That would be quite interesting to hear, as Battleborn was announced in July of 2014, whereas Blizzard announced Overwatch at Blizzcon 4 months later, in November.
Do I think it's possible developers hear rumors of titles before the general public? Sure. Do I think they get enough specifics about the title to "imitate" it? No. At worst, you might see them attempt to compete in the same genre. But to use another analogy, that's like claiming Paragon is actually trying to imitate Smite: it's not, it's competing with it. The only thing Epic wanted to imitate is the success Smite was enjoying in the third-person MOBA subgenre. If Epic had used ancient mythology to characterize it's heroes or if it had included the exact same, specific game modes (the generic conquest map Paragon uses is simply a basis for the entire genre, not something specific), or maybe utilized the same exact sort of item system... It would be imitating it in a deplorable manner. It doesn't, so it isn't.
Admittedly, the line between competing and simply imitating is a fine one. It can often be blurred, specifically when you lift super specific features and don't even take the time to come up with your own, unique name for them. However, Paragon and Battleborn are so substantially different from Overwatch that it seems foolish to say they were attempting to imitate the title in a "deplorable" manner.
It's Mr @Cymdai that is making claims of imitations and creations of genres. I hope it is a joke.
As to which of any of the games are better than the other? I have no idea as I've never played any of them. The style of game just isn't my thing.
Does Blizzard make good games? I enjoy a many of them.
It's the "imitation" claim that I find deplorable.
This "imitation" thing is out of control. One of the best games this year Stardew Valley borrowed heavily from Harvest Moon, Salt and Sanctuary leaned ALL the way into the Dark Souls series, and for a few years now, Path of Exile has been scratching the itch for old Diablo I & II lovers. These are great games, that still manage to offer personalities of their own. Improving on existing invention is how we got here, folks......nothing really new under the sun...evolution is a tweak.
Again, I don't have a problem with imitation. Stardew Valley is probably my favorite game of the year actually.
I look at it more like the WoW era. Do you remember how many games simply tried to "be" WoW? It wasn't the fact that I didn't understand it, it was more that I loathed the fact that, for nearly 4 years, every game felt exactly like WoW, with no real original touches to it. Imitation is the best form of flattery, but there *is* a fine line between imitation and just trying to be something entirely in my mind. Seriously, how many "WoW-killers" did we see that were just, for all intensive purposes, shittier WoW's?
Waiting for something fresh to arrive on the MMO scene...
If you're speaking simply of imitating the successful numbers of Overwatch... Well, I'm not sure I know a single game developer who wasn't trying to create a hit when developing their game.
Didn't many here say they want "niche", instead of "hit" games? Aren't all the niche devs NOT trying to go for big numbers?
If you don't any, you have not looked hard enough in the "indie" dev pool.
Niche doesn't include the word small nor big in its definition (as applied to video games).
From Merriam-Webster:
niche - the situation in which a business's products or services can succeed by being sold to a particular kind or group of people; a specialized market.
The market for CS:GO, for instance, is very specialized. But it's not small.
EDIT- Awww, screw trying to link it.
In that case, let's change the word to small ... because niche indie games *are* small, compared to OW numbers, unless you are minecraft.
CS:GO is a niche. It's round-based with no respawn, has a buy system for weapons that persist throughout rounds unless you drop them or die, has a very specific objective the game revolves around, and is a hyper-competitive and twitch-based FPS. All of that is super-specific and, in many cases, unique to the franchise (or, at the very least, very unique in the FPS genre). It's niche. It's just a popular niche.
If you're speaking simply of imitating the successful numbers of Overwatch... Well, I'm not sure I know a single game developer who wasn't trying to create a hit when developing their game.
Didn't many here say they want "niche", instead of "hit" games? Aren't all the niche devs NOT trying to go for big numbers?
If you don't any, you have not looked hard enough in the "indie" dev pool.
Niche doesn't include the word small nor big in its definition (as applied to video games).
From Merriam-Webster:
niche - the situation in which a business's products or services can succeed by being sold to a particular kind or group of people; a specialized market.
The market for CS:GO, for instance, is very specialized. But it's not small.
