Review bombed. Still getting peak 75k players says the article as well.
I do think the game's quality has gone down since OW1, but to call it the worst steam game of all time is silly. There's straight shovelware on steam.
With no context, completely in isolation, yeah Overwatch 2 isn't the worst. But for a lot of players, it's not just about what Overwatch 2 is, but also about what it did and what it means. That factors into players' feelings about the game.
Spot on. I dont give a single fuck about shovelware, but I absolutely care about OW and how Blizzard managed to turn me off a game I was pretty much addicted to.
It depends on what metrics do you use. In general, lowest-rated stuff on sites are not the worst by objective terms, but because of propaganda or other stuff that pisses off people.
Blizzard is done from my point of view. They don't care about players anymore. #Larian
Companies NEVER care about their customers. They care about profit.
Sometimes, it is profitable to be considerate of the consumers, but when customers are willing to give a company money despite their bad practices, they will always prioritize profit.
That's the problem, if at least a part of us would start to punish companies, not with comments or bad reviews but with their actual wallet, and instead "reward" them for customer friendly behavior, the industry as a whole would be in a faaaaar better state.
I think maybe it requires legislation or a change in systems. It's not really feasible to rely on millions of individual customers coming together to punish bad companies, it just doesn't seem to happen effectively or make a significant impact.
If I'm being honest, they deserve it. I played Overwatch 2 maybe 10 Times, the constant reminder that you aren't playing for fun, but for a totally original and new character or something very useful like a skin in the battle pass is quite annoying. The 5v5 was at first glance refreshing but got old at a rapid pace. Just play Team Fortress 2 if you're looking for a great shooter.
Let's be honest. It's not about the 5v5. It's not about the CC. It's not about the balance changes. It's not about the cancelled single player.
It's about the free stuff. Blizzard took away the free stuff, and everybody's angry about it. Now you have to pay for a decent amount of cosmetics, and getting a new hero requires a grind (a big grind for current-season hero, small grind for past ones) unless you want to pay.
There are two viable business models for service-based games (and running servers and paying moderators is service, that's why they're called servers):
Sell a game and then support it right up until everybody's already bought the game, then sell the sequel and repeat. Otherwise how do you fund development when nobody is paying you anymore?
Sell a game and then harass your players into giving you recurring payments.
don't make the game a service. The game is a product and not a service, the service is the bare minimum to keep the master server up. Players run dedicated servers, make the expansions through modding, etc. This is how it used to be for everything before Xbox Live.
I get that it's disappointing, but when you get angry about not getting enough post-release content you're asking for 1 or 2. And the industry has pretty much moved away from type 3 -- I can't think of a modern popular game that isn't a decades-old institution like Minecraft Java that fit into that category.
Problem is OW1 was a fairly ethical implementation of approach #2, but greed got the best of them.
It was pretty generous for people who weren't buying loot, but selling loot crates in a slot machine was far worse, imho. You just know how bad that must've been for people with gambling addictions -- "here, buy 100 random pulls and hope you get the skin you want".
The difference being that it was a skin and you didnt need to buy them. I had almost every skin in ow1 just by playing and i didnt even have a silver banner thingy around my character portrait.
In ow2 you are buying characters which you actually need to play effectively.
I wholey agree that gambling mechanics have no place in games, and that cosmetics can have as much pull to addicts and people susceptible to fomo as things that affect gameplay but when the thing you are gambling on can be bought for coins (which you earn tons of by playing the game and pulling items you already have) and the chances of pulling items you dont already have are stacked in the players favour then it does beg the question of wheres the fomo?
The characters are very easy to unlock in game for free. Obviously it's not as good as getting them at the start of the season, but it's not p2w. They're at the end of the free battle pass in their launch season, and have an easy achievement challenge to unlock them in following seasons. I'd say the preferred weapons in tf2 were harder to get.
45 level grind isnt easy for people that have limited time to play.
And i needed to win 35 games as a support character to unlock lifeweaver, which as a solo queue player with enough time to play 2 to 3 games on average a night when i actually get to play, is not easy.
I know im not the only person playing the game but i also know im not alone in my situation.
The fact is its not the game it used to be but its pretending that it is.
If they hadnt cancelled the co-op rpg element that was the original reason we all had to abandon ow1 th3n maybe that wouldnt be much of an issue. But they said its too much to develop it so its gone. And now to replace it they want more money for something else that used to be free.
