Yeah, this is one reason why I like LoL a bit. They were willing to diverge from just cloning the success of the original. I don't mind denying, that was a "fiddly non-obvious" mechanic, but it added to the game. I'm amazed they want to keep so many second-tier heroes or what essentially amounts to clones with very slight tweaks.
Yea, it could have been nice to see what Valve could do with a totally new game, but they started to make a HD edition of DotA and that's what they are doing. I once went to the Dota 2 dev forums to find a solution to a problem I was having and looked around a bit. Almost every time someone suggested something among first posts someone compared the thing to how it worked in original DotA and if Dota 2 version is identical, everything is as it should be and the person who made the suggestion should go back to his casual baby games. While I don't agree with the attitude, I've come to understand that now when Valve has started to just port DotA to glorious HD (and little better UI) they have to go all the way.
To see something different, I'm putting my hopes to the modding scene. Valve is known for supporting mods and modders and who knows, maybe people start taking Dota 2 and making alternative versions out of it. Maybe there will be version with no denys, maybe there will be a game where you drop all your stuff when you die, maybe there will be a thing where turrets walk and dance around the map. Who knows.
I'm interested to see what Blizzard does with Blizzard All-Stars (aka Blizzard Dota) seeing how they undeniably improved the user experience of Starcraft -> Starcraft II without anyone seriously claiming that they baby-fied it for pubs. Even Diablo 3 was mostly an improvement over 2 (they SERIOUSLY fucked up the economy and the drops, but that's kind of a different skill set than improving controls, readability and inteface).
If you ask me (which you didn't but lets pretend), they're the ones to look to for innovation even if BAS doesn't take off. Hopefully Valve will just have Dota 2: All Star edition and copy pasta's their improvements.
If it still existed exclusively on b.net I'd agree with you. However, the game of football isn't exactly intuitive or friendly for newcomers either; it's the infrastructure that surrounds it that allows people an in.
With what they're doing with the International (with the observer client, the pennants, etc), the movie, the hat economy, the coaching and guide writing stuff, they might be able to enable something a bit less caustic.
Football at least has mostly obvious high level plays. Anyone understands immediately what a touchdown is, or a field goal. The purely physical aspect of the game can draw a crowd of completely ignorant spectators (in the same way that DDR can easily do so).
Pro gaming definitely has a bright horizon, but Dota-type games aren't going to go mainstream as spectator entertainment in the US any time soon. It will be a different type of game that sparks the revolution.
Most likely, it'll be a game with a much more sophisticated reality simulation than is generally seen in competitive gaming today. For non hardcore gamers, it's just not compelling to watch a bunch of guys run around pointing pretend guns at each other in a pretend arena with pretend physics. There's no sense of prowess if:
a) you don't understand why elite gamers are skilled and what that skill entails
b) there is significant (by which I mean, measurably present) doubt that the game is truly being played on a level field and that exploits, hacks, bugs, aren't influencing the outcome
Juicing and corked bats aside, for the layman through enthusiast, there is a reasonable expectation and belief that the playing field is level and that reality hasn't got any exploits in a game of baseball. ;-)
While there is plenty of opportunity for cheating in Internet multiplayer games, there is absolutely no cheating at competitive video gaming events. The computers are all pre-prepared and standardized, and players do not have access to modify them.
Compare that to professional board/card gaming where cheating is rampant!
I'm leaning more toward known exploits that don't require tampering. Which I predict you'll call all fair play since they're in the game. ;-)
Rocket jumping was originally such an exploit.
Also, in a competitive video game tournament, they have the ability to record/review and monitor all players. If you wanted to have a Quake tournament with no rocket jumping, they could easily disqualify anyone who used the technique or restart any matches in which it was used. It would be incredibly difficult, if not impossible, to use it without getting caught. Compare that to real life, where it is extremely difficult to inspect everything constantly without stopping or disturbing play, or using a prohibitive amount of effort.
Right, and I still maintain that rocket jumping is cheating.
This is the sort of thing that, in my opinion, would turn the layman (or non gaming) public off to the idea of spectator MLG. It feels like poor sportsmanship.
I guess with the replay mechanic you've laid out it could work, but those exploits, even if monitored, would bring a sense of illegitimacy to the whole enterprise, in my opinion. They make it hard to take gaming seriously as a sport.
