Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'MMO Debates' started by ogreman, Jun 2, 2013.
This is a group debate to have members argue which is the better game.
LoL. There is way more complexity in the game and team-cooperation is crucial. Also it can be way more fun when WoT, especially when you streak kills
Actually, WoT is quite complex on its own, and using teamwork as an argument against WoT is ridiculous. WoT is a team based game, you can be a hero all you want in it, in the end you'll win as a team or lose as a team. A good team with average players is always going to take down a bad team with excellent players. Also, saying that LoL can be more fun than WoT is just an individual feeling, therefore not an argument too
I must say WoT cant be so customized by player like LoL. So that is + for LoL. But WoT is much simpler to play. Pick a tank get top parts (engine, gun, turret...) and that is all, no double guessing is this armor good, or do i pick that one, or that one, or that one.... and that is + for WoT.
So if we ignore that WoT and LoL are completly different game genres, WoT is much simpler than LoL, but LoL give you opportunity to customized your playing thingy( I know its called hero but tanks and heroes are not the same). XD
Yeah I agree with you hawx. I played WoT for many months (unlocked Maus in closed beta) Atm I am on T29 in the american Tear but I don't play that much, and I can really say that LoL can be more complex and fun. It's harder to control 14 people then 4 considering you every game is not full premade group (which I hardly doubt )
Again, you can't claim LoL is better game due to the fact you find it to be more fun, it's your own personal opinion, not a fact.
Also, wot features random games with 15 vs 15 players, yeah, and in those games, you don't get to control your teammates, you get to rely on them to play well and support you, working together to achieve a victory (usually though, 14 other players in your team are extremely bad players so teamwork with them is questionable at best. However, it's not fault of the game that people of lesser skills play it)
However, wot also featuers tank companies, where you do have a premade team, organized by the tank company creator, fighting other premade teams, and in those, teamwork is on an extremely high level, and the winner is usually the one that used a better strategy - and same goes for clan war matches, and tournament matches. So WoT is much more than a simple game that you experienced it to be, you experienced just a bit of it, but there's a whole another game in there, which depends on teamwork and strategy above all else, individual skills are of less importance than those 2, though their importance is not insignificant either, and this is one big + for WoT compared to LoL. 15 players, working together as one, depending on a commander to lay out a better strategy than the other teams, now that's what real WoT's about
Pretty good since we have not many in a while. Is this over or will it continue?
I am finised.
You can say that LoL is the better game because it's fun. Because what decides that a game is better then? Better graphics? Better story? All of this is also built on your own opinion. Because for example, if you compare a 2D game and a 3D game, most people might think that the 3D game got better graphics. But some people might like 2D more, and thus, the 2D game is better. It all depends on your opinions. These ''facts'' that you talk about, that makes a game better, is all depending on each person's individual opinion.
One example is when comparing two games an old and a new one. Everything in the new game might be better. Graphics, gameplay etc. But you find the old game more fun. Since you enjoy the game more, obviously that game is better for you? Even if everyone likes the new game more, but you like the old game more since it's more enjoyable for you, why would you vote for the new game?
I prefer LoL before World of Tanks. WoT is definitely a great game, and I really did enjoy it, but the fact that LoL's developers are constantly adding champions and updating the game, probably more often than WoT, makes me prefer LoL more. Also, I did enjoy LoL more than WoT and it lasted longer for me than WoT did. The genre that LoL is in, also appeals to me more than WoT. I've always liked MOBA's more than Action MMO's/Tank games.
If the deciding factor would be the amount of players playing the game, since they are both free to play, the LoL would win by far. They have 65 million active players which makes them the most played game in the world. WoT is still one of the most played game, but it can't compare to League of Legends.
So if I were to say, WoT is best game in the world cause I, Fox, me and only me, find it to be fun, all your other arguments would be invalid?
Sarcasm aside, "fun" is a personal opinion and can not be a deciding factor between games. I do not find LoL fun at all, neither do many people I know (I better not use the word they're calling it ) . Does that make it a bad game? Absolutely not. Just a game for someone else . I also tend to find WoT fun, so for me, WoT is better than LoL, but that does not make WoT a better game than LoL, neither does the fact you or super have more fun in LoL than in WoT. All that does is tells us what's a better game for YOU. The question of this debate is not "What's the better game for you?", it's "What's the better game?" implying what's the better game overall.
