Wikipedia

Talk:Overwatch 2

"Liberal"

[edit]

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

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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

@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)[reply]

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

Full release

[edit]

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

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)[reply]

Not really worth its own article

[edit]

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)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 19 August 2023

[edit]

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)[reply]

 Already done LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 02:53, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Review Bombing assertion

[edit]

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.

Overwatch Week by Week Steam Reviews
Week Negative Positive Ratio (Negative to Positive)
August 10 126,156 12,276 10.27
August 17 21,370 2,623 8.15
August 24 12,253 1,470 8.33
August 31 6,214 948 6.55
September 7 4,045 965 4.19
September 14 2,948 685 4.3
September 21 2,539 682 3.72
September 28 2,290 606 3.77
October 5 (Season 7 begins Oct. 10, for reference) 2,366 861 2.74
October 12 2,255 736 3.06
October 19 1,738 644 2.70
October 26 1,783 595 2.99
November 2 1,908 709 2.69
November 9 1,555 765 2.03
November 16 3,244 4,154 0.78
November 23 2,988 4,025 0.74
November 30 1,511 811 1.86

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)[reply]

We do not do original research, which this is. We go by what reliable sources say, which is that it was review bombed. Masem (t) 19:10, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. NegativeMP1 20:13, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
What you are doing is called Synthesis (doing your own statistical analysis) which is not allowed as it is original research. Masem (t) 23:08, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. Masem (t) 23:59, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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) Masem (t) 19:42, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Returning to this as I deal with it once again in Black Ops 7.
You didn't have reliable sources to report that review bombing took place. You declared them reliable because they fit Wikipedia's mold and made the article easy for you to write and defend programmatically (without having to reference or defend the compromised sources' compromised writing).
You dismissing me for having the media literacy to see the yellow journalism prevalent in the content creators making a living in the video game space while also having the eyes and ears to understand a sphere I live, work, and play in is offensive. You construct narratives within the restrictions of the Wikipedia policies and guidelines. USERG sources will sometimes inform your that your narrative is not only completely wrong, it and all its sources have been coopeted to be little more than marketing literature.
And you're response is consistently to revert edits and high five to celebrate no WP:USERG or WP:SYNTH. The friction arises from Wikipedia's complete inability to source evidence in a new media realm completely dominated by commerce. As evidenced by not a single link to the hundreds of valuable, reliable, trustworthy independent journalists using YouTube as a platform, because Wikipedia and it's devotees literally mandate that we believe demonstrated liars who are financially unable to do journalism anymore over individuals who have devoted years of their lives to telling the truth, and transacted on their honesty and reliability instead of being the first to be handed a video game by a publisher.
Wikipedia is compromised. Do better or I will keep complaining about it until enough people see the truth and we can out-revert you. Bob10011001 (talk) 18:44, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You basically want us to ignore our entire policy on identifying and using reliable sources because you think gamers and amateur writing are more correct. That just doesn't fly at all with the principles of WP. We have enough of a problem patrolling g that on heated political articles, where such claims are all too frequent, we aren't going to weaken our stance for video gamrs. Masem (t) 20:44, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No. That is a mischaracterization of what I said.
Your interpretation of Wikipedia's policies seems to allow and encourage the citation of consistently and demonstrably unreliable sources with clear conflicts of interests and a total absence of journalistic ethics over the reporting of professional, independent game journalists.
You disliking their style and their platform doesn't make them armatures, and to imply otherwise is a petty put down of people who have made careers out of being honest, trustworthy, ethical journalists. Individuals who write under their own name and depend on the truthfulness and consistency of their reporting to engender the trust of the community they operate in compose most the few reliable voices remaining in a video game journalism landscape which has been decimated over the last 25 years.
To say nothing of writing under the banner of one of the subsidiaries of Fandom, Inc. or Gawker not making one a professional. Your interpretation of Wikipedia's current policy literally puts the newsrooms of Gamespot, IGN, and Kotaku shoulder to shoulder with the Washington Post, The Boston Globe, and The New York Times for basically no other reason than they share the commonality of having a lawyer on retainer, a domain name/graphic designer, and a complaints department.
If your interpretation is correct, Wikipedia's policies are wrong, and you take advantage of them to paint narratives I and others know to not be true. I would like to work in earnest to stop interpreting Wikipedia policy as you do, or to change it.