EDIT- Awww, screw trying to link it.
In that case, let's change the word to small ... because niche indie games *are* small, compared to OW numbers, unless you are minecraft.
CS:GO is a niche. It's round-based with no respawn, has a buy system for weapons that persist throughout rounds unless you drop them or die, has a very specific objective the game revolves around, and is a hyper-competitive and twitch-based FPS. All of that is super-specific and, in many cases, unique to the franchise (or, at the very least, very unique in the FPS genre). It's niche. It's just a popular niche.
Did you actually read what I posted?
Again, "in that case, let's change the word to small". And the point still stands. Lots of indies are NOT going after the big market, and they are happy with mere tens of thousands of customers, instead of 10M like OW.
CS:GO is a niche. It's round-based with no respawn, has a buy system for weapons that persist throughout rounds unless you drop them or die, has a very specific objective the game revolves around, and is a hyper-competitive and twitch-based FPS. All of that is super-specific and, in many cases, unique to the franchise (or, at the very least, very unique in the FPS genre). It's niche. It's just a popular niche.
Did you actually read what I posted?
Again, "in that case, let's change the word to small". And the point still stands. Lots of indies are NOT going after the big market, and they are happy with mere tens of thousands of customers, instead of 10M like OW.
It's not mutually exclusive. I'd be willing to bet Mark Jacobs would have no issue with CU having over a million customers if he could draw those customers to his specific vision. It's not like he'd actively try to limit customers to his product or drive away customers that enjoyed CU in the interest of remaining "indie" in the sense you wish to apply it. CS started out as a free mod made by indie developers; the franchise is, at its roots, an indie franchise. The developers never expected millions of fans (unless they had astronomical amounts of hubris). They also weren't displeased when it became a phenomenon. Again, the gameplay was very niche, it just happened to explode into a highly popular niche.
With the titles you reference, they're simply not compromising the vision in the interest of ensuring the utmost accessibility to every gamer demographic. It doesn't mean they aren't trying to reach as many folks as they can with their vision, just that they won't sacrifice said artistic vision to do so. In many circles, that's referred to as artistic integrity.
It's not mutually exclusive. I'd be willing to bet Mark Jacobs would have no issue with CU having over a million customers if he could draw those customers to his specific vision.
and I bet that he knows his "vision" won't draw 1M customers. That is, by definition, a small vision. As opposed to OW, a much bigger one.
It's not mutually exclusive. I'd be willing to bet Mark Jacobs would have no issue with CU having over a million customers if he could draw those customers to his specific vision.
and I bet that he knows his "vision" won't draw 1M customers. That is, by definition, a small vision. As opposed to OW, a much bigger one.
Not sure the popularity of an artistic vision is the same thing as the size of the vision, but that's firmly in the realm of semantics.
EDIT- As an aside, we can't really know how many players said vision will draw. Blizzard certainly didn't expect WoW to draw the level of customers it did, though I'm sure they believed it would be successful. Likewise, Titanfall was expected to draw the sort of fanfare the CoD franchise has enjoyed (many of the original CoD developers led the Titanfall team). However, it drew much less. We can make educated guesses, though.
Overwatch is a test by activision / blizzard, to see just how bad of a deal they could make and people still accept it. It seems they can get away with pretty much anything as long as the basic core game is good, good core game = why try add more content to give value for money, why not add a korean gambling cash shop.
So many games lately are just not even trying and screwing consumers over hardcore, compared to just 5 years ago the current state of the games industry is shocking. Most of these games would of caused riots back then, now they are completely fine. Overwatch, Star wars battlefront, titanfall..
"Lets put out a game with almost zero content, with no PVE content, with a korean style gambling cash shop...let's see how stupid players really are and how far we can push our luck"
"This is a 10/10 game, thank you Blizzard / Activision!"
Not sure the popularity of an artistic vision is the same thing as the size of the vision, but that's firmly in the realm of semantics.
EDIT- As an aside, we can't really know how many players said vision will draw.
Yes, it is semantics.
