Notice in Overwatch there is a game mode where you escort a vehicle and if it gets destroyed then you repair it. If it doesn't reach a certain point the clock runs out. It reaches every checkpoint and more time is added. You can also go into overtime if certain conditions are met. This same exact thing in TF2. Word for word. And people saying this isnt a clone.
The term "Blizzard polish" carries weight because of this.
Take a look at MTG online and Hearthstone. Tell me which one is polished.
As for the rest of your rant, it's mostly wrong. Also I prefer Overwatch being $40 and getting all the heroes and access to all future maps included rather than being nickled and dimed every time they release a new hero (not to mention that incentivizes them to make them OP on release- look at HotS for how that turns out).
What you described is the same thing as innovation.
The term "Blizzard polish" carries weight because of this.
Take a look at MTG online and Hearthstone. Tell me which one is polished.
As for the rest of your rant, it's mostly wrong. Also I prefer Overwatch being $40 and getting all the heroes and access to all future maps included rather than being nickled and dimed every time they release a new hero (not to mention that incentivizes them to make them OP on release- look at HotS for how that turns out).
What you described is the same thing as innovation.
More effective or refined.
"Innovation is defined simply as a "new idea, device, or method"."
Not quite. Innovation is creating a new means to do something. You seem to be thinking of evolving a genre.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
The term "Blizzard polish" carries weight because of this.
Take a look at MTG online and Hearthstone. Tell me which one is polished.
As for the rest of your rant, it's mostly wrong. Also I prefer Overwatch being $40 and getting all the heroes and access to all future maps included rather than being nickled and dimed every time they release a new hero (not to mention that incentivizes them to make them OP on release- look at HotS for how that turns out).
What you described is the same thing as innovation.
More effective or refined.
"Innovation is defined simply as a "new idea, device, or method"."
Not quite. Innovation is creating a new means to do something. You seem to be thinking of evolving a genre.
But did they really evolve it or just polish it? All they seemed to have added is more characters and the ability to jump really high. Which is far from innovation because anyone can say hey lets add some characters.
The term "Blizzard polish" carries weight because of this.
Take a look at MTG online and Hearthstone. Tell me which one is polished.
As for the rest of your rant, it's mostly wrong. Also I prefer Overwatch being $40 and getting all the heroes and access to all future maps included rather than being nickled and dimed every time they release a new hero (not to mention that incentivizes them to make them OP on release- look at HotS for how that turns out).
What you described is the same thing as innovation.
More effective or refined.
"Innovation is defined simply as a "new idea, device, or method"."
Not quite. Innovation is creating a new means to do something. You seem to be thinking of evolving a genre.
You can't even Wiki it correctly! You stopped at what you wanted to see and ignored everything else.
Innvovation has always been about an original new product on these boards. You are that guy!
It's also about reinventing make a more effective product, or process. Making a better product.
Notice in Overwatch there is a game mode where you escort a vehicle and if it gets destroyed then you repair it. If it doesn't reach a certain point the clock runs out. It reaches every checkpoint and more time is added. You can also go into overtime if certain conditions are met. This same exact thing in TF2. Word for word. And people saying this isnt a clone.
Similar, or identical, game modes have been used in shooters since the beginning of the genre. Your comment is basically the same as complaining that the newest CoD is a clone of every shooter ever made because it has things like deathmatches, ctf, and koth types of matches.
They're the same genre. Of course they're going to have many similar things. If they didn't they would be a different genre altogether.
Love the characters and back story of Overwatch. Sadly it is just a type of game I would not really play. BUt it certainly looks good. May be Blizzard will turn it into a single player RPG at some point.
Everything is just a rip off of Pong. I mean, pixels on a screen... yea, it's been done.
Actually, if my memory is correct even pong wasn't original. It was just a copy of Tennis for Two which came out some time in the late 50s. I think there was even a law suit filed by the developer of Tennis for Two. I could be wrong. I just remember learning something about this back in College but I'm too lazy to google it.
