Why is it so hard for Riot to design non-humanoids?

Tenedria·Nov 19, 2015·4 votes·1,094 views

So for those who don't know, the design team of league of legend is avoiding doing non-humanoid characters on purpose because they make them feel "uninspired"

Honestly I feel like the league of legends roster is getting to a point where designs are getting very repetitive. Like Gnar sounds original with his auto-attack boomerang, but than you realize its not that mechanically different than Kalista's auto exept that he doesn't need to press any keys to get the extra damage. Also why would his boomerang throw slows people down, seems to me like it was just thrown in there for balance's sake.

Its not even impossible to design a non-humanoid with original abilities, I mean just look at pokemon or digimon or even other games like magic the gathering. If you do a non-humanoid that can cast spells for exemple, it becomes irrelevant what body type it has. It does sound to me like maybe their design team is looking too much alike and they should try having a more varied team. I mean lately the champions do look a little more varied so that's a start but I still feel like they fail to add anything new that's actually viable. (bard heals are weak? Kindred's ult feels pointless?)

I just find it frustrating because even when they finally come up with a completely original champion, they end up not balancing it right... like when Rek'sai was made... almost no one still plays her.

Any toughs on this?

13 Comments

BetaDude40Nov 20, 20152 votes

{quoted}

So for those who don't know, the design team of league of legend is avoiding doing non-humanoid characters on purpose because they make them feel "uninspired"

Provide where any Riot employee has ever actually said this.

Also, only 4 of the 10 champions released in the past 2 years (not counting Illaoi) are "Humanoid" in appearance.

Honestly I feel like the league of legends roster is getting to a point where designs are getting very repetitive. Like Gnar sounds original with his auto-attack boomerang, but than you realize its not that mechanically different than Kalista's auto exept that he doesn't need to press any keys to get the extra damage. Also why would his boomerang throw slows people down, seems to me like it was just thrown in there for balance's sake.

If you think about it, Kalista's auto is also like Caitlyn's auto, except Caitlyn has more range and doesn't jump. Or Twitch's auto. Or, hell, anyone's auto attack. Of all the things a champion can do, auto attacks are pretty much universally the same (except, oddly enough, in Kalista's case). How they interact in each champion's kit does vary. What you're probably thinking of is the whole "three-stack hit combo", which has been used very frequently in the game. I'm not for it myself, but really there's not much wrong with it either.

Its not even impossible to design a non-humanoid with original abilities, I mean just look at pokemon or digimon or even other games like magic the gathering. If you do a non-humanoid that can cast spells for exemple, it becomes irrelevant what body type it has. It does sound to me like maybe their design team is looking too much alike and they should try having a more varied team. I mean lately the champions do look a little more varied so that's a start but I still feel like they fail to add anything new that's actually viable. (bard heals are weak? Kindred's ult feels pointless?)

I've completely lost you at this point here. Why are you comparing the artistic design of champions' abilities, and then suddenly talking about their gameplay impact? Those are two completely separate and independent departments. I'm not sure what you're trying to prove here.

I just find it frustrating because even when they finally come up with a completely original champion, they end up not balancing it right... like when Rek'sai was made... almost no one still plays her.

No champion, except for Vel'Koz and maybe (emphasis on MAYBE) Kindred, was balanced on release. All other champions, humanoid or not, have either been too strong or rarely too weak upon their release. Again, you're combining artistic design with gameplay, and I still don't get what you're trying to prove.

TenedriaNov 20, 20152 votes

Provide where any Riot employee has ever actually said this.

its the reason why Omen was canceled. They didn't sound inspired and couldn't figure out what abilities they wanted on him.

{Also, only 4 of the 10 champions released in the past 2 years (not counting Illaoi) are "Humanoid" in appearance.

Humanoid refers to the body shape, not the head. Azir is a humanoid, so is gnar. It is a humanoid because it has what qualifies as arms, hands, legs, torso and walks on his hind legs.... basically it is mostly shaped as if it was a human. The only Non-humanoid in the last 10 champions is Rek'sai.

I've completely lost you at this point here. Why are you comparing the artistic design of champions' abilities, and then suddenly talking about their gameplay impact? Those are two completely separate and independent departments. I'm not sure what you're trying to prove here.

because I study game design and those two are never separated when designing. It doesn't make sense to design looks and mechanics separately since they need to form a whole. This is also the way league of legends design their champions. For example, whatever ability you give to a champion will need animation so you can't really make an archer out of a four legged animal because it can't hold the bow, you could always give it hands but when it comes to creating the animation, the animators wouldn't get a reference of what a 4 legged shooting a bow might look like. (by 4 legged I mean it walks on 4 legs) This will delay or even make the production of such a champion impossible.

No champion, except for Vel'Koz and maybe (emphasis on MAYBE) Kindred, was balanced on release.

I never said "on release" I meant permanently. Long term speaking. Rek'sai is still very weak and so is bard and they were released months ago.

Angry MonsterNov 20, 20152 votes

because I study game design and those two are never separated when designing. It doesn't make sense to design looks and mechanics separately since they need to form a whole. This is also the way league of legends design their champions. For example, whatever ability you give to a champion will need animation so you can't really make an archer out of a four legged animal because it can't hold the bow, you could always give it hands but when it comes to creating the animation, the animators wouldn't get a reference of what a 4 legged shooting a bow might look like. (by 4 legged I mean it walks on 4 legs) This will delay or even make the production of such a champion impossible.

You might want to go back to class then, cause you are going at this the wrong way.

TenedriaNov 20, 20151 votes

You might want to go back to class then, cause you are going at this the wrong way.

right, cause you ever designed anything I bet. I actually already made games before so just trust me on this. The looks have to match mechanics and vice versa. Other wise you break the "flow" of the game. Now im not a very good teacher so you probably just don't get what I mean.

I'll try anyways... So the flow is this game design concept where the game needs to be a seamless experience. So anything that seems out of place can break that flow and make the player feel "like he's just playing a game". Now this is really bad because it breaks the fun of it...

see like... You want to be immersed in the game because when you realize that "its just a game" you stop taking any of it seriously and end up getting bored by it. So basically, you need to "pretend" the game is real in order to have fun and actually care about winning it.

Even the term "winning" is based on this principle as you literally win nothing when you finish a game, you didn't aquier anything new from it but you pretend that it mattered that you won.

BetaDude40Nov 21, 20152 votes

{quoted}

its the reason why Omen was canceled. They didn't sound inspired and couldn't figure out what abilities they wanted on him.

The reason they cancelled him is just because they didn't know what they wanted him specifically to be. It doesn't mean that they don't like non-humanoid champions. Correlation =/= Causation

Humanoid refers to the body shape, not the head. Azir is a humanoid, so is gnar. It is a humanoid because it has what qualifies as arms, hands, legs, torso and walks on his hind legs.... basically it is mostly shaped as if it was a human. The only Non-humanoid in the last 10 champions is Rek'sai.

Just gonna go over the most recent 10 champions (in no particular order): Velkoz - Not even remotely humanoid RekSai - Same as Vel Kalista - Distinctly human form (even though I think at this point she's a collection of pissed-off souls and bouncy springs) Gnar - Mega Gnar? No. Mini Gnar can be attributed to be somewhat nonhuman, but I can see the point. I'll give you half credit. Braum - Manliest god damn man on the planet Azir - Yeah, I'll say it's humanoid, despite him being a bird. TahmKench - I'd say it's a pretty big stretch to call him humanoid. Sure, he's walking on his hind legs, but.. well... he's a catfish wearing two sewn coats around him and he has an absolutely massive belly. He tries to be human, but it ain't working for me Kindred - Wolf is a definite no. Lamb is actually pretty interesting, because despite being a lamb, she is very interestingly human-like (as pointed out by people on these boards before). I'll give you half. Ekko - Human. Bard - "Walking on hind legs" is as far as I'm going. There's no comprehending the ball of magic fuzz and horn noises

So that would be 5/10 if we take Lamb and Mini Gnar as half-points.

because I study game design and those two are never separated when designing. It doesn't make sense to design looks and mechanics separately since they need to form a whole. This is also the way league of legends design their champions. For example, whatever ability you give to a champion will need animation so you can't really make an archer out of a four legged animal because it can't hold the bow, you could always give it hands but when it comes to creating the animation, the animators wouldn't get a reference of what a 4 legged shooting a bow might look like. (by 4 legged I mean it walks on 4 legs) This will delay or even make the production of such a champion impossible.