So we come to this
Combination of factors where both games have similar points of interests. This is why some games can not be compared, such as for example a flight simulator game, and a FPS game. These 2 would have nothing in common, therefore comparing them would be impossible. It falls under a category we call here "poređenje babe i Å¾abe" (Serbian term, meaning "comparing grandmas to frogs". Sounds better in Serbian xD )
WoT and LoL, although different and not being of a same genre are still comparable, cause both these games share several elements.
For example, both of these games rely on player's teamwork to achieve victory in the game, so we should take a look at the facts about which game rewards teamwork better. And according to those facts, WoT does, simply because of the fact in WoT you collaborate with 14 other players, while in LoL it's 4? or 2 depending on game mode? Therefore, a team that doesn't work well together has a much greater chance of success in LoL than it does in WoT, and that's not a good thing.
Find more examples like that, use facts, and show which is the better game. If you can show LoL is, please do
I'm only answering the bold part cause this is entirely your personal opinion, but even so, I have to reflect on the updates. You claim that LoL developers update more often than WoT - that might be true, I'm unaware of the rate of updates in LoL. However, I can tell that WoT approximately has one major update per 45 days, which usually brings either a number of new tanks, new maps, game mechanics and balance changes. Also, wikipedia tells me that LoL currently has 113 champions (that might be a bit out of date as wiki claims it's as of April 30th 2013), and the game was released in October 2009. WoT has been released a year later in Russia and 2 years later in Europe and NA, and currently features over 200 tanks (I don't have the exact number, but it's 200+ for a while now) . As wot tanks are equivalent to LoL champions, this tells me WoT in fact updates faster.
If that would be the deciding factor, Farmville would be the best game in the world in 2010. Number of players can be an indicator to how good a game is, but it can also be a massive lie as well (again, farmville!) .
Also, 65 million? I'd like to see where that number came from, along with the number for WoT at the same source. And if LoL really had so much more players that it couldn't compete with LoL, WoT would not be the winner of 2012's golden joystick's award.
I made a thread somewhere about it.
Even if it's just sarcasm, that's really exaggerated. I never said that because someone thinks that the game is fun, it makes the game the better game for everyone. Neither did Super, he just wrote that he thinks that LoL is more fun than WoT, thus making LoL better for him. And this ''fun'' can be the deciding factor when debating about 2 games about which is the better game. If more people like MOBA's than tank games, there's a bigger possibility that more people think that the game is more fun. And if there's more people that thinks that LoL is more fun than WoT, obviously LoL would be considered the better game, since more people like it more than WoT? The better game isn't the game with best story, best graphics or any other arguments. It's all about fun. If hell of a lot people thinks the game is really fun, but the game got bad graphics etc. does that make the game bad? No. It makes the game good. It means that the game itself is a good game if it can make many people enjoy the game. So ''fun'' is the most important part when deciding which game is the better game. And no one ever said that because they think the game is fun, that game is better for everyone. We only said that we think that LoL is more fun, thus it's better for us. Just because a game is better in every feature, except some parts, it's not the better game. The fun is what decides which is the better game. Why would anyone think that for example TERA is a better game than Tetris (Might be exaggerating) if they would think that TERA would suck a lot, but Tetris is fun?
And when you say this: ''What's the best game for you?''. You are wrong. The question is What's the best game for you? What's the use with a poll if it's not what's the best game for you? If it's just the best game for everyone, everyone would vote for the same option. And you forget that everyone have different opinions. Just because a game might have more quality it doesn't mean that it's the better game. You are writing like there's only one answer to the debate. As if the game that got the better features is the better game, but it's not always like that. And a debate is stating their own arguments about the game that they are debating from. This is also built on their own opinions.