Now, a very rigorous simulation with such silliness impossible to pull off... maybe. Even if the parameters were tweaked for certain games, like gravity, etc.
Right, and I still maintain that rocket jumping is cheating.
This is the sort of thing that, in my opinion, would turn the layman (or non gaming) public off to the idea of spectator MLG. It feels like poor sportsmanship.
I guess with the replay mechanic you've laid out it could work, but those exploits, even if monitored, would bring a sense of illegitimacy to the whole enterprise, in my opinion. They make it hard to take gaming seriously as a sport.
Now, a very rigorous simulation with such silliness impossible to pull off... maybe. Even if the parameters were tweaked for certain games, like gravity, etc.
A game is defined by its rules. Cheating, by definition, is breaking the rules. Breaking the rules can either be performing an action that is not permitted by the rules, or neglecting to perform an action mandated by the rules. Unless otherwise stated, in the rules of any game all actions are by default prohibited unless explicitly permitted. In a video game the source code is the rules. If you play the game without modifying the software or hardware, it is impossible to cheat.
There are some edge cases. For example you may have a fighting game with an infinite combo that was just discovered. The developer of the game states that the combo was unintentional, and they are preparing a patch. Your tournament is happening before the patch is going to be ready. You can add to your tournament rules that the character who can perform the combo is banned. If you can rigorously define what constitutes executing that particular combo, you can allow the character and ban the sequence of moves.
I'm familiar with your definitions, but I don't agree that it's as black and white as you say. Games are intended to be played, interpreted, and administered by humans and humans are not computers. That's why there are such phrases as "the spirit of the game" and "sportsmanship".
Therefore, it is possible to play a game in a manner that turns competitors and spectators off and makes them enjoy the experience less, while not technically cheating. This occurs now and is a major reason that MLG, in my opinion, is not anywhere near being on an even footing with MLB, etc, and won't be for decades at best.
Game developers shouldn't also have to be lawyers. There's never going to be a game in which every possible exploit has been eliminated while the game still holds the attention of enthusiasts.
And yes, while you can referee your way out of those situations, the existence of those windows for poor sportsmanship is what I feel contributes to MLG not being a candidate for a serious spectator endeavor. At least so far.
Sportsmanship and such are another matter entirely seperate.
There's never going to be a game in which every possible exploit has been eliminated while the game still holds the attention of enthusiasts.
Chess?
Should have said "video game". Thought it was implied by the context.
There's a fine line between poor sportsmanship and cheating.
There is no fine line it's a big bold line. Cheating is breaking the rules. If you are not breaking the rules, you are not cheating, End of story.
Sportsmanship has to do with personal conduct. Did you spit on your opponent after you lost? Did you smash the computer in frustration? Did you refuse to accept your silver medal because you believe you were screwed by judges?
Sportsmanship and such are another matter entirely seperate.
There's never going to be a game in which every possible exploit has been eliminated while the game still holds the attention of enthusiasts.
Chess?
Should have said "video game". Thought it was implied by the context.
There's a fine line between poor sportsmanship and cheating.
There is no fine line it's a big bold line. Cheating is breaking the rules. If you are not breaking the rules, you are not cheating, End of story.
Sportsmanship has to do with personal conduct. Did you spit on your opponent after you lost? Did you smash the computer in frustration? Did you refuse to accept your silver medal because you believe you were screwed by judges?
You can declare these things like they're objective but that doesn't make it so. :-)
The badminton example recently is a good one of poor sportsmanship that amounted to cheating. They flagrantly threw matches in a way offputting to both their competition and the spectators in order to position themselves at an advantage in the next round. It wasn't against the rules, but it was incredibly poor sportsmanship tantamount to cheating.
Sportsmanship and such are another matter entirely seperate.
There's never going to be a game in which every possible exploit has been eliminated while the game still holds the attention of enthusiasts.
Chess?
Should have said "video game". Thought it was implied by the context.
There's a fine line between poor sportsmanship and cheating.
There is no fine line it's a big bold line. Cheating is breaking the rules. If you are not breaking the rules, you are not cheating, End of story.
Sportsmanship has to do with personal conduct. Did you spit on your opponent after you lost? Did you smash the computer in frustration? Did you refuse to accept your silver medal because you believe you were screwed by judges?
You can declare these things like they're objective but that doesn't make it so. :-)
The badminton example recently is a good one of poor sportsmanship that amounted to cheating. They flagrantly threw matches in a way offputting to both their competition and the spectators in order to position themselves at an advantage in the next round. It wasn't against the rules, but it was incredibly poor sportsmanship tantamount to cheating.
But this would be a circular argument.
It was not poor sportsmanship. They were doing their best to win the gold medal. It was only cheating because there was a specific rule against it. Obviously they were unaware that rule existed or would be enforced, or they would have done differently.
Football at least has mostly obvious high level plays. Anyone understands immediately what a touchdown is, or a field goal. The purely physical aspect of the game can draw a crowd of completely ignorant spectators (in the same way that DDR can easily do so).
It's certainly easier to understand and be impressed by acts of physical prowess. We have experience moving out bodies so we intuit when something is hard.
The interesting thing about esports is that you can watch the Superbowl and see all the roaring crowds and ceremony and then immediately play with the same equipment on the same field; this isn't a simulation of these things like they are in Madden, they are literally the same.
Once everyone can intuit and relate to a game, it'll become more popular. When you consider the popularity of Dota when it's still so shut in and hostile, I feel like once you make people comfortable with learning and playing something that is hard and doesn't have a real world analogue, you'll see the popularity of watching it increase.
Spectating won't drive the popularity of playing, playing will drive the popularity of spectating. Spectacle, on the other hand, will create interest in playing, which is what the hats and the movies are all about.
I didn't realize there was a specific rule against it, I missed that detail.
Even so, had there NOT been a rule, it STILL would have been poor sportsmanship, STILL would have been cheating in the eyes of many.
That's my point re: spectator gaming. The idea that "you can do anything in a computer so it's not athleticism" is what most likely kills it for most. Don't look for CS:GO to be covered by NBC soon.
I didn't realize there was a specific rule against it, I missed that detail.
Even so, had there NOT been a rule, it STILL would have been poor sportsmanship, STILL would have been cheating in the eyes of many.
That's my point re: spectator gaming. The idea that "you can do anything in a computer so it's not athleticism" is what most likely kills it for most. Don't look for CS:GO to be covered by NBC soon.
If the rule did not exist, it would not have been cheating. There is no such thing as a "personal definition." This is a semantic issue. If you use a different definition for the word cheat than the rest of us, you are speaking a different language. You may as well look at a cat and call it a dog, because that's your "personal definition".
As for poor sportsmanship, with or without a rule it is not poor sportsmanship to lose a match on purpose if that gives you the best chance of winning the championship.
A baseball team plays to win the World Series. Is it poor sportsmanship that the Washington Nationals are making Strasburg sit? No. They are decreasing their chances of winning some regular season games in hopes of increasing chances of winning the World Series.
Most teams who have clinched first seed in the playoffs will start with second string players in the final regular season games to avoid injuries and fatigue in their starting players. That is not poor sportsmanship either.
You play to win the game. The game is not necessarily one match, but the grand championship whether it is a gold medal, Stanley Cup, World Cup, Lombardi Trophy, or what have you.
Comments
To see something different, I'm putting my hopes to the modding scene. Valve is known for supporting mods and modders and who knows, maybe people start taking Dota 2 and making alternative versions out of it. Maybe there will be version with no denys, maybe there will be a game where you drop all your stuff when you die, maybe there will be a thing where turrets walk and dance around the map. Who knows.
If you ask me (which you didn't but lets pretend), they're the ones to look to for innovation even if BAS doesn't take off. Hopefully Valve will just have Dota 2: All Star edition and copy pasta's their improvements.
With what they're doing with the International (with the observer client, the pennants, etc), the movie, the hat economy, the coaching and guide writing stuff, they might be able to enable something a bit less caustic.
Pro gaming definitely has a bright horizon, but Dota-type games aren't going to go mainstream as spectator entertainment in the US any time soon. It will be a different type of game that sparks the revolution.
a) you don't understand why elite gamers are skilled and what that skill entails
b) there is significant (by which I mean, measurably present) doubt that the game is truly being played on a level field and that exploits, hacks, bugs, aren't influencing the outcome
Juicing and corked bats aside, for the layman through enthusiast, there is a reasonable expectation and belief that the playing field is level and that reality hasn't got any exploits in a game of baseball. ;-)
Compare that to professional board/card gaming where cheating is rampant!
Also, in a competitive video game tournament, they have the ability to record/review and monitor all players. If you wanted to have a Quake tournament with no rocket jumping, they could easily disqualify anyone who used the technique or restart any matches in which it was used. It would be incredibly difficult, if not impossible, to use it without getting caught. Compare that to real life, where it is extremely difficult to inspect everything constantly without stopping or disturbing play, or using a prohibitive amount of effort.
This is the sort of thing that, in my opinion, would turn the layman (or non gaming) public off to the idea of spectator MLG. It feels like poor sportsmanship.
I guess with the replay mechanic you've laid out it could work, but those exploits, even if monitored, would bring a sense of illegitimacy to the whole enterprise, in my opinion. They make it hard to take gaming seriously as a sport.
Now, a very rigorous simulation with such silliness impossible to pull off... maybe. Even if the parameters were tweaked for certain games, like gravity, etc.
There are some edge cases. For example you may have a fighting game with an infinite combo that was just discovered. The developer of the game states that the combo was unintentional, and they are preparing a patch. Your tournament is happening before the patch is going to be ready. You can add to your tournament rules that the character who can perform the combo is banned. If you can rigorously define what constitutes executing that particular combo, you can allow the character and ban the sequence of moves.
Therefore, it is possible to play a game in a manner that turns competitors and spectators off and makes them enjoy the experience less, while not technically cheating. This occurs now and is a major reason that MLG, in my opinion, is not anywhere near being on an even footing with MLB, etc, and won't be for decades at best.
Game developers shouldn't also have to be lawyers. There's never going to be a game in which every possible exploit has been eliminated while the game still holds the attention of enthusiasts.
And yes, while you can referee your way out of those situations, the existence of those windows for poor sportsmanship is what I feel contributes to MLG not being a candidate for a serious spectator endeavor. At least so far.
Sportsmanship and such are another matter entirely seperate. Chess?
There's a fine line between poor sportsmanship and cheating.
Sportsmanship has to do with personal conduct. Did you spit on your opponent after you lost? Did you smash the computer in frustration? Did you refuse to accept your silver medal because you believe you were screwed by judges?
The badminton example recently is a good one of poor sportsmanship that amounted to cheating. They flagrantly threw matches in a way offputting to both their competition and the spectators in order to position themselves at an advantage in the next round. It wasn't against the rules, but it was incredibly poor sportsmanship tantamount to cheating.
But this would be a circular argument.
The interesting thing about esports is that you can watch the Superbowl and see all the roaring crowds and ceremony and then immediately play with the same equipment on the same field; this isn't a simulation of these things like they are in Madden, they are literally the same.
Once everyone can intuit and relate to a game, it'll become more popular. When you consider the popularity of Dota when it's still so shut in and hostile, I feel like once you make people comfortable with learning and playing something that is hard and doesn't have a real world analogue, you'll see the popularity of watching it increase.
Spectating won't drive the popularity of playing, playing will drive the popularity of spectating. Spectacle, on the other hand, will create interest in playing, which is what the hats and the movies are all about.
Even so, had there NOT been a rule, it STILL would have been poor sportsmanship, STILL would have been cheating in the eyes of many.
That's my point re: spectator gaming. The idea that "you can do anything in a computer so it's not athleticism" is what most likely kills it for most. Don't look for CS:GO to be covered by NBC soon.
As for poor sportsmanship, with or without a rule it is not poor sportsmanship to lose a match on purpose if that gives you the best chance of winning the championship.
A baseball team plays to win the World Series. Is it poor sportsmanship that the Washington Nationals are making Strasburg sit? No. They are decreasing their chances of winning some regular season games in hopes of increasing chances of winning the World Series.
Most teams who have clinched first seed in the playoffs will start with second string players in the final regular season games to avoid injuries and fatigue in their starting players. That is not poor sportsmanship either.
You play to win the game. The game is not necessarily one match, but the grand championship whether it is a gold medal, Stanley Cup, World Cup, Lombardi Trophy, or what have you.