We don't know. But devs have expectations. Don't tell me you think Blizz will expect OW to sell less than millions, and indie small vision games are expected, by the devs, to sell like OW.
It seems they can get away with pretty much anything as long as the basic core game is good, good core game = why try add more content to give value for money, why not add a korean gambling cash shop.
wait .. so they sell a GOOD (in your words) core game, and that is a crime? And why would a pvp game needs pve content?
I don't play OW because i like pve but i think it is silly to assume every game needs pve. Isn't it BETTER to have separate pve & pvp games so that each game can focus on what it does best?
Not sure the popularity of an artistic vision is the same thing as the size of the vision, but that's firmly in the realm of semantics.
EDIT- As an aside, we can't really know how many players said vision will draw.
Yes, it is semantics.
We don't know. But devs have expectations. Don't tell me you think Blizz will expect OW to sell less than millions, and indie small vision games are expected, by the devs, to sell like OW.
We can go back and forth with specific examples all day (Minecraft, Watch Dogs, Brutal Legend, etc.). The overarching point is that indie doesn't necessitate small success, nor does the term niche. Thus, indie and/or niche is not equal to small.
Overwatch is a test by activision / blizzard, to see just how bad of a deal they could make and people still accept it. It seems they can get away with pretty much anything as long as the basic core game is good, good core game = why try add more content to give value for money, why not add a korean gambling cash shop.
So many games lately are just not even trying and screwing consumers over hardcore, compared to just 5 years ago the current state of the games industry is shocking. Most of these games would of caused riots back then, now they are completely fine. Overwatch, Star wars battlefront, titanfall..
"Lets put out a game with almost zero content, with no PVE content, with a korean style gambling cash shop...let's see how stupid players really are and how far we can push our luck"
"This is a 10/10 game, thank you Blizzard / Activision!"
1. When given $60,000 to buy car(s) most people will choose a single BMW rather than buying 30+ rusted out Chevy trucks. Most people enjoy quality over quantity. You'd apparently pick the rusted trucks.
2. Why did it end up so much higher quality than typical games? Because it didn't waste time on PVE. It did one thing well rather than a lot of things poorly. Same goes for map count, though the same is not true for the number of playable characters (for a FPS it's considerably more classes than usual.)
3. Complaining about optional purchases with no gameplay effects is stupid.
4. Calling gacha-style purchases "Korean" when they're more prevalent (and probably originated) in Japan is ignorant.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
So 10M in 3 weeks ... making at least $400M less than a month? How long does it take Diablo3 to sell that many copies?
Not long. They sold 3.5 million in day one. They sold 6.3 million week one and over 30 million in 2 years. Making it one of the top games sold in history.
I bet OW will get to 30M in 2 years too since the initial sales are close (7M week one for OW). I guess Blizz make well reviewed, successful games.
I wonder what is their next week. A pve shooter? another ARPG?
I personally do not think Overwatch has anything to do with MMOs not will it have any impact at all on the genre.
I agree, all i can see happening is that more companies will join hop on the class based shooter bandwagon with colorful graphics instead of the CoD/BF realistic approach.
BE that as it may it wouldn't be Blizzard who started such games, nor should they be called OW clones going forward, cartoony team shooters is nothing new what so ever.
Technically the last one we had was team fortress which was more than a decade ago.
They will be called overwatch clones because they will try to clone overwatch.
there is not a single new genre, what's your point? That we should always go back to some ancient game from the 90s that no one has heard of because it was the "first". Don't be ridiculous.
Mission in life: Vanquish all MMORPG.com trolls - especially TESO, WOW and GW2 trolls.
I personally do not think Overwatch has anything to do with MMOs not will it have any impact at all on the genre.
I agree, all i can see happening is that more companies will join hop on the class based shooter bandwagon with colorful graphics instead of the CoD/BF realistic approach.
BE that as it may it wouldn't be Blizzard who started such games, nor should they be called OW clones going forward, cartoony team shooters is nothing new what so ever.
Technically the last one we had was team fortress which was more than a decade ago.
They will be called overwatch clones because they will try to clone overwatch.
there is not a single new genre, what's your point? That we should always go back to some ancient game from the 90s that no one has heard of because it was the "first". Don't be ridiculous.
