• 🇰 🌀 🇱 🇦 🇳 🇦 🇰 🇮 @pawb.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    27
    ·
    edit-2
    2 hours ago

    It is kinda hard to call yourself a sequel when you’re basically the same exact game and literally the original game doesn’t even exist anymore.

    I do not like that I paid for Overwatch 1 but now only have Overwatch 2.

    • fyrilsol@kbin.melroy.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 hour ago

      The developers who made Terraria contemplated on a Terraria 2 and they were faced with the decision; continue developing Terraria as is or just try to make a Terraria 2.

      Seems like they’ve instinctively chosen to keep supporting Terraria as is, because what can you do with a Terraria 2? When so many ideas and creations have been poured into one game? It sounded like Terraria 2 was going to be the same.

      • popcar2@piefed.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        12 minutes ago

        Well… They did try to make Terraria Otherworld, but that game got cancelled and they fell back into supporting Terraria because it keeps printing money.

    • ulkesh@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      2 hours ago

      I’m right there with you. I miss having 6v6 with like half the characters they have now (so I can actually learn them all), with Jeff Kaplan keeping me excited to play. What a fun time that was.

  • The Picard Maneuver@piefed.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    edit-2
    2 hours ago

    I gave up on this game a long time ago. It took me longer than it should’ve to realize that “old Blizzard” is gone and not coming back.

    • magiccupcake@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 hour ago

      I took a long break from overwatch after the release of overwatch 2, but they have been made some big changes that have brought me back.

      No more heros locked behind battle passes, free loot boxes, 6v6, great performance, sound design and the new perk system is nice. The game is more balanced than it ever was as overwatch 1, even it it’s still not perfect.

      I don’t agree with everything, paid skins are absurdly expensive, and heros do seem designed to sell skins, but that’s really not new either.

  • Vogi@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    2 hours ago

    Overwatch is close to being a decade old btw.

    It’s so unfortunate what they did to Overwatch, wonder how Jeff Kaplan and the original Team feels about all that.

    • Truscape@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 hour ago

      IIRC he just washed his hands and moved on from it, which probably was the right call given the Acti-Blizz merger and Microsoft buyout.

  • thenoirwolfess@lemmynsfw.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 hour ago

    Overwatch 2 isn’t ‘Overwatch again’ until its copies are disabled and replaced with Overwatch 3, which has the monetisation model of Overwatch 2 made free. 1 was the cost of the game, 2 would be premium skins I guess

    • lemming@anarchist.nexus
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      edit-2
      2 hours ago

      Headline is a poor attempt at saying they are renaming it to just ‘Overwatch’ without the 2.

        • Sludge@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          2 hours ago

          That the game “overwatch 2” is just a re-hash of the original “overwatch” game - not that it was renamed to be “overwatch”

          I also had a hard time reading the post title, still think it’s idiotic, but now it makes more sense to me. I couldn’t understand what the original post title was trying to say.

          • [deleted]@piefed.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            31 minutes ago

            Being a rehash/continuation of the same game was the case since Overwatch 2 came out as they dropped the PvE plans, so it wouldn’t be news.

        • lemming@anarchist.nexus
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 hour ago

          It could mean “It’s just the same old shit but with 5 new heroes next week”
          It’s this new trend of making a confusing headline so people click it for clarification.

      • RightHandOfIkaros@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 hour ago

        I love both (personally like Quake 2 better) and consider Quake 2 to be “Quake 1 again.”

        Though the visual tone of the game changed, it was still a fast paced action shooter with an identity that was different enough from Doom to be called “just Doom again.” Many improvements were made, but at its core it still felt like Quake. It didn’t feel like I was suddenly playing Mario, or even another shooter at the time like Turok, Heretic/Hexen, or GoldenEye.

        I guess I am trying to say I understand what the headline is trying to say, but it doesn’t really do that good of a job.

    • fyrilsol@kbin.melroy.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 hour ago

      Sequels are meant to be drastic improvements from the first game. Like everything. Visuals, story continuation, character development, new mechanics and features .etc

      • RightHandOfIkaros@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 hours ago

        IMO, a good sequel doesnt have to change too much to be good, and is usually close enough to be called “more of the same.”.

        A good sequel is good because of its similarities to the first. Otherwise you end up with Zelda 2, which is widely regarded as the worst of the Zelda games because it changed so much (outside of a small but very vocal minority that liked it). Many movie sequels also try to change too much and end up suffering because of it. Return to Oz was an interesting movie, but I wouldn’t ever call it as good as the original. Aliens and Terminator 2 are both similar enough to their respective originals while still having minor tweaks that led to a good follow up.

        So in the sense of a sequel, Overwatch 2 isn’t the worst, but I think it changed too much from the original and suffers because of it. And Blizzards decision to overwrite the original obviously plays a big part in many people’s dislike of the game.

        • 🇰 🌀 🇱 🇦 🇳 🇦 🇰 🇮 @pawb.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          2 hours ago

          It should be more of the same, but not “exactly the same or a little worse,” like OW2 is to OW1. It’s the EXACT same game, but with fewer features.

          Final Fantasy is a decent example. They’re all more of the same gameplay, while having totally different and non-connected worlds/stories/characters (up until 10-2’s release, anyway).

          • RightHandOfIkaros@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 hour ago

            Well I suppose thats kinda my point. The headline here is really bad. I understand what they are trying to get at, but they chose to word it pretty poorly.