After disastrous ‘Overwatch 2’ and ‘Counter-Strike 2’ releases, do we really want a ‘League of Legends 2?’

Recently, we've been getting reports that Riot Games is working on a new version of League of Legends, supposedly called League Next, i.e., League of Legends 2. It's a massive overhaul of the game, but now that others have done it (and poorly), is that really the best path to take?

League of Legends has been around since 2009. By all accounts, it's an old game, despite Riot's best efforts to maintain it and bring it up to snuff with current technology. However, they've generally made it worse. I've played League since 2012 and dropped it in early 2024 for good.

I was there to see all the “advancements” and upgrades to the game, the good and the bad, and witnessed, in real time, how the game regressed technologically, primarily due to its archaic and unsustainable engine.

I also remember the first graphical upgrade (and apparently the last) Riot Gave to League of Legends back in 2014, which everyone welcomed with open arms. So much has changed in the game, including the map, mechanics, champions, art style, and just about everything else, but it never rejected its own name, League of Legends.

League needs tweaks, but should not be robbed of its identity. Image via Riot Games

It was never once called League of Legends 2 or League Next or anything in-between, clutching to its established, recognizable identity while at the same time refining and changing what it entailed. Now, we're getting reports (thanks Bloomberg) of a massive overhaul to League that'll change its name and, undoubtedly, its identity, because it's almost certain an engine change is going to be part of this update.

But the precedent for that is less than great. Overwatch 2 basically re-released the first game, cut out some of its coolest features, underdelivered on all the promises that justified the existence of Overwatch 2, and ended up being just a worse, free-to-play Overwatch 1.

Counter-Strike 2 did the same. Valve wanted to bring CS:GO to the Source 2 engine, promised all these cool network features that'd solve the tickrate problem once and for all, and led us to expect great things. However, what we got was the same game with worse networking and the outright deletion of many great CS:GO features, including 128 tick servers, loads of casual game modes, map-based factions, and so on and so forth.

Each time a game, especially a live-service game, pursued this radical overhaul and change and rejected its core identity in the process, something was lost. And I thus expect this League Next thing to end up a disaster, so long as it is pursued in the same manner as these examples above.

CS2 is by no means different enough from CS:GO to be called a sequel or separate. Screenshot by Destructoid

I'm not the only one to think like this. Overwatch 2 and esports reporter Rod Breslau said no live-service games should be changing their names and identities whenever a substantial update happens.

“It's my belief all forever online games should remain named only the title franchise through all new releases, updates, and iterations,” if for no reason than for the sake of “aesthetics.” These games are by no means “2.” Overwatch 2 is Overwatch 1; Counter-Strike 2 is CS:GO. Nothing in these games stands out that much to be called a different title altogether, as the name would imply, which is, to some extent, misleading.

League of Legends should remain as it is and not give up what makes it recognizable and unique. Sure, it's rough around the edges and deserving of some technical changes (even radical ones), but that does not mean Riot is making a whole new game that needs a new name, new identity, a new style.

We'll see what this could mean, as the overhaul is reportedly set to release sometime in 2027. I just hope it turns out well, unlike other examples.

The post After disastrous ‘Overwatch 2’ and ‘Counter-Strike 2’ releases, do we really want a ‘League of Legends 2?’ appeared first on Destructoid.

Stay tuned thanks for visiting