New mode isn’t good-mid at best
The 2016 one was an absolute dumpster fire
I think the ppl who praise OW1 as a masterpiece are just nostalgic. Sorry but this mode doesn’t do anything better than the current game.
But maybe I haven’t played it enough idk
If OW1 is a masterpiece, what is peak OW1? Because I hear double shield was the worst meta which was in 2018. And this current mode is late 2017
I don’t get this. So do you want them to ignore what the people are asking for? They did exactly what ppl asked for. Of all the reasons to hate on OW2 for this is the worst one you could’ve picked
If this were remotely true. People would have been interested in the 6v6 test. They weren’t.
OW2, even with the recent drop in numbers, still has more active players than OW1 had for almost all of its run.
let’s contextualize this statement: Overwatch 2 has taken on the same duties as ow1 (releasing updates, new heroes/maps, bugfixing, occasionally new quality of life features, etc.). Better or worse, as always, is a subjective term in a live service game.
To be truly better ow2 should generally offer the leap it makes beyond being a PVP. I’ll take an example that everyone will probably hate: fortnite, regardless of whether you want to admit it or not, has really reinvented itself many times in its hub. I personally don’t like it, but I admit its strength in reinventing itself.
now let’s see OW2: has it “really” reinvented itself or in the last two years of ow2 has it desperately chased the way to return to being a live service pvp with regular updates? in my opinion the second one, because undoubtedly:
Is OW2 a good live service PVP game? absolutely yes. but his flaw will always be the feeling that he has missed too many opportunities, and that by now he could have been much more than he was today, back to the starting point of what ow1 was doing.
having nostalgia modes is nice, we’ve been asking for them for a long time. maybe too long, though.
I think people need to realise that the vocal people on the forums, aren’t in the majority.,
Sometimes the things people on here shout about, just aren’t wanted by the playerbase.
The 6v6 test only getting 10% peak play rate is indicative of that. People shout and scream they want something, but it is the silent majority that speak with actions that win out in the end.
don’t get me wrong: that 10% is honestly not very indicative in terms of popularity. those who wanted to leave because they were too disappointed by the game have done so for a long time, no longer betting on overwatch. and it’s right that it should be this way, blizzard knows very well that it can no longer focus on loyalty like it once did and at most hopes that some veteran will reinstall the game with these revival modes.
BUT… this does not take away the fact that 6v6 should have always coexisted with 5v5 since the beginning of ow2 just like they did not allow themselves to completely eliminate assault maps from the game. going back on this decision is fine, but it is also true that it came late, really VERY late. and I say this as a super fan of 5v5 
: I do not like 6v6 but it was unfair to remove it from those who preferred it. 
I do not know what they will propose to us at the spotlight. I always consider myself open to new things, but I will certainly never pretend that the developers have been too smug about the validity of 5v5. It wasn’t up to them to decide and impose a single choice where they were already cutting away the design of a PVE and the most aggressive monetization than before. that 10% has statistical validity only up to a certain point. THEY themselves created this sick feud between 5v5 and 6v6.
Curious if this too. The word “groundbreaking” feels like a mistake to me.
They can make some big changes. Hero bans, map voting, there’s a long list of things that might be well received by certain sections… But none of them are groundbreaking. They are just ideas repurposed from other sources.
I’m not sure there is anything genuinely groundbreaking they can actually add to the game.
They have just set themselves up for the usual forum names to criticise anything they reveal for not being legitimately groundbreaking.
In all fairness, people tend not to respond well when a company over-hypes mediocre products. Especially when it ain’t the first time they commit such a mistake.
Agree.
But the media team should be given a slap for the hyperbolic language used in these statements.
Setting them up for the toxic forumers to make this usual unhelpful comments.