it" which is further emphasized by him then drinking his health back. Those are (or WERE) excellent examples and until this nerf, most people considered Roadhog the best realized character both through his design and gameplay execution.

The problem is most of the characters seem to have certain attributes just to seem diverse in relation to other characters and then some stereotypical quirks from their respective countries are tacked onto them. That creates characters that are just existing for the sake of being diverse rather than existing with a core sense of purpose about them like Tracer and Roadhog exemplify.

 

[Epyc Wynn]

Black and Scottish is associated with more active "explosive" personalities that's why it makes sense.

And you were confused as to why I said you were making racist implications?

Pointing out how a race or country acts on a general scale is not the same as insinuating how one is superior or inferior. In this case these stereotypes are highly relevant to the character design aspect of the game and considering how central character designs are to Overwatch, it is important the subject is mentioned. I kindly ask you please talk about the game rather than repeatedly call me racist.

 

[DaCosta]

Pointing out how a race or country acts on a general scale is not the same as insinuating how one is superior or inferior.

It is, however, by its very definition, racist.

 

[Gizen]

Black and Scottish is associated with more active "explosive" personalities that's why it makes sense.

And you were confused as to why I said you were making racist implications?

Pointing out how a race or country acts on a general scale is not the same as insinuating how one is superior or inferior.

Yeah, it is actually. There's a reason people fight against stereotyping. Even positive stereotypes can have detrimental effects, and in this case it's not even a positive one to begin with, as an 'explosive personality' is typically considered a negative trait since it implies a person who struggles to control their emotions and has difficulty thinking before acting.

In this case these stereotypes are highly relevant to the character design aspect of the game and considering how central character designs are to Overwatch, it is important the subject is mentioned.

You're right, these stereotypes are highly relevant t the character design aspect of the game... and? The argument you've currently decided to side with is that diversity must be justified in order to be used, and that valid justification is to appeal to stereotypes. I'm arguing against that because it's bullshit and pointing out the obvious racist undertones in order to support my point. I'm arguing character design just as much as you are, but unlike you I'm actually bothering to explain my arguments. A guy can't just be black or scottish, or else that's diversity for the sake of diversity, which is clearly bad somehow for reasons you've yet to explain anywhere. No, he has to be black/scottish in order to compliment a personality stereotypically associated with black/scottish people. It doesn't matter that it's (tangentially) related to game design, that's still racist. It's not even subtle racism like you were doing before, it's just blatant at this point.

I kindly ask you please talk about the game rather than repeatedly call me racist.

I've spoken about the game multiple times at this point, but you have this tendency to not respond when I do (that whole 'arguing in bad faith' thing again), and so at this point I've pretty much said all there really needs to be said on the issue, and what I'm neglecting, other people are pointing out so I don't have to.

On the other hand, everytime I point out that you're saying something prejudiced, you tend to be very quick to respond, and so since that's where there keeps being an actual opening for a debate, that's where I'm going to keep going. So the solution would be simple I think: If you don't want me to keep going after you for saying racist shit, stop saying racist shit.

 

[Lufia Erim]

I can see it's pretty useless to try and engage TC in any way, so, I'll just have a discourse with other people instead.

I'd first like to preface this by saying I don't actually play Overwatch and I'm not familiar with the intricacies of characters and abilities. Still, since this is about game design, I can definitely talk in broad strokes.

1) Destiny did this first. And it still has a pretty solid player base. Blame activision/Bungie for making this acceptable practice.

In no way, shape or form has Destiny been the first game without a story mode introduced inside it. I can point at multitude of examples: Pong and Tetris come to mind, but if we are talking about competitive online games, how about stepping back to around the start of the millenium with Unreal Tournament. Since the OP contains many comparisons to Team Fortress 2 I definitely have to point out that doesn't have a story mode, either. I've played Team Fortress Classic and I assure you, it had even less story in the game than TF2. I've not played the original Team Fortress but I'd hazard a guess that's also the case. There is also DotA, Leage of Legends and many others that came out way before Destiny.

It is "accepted" because you don't generally need a story mode for any game ever. Especially if you're focusing on multiplayer.

Why you chose to point at Destiny I do not know, nor do I know why it's somehow a "new" phenomenon.

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.

