*dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Why-Overwatch-is-a-Struggle-For-me

This video has been nominated as a duplicate of this video by chicchorea. If this nomination is seconded with *isdupe, the video will be killed and its votes transferred to the original.

It is overwatch with cell shaded graphics.. and looks like crap. I think overwatch is looking awesome, and find the character design has a wonderful style. This on the other hand has a horrid character design and, well, I hate cell shading for the most part. Great for anime, not for my games running on my beastly rig.

Btw total fail for the title. It made no sense.

I have nothing against Blizzard doing a TF2 style game.

It might even be good.

My comment was simply that TF2 has humour and style, something that (at least from the initial impressions) Overwatch lacks.

It's not bad, but it just clearly wants to ape TF2 in terms of the different accents, etc and it falls flat. Primarily because Blizzard suck at writing. See the cinematic trailer and their desperate attempt for that cockney girl to be cute and have a catchphrase.

So apparently if you are an FPS that looks like it was made by Pixar then you're a TF2 clone.

I mean, the similarities are obvious. They both have guns, they both have (mostly) humanoid characters, there appears to be a control point...and, my god, was that a healing beam!?!?! "One of the characters even turns into a turrent" - Hey now, the heavy is certainly slow and fat but he's not _completely_ immobile.

I spotted something else. That Tracer girl is TOTALLY using Weaver's Time lapse. That's another shameless copypaste from another game that Valve created from a mod made by somebody else. What next, Portals? Silent crowbar wielding protagonists? Waiting almost a decade for the next installment of a hotly anticipated IP?...hold on, I think Blizzard invented that with Starcraft and Diablo. nvm.

Honestly, it's been over 7 years. I played TF2, I loved TF2. When somebody tells me "Hey, Blizzard are shoveling all their money and expertise into creating a new game based on that other game you loved" my reaction isn't "HOW DARE THEY INTRUDE UPON GABEN'S HOLY GROUND!". I am looking forward to playing Overwatch and continuing an age old tradition of whining about how Bliz can't balance games.

Your video, Overwatch Gameplay Trailer, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 25 Badge!

Your video, Overwatch Cinematic Trailer, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

They also released a cinematic trailer *related=http://videosift.com/video/Overwatch-Cinematic-Trailer

Overwatch Gameplay Trailer has been added as a related post - related requested by RFlagg on that post.

Overwatch Cinematic Trailer has been added as a related post - related requested by RFlagg.

Life without the constant overwatch of WH&S is far more spicy, if somewhat shorter... ; )

[redacted]

I disagree QM,

The thing is tax cuts cannot work in the current economic climate. It's just counter productive for economic growth mostly because tax cuts are not effective when people don't have jobs and we live at a time when lending is being slashed. Consumers are also high in personal debt as a whole, so you have saving and debt repayment going on at the same time. This is a halt of all economic activity. You need an external factor to incite economy activity in economy as a whole. This is why there is a stimulus plan.

I agree that the stimulus plan is less then effective, I don't know that there isn't much overwatch in how exactly the money will be applied. I also think it would have been beneficial to start to defund or merge major governmental bodies that have little to no relevance now, specifically the department of education and energy. There needs to be a serious revaluation of DOD spending as a whole. There are far too many projects that are undertaken as matters of national security that are nothing more then R&D by the defense industry, that are then sold back to the government as private products.

However there is alot of ridiculous opposition to alot of things Obama is doing, and he is under pressure to impose a plan right now then later.

The republicans are effectively shooting themselves in the foot, instead of being involved in the process to reduce the government growth and try minimize cost they are fighting against a scheme to help the American people. It will not win them any favors when they talk of saving American jobs but did not help pass this stimulus. This will only further decline their relevancy to the fringe of the US voter public.

Listening to Rush Limbuagh, apologizing to him only makes Rush representative of the GOP as whole to the US. That is being rude, insulting and completely hypocritical without offering any solutions. Instead of actually regrouping and reforming the GOP they are further sliding into irrelevancy.

1. This is not 1980.

2. Tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 show that they don't work as conservative republicans want you to believe, it didn't expand the economy or reduce the hit of the current recession.

3. If you give a wide tax cut right now to the US consumers they will not go out and spend it, they will end up saving it.