This is just ridiculous. Quantity doesn't mean anything when talking about updates. Yeah, sure if WoT got more tanks, but WoT might as well have started of with 150 tanks when the game first launched while LoL started with 10 champions (it's not really like that but still). And updates isn't just about adding stuff you know. Updates also fix bugs, adding events and stuff like that. Just because it got more tanks than LoL got champions, it doesn't mean WoT got more updates
yeah, that was the point
You focused on how exaggerated my sarcasm was, and missed the entire point of it, but I'll get to that later. For this part of your post, I'll just say that with your logic, Farmville is better game than both WoT and LoL. It has more people that find it fun.
This is precisely why I'm against using sheer number of people that find the game fun as an argument in a debate. Oh and btw, the numbers are not so much on LoL's side as Super and you try to put it. I can't find the official number for LoL, but assuming what Super wrote is the correct number (65 million), that's just 5 million above the number of WoT's players according to official sources (checked on wikipedia) . LoL is around for 1 year more in entire world, and 2 years in entire world minus Russia.
I agree with everything except for the marked words - No, it's not all about fun, it's about fun too, it factors in too. But fun is something that comes naturally when you create a good game. It's not a factor that makes the game good, it's the consequence of how good and appealing game is to an individual. It's like comparing 2 racecars in a race and claiming that car 1 is better than car 2 cause more people like to see it win. Completely disregarding the reasons why people want to see the car 1 win, one of them being, car 1 is worse and people want to support the underdog? Or maybe car 1 reminds them of a car they own while car 2 does not, it's some fancy foreign car likes of which they haven't seen before (reference to MOBA vs MMO tank game genres, MOBA's are here pretty much since DOTA (and maybe before too, I don't know) , while MMO tanks are a new concept on their own, therefore had to fight for their own supporter base) . And then the car 2 wins the race. Why? It was faster, handled better, was built better... it was a better car overall, though less people liked it.
Back to games, as I previously said, if you wanna determine which game is better, compare the games where they're comparable, see which game is better at those areas, and you'll get the better game
And by the way, if we followed your logic of fun and only fun matters, there wouldn't even be a debate. Games would be ranked according to number of players that play them, since it's safe to assume people play what they think is fun. Perhaps we'd only use the number of players the game had at its peak to avoid the old vs new game fight where new game will win for sure cause more people play it now. And that would be it. No debate, no discussion, no anything. Sorry, not how this is going to work.
already answered to this above
there's no such thing as debating personal feelings. I don't doubt LoL is more fun for you, and there's nothing we can debate about here. This is precisely why the debate is not about which game is better for YOU, but which game is better, overall
If the game is better in every feature, except some parts, unless those parts are major and extremely important for those games, the game will be more fun. Fun is a product of the game, it's not embedded in it, so no it does not determine what game is better, it is just more likely to appear at the better game.
that would be the personal feeling of an individual. Personal feelings of an individual do not determine which game is better overall, they determine which game appeals more to the said individual.
One of my favorite games is Command & Conquer Red Alert 2, in my eyes it beats almost every other game ever made. That does not make it one of the best games ever made.
Actually, you're the one that's wrong here, and let me tell you why as well.
If the question was which game was better for you, there would be no debate at all. Wot is better game for me, Lol is better game for you. What are your arguments that Wot isn't better game for me?
In the end, it wouldn't be a debate, it would be a popularity contest of how many people here prefer which game. And popularity contest is not a debate, it's a simple poll. And just cause this particular debate has a poll attached to it does not make this particular debate a popularity contest
On the other hand, when the question is "what is the better game", we can then state arguments about said games, compare them, and come to a conclusion through a discussion, whether that conclusion is "agree that we disagree", "wot is better", "lol is better" . That's what a debate is, so can we please move on now from this to actually debating the games now?
Nope, I just refuse to discuss them, precisely cause I acknowledge that everyone has their own opinion. Opinions are not discussable (example: my opinion, red alert 2 is one of top 3 games ever for me. Do discuss how it's not in my top 3), arguments are, bring those to this discussion and we will get somewhere.
Quality does not determine which game is better? Read this out loud. And listen how that sentence sounds well.
As for the better features, yeah, when the features are not comparable, it becomes irrelevant if they're better. Wot features better graphics than tetris (don't mention exaggerating, it's intended), it absolutely does not matter, these games can't be compared there. WoT and LoL though have several points that can be compared, and that's what's relevant.