Its all just a cash grab. Its not balanced towards player, if you think its fair then you have been fooled by capitalism too.
It is a lie that they cant provide the resources to make the rpg part of ow2. They have several thousand employess and are one of the richest game companies in the world. Larian have 400 employees and managed to make bg3 in 6 years... so its absolute bollocks. Blizzard spent 3 years developing wat ended up being ow1 witha reskin.
laughcries in gacha game
Honestly this seems a bit much. I recently started playing again after years and am generally enjoying it. I guess I already have most of the skins I want from OW1, so I don't really think about the cosmetics of it. But the gameplay is still just as fun as far as I can remember, the balance seems fine.
But I think lets take off the rose-tinted glasses on OW1. You know what I don't miss? Needing to buy tons of loot boxes during a specific period in order to get one skin that you particularly wanted. At least now it seems you can just buy what you want, if you care.
Not a fan of Blizzard, although their customer service has been great. And while I think that Overwatch is more deserving of criticism than most, I really get the impression that people at the moment just seem to default to 'outraged' unless proven otherwise when it comes to game companies. I don't know, I just kinda feel like people need to chill just a little, because this is basically all about a slightly different way of selling cosmetics.
I think what's more important is a real shift towards your 'type 3' games. Overwatch is a competitive FPS where users expect new content, which is a big part of the issue. My favourite game to play in the last few years has been Pavlov VR. I bought it for like £15 2 years ago. Since then it's had a major update, more like an expansion pack that many companies would sell as a new game, and has more recently had a large overhaul. Tons of community maps, content and gamemodes, and just a blast. Before the recent update, the devs were getting lots of hate because the game was 'dead'. I was like, mate, the game is finished. What more do you want? What more do you think you deserve, did you not get your money's worth? Why does a game need to constantly change to not be 'dead'?
Anyway, Overwatch is always going to be that kind of game, but what I'd love to see is more of a move towards the type 3 model for games where that makes sense, that's what will actually make a difference, it's what's actually important. Not wanting microtransactions to be structured slightly differently.
I miss proper expansion packs. The whole 'you liked game? We've basically made another game on the same engine and using lots of the same assets as the game you liked, so you can play more game. It has about as much content as game, and is like 50% of the price.
There are still type 3 games eg. The Witcher, Baldurs Gate 3, etc.
Baldur's Gate doesn't use centrally-run game servers?
It has direct connect multiplayer. I'd assume any server-based comms are for multi-platform, which is understandable.
Well that's a good sign then. That should mean the masterserver is cheap to run, and good chance that the game can be hacked to be fully p2p in the event the masterserver gets taken down. P2p means far less server side code that has to be reverse-engineered.
Define “harass”. LoL and Fortnite don’t “harass” you into giving recurring payments. You can make f2p-friendly games, especially on pc, if you want. Blizzard just doesn’t want.
Guess that'll be the last time they put a game on steam
You poor soul, do you think they give one single fuck?
Blizzard is tone deaf, all they look at is the moneyflow
How is everybody just now finding out how capitalism works? Any public company is LEGALLY REQUIRED to care only about shareholder profits. It is literally illegal for them to do anything else.
That's a widespread belief my friend, that is just not true.
Fiduciary duty is a real thing. Agent/principal relationships require the agent to try and get the maximum return for the level of risk.
Even if a CEO doesn't have a written fiduciary duty in their contract do, the company as a whole usually does.
The CEO of a public corporation reports to the board who report to index fund managers who have a agent/principal relationships with all of their investors.
Your examples are not counter points to the original claim of
Any public company is LEGALLY REQUIRED to care only about profits. It is literally illegal for them to do anything else.
The comment was basically shorthand for "a fiduciary duty exists between corporate leadership and shareholders, creating a legally-enforceable requirement that the only consideration be maximum potential return on investment for existing shareholders and risk."
It's absolutely true in practice. CEOs have gotten sued for not acting in the shareholders best interests.
And in relation to the original comment I replied to, are you truly saying that companies, esp. public companies, are not, FOR ALL INTENTS AND PURPOSES, beholden to making money for the shareholders? Any "nice" company will make less money, will not compete well, will then fail or be bought out by the less nice, more profitable company.
