Overwatch 2: The Laziest Sequel

Overwatch 2: The Laziest Sequel

Overwatch 2 is the latest but not greatest blunder from Blizzard. It’s barely worth calling a sequel.

Follow me on Twitch ➤ https://www.twitch.tv/theactingmale
SUPPORT the Channel ► https://www.patreon.com/TheActMan

Editing Help by ► https://www.youtube.com/c/ParagonMitchell
Thumbnail by ► https://twitter.com/EtherealEOD

Introduction – 0:00
What Has Blizzard Been Doing? – 3:21
Overwatch 2 Isn’t a Sequel – 5:17
Locking Heroes in The Battle Pass – 9:24
What’s New? What Overwatch 2 Does Right – 12:41
Content Removed from Overwatch 1 – 17:41
Conclusion – 21:16

Subscribe ↪ https://www.youtube.com/c/TheActMan?sub_confirmation=1
Twitch ➤ https://www.twitch.tv/theactingmale
Twitter ➤ https://twitter.com/TheActMan_YT
Act Man TV ➤ http://bit.ly/2kPXk7f

Discord ➤ https://discord.gg/yBABtkh
Instagram ➤ https://www.instagram.com/theactman_yt/
Xbox Live Gamertag ➤ The Act Man

Join this channel to get access to perks:

You may also like...

48 Responses

  1. The Act Man says:

    I put more effort into the dump I took this morning

    • Dragon Eyr says:

      I’m taking a dump right now, can confirm there’s more input… or output into that, rather than the sequel itself

    • Ruben Zacarias says:

      Act Man blizzard don’t care about what you say as long as you keep playing there game they will keep doing what they do. Blizzard will never be a player first company because Blizzard know gamer have short term memory.

    • Awesome Arsam says:


    • CryhmeTime says:

      It cant all be perfect, give them some time like the time they need to finish PvE after working on the Logo for 4 years.

  2. The Beak says:

    I can confirm that Overwatch 2 is a game ever made

  3. David Stinger says:

    The worst part isn’t that this is just an update marketed as a sequel, is that it’s mostly an update to the monetization system.

    • A Bad Enough Dude says:

      I.e. update to the one thing actually important to publishers.

      Never thought I’ll get to actually despise gaming.

  4. Julia Red says:

    Take me back to the days of discs and hard copies, where either the product was finished, or the developer was.

  5. Way O' The Fro says:

    I never thought that being able to play games for free would be one of the worst things to happen to gaming but the free-to-play model is really proving me wrong.

    • Awesome Arsam says:

      Only True free to play game that I believe in right now is still Warfarme.
      I fear the day DE manages to disappoint me greatly because of this system

    • Gamer Mosley says:

      @Megadwarf 47 That is far from the original point…

    • Nightlizard1564 says:

      The only good thing about free to play games is just the huge amount of players it gets on launch. Just look at multiverses. Everyone hyped it up and it was free to play but as soon as people realized it was a rushed game with little to no content and a repetitive grind their numbers dropped from 22 million- 5k.

    • Megadwarf 47 says:

      I mean its not that bad I get to play for free and other people pay for cosmetics

    • Pomada Gaming says:

      Genuinely. I did not think of this when I was younger and just liked games being free. Now seeing this is like “damn all this content from the past game that was free behind the game itself having a price tag is now locked behind a price tag perhaps 5 times higher and more so in the future for just the game being free”

  6. Dryer Of Doom says:

    I love it when you can display your achievements in video games, taking away the borders and stars really sucks, and taking away the medals feels like it ruins the flow almost

    • Surreal Reviews says:

      Imagine being those people with the crazy diamond borders and all of that and then losing it for no reason.

    • Olivia Verchota says:

      Now we have “getting achievements just kicks you from the game haha”

    • jaber says:

      lmao in ranked borders and stars were exclusively a way of flaming other players for being the same rank as you with hundreds more hours

    • Yoanski says:

      @Nacht Bogen that’s a good thing since they can’t lie about their stats and they just have to step it up

    • Nacht Bogen says:

      @Yoanski I would argue it’s worse. Now I can see that the 2 dps are doing the least amount of damage compared to healers and the tank. It promotes targeting because I can see they are not doing their job. The amount of times I saw a dps under 1k damage after 4 minutes is terrible.

  7. Paragon Robbie says:

    I’ve seen my fair share of planned expansions to games becoming sequels, but I can’t say I’ve ever seen an update for a game marketed as a sequel before.

