Stop the comparisons to Overwatch

Battleborn Battleborn General Discussion
#27

As an artist myself, I wanted to comment the artistic part : no, it’s not like Borderlands. It’s just plain different. If anything, it’s more like Wildstar. It looks so much like Wildstar that for the longest time, I was sure the game was a Carbine Studio game. @Gearbox, come one, you did work with some laid out Carbine Studio artists, didn’t you? :stuck_out_tongue:
It would be like saying that World of Warcraft also looks like Borderlands. Different approaches to the so-[wrongly]called “toon” rendering.

Honestly, Overwatch and Battleborn kinda look alike though. Battleborn got way more FX thrown our way, and is overall a lot more coloured. OW chose to stay a little more “subtle”, improving the overall understanding of what is going on. This is my biggest issue with Battleborn, to be honest : it’s often a big mess and could really use a toning down of all visual effects or maybe just a slider somewhere.

Appart from that, Ray is quite right in his approach. The game are, at core gameplay, extremely similar and it’s almost impossible to avoid the comparison. Hell, the reason why there even were comparisons in the first place is precisely because they do look and feel the same. Character-based shooters with two specific abilities, specific non-replacable weapon, cooldowns, an ultimate, unique designs, shooting bullets, “magic”, rockets, and blades at each other.
It requires a second look to grasp that the objectives are different and will require a different approach of the game in order to win. OW is a very static game where you literally only have to stay on a specific point throughout a whole match to win, whereas Battleborn will always require you to move or push a lane and take a lot of factors into account like shards, minions, gear, helix, etc. But all of this is already the second look.

As Ray said, you could very well swap heroes around and not be able to tell the difference after a few adjustements to numbers. Benedict and Pharah are the clearest comparison, despite the fact that Pharah is one of the biggest clue that OW is not very well thought out and overall badly balanced. Ironically, the “less fleshed out/polished” Battleborn got their Benedict way, way right-er. But how wrong would a Reaper feel in Battleborn ? Or a D-va ? They’d just fit right in. It’s just that IMHO, Battleborn did a better overall job at balancing their characters while introducing more subtle, but clear, variety. they also did a better job at character design. And at game design.
At everything, actually, except, maybe, the too-much FX part, and a lack of advertising… But who can fight the Blizz-acti all-powerful syndicate ?

2 Likes
#28

That’s being changed: I saw a BB commercial during one of the basketball playoffs last night.

I think one thing that gets lost in the shuffle is that BB has a co-op story mode while OW is strictly PVP. As someone who doesn’t play PVP at all, I can say that the PVE element was very well done and very enjoyable, especially with friends. I can foresee a time where the PVP element goes by the wayside, but the PVE element grows stronger after more people give it a try. I know GBX was trying out something new, but I think their strengths lie in telling an interesting story that can be played with friends instead of trying to compete in the already over-crowded competitive PVP market. But time will tell and I may be proven wrong. Either way, I hope this game can stand on its own, but it’s way to early to predict such things.

1 Like
#29

As an artist you have failed to notice that boarderlands and batteborn have very similar color pallets, particle effects, and lighting effects. So I’m assuming you just haven’t played much boarderlands so know this.

#30

They really don’t do that much but okay. The level system is totally broken and unfair. The gear is also unfair and either makes 0 difference in gameplay or gives so much of an advantage that it’s semi hilarious.

#31

Don’t assume. I have hundred of hours on all Borderlands titles.

I still stand by my statement : they just don’t look the same at all. No cell-shading post-process effects or heavily hand drawn textures - battleborn relies on more “plain” textures, very different FX effects - maybe a few details here and there, sure, but most FX like explosions, fire, smoke, are hand-drawn textures in BBorn when they were more classic-looking in Borderlands.

Come one you just can’t say honestly that this :

is in any way similar to this :

But it’s way closed to this :
http://static.wildstar-online.com/img/articles/full/play-wildstar-boom-box4.jpg

Heck, even Borderlands is not as brightly coloured as Battleborn. Still a cartoonish look for both of them, but a different approach. You can also just compare the FX muzzle flashes from Borderlands and Battleborn.
No really, Borderlands and Battleborn may have a very select few similarities in regard to the visuals, but that’s all.

( I would have liked to prevent the display of the pictures just to keep things not too much overflowed but I’m not sure if there is any kind of spoiler tag on these forums… ? )

#32

They… do alot.

What game have to been playing. Certainly hasn’t been Battleborn.

