Things and the opinions thereof

Things I make - @UncreativeOutput
Game Ranking Project - @God-Bless-The-Rank



MOOMANiBE
@MOOMANiBE

They made a moba/dota third person shooter (ala Gigantic, Battleborn, Super Monday Night Combat, Predecessor, Battlerite, REVN, NEXUS, Overpower, SMITE, Grimoire:Manastorm, etc etc etc)

It is indistinguishable from every other moba shooter and looks like discount overwatch. It plays exactly like all of them do, but mostly it plays exactly like dota except shooting. It is the most conservative, safe, 10-years-late-to-the-genre attempt at bludgeoning their way into an already firmly established space imaginable. I cannot imagine having infinite money and choosing to spend it on developing this.


MOOMANiBE
@MOOMANiBE

also the single match I played - ONE match - lasted 50 minutes, which is perhaps the way it is most like dota (in addition to it being exactly like dota in every other way)


You must log in to comment.

in reply to @MOOMANiBE's post:

I don't know that I'm quite as down on it, but it's insane to me that they're just straight-up making a Super Monday Night Combat. It feels like the moment where people would be into a shooter moba is so, so long past, and even when that moment was here it never really left the ground. What we learned at the time was that matching the mechanical demands of a shooter with the long, drawn-out losses of a MOBA makes for a deeply stressful and miserable experience.

(and that's speaking as someone who really, really liked Super Monday Night Combat at the time)

I mean the thing I was trying to evidence in the list of games in my post was that people have been making entries in this for over a decade now, nearly all of them failed, an the ones that haven't are entrenched. What's the point? It's INCREDIBLY well-tread space, and they're not doing basically anything new within it compared to their contemporary competitors. Why even bother? Do they think they just can bludgeon their way to success on the Valve Name?

It feels like they took the exactly wrong lesson from dota2, which is "we can steal away dominance in any genre by playing it incredibly safe and throwing infinite money at art and esports" and I'm really skeptical it's going to work in this case

Aye, like Dota kinda works because MOBAs were still forming as a genre and they lucked into having THE legacy name (on top of being, like, a Very Good one of those).

It's 2024. We've done the shooter dota. none of them stuck, and I don't really see what Deadlock is doing to fix that beyond being "Valve's attempt"

I feel like you could write that about most PvP game genres...? In terms of "they're well-tread and most fail."

Fighting games are the only genre with a regular emergence of new titles that see lower net success, but also lower longevity, while still being a thriving scene, and there's clearly something specific about that demographic that can pay off in that sense (with most that strive for eternal longevity failing). This clearly does not pan out in any other PvP genre -- arguably some studios over-invest, but there are more PvP indie and AA games now than ever before (like, seriously, sooooo many), and most of them fail outright so hard that it's impossible to argue that large budgets and marketing aren't a factor in PvP games succeeding (i.e. getting the player counts needed to even work).

The shooter genre has at least added some items to their list -- now it's a CoD, a battle royale, an extraction shooter, a Counterstrike, or an Overwatch. It used to only be 3 of those things. Valve could try to make 1 more, and if they did, there's a 90% chance it would fail and no one can control that outcome -- it's not quality, it's not passion, it's not innovation, nothing controls what leads to cultural embrace of a gaming format, it's effectively random (within obvious constraints of marketability and fun). They're basically trying that here -- this isn't a new effort, but maybe they can get lucky and make the breakthrough MOBA shooter. I'm sure everyone working on it is thrilled to try, but I agree with you, there's a huge chance it'll fail -- I just don't think that's much different than the huge chance for any PvP game to fail.

Because actually Valve already released two entirely non-standard and now failed PvP games. Their autochess game was was part of a new genre when it came out and it failed, Riot ate their lunch and now has one of the most successful casual PvP games ever made. There was no lack of polish or passion or unique efforts there. Even more importantly, their card game was ridiculously innovative and it also failed -- maybe in part due to its financial model, but who's to say how different it may have been otherwise. (Riot's card game is still struggling despite having the best card gain model on the market and being one of the most beautiful and effortful and passionate endeavors into a DTCG possible.)

So... I sort of get your sentiment, given Valve has infinite money and could very easily be putting out more (on cheaper budgets, on more creative fronts), but it's also not surprising to me at all that they'd try a safe bet that they understand and are passionate about, nor that a lot of people working there like working on PvP games specifically so that got enough traction to get the buy-in of their bizarre "everyone does what they want" creative structure.

I'll grant, maybe I got way too in the weeds about PvP marketability and talked right past the point that "this is just DotA 2." If it really is that 1:1, then yeah, baffling design decisions, they should at least have targeted shorter match lengths and more specific identity if they wanted a shot at marketing something new.

SMNC is just about my all-time favorite game, and I have to try any game that reminds me of it. But there's the problem with Deadlock... Valve's known for making games that are nothing like anything else that's come before, but now they're doing something derivative.

Super Monday Night Combat

I'll never get over Uber Entertainment dropping Monday Night Combat in favor of SMNC. MNC was small, decently balanced, and felt great to play on my 360.

Switching to a shitty LoL-inspired free to play model with worse characters and worse maps was such a disappointment.

in reply to @MOOMANiBE's post:

I genuinely would love to know who the target audience for this is. people who play dota but don't want to? People who WOULD play dota but hate top down perspectives? The audience of people who's already playing every other moba shooter?

i have also been trying to wrap my head around it. because on one hand the source engine just “clicks” in my brain nicely and i’ve enjoyed my time with most valve games. but on the other hand i just cannot get excited for playing a 45 minute long match with other moba players (ie people who will yell at me for not being being perfectly efficient with my farming etc). i wish i could “get” it.

i’ve heard several people claim this is icefrog’s dream game and that’s why it’s happening finally. but i don’t know how true that is. it does feel a bit uh… late to the party.

Yeah, it is dead, I just don't think being late is necessarily why, it's a few factors. A competing game in a genre can take over years later if it's done right, they made a lot of wrong calls. Also Riot was smart to put it in the same client as League, they're forcing it down the throats of an existing massive install base. Granted, they only did it on a lark, it getting as huge as it did wasn't something they were assuming. Their initial investment was pretty low.

I've played a fair bit of it now. It's fine, but really is just dota. In the "Weird shop menuing is the most important part of the game" sense...

...or rather it's 99% dota, 1% replacing "Jump" with "generic context-sensitive button that sometimes means the explicit opposite of Jump"

the worst of everything moba on top of the horrible thing hero shooters like to do where they make a flying hero that completely invalidates the fun projectile lobbers/close range fighters because the enemy team always has the flying hero.