Not exactly? Still, dota is far far better. Both dota and lol can be fun at an entry level (and be infun, at all levels too), despite having no idea what youre doing -- that lack of knowledge becomes part of the appeal to stick around, perhaps?
This is not a value judgment, I’m not using “clone” as a pejorative term, it’s just AFAIK a well-established fact that League of Legends is a precise copy of DotA All Stars. Of course there are plenty of differences, some quite important (eg. removing creep denial) but if “clone” doesn’t describe the relationship between these two games I’m having a hard time thinking of where it *would* apply.
League has different mechanics, different characters, different items - even the control scheme is different. (League doesn't use RTS style controls where you can freely select units) Heroes of Newerth was much closer from what I understand. (I've never played it)
Having played both League and Dota I honestly don't find them all that similar. Clearly they are similar in certain respects but the act of playing them feels pretty different IMO.
Mousetrap for Colecovision is a Pac-Man clone, as an example of how I'd use the term. On paper it's a little different but in practice it feels nearly identical to play. (Ladybug - not a clone!)
Generally I wish people would use "clone" much less often - I feel like after Ridiculous Fishing was cloned it became very in vogue to claim that some nefarious entity was cloning a game, often as a form of marketing for the game supposedly being cloned. The maker of Donut County claimed that Hole IO was a clone of his game, when the games have almost nothing in common except that in both you play as a hole. Donut is a single player puzzle game and Hole IO is, IIRC, a multiplayer competitive game. (Also Donut County is basically Katamari but you're a hole instead of a ball - if anything it's *more* of a clone than Hole IO is)
In practice "clone" is almost always pejorative, as it implies a lack of design effort and creativity, which is probably part of the reason I feel it's overused. I don't have any formal definition of "clone" but loosely I would say a "clone" is a game that tries to mimic the original and includes changes mostly for the sake of avoiding accusations of copying. (See Demon Attack / Phoenix)
I don't think League was trying to copy All Stars, it was trying to be a similar game (in the same nascent genre) but included plenty of changes motivated by a different design approach and an attempt to make the game better. (Or at least, to appeal to a different audience) I also think it becomes messier when someone "clones" a game they worked on, as was the case with League / Dota. I don't know if you can call Daikatana a "Doom clone", or call various "spiritual successor" games by the original creators a clone. Is Bloodstained a Castlevania clone? I would say no.
Personally I would reserve "clone" for efforts that really are attempting mimicry. There are some League of Legends clones that use the same UI, same map, same graphics style, and in some cases similar (or stolen) key art. To me those are clones. In some cases the goal there appears to be to just make League of Legends except without the license and maybe for mobile. (Before League had a mobile version)
Ok, I see your point. Given that in common usage "clone" is almost always used as a pejorative, and implies "cheap knock-off", it may not be appropriate here.
But I think you may be overcorrecting somewhat. It's quite clear that Riot was, in fact, copying DotA All Stars. Yes, they made some additions and changes to the mechanics, but LoL, Heroes of Newerth, and DOTA2 are all variations of the same basic underlying game. This is more true of these games than any of the FPS games that followed DOOM. In those games, the maps and monsters are clearly the essential "content" of the game, but for the DotA copies, the game really consists of the core underlying ruleset, which is basically the same. Yes, there are lots of important variations, and yes, there were places where the intention was to modify and improve the game, but it's obvious that in each of these cases, the developers fully intended to make a new version of the same underlying game, not just something "similar".
Obviously, this is all just semantics. I think we basically agree on the facts. But, you know, semantics can matter sometimes. I share your annoyance with a general oversensitivity to this issue among a lot of devs and gamers. I think one important vector of innovation in game design is people making slight variations to games that they love. My approach is to try to drain some of the negative connotations out of the term by pointing out how some big, important games like LoL and Minecraft were, basically, clones. Your approach seems to be to embrace the negative connotations and limit your use to a much narrower set of games. And, who knows, maybe your approach is the right one, it's hard to say. But I get your point now, thanks for explaining.
So, dota all stars was the originator of a new "genre". Clone implies that a game is so similar to the original, that it is a money grab without it's own value, and maybe just barely on the legal side of copyright infringement. Or, referring to something as a clone that isnt really that, but as an exaggeration do to perceived low value. Heroes of Newearth is iirc more similar to being a clone than lol, as they literally had some of the same characters with similar abilities -- whereas iirc lol was not that direct 1-to-1.
Yes, HoN was more of an exact copy, LoL made more changes. However, both were close enough to being exact copies to make them virtually equivalent on the general spectrum of "how much of a copy of another game is this". For example, it seems ridiculous to say that the developers of HoN were just making a greedy cash grab and the developers of LoL weren't. Both teams were motivated by the same goal, making a commercial version of DotA All Stars, they just had slightly different approaches. That's definitely how it was perceived at the time. If we want to say the the line defining "clone" is exactly in the little space between LoL and HoN, then that's fine, I guess. We've already established that we are just talking about semantics at this point, no material facts are in dispute AFAICT.
"To ignore accessibility concerns is to perpetuate de facto, if unintentional, discrimination. (That is why the Americans with Disabilities Act exists)" Businesses hardly have the luxury of ignoring ADA regs. Moreover, ADA has less to many older downtowns being left to decay, as ADA requirements are too expensive. In other places, like NYC and SF, ADA regs have been weaponized by lawyers extorting businesses for non-conformance. But discrimination, bro. The road to hell is paved with good intentions
League of Legends isn't a clone?