Perhaps the dev of pong is somehow related to someone on the Overwatch dev team. That would explain a lot! :pleased:
The term "Blizzard polish" carries weight because of this.
Take a look at MTG online and Hearthstone. Tell me which one is polished.
As for the rest of your rant, it's mostly wrong. Also I prefer Overwatch being $40 and getting all the heroes and access to all future maps included rather than being nickled and dimed every time they release a new hero (not to mention that incentivizes them to make them OP on release- look at HotS for how that turns out).
What you described is the same thing as innovation.
More effective or refined.
"Innovation is defined simply as a "new idea, device, or method"."
Not quite. Innovation is creating a new means to do something. You seem to be thinking of evolving a genre.
You can't even Wiki it correctly! You stopped at what you wanted to see and ignored everything else.
Innvovation has always been about an original new product on these boards. You are that guy!
It's also about reinventing make a more effective product, or process. Making a better product.
Actually going by the extended definition on wiki your claim still isn't right.
however, if you want to claim it "has always been about an original new product" then you're only agreeing with my statement and disagreeing with your prior shared argument any ways. So I won't stop you if you wanna stick your foot in your mouth.
Notice you keep having to shift to other words like "reinvent". Because, as I said, you're talking about the evolution of game design, not innovation.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
The term "Blizzard polish" carries weight because of this.
Take a look at MTG online and Hearthstone. Tell me which one is polished.
As for the rest of your rant, it's mostly wrong. Also I prefer Overwatch being $40 and getting all the heroes and access to all future maps included rather than being nickled and dimed every time they release a new hero (not to mention that incentivizes them to make them OP on release- look at HotS for how that turns out).
What you described is the same thing as innovation.
More effective or refined.
"Innovation is defined simply as a "new idea, device, or method"."
Not quite. Innovation is creating a new means to do something. You seem to be thinking of evolving a genre.
You can't even Wiki it correctly! You stopped at what you wanted to see and ignored everything else.
Innvovation has always been about an original new product on these boards. You are that guy!
It's also about reinventing make a more effective product, or process. Making a better product.
Actually going by the extended definition on wiki your claim still isn't right.
however, if you want to claim it "has always been about an original new product" then you're only agreeing with my statement and disagreeing with your prior shared argument any ways. So I won't stop you if you wanna stick your foot in your mouth.
Notice you keep having to shift to other words like "reinvent". Because, as I said, you're talking about the evolution of game design, not innovation.
This discussion keeps coming up and it always puzzle's me a bit. Isn't innovating and evolving walking hand in hand? If product B is better than product A, product B is an evolution of product A - surely they are likely to have innovated to make it evolve? If they didn't innovate, product B is more likely to be equal to or even worse than product A.
The term "Blizzard polish" carries weight because of this.
Take a look at MTG online and Hearthstone. Tell me which one is polished.
As for the rest of your rant, it's mostly wrong. Also I prefer Overwatch being $40 and getting all the heroes and access to all future maps included rather than being nickled and dimed every time they release a new hero (not to mention that incentivizes them to make them OP on release- look at HotS for how that turns out).
What you described is the same thing as innovation.
More effective or refined.
"Innovation is defined simply as a "new idea, device, or method"."
Not quite. Innovation is creating a new means to do something. You seem to be thinking of evolving a genre.
You can't even Wiki it correctly! You stopped at what you wanted to see and ignored everything else.
Innvovation has always been about an original new product on these boards. You are that guy!
It's also about reinventing make a more effective product, or process. Making a better product.
Actually going by the extended definition on wiki your claim still isn't right.
however, if you want to claim it "has always been about an original new product" then you're only agreeing with my statement and disagreeing with your prior shared argument any ways. So I won't stop you if you wanna stick your foot in your mouth.
Notice you keep having to shift to other words like "reinvent". Because, as I said, you're talking about the evolution of game design, not innovation.