If you'll allow me to play Devil's Advocate for a second, may I remind you that TF2's cast consists mainly of "gruffy 30-something white dudes with 5 o'clock shadows," and I never had any problems telling them apart thanks to their distinctive silhouettes:

Don't get me wrong, I agree with your argument as a whole. I'm just saying you CAN have a (mostly) racially homogeneous cast in a class-based shooter and make them distinctive from one another.

Yet, if we apply OP's logic, then that cast is WRONG! Why have a black Irish man? Why have a Russian? Why have an Australian? Those are characteristics that don't compliment their characters at all.

I think this is literally the only time when Epyc wynn has any sort of actual point. Roadhog is classified as a tank in game, however, he is really a dps character with a high health pool and a healing ability. He has no actual tanking abilities to speak of.

That's a variation of tanks called "bruiser". They are, as you described them, high HP characters that have high DPS. Their role is to get into the enemies faces and force the enemy team to waste effort taking them down, instead of the squishier characters. In more PvE oriented games, you'd have some sort of warrior with aggro mechanic, but in PvP, you cannot force players to attack a target via artificial means, hence you make one character seem big and scary.

Roadhog is really just a variation of the Pudge character from DotA: Allstars - high HP, the most distinctive ability is a hook ability - a long-range trickshot that can pull an enemy to him. The same archetype shows up in Heroes of the Storm as Stitches - also high HP, has a hook ability. Roadhog is another variation of it. In fact, you can very clearly see the resemblance as all three share the same body type - very heavy frame. Sure, you can point out that Pudge and Stitches do come from the same base - Pudge used the abomination model in Allstars, Stitches is an actual abomination, yet the WC3 abomination doesn't have a hook ability. It was something introduced in DotA and stuck around.

So, yes - he's a tank. Bruisers don't tend to be the main tank, but can definitely classify as secondary, at least. In some cases, you can have a bruiser as your main and only tank, but it requires a team composition to back this up - generally very high damage characters, so they deal with the enemies, as the enemies try to deal with the bruiser. In such cases, the bruiser is usually expendable - their job is to just stay around enough for their team to pick off some enemies, this when the bruiser is dead, the team can deal with the remains. Or alternatively, you can have supports that have damage mitigation/HP recovery abilities to keep the bruiser in the fight.

I was referencing the fact you have to check outside sources for in game lore/story. Not multiplayer only games. I dont know what you know about destiny but there is an APP for cellphones which holds 95% of the story and lore of the game.

Team fortress 2 wasn't a full price AAA game. It was part of the orange box or bought standalone for 20 or 30 dollars before going free to play.

 

[Epyc Wynn]

That creates characters that are just existing for the sake of being diverse rather than existing with a core sense of purpose about them like Tracer and Roadhog exemplify.

Which ones? We can talk about how great Tracer and Roadhog are till we're blue in the face, but until you give some detailed examples about characters that don't work the way you want them to work, we're just going to continue talking in circles.

Hard to say. It's easy for me to point out characters that do it well because I actually care about those characters. Hard to discuss the other characters that do it poorly when their designs either disappoint me or bore me so much I don't want to give them my mental energy. Also not sure whether I'd want to do this purely based on the game, or do this while also taking into account video lore and general lore tidbits, as the lore has genuinely made me dislike certain character designs significantly more; on the other hand I don't like this idea that lore outside of the game itself should be considered canon.

 

[Randomosity]

I just want to say, old Roadhog was bad game design. Instant kill combos are not fun for anyone except the player using it. Old Hog's solo flanking encouraged bad habits and bad play. It flew in the face of team play, as Hog didn't need to work with his team in the slightest. Hog rewarded bad positioning, discouraged interplay between heroes, ignored teamwork, and quite frankly countered too many heroes. Reaper should win duels against Hog, Reaper is a tank buster, that is his job.

 

[Gordon_4_v1legacy]

Overwatch Promotes Bad Game Design

Overwatch is pretty and sounds nice, and from those perspectives it's a decent piece of art. But as a game, Overwatch is a poor example of game design. In advance, I will be for obvious reasons if you are familiar with the game, be comparing what Overwatch is doing to what Team Fortress 2 did and why it is not okay to give Overwatch the same treatment Team Fortress 2 received.