I already answered what a debate is, as for your definition, it's incomplete, and it's only part of a debate. Yeah, it's stating arguments about the game, but not all arguments, comparable arguments, discussable argument, and objective arguments. Your opinions are not part of a debate, I can't debate the argument that you prefer lol, nor can I debate why you like lol. You can't debate the argument that I prefer wot, you can't tell me I don't like wot for the reasons I like it. I'm repeating myself here unfortunately, but it seems to be necessary
no you know what's really ridiculous? Quoting a part of what someone said, taking it out of context and then claiming it to be ridiculous cause of the new context given with the cut quote.
- and I forgot to add bug fixes, since it's pretty normal to me that each game update has several bug fixes included.
oh and btw
You're talking about the frequency of updates, claiming lol's updates are more frequent. I gave you an argument about wot's updates, their exact frequency and what happens in them, the only thing I didn't do is write the number of wot tanks and lol champions at game release, cause I do not know these numbers (however I can tell it's under 100 tanks for WoT) . I'm still waiting for a counterargument, that will prove my argument right or wrong. Feel free to provide one
I'm not sure how you came up with this conclusion. Yes, I did say that the game that got most players that likes it is the best, but I said when you are comparing two games. It's impossible to say that Farmville is better than LoL just because it have more players that likes it, because all of those players haven't tried both LoL and Farmville to know which game is the best. And I never, ever used the amount of players as an argument as which game of these two are the better. I simply wrote that if more people thinks that LoL is better than WoT, LoL is the better game.
No, it doesn't all the time. It depends on what the persons like to play. The game might be perfect in every way, except in the gameplay. Just the gameplay might be enough to make someone stop playing. And just because the gameplay is bad, does that makes the game bad overall? No. It's still a good game in general, but it's still not fun.
There wouldn't even be a debate if we just compared what every aspect of the games. We would have the discussion about which game got the best graphics, story etc. but then the poll would be kind of useless since the answer would be the same for everyone. To have a debate, we need two different sides and both use arguments from their own opinions. Person 1 might say that LoL got better graphics because it have stronger colors and is more compatible with the game (just an example), but person 2 might disagree and think that WoT got stronger colors and so on.
Why would I even argue about why WoT wouldn't be the better game for you? That's not a debate in any way. You simply post your arguments for your own game about why that game is the best, no need to say that WoT isn't the better game for you, because that's your opinion and there's nothing I can change about that. And saying that you can't discuss when the question is ''What's the best game for you?'' isn't really correct. Even if the question is that, you can still have a debate. A debate isn't meant to have simple answers like ''WoT is better'' and ''LoL is better'', but with more developed answers. You can still develop your answers when you say why LoL is the better game for you. You bring up why you think it's the better game, and in the end, the game that got most votes, with valid arguments, will be the winner of the debate.
You know you also said that what Super said was ridiculous if you don't remember.. And what I took out is what was important in the text. What you wrote before that didn't even change anything about what you wrote afterwards and what I replied. So what's the problem here?
Yes, that would be ther personal feeling. But if everyone would think that Tetris is better than TERA then? That would make Tetris the better game because it's more enjoyable, even though TERA would dominate in many areas. So personal feelings do involve when deciding which game is better. If everyone would have the same feeling, that game would be better.
Not really going to further debate about what makes a game better, since this debate isn't really about that., it's going kind of off topic.
I never said that LoL updates more than WoT for certain. I wrote probably, which means that's what I think. And when I wrote it for the first time I didn't mean that LoL would be the better game because of they have more updates. I thought more of that the developers constanly does it all the time, that they work a lot to make the game good. I'm not saying that WoT doesn't though, I'm not really checking in on WoT's site anymore so I have no idea how often that update now.
this is the best debate i have seen on go in years
The games are completely different, I don't see how you can possibly compare them. War Thunder and WoWP or WT and WoT once WT implements ground forces would be a better comparison.
World of tanks for life! i gotta blow stuff up hack n slash is in the past.
WoT baby. Although i never played the other one...
It is hard to say that LoL will beat WoT on GO