And with respect, for the love of god, you of all people should not police apparently heated political articles. You're here using Wikipedia's policies to shield you from criticism for supressing valid, useful, new media journalism in favour of demonstrably false narratives peddled from larger institutions, more broadly known institutions; your nuanced take/sources on the Israel/Palestine conflict would be an international incident. Bob10011001 (talk) 22:32, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Our global definition of reliable sources are those that have a demonstrated history of fact checking and editorial control. We judge sites like Polygon and Eurogamer as reliable because of those features. On the other hand, posts by individual users typically immediately fail the editorial control aspect, much less fact checking, so they are considered unreliable, unless we have other reliable sources that also consider them reliable (rarely happens but we leave that open). And the goal of WP is not truth, but verifyability to reliable sources. Mind you, we are careful to make sure contested statements are attributed to who published them as to be clear we are not calling that the truth. Masem (t) 22:58, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Our global definition of reliable sources is far broader than that and beyond policy also entails editors having media literacy. Our global definition also holds sources with sponsored content highly suspect and restricts the scope of editorial content's reliability to reflecting the opinions of the editor or contributor who wrote it.
Because you decided to bring up the specific newsrooms: shortly after that article was written by Vikki Blake for Eurogamer (saying the words "review bombed" in the lede before dropping a laundry, 500-word list of genuine grievances composed exclusively of word-for-word quotes taken from Steam reviews) she wrote an editorial piece parroting paragraph by paragraph a public statement from a Blizzard executive (the game's director Aaron Keller), primarily again in word-for-word quotes, co-signing Blizzard's assertion that the negative proportion of reviews resulted from review bombing, and not of valid criticism. You can't sue someone for re-publishing someone else's published quotes.
Conversely Polygon never once asserted "review bombing" had taken place and thoroughly and evenhandedly explained the context and content of the reactions.
Your global definition of (your interpretation of policy regarding, to be clear what I am referring to) reliable sources isn't good enough, and it allows Wikipedia to be gamed to alter facts by individuals with vested interests in doing so. Eurogamer has a long, documented, fully archived history of being little more than a repository of the social media statements made by third parties, often without expanding on context or investigating the truth of those statements; epitomized by that Overwatch 2 follow up article. Why have you not yet said to yourself "wait, I can't endorse this, I can see this to not be factual" from a personal moral perspective, never mind WP?
Your interpretation of policy elevates the voices of unequivocally unreliable sources to empower them to declare facts. Actual policy blocks including the voices of independent new world journalists who would paint a far fuller, more reliable, more balanced, more verifiable depiction of events. Bob10011001 (talk) 02:05, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
you're making claims about the intent of reliable sources that are not sourced to anything but more user blogs and forums that think there are mass conspiracies within the video game media. We definitely cannot do that. We have a method to challenge the reliability of sources if there is documented evidence (from other reliable sources) that there is a problem, that's how WP:RSP has come about. But you can't make claims that a source, previously established to be reliable, should be unreliable without clear evidence that it should be taken that way.
You're arguing against the basis of how WP:V and WP:RS work on WP, and that's not going to change. We summarize what reliable sources say, and if these other voices feel they need to be heard, they should be seeking to make sure they can be considered a reliable source rather than randomly making unsourced claims about the problems with existing sources. Masem (t) 13:18, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No. I am not. I am highlighting your advocacy for using demonstrably unreliable sources to draw conclusions which those sources do not support, while simultaneously criticizing your dismissive attitude towards journalists who do not write under high enough quality graphic design.
"Blogs". "Forums". "Individual users". You can forever denigrate these professional journalists for building their careers on YouTube or Patreon or Substack or Spotify or Apple, it will never prevent the rest of us from having the eyes and the ears to determine your assertions about their reliability and accountability are patently untrue. The inverse is equally true when you point to editorials and claim that the contributors are stating objective facts because they write words under a mast head. We can actually read the sources, we don't just take your word for it because you say it meets policy.
And speak for yourself. Here is Eurogamer's contributor contextualizing people who gave negative reviews as "review bombers". Citing Eurogamer as a "reliable source" (among other similar editorials) this article previously represented the assertion that the game was review bombed as a factual statement. "We" successfully came together to recognize that these "reliable sources" were actually just works of editorial comment and the language I explicitly suggested to put these unsubstantiated opinions into context was incorporated into the article.
I was right. Your reliable source wasn't reliable. It was an editorial comment by Vikki Blake. "We" made sure these "reliable sources" are put in the proper context and prevent the synthesis of facts by suggesting these statements come from sources meeting Wikipedia's definition of reliable. It's frustrating that you keep trying to lecture me.
I understand you will be pushing back against reliable independent journalists reporting factual, verifiable information being included in Wikipedia. For now you are getting your way but I can't say you haven't given me an axe to grind. It's pretty easy to produce thousands of instances of independent journalists telling the truth contrasted against tens of thousands of ad-driven content creators with documented, financial conflicts of interests with the subjects they write about writing demonstrably unverified assertions.
Seriously: "blogs"? "Forums"? Do you understand that there are people working as editors on Wikipedia who are too young to have lived in a world where blogs or forums existed? I do not believe you are equipped with the tools to understand modern media and you compromise Wikipedia by incorporating the compromised voices you refuse to interrogate the validity of.
To be unambiguously clear Vikki Blake doesn't self-identify as a journalist. She's a "video game critic, reporter, and columnist" who "write[s] crisp, accessible words for specialist and mainstream publications". More than 7 publications, actually.
It's like you're pointing to the sky and saying "look, it's purple". These are not reliable sources. Bob10011001 (talk) 23:12, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Season 10 is out!

