|
|
|
|
|
|
by Pxtl
4726 days ago
|
|
|
LoL does some things I like, such as fixing creep-denial (a bug that becomes popular to exploit is still a bug, I don't care what the pro-gamers say), but it still has the fundamentally grief-oriented play I loathe. To be clear, my complaint is not about skill-intensive gaming. My problem with the DOTA format is that it makes you hate the weak teammates in so many different ways, and putting together a single match requires such a large commitment of time from so many players. Compare vs. TF2 where the 6v6 pro circuit exists but casual players still have access to 12v12 pubs where nobody cares if you suck or you drop. Or compare vs. StarCraft where there's an extensive single-player campaign and a 1v1 community online, and the only person who hates you if you screw up in 1v1 is yourself, and at least when you fail in a 1v1 starcraft game the end will come blissfully swiftly. And nobody would say that SC or TF2 are low-skill games. |
|
|
Do you hate rocket jumping and wall hugging in Quake as well? Both are essential to playing Quake at a decent level. Both started as accidental features (call them bugs if you will) but were then given the official stamp of approval and carried forward through all the sequels.
In other words, you are committing the genetic fallacy.
Denying started as an accidental feature or bug. But it was found to be interesting and the game has since been balanced around it. Now, you can only auto-attack allied creeps when they are below 50% health, the XP from denied creeps is higher for melee heroes, etc. As a game mechanic, it emphasizes that the laning phase is a head-to-head contest between adversaries that can disrupt each other's progression through means other than direct harassment. The usual retort is that it's bad because it's counterintuitive. But what does that really mean? Not every game mechanic can be intuited. The rules of chess are not intuitive. Games are formal systems with a veneer of verisimilitude.