Artistic design and gameplay aspects are closely linked in the original design, but not much past that. Once the ability is created, it will of course need gameplay tuning and balancing, which is completely independent from artistic perspective. Sure, you need a hitbox and an animation, but the damage and CC an ability does is not dependent on how large the object is.

For example, you can nerf Ezreal's Q so that it does less damage, but this shouldn't have any effect on the visuals. You could also change the visual size or color to match a different feel you want (which is neither a buff nor a nerf, unless colorblindness comes into play in this specific case). Both artistic and gameplay combined would be like matching the Q's hitbox to its visual indicators to make it easier to clarify when you get hit.

I never said "on release" I meant permanently. Long term speaking. Rek'sai is still very weak and so is bard and they were released months ago.

Play against my friend who plays AD Bruiser Bard top. He'll tell you what's weak and what's not.

And again, gameplay impact is not relevant in a thread about artistic design

TenedriaFeb 22, 20161 votes

humanoid means the overall shape of a humanoid; so walking upright with limbs that can be referred to as arms and legs additionally they usually but not always have hands or something hand shaped (not paw shaped). An other common trait is the way the spine connects to the head which usually means the head is upright, like Gnar's. But there can be exceptions to the head thing, like with Alistar who's spine connects to the head more horizontally. If you look at a human skeleton and a cat's skeleton you'll see what I mean.

Humanoids is anything that is similar to a human, otherwise its just straight up called a human like Lucian, Garen or Lux. They are human not humanoid.

This excludes kangaroos but includes Tahm, Bard, Blitzcrank etc.. Basically even drawing pac-man with arms and legs makes him humanoid.

Also I'm sorry I got a little pissed because I felt like I was being personally attacked. I came off as an asshole. That other guy's right, I think most people are capable of having good design ideas for a game. I'm not really saying humanoids are bad design, I think tahm's design looks amazing and so does many others. They just are starting to feel redundant.

Mega Gnar? No. Mini Gnar can be attributed to be somewhat nonhuman, but I can see the point. I'll give you half credit.*

Well mini Gnar is definitely humanoid. While mega Gnar is more like a gorilla. Which is funny because its as if his ult is representing to diverging evolutionary lines. The idea definitely was refreshing from the usual champion pool.

From what I understood, league usually builds the story and personality of a character along its looks and than tries to find abilities that would complement the whole. So yeah, they are usually always together because you can't start making abilities without thinking about how they'll look on the champion.

Play against my friend who plays AD Bruiser Bard top. He'll tell you what's weak and what's not.

I played Bard ad, I know its fun very late game or after you get your 50 stacks. But he's still weaker than other champions overall... Just think of Morgana and how much more impact she can have on a match. For Rek'sai she did get out of a bad spot and seems to be more playable lately, but there are still stronger picks with similar gankstyle like Shaco, Hecarim or Rammus. (all humanoids what a surprise)

ModThe DjinnNov 21, 20153 votes

{quoted}its the reason why Omen was canceled. They didn't sound inspired and couldn't figure out what abilities they wanted on him.

It was a bit more complicated than that, actually. Take a look at Tom Cadwell (Zileas)'s GCD presentation.