[edit]

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)[reply]

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

Edit request - Opening paragraph

[edit]

The opening paragraph is a bit of a mess. What does it mean that the game "intends a shared environment"? Feels like this sentence should be split up into two: one which describes the game and a second which describes the design intentions / how the game is not quite a full sequel. Currently one sentence attempts to do both and achieves neither.

The opening paragraph should be clean, plain-English outlining of the facts. 62.172.149.99 (talk) 08:05, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rebranding

[edit]

Ahead of today's blizzard spotlight for overwatch, there are far too many teasers and leaks that indicate that blizzard is going to rename Overwatch 2 back to just Overwatch and reset the season numbering system. Please don't move this page as we need to see how much of a refresh this is and if that may make sense for a new page. Masem (t) 17:15, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It seems they're just rebranding back to "Overwatch" (without an appended number). EdoAug (talk) 18:40, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
And while there are engine updates it's still the same game as ow2, so a separate page isn't logical. I am thinking to name this "Overwatch (2023 video game)" and note in lede that it was released as IW2 and rebranded back. But need to noodle on that. Masem (t) 18:50, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'd vote to keep it as Overwatch 2. Similar to how Twitter's page is still Twitter, despite the platform now being X, and update from there. Kaii-El (talk) 19:14, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Especially considering there was never a time when you could play both games at once. Overwatch became Overwatch 2 which became Overwatch. It's one game that's undergone changes, including its name. Yougolplex (talk) 22:07, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I mistook what you meant. I'm actually in favor of merging into one page, and decreasing the amount of detail accordingly. Yougolplex (talk) 22:08, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this sentiment. The game was initially released as, and has spent multiple years known as, Overwatch 2. Until most publications refer to this specific game as Overwatch, there’s a good reason to support keeping the title as-is. And even if such a moment were to arise, changing the title would feel a bit redundant as we would have both games in the series referred to as “Overwatch (2016 video game)” and “Overwatch (2022 video game)”. It would be a bit confusing to those who are unfamiliar with the franchise; that makes the original title of Overwatch 2 the best-suited for clarity and for discussing that specific game. Lowryder71 (talk) 19:22, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I would honestly be in favor of merging the Overwatch 1 and Overwatch "2" pages as long as page bloat isn't an issue. Yes, it spent years branded as a sequel, but from what I know player's progress from OW1 carried over to OW2, and a lot of the general public treated them as the same game (I'll need to check if sources sometimes referred to it as the same game). The game also spent the last two years re-adding features removed from OW1 to OW2, like 6v6 and loot boxes. We'll have to wait and see if sources start considering them to be the same game again and go from there. Unnamed anon (talk) 19:33, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Merging would be bad because they are two very different games, and we already have a franchise page too. Ow2 back to OW in this rebrand is very clearly not a new game, which is why a split doesn't make sense. Masem (t) 23:56, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
While I can accept the pages being separated since this did spend 3 years branded as a sequel, I disagree that merging would be "very bad". They're not "clearly different", as a lot of the changes from OW to OW"2" were removed, such as 6v6's removal being reversed, loot boxes returning, and heroes going from free to paid to free again. I would honestly not mind Overwatch 2 being the past tense page to document the game from 2022 to 2025, with all of the other stuff being moved back to the Overwatch 1 page. Unnamed anon (talk) 03:11, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That's even a worse idea (that we append OW post-2026 to the OG OW release). There was a significant engine change going from OW1 to OW2, but from OW2 to rebranding OW1, there has been no significant changes at the backend. Its why the logical split is only between OW1 and OW2. Masem (t) 13:53, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that once the dust settles and assuming confirmation / no takes-backsies / rebranding, Overwatch (video game) be moved to Overwatch (2016–2022 