Im not a lawyer, but I've looked into this misunderstanding before and it stems from what constitutes "breaking one's fiduciary duty to investors. While deliberately acting against the interests of investors is illegal, ive yet to hear of a lawsuit, let alone a successful one, brought by an investor for not making all of the money. Id be interested in hearing an investment oriented lawyers perspective since from what i understand, the full extent of fiduciary duty has not been tested that way in court
Lawyer here, it is true.
Board of directors and company officers have a fiduciary duty to the stockholders and the corporate entity.
Acts done outside their authority as stated in the articles of corporations are said to be ultra vires. They are absolutely actionable.
When the directors or officers breach the fiduciary duty to shareholders, they are liable under what's called a derivative action, because it is derivative of the contract represented by the stock certificate.
This is not true.
They only come to steam because of desperation
Nah, the next CoD is most definitely coming to Steam. Blizzard had to know that these reviews were coming from the discourse online alone. Plus, pretty sure that it's Microsoft's decision to do so now anyways and there's no way their going to limit their potential profits by locking out a platform like that just over some bad reviews.
Good. Fuck Blizzard and their greedy, sexual assaulting, China-pandering asses.
I can't imagine any single one of the developers responsible for Overwatch 2 thinking: "OH yeah this is going to be uhmazing everyone is going to love this now..." rather they MUST OF THINKING》 "I wonder when my supervisor will walk away from my workspace so I can send my resume out to those 3 other studios I started work dialogue with...I gotta get the heck outta here before everyone plays this steaming hot tiger tutty of a game, sigh they never listen to the devs... man am I gonna miss Overwatch 1..."
I wish TF2 got the eSports treatment it deserved
Honestly forcing competitive in tf2 was the worst thing to happen to it.
I used to play Q2 competitively, so I'm a little opinionated:
Not all games are eSports-ready, nor do they need to be.
Why: eSports need to be fair. Everyone has to start at the same place, and the majority, if not all of the performance has to come from player skill.
E.g: Imagine modern football where certain players running on the field could just randomly teleport or fly, but most can't.
Class-based (hero arena, etc) shooters are inherently unequal in the same way, because that's the point of classes (e.g: Heavy having more HP than Scout, Spy being able to cloak and so on).
If you're about to make the argument that "TF2/OW/LOL/WTFBBQ" requires plenty of skill despite the abilities/imbalance: save it.
There's an enormous gulf between what the audience and casual players + enthusiasts perceive as being inside of an eSport and what's actually going on mechanically on the top-level.
Players optimize and engineer the fun out of a game.
eSports players/pros engineer the game out of the game.
Very strange argument. It seems like you're bad at those games and created some elaborate theory to rationalize it. Class based games require just as much, if not more, skill than non-class based games. As the number of classes increases, the total amount of knowledge required and variety of techniques available also tends to increase.
Professional players do optimize the fun out of a game, but that's totally unrelated to the point you were trying to make.
If you're about to make the argument that "TF2/OW/LOL/WTFBBQ" requires plenty of skill despite the abilities/imbalance: save it.
You know, normally this sort of statement would be followed up with some sort of rationale or explanation
Every week some other game seems to claim that title.
Does anyone know if you can get regular Overwatch for PS5? I assume it's restricted to Overwatch 2 to push the microtransactions?
I remember fondly playing overwatch 1 with my friends and sinking in hundreds of hours. If they wanted to break into the steam market they should have done it with the first one. Not with their lackluster, phoned in sequel. This was just stupid of them.
Let's be real, Overwatch 2 was an update patch that they tried to sell as a sequel.
An update patch that introduced the most amazing feature: monetization!
They destroyed Overwatch 1 and gave us Overwatch 2.
I want to play Overwatch 1. :(
Don't worry, another year or two and they'll be selling us Overwatch Classic™ for $15 a month.
Which one? The game was rebalanced so many times it was basically several different games. If they put in a 2-2-2 mode with the weaker open-queue tanks, I'd call that close-enough to Overwatch 1. Of course, that still would mean the new expensive monetization model. Like there's one skin in the free tier of the current battle-pass, and it's for Torb.
i miss 6 torb games, ow was good when quick play was just goofy
I'm actually loving it 😅
I miss the old Blizzard.
How old are we talking about? For me peak Blizzard was Diablo 2 / StarCraft 1 & 2 / WarCraft 3. Of course D1 & WC2 also remember fondly.
Review bombed. Still getting peak 75k players says the article as well.
