i know they used unreal engine for GA and Tribes i guess i should just say they're all horribly optimized

it was impossible to get solid frames in tribes

hellbent u sound like a big gay baby

What do you have against CS:GO aside from 1.6 being better? It's the biggest staple competitive FPS and 1.6 had fun mods. If it wasn't big there's literally no other competitive FPS that anyone watches aside from CoD or Halo on consoles. It even has the developer/valve support for competitive that TF2 could only dream of and part of why is draws in so much more people.

I played a ton at Blizzcon.

To address a few of your concerns/thoughts:

The game isn't clunky. Gunplay is on point and the controls are extremely responsive. The common misconception is that it's very similar to TF2. It's not. That's not really a bad thing, though. TF2 has a great combination of hitscan and projectiles, so the ability to use both is super useful in any game that requires knowledge of both. While top level TF2 guys won't just pick overwatch up and shit on everyone, I do believe that TF2/Quake folks will be a step ahead due to the variety of weaponry. You do have to learn how to use skills, though. It's not all guns.

PS: It's very fun.

Give it to me straight, john. Is torbjorn as stupid as engie?

its better than source lol

and 1.6 was stale as FUCK when go was released so i dont think anyones complaining. there are annoying parts of go like first shot inacc (and smokes and molotovs and dust doors and deagle taking 1.7s to reset), but its still a great game and its still counterstrike

We had our own N64 config in the /vg/ general for the more unfortunate regulars but it was apparently borderline illegal as in it could trigger cheat flags. I'm so glad I had my tower when T:A was a thing, I don't even want to think about the kind of hell playing it on my emergency laptop would have been.

tbh this just tells me that we're either going to have to rely on "PRESS R FOR FRAG VIDEO/TO WIN" abilities and multiple engineer classes (who the fuck thought MULTIPLE engineers was a good idea?) to move forward instead of actually playing the game OR whatever competitive community arises will form some sort of unspoken pact never to pick any of the engineer-like classes so games don't last forever and a half.

Nah, not really. From my experience, there was a pretty large pool of counters to whatever strategy a team tries to deploy. For instance, if they go heavy with defensive stuff, you have somebody swap to tracer (you can swap heroes mid-game, by the way), flash in, drop your nade on their turret and the idiots hiding behind it, they go boom and your team pushes in. They did a fairly decent job of giving every hero a REALLY HARD counter, so it comes down to teams being diverse in their strategies and their hero pools more than picking a standard strategy and sticking to it consistently. Obviously, my experience is only from a few hours, but I did get to play with some developers that I'm assuming have a pretty solid grasp of the way the game is going to play out. While they aren't nearly as mechanically skilled as their community is going to be, being able to effectively compete against much younger, mechanically sound players shows that they've built something that requires a lot more than just raw skill and cheese.

I'd imagine that top players are going to have a solid 4-5 heroes that they can play at the highest level so they can swap out as necessary to counter certain strategies and hero compositions.

Yes, but that's a good thing. It gives players that don't really have aim or any sort of dexterity the ability to contribute to their team.

PS: There's also melee-only heroes.

tf2 pubbers are gonna have a FIELD day

IIRC, only one person can play a hero at a time. Doesn't matter much.

If it has skill based matchmaking, why even bother with idiot classes? But I guess it won't matter since I won't be the only one on my team who knows how to fucking kill a sentry.

http://i.imgur.com/i8ea2u7.jpg

as someone who has 20 hours in csgo and never played 1.6, how was csgo different that was new and different compared to 1.6? i mean aren't they very similar mechanically and all?

Stuff like spray and recoil, items and even movement are a lot different and the game does feel a lot different in general. If you want the most notable example search YouTube for deagle in 1.6 so you can compare it :P

overwatch be the last game you ever see me on

I don't think this game is going to be as big as some people think. All im hoping for is that it isnt as hyped up as brink. God damn did that game let me down.

I'm willing to get behind any game that's structured the way this game is. The sad part is, most of them don't end up being that good/fun and get stale quickly. Maybe this will be different, who knows.

why would you keep getting behind games structured like this then

i bought brink for £1.50 last year and regretted not just spending it on a sandwich

honestly i think the LAST thing i want is it to be like tf2
id rather a whole new game rather than "reliving" tf2 again

The concepts and ideas these games have and want to achieve don't do it in such a way that make the games in any way memorable.

I kind of agree with you. I hope it is its own animal. You can compare TF2 to quake, clan area, w/e, but really the reason everyone here loves TF2 is because it's completely its own game. The real hope/hype is that Overwatch will be as fun as TF2 in its own way, with developer support for competitive play.

Okay, are any of you vanilla WoW players? Unlike Valve creating unbalanced weapons, Blizzard constantly threw classes out of balance. Burning Crusades PvP was on the slower side, but was more strategic and highlighted raw skill. Following 3 expansions, they constantly screwed up balancing issues leading hardcore PvP (ie: tf2s comp community) away while only pros(+streamers) and new players continued. To fix 3 terrible expansions they had to roll back and re-scale all healthpools on players, raids, and NPCS to attempt a re-balance on terrible damage and burst reliance.
Did I mention Blizzard absolutely LOVES RNG? Our communities disdain for random crits, is a concept blizzard absolutely LOVES. Imagine the frustration of losing a match because the enemy was lucky enough to get the 15% stun chance 3 consecutive times in a row in a matter of <10 seconds, leaving you in a stunlock for up to 12 seconds. This is how a Blizzard game is structured, if you're looking for a skill-will-prevail type game, you're looking in the wrong direction.

every developer loves RNG, its not just blizzard

TF2 is prime example of a fairly core RNG feature, random crits. Remember tf2 shipped with no way to turn them off.

If they want to have it as a competitive game then likely they will listen to their competitive players and adjust accordingly.

Or they just might throw thousands of dollars at it and people will play because money.

i mean if i won a couple thousand because i got a lucky crit i wouldnt be mad just saying

Crits aren't really a "core" feature

they're about as arbitrary as a mechanic can be

otoh, RNG isn't necessarily bad, CSGO has core RNG (movement spread, noscopes), but the game is fine regardless, even if in rare situations games can be won by a sprinting shot

RNG is fine when done well

csgos completely different because those rarely decide the game like it could in dota (ie crits bashes) and overwatch

i dunno about that. even when standing still, an AK's first tap still has a decent amount of deviation. its really hard to 1-tap someone on A site when you're in pit, which is super annoying

how many players per team in overwatch? i'm assuming 5