Omen had inspiration issues, but that was after a long development time having trouble pinning down the character. His design was such that the developers had trouble deciding what he was. They didn't really love the initial concept, which is a problem right off the bat. His design was hard to identify, hard for players to read. In his own words, the concept itself wasn't good enough. Wasn't really a matter of the character having potential that didn't follow through, so much as the initial idea not having enough solid hooks to make the designers happy.

because I study game design and those two are never separated when designing. It doesn't make sense to design looks and mechanics separately since they need to form a whole. This is also the way league of legends design their champions. For example, whatever ability you give to a champion will need animation so you can't really make an archer out of a four legged animal because it can't hold the bow, you could always give it hands but when it comes to creating the animation, the animators wouldn't get a reference of what a 4 legged shooting a bow might look like.

This is only partially true. As a fellow game designer, I think you're looking too much at the end result here, and not enough at the process.

Your final product needs to have mechanics that fit the visual. This is absolutely true. But, if you see things like Illaoi's dev blog, you'll see that occasionally mechanics float on their own, and become attached to a concept later: "Before Illaoi was a thing, we had this cool idea of having a character in our game literally punch the spirit out of their target." Designers of all stripes often save mechanics for the right idea, or change directions partway through when a better concept comes their way. As they mention in the same blog post, Illaoi didn't even really have much to do with Tentacles until well into her development process.

I myself do a lot of Pen & Paper RPG work, and will often design classes around mechanics I've come up with and want to explore, then tailor the flavor to fit the mechanics. I sometimes work in the opposite order. I sometimes work on both simultaneously. It's all fluid and flexible as long as the final product feels good. Then, when the final product is done, I'll still tinker with the mechanics, or adjust the fluff, all in the interest of getting a better functioning final product.

Another thing to keep in mind is that mechanics are just that -- mechanical in nature. You can put a lot of different visual trappings on the same set of mechanics and change the feel dramatically while preserving the underlying functionality. I could easily port Ashe's mechanics onto some sort of monster, for example: a frost-infused Manticore would work perfectly, or a blizzard golem that launches out jagged shards of shattered ice. With a bit of animation, effect, and sound tweaking you'd think the mechanics were made for that character. Sure, a feature like Hawkshot specifically was probably born after the "Archer" idea was locked in, but the magical ice-hawk is already a bit out of place on Ashe, and a similar ability wouldn't be much more out of place on an elemental or ice golem if you adjusted the visual and thematics.

In short, Mechanical Design and Artistic Design are very different animals, although a truly great part of any game is achieved through a combination of the two elements working together, instead of pulling in different directions.

As for non-humanoids: it's harder to get players to relate to this sort of character, and characters who players CAN relate to tend to be better received and more beloved by the player base. You'll notice that even in Magic: The Gathering or Pokemon your protagonist (or your "Planeswalker") is a human entity. The major stories of both worlds revolve around the human elements. The world of League of Legends does have monsters of all varieties but, ultimately, their stories lack the human elements that draw players in. Things like Rek'Sai, Cho'Gath, Skarner, Malphite, Rammus, etc. all add some interesting flavor to the world, but they are, by their very nature, not as useful for telling interesting or appealing stories. Contrast this to human characters, near-human characters who share our pattern of thinking and some of our relatable problems or neuroses (Maokai, Xerath, Azir, etc...), once-human characters we can see the genesis of (Kalista, Sion, etc...), or characters who are inherently above humanity, yet draw in the imagination in ways only the supernatural and spiritual can (Tahm Kench, Kindred, Bard) -- all of these have less to explain about WHAT and WHY they are, and that gives much more room to explain the WHO.

right, cause you ever designed anything I bet. I actually already made games before so just trust me on this.

Major recommendation here -- game designers in general don't like the "I'm right, you're wrong" approach -- it comes off as high and mighty and, unless you're a VERY well respected game designer with numerous AAA (or incredibly well loved indie) titles behind your name, it comes off as pretentious, elitist, and, frankly, unlikely to be true -- especially since ANYONE can make a game. The trick is making a GREAT game, and one that others (designers and non-designers) decide is great of their own accord. Do you have any links to your games? I'm kind of curious now.

Remember: we all have things to learn. It's a process that never stops. Understand that, even if you have 20+ years of experience, there are a number of things you'll miss, not think of, or learn from playing or listening to everyone -- designers and non-designers alike. Just some advice from one designer to another.