I do think the game's quality has gone down since OW1, but to call it the worst steam game of all time is silly. There's straight shovelware on steam.
With no context, completely in isolation, yeah Overwatch 2 isn't the worst. But for a lot of players, it's not just about what Overwatch 2 is, but also about what it did and what it means. That factors into players' feelings about the game.
Spot on. I dont give a single fuck about shovelware, but I absolutely care about OW and how Blizzard managed to turn me off a game I was pretty much addicted to.
It depends on what metrics do you use. In general, lowest-rated stuff on sites are not the worst by objective terms, but because of propaganda or other stuff that pisses off people.
Blizzard is done from my point of view. They don't care about players anymore. #Larian
Companies NEVER care about their customers. They care about profit.
Sometimes, it is profitable to be considerate of the consumers, but when customers are willing to give a company money despite their bad practices, they will always prioritize profit.
That's the problem, if at least a part of us would start to punish companies, not with comments or bad reviews but with their actual wallet, and instead "reward" them for customer friendly behavior, the industry as a whole would be in a faaaaar better state.
I think maybe it requires legislation or a change in systems. It's not really feasible to rely on millions of individual customers coming together to punish bad companies, it just doesn't seem to happen effectively or make a significant impact.
If I'm being honest, they deserve it. I played Overwatch 2 maybe 10 Times, the constant reminder that you aren't playing for fun, but for a totally original and new character or something very useful like a skin in the battle pass is quite annoying. The 5v5 was at first glance refreshing but got old at a rapid pace. Just play Team Fortress 2 if you're looking for a great shooter.
Let's be honest. It's not about the 5v5. It's not about the CC. It's not about the balance changes. It's not about the cancelled single player.
It's about the free stuff. Blizzard took away the free stuff, and everybody's angry about it. Now you have to pay for a decent amount of cosmetics, and getting a new hero requires a grind (a big grind for current-season hero, small grind for past ones) unless you want to pay.
There are two viable business models for service-based games (and running servers and paying moderators is service, that's why they're called servers):
Sell a game and then support it right up until everybody's already bought the game, then sell the sequel and repeat. Otherwise how do you fund development when nobody is paying you anymore?
Sell a game and then harass your players into giving you recurring payments.
don't make the game a service. The game is a product and not a service, the service is the bare minimum to keep the master server up. Players run dedicated servers, make the expansions through modding, etc. This is how it used to be for everything before Xbox Live.
I get that it's disappointing, but when you get angry about not getting enough post-release content you're asking for 1 or 2. And the industry has pretty much moved away from type 3 -- I can't think of a modern popular game that isn't a decades-old institution like Minecraft Java that fit into that category.
Problem is OW1 was a fairly ethical implementation of approach #2, but greed got the best of them.
It was pretty generous for people who weren't buying loot, but selling loot crates in a slot machine was far worse, imho. You just know how bad that must've been for people with gambling addictions -- "here, buy 100 random pulls and hope you get the skin you want".
The difference being that it was a skin and you didnt need to buy them. I had almost every skin in ow1 just by playing and i didnt even have a silver banner thingy around my character portrait.
In ow2 you are buying characters which you actually need to play effectively.
I wholey agree that gambling mechanics have no place in games, and that cosmetics can have as much pull to addicts and people susceptible to fomo as things that affect gameplay but when the thing you are gambling on can be bought for coins (which you earn tons of by playing the game and pulling items you already have) and the chances of pulling items you dont already have are stacked in the players favour then it does beg the question of wheres the fomo?
The characters are very easy to unlock in game for free. Obviously it's not as good as getting them at the start of the season, but it's not p2w. They're at the end of the free battle pass in their launch season, and have an easy achievement challenge to unlock them in following seasons. I'd say the preferred weapons in tf2 were harder to get.
45 level grind isnt easy for people that have limited time to play. And i needed to win 35 games as a support character to unlock lifeweaver, which as a solo queue player with enough time to play 2 to 3 games on average a night when i actually get to play, is not easy.
I know im not the only person playing the game but i also know im not alone in my situation.
The fact is its not the game it used to be but its pretending that it is.
If they hadnt cancelled the co-op rpg element that was the original reason we all had to abandon ow1 th3n maybe that wouldnt be much of an issue. But they said its too much to develop it so its gone. And now to replace it they want more money for something else that used to be free.