That sounds about right to me. If a genre was already started at another time then it's already established. You can say other games are a Overwatch clone, but you can't say that Overwatch started a new genre I don't think.
Overwatch is not an MMO.everyone refers to it as a team based fps game because that's what it is.
Not everyone, clearly.
If you go to the gamelist on THIS site, it is refers to as a "MMOFPS".
The game list on this site will finally get a revamp in a few days. Who knows how it will turn out but anything is better than the lump of useless shit we have now. It's amazing that you include such a (as admitted by the site's staff on numerous occasions) neglected and outdated thing in your little box of ammo at all.
"Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb
Apples and Oranges and since Blizzards top team couldn't turn that style into an MMO, Overwatch is a stripped down version of the MMO they were developing (Titan).
Now if Destiny was a big hit then I could see people trying to use parts of it and Overwatch, but other developers don't have the time/money to out polish Blizzard.
In a few years and ip expansions im sure there will be much good news to be had. I do like how Blizzard polishes their games and expansions before release so raise our glasses to future new cross game characters and game modes.
Overwatch is not an MMO.everyone refers to it as a team based fps game because that's what it is.
Not everyone, clearly.
If you go to the gamelist on THIS site, it is refers to as a "MMOFPS".
The game list on this site will finally get a revamp in a few days. Who knows how it will turn out but anything is better than the lump of useless shit we have now. It's amazing that you include such a (as admitted by the site's staff on numerous occasions) neglected and outdated thing in your little box of ammo at all.
He will also turn around and talk about how Blizzard stripped it of its MMO features when it fits his narrative. He does this for his "forum PvP." Don't expect logic or reason. Its just to ruffle feathers.
I guess everyone said this but overwatch please sit down and get out ..... FPS sell more mmorpg yes .... But look MMOFPS its not bad pick except most one cant deal with hackers
PS,PS2 not bad? Heroes & Generals Battleground Europe
All have somekind game break and its why not so popular yet MMOFPS Its one point , other point bit hard make netcode to sustain true MMO even more FPS Why play MMOFPS with istanced 60x60? if any FPS can do that? people expect 200x200x200 you say about massive pvp , or large scale and yes this kind "netcode" prety impossible even this days
But call overwatch a mmo bit offensive to me , fps okay and not bad FPS pure clone from TF2 its not bad to since like quick fast paced(hi quake,hi unreal) and finaly at end have Blizzard Seal like community or not still have Legions People Worship blizzard like best game company every cant accept any other game
Comments
Do I think it's possible developers hear rumors of titles before the general public? Sure. Do I think they get enough specifics about the title to "imitate" it? No. At worst, you might see them attempt to compete in the same genre. But to use another analogy, that's like claiming Paragon is actually trying to imitate Smite: it's not, it's competing with it. The only thing Epic wanted to imitate is the success Smite was enjoying in the third-person MOBA subgenre. If Epic had used ancient mythology to characterize it's heroes or if it had included the exact same, specific game modes (the generic conquest map Paragon uses is simply a basis for the entire genre, not something specific), or maybe utilized the same exact sort of item system... It would be imitating it in a deplorable manner. It doesn't, so it isn't.
Admittedly, the line between competing and simply imitating is a fine one. It can often be blurred, specifically when you lift super specific features and don't even take the time to come up with your own, unique name for them. However, Paragon and Battleborn are so substantially different from Overwatch that it seems foolish to say they were attempting to imitate the title in a "deplorable" manner.
I look at it more like the WoW era. Do you remember how many games simply tried to "be" WoW? It wasn't the fact that I didn't understand it, it was more that I loathed the fact that, for nearly 4 years, every game felt exactly like WoW, with no real original touches to it. Imitation is the best form of flattery, but there *is* a fine line between imitation and just trying to be something entirely in my mind. Seriously, how many "WoW-killers" did we see that were just, for all intensive purposes, shittier WoW's?
Waiting for something fresh to arrive on the MMO scene...