TenedriaFeb 22, 20161 votes

Major recommendation here -- game designers in general don't like the "I'm right, you're wrong" approach --

Yeah I know, I came off as an asshole. I just lost my patience i guess. I don't usually think of myself above other people. The only thing I have more than other designers I met is the will to make something that's balanced. A lot of them just want their favorite role to be more fun and forget how much that can ruin the other roles. (that happened in a board game I made with a group).

Do you have any links to your games? I'm kind of curious now.

Unfortunately because I am still a student, I didn't publish any games yet and the board game does exist but there's only one copy of it.

I guess I can describe it at least since we don't plan on publishing it.

**Low level (mechanically only): ** Sorry I have to censor that part because I'm not sure yet if one of my teammates wants to publish it.

High level (Story wise): this is a player vs player game were 3 players are playing as wild dogs and 1 player is playing as the dog catchers. The wild pack of dogs is trying to escape the kennel before they are scheduled to be executed. The game starts with the kennel tile which has 1 office facing top and 3 kennels facing the other ways. The players place one tile per turn which are separated in 3 phases... This forms a "controlled" randomized maze. This helped control the pacing and the balance of the game making it even for both teams to wins if they both use strategies. The play-testers generally commented the game was fun and they wanted to play it again. Oh the down side is that the dog catcher is difficult to play for a single player and he really has to think about his every-move. But some people liked that part about it.

ModThe DjinnFeb 22, 20162 votes

Yeah I know, I came off as an asshole. I just lost my patience i guess. I don't usually think of myself above other people. The only thing I have more than other designers I met is the will to make something that's balanced. A lot of them just want their favorite role to be more fun and forget how much that can ruin the other roles. (that happened in a board game I made with a group).

That's the difference between a game designer and a Game Designer -- the latter has a good sense of analytical balance and how systems interact. If you can't recognize the impact your changes might have on the rest of the game I'd say you're not precisely a Game Designer, but more of someone with an idea that might have some merit if implemented properly.

But it gets tricky. Anyone can design something, after all: one of the big problems of trying to get a job in the industry is that you have to manage to convince the HR department that you are not just an ideas guy.

Unfortunately because I am still a student, I didn't publish any games yet and the board game does exist but there's only one copy of it.

Then, as you seem early in your studies, I would be cautious about using your design knowledge in arguments of this sort, especially without solid analytical proof. Everyone I've met in the industry is fine with push-back, as long as it's well-founded pushback...and many of them are much less accepting of hard delineations of what is and isn't the proper way to "design" things. Especially on something as odd as the point you had criticism about.

because I study game design and those two [visual design & mechanics] are never separated when designing. It doesn't make sense to design looks and mechanics separately since they need to form a whole.

They're definitely separate things. They can INFLUENCE each other, but they're not intrinsically inseparable, and viewing them as such may prove limiting to your game design studies rather than enlightening. I'm not even sure what was frustrating about that comment, or the conversation that led up to it.

Remember -- all rules can be broken. The question is when and why to break them. :D

But yeah. Did the rest of my post make sense? Was it useful in the context of your initial question?

TenedriaFeb 23, 20161 votes

[looks and mechanics ] are definitely separate things. They can INFLUENCE each other, but they're not intrinsically inseparable, and viewing them as such may prove limiting to your game design studies rather than enlightening. I'm not even sure what was frustrating about that comment, or the conversation that led up to it.

I think you misunderstood me on that. I didn't mean together as in at the same time but more like in relations to each other and even if you can make something more fun or functional by thinking only about the way the mechanics feel. People can't really get emotionally invested in them if they are not associated to a concept of some-sort. For example people quickly get tired of hide and seek because there is no context to it, however the same behavior applied in a horror video game makes people get way more invested in the game. However if the context didn't call for a "hide and seek" behavior it would be even repulsive to players (ex: hide from the person while they are asking you for help).

According to psychology, as long as you reinforce a behavior with reward, the player will repeat it. But that doesn't mean he will enjoy it and I honestly find its just a cheap tactic to trick people into playing your game. Why did you even make it a game? it could have just been; wash the dishes and see a number go up woohoo tricking people into being productive.

