Hello,

I just rewatched the final boss fight of the spectacularly amazing 2010 movie Kickass, and I remembered something I've been meaning to float by movie-knowers...

As I see it, this boss fight is the reason this movie exists. The way I picture how "hollywood"-movies are made is that there is a writers room or producers meeting where nothing happens until someone brings out the weed, schrooms and/or coke which lets real brainstorming take place. And suddenly BAM! You have a single amazing thing happen: the Event.

Once that is settled they work backwards to building a believable story that leads up to that event.

The Event for Kickass is having a grown man beat the pulp out of a young girl without anyone really noticing or making a big deal out if it.

This creates some constraints (remember its 2008/9 at the time of writing), for example:

• the girl can not be seen as a helpless victim.
• the man can't win in the end.
• the beating must be reasonably justified within the story and not just pure sadism/misogyny.
• the beating must look very unrealistic.

From those premises they created a a scenario that would make it possible and wrote out a whole film.

I often find myself having an A-ha!-moment when I find the Event in movies, it's one of the reasons I watch them.

This is in my view one of the biggest reason why sequels are bad: the Event has already been had in the first movie so there isn't really anything of value left to the story.

I'm up for talking about things like:

• how far away I am from the real method of making films
• what defining Events you see in this or other movies
• how and why sequels in general or particular are good/bad
• who went as Kick-Ass or Hit-Girl for Halloween
• ....

I get the feeling that, outside its own communities, Overwatch has mostly slipped out of the wider conversation.

We've had:

• Blizzard’s various incidents/controversies

• The shift to OW2 and all the confusion/anger around that

• The battle pass / shop pricing / F2P monetization complaints

• Cancellation of PVE mode

• General live-service fatigue

Most of that hasn’t really been “fixed”, but I'm not seeing nearly as much noise about it anymore, good or bad.

My own (slightly biased) view as someone still playing:

As a now free-to-play, live-service game with ongoing updates and "events", I feel like OW2's cosmetic pricing is (unfortunately) pretty standard compared to similar big titles. I'm not saying that's good, I think aggressive monetization is a wider industry problem, but within that landscape, the model itself doesn't feel uniquely outrageous to me if the goal is keeping a big, polished game running long-term.

I also doubt the actual dev team has much control over pricing, so that part lands more on Blizzard/ABK as a company (shocker).

Setting that aside: purely in terms of gameplay, the game currently feels the best it ever has to me. There's a good variety of modes, and things like the new Stadium mode feel very different from the usual Quick Play/Comp loop while still keeping the core of what makes Overwatch fun: the heroes, the readability, how smooth and well-designed everything feels.

What I'd like to hear from you:

Especially if you're not deep in the OW ecosystem anymore (or never were):

• Do you think about Overwatch at all these days?

• Did you drop it because of Blizzard, OW2’s launch, monetization, balance, something else?

• From the outside, does it feel “fine now”, “permanently tainted”, “kind of irrelevant”, or just background noise?

• If you never really played it: is there anything that would actually make you try Overwatch 2 in its current state?

And if you are still playing or following it closely, I'm also interested in how you feel about the state of the game vs peak OW1 / early OW2, especially whether it's earned back any trust or enthusiasm.

Not trying to rehash every incident in detail, just curious how the game and its reputation land for people who aren’t immersed in it every day.