video game), and this article be moved to either the vanilla Overwatch (video game) (which will create confusing links in the history, but is probably the best and least confusing long-term option), or to Overwatch (2022–present video game) if there's a desire to be really explicit. Year ranges are the best IMO as they don't rely on retronyms like "Overwatch 1" which will be confusing now that this is just OW anyway. SnowFire (talk) 23:44, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just retain "Overwatch 2"? It's by far the least confusing title. WP:COMMON NAME does not require us to use the current "official" title and asks that an unambiguous title br preferred over a more common but ambiguous name. "Overwatch 2, later rebranded to just Overwatch" seems like the best possible way the opening sentence could be phrased Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:45, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the official name isn't decisive here, but that isn't the reason to move it; it's that the common name in media sources and the like will almost certainly switch, too. Sometimes the real world is messy. If the WP:COMMONNAME does become Overwatch, which it was already close to being, we should accept that. It would be less confusing if Star Trek (2009 film) was called "Star Trek 11", but it wasn't. SnowFire (talk) 04:01, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If we do decided to drop the "2", I think simply Overwatch (2016 video game) and Overwatch (2023 video game) would be better disambiguations. – Pbrks (t·c) 02:26, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The second game came out in 2022 though, even if it was some sort of mandatory "beta". And while normally the release year is enough when date disambiguation is required, I think a range is appropriate for OW1 at minimum because the-topic-of-OW1 had a hard end date, unlike other games that merely come out in a certain year but are playable indefinitely. Leaving it at just "2016 video game" might imply it was about "games named Overwatch as a whole which started in 2016" which is closer to the franchise article. SnowFire (talk) 04:01, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Games don't have date ranges, though, its a very weird concept. Now, we can talk content for a live service game that might span ranges, but for OW, the amount of discussion of this content is actually relatively small, primarily the characters and the seasonal content overview stuff. If it is clear that the media consistently now call OW2 as "Overwatch", then it makes sense to move to "Overwatch (2023 video game)", move OW 1 to "(2016 video game)", and just makes sure hatnotes are there. But too soon to be making that determination now, probably wait at least a month to see how the dust settles. Masem (t) 04:12, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
On this, just because it was in beta in 2022, the official release date is in 2023. We don't take in beta or early access periods into account for assigning the year to the game, eg MultiVersus is a 2024 game (its official release) despite being available in 2022. Masem (t) 13:55, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think the two articles should be merged since Overwatch 2 was essentially the same game as OW1 on launch (minus the 6v6 mode) ~2026-83367-7 (talk) 02:21, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
No one seems to be treating them as the same game. Metacritic has separate entries (though now both named just Overwatch) for example. Masem (t) 02:24, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Masem: I disagree that "no one seems to be treating them as the same game" since the name reversion is still new. Give sources at least a month and I predict they'll start considering them to be the same game again. As for the Metacritic argument, I would not use as gospel that the entries are still separated with the same names since they are likely unable to merge them for technical reasons. There might not be programming to merge reviews for both pages on their website. Unnamed anon (talk) 03:11, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Overwatch and Overwatch 2 were never seperate applications on any platform. On the Xbox site, the release date is still marked as 2016. I think the pages should now be merged. Memoryman3 (talk) 20:31, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That's not how it's treated in reliable sources though. Masem (t) 21:29, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how primary sources like the PlayStation/Xbox/Battle.net stores are unreliable. Overwatch 2 was always just an update and not a new game. Memoryman3 (talk) 22:44, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
WP favors third party and secondary sources. If most secondary sources treat it as a new game, we should too. Masem (t) 23:13, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

