I can’t imagine any single one of the developers responsible for Overwatch 2 thinking: “OH yeah this is going to be uhmazing everyone is going to love this now…” rather they MUST OF THINKING》 “I wonder when my supervisor will walk away from my workspace so I can send my resume out to those 3 other studios I started work dialogue with…I gotta get the heck outta here before everyone plays this steaming hot tiger tutty of a game, sigh they never listen to the devs… man am I gonna miss Overwatch 1…”
I personally think Overwatch 2 is a great game compared to OW1, especially for going F2P and removing the loot box. I have played OW1 since 2017 but since it is a paid game, none of my friends play it and we all played Apex instead when it came out.
Fast forward to 2022, they actually removed loot box (fuck gambling) and made it F2P. I have been playing OW2 almost every day since launch. Haven’t touched Apex a single time since then.
I never played ow1 but I did enjoy OW2. One of the few multiplayer shooters where I didn’t suck. However I noticed I got very frustrated by it and seemed to get addicted as well. Also noticed I enjoyed other games less. Stopped playing and feeling better now.
I liked the free lootboxes with chances of getting cool stuff than the damn $20 every couple months battle passes where you actually cannot get anything interesting without paying for it.
You liked getting free cool stuff, not the loot boxes. They can still give away cool stuff for free even without loot boxes but they chose to stop doing so and it sucks.
I think the Battle Pass is fair, it’s $10 every 2 months. It helps keep the game running. Overwatch 1 was going to die if they kept going with the old business model.
I remember fondly playing overwatch 1 with my friends and sinking in hundreds of hours. If they wanted to break into the steam market they should have done it with the first one. Not with their lackluster, phoned in sequel. This was just stupid of them.
I loved Assassin's Creed 2, so I didn't bat an eye buying Brotherhood and Revelations as they had the same basic background. They were full price games and I played for about 15 to 20 hours on each. That's not much for full price. They were basically just new story lines for the main game.
Personally, I sometimes like when a game feels like just a new storyline (and map) for the same game. Sometimes I just want more of a good thing and don’t want to have to learn new mechanics or risk the game making things worse.
And since dev time is limited, I think in theory, this could mean more time could be spent on making the story missions perfect. But in practice, I don’t think that usually happens. Publishers would rather cheap out.
Lol when I first updated it the game didn’t replace my desktop icon so it was still saying overwatch 1 so yes just stupid patch that ruined a perfectly good game haven’t returned since
An update implies they changed something to the game. This was just an update to the monetization. A blatant pure cash grab sold as a sequel game. Its a travesty, and if they had any decency they’d scrap it, apologize, and release “Overwatch 2 A Realm Reborn” that is an actual legitimate sequel to the original game.
That game was one of my favorite games. I moved somewhere with fast enough internet to get Xbox Live for the first time like 2 months after it came out and I sank so much time in to it. Ended up playing Halo more because that is what all my friends played but man that game was good.
Am I crazy or is europa universalis just a worse version of crusader kings? Love crusader kings but mever tried EU because it just seems like the same game with less features?
It’s the same engine, but the focus is different: CK is about the ruling dynasty, EU is about the country itself. Time period is also different (EU4 goes from 1444 to 1821),
A good example of that is that in EU4 your country can be the junior partner of a personal union, where it needs to fight against its rulers to get independence. You won’t see anything similar in CK3, because you are the ruling dynasty.
I guess, idk that seems less fun to me lol. And in CK3 you can absolutely be a vassal of a larger kingdom and fight (or negotiate) for your independence.
And in CK3 you can absolutely be a vassal of a larger kingdom and fight (or negotiate) for your independence.
Yes but you can’t be a junior partner of a personal union, since this means that you (the dynasty) would be fighting yourself. On the other hand in EU4 this works fine since you’re the Senate government/country/state itself, not the king or the dynasty. It was just an example on the different focus, mind you.
On EU4 being less fun than CK3: personally I like EU4 better because I care far more about groups in Modern times interacting on a global level than individuals in Mediaeval times interacting on a regional level. And EU4 always involves some sort of “if I did this in real life I’d be a monster” decision, that actually makes me understand a lot of the shit that governments do, such as culturecide or backstabbing/Realpolitik.
But there’s no “right” choice, it’s different strokes for different folks.
Yeah, the series s was a great decision in the short term, but was always going to create a lot of problems as the current generation progressed. Because while it kept consoles on shelves during the initial launch and chip shortage, and pulled in people who would ordinarily balk at the cost, the promise of next Gen support for the series s was always going to come back and bite Microsoft in the ass when more games started to push the consoles limits.
In this regard, Sony was way smarter in just extending the ps4 lifespan since developers can just drop it any time without the existing user base feeling like the got scammed since the ps4 never had promises of running concurrent to the ps5 like the series s does.
games
Aktywne
Magazyn ze zdalnego serwera może być niekompletny. Zobacz więcej na oryginalnej instancji.