This discussion keeps coming up and it always puzzle's me a bit. Isn't innovating and evolving walking hand in hand? If product B is better than product A, product B is an evolution of product A - surely they are likely to have innovated to make it evolve? If they didn't innovate, product B is more likely to be equal to or even worse than product A.
Evolution is more so the progressive change of a concept where innovation is the introduction of new elements.
Difference being, if you "evolve" a game you are taking the components that you would want to focus on and refine them, make them prettier, etc, but you aren't necessarily making anything "new" out of the experience, just better.
Introducing an innovation would be to create a new mechanic or set of mechanics that then makes the game stand apart by playing at least somewhat differently than it's predecessors.
Like an innovation you could associate with WoW is the icons above NPCs heads and the focus on the quest system as the core driver of the user experience for making them move through the world.
In many other aspects however you can see that the mechanics are not new, but refined designs of titles that already existed in the genre.
Neither is a bad thing, but it gets very nonsensical when terms get muddied and muddled together.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
Blizzard has always done clones, warcraft was almost a warhammer game, World of warcraft was everquest, just like overwatch now came out of teamfortress.
Thing is blizzard always improves the formula and makes their games better then anything that came before, thats why they are king, and if they mess it up, they fix it ( Diablo 3 )
I prefer to say inspired by, because if we're talking about cloning, every game ever would be one.
I think, from experience, people who feel Blizzard is innovative have a limited exposure to the gaming world. They're good at two things, research into what "sells" and polish. I love Blizzard games and always have, but I'm not going to bat for them, calling them innovative.
The term "Blizzard polish" carries weight because of this.
Take a look at MTG online and Hearthstone. Tell me which one is polished.
As for the rest of your rant, it's mostly wrong. Also I prefer Overwatch being $40 and getting all the heroes and access to all future maps included rather than being nickled and dimed every time they release a new hero (not to mention that incentivizes them to make them OP on release- look at HotS for how that turns out).
What you described is the same thing as innovation.
More effective or refined.
"Innovation is defined simply as a "new idea, device, or method"."
Not quite. Innovation is creating a new means to do something. You seem to be thinking of evolving a genre.
You can't even Wiki it correctly! You stopped at what you wanted to see and ignored everything else.
Innvovation has always been about an original new product on these boards. You are that guy!
It's also about reinventing make a more effective product, or process. Making a better product.
Actually going by the extended definition on wiki your claim still isn't right.
however, if you want to claim it "has always been about an original new product" then you're only agreeing with my statement and disagreeing with your prior shared argument any ways. So I won't stop you if you wanna stick your foot in your mouth.
Notice you keep having to shift to other words like "reinvent". Because, as I said, you're talking about the evolution of game design, not innovation.
This discussion keeps coming up and it always puzzle's me a bit. Isn't innovating and evolving walking hand in hand? If product B is better than product A, product B is an evolution of product A - surely they are likely to have innovated to make it evolve? If they didn't innovate, product B is more likely to be equal to or even worse than product A.
Evolution is more so the progressive change of a concept where innovation is the introduction of new elements.
Difference being, if you "evolve" a game you are taking the components that you would want to focus on and refine them, make them prettier, etc, but you aren't necessarily making anything "new" out of the experience, just better.
Introducing an innovation would be to create a new mechanic or set of mechanics that then makes the game stand apart by playing at least somewhat differently than it's predecessors.
Like an innovation you could associate with WoW is the icons above NPCs heads and the focus on the quest system as the core driver of the user experience for making them move through the world.
In many other aspects however you can see that the mechanics are not new, but refined designs of titles that already existed in the genre.
Neither is a bad thing, but it gets very nonsensical when terms get muddied and muddled together.
It get's muddy indeed, and i understand the definitions. I just think it's hard to deny one or the other in many cases. There can be aspects of technical innovations working in the background to support the evolutional progress.
