WHEN LESS IS DEEMED MORE AT $60
The time has come for another multiplayer-only game to state its case about why it costs $60 & the game in question is none other than Blizzard's well-received shooter, Overwatch.
The stripping of campaigns from games has been a hot topic recently, though it seems like Overwatch never even intended to have one at all. Battlefront and Titanfall got relentlessly massacred for not having a single player campaign, although the latter got hurt more due to the flow of game matches that began to feel repetitive. Battleborn has all its different modes and did its utmost to shove together 'stuff' into the game ranging from campaign missions to MOBA-styled multiplayer, however still making us grind to unlock heroes and skills like it's a free-to-play game. Evolve has so many monsters, hunters & maps DLCs that it became a meme before it even launched. On the contrary, Unreal Tournament, CS:GO & Team Fortress 2 have all managed to pass by without a campaign over the years.
The argument fundamentally arising here is that Overwatch, despite providing a handful of multiplayer modes, 21 heros roster, 12 maps and nothing even resembling single-player or co-op campaign content, manages to bring more to the table without anything outside the core game.
Does a full priced shooter always require a single player campaign to justify its price of admission?
Often, we demand a story mode from a game out of a somewhat misguided desire for "value", and because that's how it's generally been done since the beginning. Looking across the shooter landscape, though, it's actually kind of rare to find an FPS that does both single-player and multiplayer really well. Battlefield's single-player campaigns, for example, are notoriously poor. Call of Duty's single-player and multiplayer are both generally well-regarded, but plenty of fans prefer one or the other but not both. DOOM appears to be an exception, garnering plaudits for its excellent single-player while also featuring a conventional multiplayer mode.
So what's the difference between Overwatch and Battlefront exactly? How does one game get crucified for not having enough content, while another game with even less content vaults into Game of the Year competition?
Overwatch defies that conventional line of thinking with team-based multiplayer that's so well-tuned and fun to play that any thoughts of a single-player go flying out of your head. It's remarkably fresh whereas Battlefront, successful in capturing the look & essence of Star Wars universe, at the end is business as usual. Wolfenstein and Bioshock did their share on the opposite side of the divide with their excellent campaigns. Sometimes a really great core game is enough. Blizzard has publicly stated that all future heroes and maps will be free, meaning that the playerbase will never become fractured by cost. This scheme is where many of these games seem to have stumbled and it has brought Blizzard and Overwatch a lot of advance goodwill from fans. If players know they're not just buying the current game, but all future content at the $60 price point, that's going to make them feel a bit more comfortable about their purchase.
Tamim Bin Zakir aka Shwag_Lord (PSN ID) is a 24/7 angry individual being who seldom thinks of being generous to others. Feel free to devour his tranquility at [email protected]