20 years is very nice, how recyclable are they after that though?

This isn't TF2 though is it, the games were designed differently and achieved different things. If TF2 is the game you want, why not play that? Overwatch had it's own identity, one the devs have slowly stripped away.

What you are suggesting is the issue is what they have been trying to 'fix', but it goes completely against what Overwatch is and what made it great to begin with. It's not about 1v1s, it's a team game and they have attempted to devolve it into a 1v1 game where you just happen to have 4 other teammates.

A damage hero should absolutely win 1v1 vs a support hero everytime and it shouldn't even be close.

It's fine if you enjoy the solo play style more, but it's just not what Overwatch is about and why the majority of the original Overwatch playerbase quit.

Nobody is arguing that, I dont buy skins in games. The point is that a lot of people are cosmetic-minded and manipulated into spending large amounts of money on skins and other customisations, the system shouldnt exist.

They want everyone to feel powerful on every hero (to sell skins), but that's not Overwatch's identity. They took a lot of skill expression and teamplay out of the game.

I mean the devs are completely clueless anyway, they removed mccrees stun citing "too much CC in the game" while simultaneously adding more CC through both new heros and changing existing ones. Just reading their patch notes shows how lost they are.

It makes a massive difference, the game was balanced with 6v6 from the get go, removing a tank completely changes how the game works.

They had problems with certain tank combinations, but instead of addressing that directly, they just removed one. A lot of changes they made just felt like justifications to calling it a 'new game'.

The devs are too proud to add a 6v6 mode along side, it's took so much pressure for them to finally 'experiment' with 6v6, they just won't admit their modes, changes etc are failures.

$20-$60 skins are macrotransactions.

It was to disguise their excuse to add macrotransactions. "It's a new game! Not a shit patch!"

Overwatch was so fun, the devs just kept adding and changing shit that we didn't need. OW2 is a complete distaster though, they can keep their predatory macrotransactions, just revert to the OW1 patch for everything else.

Yeah, doesn't bode well. Turned into your typical greedy company with the IGN buyout, as much as they could within the limits of keeping old charirty values.

This is about their game publishing branch, not the store.

AMD just delayed their 9000 series too, the Intel issues have caused them to be more careful, thanks Intel!

UK: Our prisons are overflowing!! Also UK: Jail climate protesters!!

Which trade-offs are you alluding to? Assuming a halfway decent implementation, DLSS 2+ in particular often yields a better image quality than even native resolution with no visible artifacts, so I turn it on even if my GPU can handle a game just fine, even if just to save a few watts.

Trade-offs being the artifacts, while not that noticable to most, I did try it and anything in fast motion does suffer. Another being the hardware requirement. I don't mind it existing, I just don't think mid-high end setups should ever have to enable it for a good experience (well, what I personally consider a good experience :D).

Pretty much this, yeah. Triple A games used to be the ones pushing the envelope, now they are exclusively just cash grabs.

Isn't the public opinion that games take way too long to make nowadays? They certainly don't make them fast anymore.

I think the problem here is that they announce them way too early, so people are waiting like 2-3 years for it. It's better if they are developed behind the scenes and 'surprise' announced a few months prior to launch.

Graphics have advanced of course, but it's become diminishing returns and now a lot of games have resorted to spamming post-processing effects and implementing as much foliage and fog as possible to try and make the games look better. I always bring Destiny 2 up in this conversation, because the game looks great, runs great and the graphical fidelity is amazing - no blur but no rough edges. Versus like any UE game which have terrible TAA, if you disable it then everything is jagged and aliased.

DLSS etc are defo a crutch and they are designed as one (originally for real-time raytracing), hence the better versions requiring new hardware. Games shouldn't be relying on them and their trade-offs are not worth it if you have average modern hardware where the games should just run well natively.

It's not so much us wanting specifically Skyrim, maybe that one guy, but just an extreme example I guess to put the point across. It's obviously all subjective, making things shiny obviously attracts peoples eyes during marketing.

The quality of games has dropped a lot, they make them fast and as long as it can just about reach 60fps at 720p they release it. Hardware is insane these days, the games mostly look the same as they did 10 years ago (Skyrim never looked amazing for 2011. BF3, Crysis 2, Forza, Arkham City etc. came out then too), but the performance of them has dropped significantly.

I don't want DLSS and I refuse to buy a game that relies on upscaling to have any meaningful performance. Everything should be over 120fps at this point, way over. But people accept the shit and buy the games up anyway, so nothing is going to change.

The point is, we would rather have games looking like Skyrim with great performance vs '4K RTX real time raytracing ultra AI realistic graphics wow!' at 60fps.

Stop buying Playstation games, Sony have always been scummy.

Who cares what political party he supported? It hardly makes a difference. People have assassinated or attempted to just for some recognition or attention and nothing more.

I love this, it's like that other site's, but much more wholesome.