I think you spend too much time in the video game world buddy.
Just play games that you think are fun, and don’t play games that you don’t think are fun. Who cares who makes them?
Honestly, I think Sc2 is an underrated game. Some believe that Sc1 is a lot better game which is probably true considering how long ago it came out. But I’ve been playing Sc2 lately and I have no complaints with the game and it’s just as fun as Sc1 but with modern graphics and new features.
I think the main reason RTS games like Sc2 is not as popular today anymore is because the entry level to playing this game being so high due of so many things you have to learn. And RTS in general don’t have the addictive quality that provides instant gratification. It’s also less socially interactive than other multiplayer games because the game is designed around 1v1.
Even games like Valorant which are technically high in entry level still rewards bad players by allowing them to be carried by their better teammates which makes them feel like they’re contributing something. These days, a game has to attract both casual and hard core audience to be successful.
Diablo 3 was a huge disappointment though. To be fair, I didn’t grow up playing Diablo 2 but I did watch my friends play it when I was in primarily school. But desipte my lack of experience playing Diablo 2, I still think Diablo 3 wasn’t that great and didn’t live up to the expections as it lacked replayability.
i agree with you on that one. i did like it when i was younger with ghost recon games and the old xbox live rainbow six games (original and vegas). i mostly played terrorist hunt tho with rainbow six siege and with ghost recon it was against a platoon of a.i. guys too. so basically they were both a.i. hunts and not player vs player.
now that i think about it i might download rainbow six siege again to try some terrorist hunt games.
You know, you are right! Tennis for Two came out in 1958, space war was 1962.
Except they didn’t. There wasn’t anything new there. It was polished better than the other games, but it didn’t revolutionize a damn thing.
Ok, lets try this, what was new?
1 Like
and you’re entitled to ur opinion but valorant is objectively more liked than ow. It has more players, it gets balanced way faster, has a better esport scene and actually gets semi regular content. Riot OBJECTIVELY handles their games better.
It being more “boring” is an opinion that you’re allowed to have. But if it’s more boring why do more people play it than ow? 
. It’s more boring TO YOU
2 Likes
I do think Valorant is a better game than Overwatch (at least Overwatch 1). But I’m baffled by the amount of playerbase Valorant has, considering how hard the game is and not being n00b friendly. I’ve always thought that the competitive playerbase were so small compared to casuals, which was the reason why other competitive games like Arena FPS was never able to gain popularily like in Quake III days.
But Valorant proved that competitive players still exist and they’re just as valuable as casual players. I just wish the developers gave Arena FPS a chance and recreate another game like Quake III but a team-based version with abilities that are balanced properly.
I think the reason why Quake Champions didn’t gain as much popularity is not because people aren’t interested in Arena FPS anymore. But it’s because Bethesda failed to properly modernize Arena FPS in a fun way.
1 Like
Regardless of the gaming genre, what Overwatch has fallen short of the competition is functional competitive from the start rather than in its entertainment. We’re not wrong about this: Overwatch enjoyed everyone, but it started very badly as a competitive one and the signals got dressed right away: “let’s eliminate double picks” after the first season, introduction of main support, suppression of the Defenders class, the 2- 2-2, the hero pool … these are all decisions that cannot be accepted when building an esports, and still I find that they are making the mistake of keeping the e-sport program high on a system all to be analyzed first. Also affected are the lack of ideal training (AI development is really poor, the workshops do much better) and the incorrect progression system for the “team game” formula: everyone wins or loses, you are judged in the individual.
All of these factors are not present in all the games you mentioned, or at least they manage to better manage the situation despite having them minimally. But above all, they know that freezing to reorganize the thing is the very death of the interest of the public. Overwatch has simply tired ALSO for the total absence of new entries of heroes who moved the situation on other scenarios.
What Riot has “won” is to set his casual interest by seriously investing in narrative accessories. Overwatch got very wrong in how to move, remaining fossilized in a continuous “the world needs new heroes” but NEVER moving forward. His moments of attention towards e-sports or towards the lore have been real “news of the moment, stay tuned to the name OW” sobs, but they never take into account that there is an audience to which the e- sport is of no interest, and vice versa. That’s why there is a DEEP unpopularity around the OW2 name as we know the start date of an OWL but have no idea where the game ended.
Overwatch esports has lost simply because it insists on dignity where the game no longer has it. Not with the general interest of what he has inside, since “Overwatch doesn’t have to be balanced anymore, 5v5 is coming”. If you stop giving balanced play to the home product, then why should this be any better as a show? Even the feedback, the fact of leaning almost exclusively on that of the pro players, what sense does it make for your audience to follow this news if they are not “deserving” to understand something with their own hands?
RIot won simply because it always invested well its balance between competitive (nerve-wracking? Yes, but constant. Never stopped), e-sports (always active and with new heroes to intrigue the evolution of the game) and narrative (a TV series ). and Overwatch? he had ALL the cards to dictate something, but he decided to get paranoid with what he had that was not working and rather stopped, saved on how to concentrate his resources and is now paying the consequences: becoming a joke in saying "2 "instead of 2.0.
1 Like
It’s 2022 and Blizz vs such and such company is still a thing on this forum.
1 Like
DNF duel looks wild so far, I am liking what I’ve seen of it so far. but I have a major preference for anime fighters and tag fighter.
1 Like
I think what’s leading to the perceptions that these guys are voicing is that Blizzard’s offerings in these areas survived where others fell away. It gives the impression that they “invented” it or were the breakthrough in the space, when really they’re just the last man standing from that era. You can’t deny that they had an impact.
Steam’s extensive library of shovelware would like a chat.
Yet another Blizzard fan hooked up on Copium, the OW community is soon to be in the same place as the WoW community.
You just eat the crap whatever Blizzard puts out on your tray. At least Riot actively support their IP’s… meanwhile we don’t hear anything from these developers in what feels like months and months.
Riot and its games will never be anywhere near as good or amazing as Blizzard’s. I may not like what Blizzard has done completely in the past 3 years or so, but that is 3 years only. Most people I know who play Riots games, end up hating the games way more than anything else. I have never seen a single LoL player recommend LoL to anyone, nor Valorant. I wonder why that is? Because they’re astronomically worse at balancing.
Okay, I concede. You’re right tho. 
1 Like
Every company has this over Blizzard. Blizzard is literally just looking at next quarters earnings and nothing more.
1 Like
I’d argue that Valorant has a pretty solid balancing. Almost every agent is in a viable state, with Yoru (previously the least played agent) has seen a positive growth, and they tuned down prominent agents that were dominant (Viper and Astra) in a way that didn’t dumpster them (unlike Orisa, Mei, Reaper,…).
Additionally, their lore is quite intriguing (at least for me) and is actually developing. Unlike something that stagnated for almost two whole years.
1 Like
I didn’t say they didn’t. They brought polish to things, which is a hell of a thing in it’s own right.
However, it didn’t make the things they were polishing their revolutionary things.
It is frustrating to talk to people who thinks they were when you are one of the people who were playing the actual revolutionary games which Blizzards stuff was based off.
1 Like
Blizzard ain’t gonna pick you bud
did you forget about half loaf ALYCKS?
It heavily increased the popularity of the genre.
I think fog of war was new in rts? Which is a huge new mechanic. And a lot more of smaller stuff.
And then with Warcraft 2 they added air and sea units aswell, i don’t know if this existed before but… with the expansion pack rpg elements found their way in the game.
No need to talk about what a great combination of rpg and rts Warcraft 3 was…
You see, Blizzard Polish is huge…, but polish isn’t the only thing they have, their high creativity and innovativity is undeniable.
Sure they didn’t invent rts genre but they made the best rts games for their time, and even by today they are still the best imo.
Doom didn’t invent fps, Gran tursmo didn’t invent sim racing genre, even gta wasn’t the first open world game but they are/were the best.
Btw i don’t like Warcraft 1&2 they are almost unplayable now because of the ai…