#33

The whole point about certain characters in OW being “op” is that they excel at doing a certain job really well. You are free to counter it with another character. I eat pharahs alive with snipers like hanzo and widowmaker. The opness comes from lack of understanding of the game’s innate mechanics and counterplay. On the other hand, BB’s Galilea is the most broken character i’ve seen in a while.

#34

I’ll just, uh, drop this here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SAMGrDUSGJU

#35

^post above He said that they are not the same and then went on to point out all the similarities between them LOL You can’t compare a products by only focusing on the differences. The question is what’s the magnitude of the similarities and differences (but that’s subjectivity and hence the “debate”)

1 Like
#36

Uh, no?

He pointed stuff that only on the surface looks similar, but it really quite different.

#37

Yeah I’ve never liked that “you can counter” argument, which for me is more akin to lazy gamedesign. It’s not really the place to go in deep Overwatch analysis, but Pharah isn’t broken because she’s too strong like Galilea ( I agree on that ), but because the simple fact you would choose her will force the opponents to also watch the skies, versus just watching the overwatch positions for quite static snipers. Oh, sure, it’s not the end of the world having to rise the eyes a little, but when you don’t have to do that, you just don’t have to do that.

OW balance issues for me come from that kind of things rather than pure numbers. Movement abilities are, imho, badly tweaked. One exception is when they announced they would enable Bastion turret mode to turn 360° when there were complaints it was already hard to kill him since one had to reach his back. Well, they said, we’ll remove his shield! But we add armor. ok, we thought, and then… “but now he can also rotate 360!” Wait what ?

Another exception is when they added Genji. They had nerfed McCree because he was essentially better than Reaper at close range, and better than Widow at long range ( fast fire rate, same accuracy, more damage, so essentially safer, no real need for a scope ). They made his primary fire deal less damage with distance, which was a good start. And they introduced Genji, with… Very accurate and deady shurikens at long rage and nice close range capabilities. Wait, what ?

Now I know all of this may have changed, but seeing this in realtime and facepalming with each new patch made me quit the game in January I believe, a few weeks after they resumed the beta after the winter pause. When they were all excited to announce they had listened to the feedback and added ONE (1) new game mode! CAPTURE! woo !

I’m ranting, I guess it’s a rant day. But yeah, in a nutshell, that was my OW experience. Something was fun and clearly, it had the potential of being a nice title, but then they began making weirder and weirder decisions…

#38

Strongly disagree with this one. I don’t see anything lazy about counters - they are a way to balance the game in a way, and also to make the players think and change characters when needed. And it’s definitely no easy task to make sure that it’s possible to counter all the characters. And Overwatch hasn’t even been released yet. Balancing, just like with Battleborn, takes time. It won’t happen in a day.

#39

They wanted the game to be compared to Overwatch. Why do you think they released it unfinished? They’re trying to beat Overwatch out the door for a few extra sales.

1 Like
#40

I think counters are lazy because then, you don’t really have to worry about a character being OP. You can just tell people “naaah you didn’t find the counter, that’s all”, and stop caring. To add on top of that, just enable players to switch characters on the fly, so that they can go grab that counter. No need to refine your characters then, or well, only when there clearly is an outcry.

Battleborn has the exact issue that a counter / free pick system can’t have unless you reaaally messed up the numbers : Galilea is widly considered OP but once the match is started, you can’t do anything more. You have to go with what you picked. All Mobas are affected the same, actually. It becomes more a matter of knowing your strengths and weaknesses than “just” the counters. In the end, you’ll need a far more refined balance than with a “X counters Y so let’s just pick X” system. I’m less annoyed with having to switch from, say, Pharah to Bastion in the last lane of the London map ( where you’re essentially in a tunnel ) because she can’t play her strengths to the fullest in a closed environment. It sounds like the logical and tactical choice to make.

In essence, a counter / free pick system, the way they didit, is like having two jokers.
- “X is too strong!”

  • Joker 1 : “that’s becauess you have to take Y, the counter!”
    “But I can’t, I already picked Z!”
    -Joker 2 : “Fret no, Timmy, you can actually take Y anytime you want.”
    -Joker 2 and a half : other players can also take Y anytime at the same time.

I hope you see what I mean by lazy. Blizzard has been basing game designs on this for quite some time, WC3 was a little bit “afflicted” but WoW was very affected too.

Disclaimer, though : again, I’m only basing all of this on the very first stage of the beta as it was in January. Things may have changed. I’m just not interested enough to check…

#41

I’ve played twice as much battleborn, if not 3x as much as most people on this forum. I know what I’m talking about.

If gear is making more than a 5% difference in your gameplay you’re not playing correctly. The buffs are extremely insignificant. Helix upgrades are way more important, but considering there are obviously better helix upgrades and usually more than half of them are worthless (multiple tiers you can just randomly hit e or q), I would say it’s broken and might as well not exist. There is the best character build and then there’s everything else. Deviating from the build may break your character.

And regardless of that, implementation is arbitrary in terms of genre. They’re both hero shooters. One could be third person and they would still be the same genre. I think you’re mistaken on what the term “genre” means. It really is entirely arbitrary how the game is made.

CoD and Battlefield are the same genre. They differ in many ways, but they are the same genre…

#42

It really feels like you’re clawing at anything to say that the two games are the same, when they are demonstrably not.

Overwatch is PvP only, giving 3 game modes with about 3 maps each. These gamemodes are standard as far as shooters go. It comes bundled with 21 characters with diverse abilities.

Battleborn is PvP and PvE with the story. It comes with 3 game modes, each having 2 maps. The gamemodes are bits and pieces of traditional Moba gameplay, such as minion pushing, tower destroying, and jungling.

JESUS, MAN. I mean, how-no, I’m not going to insult.

deep breath

Everything is arbitrary in terms of implementation. It’s the implementation that sets the game apart. If everything stayed cookie cutter, like what you seem to be suggesting, games would be SO GODDAMN BORING.

Whilst I’ve only seen a few unbalanced helix talents, I disagree with the sentiment that you cannot deviate from a build. I’ve been able to scrap together a haphazard build and work effectively with it. What you said only applies to Heroes of the Storm, where there are more than 2 helix choices, and going outside the build messes with the synergy.

In conclusion, I fail to see a solid point in any of your statement that doesn’t appear to be just clawing at anything to say that Overwatch is better than Battleborn, despite the radical differences.

2 Likes
#43

And where did you get this information? Do you actually know anybody who works for GBX or are you just throwing around your opinion and expecting us to accept it as fact? GBX had a set release schedule that Blizzard maneuvered their game around by announcing that the open beta would start when BB was released. So go check your facts before you post such incorrect information.

3 Likes
#44

image
forumkittensays2.jpg641×568 116 KB

Thanks.

2 Likes
#45

The only way that you can compare BB to OW is if you’re talking specifically about competitive multi-player PVP death matches.
While this happens to be the only way to play OW…BB has a lot more to offer.
OW has 3 different death-match modes.
BB has 1 death-match mode (Capture) and two non-death-match PVP objective modes.

How can you say OW is ‘A superior game in every way possible’ if you’re looking for a Co-Op FPS game to play with friends?
OW doesn’t have that.

How can you say OW is ‘A superior game in every way possible’ if you don’t have great twitch reflexes but can do well in coordinated environments and still want to play a competitive FPS game with friends?
OW is terrible if you have poor twitch skills.

OW is fantastic if you’re looking for a fun competitive PVP twitch shooter death-match game…because that is the sole focus of the game.

BB is superior in every way possible (to coin your term) if you’re looking for a FPS Co-Op experience. Or a FPS Single Player experience. Or a competitive FPS experience where you can still be highly effective even with-out the best of twitch skills.

OW destroys BB if all you’re doing is comparing PVP death-match modes requiring good twitch reflexes.

Fortunately BB offers a lot more than just that.

EDIT: I also want to mention that if your primarily a PVP death-match twitch shooter gamer…it’s no surprise that you might like OW more. Nothing wrong with that…but I don’t know how you can say OW is superior in every way to BB when you’re comparing one facet of BB to the entire focus of a different game. Both games fill very different niches in regards to what gamers want…and I think this is the prime reason why it doesn’t make sense to compare them to each other.

3 Likes
#46

You can just send This:

to anyone who compares the two.

@BipolarFish[quote=“BipolarFish, post:21, topic:1422046”]
They are the exact same blend of genres so they should be compared.
[/quote]

watch TBs video and in all honesty tell me if your opinion on that is justified.

Overwatch has a TF2 TKK,Battleborn has DOTA/LoL TKK. It’s like comparing TF2 to DOTA.

8 out of 21 characters in Overwatch have NO movement abilities(Mei,Bastion,Symmetra,Junkrat,Torbjorn,Zarya,Zenyatta,Roadhog), not EVEN sprint,so I don’t know where you got that from.

Battleborn also has unique traversal skills and movement abilities(Tobys forward boost,Caldarius’s directional thrusters, Kleeses levitating chair with which you can fly above the battlefield, and that’s not all,plus EVERY character can sprint as well)

but I feel silly comparing two entirely different games,so I’ll stop here. Just watch the video and then tell me how you can actually compare the two.

1 Like