Now we have this particular case with OW vs TF2. The argument is that OW is a clone of TF2. I see the similarities and the inspiration taken of course, but i don't feel like they're the same when i play them. They feel vastly different. Looking at them both with shallow eyes makes them look very similar, but playing them is a different story. If there was no innovation at all here i feel like i should recognize the game, like i've almost played it before.
Not zooming in on the fact that the Engineer in OW has a turret, just like in TF2, and call it clone or evolution - can't the product as a whole be argued to be innovative? It feels unique and different from it's predecessors in my opinion. Even if every single part in it is "borrowed" from somewhere, the very composition of those "borrowed" parts, and the inventions that must be made to connect the parts, can be argued innovative.
I'm not desperately trying to argue that OW is innovative - I'm not sure myself. it's just an interesting topic.
The term "Blizzard polish" carries weight because of this.
Take a look at MTG online and Hearthstone. Tell me which one is polished.
As for the rest of your rant, it's mostly wrong. Also I prefer Overwatch being $40 and getting all the heroes and access to all future maps included rather than being nickled and dimed every time they release a new hero (not to mention that incentivizes them to make them OP on release- look at HotS for how that turns out).
What you described is the same thing as innovation.
More effective or refined.
"Innovation is defined simply as a "new idea, device, or method"."
Not quite. Innovation is creating a new means to do something. You seem to be thinking of evolving a genre.
But did they really evolve it or just polish it? All they seemed to have added is more characters and the ability to jump really high. Which is far from innovation because anyone can say hey lets add some characters.
It seems to me you are really bothered about OW? Are you that concerned that the remaining TF2 players are going to leave and switch to OW? I don't play either so I don't care one way or another, but you really need to learn when to stop. You are fighting a battle you can't possibly win.
I'm not an IT Specialist, Game Developer, or Clairvoyant in real life, but like others on here, I play one on the internet.
OP: "Look at my painting of the sea guys. Please don't flame me!" Cheetos1337: "OMFG this is a clone of other paintings of the sea." NotAVirgin933: "IT'S THE SAME PAINTING AS THIS OTHER PAINTING! If you put them next to each other you can clearly see they are both of the sea, ergo it's the same."
Please don't be a bloody philistine. Paintings have a lot of elements to consider when being critiqued. Colour, tone, line, shape, space etc. Remove yourself and your ignorance from this thread and remember to get some common knowledge next time you passive-aggressively reply to anything.
How about when it comes to whether or not OW is a TF2 clone we all just agree to disagree rather than try and convince others or force our opinions on them. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and I respect that and I wish others would do the same.
Because when you can easily take the characters and their playstyles and put them into the other game without causing problems. This is hard to ignore and say they aren't the same game. They are the same game but with different characters and some of them are actually the same character.
Seriously.... well clearly you are too immature to let this go but I've grown tired of debating so I'm done. I will have fun playing Overwatch and I hope you continue to enjoy TF2 or whatever you are playing at the moment.
Fun is subjective. Facts, however, are objective. The fact that basically everything Blizzard has been doing since 2008 has been a casualized polished version of another game or elements from a more or less successful franchise is fact. The games older than 2008 are also pretty much polished versions of other successful games or IPs in those times (Warcraft -> Warhammer Fantasy, Starcraft -> Warhammer 40000, WoW was basically Everquest + elements from Dark Age of Camelot, I'm not sure about Diablo since I don't care enough about the franchise to get info on it).
Nobody is telling anyone not to enjoy the games and no sane person would judge a game based on the fact that it's borrowing elements from another game IF the thing's actually good. But the company BORROWING those elements anyway is not subjective, it's FACT.
How you people are insecure enough to take offense at some random no-face/no-name on the internet criticizing your "beloved" company (remember children, everyone is in it for the money, no matter what their marketing division is saying) but not a big enough fan to actually research said company is beyond me. Then again, most of the users of this website have no idea how the gaming industry works, so what should I expect? Please, get out and come back once you've got at least basic knowledge on game design, development and history regarding the different companies whose products you keep shilling for.
Once the WOW movie is out the advertising for this game will be off the charts. It is going to draw a huge amount of players and if they keep it right will end up competing with DOTA or Counterstrike. I will end up playing if that happens but right now its just another of those games.
OP: "Look at my painting of the sea guys. Please don't flame me!" Cheetos1337: "OMFG this is a clone of other paintings of the sea." NotAVirgin933: "IT'S THE SAME PAINTING AS THIS OTHER PAINTING! If you put them next to each other you can clearly see they are both of the sea, ergo it's the same."
Please don't be a bloody philistine. Paintings have a lot of elements to consider when being critiqued. Colour, tone, line, shape, space etc. Remove yourself and your ignorance from this thread and remember to get some common knowledge next time you passive-aggressively reply to anything.
How about when it comes to whether or not OW is a TF2 clone we all just agree to disagree rather than try and convince others or force our opinions on them. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and I respect that and I wish others would do the same.
Because when you can easily take the characters and their playstyles and put them into the other game without causing problems. This is hard to ignore and say they aren't the same game. They are the same game but with different characters and some of them are actually the same character.
Seriously.... well clearly you are too immature to let this go but I've grown tired of debating so I'm done. I will have fun playing Overwatch and I hope you continue to enjoy TF2 or whatever you are playing at the moment.
Fun is subjective. Facts, however, are objective. The fact that basically everything Blizzard has been doing since 2008 has been a casualized polished version of another game or elements from a more or less successful franchise is fact. The games older than 2008 are also pretty much polished versions of other successful games or IPs in those times (Warcraft -> Warhammer Fantasy, Starcraft -> Warhammer 40000, WoW was basically Everquest + elements from Dark Age of Camelot, I'm not sure about Diablo since I don't care enough about the franchise to get info on it).
Nobody is telling anyone not to enjoy the games and no sane person would judge a game based on the fact that it's borrowing elements from another game IF the thing's actually good. But the company BORROWING those elements is not subjective, it's FACT.
How you people are insecure enough to take offense at some random no-face/no-name on the internet criticizing your "beloved" company (remember children, everyone is in it for the money, no matter what their marketing division is saying) but not a big enough fan to actually research said company is beyond me. Then again, most of the users of this website have no idea how the gaming industry works, so what should I expect? Please, get out and come back once you've got at least basic knowledge on game design, development and history regarding the different companies whose products you keep shilling for.
lol bro this has far from offended me. I honestly don't care at this point which is why I am completely done debating. I just want to go and enjoy the game when it comes out. Like I said before, everyone is entitled to their own opinion and I respect that and I shall leave it at that. Not going to be baited back into this argument so you can take your pedestal somewhere else.
OP: "Look at my painting of the sea guys. Please don't flame me!" Cheetos1337: "OMFG this is a clone of other paintings of the sea." NotAVirgin933: "IT'S THE SAME PAINTING AS THIS OTHER PAINTING! If you put them next to each other you can clearly see they are both of the sea, ergo it's the same."
Please don't be a bloody philistine. Paintings have a lot of elements to consider when being critiqued. Colour, tone, line, shape, space etc. Remove yourself and your ignorance from this thread and remember to get some common knowledge next time you passive-aggressively reply to anything.
Which was exactly my point - I guess you missed it. Or is it sarcasm? Who knows, you're too active-aggressive.
OP: "Look at my painting of the sea guys. Please don't flame me!" Cheetos1337: "OMFG this is a clone of other paintings of the sea." NotAVirgin933: "IT'S THE SAME PAINTING AS THIS OTHER PAINTING! If you put them next to each other you can clearly see they are both of the sea, ergo it's the same."
Please don't be a bloody philistine. Paintings have a lot of elements to consider when being critiqued. Colour, tone, line, shape, space etc. Remove yourself and your ignorance from this thread and remember to get some common knowledge next time you passive-aggressively reply to anything.
How about when it comes to whether or not OW is a TF2 clone we all just agree to disagree rather than try and convince others or force our opinions on them. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and I respect that and I wish others would do the same.
Because when you can easily take the characters and their playstyles and put them into the other game without causing problems. This is hard to ignore and say they aren't the same game. They are the same game but with different characters and some of them are actually the same character.
Seriously.... well clearly you are too immature to let this go but I've grown tired of debating so I'm done. I will have fun playing Overwatch and I hope you continue to enjoy TF2 or whatever you are playing at the moment.
Fun is subjective. Facts, however, are objective. The fact that basically everything Blizzard has been doing since 2008 has been a casualized polished version of another game or elements from a more or less successful franchise is fact. The games older than 2008 are also pretty much polished versions of other successful games or IPs in those times (Warcraft -> Warhammer Fantasy, Starcraft -> Warhammer 40000, WoW was basically Everquest + elements from Dark Age of Camelot, I'm not sure about Diablo since I don't care enough about the franchise to get info on it).
Nobody is telling anyone not to enjoy the games and no sane person would judge a game based on the fact that it's borrowing elements from another game IF the thing's actually good. But the company BORROWING those elements is not subjective, it's FACT.
How you people are insecure enough to take offense at some random no-face/no-name on the internet criticizing your "beloved" company (remember children, everyone is in it for the money, no matter what their marketing division is saying) but not a big enough fan to actually research said company is beyond me. Then again, most of the users of this website have no idea how the gaming industry works, so what should I expect? Please, get out and come back once you've got at least basic knowledge on game design, development and history regarding the different companies whose products you keep shilling for.
lol bro this has far from offended me. I honestly don't care at this point which is why I am completely done debating. I just want to go and enjoy the game when it comes out. Like I said before, everyone is entitled to their own opinion and I respect that and I shall leave it at that. Not going to be baited back into this argument so you can take your pedestal somewhere else.
"not even mad bro"
Sure, go enjoy your game or whatever. Staying ignorant to information you could easily find googling for 5 minutes or having enough experience under your belt pretty much sums up what you're capable of.
Sadly, with internet being so widespread nowadays, everyone is forced the endure everyone else's opinions being thrown around as facts and there's nothing we can do about it.
OP: "Look at my painting of the sea guys. Please don't flame me!" Cheetos1337: "OMFG this is a clone of other paintings of the sea." NotAVirgin933: "IT'S THE SAME PAINTING AS THIS OTHER PAINTING! If you put them next to each other you can clearly see they are both of the sea, ergo it's the same."
Please don't be a bloody philistine. Paintings have a lot of elements to consider when being critiqued. Colour, tone, line, shape, space etc. Remove yourself and your ignorance from this thread and remember to get some common knowledge next time you passive-aggressively reply to anything.
Which was exactly my point - I guess you missed it. Or is it sarcasm? Who knows, you're too active-aggressive.
The elements of your comparison are basically an art form that differentiates itself on style alone and another that has mechanics and code behind it. In the case of the first one, saying that it's a clone because of its style is ludicrous. In the case of the second one, if the mechanics, in-depth gameplay and code behind it are the same, then style ceases to matter.
Comments
Not quite. Innovation is creating a new means to do something. You seem to be thinking of evolving a genre.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
Innvovation has always been about an original new product on these boards. You are that guy!
It's also about reinventing make a more effective product, or process. Making a better product.
They're the same genre. Of course they're going to have many similar things. If they didn't they would be a different genre altogether.
Perhaps the dev of pong is somehow related to someone on the Overwatch dev team. That would explain a lot! :pleased:
however, if you want to claim it "has always been about an original new product" then you're only agreeing with my statement and disagreeing with your prior shared argument any ways. So I won't stop you if you wanna stick your foot in your mouth.