We should wait and see what secondary sources say, but as a quick reply now in case someone were to open an RM early - in reply to Masem's comment on release dates - times change. Using "official" release date was fine in the past, but it doesn't make sense now in the era of live service games. Overwatch "2" is a 2022 game with zillions of hours of playtime in 2022. Gmail is 2004 software for one famous example; removing the "beta" label was treated as a joke in 2009, as nothing in particular changed, it wasn't "released" in 2009. SnowFire (talk) 14:33, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

We still use when games state they are at version 1, or our of early access, or whatever terminology they opt to separate these stages from the full release. There are some live service games that don't do that at all even as the game evolves significantly. And there are a few cases where the devs initially called first releases as early access or beta periods but later rescinded that, like the Google case, and we work with tysy. But Overwatch 2 has a clear point the devs said they were out of early accesd, so we use that date, not the early access one, but of course document that it was an early access game for about a year. Masem (t) 15:40, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 19 February 2026

[edit]

– I think it's time to invoke WP:NAMECHANGES here. Reliable sources have all started referring to the game as simply "Overwatch" post-reboot - it feels like a bit of a "Realm Reborn" situation, if less major. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:51, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Changing "Overwatch 2" to "Overwatch" without any disambiguation whatsoever seems like a very contentious choice, and I'd advise changing it, perhaps to "Overwatch (2023 video game)". Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:03, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
On second thought, you're probably right, largely because Overwatch 1 has higher longterm significance and influence as a game. I removed that aspect and changed the move target. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:30, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Far too early per the discussion above. Its only been 2 weeks, far too soon to determine how RSes will be naming it. Masem (t) 00:54, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There's a pretty low chance it will be called "Overwatch 2" going forward when that's extra effort for no reason. I think it's common sense it will simply be called Overwatch. This article only uses Overwatch 2 to describe the past version. This one also just calls it Overwatch. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:56, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
And I agree that likely it will be just OW in the future, but just 2 weeks from the change is not sufficient, particularly to determine how sources discuss the original OW and the renamed OW 2 as OW. That may reveal a more obvious disambiguation that we can use, so this is jumping the gun. Masem (t) 14:18, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I do think its common for people saying a short form of the name to refer to whatever the latest (or most popular) game in the series is. eg GTA for GTA 5, or Animal Crossing for Animal Crossing: New Horizons. Of course, reliable sources don't do so because of any ambiguity (and because of formality). JuniperChill (talk) 21:44, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This RM is needed but likely still premature; can we consider putting it on hold for ~2 weeks? If we wait a bit then this is much more likely to generate sufficient sources to determine if the name has changed in media sources. Also, per above, if we do move, strong oppose to using "2023" as the date of this, use Overwatch (2022 video game). This game came out in 2022. Everyone trying to play original Overwatch was mandated to switch. This was not some sort of beta test, this was just the game being played in the wild. The "official" release date is trivia. Per above, see Gmail for a famous example where the software clearly came out in 2004, there are tons of people using it for real, and then the "beta" label was quietly dropped as a joke in 2009. 2004 is the accurate year for GMail, not 2009. SnowFire (talk) 14:13, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:VG goes by the full v1.0 release for dating. OW 2 is a 2023 game, with early access periods in 2022. Yes, it was the only OW game playable during that time, but that's still when they were actively testing and ironing things out with public input. Masem (t) 14:20, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    A) WP:NCVGDAB does not say this. It just says "For further disambiguation, use "(YEAR video game)". B) Even if it did, then this isn't an inviolable law. Circumstances have changed and what was a good model for most 2010s games may not make sense in the 2020s. C) Even if it did and there wasn't a desire to change it, guidelines allow sensible exceptions from the default. The relevant year for this topic is clearly 2022. Look at the sources on the release of OW2, reviews, etc. (e.g. this 2022 review). SnowFire (talk) 14:52, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now. Let's let this ride a bit longer, see if/how media outlets refer to the first game (internally, it's being called Overwatch Classic if the skin selection screen is any indication, but I don't think media sites are picking that one up).--Kung Fu Man (talk) 06:58, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Digression on release dates