4. Previous tax cuts or incentives sent out by Bush only shown that consumers would either repay debt or go further into debt.

5. Tax cuts do not work when the majority of large lenders which are banks are seeking to minimize risk and are slashing lending.

6. Obama's plan is good and bad. Yes infrastructure is a good Keynesian stimulus but not when you don't control how you are applying this investment. Current programs will just have increased spending without increased overwatch in application. However officials will need to sign off on it. But I see good initiatives in health care, education and green programs which will pay off in the long run.

7. The Obama plan does not go far enough.

8. The US economy is fucked either way. Expect 2 to 3 years of global recession.

So then you open the door to deconstruct any other freedoms because the document is "just old." First you avoided the idea of guaranteed freedoms and talked about feelings of safety without guns, or in essence needing overwatch in specific areas of life. Now you say that because the constitution is old, it's contents no longer have merit. This is just plain wrong. The US Supreme Court has defined the 2nd amendment as protecting "from infringement by the federal and state governments the right of the individual to keep and to bear a weapon which is part of the ordinary military equipment or which use could contribute to the common defense."

That is not very ambiguous. Ordinary military equipment does not include weapons of mass destruction by the way. Yes, grenade launchers are legal in the US. Yes, an AR-15 which is quite close to the weapons issued to US troops is legal. Civilian versions are no different than any other semi-automatic rifle. One round for each pull of the trigger. What does that matter? Your argument basically follows that since the constitution is old, and guns kill, it's perfectly acceptable to forcibly disarm the population of an entire country without even having actual data to backup claims that it will reduce crime. I just can't agree with that. Look for reports on the results of gun bans and see if you can find a conclusive scientific study that proves a notable increase or decrease in public saftey. What you end up with is spikes in burglaries, assaults, and home invasions. This can't positively be linked to gun bans either since crime was usually on the rise before the bans and no one can seem to agree on the how of it. Crime in the UK doubled in the years following the 1997 ban and is now only in recent years beginning to decrease. Crime continued to rise independent of the gun ban. Your own country saw a drastic rise in home invasions and assaults following the final removal of all guns. Was it related? It's very difficult to tell with many outside factors involved.

Having a decrease in shooting deaths, but an increase in stabbing deaths solves nothing. You take away a gun? No problem, get a knife. Take away knives? No problem... plenty of big rocks and sticks laying around. The idea that passing legislation to ban a weapon will make an area safer is not taking human nature into account. Someone determined to commit a crime will do so with or without the help of a gun. If there was notable scientific data to prove that gun bans created a safer society with actually less violent crime, then that might at least make it appear more justified for a country like Australia that didn't have a guaranteed right to bear arms in the first place. That data just doesn't exist. In fact, in 1996, John Lott from the University of Chicago Law School published 15 years of FBI analysis on over 3,000 countries to find a correlation, if any, between violent crime and the prevalence of concealed weapons on law-abiding citizens. The results showed a major decrease in countries where citizens were more likely to be armed.

The point I've been trying to make over and over again is that none of that even matters anyway. Removing something with good intentions doesn't make it the right decision. This goes beyond just rights to firearms. When you make it acceptable for the government to alter your fundamental rights, for whatever reason, that is like opening Pandora's box. What prevents the same logic that bans a previously guaranteed right from applying to anything else that is deemed a threat? Dramatizing everything by calling people gun nuts, or thinking in terms of extremes, like having shootouts over a fender bender with depleted uranium rounds, is just trivializing an important issue.

In regards to your example of the 3rd amendment, it still has merit today. There are still scenerios where National Guard troops could be deployed within the borders of the United States (although this is increasingly rare). Disaster relief comes to mind as a recent example. This amendment prevents the government from tossing you to the curb to use your home or forcing you to shelter a soldier. Is it likely to be used anytime soon? Probably not, but every citizen is still constitutionally guaranteed the freedom to have a say in soldiers using their property. You seem to view this issue as something almost inconsequential. As if it's just common sense that all guns should be banned regardless of prior laws and in total disregard to individual freedoms because it would secure you peace of mind. I personally consider this to be ignorant of the future consequences involved with allowing the government that kind of control. There is no possible way to enact a complete ban of all personally owned firearms in this country without violating the law.