Notice you keep having to shift to other words like "reinvent". Because, as I said, you're talking about the evolution of game design, not innovation.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
Difference being, if you "evolve" a game you are taking the components that you would want to focus on and refine them, make them prettier, etc, but you aren't necessarily making anything "new" out of the experience, just better.
Introducing an innovation would be to create a new mechanic or set of mechanics that then makes the game stand apart by playing at least somewhat differently than it's predecessors.
Like an innovation you could associate with WoW is the icons above NPCs heads and the focus on the quest system as the core driver of the user experience for making them move through the world.
In many other aspects however you can see that the mechanics are not new, but refined designs of titles that already existed in the genre.
Neither is a bad thing, but it gets very nonsensical when terms get muddied and muddled together.
"The knowledge of the theory of logic has no tendency whatever to make men good reasoners." - Thomas B. Macaulay
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
Thing is blizzard always improves the formula and makes their games better then anything that came before, thats why they are king, and if they mess it up, they fix it ( Diablo 3 )
I prefer to say inspired by, because if we're talking about cloning, every game ever would be one.
Now we have this particular case with OW vs TF2. The argument is that OW is a clone of TF2. I see the similarities and the inspiration taken of course, but i don't feel like they're the same when i play them. They feel vastly different. Looking at them both with shallow eyes makes them look very similar, but playing them is a different story. If there was no innovation at all here i feel like i should recognize the game, like i've almost played it before.
Not zooming in on the fact that the Engineer in OW has a turret, just like in TF2, and call it clone or evolution - can't the product as a whole be argued to be innovative? It feels unique and different from it's predecessors in my opinion. Even if every single part in it is "borrowed" from somewhere, the very composition of those "borrowed" parts, and the inventions that must be made to connect the parts, can be argued innovative.
I'm not desperately trying to argue that OW is innovative - I'm not sure myself. it's just an interesting topic.
I'm not an IT Specialist, Game Developer, or Clairvoyant in real life, but like others on here, I play one on the internet.
@jean-Luc_picard hey arguing with a wall is my line~
Please don't be a bloody philistine. Paintings have a lot of elements to consider when being critiqued. Colour, tone, line, shape, space etc. Remove yourself and your ignorance from this thread and remember to get some common knowledge next time you passive-aggressively reply to anything.
Fun is subjective. Facts, however, are objective. The fact that basically everything Blizzard has been doing since 2008 has been a casualized polished version of another game or elements from a more or less successful franchise is fact. The games older than 2008 are also pretty much polished versions of other successful games or IPs in those times (Warcraft -> Warhammer Fantasy, Starcraft -> Warhammer 40000, WoW was basically Everquest + elements from Dark Age of Camelot, I'm not sure about Diablo since I don't care enough about the franchise to get info on it).
Nobody is telling anyone not to enjoy the games and no sane person would judge a game based on the fact that it's borrowing elements from another game IF the thing's actually good. But the company BORROWING those elements anyway is not subjective, it's FACT.
How you people are insecure enough to take offense at some random no-face/no-name on the internet criticizing your "beloved" company (remember children, everyone is in it for the money, no matter what their marketing division is saying) but not a big enough fan to actually research said company is beyond me. Then again, most of the users of this website have no idea how the gaming industry works, so what should I expect? Please, get out and come back once you've got at least basic knowledge on game design, development and history regarding the different companies whose products you keep shilling for.
Sure, go enjoy your game or whatever. Staying ignorant to information you could easily find googling for 5 minutes or having enough experience under your belt pretty much sums up what you're capable of.
Sadly, with internet being so widespread nowadays, everyone is forced the endure everyone else's opinions being thrown around as facts and there's nothing we can do about it.
The elements of your comparison are basically an art form that differentiates itself on style alone and another that has mechanics and code behind it. In the case of the first one, saying that it's a clone because of its style is ludicrous. In the case of the second one, if the mechanics, in-depth gameplay and code behind it are the same, then style ceases to matter.
Sarcasm or not, that comparison was pointless.