^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
Uh, no?
He pointed stuff that only on the surface looks similar, but it really quite different.
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…
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.
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
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…
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…
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
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
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
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
A 30 minute video COMPARING Battleborn to Overwatch as a proof that they are so different you cannot even compare them? 
The irony here is glorious! …
Everyone here who is so eager to forbid any comparism seems to just not understand the meaning of the word … You continue to accuse anyone who compares them (which is just what Total Bisquit did) to claim they were “the same” instead, which nobody of us does.
Comparing two things does not conclude they are the same … 
All of us compare the two … if you want to admit it or not.
Only difference is that you guys ignore any similarities while accusing us of ignoring any differences … (which we clearly do not)
-
Yes, there is a multitude of differences between the two games and a lot of things that Battleborn does different.
-
Yes, those two games are obviously not “the same” and whoever claims that is a jerk … but nobody here says that anyway
… -
… but NO, they are not different to a degree where they are incomparable.
Stop pretending that they are completely different games (gameplay wise) … FIFA and Starcraft are two totally different games and thus can´t really be compared … but the two we speak of share obvious similarities in their gameplay.
As wolrajh said earlier … why do you think there is so much confusion and so many people (wrongly!) stating that the two games are basically the same?
… right, because they look, play and feel SIMILAR (see all the reasons in our posts above) … thus they can and should be COMPARED. Which however does not equal them being THE SAME.
… get the difference now?
EDIT: this may help to educate you:
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/compare
… somehow it does not say “stating that two things are the same” … whaaaaat? 
1 Like
I think this should just be locked, it’s not providing anything fruitful. They are very similar looking, it’s easy to see why people would seek to compare them. At the core gameplay is where they diverge the most but you’d have to see in depth footage to get that (most people are apparently weighing in without really looking at both games fully).
The main problem I’m seeing is most people seeking to bring up comparisons are also dogging Battleborn and seemingly favoring Overwatch. This then makes the Battleborn fans defensive and really push to differentiate the two, to the point that they are not acknowledging how blatantly obvious the comparison is (many characters are extremely similar in play style and / or looks).
Therefore I don’t see this topic really convincing either side of anything except where their loyalty lies.
4 Likes
I agree … might as well close it.
In case it wasn´t obvious btw. … I absolutely love Battleborn and prefer it towards Overwatch to the point I will probably not even buy the latter.
The problem is pretty much what you said … jerks (usually from the Overwatch faction) say that Battleborn is the same and that it´s worse … which is obviously bullsht.
Then certain people over here get so pissed that they only focus on the differences just to get their baby (seemingly) out of the crossfire.
… to the point they say you can´t (and must not!) compare them … which is obviously bullsht again … we can agree on that.
Of course you can compare the two games, I think I made this clear by now … and I think it´s good to compare them. Everybody has different preferences and there are ppl that will enjoy Battleborn more and those who prefer Overwatch. Without comparing them, how can you tell what´s yours?
1 Like
I think @apimpnamedluke’s original intention was for people to stop degrading Battleborn because of its similarities to Overwatch. Although the games do share common elements, there’s more to Battleborn than just PVP, which Overwatch can’t claim since it’s all about PVP. I have no interest in PVP, so I won’t be buying Overwatch, but I won’t bash it simply because it’s not to my tastes either.
1 Like
So I like TotalBiscuit. I think he’s wrong. Overwatch has more emphasis on the shooter part of the game. Battleborn definitely focuses on more of the skills/roles part.
As for the movement bit, I love that characters only being able to walk is brought up when that actually just supports my point. Every character, even tanks, can sprint/walk/run in Battleborn (which I think is a bit silly). Kleese can’t fly, he can hover. Toby/Caldarius having a boost really isn’t that big of a deal but okay. Furthermore, there is no area of the map that only certain characters can reach (which I also think is silly). Benedict might be able to glitch his way to certain places but it usually offers no advantage because he’ll just get sniped.
99% of the movement on all characters is sprint/walk is more or less what I was trying to say. In OW you can run up walls, grapplehook to rooftops, rocketjump, and jetpack. That’s quite a bit of variety.
Everyone seemed to ignore by bit about implementation being arbitrary. It really is. Not addressing this just says to me you either don’t know what it means or you can’t think of counter argument. Arbitrary means that it doesn’t matter. You’re basically saying you can’t compare a car from the 90s to a car in 2010s, “there are so many differences!”. Or that hybrid car can’t be compared to diesel… It’s pretty ridiculous.
In terms of balance and how much skill it takes to play, OW is so far ahead it’s dizzying. I love how people are backhandedly calling it “twitchy” as if that somehow doesn’t apply to Battleborn. Thorn, Whiskey, Marquis, Oscar, and Toby are “twitchy” in that you have to aim quickly and precisely and move the same. Every other character is just pick all the CC on your helix and spam it as much as possible. CC is this game is seriously out of hand actually, practically every character has some sort of slow or stun and that really should only be on a handful of characters.
Once again, I’m only saying the genre is the same, not that they’re the same game. @RayVanDam gets it.
About characters reaching spots not everyone can go, how would that improve the experience? That just leads to camping, shooting down on the crowd then waiting to heal, over and over again. Imagine Thorn leaping to some high ledge so if you don’t have a Thorn or Marquis you will automatically lose. Makes no sense for Battleborn.
Movement there is skills related to as well, phasing with Phoebe, leap with Attikus, even Caldarius’ ult could be considered a form of movement when needed. You’re marginalizing the capabilities of the heroes to fit your opinion. All of these abilities do affect gameplay.
The bit about the differences being inconsequential, seems like you’re just nitpicking. You could say they are the same genre in terms of first person hero shooter, but genre can be as specific as someone wants it to be. People in media make up new genres all the time. Enough of this kind of movie comes out, all of sudden there is a genre sub-type to cover it. Same with music, same with games. I agree these are comparable games and most I think understand this.
Again… I don’t think this topic really needs to continue, nothing of value will become of this. lol
I have no idea why you said anything you did.
“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.”
Do you think I’m saying every game should be the same?
“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.”
This is just empirically not true. Do some math with the helix traits on a few characters. You’ll see what I mean.
People can compare the two games if they like. What’s to stop them?
I won’t be getting OW because it is PvP only and the gfx look too ‘Disney/Pixar’ for my tastes. It’s like they wanted to make a grown-up version of Disney Infinity…
2 Likes