Its all just a cash grab. Its not balanced towards player, if you think its fair then you have been fooled by capitalism too.
It is a lie that they cant provide the resources to make the rpg part of ow2. They have several thousand employess and are one of the richest game companies in the world. Larian have 400 employees and managed to make bg3 in 6 years... so its absolute bollocks. Blizzard spent 3 years developing wat ended up being ow1 witha reskin.
laughcries in gacha game
Honestly this seems a bit much. I recently started playing again after years and am generally enjoying it. I guess I already have most of the skins I want from OW1, so I don't really think about the cosmetics of it. But the gameplay is still just as fun as far as I can remember, the balance seems fine.
But I think lets take off the rose-tinted glasses on OW1. You know what I don't miss? Needing to buy tons of loot boxes during a specific period in order to get one skin that you particularly wanted. At least now it seems you can just buy what you want, if you care.
Not a fan of Blizzard, although their customer service has been great. And while I think that Overwatch is more deserving of criticism than most, I really get the impression that people at the moment just seem to default to 'outraged' unless proven otherwise when it comes to game companies. I don't know, I just kinda feel like people need to chill just a little, because this is basically all about a slightly different way of selling cosmetics.
I think what's more important is a real shift towards your 'type 3' games. Overwatch is a competitive FPS where users expect new content, which is a big part of the issue. My favourite game to play in the last few years has been Pavlov VR. I bought it for like £15 2 years ago. Since then it's had a major update, more like an expansion pack that many companies would sell as a new game, and has more recently had a large overhaul. Tons of community maps, content and gamemodes, and just a blast. Before the recent update, the devs were getting lots of hate because the game was 'dead'. I was like, mate, the game is finished. What more do you want? What more do you think you deserve, did you not get your money's worth? Why does a game need to constantly change to not be 'dead'?
Anyway, Overwatch is always going to be that kind of game, but what I'd love to see is more of a move towards the type 3 model for games where that makes sense, that's what will actually make a difference, it's what's actually important. Not wanting microtransactions to be structured slightly differently.
I miss proper expansion packs. The whole 'you liked game? We've basically made another game on the same engine and using lots of the same assets as the game you liked, so you can play more game. It has about as much content as game, and is like 50% of the price.
There are still type 3 games eg. The Witcher, Baldurs Gate 3, etc.
There's an article about this: https://www.forbes.com/sites/paultassi/2023/08/12/the-main-lesson-frombaldurs-gate-3-should-be-people-hate-microtransactions/
Baldur's Gate 3
Baldur's Gate doesn't use centrally-run game servers?
It has direct connect multiplayer. I'd assume any server-based comms are for multi-platform, which is understandable.
Well that's a good sign then. That should mean the masterserver is cheap to run, and good chance that the game can be hacked to be fully p2p in the event the masterserver gets taken down. P2p means far less server side code that has to be reverse-engineered.
Define “harass”. LoL and Fortnite don’t “harass” you into giving recurring payments. You can make f2p-friendly games, especially on pc, if you want. Blizzard just doesn’t want.
Guess that'll be the last time they put a game on steam
You poor soul, do you think they give one single fuck?
Blizzard is tone deaf, all they look at is the moneyflow
How is everybody just now finding out how capitalism works? Any public company is LEGALLY REQUIRED to care only about shareholder profits. It is literally illegal for them to do anything else.
That's a widespread belief my friend, that is just not true.
Fiduciary duty is a real thing. Agent/principal relationships require the agent to try and get the maximum return for the level of risk.
Even if a CEO doesn't have a written fiduciary duty in their contract do, the company as a whole usually does.
The CEO of a public corporation reports to the board who report to index fund managers who have a agent/principal relationships with all of their investors.
Your examples are not counter points to the original claim of
The comment was basically shorthand for "a fiduciary duty exists between corporate leadership and shareholders, creating a legally-enforceable requirement that the only consideration be maximum potential return on investment for existing shareholders and risk."
It's absolutely true in practice. CEOs have gotten sued for not acting in the shareholders best interests.
And in relation to the original comment I replied to, are you truly saying that companies, esp. public companies, are not, FOR ALL INTENTS AND PURPOSES, beholden to making money for the shareholders? Any "nice" company will make less money, will not compete well, will then fail or be bought out by the less nice, more profitable company.