Again, "in that case, let's change the word to small". And the point still stands. Lots of indies are NOT going after the big market, and they are happy with mere tens of thousands of customers, instead of 10M like OW.
With the titles you reference, they're simply not compromising the vision in the interest of ensuring the utmost accessibility to every gamer demographic. It doesn't mean they aren't trying to reach as many folks as they can with their vision, just that they won't sacrifice said artistic vision to do so. In many circles, that's referred to as artistic integrity.
EDIT- As an aside, we can't really know how many players said vision will draw. Blizzard certainly didn't expect WoW to draw the level of customers it did, though I'm sure they believed it would be successful. Likewise, Titanfall was expected to draw the sort of fanfare the CoD franchise has enjoyed (many of the original CoD developers led the Titanfall team). However, it drew much less. We can make educated guesses, though.
So many games lately are just not even trying and screwing consumers over hardcore, compared to just 5 years ago the current state of the games industry is shocking. Most of these games would of caused riots back then, now they are completely fine. Overwatch, Star wars battlefront, titanfall..
"Lets put out a game with almost zero content, with no PVE content, with a korean style gambling cash shop...let's see how stupid players really are and how far we can push our luck"
"This is a 10/10 game, thank you Blizzard / Activision!"
We don't know. But devs have expectations. Don't tell me you think Blizz will expect OW to sell less than millions, and indie small vision games are expected, by the devs, to sell like OW.
I don't play OW because i like pve but i think it is silly to assume every game needs pve. Isn't it BETTER to have separate pve & pvp games so that each game can focus on what it does best?
2. Why did it end up so much higher quality than typical games? Because it didn't waste time on PVE. It did one thing well rather than a lot of things poorly. Same goes for map count, though the same is not true for the number of playable characters (for a FPS it's considerably more classes than usual.)
3. Complaining about optional purchases with no gameplay effects is stupid.
4. Calling gacha-style purchases "Korean" when they're more prevalent (and probably originated) in Japan is ignorant.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다
I wonder what is their next week. A pve shooter? another ARPG?
shooters have always sold a lot more than mmorpgs. Fps are the most popular genre, mmorpgs are extremely niche. The two are not comparable.
then there is the fact that blizzard seems to nail every genre they try.
Mission in life: Vanquish all MMORPG.com trolls - especially TESO, WOW and GW2 trolls.
They will be called overwatch clones because they will try to clone overwatch.
there is not a single new genre, what's your point? That we should always go back to some ancient game from the 90s that no one has heard of because it was the "first". Don't be ridiculous.
Mission in life: Vanquish all MMORPG.com trolls - especially TESO, WOW and GW2 trolls.
If you go to the gamelist on THIS site, it is refers to as a "MMOFPS".
"Mr. Rothstein, your people never will understand... the way it works out here. You're all just our guests. But you act like you're at home. Let me tell you something, partner. You ain't home. But that's where we're gonna send you if it harelips the governor." - Pat Webb
Now if Destiny was a big hit then I could see people trying to use parts of it and Overwatch, but other developers don't have the time/money to out polish Blizzard.
It doesn't really matter, though, as the best games will be the result of something entirely different - and that was always the case.
The flavor of the year - or whatever - will vary, but there will always be by-the-numbers AAA games with close to zero creative spark.
The real quality art will depend on brave and talented smaller studios or suits taking chances, and that will always be a very rare thing.
FPS sell more mmorpg yes ....
But look MMOFPS its not bad pick
except most one cant deal with hackers
PS,PS2 not bad?
Heroes & Generals
Battleground Europe
All have somekind game break and its why not so popular yet MMOFPS
Its one point , other point bit hard make netcode to sustain true MMO even more FPS
Why play MMOFPS with istanced 60x60? if any FPS can do that? people expect 200x200x200 you say about massive pvp , or large scale and yes this kind "netcode" prety impossible even this days
But call overwatch a mmo bit offensive to me , fps okay and not bad FPS pure clone from TF2 its not bad to since like quick fast paced(hi quake,hi unreal) and finaly at end have Blizzard Seal like community or not still have Legions People Worship blizzard like best game company every cant accept any other game