Hacker News Reader

Comment by lostmsu | Hacker News Reader

If only the popularity of the game wasn't 100% derived from original DoTA map by IceFrog, which this guy had nothing to do with.

View on HN

IceFrog didn't create Dota, he took over maintenance of it from a long line of other people at the time, including Guinsoo (who added Roshan and the recipe system) who worked at Riot (though Icefrog was definitely the best maintainer, Dota was already hugely popular before Icefrog had anything to do with it).

Dota itself wasn't even original, it was based on a StarCraft 1 custom map.

The Starcraft map was called Aeon of Strife.

Dota was popular in its own niche and game was hugely imbalanced. IceFrog took it to somewhere so high above, saying "next level" is understating it.

That wasn't the point anyway.

There's nothing of significance in LoL vs the original DotA.

Same applies to DotA 2 btw. Valve is making changes for the sake of changes. Now every hero has a talent tree for example. Has the game become better because of that? I don't think so.

I bet if they did A/B when they rolled that update out, not a lot of people would have stayed on the new version.

As someone who has continuously played DOTA for the last 20+ years, I appreciate Valve keeping the game fresh. Sometimes they make changes that aren't so great, but the game is always evolving so it's fine. Despite that, even after all this time they've still managed to keep the spirit of the original WC3 mod.

As someone who continually played LoL, Valorant, and StarCraft 2 for long periods at different phases in life, I appreciate Blizzard keeping SC2 pretty much the same the most. I guess some people like change for the sake of change, but I just want to play and practice a given game. Just like chess and Melee have thrived without updates, I would much prefer my video games to not have frequent changes. I know I'm a minority in this regard. I'll come back to SC2 and counterstrike, but I'll never come back to LoL or Valorant because it's no longer the game I was playing.

But DOTA in particular, it was never just a "given game"; even from DOTA 1 they added heroes and items frequently. Adding heroes and items changes the game balance so it has to be continually rebalanced.

Yes, that's one of the reasons why I didn't play it. I probably would have switched over from LoL if it were more static.

Would you say the same about a basketball video game?

If you want to criticize LoL design, simply mention that Pendragon stole all the community hero designs from dota-allstars.com

AND tried to bury the dota community in the process. Complete scum.

Sure the genre and many of its archetypes were invented in the WC3 fun/custom map scene but LoL is more than a Dota clone. I haven’t really played it (my moba time ended with HoN) but it’s obviously very well made

It has matured over time but it was absolutely a hosted dota ripoff initially, including the playable characters. The fact there are also other spinoffs isn’t really relevant to its origins and lack of recognition or even an attempt at monetary compensation.

>or even an attempt at monetary compensation.

Who should pay who do you think in this?

Would love to hear.

Or is this the same as "reparations"? Poeple just dont want others to succeed.

I don’t know, like who even remembers Meian and Ragn0r, who created the original Dota before icefrog took over? I think icefrog benefited a lot from creating Dota and is widely credited - I mean it landed him a great job at valve after blizzard decided to ignore the great potential in their custom map community. The other devs that worked on it are basically unknown.

What makes it obvious to you, that LoL is well made? Userbase? Is candy crush obviously well made? Perhaps it is well marketed, more than well made?

Candy Crush is obviously well made. It's a scourge, but it's a well made scourge.

That's what I find so frustrating about games these days. The most effective business models (by a long way) are the ones that lean into all of the dark patterns.

They can attract great talent to work on them, and afford the time to build them well, because there's so much money sloshing around.

I understand what you're saying. I hold a different view of what is well made or not. Commercial success isn't the only measure. I believe dark patterns detract from the cultural value of a thing, which is how they came to be called that. Meta is a valuable company, but they could have made less money and provided much more value to society with different practices. There's a "rising tide lifts all boats" approach to commerce, and then there's the candy crush, perpetual enshittification, monetary maximalist approach, usually with negative side effects.

But that's beside the point. I don't think League of Legends is especially predatory, I just think it's a mediocre game that was well marketed at the right time to go "viral".

I think it’s pretty subjective at that point what is good and what isn’t.

Totally agree on the dark patterns though.

Out of interest what is a game you consider excellent that maybe wasn’t marketed as well?

Personally I really like dungeon keeper 1 (& 2 as well somewhat) - but Bullfrog was very unsuccessful as a company and went under. I don’t know exactly why, should look into that history

The example I always go to for oddly unsuccessful games, (good at least, I don't know about excellent,) was Super Monday Night Combat. It was something like Valve's Deadlock, a 3D MOBA game more than 10 years earlier, with a bit of The Finals aesthetic. (Coins, instead of blood, gameshowy, announcers quipping over the gameplay.) I had a lot of fun with it, but it seems like hardly anyone noticed it existed. They never got the critical mass of players needed to keep it going.

"I believe dark patterns detract from the cultural value of a thing"

+1 to that.

No it’s very polished in gameplay and balancing. I haven’t played it myself but I watched some others play it. Also looks great etc, so it’s obvious to me that it’s high quality

Reply on news.ycombinator.com