If you actually played this game and read the patch notes, you'd have a different perspective on this.
There's a lot of weird code and technical debt in the game client. For example, a map-wide filter (Nocturne's ult) is actually a giant minion covering the whole map.
But, somewhat ironically, LLMs are unbelievably bad at writing.
I can read thousands of words from my favorite authors without getting annoyed by their tics and their grammar. People like Nikhil Suresh literally make me laugh out loud when I read their writing. But something about AI-slop-prose is just obvious and gross and annoying to read.
AI-generated, and also highly untrustworthy given its source - Riot Games is an extraordinarily player-, community-, and pro-player-hostile company. On top of all of the new and exciting ways that they manage to not only screw up software engineering but also screw over their users, their business model is selling skins at the expense of their games (in the sames sense that Google's business model is selling ads at the expense of search quality).
It would only be a slight exaggeration to say that Riot is the Monsanto of game developers - because EA/Activision/Blizzard/Epic all contend for that spot too.
> The "It's not X -- it's Y" pattern, often with an em dash. The single most commonly identified AI writing tell. Man I f*cking hate it. AI uses this to create false profundity by framing everything as a surprising reframe. One in a piece can be effective; ten in a blog post is a genuine insult to the reader. Before LLMs, people simply did not write like this at scale. Includes the causal variant "not because X, but because Y" where every explanation is framed as a surprise reveal, the em-dash dismissal "X -- not Y", and the cross-sentence reframe where the same noun is negated then repositioned: "The question isn't X. The question is Y."
The information is hard to read because I had to run an https://tropes.fyi/ filter over the essay to make it readable.
I don't mind the AI tropes that much, the issue is more that the amount of information is exactly what was in the prompt but the AI manages to add many words saying nothing.
> The screen we shipped in January 2016 made two statements at once: pick intent said your plan matters, while the queue attached to it said what a ladder measures is negotiable. Players parsed the two separately, with total precision. They kept the first and burned the second down.
This is a classic AI construction to me that reeks of Markov chain thinking. The first half is probably the prompt to some extent. The second half ... doesn't actually say anything if you read it closely. Humans can write this sort of content-free fluff but usually they do it for a strategic reasons and not when they're trying to explain something. "Players parsed the two separately, with total precision" resolves a question of clarity that was never raised and for which there is no evidence of problem or solution (it is probably trying to say they understood and disregarded ... something that was basically elided). Then we have a tortured metaphor that doesn't tell us anything about what the players did.
It is quite tiring to read because you have to re-read things a few times to confirm that it didn't say anything and it isn't pretty wordwork worth reading on its own. Reading this is an exercise in trying to reverse-engineer the prompt.
IceFrog didn't create Dota, he took over maintenance of it from a long line of other people at the time, including Guinsoo (who added Roshan and the recipe system) who worked at Riot (though Icefrog was definitely the best maintainer, Dota was already hugely popular before Icefrog had anything to do with it).
Dota itself wasn't even original, it was based on a StarCraft 1 custom map.
Sure the genre and many of its archetypes were invented in the WC3 fun/custom map scene but LoL is more than a Dota clone.
I haven’t really played it (my moba time ended with HoN) but it’s obviously very well made
It has matured over time but it was absolutely a hosted dota ripoff initially, including the playable characters. The fact there are also other spinoffs isn’t really relevant to its origins and lack of recognition or even an attempt at monetary compensation.
Candy Crush is obviously well made. It's a scourge, but it's a well made scourge.
That's what I find so frustrating about games these days. The most effective business models (by a long way) are the ones that lean into all of the dark patterns.
They can attract great talent to work on them, and afford the time to build them well, because there's so much money sloshing around.
If you actually played this game and read the patch notes, you'd have a different perspective on this.
There's a lot of weird code and technical debt in the game client. For example, a map-wide filter (Nocturne's ult) is actually a giant minion covering the whole map.
Reminds me of how Fallout 3’s subway car is actually a hat.
If it works it works. The code isn’t the product.
Minions all the way down
Implementation details != Technical debt
> shares game design field manual written entirely by AI
I fixed the title for you.
AI is here to stay. Embrace the future of to-be-summarized-by-another-LLM content.
I love AI. I'm just as AI-pilled as the next guy.
