Talk:Overwatch 2

"Liberal"
The game is not "liberal". It is a game. There are no reliable sources that describe it as liberal or left-leaning. ... disco spinster   talk  00:10, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

there is really no reason for this to be here on the talk page, please delete as soon as possible. Googoobabycake (talk) 18:33, 5 October 2022 (UTC)


 * only moderators should delete this if they see it fit @Googoobabycake Tdshe/her 19:18, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

The added she/her was just unnecessary Googoobabycake (talk) 20:30, 5 October 2022 (UTC)


 * That is her signature. Your original comment makes no sense, either. – Pbrks (t • c) 20:41, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * i honestly don't understand how adding she/her is unnecessary?@Googoobabycake Tdshe /her 19:43, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

there's zero necessity for this thread. Googoobabycake (talk) 21:56, 5 October 2022 (UTC)


 * @Googoobabycake It's in response to a rash of vandalism that occurred. Your replies here are bordering on disruptive. -- ferret (talk) 23:17, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

So sorry Googoobabycake (talk) 05:01, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Full release
When is the game going to leave early access? 99.209.40.250 (talk) 18:32, 31 March 2023 (UTC)


 * At this point I would just consider October 4, 2022, to be the full release date until they say otherwise. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 14:06, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Not really worth it's own article
It's just a bigger patch or update marketed as a sequel, but it's the same game. i don't really think this deserves an own article Norschweden (talk) 19:59, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 August 2023
after cancelling the PVE story mode the fans were very unhappy because that was the point of the game. soon after overwatch 2 released on steam and upset fans quickly made it the most disliked game in all of steam history Urboiluci (talk) 02:46, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting wait.svg Already done  Liliana UwU  (talk / contributions) 02:53, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Review Bombing assertion
This article makes the assertion that Overwatch 2 was "review bombed" upon its release on Steam, but immediately after that assertion goes on to list the completely legitimate reasons for the users reviewing the product to proffer a negative review. Negative reception isn't review bombing and to construe it as such is editorializing (and further it's extremely likely and not really at all paranoid to highlight that individuals working for Blizzard investigate articles like these often; that language is certainly set by someone with a vested interest, be it fandom or professional).

There should be no value judgements about the validity of negative reviews on Wikipedia. References to the negative reviews should be removed completely if the writers of this article are going to frame them in a context that asserts they were made in bad faith.

What's more: Steam reviews have since been completely consistent. Week to week negative reviews have outpaced positive reviews by an order of 3-to-1 with the exception of the weeks of November 16 and November 23.

This game was not "review bombed". A legacy title which had been played for years before being released on Steam received an influx of valid, legitimate reviews from its current and former userbase on it's first weeks on the platform reflecting the quality of the game and the game's stewardship (including the monetization policies of the publisher, the intended impacts of and methods of implementation of past and future gameplay updates, and political positions advocated by the game's publishers and the stakeholders of those publishers).

That entire section should be rewritten to reflect the catastrophic reception of this game. It was not review bombed, it was generally reviled. The release of Overwatch 2 literally contributed to the end of competitive Overwatch, the end of Overwatch as a streaming draw, and the end of Battlenet. The reviews correctly reflect the quality of the game, and anyone who disagrees should go make an account, purchase the game on steam, and offer a positive review on the platform, not come to Wikipedia to sell their narrative. Bob10011001 (talk) 19:06, 8 December 2023 (UTC)


 * We do not do original research, which this is. We go by what reliable sources say, which is that it was review bombed. M asem (t) 19:10, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Chris Scullion, Vikki Blake, and Ashley Bardhan are lying, as I have just demonstrated to you. They aren't reliable sources. They cooked their stories to sell a narrative that will in the long term lead them to have higher ad revenue by guaranteeing them continues access to Blizzard and other industry sources. It's inappropriate to use gaming newsletters as sources. They are not journalists, they have a vested interest in maintaining a relationship with publishers in order to gain access to the games they need to reference to drive their ad revenue.
 * The assertion that the game is being review bombed necessarily must be accompanied by evidence that the reviews themselves contain lies. A game that is "review bombed" with objectively true negative reviews is called a "negatively reviewed game".
 * I have no doubt whatsoever Blizzard's false narrative will never leave this page, but it will be confronted by me here.
 * Also: the assertion that you will freely lie because you can source that lie is absolutely terrifying. Bob10011001 (talk) 19:44, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The game was review bombed and that is an objective fact, what "false narrative" are you talking about here here? If Activision was pushing a false narrative, the sources likely would have never even uttered a word about accusations of sexual misconduct. Furthermore, original research is not acceptable, and yes, gaming newsletters are appropriate sources per WP:VG/S. You can't write a paper (let alone an encyclopedic article) without citing any sources. Could more context be given for the events of why it was review bombed to make it seem less abrupt? Yes, but that's a whole different discussion, and it still qualifies as a review bomb.


