Slashdot Mirror
CowboyNeal On Dota 2, Modern Games, and Software Development
CowboyNeal writes "Unless you don't care about PC gaming at all, by now you're aware of Valve's entry into the MOBA/ARTS genre, Dota 2. Despite still being in a closed beta, it's currently the number one game on Valve's Steam gaming service, and judging from Valve's earlier declaration regarding Steam on Linux, it's only a matter of time, even if that time be a year or more, before we see Dota 2 come to Linux as well as Mac. Valve has big plans for Dota 2, no less big than what happened with Team Fortress 2, even if it took them a few years to get to where Team Fortress 2 is today. What makes the current state of Dota 2 noteworthy, however, is that it has managed to displace Team Fortress 2 as Steam's most popular game, while still being tested in a closed beta." Read on for the rest of CowboyNeal's thoughts on games, and what it's like being a Slashdot poll option.
The term "closed beta" here doesn't really directly apply, either. Starting already last summer, Valve invited sixteen Dota teams from around the world to compete in a Dota 2 tournament, which naturally, featured the then-current state of Dota 2. What's interesting to note is that while Dota 2 at that time didn't sport all of the available heroes from its Dota All-Stars ancestor, everyone involved felt comfortable enough with the game to stage a tournament. Even if the game was lacking dozens of heroes at the time, players from the professional Dota scene were able to adjust to Dota 2 quickly, given that Valve had successfully recreated the nuances of the original mod within the Source engine. Following The International 2011, Valve resolved to open up the beta to more people, and sent out several waves of invites last fall, over the winter, and this spring. They gave out beta access as prizes during their Christmas Sale event. And now, for $39.99, or whatever that equates to in your local currency, you can buy an invite to the beta, directly from the Dota 2 store in-game. In this way, it's not very closed anymore, save for in name.
All of this is a long way from how games, and software in general, were handled in days of yore. In the before-time, the long-long-ago, one would go to the store or mail order some disks with the software on it, install it, and that was that. Patches were next to unheard of. After the advent of the internet, one would still likely go to the store and buy a game on discs, and then begin the process of downloading patches off of the internet, if one was so lucky to have their product see post-launch support. Today, it's not uncommon to see a game be patched once or twice in a week's time, especially so if it's a game with an online component to it.
With games like Dota 2, and recently-released Tribes Ascend, and the wildly successful Minecraft before that, the entire software development cycle gets hazy at best. PC Gamer recently asked its readers whether or not they should review Dota 2. There's still a list of things to come for Dota 2. There's also already a selection of purely cosmetic items available for purchase for your heroes, tying in closely to Valve's hat-based strategy for revenue. It's no wonder that reviewers are left wondering. Buyers are wondering too. There are plenty of people playing Dota 2, and presumably some of those players are having fun doing it. I think it could also be successfully argued that Minecraft was "done" long before Mojang slapped a 1.0 version number on it. On the flip side of the coin, it's been five years since Valve released Team Fortress 2, and the TF2 that players play today is very little like the one that was bundled with the Orange Box on release. Games developed, or even merely published by Bethesda are notorious for launch-day bugs, some of which are so egregious that they come perilously close to breaking the "sacred bond of trust between gamer and gaming mega-corporation." Sometimes Bethesda fixed up their games with a post-game patch, other times we have to just wait and bear it, and eventually at some point, like the days of yore, post-launch support just ends, and bugfixes are left to the community to handle.
I think that in the end, the "release early, patch often" approach is beneficial to consumers. It allows developers to get player feedback in an early and ongoing fashion, and adjust their product accordingly. In the long run, it makes it easier to decide whether or not it's worth plunking down our cash for a game. It does, however, make it much more difficult to decide to do so on launch day. It's difficult to see the future and know if and how a given title will be supported post-launch, which is now a reasonable issue to consider before purchasing a AAA title that can cost between $50 and $60. The hard part, of course, is waiting for our old ideas about game reviews to catch up, since a review doesn't get patched, unlike the games they cover. The best a review can hope for is to be revised during an expansion pack.
