Oh boy it's another B-cell thread. Y'know, asking "what's so great about Overwatch" MIGHT be a valid question, especially since many of us can, ahem, "onlywatch" ^_^ but...yeah, it's another jerk-off to ye olde school of FPS. What, saving Battleborn for a separate thread?
But anyway, time to address some points:
-Okay, why are Destiny, Titanfall, and The Division being lumped together? Destiny and Division I can understand as they're MMOFPSRPG hybrids, but Titanfall is the odd one out. Overwatch has nothing in common with Division/Destiny bar being an FPS, and while you could draw some similarities to Titanfall, in that that game also had a multiplayer focus, there's a world of difference in terms of aesthetics, weapons, focus (heroes vs. mechs), etc.
-Well, speaking personally the multiplayer looks like a lot of fun with varied abilities and dynamic interactions. This is just observation of course. That it's made by Blizzard is a plus, whose M.O. since The Lost Vikings (believe it or not, Lost Vikings was Blizzard's take on Lemmings, similar to how Blackthorne was their take on Prince of Persia) has been to take a pre-existing genre and shine the hell out of it.
-There's the characters. Now, every one of these characters is an archeatype/stereotype at the end of the day, there's no getting around that. That said, they're damn engaging. The cinematics have helped with this a lot, and while none of the personalities are deep per se, they do bounce off each other well, and are clearly distinct from one another. There's a reason why Overwatch cosplay and fanfiction are already prevalent (yes, I've written some, among numerous other settings - bite me) for instance.
Also, I find it rich that you're calling them generic, when Doom and Shadow Warrior are the epitome of "generic" that's existed since the 90s, where the protagonist of the Doom reboot seems to have no personality whatsoever (granted, the Doomguy has barely had a personality in any incarnation), and once again you spout out about them being "manly" and "badass." Newsflash - saying someone is manly or badass doesn't make them interesting, it makes them a meathead.
-Story/setting is another bonus...sort of. Overwatch lacks a singleplayer mode of course, but with the plenthora of supplementary material that's been released, it's certainly set itself up as an interesting world. Worldbuilding and storytelling are another pair of strengths from Blizzard, so while Overwatch is hardly on the level of its flagship franchises so far, it nonetheless has me invested in the setting. It's not going to win points for originality, but it's something that I haven't seen too often - late 20th century with an optimistic view of the future, where a robot uprising happened that DIDN'T wipe out humanity, with said robots now facing the questions of rights, prejudice, and a plenthora of other power dynamics, and...yeah. Honestly, I'm interested to see where the world of Overwatch goes.
-By extension of character and setting, there's also the aesthetic. Frankly, I'm onboard. Bright, colourful, well defined, but not to the extent of reaching uncanny valley territory. There's a reason why people are clamouring for an Overwatch movie, and honestly, I think you could make an Overwatch movie far easier than even StarCraft or Diablo right now (personally I think SC would be better suited for a TV series than a movie, but that's another matter.
Edit: In the interest of fairness, I should probably mention that Overwatch is multiplayer-only is a turnoff for me. There's also the question of how long it will last. Still, since the pricing model includes free heroes and maps, with microtransactions only reserved for aesthetics, I'd say that's a good deal.