 * Furthermore, while you could make the argument for a source like IGN having a bias (which they don't or else IGN wouldn't be a reliable source, but it's still believed by some), I don't think we would trust original research (even if it was allowed) over a high quality source like Eurogamer or Rock Paper Shotgun. Negative  MP1  20:13, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * "Review bombing" isn't an objective distinction it's a qualitative assessment about the validity of the judgement being sourced from users. It's an assertion that the reviews are invalid and that the game should be looked upon more favorably than Steam reviews would otherwise suggest. The "false narrative" is that the game was the victim of any kind of misrepresentation or defamation when that has no basis in reality. Real people were offering real, valid negative opinions of a game that has been genuinely received unfavorably by any definition.
 * You call these sources journalists for seemingly no reason other than them having a DNS entry and a back channel to publishers to get games early. The sources cited are editorial commentary at best, not journalism. These three writers are using their elevated platforms (distinguished primarily by their early access to games delivered by game publishers) to proffer a singular, far-reaching, hyper-influential (see: the Overwatch 2 Wikipedia entry adopting their narrative as objective truth) review expressing that they disagree with the 150,000 thousand negative steam reviews and insisting they be dismissed.
 * It would be perfectly appropriate to include these three individuals views in the article if placed in the correct context of it being the beliefs of three individual people who are paid by an organization with vested interest in the soft treatment of the title being discussed. It's quite a boring inclusion when put in the true context, I can understand why we would want to avoid that, but it is the truth reflected in the cited sources regardless.
 * All that said: not a single one of those articles refuted a single assertion made by the negative reviews, despite what the users here are asserting. The game was at no point review bombed. The game was reviewed completely appropriately, those reviews were overwhelmingly negative, and three people whos reviews counted among the positive wrote articles about it, cited here. It is receiving consistent negative reviews. It is as simple as that. There is no valid basis to conclude it was review bombed except three bloggers with skin in the game.
 * And I hadn't dug in to what is original research, thank you for linking to that. You're either misrepresenting what original research is, are misinformed about what original research is, or don't understand the specifics of the topic in discussion. I did no research, I just cited the freely available steam review statistics in a more easily referenced form. There was no review bombing. The game has a consistent negative trend. It is a negatively reviewed game. It was hated by a majority of reviewers on release. It continues to be hated by the majority of reviewers 6 months later.
 * If your cited sources are enough to conclude that this game was objectively review bombed, my cited source is enough to conclude Overwatch 2 is an objectively bad game. Of course that kind of bias should not be imparted into the article, the reviews of users aren't relevant to the game. Unless your name is Chris Scullion, Vikki Blake, and Ashley Bardhan, of course.
 * And if the sources cited here are considered reliable by Wikipedia guidelines then Wikipedia guidelines are wrong. Videogame journalism is the definition of yellow journalism. Bob10011001 (talk) 22:14, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia reports what reliable secondary sources report. We don't make our own opinion calls on what happens. This is a mass of WP:OR. -- ferret (talk) 20:32, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * As per my other reply, I did no original research. I cited statistics that clearly indicate the supposedly reliable sources are misrepresenting the truth of the situation.
 * And you have made your own opinion calls about what happened, that is exactly my issue. You, three bloggers named Chris Scullion, Vikki Blake, and Ashley Bardhan, and a number of other Wikipedia users have coloured the discussion to favor interpretations that the game was somehow unfairly represented.
 * Not making your own opinion call entails stating clearly that the game was overwhelmingly negatively reviewed and if deeper introspection is needed to offer a survey of the common points made. Calling it review bombing is a personal judgement.
 * The Brass Check was written 124 years ago, how are we still confused about this? I heard Upton Sinclair is a communist. Did you know about this? Bob10011001 (talk) 22:56, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * What you are doing is called Synthesis (doing your own statistical analysis) which is not allowed as it is original research. M asem (t) 23:08, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * No it isn't. I have provided the only valid source one may use to draw conclusions about the trends in steam reviews: the data showing the trends in steam reviews.