All of this is a long way from how games, and software in general, were handled in days of yore. In the before-time, the long-long-ago, one would go to the store or mail order some disks with the software on it, install it, and that was that. Patches were next to unheard of. After the advent of the internet, one would still likely go to the store and buy a game on discs, and then begin the process of downloading patches off of the internet, if one was so lucky to have their product see post-launch support. Today, it's not uncommon to see a game be patched once or twice in a week's time, especially so if it's a game with an online component to it.
With games like Dota 2, and recently-released Tribes Ascend, and the wildly successful Minecraft before that, the entire software development cycle gets hazy at best. PC Gamer recently asked its readers whether or not they should review Dota 2. There's still a list of things to come for Dota 2. There's also already a selection of purely cosmetic items available for purchase for your heroes, tying in closely to Valve's hat-based strategy for revenue. It's no wonder that reviewers are left wondering. Buyers are wondering too. There are plenty of people playing Dota 2, and presumably some of those players are having fun doing it. I think it could also be successfully argued that Minecraft was "done" long before Mojang slapped a 1.0 version number on it. On the flip side of the coin, it's been five years since Valve released Team Fortress 2, and the TF2 that players play today is very little like the one that was bundled with the Orange Box on release. Games developed, or even merely published by Bethesda are notorious for launch-day bugs, some of which are so egregious that they come perilously close to breaking the "sacred bond of trust between gamer and gaming mega-corporation." Sometimes Bethesda fixed up their games with a post-game patch, other times we have to just wait and bear it, and eventually at some point, like the days of yore, post-launch support just ends, and bugfixes are left to the community to handle.
I think that in the end, the "release early, patch often" approach is beneficial to consumers. It allows developers to get player feedback in an early and ongoing fashion, and adjust their product accordingly. In the long run, it makes it easier to decide whether or not it's worth plunking down our cash for a game. It does, however, make it much more difficult to decide to do so on launch day. It's difficult to see the future and know if and how a given title will be supported post-launch, which is now a reasonable issue to consider before purchasing a AAA title that can cost between $50 and $60. The hard part, of course, is waiting for our old ideas about game reviews to catch up, since a review doesn't get patched, unlike the games they cover. The best a review can hope for is to be revised during an expansion pack.
I thought he was a punchline on the surveys. He's actually a real person?
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
I did not see anything about a poll option!
Would rather have HL2 E3 or HL3.......
Nobody gives a shit about an enthralling story or character development anymore. Developers have to give players multiplayer rewards for anyone to want to go play their 6-9 hour poorly written story now.
Im sure I am not alone in yerning again for the days where you got a real story that took a damn long time to finish it, 40-50 hours was considered to be short once now Its an "epic".
Because it's not a real RTS unless at least one has.
What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
Is this the full summary because this AC doesn't see his thoughts on being a Slashdot poll option?
I am a big LoL fan and I was excited for DOTA 2 and when I played it, I was quite disappointed. Its game pace is quite poor and you feel like you are sitting around a lot doing nothing. League of Legends is the way to the future, not DOTA2.
This style of development is not a panacea for gaming. Some of us don't like MOBA's (A game with one map and the second coming of the CS crowd are not selling points), some of us hate what TF2 became (grind to unlock gear! buy stupid crap! deal with screaming 12 year olds! fun!), and from the looks of things Tribes:Ascend is hemorrhaging players like it was shot in the head (which is what you get when you ignore the playerbase and try and bait-and-switch the game into a gear grind).
There's still a place for a well developed game with a reasonable price point and attentive developers. Sadly, there's more money to be made in catering to the masses and begging for their pennies.
"release early, patch often"
It is available on Linux,
At the moment I will stick to my guns, and play Heroes of Newerth, its being before DOTA2 for ages, it is polished and crossplatform. One of best looking games on Linux. Frankly I had opinion of a few DOTA2 players, who said that DOTA is not better than HoN. For those not in the know, HoN is DOTA like game. In fact, its more DOTA than DOTA2!!!!