[edit]

Above, I argue that whatever we do with this, 2022 is the date to highlight. Let me go into this more in-depth.

Let's look at other fields and how they're treated on Wikipedia. For films, "sneak previews" at film festivals generally don't count for release dates (equivalent to limited-invite beta tests for video games). However, released to the public for a full weekend counts, even small releases. See 1917_(2019_film)#Release (or many other films with small December releases to qualify for awards shows in a particular year, but actually are released in January or February) for an example that is disambiguated as a 2019 film, despite properly going "wide" in 2020. Which is correct, IMO. Wikipedia calls even a small release as counting as the release date. So what would we do if, for some reason, a film is released wide to theaters across the world, but some marketing material called it a "sneak preview"? The answer is clear. The marketing material doesn't matter and doesn't change reality; the release to the public would "win" as the date to use. Or imagine if someone were to insist that Star Wars was a 1997 film or a 2017 film because of the remaster changes, rather than a 1977 film. I would say that it is clear that Overwatch 2 had the equivalent of a wide theatrical release in 2022.

The official release date is usually correct for games because it usually matches when a game is available wide. It's traditionally been good at distinguishing between a proper release and say some sort of open beta. But times change, and we have more games where the "real" wide release varies from the "official" release. When such a difference happens, reality wins. The map is not the territory. SnowFire (talk) 14:52, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Films are not a good way to judge dates because they don't have beta periods. A limited public screening rarely causes the film to go back into development, so that's treated as the release date. The comparable to video game early access would be test screenings, which are private and rarely when dates are known. Masem (t) 15:00, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The question isn't how much the game has changed (look at something like League of Legends, categorized as "2009 video games", vastly different from what it was in 2009). The question is when the wide release happened. Film test screenings and "classic" video game betas don't count because they aren't wide releases, not because they're different from the later product. Once a film is released to the public in a way that isn't film festival previews, that's the release date, even in the rare cases where substantial revisions really do happen (this did sometimes happen in the 1930s where reels were taken town-to-town and the movie updated for every city from the pile of raw footage they had). We should follow a similar standard for video games. SnowFire (talk) 17:59, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Again, films don't have a development cycle once they open to the public. Video games are unique from most other forms of media in that they evolve after they are released, and for the VG project, we opt to use the point when they developers say they are past the major point of development (that is, past any beta, early access, or other similarly named period) as the point the game is considered "released". Masem (t) 21:31, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This doesn't really make too much sense as a point anyways. People are failing to point out that overwatch 2 and overwatch are literally the same game anyways (overwatch 2 even had the exact same executable as overwatch 1 upon release). Overwatch 2 is just a more updated version of overwatch. Auxy6858 (talk) 15:19, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]