But, somewhat ironically, LLMs are unbelievably bad at writing.
I can read thousands of words from my favorite authors without getting annoyed by their tics and their grammar. People like Nikhil Suresh literally make me laugh out loud when I read their writing. But something about AI-slop-prose is just obvious and gross and annoying to read.
AI-generated, and also highly untrustworthy given its source - Riot Games is an extraordinarily player-, community-, and pro-player-hostile company. On top of all of the new and exciting ways that they manage to not only screw up software engineering but also screw over their users, their business model is selling skins at the expense of their games (in the sames sense that Google's business model is selling ads at the expense of search quality).
It would only be a slight exaggeration to say that Riot is the Monsanto of game developers - because EA/Activision/Blizzard/Epic all contend for that spot too.
I'm only to preface 3 but this is the densest download of knowledge I've come across in a long time
Thats a joke right? It did literally make me laugh. AI-slop from a predatory scam-game maker.
> The "It's not X -- it's Y" pattern, often with an em dash. The single most commonly identified AI writing tell. Man I f*cking hate it. AI uses this to create false profundity by framing everything as a surprising reframe. One in a piece can be effective; ten in a blog post is a genuine insult to the reader. Before LLMs, people simply did not write like this at scale. Includes the causal variant "not because X, but because Y" where every explanation is framed as a surprise reveal, the em-dash dismissal "X -- not Y", and the cross-sentence reframe where the same noun is negated then repositioned: "The question isn't X. The question is Y."
The information is hard to read because I had to run an https://tropes.fyi/ filter over the essay to make it readable.
I don't mind the AI tropes that much, the issue is more that the amount of information is exactly what was in the prompt but the AI manages to add many words saying nothing.
> The screen we shipped in January 2016 made two statements at once: pick intent said your plan matters, while the queue attached to it said what a ladder measures is negotiable. Players parsed the two separately, with total precision. They kept the first and burned the second down.
This is a classic AI construction to me that reeks of Markov chain thinking. The first half is probably the prompt to some extent. The second half ... doesn't actually say anything if you read it closely. Humans can write this sort of content-free fluff but usually they do it for a strategic reasons and not when they're trying to explain something. "Players parsed the two separately, with total precision" resolves a question of clarity that was never raised and for which there is no evidence of problem or solution (it is probably trying to say they understood and disregarded ... something that was basically elided). Then we have a tortured metaphor that doesn't tell us anything about what the players did.
It is quite tiring to read because you have to re-read things a few times to confirm that it didn't say anything and it isn't pretty wordwork worth reading on its own. Reading this is an exercise in trying to reverse-engineer the prompt.
I found it quite tiring to read as well.
If only the popularity of the game wasn't 100% derived from original DoTA map by IceFrog, which this guy had nothing to do with.
IceFrog didn't create Dota, he took over maintenance of it from a long line of other people at the time, including Guinsoo (who added Roshan and the recipe system) who worked at Riot (though Icefrog was definitely the best maintainer, Dota was already hugely popular before Icefrog had anything to do with it).
Dota itself wasn't even original, it was based on a StarCraft 1 custom map.
Dota was popular in its own niche and game was hugely imbalanced. IceFrog took it to somewhere so high above, saying "next level" is understating it.
The Starcraft map was called Aeon of Strife.
Would you say the same about a basketball video game?
Sure the genre and many of its archetypes were invented in the WC3 fun/custom map scene but LoL is more than a Dota clone. I haven’t really played it (my moba time ended with HoN) but it’s obviously very well made
It has matured over time but it was absolutely a hosted dota ripoff initially, including the playable characters. The fact there are also other spinoffs isn’t really relevant to its origins and lack of recognition or even an attempt at monetary compensation.
>or even an attempt at monetary compensation.
Who should pay who do you think in this?
Would love to hear.
Or is this the same as "reparations"? Poeple just dont want others to succeed.
What makes it obvious to you, that LoL is well made? Userbase? Is candy crush obviously well made? Perhaps it is well marketed, more than well made?
Candy Crush is obviously well made. It's a scourge, but it's a well made scourge.
That's what I find so frustrating about games these days. The most effective business models (by a long way) are the ones that lean into all of the dark patterns.
They can attract great talent to work on them, and afford the time to build them well, because there's so much money sloshing around.