Tribes: Ascend (TA) is advertised as an "esport" by the developer (HiRez Studios) and lacks basic functionality, compared to other games which are played competitively (e.g. Quake, CS), such as demos/replays, dedicated server files, first person spectator mode, map editing and modding support. The game is somewhat fun but the novelty of the skiing/jetpacking wears off and I was left with the feeling that the game is a rather incoherent mess. The free-to-play model isn't conducive as it forces/compels the developer to introduce new weapons/items for players to buy which, in the case of weapons, causes unnecessary balancing issues. IMHO a game meant to be played competitively is required to have a fixed set of rules/weapons/items which usually clashes with the free-to-play business model.
I've stopped playing since TA's official release as I didn't have enough time to play but also because I didn't like where HiRez was taking TA and, additionally to the lack of the above mentioned functionality, there was also a lack of good maps which is essential for a game meant to be played competitively. The game overall just didn't feel finished. Color me unsurprised that when I was reading an article on the current state of the game by one of the players involved in the competitive community that the game suffers from pretty much the same problems that it had during its beta. The same problems were reported by members of the community of HiRez's previous game (Global Agenda) and will very likely continue with their current title in beta called Smite.
If you're interested, here is some further material:
http://www.spinfusor.org/2012/07/04/of-horizons-potential-death/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8EzA8WOBmnc
i don't think you understand what the 4X genre is..
In the summary and article, the name Dota appears about 15 times, but not once is it explained what it is. With all those words, why do I still have to follow a link to find out what it is? I'm an avid gamer (far far more than I should be), and play mostly RPG, RTS, TBS, Adventure, and similar games. So what is Dota?
4X games are generally Turn-Based Strategy (TBS). The Real-Time Strategy (RTS) genre is very different. I prefer TBS games but they're hard to find nowadays. Ever since Age of Empires and the Warcraft series popularized RTSes, developers just haven't been making TBSes, which is a shame.
Genocide Man -- Life is funny. Death is funnier. Mass murder can be hilarious.
The reconnect to games feature is an awesome innovation by valve. I just which there wasn't a penalty for leaving the games early beacuse it is so frustrating having to stay past a loss, unlike dota 1.
The $4.00 hats ($20 for the whole uniform) are pretty overpriced but i'm not the type of person that would buy it for even a $1 so I guess I don't mind. I literally can't notice the difference between heroes wearing them or not also but I bet that will change.
try 'endless space'
It's not that surprising that DOTA 2 sitting on top of Steam even if it's in beta. The game is basically finished, Valcve is just adding characters and tweaking things at this point while preparing to have some big official release event. The nature of MOBA games and the evolution of e-sports (Counter-Strike, Starcraft, fighting games) have combined to whip people into a frenzy about any competetive-looking online game. It is kind of interesting to notice that DOTA 2 was originally a paid product with no cash shop....now it's free-to-play with a cash shop, but that's also part of an entirely different problem (DLC, episodic content).
I'd like to have a moment of silence for Counter-Strike, for its almost decade-long run as the top game on Steam. With its fall from the top spot to Team Fortress 2, we saw an evolution in video games themselves from paid-for games with free updates and content, to free-to-play games with cash shops and meta games and all that. It will be interesting to see where gaming goes from here.
Which is kind of surprising, considering turn-based games are much easier to make. Unfortunately, most people don't like thinking about one move for hours and prefer a continuously-engaging clickfest.
PlusFive Slashdot reader for Android. Can post comments.
meh to that one
"Unless you don't care about PC gaming at all, by now you're aware of Valve's entry into the MOBA/ARTS genre, Dota 2.
Yes, that's brilliant, start off with an insult.
I'd never heard of this game (and looking into it, don't care), and I almost exclusively game on my PC.
Ever since Age of Empires and the Warcraft series popularized RTSes
I'm positive you mean Dune and Command & Conquer
"When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
"Valve has big plans for Dota 2, no less big than what happened with Team Fortress 2, even if it took them a few years to get to where Team Fortress 2 is today."
They will never match the amount of hats TF2 has, their only chance is to add farm-able trousers.
Nobody bought Dune II. It didn't popularize anything.
C&C is closer, but Warcraft outsold it by a ton. The other poster was right.
Not only that, but he doesn't understand what DOTA is either. Basically his comment was entirely worthless: I award him no points, and may God have mercy on his soul.
