I don’t mean to be a dick but without giving actual reasons all you’re saying is “I preferred ow1”, which is kind of what my original comment was referring to. Tank synergies is definitely something that was lost with ow1, rein/zarya and dive comps were very fun and definitely something I miss. But it was also a major source of balance issues and player frustration.

Two tank team composition was a consistent balance issue and severely restricted the design of tank heroes. Sigma is a really fun and interesting hero, but when he was added overwatch entered a prolonged two shield meta which was incredibly boring. The devs added a cool hero, and he made the game worse. Not only did he make the game worse, but there was no obvious or easy solution, because sigma wasn’t the problem, two shields was the problem. In my opinion that exemplifies how bad of an issue the game was facing and justifies the changes made.

There’s nothing wrong with preferring ow1 but the person I responded to called it “a terrible game compared to the original” which is just blatantly incorrect in my opinion.

I agree. I was a die-hard ow1 fan and quit because of the absolute disgrace that was the transition from OW1 -> OW2. I have every reason to hate OW2 but I don’t because it’s a fine game and improves on OW1 in every way that is important to me (gameplay and balance).

In my opinion, anyone saying OW2 is worse than the original is saying this for personal reasons and not trying to be objective. OW2 is, in my experience, much more balanced than OW1. Many of the more frustrating aspects of the game have been fixed or removed, and most of the characters added since OW1 seem fun to play and not frustrating to play against.

There are very many valid criticisms one can make of Blizzard. The history of being a shitty workplace, the objectively awful decision to make OW2 a sequel, the treatment of Jeff Kaplan by execs, the monetization, and probably more. None of those criticisms (except monetization to a limited degree) have anything to do with whether or not OW2 is a bad game or not.

But I’m speculating since the person you responded to has not elaborated on any of their views.

Why? I played OW from beta, stopped playing after all the shitty workplace accusations came out, then played again for 10 or so hours last month.

I didn’t play much competitive (in my recent sessions) but the game seemed like it was in a pretty solid place. The only “major” issue I can think of is that the tank role is incredibly important, which creates a bit of a toxic environment where people are scared to play tank because they get flamed if the team gets rolled. But I think the downsides are worth the benefits, with tank being so important it’s become the core that the rest of the game balances around. Healers have more agency and dealing damage/contributing to elims is a vital part of the role. A lot of the frustrating/cheesy aspects of the game have been removed, scattershot, damage-doomfist, mercy 5-man-res, goats, double shield.

Again, I took a long break from the game, but before that I clocked a lot of hours in competitive. Personally the game feels about as balanced and enjoyable as it’s ever been.

Obviously the monetization is gross and that entire side of the game sucks now but that’s an entirely different conversation.

I miss u bukkit ;-;

The one apple product I’m willing to buy.

I feel like other brands have closed the gap but there was a time where macbooks seemed like the only great laptop on the market.

Whats your argument? Everyone should have their sport at the Olympics even if it’s problematic?

You’re not engaging with the conversation, you’re just saying people will be disappointed if break isn’t an olympic sport.

Why is exclusion worse than cultural appropriation? I’m excluded from the traditions of the first nations people where I live because I’m not first nations, is that a bad thing?

Most sports are not as recent as break and do not have the same cultural significance. Break was developed by an oppressed people who have historically had their artistic creations repackaged and sold without their involvement. I have no idea whether breaks inclusion in the games is cultural appropriation but I don’t feel like you are giving the proper context to the conversation.

Cultural appropriation is not bullshit. Look at the history of black people in america. Their art forms were copied by white people, sanitized, then sold to the masses with zero credit or compensation given to them. I’m not saying that only black people should be able to perform or enjoy those art forms, but there is a significant difference between respectful imitation and theft. Art forms that were created in large part due to the oppression they were put through, were copied with zero respect or acknowledgement, then repackaged and sold to the very people oppressing them. If you can’t see how that is a bad thing then idk what to say.

To be clear I’m not arguing break being included in the olympics is cultural appropriation, that’s for the culture to decide not me.

Man fuck all the downvoters, this is a perfectly valid question. If they started a haka competition people wouldn’t be so quick to dismiss this.

To answer you question, no idea, never thought of it. I’m pretty ignorant of break culture but I’d be interested to hear what those in the culture think of it’s inclusion.

deleted by creator

Completely agree. He also just seems like a better candidate vibe wise so far, he’s funny and endearing in a way Kamala is not. Although I do vibe with Kamala’s dorky/weird moments that so many seem to criticize.

My point is that society perceives her as a black women. Saying shit like “there are no black people” is moronic in a society that values and scrutinizes race as much as ours does.

I’d argue Walz bucks this trend, at least to a certain degree. His progressive policy and seemingly unwavering integrity seems to be a huge reason he was picked. They’ve leaned into his achievements and republicans are desperately grasping at straws trying to criticize him.

Missing the forest for the trees or whatever. It’s not about skin colour but how society perceives and treats you. If Kamala isn’t black then why is she being called a DEI hire when Hilary Clinton never was?

No shade but I could not take the premise of that book seriously. The idea that any complex system could be mapped thousands of years into the future is so incredibly unrealistic to me that I was unable to suspend my disbelief.

I’m a massive Dune fan though so I have no leg to stand on. Hold on a second while I re-calibrate my metabolism and use my genetic heritage to recall events that happened 30000 years ago.

It’s not that surprising to me. Chaos theory is not well known/understood and we are accustomed to seeing weather reports from childhood, it’s not odd to expect them to be accurate.

Not sure how old you are but calling brown people terrorists was extremely common after 9/11.

It’s honestly been depressing seeing how seemingly universal this reaction has been. I expected jokes and made some myself amongst friends. But I did not expect the entire community to unite behind a legitimate desire for violence.

Feels like a mask off moment.

What does justified even mean in this context though? Are you in favour of capital punishment? Of vigilante justice?

Trump is a horrible person who, if elected, will harm the lives of very many people. I simply do not believe assassinating him is a legitimate tactic. There are so many problems inherent with political violence that I don’t even know where to start.

To me, advocating for political violence is a position detached from reality. Akin to wondering why the western world doesn’t simply declare war on Russia over their invasion of Ukraine. It may seem/be the morally correct thing to do, but the consequences of doing it are far reaching and extremely complicated.

Honestly idk what I’m trying to say other than I don’t think violence against Nazis is an effective strategy. I think it’s reactionary and short sighted and will only make the problem worse.