> If you compare overwatch and say DotA. The one is a 1st person shooter the other a RTS engine. Yet conceptually they're identical. ~5 a side lane push mechani

> If you compare overwatch and say DotA. The one is a 1st person shooter the other a RTS engine. Yet conceptually they're identical. ~5 a side lane push mechanics with two tanks, two dps and a healer with each having unique but complementary abilities to emphasize teamwork and coordination. Conceptually identical is a pretty strong claim there. Overwatch has no concept or equivalent to the various RPG-style mechanics in MOBAs (e.g farming, items, XP, shops) while DOTA2 only has a single match type (i.e. no Assault vs Push vs etc) and significantly less mechanically demanding gameplay (barring a few micro-intensive characters like Meepo or Brood). Hell, I'm not sure if I'd claim OW even has lanes instead of flank routes (compare an Overwatch lane to a CS lane) and the majority of DOTA supports aren't even healers (maybe 5ish?) I feel like we often do this with video games, comparing aspects that are very low level to the game and are often just a part of being interactive pieces of media. Would chess to checkers and be conceptually identical? They're both board games and involve the same base mechanics (move pieces across the board, capture enemy pieces). And if they are, would that make one of them a worse game? Should we have not made checkers since we already had chess?