Like for many other people, Valve single player experiences were one of my favorite of all time growing up. I considered both Half-Life and Portal to be masterpieces. It's true they've always been distracted with multiplayer games as well, things like Counter-Strike or Team Fortress and I did play them for sure, because I was a kid and I had all the time in the world.

These days I'm not a kid anymore and so when I game I tend to look more for memorable experiences instead of mindless grinding. Obviously I remember Valve as the experts in creating memorable experiences and I would like them to keep fully exploring those talents. They don't have that many employees, but they do have all the money in the world, no external pressure, no publisher to shit on them, it's just their developers and artists and a vision. But then they use all that and create this. An Overwatch looking moba shooter, really? I'm sure people will like and play it, but is this the results of the vision and ambition of a company like Valve?

It doesn't have to be Half-Life. I remember them saying that they dont want to do another one in the series because they are looking to innovate and make something truly original. My body is ready, give me anything. I can't imagine a moba shooter really fits with this description. I'm wondering how such a low hanging concept even becomes a real product at a company as ambitious as Valve.

I hear people are having fun with the new game and I'm happy for them. I am no longer the target audience and I wish them good luck with it. In the mean time let me hear your thoughts on it. Would you like to see another single player experience from Valve?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Daedskin@lemm.ee 1 points 3 months ago

I personally think MOBA should be used to broadly describe a style of game rather than what's done while playing it. I know that when Riot coined the term, they were referring to games like DotA, LoL, etc.; to me the whole approach to a match's flow is echoed similarly enough throughout multiple games, that applying the term MOBA to other games is a logical extension.

To me a game is a MOBA if:

The way to interact with it is primarily designed around playing with other players online (the M and O of MOBA.)
The goals of the players are against the goals of other players — ie. it's competitive rather than cooperative (the B of MOBA.)
Any player at the beginning of a match has access to all the same options as any other player. This one is a little more vague, but as the A in MOBA stands for arena, I imagine it like a group of gladiators standing before a communal weapon rack that they'll all pick from; no one has any options that the others don't have access to.

Following these criteria, something like Overwatch is a MOBA, as is DotA, and ironically LoL isn't as you have to unlock options meaning you don't satisfy the arena condition. To differentiate games like DotA, Smite, Awesomenauts, Deadlock, etc., I prefer the term lane-pusher as that's a lot more specific and understandable.

Does it really matter what it's called? Not really. I mostly just do it so I can feel superior to Riot for coming up with a vague term that is applied, how I deem, incorrectly, while also excluding their own game from the term that they made to describe it.