Im not a lawyer, but I've looked into this misunderstanding before and it stems from what constitutes "breaking one's fiduciary duty to investors. While deliberately acting against the interests of investors is illegal, ive yet to hear of a lawsuit, let alone a successful one, brought by an investor for not making all of the money. Id be interested in hearing an investment oriented lawyers perspective since from what i understand, the full extent of fiduciary duty has not been tested that way in court
Lawyer here, it is true.
Board of directors and company officers have a fiduciary duty to the stockholders and the corporate entity.
Acts done outside their authority as stated in the articles of corporations are said to be ultra vires. They are absolutely actionable.
When the directors or officers breach the fiduciary duty to shareholders, they are liable under what's called a derivative action, because it is derivative of the contract represented by the stock certificate.
This is not true.
They only come to steam because of desperation
Nah, the next CoD is most definitely coming to Steam. Blizzard had to know that these reviews were coming from the discourse online alone. Plus, pretty sure that it's Microsoft's decision to do so now anyways and there's no way their going to limit their potential profits by locking out a platform like that just over some bad reviews.
Good. Fuck Blizzard and their greedy, sexual assaulting, China-pandering asses.
I can't imagine any single one of the developers responsible for Overwatch 2 thinking: "OH yeah this is going to be uhmazing everyone is going to love this now..." rather they MUST OF THINKING》 "I wonder when my supervisor will walk away from my workspace so I can send my resume out to those 3 other studios I started work dialogue with...I gotta get the heck outta here before everyone plays this steaming hot tiger tutty of a game, sigh they never listen to the devs... man am I gonna miss Overwatch 1..."
I wish TF2 got the eSports treatment it deserved
Honestly forcing competitive in tf2 was the worst thing to happen to it.
I used to play Q2 competitively, so I'm a little opinionated:
Not all games are eSports-ready, nor do they need to be.
Why: eSports need to be fair. Everyone has to start at the same place, and the majority, if not all of the performance has to come from player skill.
E.g: Imagine modern football where certain players running on the field could just randomly teleport or fly, but most can't.
Class-based (hero arena, etc) shooters are inherently unequal in the same way, because that's the point of classes (e.g: Heavy having more HP than Scout, Spy being able to cloak and so on).
If you're about to make the argument that "TF2/OW/LOL/WTFBBQ" requires plenty of skill despite the abilities/imbalance: save it.
There's an enormous gulf between what the audience and casual players + enthusiasts perceive as being inside of an eSport and what's actually going on mechanically on the top-level.
Players optimize and engineer the fun out of a game.
eSports players/pros engineer the game out of the game.
Very strange argument. It seems like you're bad at those games and created some elaborate theory to rationalize it. Class based games require just as much, if not more, skill than non-class based games. As the number of classes increases, the total amount of knowledge required and variety of techniques available also tends to increase.
Professional players do optimize the fun out of a game, but that's totally unrelated to the point you were trying to make.
You know, normally this sort of statement would be followed up with some sort of rationale or explanation
Every week some other game seems to claim that title.
Does anyone know if you can get regular Overwatch for PS5? I assume it's restricted to Overwatch 2 to push the microtransactions?
I remember fondly playing overwatch 1 with my friends and sinking in hundreds of hours. If they wanted to break into the steam market they should have done it with the first one. Not with their lackluster, phoned in sequel. This was just stupid of them.
Let's be real, Overwatch 2 was an update patch that they tried to sell as a sequel.
An update patch that introduced the most amazing feature: monetization!
They destroyed Overwatch 1 and gave us Overwatch 2.
I want to play Overwatch 1. :(
Don't worry, another year or two and they'll be selling us Overwatch Classic™ for $15 a month.
Which one? The game was rebalanced so many times it was basically several different games. If they put in a 2-2-2 mode with the weaker open-queue tanks, I'd call that close-enough to Overwatch 1. Of course, that still would mean the new expensive monetization model. Like there's one skin in the free tier of the current battle-pass, and it's for Torb.
i miss 6 torb games, ow was good when quick play was just goofy
I'm actually loving it 😅
I miss the old Blizzard.
How old are we talking about? For me peak Blizzard was Diablo 2 / StarCraft 1 & 2 / WarCraft 3. Of course D1 & WC2 also remember fondly.
For me it was Orcs and Humans.
Rock n Roll Racing.
Blackthorne and that one with the 3 dwarves