Talk:Overwatch (video game)

Overwatch will be replaced and not be playable when Overwatch 2 releases. This article is very outdated.

This article still says that Overwatch 1 & 2 will coexist with one another.

Update it. Litchfield, Ted (2022-06-23). "Once Overwatch 2 arrives, you'll never be able to play Overwatch 1 again". PC Gamer. Retrieved 2022-07-10.

Tense

So it seems that, since I changed the description from "was" to "is", there has been an edit war over which should be used. I'm pretty sure that "is" should be used, given the policy on tense, but it seems that at least two well established editors (@Materialscientist @Masem) disagree, so I want to get a consensus to stop this article from becoming unstable. 22090912l (talk) 09:37, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Overwatch 1 is no longer playable in any form. The proper form is "was" for that purpose. Overwatch 2 is treated as a different game. Masem (t) 13:30, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

I linked the policy on tense itself, so frankly I am quite surprised you didn't read it. The policy specifically states that present tense should be used by default, even when, and this is the important part, the product or work has been discontinued. It even uses the example of flappy bird, another discontinued game, with the distinct "is". 22090912l (talk) 13:51, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

It would be different if the game was still playable in some form off-line, without servers, that is how we would treat it as present tense. But it is impossible to play that game anymore, its not just discontinued, which is why with these type of live-service games, we prefer to use "was" when there is zero playability of a game. Masem (t) 14:13, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

And where exactly did you get that information? The policy that I linked uses the blanket term "discontinued", which could mean anything from taking away online functionality to simply abandoning the work altogether. 22090912l (talk) 14:19, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Our specific MOS for video games at MOS:VG goes this way. And it is based on the simple question of whether the game can be played at all. Masem (t) 16:28, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm confused then, because those two policies contradict each other. The policy on tense specifically says that even articles about discontinued topics should be written in the present tense and gives an example of a situation very similar to this one. Since the policy about video games suggests that this article should be written in past tense, fine, I'll concede. But I still think that discussion should be had on these mutually exclusive policies. 22090912l (talk) 16:58, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

I think the VG MOS should be brought in line with the site-wide MOS. Overwatch remains a complete product regardless of whether it is playable. I believe it should be is, no matter how strange it seems. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 00:13, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. The fact that these two policies are so blatantly contradictory is a problem which should be addressed. I don't know which one should be changed to comply with the other one, although personally it seems to me that "was" makes more sense than "is" in cases where products can't be used at all anymore. 22090912l (talk) 18:15, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

MOS:TENSE

We can go back and forth the tense question forever. Looking at the previous discussion, it appeared that many users held the belief that since the servers are shut down, that means the game no longer exists. There are several errors in that logic that will be pointed out in turn.

• There is a serious discrepancy in how both MOS:TENSE and WP:VG/TENSE are worded. One saying that it should be in present tense and the other in past tense. I will just say that spinoff MOS pages should not be contradicting the parent page. That should be obvious.
• Next we have the problem with existence. Does the game exist if it is no longer playable? MOS:TENSE was written deliberately to take this into account. The existence of the game and the current status of the servers are two very different concepts. MOS:TENSE understands that just because the game is no longer playable, the game still exists in some form. In other words, unless the source code has been completely deleted and destroyed, the game exists in some form.
• Next we have the fact that there are probably millions of hours of original overwatch gameplay that exists on servers and on platforms such as You tube. I Love Lucy is no longer on TV, but it still exists because it can be viewed and watched, just as Overwatch can still be viewed and watched.
• There is also the fact that emulators have kept the game alive on private servers. Footage of the emulated games are available to watch. Legal or not, the game still exists in that world.
• Finally, if we say “Was” it infers that it is no longer Overwatch and it must be something else entirely. What we need to say is ‘’’Overwatch is a game that was’’’. This way we still acknowledge that it is still called overwatch and not called something else now, but that it is no longer available to play.

The fault isn’t in the arguments at this talk page. The fault is with the wording of WP:VG/TENSE. That is where the real changes need to be made. The area of confusion lies in not being able to separate the game from its server. There is no doubt that the servers have been shut down and that the game is no longer playable through those servers, but the game still exists. Jojhutton (talk) 11:09, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

"Overwatch 1" is a completely unplayable game; if you try to launch it it will not get any farther than failed authorization screens because you aren't running OW2. It is a discontinued product for all purposes and no longer meaningfully exists, which meets both MOS:TENSE and VG/TENSE. Yes, there is footage of the game as it was when it was available.
VG's MOS does not give any weight to unauthorized emulation or fan servers. — Masem (t) 12:25, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

I concur. It is no longer playable on its former servers. Not an argument against that. But the code still exists. It always will. Where does it say in the MOS that unauthorized emulation isn't given any weight? You yourself said in the previous discussion, It would be different if the game was still playable in some form off-line, without servers, that is how we would treat it as present tense. Have you changed your mind?--Jojhutton (talk) 12:40, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

The key phrase is "without servers". OW has no single player mode at all, and requires a server check-in to start.

We do not consider user-made modifications as any type of official support for the game, often because no reliable sources ever cover those since they might cross into the line of piracy. But even when covered, we still consider the official game dead, eg like with Battleborn (which there has been coverage of the fan project to allow private servers)

Video games are interactive, compared to passive media like films and books. the MOS:TENSE part about magazines applies better to video games for that reason - one the game is no longer "in press" (playable), it should be past tense, even though there's likely plenty of archives of gameplay, reporting, etc., as there would be for a dead magazine run. Masem (t) 12:45, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

The original servers no longer exists, but the game code still exists. That's why it's present tense, The game still has existence, and it still is played on other servers. So we agree that the original servers are no longer available to play the game on. No need to keep repeating yourself on that. I fail to see however, exactly how the MOS is being interpreted to not include emulation. That is not written in the MOS. You are just saying that without any MOS wording to back it up. If the emulated game is not Overwatch, then what is the emulated game called?--Jojhutton (talk) 12:55, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

I see the position now and see how it raises some conflicts with how we treat other older games, I've popped a question at WT:VG on an existing thread about tenses for such games. Masem (t) 13:13, 5 May 2024 (UTC)