Comparing Battlefield 1 and Overwatch highlights their distinct gameplay styles and objectives.
Comparing Battlefield 1 and Overwatch highlights their distinct gameplay styles and objectives.
@RoyalBeer I don’t believe either title is overpriced. While Overwatch might look simple, it involves significant balance work. Blizzard continually introduces new characters and maps, offering a variety beyond locked heroes and microtransactions. I appreciate they charge for the game and let players enjoy any hero. Much effort goes into making each character’s abilities feel rewarding yet distinct—something hard to measure in features alone. That’s why it might not seem like a strong value at first glance. As someone who’s played many Blizzard titles including SC2, WoW, and Overwatch, I consider them among the top developers. Their mod team actively discusses decisions on forums, providing clear reasoning based on player input. They often align with companies like Valve, which are more transparent about changes. When they release updates, they tend to be bug-free and high-quality. Blizzard is certainly not perfect, but their commitment to improvement stands out.
I acknowledge the argument, let my irritation take a little time before the comment, sorry for that. It feels quite personal, maybe because I've invested countless hours in titles like Battlefield series, TF2, AoE2, etc. That could have made me feel entitled. For me, these games don’t justify their cost given how much content they offer. I appreciate the idea of everything being open, but the lack of DLC feels disappointing. Each event gives a basic pvp/pve vibe, which doesn’t resonate with me. I enjoy the characters and variety, though Zarya’s skins are underwhelming. Still, it doesn’t make up for all the decisions they made. It's an engaging game when played with friends, but the community splits—fan creators, SFM stories, comics, even adult content. It shows a lot of passion. However, the player experience is questionable; once you lose points, it feels like the value drops quickly. I’m sorry for coming across as biased or overly critical. I’ll try to stay calm moving forward. I love Overwatch, but I see its shortcomings, and people react strongly to those choices.
To the OP - Overwatch, though I haven't tried Battlefield 1. For me, value comes from how much money I invest each hour. I've dedicated hundreds of hours to Overwatch this year, so even though I've spent on loot boxes, it still feels worthwhile. -------- On other discussions about Overwatch, I believe smaller teams highlight toxicity more clearly. In bigger games, a few bad players go unnoticed, and complaints often get lost. I also think Overwatch's popularity has suffered because some people treat online content as absolute truth, no matter their rank or skill, and it's risky picking something outside the meta. I don't agree Blizzard ignores its community. Changes take time, but they've made several based on player feedback—some of which I'd rather not have seen. One thing that interests me about Battlefield 1 is the concept of massive maps and large teams. I'd like to see a 10v10 or 12v12 mode in Overwatch with big maps featuring multiple simultaneous objectives.
BF1 becomes monotonous after 10 to 20 hours because there’s not enough variety or detail. With 20 hours in BF1 and more than 250 in Overwatch, it seems there’s enough material.