I would be cautious about using your design knowledge in arguments of this sort, especially without solid analytical proof.

I know I don't have as much experience as other game designers but I think I do tend to analyse more, I even read a lot of psychology articles and studies just for the sake of understanding the minds of other people better. Personally I find that designing a good game is just a stroke of luck if you don't understand why people would enjoy the experience or not. Sure it sounds snobbish but honestly I've seen people in the industry who have a very poor understanding of how each generation doesn't think like the previous one.

They keep praising designs like Mario bros, discarding the fact that its a product of its time and would NEVER have been a success if it was released today. The story is too basic and the Game-play quickly gets repetitive, especially with the standards people hold today. They say ideas have no value because a blue hedgehog that runs fast can sell? but it doesn't sell anymore.

In 2016, it is more difficult than ever to sell a game that is only centered around mechanics. Most players look for a story or appealing or unique visuals (based on what indie games are being praised by players ex: Super Meat Boy, Braid, Journey). Sure its still possible to do... But I guess the marketing will have to compensate for the lack of love those games got lately?

Honestly I think I'm in a good position to judge, just as you are. Sure I can be wrong, but so can experienced people.

Experience actually is not a valid logical process. By this I mean taking decisions based on experience is "inductive reasoning" which is statistically more likely to be false when used instead of deductive reasoning. Just like what this Quote from Lamb(Kindred) refers to: "Tomorrow is a hope, never a promise." You do not expect to die today, but no matter what, it will happen someday. Even if your the first human to not age, you will still die someday.

More than one company went bankrupt making assumptions over things that people seemed to like just to release the game too late when the fad was over. But I guess that's the main point that attracted me to game design. You can't really know for sure what will sell or not... but the odds are good if the game you worked on had a lot of tough-love into it. I see it like trying to raise a child. Sometimes the kid messes up, he has faults... but you help him correct them and than he shows a talent that you have to encourage. Soon other people start liking the kid because he has charisma and stuff and than he gets bought by Microsoft wait what.

HAHA sorry I really need to get to bed, I'm starting to mumble nonsense. Take care.

ModThe DjinnFeb 24, 20162 votes

{quoted}

I think you misunderstood me on that. I didn't mean together as in at the same time but more like in relations to each other and even if you can make something more fun or functional by thinking only about the way the mechanics feel.

Ah. I was confused by your original post, where you're talking about mechanics AND design, as if the humanoid nature of characters is the CAUSE of them being "repetitive." It really does read like you're linking the two a little too heavily.

According to psychology, as long as you reinforce a behavior with reward, the player will repeat it. But that doesn't mean he will enjoy it and I honestly find its just a cheap tactic to trick people into playing your game. Why did you even make it a game? it could have just been; wash the dishes and see a number go up woohoo tricking people into being productive.

That's...somewhat true. Most games use psychological cues to let people know how to play the game: even chess does that to some extent, by sizing the pieces because "large == more valuable" is an easy thing to figure out automatically. It doesn't mean it's a cheap tactic -- it means it's a tactic you have to be aware of and use appropriately.

Can you abuse it? Absolutely. But that's an abuse case, not a problem with psychological game design in general.

Heck, League uses these tricks all the time. From visuals to auditory cues to how the ping system works, it's full of subtle little psychological tricks...and a better game for it, I'd argue.

I know I don't have as much experience as other game designers but I think I do tend to analyse more...

I wasn't clear. I didn't mean you shouldn't use what you know...you should use your analytical abilities to make informed choices, definitely. What you SHOULDN'T do is use "I know game design" or "I've designed games" as arguments in and of themselves, which is sort of what you were doing earlier.

Also, most designers I've met are highly analytical, and most are also big fans of psychology -- ludology is and always will be a mix of psychology, anthropology, philosophy, art, computer science, AI, game theory...the list goes on. It's a GREAT thing that you study all of those (and you totally should), but I wouldn't say it's particularly unusual in the field.