    • DEREIVID says:

      Unturned be like

    • Hugh Jass says:

      @Nathan Goodhew Gameplay is similar but the content is different, it’s not just an update to the game like OW2 is.

      Bo4 was still enjoyable for me and the $60 price was worth it to me. Paying $70 now for something like mw22, not so much.

    • Paragon Robbie says:

      …dear god, now that you said it, I think you’re right. Capcom beat Blizzard to the punch by decades.

    • Nathan Goodhew says:

      @Hugh Jass bro I play cod, their pretty similar every year, I honestly put it next to pokemon in terms of sequels, new map, new pokemon, same game underneath. which again they cant do much about. but it feels like I’ve been scammed going from BO3 to 4, just not enough changed for a $100 CAD price tag. I’ve given up with giving them my money

    • Paragon Robbie says:

      I’ve seen several people mention Fortnite and MW3, but neither of those were just updates.

      Fortnite is a weird one because I know the original; Fortnite Save The World, was a PvE survival game with somewhat of a story. It seemingly sold poorly and Epic ended up making a free game mode in the hopes of making back the money they’d lost with Save The World. I wouldn’t personally call Fortnite just an update to Save The World because of the drastically different type of game that it was even if it was made entirely with assets from Save The World. It would be like having an Overwatch game entirely based off the (still to be made) PvE mode. If they made Overwatch 2 based around that, I’d say it’s a different game.

      As for MW3…seriously, you’re calling an entire new campaign just an update to MW2?
      …I wish games would update by adding entire campaigns.

  8. Inept lightbulb says:

    Take me back to the days of discs and hard copies, where either the product was finished, or the developer was.

    • Jon Pray says:

      @knutrubzilla There are full playthroughs of these games on Youtube.

      FF IX – 14 hours by Warlord Xecc
      Majora’s Mask – 10.5 hours for 100% by BeardBear
      Deus Ex – 11.5 hours by Ermacgerd Longplays
      Tony Hawks 2 – 1 hour by World of Longplays
      Metal Gear Solid – 6 hours by SourceSpy91

      Average time to play the games you listed is about 8.5 hours. An order of magnitude less than what’s expected from modern games.

    • knutrubzilla says:

      @Jon Pray Most games had a good amount of content on release then. Look at the games list from 2000. FF IX, the legend of Zelda- Majoras mask, Deus ex, tony hawks 2, metal gear solid, and the list goes on. 6hours of content my ass. I would happily go back to getting completed games on release instead of buggy and broken releases, early access, predatory monetization, and fuckin virtue signaling fan-hating devs.

    • Jon Pray says:

      Yeah take me back to 6 hours of content for a $60 game. Those were the good ole days.

    • Buttersaemmel says:

      makes you question how arbitrary release-dates actually are.
      to me nowadays most releases feel more like they’re EarlyAccess Games.
      they got probably more content but the quality is usually the same.
      so i don’t even understand anymore why they don’t release it as such and why they crunch like theire employes are slaves just to still release it unfinished.
      it’s the ugly route between releasing something as Early Access and releasing something finished.

  9. BillyKatze says:

    the 2 little things i miss more than i thought i would is
    1: the endcards where you could see who perfomed the best at some categories (healing, damage *objective time* (where did that go?)
    and 2: the option to endorse the enemy team. i cant count how many times the enemy team had a really good player that just had bad luck with randoms from the internet, and i just want to give them that little “hey, you did great, here have some recognition”. nope, thats gone. dunno how that combats toxicity, but my brain probably isnt corporate enough to see the brilliance behind that.

    • SomeCoolToad says:

      The idea behind the endcard was to show the best TEAMplayers

      the scoreboard muddles that.

    • Tiziano Giammichele says:


    • rangerreview says:

      There’s one factor why this was removed. It can be used to be toxic. People would vote from the enemy team, the green choice. Meaning you helped us win. Because you sucked, refused to switch etc. After a while it was looked at as a troll tactic on people. Just like the level system. Everything was turned into this, for someone.

    • EiGhT LiGhTs says:

      Games are done adding these stats to not offend people. Look at majority of games coming out lately, sometimes they remove the damn scoreboards altogether

  10. MindinViolet says:

    I remember years ago, when Blizzard were known for the unmatched polish of their games. Gone are the days.

    • Lon Lon says:

      Some years back when lootboxes were being questioned over legality, I remember some developer saying something along the lines of “the alternative is a lot worse. You are going to wish you didnt do this”

    • Feenger says:

      I also remember Warcraft being a story about bloody war between orcs and humans, and not cartoonish orkys and humies.
      Good times huh.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *