Valve announces Dota 2

[Nonentity]

http://gameinformer.com/b/features/archive/2010/10/13/dota-2-announced-details.aspx

(mirror for a lot of stuff at http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=410094 - GI is being hammered)

Basic gist of it - original WC3 map, mechanics intact, making the leap to the Source engine. All 100+ heroes currently in DotA Allstars are making the jump. Most community features integrated into the game, such as hero-specific guides, which can link into doing things such as highlighting specific item builds or in-game tips. Participating in those guides and the communtiy leads to in-game bonuses such as skins. There is also a mentor/pupil system for helping another player learn a hero.

[K9]

Oh interesting. Valve are full of surprises at the moment.

Wish they'd surprise me with Episode 3 though...

[schild]

If they remove Denial, I hereby announce the death and rebirth of the genre. If they keep denial, I and I expect most people will just stick with LoL.

[Samprimary]

HoN stands to lose out big time over this, LoL should do okay.

I'm pleased that they're able to more or less directly port in all the original heroes. Ah, morphling, I missed you so.

[Lounge]

HON is fucked... League of Legend will face some collateral if only because this game is Valve.

If they remove Denial, I hereby announce the death and rebirth of the genre. If they keep denial, I and I expect most people will just stick with LoL.

I don't recall if I've asked before but I know I've seen you post about this before.  Why the hatred for denial?

[Hayduke]

I kind of thought the whole creep deny system in DotA was a limitation of the WC3 engine.  I wonder why they'd want to keep that.

Not a make or break detail though.  Especially if they can make the community less hostile which looks to be what they're trying to do.

[Job601]

Does anyone know how Valve is planning to get around DOTA's massive trademark violations?  Half the characters and items are named after other fantasy IPs.  Maybe "drow" and "Khadgar" and so on aren't actually trademarks?

[Nonentity]

We'll have to see when they add more characters how they go about it.

Characters like the Nerubian Weaver and the Nerubian Assassin are straight up based on WC3 races, so I'm assuming those will just have to be redesigned. The concept art for the Bloodseeker is probably the best way to kind of get info on how they're going to redesign the characters, since that was basically just a WC3 Orc Shaman before.

I'd be curious how much voice work is going to go into this game to voice all of those characters. You'd think the dialog can't be more than 10-12 lines per hero, so I would expect some heroes to sound alike, but then they mention the line where if you have two heroes who are tied via lore in the same lane, they'll bark things at each other.

[waffel]

As much as I loved DoTA, and currently enjoy HoN, I would LOVE to see the removal of denial also. It's nothing but an additional layer of work that makes no sense lorewise (killing own army) and benefits poopsock tryhards.

Yes, I can do it. Yes, I've had 50+ denies in a game. It's an arbitrary hold-over from a game engine limitation. It's similar to bunny hopping/strafe jumping.

[Nonentity]

I guess we'll have to wait until the Q&A that IceFrog does for more info.

As far as denials, I'm on the fence. I'm happy without it, but I won't throw my hands up in disgust if it is there.

[koro]

http://icefrogtruth.blogspot.com/

With this and the Mythic thing, I guess today's become Anonymously Bitch About Game Developers Day.

[Samprimary]

LoL proved that mobas can, and should, exist without denial. I say this as a person who is massively proud of his ability to brutalize lanes with 100+ denial counts and render many heroes (mostly melee) defunct in the mid-game.

[Lounge]

LoL proved that mobas can, and should, exist without denial. I say this as a person who is massively proud of his ability to brutalize lanes with 100+ denial counts and render many heroes (mostly melee) defunct in the mid-game.

I'm not asking wether or not anyone likes the mechanic or wether or not you can make a game about it.  Why the hate for denial?  It takes the exact same skill to last hit as to deny so its not a matter of difficulty.  I think it opens the door for making a serious tactical choice.  For instance you might be laning against a strong midgame carry.  Are you better off going for farm yourself by getting in last hits?  Or would it be better to focus your efforts on denying thus removing xp and gold from that hero.

I'm not tied to the mechanic by any means I'm just looking for some explanation as to why people hate it so much?

[Nonentity]

Well, from the GameInformer article (bold is mine):

The game will also feature a ton of custom voice work. You'll get amusing lines from heroes as they deny the enemy team last hits on creeps, and champions who have backstory connections will trade quips when nearby.

[LK]

LoL will do just fine. DOTA is late to the party.

[schild]

Well, from the GameInformer article (bold is mine):

The game will also feature a ton of custom voice work. You'll get amusing lines from heroes as they deny the enemy team last hits on creeps, and champions who have backstory connections will trade quips when nearby.

Well then, don't care. LoL it is. IceFrog makes a stupid decision, news at 11.

[Kail]

I'm not tied to the mechanic by any means I'm just looking for some explanation as to why people hate it so much?

I can't speak for everyone, but personally, I'm not even that fond of the whole "last hit" mechanic, and denying is everything that's wrong with "last hitting" times twenty.  It just feels awkward, like you're playing some weird economic minigame rather than having a battle.  The best analogy I can think of offhand is the GBA game Yggdra Union, which presents itself as a fantasy TBS (swordsmen and archers, equipping items, leveling up, etc.) but just has so much ancilliary bullshit stapled to it (characters in a 2-tile radius X formation attack together if the initiator is male, or a + formation if it's a female, with each participating unit contributing it's own sub-union depending on it's own gender, with unit attack order starting at the northmost character and moving in a clockwise inward spiral against an enemy which is defending with it's own union etc. etc. etc.) that it ceases to feel like a medival wargame and becomes more like some kind of weird tile moving puzzle as you arrange your units into formations and arrangements which only make any kind of sense because of the counterintuitive battle mechanics.

Also, it slows down the game, increases the emphasis on farming, and fucks over melee champs even harder than they already are.

[Ragnoros]

This sucks. I was really hoping for something new/better out of valve. Not a reskin.

As much as I like some of the kooky heroes of DotA, LoL is twice the game DotA ever was.

Now the question is, how much would I pay for a game that was free, I already have, and got bored of years ago...

[Margalis]

Denial makes no logical sense. That's the problem with it. It breaks the illusion and turns it into a game about gaming the mechanics instead of heroes fighting.

Under no circumstances does it make logical sense to kill your own guy. It's a logical bug that results from the way different rules interact. It's like when a fighting game maker makes a move with too much hit stun and another move that closes distance and now you have a 2-hit infinite loop, they intended both moves to work the way they do but the way they combine was not intended.

Edit: As far as DOTA 2...I don't get it. Instead of DOTA-style games being a genre it seems that they all strive to be nearly exact replicas of DOTA. Similar mechanics, similar heroes, similar maps. It's like if Sonic the Hedgehog was exactly the same game as Super Mario World only with Sonic instead of Mario.

It sounds like this DOTA 2 is just DOTA 1. Nothing about it warrants a 2, it's supposed to be literally the same game - a game that is already free.

You might figure that if Valve was going to hire a guy who worked on DOTA it would be to take those games to the "next level", not to exactly replicate a free game.

[Malakili]

Denial makes no logical sense. That's the problem with it. It breaks the illusion and turns it into a game about gaming the mechanics instead of heroes fighting.

Well, pretty much every game that has a competitive scene is about the mechanics instead of the hypothetical story/scenario.  Is anyone playing Starcraft 2 multiplayer really viewing their 1v1 match as the heroic terran wiping the scourge of the zerg from the map?

[Fordel]

Denial makes no logical sense. That's the problem with it. It breaks the illusion and turns it into a game about gaming the mechanics instead of heroes fighting.

Well, pretty much every game that has a competitive scene is about the mechanics instead of the hypothetical story/scenario.  Is anyone playing Starcraft 2 multiplayer really viewing their 1v1 match as the heroic terran wiping the scourge of the zerg from the map?

Yes! 

[Thrawn]

I know some people that are pretty diehard DotA players and I was expecting the announcement of this to send people crazy...but the response seems to be a resounding "meh". 

[Megrim]

Well, DotA is free to play, has a well developed tournament scene, a very well developed metagame, a development team that constantly works to bring the game to the most balanced state possible and a skill-set that rewards inordinate repetition.

If Valve decide to charge for this version, the response will probably be about the same as LoL and HoN - some will go over, most will stay.

[MrHat]

I bet it's free to play with purchasable skins and the such.

Or they bundle it ala Orange Box.

[Lantyssa]

Well, pretty much every game that has a competitive scene is about the mechanics instead of the hypothetical story/scenario.  Is anyone playing Starcraft 2 multiplayer really viewing their 1v1 match as the heroic terran wiping the scourge of the zerg from the map?

It's exactly why I didn't play the game.

[Malakili]

Well, pretty much every game that has a competitive scene is about the mechanics instead of the hypothetical story/scenario.  Is anyone playing Starcraft 2 multiplayer really viewing their 1v1 match as the heroic terran wiping the scourge of the zerg from the map?

It's exactly why I didn't play the game.

Thats fine, but I guess I just don't see the objection.  Has any multiplayer game EVER really been about the scenario?  Maybe specific co-op games.   All PvP is about Player v. Player though, and mechanics should exist to that end.  If the mechanic sucks thats fine, argue that the mechanic sucks, but

" It breaks the illusion and turns it into a game about gaming the mechanics instead of heroes fighting."

Is a silly argument to make about a game like this.  You may as well argue understanding how to use the mechanics of how guns shoot in Counter Strike makes it about "gaming the mechanics" instead of counter terrorists fighting terrorists, or that in Quake 3 using the plasma gun to boost you up a wall is "gaming the mechanics" instead of about fighting.... I dunno, it just seems like an incredibly naive argument to make about the nature of a PvP oriented game.  Hell, you may as well argue that a Quarterback in american football is "gaming the mechanics" when he does a hard count to get his opponent to jump offsides.

There are plenty of good arguments you can make, but that particular one just rubs me the wrong way.

[Pringles]

http://icefrogtruth.blogspot.com/

With this and the Mythic thing, I guess today's become Anonymously Bitch About Game Developers Day.

 

I hope more people take the liberty to spill dirt, so far this week is awesome.

[Typhon]

Well, pretty much every game that has a competitive scene is about the mechanics instead of the hypothetical story/scenario.  Is anyone playing Starcraft 2 multiplayer really viewing their 1v1 match as the heroic terran wiping the scourge of the zerg from the map?

It's exactly why I didn't play the game.

Thats fine, but I guess I just don't see the objection.  Has any multiplayer game EVER really been about the scenario?  Maybe specific co-op games.   All PvP is about Player v. Player though, and mechanics should exist to that end.  If the mechanic sucks thats fine, argue that the mechanic sucks, but

" It breaks the illusion and turns it into a game about gaming the mechanics instead of heroes fighting."

Is a silly argument to make about a game like this.  You may as well argue understanding how to use the mechanics of how guns shoot in Counter Strike makes it about "gaming the mechanics" instead of counter terrorists fighting terrorists, or that in Quake 3 using the plasma gun to boost you up a wall is "gaming the mechanics" instead of about fighting.... I dunno, it just seems like an incredibly naive argument to make about the nature of a PvP oriented game.  Hell, you may as well argue that a Quarterback in american football is "gaming the mechanics" when he does a hard count to get his opponent to jump offsides.

There are plenty of good arguments you can make, but that particular one just rubs me the wrong way.

I think it's decent argument.  I think the better games will have game mechanics that are gameable in a way that fosters (or is neutral) to suspension of disbelief.

Good:  Sking in Tribes was taking advantage of the game mechanics in a good way - it lends itself to thinking that the merc is taking advantage of a ground-effect.

Bad: bunny hopping in any FPS - it detracts from the game because it looks fucking stupid, it forces repetitive behavior on the part of the player and it breaks immersion from a, "people jumping around like morons get themselves killed on a battlefield" perspective.

Of course Good/Bad is pretty subjective, you might have hated skiing in Tribes. 

It seems to me that you have a very high threshold on what it takes to be "bad" - that doesn't mean that the conversation isn't worth having.

[Malakili]

Skiing in tribes and bunny hopping seem pretty much equivalent to me.  I'm fine with both.

[Lantyssa]

There are plenty of good arguments you can make, but that particular one just rubs me the wrong way.

If I play PvP, I want to play against skill, not mechanics.  Mechanics should define the physics of the world, not be the best method of exploitation.

Any appearance of heroes and villains is just window dressing, and not about what I said at all.  So, uh, stop rubbing yourself.

[Tarami]

Bad: bunny hopping in any FPS - it detracts from the game because it looks fucking stupid, it forces repetitive behavior on the part of the player and it breaks immersion from a, "people jumping around like morons get themselves killed on a battlefield" perspective.

Strafe jumping is an analogue for freedom of movement. Real people don't move in only four directions or can spin like a gyro. To compensate for the much, much more detailed control one has of one's physical body, movement is exaggerated in a way that makes it possible to achieve a degree of movement that is similar to one's real capability, relative to the game's general scale of things. In Quake, being able to run and jump extraordinarily well is just a response to carrying rocket launchers. In Modern Warfare, you don't get to strafe jump because the overall scale of the game is much smaller - you carry firearms, not cannons - and so on.

All FPSes look "fucking stupid" if viewed from a realistic viewpoint. People in combat don't run at constant speed, can only stand or crouch or ever really jump to avoid being hit.

Bottom line: Strafe jumping isn't a mechanical consideration at all. It's very much an organic one.

/derail

[Lounge]

There are plenty of good arguments you can make, but that particular one just rubs me the wrong way.

If I play PvP, I want to play against skill, not mechanics.  Mechanics should define the physics of the world, not be the best method of exploitation.

Any appearance of heroes and villains is just window dressing, and not about what I said at all.  So, uh, stop rubbing yourself.

Isn't skill a measure of how good a player is at the mechanics of a game?

[Paelos]

Isn't skill a measure of how good a player is at the mechanics of a game?

That's #1 in the exploiter excuse book.

[Samwise]

I think it's decent argument.  I think the better games will have game mechanics that are gameable in a way that fosters (or is neutral) to suspension of disbelief.

I agree with the general principle, but I don't think it's so much the mechanics themselves as a combination of the mechanics and the dressing (graphics, story, etc).  For example, the mechanic of denial might not be so weird-looking if the "creeps" were represented as boars or something that it might make sense for you to slaughter to deny your opponent their delicious flesh.  Same mechanics but different dressing.

[Malakili]

Isn't skill a measure of how good a player is at the mechanics of a game?

That's #1 in the exploiter excuse book.

Wow, I guess I didn't realize I was exploiting all these years by understanding how to play games.

Edit: Let me also say, I'm not trying to be a jerk here, this isn't even about exploitation of game mechanics really, like unintended buggy stuff.   This is about, from my perspective, that I play PvP games to be competitive with other people playing them, not to be immersed in the game as if it were real.