Also, if you haven't read it, I'd highly recommend "The Art of Game Design: A Book of Lenses." I'd consider it one of the best books on game design I've had the pleasure of reading.

I'd also recommend "Thinking Fast and Slow," a great book on cognitive bias and loss aversion that has some insightful comments on the functioning of the human subconscious that I think are useful to keep in mind when designing things.

They keep praising designs like Mario bros, discarding the fact that its a product of its time and would NEVER have been a success if it was released today. The story is too basic and the Game-play quickly gets repetitive, especially with the standards people hold today. They say ideas have no value because a blue hedgehog that runs fast can sell? but it doesn't sell anymore.

You don't need a complex story to sell a great game: Rocket League, Angry Birds, Soul Calibur, Marvel vs. Capcom, Tony Hawk Pro Skater...the list of well-designed games with rough (at best) stories goes on.

Further, Mario games are still being made, and still sell exceptionally well (and are highly praised for their gameplay, which is often only a slight variation of "run around and jump on things"). Sonic doesn't sell well because they've made many design mistakes with the franchise, but the CHARACTER still drives sales (his appearance in Super Smash Bros Brawl, for example, really excited people).

Finally, I'd say Mario's biggest problem if released today is that so many games today owe so much to Mario. It's just like how the original Star Wars, taken as a piece of literature, isn't ACTUALLY that impressive -- but it holds a special place in people's hearts for starting an entire genre. Other old games like the Metroid or Megaman series still hold up incredibly well.

In 2016, it is more difficult than ever to sell a game that is only centered around mechanics. Most players look for a story or appealing or unique visuals (based on what indie games are being praised by players ex: Super Meat Boy, Braid, Journey).

Only somewhat true. A lot of mobile games get by on great mechanics and so-so visuals, and things like Minecraft excel with pretty awful visuals.

Experience actually is not a valid logical process. By this I mean taking decisions based on experience is "inductive reasoning" which is statistically more likely to be false when used instead of deductive reasoning.

Correct. Hence why I cautioned against using "I've studied game design, so you should listen to me" instead of "here are seven well-constructed arguments that support my view."

Anyway, just thoughts.

ModThe DjinnNov 21, 20152 votes

{quoted}I never said "on release" I meant permanently. Long term speaking. Rek'sai is still very weak and so is bard and they were released months ago.

As another aside, check your statistics -- Rek'Sai is strong enough that she was the third most picked and 7th most banned champions of the 2015 Worlds season.. The only jungler banned/picked more often was Elise.

Rek'Sai was THE most-picked champion during the knock-out stage. She was used in ALL FOUR games of the finals. She's VERY powerful in good hands. Admittedly Gragas might have supplanted her had he not been disabled, but she was still the immediate fall-back, and that indicates that she's towards the top of the pack in power and team contribution.

ÇhåryzårdFeb 23, 20162 votes

Gnar's boomerang is in no way like Kalista's auto attacks?

One is a spear and one is a boomerang...

Also a list non humanoids (I'm counting champs that change into animals aswell, it's still part of their model) Anivia Chogath Elise Gnar Hecarim Khazix KogMaw Nami Nidalee Nocturne Rammus RekSai Shyvana Skarner Twitch Volibear Velkoz

Elise is changes into a spider, Nid is a cat. shyvana a dragon.

Gnar is more animal-like than human like, which is also why I include nami and hecarim. Hecarim is more of a horse/monster and nami is more of a fish than actual 'human'.

Twitch isn't really a humanoid, more of a large bipedal rat (or raccoon depending on what skin ya got). He runs on all fours when he has homeguard.

Voli can walk on two legs but hes a bear (and bears can stand on 2 legs so its not really that odd)

I think they have a pretty good list so far, and Aurelion Sol just got announced. Non-humanoid champs are harder to create than humanoids as far as models go, but I think there's a pretty nice list so far.

Bard's heals are stronger depending on when you take them, and the amount healed increases as the game goes on. Also have you played/seen any good Kindreds? I've gotten out of some bad situations with it and i've saved teammates aswell.