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.
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.
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.
Sequels are meant to be drastic improvements from the first game. Like everything. Visuals, story continuation, character development, new mechanics and features .etc
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.
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).
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.
Isnt every sequel “just the previous thing again?”
Headline is a poor attempt at saying they are renaming it to just ‘Overwatch’ without the 2.
That is how I read it, what else could it mean?
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.
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.
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.
Quake and Quake 2 would like a word.
Diablo and Diablo 2 entered the chat.
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.
Sequels are meant to be drastic improvements from the first game. Like everything. Visuals, story continuation, character development, new mechanics and features .etc
Not good sequels, no.
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.
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).
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.