undefined | Better HN

0 pointsAlexandrB3y ago0 comments

One of the things that drove me nuts about Overwatch 1 was the common demand from other players that you employ the pro-league meta when playing even at the lowest levels. A lot of players seem to imagine themselves as the next Ninja (or the Overwatch equivalent) in training and playing multiplayer in that environment is not much fun.

See also this video about why it's considered rude to suck at WoW: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKP1I7IocYU

0 comments

6 comments · 2 top-level

aaomidi3y ago· 4 in thread

Every gamer is a temporarily embarrassed pro?

I wonder if that same analogy applies.

nemothekid3y ago

No; Overwatch 1 was unique in that a single player trying to do something "off-meta" meant all 5 other players had to play around that one player, and if you were losing it was very frustrating. The game's design and balance IMO was inherently toxic. Everyone "practiced" the "pro" meta so there was unspoken rule book on how people understood how to play the game. One person being off meta was almost like demanding the entire team play rugby when you thought you were playing football. The game wasn't flexible enough to allow individual experimentation.

lmm3y ago

> No; Overwatch 1 was unique in that a single player trying to do something "off-meta" meant all 5 other players had to play around that one player, and if you were losing it was very frustrating. The game's design and balance IMO was inherently toxic.

To put it another way, the game was unique in combining meaningful teamplay and meaningfully distinct characters. I'm not saying you're necessarily wrong to say that's an inherently toxic point in the design space, but it's pretty tragic if that's true, because those both seem like good things that you want a game to have.

invalidOrTaken3y ago

There was plenty of room for individual experimentation---it was the players who weren't flexible enough. Before role queue, any particular player could, at the drop of a hat, mid-match, mid-life, switch to another of 21 very different heroes. Hard for a game to get more flexible than that!

But in the end, it seems the players didn't want that, and instead wanted less flexibility for their teammates and the enemy team.

nemothekid3y ago

Blaming 5 other people for not understanding to play around 21 other wildly different heroes isn't flexibility in game design. Your are asking 5 other people to play a fundamentally different game than the one they have learned.

You couldn't "individually experiment" because fundamentally you needed team experimentation; you can't play Reinhardt in isolation, and subjecting your team to experimentation on your own whims leads to toxicity.

I think many people who go down the "I should be able to play what I want and people should adapt to me" don't realize they are being selfish in play style in a game like Overwatch.

1 more reply

goosedragons3y ago

Early on it was great. Anything went. Play 6 Torbjorn? Sure, why not. Come back a couple years later and some dude is complaining I'm not taking Quick Play seriously enough by not playing the meta and that this was "practice" for competitive.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

6 comments · 2 top-level

aaomidi3y ago· 4 in thread

Every gamer is a temporarily embarrassed pro?

I wonder if that same analogy applies.

nemothekid3y ago

lmm3y ago

invalidOrTaken3y ago

But in the end, it seems the players didn't want that, and instead wanted less flexibility for their teammates and the enemy team.

nemothekid3y ago

I think many people who go down the "I should be able to play what I want and people should adapt to me" don't realize they are being selfish in play style in a game like Overwatch.

1 more reply

goosedragons3y ago

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse