There are purely objective ways to judge a video games mechanics without being elitist what so ever. Some games are superior to others, based on their in game mechanics and it's as simple as that.
For example, Halo: Combat Evolved (the very first one) is in my top three, possibly my favourite all time Multiplayer game ever. I rank it above Quake as far as the experience and fun I had with the game. I had my friends round every week and we would LAN the game and play for hours. We did this for years and loved it.
How ever....objectively judging Halo CE's gameplay mechanics compared to a game such as Quake - Halo is quite simply the inferior game. It's less balanced, less skillfull, less varied and less competitive. That's judging both games objectively, how ever, due to my personal experiences, I'd have to say I had a better time playing Halo CE, but for different reasons as to the actual quality of the game.
Halo CE isn't superior to Quake in any way shape or form, but due to the circumstances when I was playing, I had a fantastic experience with it.
Also, you do realise that I was referring to League of Legends' spectator numbers and not player base numbers right? League also has a bigger player base than any call of duty game out there, much bigger. It has over 32 million registered players.
Objectively judging Call of Duty's mechanics to a game like Counter-strike (two games in the same genre), it's quite clear which game has the superior mechanics and which game as the weaker ones.
It's like comparing Checkers to Chess. One game is simply superior and more sophisticated than the other. In this example, Call of Duty is checkers, and counter strike is Chess.
It's as simple as that.
Last edited by GrappleRetarded : 09-27-2012 at 08:13 AM.