Issue 1: No Story Line

Overwatch has no story line. And when I say Overwatch I mean the game itself not the online lore with the videos and the drawings and the Jeff Kappy's tidbits in the Blizzard forums. They have all the necessary assets to make a proper storyline for the game. Online they have plenty of high quality animations and thorough lore, and in the game they have functional events built upon bots with their own bosses. So even though Overwatch COULD very easily have its own storyline, they choose not to. Why does everyone, and I mean EVERYONE in the gaming community, give them a free pass for that? TF2 was a puzzle piece to the Orange Box so you didn't lose money by not having a story in that game and later TF2 was made free, so it's fine they didn't have a story and the videos were a nice later touch. Overwatch on the other hand unabashedly uses content online you have to go out of your way to find and considering the difference in video views to game purchases, it is a concrete bet the vast majority of Overwatch players have not viewed most of the online related content. That content should have been included inside the game and been worked into a storymode. They could have even updated that storymode in chapters like how they are adding events with waves of bots; but they don't. Speaking of the events:

Issue 2: Giving but then Taking away Content

Team Fortress 2 has a Halloween and a Christmas event that come and go (mainly the Halloween one is what most people pay attention to). But otherwise, they rarely have a big event you can't access again once it is gone. A main example of this was the Mann vs Machine update in which players got permanent access to a you v waves of bots game. Now besides the obvious fact Overwatch ripped these concepts from TF2 which is acceptable given their broadness, what isn't acceptable is how they handled it. Overwatch had Lucio ball, Mei's Snowball game (admittedly not that great), the amazing Halloween robot waves, the even better bot waves from the anniversary. Now, why does nobody complain about the fact they then take away this content? Why is it okay for a game to regularly give you large doses of content in the form of game modes and skins, only to later take it away? That is a middle finger to me and makes me angry I have to wait for content in a game I paid for only for in many cases, it to never appear again. I bought the game assuming the developers would regularly update the game with content, but what I did not expect was they'd take it away and lock the content forever. And the only, way to get skins after that, is if you have an unreal amount of spare coins due to spending a lot or playing the game for an excessive amount of time. Now with Year of the Rooster it is shown that developers are aware of this as they kept the capture-the-flag mode in the arcade permanently afterwards. Why would they not do the same with all the other events? I bought a game expecting content to be added, and what I got was content added only to later be taken away.

Issue 3: Convoluted Character Abilities

Overwatch, is a game everyone and their mother's uncle seems to own. Yet, for some reason, when it comes to the core mechanics of the game being way too complicated, people don't complain about this either. Every single character comes with at least 2 unique alternate abilities and an ULT. Why not have at least one or two characters with no alternate abilities or just one? Why does every character HAVE to have an ULT? Why does every character NEED to have some unique ability rather than just be slightly-different? You could easily create many great new characters by just simplifying already existing characters to go from 4 alternate actions to just 2, 1, or none. Why does every single fucking character HAVE to have these extra complicated pieces that make the game that much more difficult for the typical person to enjoy because it's too hard to follow how every single piece is interacting with all the other enemy characters and abilities. There is a saying that less is more. I like variety, but too much makes the game hard to enjoy because it progressively becomes a convoluted mess. And to those of you who may have some doubts about this being a problem, I believe this next issue might make this issue a bit harder to ignore:

Issue 4: Buffing and Nerfing the Game Too Strongly Too Often

... I don't know where to begin with how ridiculous BAD, this problem is, but let me try and explain it concisely. Altering a weapon's power by 5-10% in damage or speed, that's a run-of-the-mill nerf or buff. Now, should they have play-tested more effectively and not had to buff/nerf it in the first place? Yeah, but it's an understandable mild error that is within the healthy realm of human nature when it comes to game design. Having to up a character's health by 25% (Zenyatta), destroying a character's ability to hook-and-kill in one go as was a key aspect of their character for more than a year (Roadhog), decreasing a character's heal rate from 100% to 50% (Ana), decreasing armor by 200 points and damage by 33% (D.Va), and this is just a handful from many other game-changing buffs and nerfs. These aren't subtle and they aren't balanced. This feels less like a Triple-A game and more like the beta for a game that isn't finished being tweaked. When your game is still being nerfed and buffed to such ridiculous degrees, a year after having been released, you know you fucked up balancing the numbers. Some characters are a joke while others are over-powered and this problem still isn't solved. When your fucking consumer, has to actively worry you will somehow break the character they main, you have failed as a game creator to treat your playerbase well. TF2 did mild nerfs and buffs on specific weapons and kept things subtle yet noticeable without making people paranoid. Hell, there are entire YouTube channels DEVOTED to reporting these nerfs and buffs not as something that is part of a poorly balanced game, but instead as AMAZING NEWS (like cumment and subscrub). It's a joke and it shows how poorly coded Overwatch fundamentally is and how much people have let the game trick them into thinking it is great when it is in fact incredibly flawed and poorly handled to an unacceptable degree. And speaking, of breaking the game regularly:

Issue 5: Developers Breaking Overwatch if you don't use it how they want you to

What I am about to get into is a more nuanced issue but when you deal with it, it will absolutely piss you off. I play Competitive often when I go on Overwatch. But once in a while a problem happens during a competitive match. My Internet has gone out. My PS4 encountered an error that automatically ejected the disk due to my eject button overheating. I have been called away by someone needing my immediate help. These are reasonable things and if we were dealing with a normal online game or even just a normal game, you would not be punished for these things. But OH NO NOT IN JEFF KAPLAN'S WORLD ************ YOU GOTTA PAY THE PRICE. If you leave too often for whatever reason whether purposeful or not, you can receive a great variety of punishments. Some of these include, temporary bans, giant experience point deducations (I got -75% for a console glitch), extended competitive bans, and permanent competitive bans. How dare the developers punish me for wanting to get up and not play their god damn game. How dare the developers threaten to break part of my game that I paid for, if my Internet sucks too often or if I have to go do something too often. I don't owe a damned thing to them yet the developers appear to stand by this mentality that it is a privilege, to play the game I bought. I bought the game, I should be able play it as I see fit WHEN I see fit. If the developers cannot understand this, then that is both unethical and a poor way of designing your game to handle leaving.

Conclusion

So, in short you have a game with no story line inside it, content that is given only to be later permanently taken away, characters with convoluted mechanics and designs, routine over-the-top buffing and nerfing of key elements of characters, and developers willing to break part of your game if you don't use it how they want you to even if it's not your fault. This, is bad game design. And by us unanimously praising this game, we allow Overwatch to promote bad game design.

Put. Down. Your. Crack. Pipe.

 

[DoPo]

I was referencing the fact you have to check outside sources for in game lore/story.

Oh, you mean like the game manuals that many lament are not around any more? Because one of the most frequently cited reasons why they were good is "because they have story in them". So, you're complaining that Destiny was the first big game that did the outside sources thing, even though people have actually been clamouring for this thing to come back for a long time before it was released?

 

[aegix drakan_v1legacy]

I was referencing the fact you have to check outside sources for in game lore/story.

Oh, you mean like the game manuals that many lament are not around any more? Because one of the most frequently cited reasons why they were good is "because they have story in them". So, you're complaining that Destiny was the first big game that did the outside sources thing, even though people have actually been clamouring for this thing to come back for a long time before it was released?

To say nothing of him singing the praises of TF2 earlier, when that game has zero plot in-game, and you have to check supplemental comics and stuff outside the game to get the story.

You know. Like Overwatch.

 

[DoPo]

I was referencing the fact you have to check outside sources for in game lore/story.

Oh, you mean like the game manuals that many lament are not around any more? Because one of the most frequently cited reasons why they were good is "because they have story in them". So, you're complaining that Destiny was the first big game that did the outside sources thing, even though people have actually been clamouring for this thing to come back for a long time before it was released?

To say nothing of him singing the praises of TF2 earlier, when that game has zero plot in-game, and you have to check supplemental comics and stuff outside the game to get the story.

You know. Like Overwatch.

Oh, I did mention it. Apparently, that's fine because the game isn't a AAA game. Also, it went free, therefore...justified?

 

[Epyc Wynn]

I was referencing the fact you have to check outside sources for in game lore/story.

Oh, you mean like the game manuals that many lament are not around any more? Because one of the most frequently cited reasons why they were good is "because they have story in them". So, you're complaining that Destiny was the first big game that did the outside sources thing, even though people have actually been clamouring for this thing to come back for a long time before it was released?

To say nothing of him singing the praises of TF2 earlier, when that game has zero plot in-game, and you have to check supplemental comics and stuff outside the game to get the story.

You know. Like Overwatch.

Oh, I did mention it. Apparently, that's fine because the game isn't a AAA game. Also, it went free, therefore...justified?

That is correct.