I didnt like it that much.
At best, it is just a worse version of Overwatch.
How is it a worse version of Overwatch?
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xn7HZsr_rLQ&[/youtube]
Well, alot of what he says Paladins does well is subjective at best.
I actually hated the cards system in Paladins, and I disliked the items even more.
Character progression like that is just not needed in a game like that in my opinion. It adds needless complexity and forces you to specialize more. It turns the game more into a MOBA with skillshots. If I wanted that, I would just go play Hi-Rez's other game, SMITE.
I much prefer Overwatch's way of ditching character progression and specialization of being able to switch out mid match. He talked about how "If you are character X in Overwatch, you can only do X thing". That is true, but the difference between Overwatch and Paladins is that I am not locked into that character. Say I want to do Y thing later in the game, I can just switch to Y character.
Not sure if its still the same, but last time I played Paladins the match times were MUCH longer than they were in Overwatch, which I think is an incredibly poor design choice. Games like this are better with intense short matches rather than long drawn out matches, which is why the game feels more like a MOBA.
The point he was really going after is "Despite Overwatch being higher quality, Paladins has made better design choices" which I completely disagree with. i think that not only is Overwatch just generally of a higher quality, it was designed with a better understanding of the game they were trying to create and as such just feels far superior.
Paladins isn't a terrible game, but when you try to compare a F2P title of a only moderately known studio to a P2P title of one of the most legendary studios in all of gaming, its only natural that it can't compete. So I say if you can't afford Overwatch, Paladins is not a bad game to get a feel of the genre with. However when comparing the two, Overwatch is almost universally better.