 * If I came here and said "look at these first week statistics, it was far more negatively reviewed than it would be in later weeks! Obviously it was review bombed", that would be Synthesis. But if I made the exact same assertion, using the exact same data, under the masthead of an organization who in order to continue existing relies on goodwill with the stakeholder of the property they are reviewing, that's called a "reliable source".
 * Either remove the personal opinions of the three bloggers, or qualify them as arising from pieces of editorial commentary and not a place of ethical journalism. Maybe some day you guys will decide to have articles about video games tell the truth instead of acting as advertisements. I guess the game has to be abandoned first? Bob10011001 (talk) 23:29, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * From SYNTH: " If a single source says "A" in one context, and "B" in another, without connecting them, and does not provide an argument of "therefore C", then "therefore C" cannot be used in any article." That is what you are doing. You are arguing that by your analysis of Steam reviews, that the game must be taken as negatively reviewed, and not as a review bomb. No source says that, so no, we can't add that. M asem  (t) 23:59, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I have since learned that using information to prove Wikipedia articles contain lies is considered in bad taste. Somewhat a shocking revelation but I've frankly moved on from that.
 * Read my other response, I am done here. The writers of this article have drawn opinions from editorial commentary, declared them to be fact, and placed them alongside information researched by actual journalists. It's become clear it wasn't done accidently, and that it won't be corrected. Congratulations and goodbye. Bob10011001 (talk) 18:08, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * It is in fact not bad taste. As WP:NOTOR points out, showing that a source wrong is not original research. As long as you don't add original research to the article itself, there's nothing wrong with using logic and deduction to ensure the factual accuracy of wikipedia, and to explain your reasoning on the talk page. That's what the talk page is for, after all.
 * As for the article, I think this is mostly a matter of opinion. As such, the article should refrain from stating the facts in Wikipedia's voice, and instead make clear opinions belong to their respective authors. Ragnagord (talk) 16:24, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * It doesn't seem like you understand the purpose of Wikipedia or its role as a tertiary source built from other published sourcing. Your opinion on the topic is WP:USERG. -- ferret (talk) 02:18, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * This is a grossly bad faith argument. The article you have written does not reflect the content of your cited sources. Those are editorials. They inform us that Chris Scullion, Vikki Blake, and Ashley Bardhan are willing to have their name above an article saying the words "review bombed", and not much more.
 * They set no standard whatsoever to describe what they believe "review bombing" is never mind assert that the reviews met that standard. They are blog posts, of frustrated fans venting. And you are calling them journalists, "Reliable sources", purely because video games journalism isn't advanced enough for there to be oversight refuting or reflecting on what they have aid.
 * "The proportion of initial negative reviews led some in the industry to characterize the response as review bombing. Others in the industry have highlighted serious technical, gameplay, and community management issues referenced in user reviews, as well as making note of references to past incidents involving Blizzard, including the mishandling of allegations of sexual assault, and the dissolution of Blizzard's NetEase arrangement".
 * There. Done. Also, comparing to what you have currently written:
 * Upon release of Overwatch 2 on Steam, it was subject to a review bombing, receiving a large number of negative reviews and becoming the worst-rated Steam game of all time within a 48-hour timeframe.
 * Here, you cite the three editorials written by people who feel the game was being "review bombed" (whatever metric they use for that).
 * User reviews were generally critical of Blizzard's handling of Overwatch 2 including the removal of the planned PvE content, but also expressed frustration at issues related to the company's recent history, including allegations of sexual harassment at Activision Blizzard. Nearly two-thirds of these reviews were written in Simplified Chinese, which - according to Niko Partners - stems from Blizzard's dissolvement of its agreement with NetEase in China earlier in 2023, leaving Chinese players unable to play on local servers.
 * This is the work of journalists (I stand corrected by the way, there are journalists in games writing; McWhertor wrote a fantastic piece). Different people. Different articles. The people who deemed Overwatch 2 a victim of review bombing said little about the reason fans responded negatively short of framing it as just being a change from the norm. None of the due diligence was done by the editorial commentators you cited as reliable sources. Which would be completely fine if you didn't frame them as objective sources.
