HerrJordan

I think most of the comparison is valid, but in Dota, not playing by the established norms is a valid strategy for winning so the end falls apart a bit. One of the previous posters mentioned an analogy from the new player cast where the announcer compared Dota to a game of basketball where you gain an inch every time you score a point. Grinnell's strategy becomes a lot more effective if your opponent doesn't know how to play against a team of three-point shooters and you are able to build an early lead while they struggle to adjust. Even if it's something that can be shut down in a powerful way (like Newbee did to VG), if you can't figure it out fast enough you're already too far behind to do anything about it. NaVi doesn't receive a lot of criticism for their playstyle because it is just as valid as any other playstyle. Many people just find it more entertaining than other styles because it is more aggressive. If anything, the way they play is considered to be more pure than other teams, as a large contingent of players views the more drawn out strategies as the perversion of the game. Alliance in particular is hated by a lot of the community for playing 'Rat Dota'. Rat Dota, also called 'split pushing', being the strategy of avoiding confrontation while achieving objectives and building a gold and exp lead. Eastern Dota also has a reputation for being boring because they historically haven't taken a lot of risks and tend to play more cautiously. This year was a big departure where a lot of the Eastern teams focused on early game aggression. It's still pretty common for Twitch chat to be flooded with "Chinese Dota =(" whenever a game goes long and teams play safe. If NaVi receives criticism, it's less about their strategies and more about their lack of motivation. They have had problems in the past internally because they are notorious for never practicing. After last year's TI there was some talk that they would be changing their roster because certain players were frustrated by their lack of preparation and felt that they could have won had they put in more effort. It seems pretty likely at this point that NaVi will not be the same 5 players this point next year.

Personally, I think the current balance of income from prize pools vs sponsorship actually makes for more interesting competition. Playing to win is much more important than playing to stand out right now, and I feel like it makes the game more pure. I find the idea that players should feel some sort of obligation to alter their strategy for the sake of appeasing fans to be pretty bizarre. I feel like there is a correlation between where you stand on this issue and where you fall on the Alliance - Navi spectrum of fandom. Regarding the finals specifically, why would VG choose to prolong a game they have very little chance of winning when it becomes increasingly harmful to their psyches? Sometimes it is a relief when the team I'm supporting GGs early in the game knowing that it would have probably destroyed their confidence if they had spent another 40 minutes being pushed around in the vain hope that they might be able to somehow pull off a surprise victory. 20-5 at 20:00 minutes and 47 - 7 at 60:00 is still 1 point for the victor, but a 60 minute stomp takes a lot more out of the losing squad. Even the very last game in the series, I can't blame VG for not fighting until the ancient fell. They have so much emotionally invested in the outcome. You can see it in the player interviews. I would feel pretty weird insisting that they should have to prolong their defeat and deal with that state of being for an additional 30-40 minutes for my amusement. The final series wasn't fun to watch, but sometimes in life things don't turn out the way you hope. In entertainment, you alter things to make the boring things more exciting. TI3 isn't going to happen every year, but when it does you know that the players aren't thinking about their fans or their sponsors, they're thinking only about winning.