DotA - Defense of the Ancients
This is a 10 player (5 per side), team game that pits the Sentinel (Now the Radiant) against the Scourge (Now the Dire).
It is based off of Aeon of Strife, originally a game mod for Starcraft.
There are 3 "lanes" in which creeps (low power mobiles) spawn every 30 seconds and march towards the enemy base at a set pace.
Each lane is guarded by 3 Towers of increasing power.
The team territories are split in haf diagonally by a river of more or less nuetrality.
The point of the game is to destroy the other teams source of power (World Tree vs Frozen Throne, Nexus if you're playing LoL) which is located approximately in the center of the base.
Your character gains levels similar to an RPG, by defeating enemies. You become more mowerful by purchasing in game items with gold earned by killing enemies and enemy creeps. Gold is also earned at a set rate of 1g/sec.
DotA has a long and sordid history with many people attributed credit for creation, modification, and stewardship. Icefrog, who currently works for Valve on DOTA2, is the one responsible for the updates and modifications that made it a worldwide popular E-Sport.
I've been beta testing for Icefrog for somewhere around 6-7 years (I should really make a /. account) and can tell you that this "Update often" strategy works very well for a game like DotA.
Because the metagame shifts often depending on player skill, playstyle, and strategy; a constant cycle of buffs/nerfs is esential to keeping it from becoming stale and one sided.
It also helps as new content is added periodically, most often this content is pulled directly from the fanbase's suggestions. This keeps the fanbase avid and active, as there is always a chance one of their ideas makes it into the game.
I would say Command and Conquer and Warcraft II, both released in 1995. Dune II is certainly established the "build stuff then attack" convention, and Warcraft increased recognition, but it was C&C and WC2 that truly popularized the genre.
The road to tyranny has always been paved with claims of necessity.
I've played the DotA Allstars, Heroes of Newerth, League of Legends (briefly and for good reason), and currently play DotA2.
The essence of these MOBA games is that they're a top down version of Doom-with-towers. 2 teams of 5 players each play a different hero, typically in 3 lanes. The heroes scale dramatically with XP and gold, both of which come from killing.
They are much more of a team-dependent game than BF 3 or similar. Teams typically have:
1. An initiator. Somebody who jumps in and hopefully temporarily disables the opposing team.
2. A carry. This is the guy who farms all game so he can one shot everybody by the end.
3. A support. Creeps and towers give vision, but since the game is so dependent on killing each other (ganking), support buy temporary vision items called wards and then go around the map placing them. Support heroes often have healing powers.
4 & 5 are more variable. You can have pushers (who try to take down towers), stunners, gankers and even old fashioned tanks.
The games are seriously competitive, and that's before the $1m prizes come in.
The graphics are quite good in both HoN and DotA2. The debates rage on as to whether DotA2 is better than HoN. I personally prefer HoN. Unlike DotA2, it has a player-friendly F2P model and can be downloaded here.
You also want to read this guide before playing.
"Unless you don't care about PC gaming at all, by now you're aware of Valve's entry into the MOBA/ARTS genre, Dota 2."
Unless you're a total douche-bag, you wouldn't even think of penning something like that.
"Gold still represents the ultimate form of payment in the world." - Alan Greenspan, 1999
hehe...if you like taking turns you will LOVE endless turns...err space.
There are TBS out there if you look for them
Another anon mentioned endless space. There's also Legends of Pegasus, another upcoming spaced-themed 4X game
There was a Heroes of M&M last year. Expansion for Civ 5 came out recently
And if you just look for turned base game play, you can always look for the half a dozen generic JRPGs (turn based probably lends itself better to letting the artists go nuts with 12 minute long attack cinematic)
I'm crossing my fingers the X-COM (the real one, not the FPS) remake will not suck
Actually, if I think about it, turned based is still strong, and it's the "traditional" RTS game (build base, build army, kill enemy) that is dying/stagnant. I mean, Korea was only playing Starcraft 1 up until the release of 2.
A lot faster than LoL, vastly better graphics, more indepth laning (creep denies), no pay-for-power..