Games

[icycalm]

https://twitter.com/shubn/status/224908319138136065

"MOBA" is a retarded acronym. I'm now calling DotA-like games FAGs (Fortress Assault Games).

Exactly. And here is the essence of my review of the very first FAG (whichever one it was): it is a stupid idea, since RTSes already contain FAGs. The only reason to make a full game out of a FAG is because 1) The designer is too incompetent to create a full RTS, and 2) The players are too stupid to play full RTSes, so they confine themeselves to this one small aspect of the game. In short, FAGs are for fags, and with that I've taken care of my game reviewing quota for the month of July 2012.

[icycalm]

http://www.learntocounter.com/forums/in ... pic=5480.0

Why do all MOBAs look like Warcraft 3?

http://www.learntocounter.com/forums/in ... 1#msg58291

To elaborate: because the audience doesn't fucking care.

If you tried to design a MOBA with a different setting (space, steampunk, whatever), theme, backstory, and whatnot, it would likely be completely lost on a community that doesn't really give a rat's ass about the aesthetic aspect. Of course, at the same time you can't strip down graphics either, so the default option is to stick to what has proven to sell, hence they all stick with the same bullshit WC3 knockoff theme. Hell, it doesn't even have to attempt to make any sense anymore, and that's fine, because not even its own fanbase really cares. They, like all adherents of the great eSports faith, are more considered with a game's mechanics — i.e. with a numbers game — as well as in the spectacle of Pro Gaming and all the various minor celebrities it spawns. The only object is to win, if you can't do it yourself, maybe the guy you're rooting for will, etc. The only immersion is that in which you pretend that you are doing/watching is really a sport and that it actually has cultural merit.

This, however, is wrong:

http://www.learntocounter.com/forums/in ... 9#msg58289

Because it is an abortive, derivative genre with little or no capacity for serious improvement, a rigid, dogmatic, and purely arbitrary ruleset based around RPG mechanics, and with a playerbase that has the collective sophistication of a baked potato.

It is typical of the kind of person who posts on that site. For every one correct thing they say, they also say three sheer idiocies, and the site owner himself promotes wild exaggeration. And note that my OP in this thread is wrong too; I guess I (and shubn) confused Tower Defence games with MOBAs. Tower Defence is the redundant genre, because they are contained in RTSes, but MOBAs are a different thing altogether, and they definitely have "a capacity for serious improvement", unlike what that idiot Seldon is saying. That entire post of his is stupid. "RPG mechanics" lol. "Arbitrary ruleset." What a load of bollocks.

[icycalm]

From Discord: https://discord.gg/7ZKAkEj

On an unrelated note, does anyone here realize that For Honor, Overwatch and Paragon are the same genre?
Counter-Strike too
The difference is Counter-Strike is ranged only, For Honor melee only, and Overwatch and Paragon are both
Plus, some of them have more players than others, which allow for a wider range of tactics
I have high hopes for Overwatch and Paragon, and want to give them at least a try soon
PlanetSide 2 is the same exact genre, but with thousands of players, three sides instead of two, and no team size limits or time limits, which is why it wins
Plus vehicles
And bases. And the hugest map ever. (edited)
That's my review right there
It's almost the best game ever
The only reason it loses to Far Cry 2 is because no plot
If someone could find a way to integrate plot into PS2, or huge teams in Far Cry, they would make the best game ever
On the other hand, Planetary Annihilation allows far more sides than merely 3. It basically allows for as many sides as your server can handle.
Plus, theoretically infinite size maps.
Plus, those maps don't have invisible walls, like PlanetSide, which is insanely immersive
Plus, one game can contain multiple such maps, in the form of several planets
So in all these ways it shits on PlanetSide (and therefore on the MOBAs -- which is what Counter-Strike is too) from a great height
But it lacks the first-person perspective and the one-player-one-avatar mechanic
So in that respect it is HUGELY less immersive
On the OTHER hand, you don't need to recruit thousands of real people to have epic battles there, since each player can command thousands of cpu-controlled units (edited)
That's why we need that game too in our rotation
It's not for everyone, because not everyone likes tactics, much less strategy, but it's a great game to have for those who do like them (edited)
PA FORCES players to do tactics, since it hands players thousands of units
and when you have a team with many players, it also forces at least ONE of those players to do strategy
that's why it's so less popular than PlanetSide, never mind the MOBAs (which latter have pitifully meagre room for tactics)
The MOBAs require the least brainpower, ergo they are the most popular
PA requires the most, ergo it is a perpetually endangered species
PS2 is somewhere in between, since morons can still play it alone if they want

[icycalm]

Tiger Knight, by the way, is somewhere between PS2 and PA, and that's why we need to try it. It has rave views on Steam.

[icycalm]

Also, Nuclear Dawn, called an "FPS/RTS hybrid", though I am sure it is merely an "FPS/RTT hybrid".

[icycalm]

More from Discord: https://discord.gg/7ZKAkEj

By the way, something else about my MOBA comments earlier
Notice how the best games are all sci-fi-themed
Counter-Strike has only ranged combat because it doesn't make sense to punch people when they are holding guns
For Honor has only melee because the devs knew that if they included ranged weapons they would dominate over melee (edited)
At the very least, they would have diminished greatly the extent of melee combat, which is what the devs wanted to focus on
Meanwhile, Paragon and Overwatch can have both aspects to whatever degree the designers desire, even 50-50 if they are careful with the balancing
because they can add teleport and sci-fi armor that negates ranged attacks, for good or temporarily
Same with Planetary Annihilation
If you want to keep expanding the size of the map, you will eventually have to expand it to space, but the only theme that will fit space is sci-fi
There have been some attempts to extend fantasy settings to space, with dragons carrying people between planets, as e.g. in the D&D Spelljammer setting, but they have failed for obvious reasons (edited)
Space needs spaceships, meaning sci-fi
Link that to my aphorism about sci-fi vs. fantasy on Orgy
and you can see why PA and PS2 are both sci-fi
Or even why Alpha Centauri is the best grand strategy game
There was never any way that an Age of Empires would become the best RTS ever
It doesn't even have flying units lol, because the historical setting means no dragons
Of course, they could make an Age of Empires with so much complexity in the types of mechanics that it DOES have to rival the PA of TODAY
For example, an Age of Empires that renders the entire Earth
Though if they wanted to stick with realism that would have been pointless, since no ancient conqueror ever managed to grab the entire planet, nor could he have the means to effectively control it
But a future PA sequel could still easily trump that, because it has far more potential
So the casual theorists say "different folks for different strokes", while I say "sci-fi is king and better get used to it"
Gonna get a nap now
But that's the sort of thing I want to analyze at length in the PA, PS2 reviews, etc.
I will even start the analysis from the Quake and Counter-Strike reviews, when I explain why 5v5 basketball is better than 1v1 (edited)