Not exactly? Still, dota is far far better. Both dota and lol can be fun at an entry level (and be infun, at all levels too), despite having no idea what youre doing -- that lack of knowledge becomes part of the appeal to stick around, perhaps?
This is not a value judgment, I’m not using “clone” as a pejorative term, it’s just AFAIK a well-established fact that League of Legends is a precise copy of DotA All Stars. Of course there are plenty of differences, some quite important (eg. removing creep denial) but if “clone” doesn’t describe the relationship between these two games I’m having a hard time thinking of where it *would* apply.
League has different mechanics, different characters, different items - even the control scheme is different. (League doesn't use RTS style controls where you can freely select units) Heroes of Newerth was much closer from what I understand. (I've never played it)
Having played both League and Dota I honestly don't find them all that similar. Clearly they are similar in certain respects but the act of playing them feels pretty different IMO.
Mousetrap for Colecovision is a Pac-Man clone, as an example of how I'd use the term. On paper it's a little different but in practice it feels nearly identical to play. (Ladybug - not a clone!)
Generally I wish people would use "clone" much less often - I feel like after Ridiculous Fishing was cloned it became very in vogue to claim that some nefarious entity was cloning a game, often as a form of marketing for the game supposedly being cloned. The maker of Donut County claimed that Hole IO was a clone of his game, when the games have almost nothing in common except that in both you play as a hole. Donut is a single player puzzle game and Hole IO is, IIRC, a multiplayer competitive game. (Also Donut County is basically Katamari but you're a hole instead of a ball - if anything it's *more* of a clone than Hole IO is)
In practice "clone" is almost always pejorative, as it implies a lack of design effort and creativity, which is probably part of the reason I feel it's overused. I don't have any formal definition of "clone" but loosely I would say a "clone" is a game that tries to mimic the original and includes changes mostly for the sake of avoiding accusations of copying. (See Demon Attack / Phoenix)
I don't think League was trying to copy All Stars, it was trying to be a similar game (in the same nascent genre) but included plenty of changes motivated by a different design approach and an attempt to make the game better. (Or at least, to appeal to a different audience) I also think it becomes messier when someone "clones" a game they worked on, as was the case with League / Dota. I don't know if you can call Daikatana a "Doom clone", or call various "spiritual successor" games by the original creators a clone. Is Bloodstained a Castlevania clone? I would say no.
Personally I would reserve "clone" for efforts that really are attempting mimicry. There are some League of Legends clones that use the same UI, same map, same graphics style, and in some cases similar (or stolen) key art. To me those are clones. In some cases the goal there appears to be to just make League of Legends except without the license and maybe for mobile. (Before League had a mobile version)
Ok, I see your point. Given that in common usage "clone" is almost always used as a pejorative, and implies "cheap knock-off", it may not be appropriate here.
But I think you may be overcorrecting somewhat. It's quite clear that Riot was, in fact, copying DotA All Stars. Yes, they made some additions and changes to the mechanics, but LoL, Heroes of Newerth, and DOTA2 are all variations of the same basic underlying game. This is more true of these games than any of the FPS games that followed DOOM. In those games, the maps and monsters are clearly the essential "content" of the game, but for the DotA copies, the game really consists of the core underlying ruleset, which is basically the same. Yes, there are lots of important variations, and yes, there were places where the intention was to modify and improve the game, but it's obvious that in each of these cases, the developers fully intended to make a new version of the same underlying game, not just something "similar".
Obviously, this is all just semantics. I think we basically agree on the facts. But, you know, semantics can matter sometimes. I share your annoyance with a general oversensitivity to this issue among a lot of devs and gamers. I think one important vector of innovation in game design is people making slight variations to games that they love. My approach is to try to drain some of the negative connotations out of the term by pointing out how some big, important games like LoL and Minecraft were, basically, clones. Your approach seems to be to embrace the negative connotations and limit your use to a much narrower set of games. And, who knows, maybe your approach is the right one, it's hard to say. But I get your point now, thanks for explaining.
So, dota all stars was the originator of a new "genre". Clone implies that a game is so similar to the original, that it is a money grab without it's own value, and maybe just barely on the legal side of copyright infringement. Or, referring to something as a clone that isnt really that, but as an exaggeration do to perceived low value. Heroes of Newearth is iirc more similar to being a clone than lol, as they literally had some of the same characters with similar abilities -- whereas iirc lol was not that direct 1-to-1.
Yes, HoN was more of an exact copy, LoL made more changes. However, both were close enough to being exact copies to make them virtually equivalent on the general spectrum of "how much of a copy of another game is this". For example, it seems ridiculous to say that the developers of HoN were just making a greedy cash grab and the developers of LoL weren't. Both teams were motivated by the same goal, making a commercial version of DotA All Stars, they just had slightly different approaches. That's definitely how it was perceived at the time. If we want to say the the line defining "clone" is exactly in the little space between LoL and HoN, then that's fine, I guess. We've already established that we are just talking about semantics at this point, no material facts are in dispute AFAICT.
"To ignore accessibility concerns is to perpetuate de facto, if unintentional, discrimination. (That is why the Americans with Disabilities Act exists)" Businesses hardly have the luxury of ignoring ADA regs. Moreover, ADA has less to many older downtowns being left to decay, as ADA requirements are too expensive. In other places, like NYC and SF, ADA regs have been weaponized by lawyers extorting businesses for non-conformance. But discrimination, bro. The road to hell is paved with good intentions