 * By putting these two statements beside each other you suggest that any of the cited sources asserting review bombing went into great detail about the past actions of Blizzard that would lead them to conclude the possibility of review bombing. The editorials were deafeningly silent with regard to the reasons people may not take offerings from Blizzard in good faith. A silence any good consumer of information would have taken more seriously when determining reliable sources, something you have prevented here.
 * For the love of god, this is taken from Ashley Bardhan's article:
 * OK, yeah, high-def cartoon porn is cool. Whatever. What’s wrong with the actual game?
 * Nothing immediate. Devoted players just really miss what they feel Overwatch used to be—a good shooter that didn’t constantly beg for your money with a battle pass. Though Invasion introduces a new support character, PvE mode, a free seasonal event mission, and much more, players are feeling too slighted by its pay-to-play system, which has been mostly lackluster since its 2022 introduction, to care.''
 * THIS IS A STEAM REVIEW. YOU ARE CITING A STEAM REVIEW COPY/PASTED TO KOTAKU.
 * You keep framing this as me trying to editorialize when in reality you have constructed this article to sell a narrative that you personally subscribe to: "Gamers are toxic. Negatively reviewed games are the victims of toxicity. Games should be positively reviewed, and if this game was negatively reviewed we should take it for granted that this game was incorrectly reviewed, not negatively reviewed. People who assert that the game was incorrectly reviewed and not negatively reviewed will be taken as objectively correct, until strong evidence is presented to prove the reviews are..." I actually don't know. I do not know by what mechanism a game could actually be reviewed to be bad in your world.
 * Do you really think controlling the narrative on Wikipedia lets you set how the actual narrative is pereceived? Of all realms, you think gaming is the one that will take the truth of what has happened from you? Anyone who cares won't be taking direction from you, and anyone taking direction from you won't be the targets blizzard really cares about. What exactly is your goal here? Are you just this devoted to bad writing for no other reason than this is your territory?
 * Why not just tell the truth? You truly have no power to change the narrative, I absolutely assure you. Bob10011001 (talk) 17:38, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * "We go by what reliable sources say" is not the same as "anything a source says is true". The task of a wikipedia editor is to apply critical thinking and verify the reliability and veracity of a source, and to provide a neutral point of view on the matter. In particular: "avoid stating opinions as facts", even if a reliable source does, and "prefer nonjudgmental language". Ragnagord (talk) 14:33, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * This isn't a matter of just a few sources calling it a review bomb. I can find 10 sources immediately that describe it as such. Moreover, review bombing and a trend of overall negative reviews are not mutually exclusive. Still, it's fine to rephrase the claim to state it was largely negatively reviewed and that outlets described it as review bombing. But in no way should we be looking at weekly Steam data and come to a conclusion based on that. – Pbrks (t·c) 17:57, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * What we can't do, which is what is being begged for, is to incorporate what I know there exists in negative aspects about the game itself that are there in forums/etc. but not part of why reliable source critical reviews even touch on, unless we have reliable sources that specifically dig into these concerns. Basically, we can't reflect reviews from USERG sources w/o actual reliable sources that summarize those reviews for us. Which is always going to create an apparent friction between what we state and what player think should be there (not just on OW2) M asem (t) 19:42, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * What we can't do, which is what is being begged for, is to incorporate what I know there exists in negative aspects about the game itself that are there in forums/etc. but not part of why reliable source critical reviews even touch on, unless we have reliable sources that specifically dig into these concerns. Basically, we can't reflect reviews from USERG sources w/o actual reliable sources that summarize those reviews for us. Which is always going to create an apparent friction between what we state and what player think should be there (not just on OW2) M asem (t) 19:42, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Season 10 is out!
With the new season and all characters being free to play, the gameplay has been so much fun for the community. I am new to editing on Wikipedia, but I plan on editing updates for the latest season, season 10. New characters, maps and game modes, as well as highlighting a few changes that happened recently with hero's health and damage. ParkerMaguire (talk) 20:01, 18 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Welcome! Be sure to support all of your additions with reliable sources. – Pbrks ( t·c ) 22:59, 18 April 2024 (UTC)