For the people that don't consider there to be any games worthy of being called sport; do you consider golf a sport?
Because most of the answers as to why a certain game isn't a sport are usually pretty much the same answers I hear as why golf isn't a sport; dumb ones.
For something to become a sport it really only needs two thing. The first is to be played competitively and the second is to have a physical or mental skill gradient (preferably one that not even the best can completely reach) which can be displayed over finite amount of time.
Call gaming a sport if you want, that doesn't make it interesting to watch.
I would think the biggest issue being that the most people only have passing interest for individual games. Games just change too much.
In contrast, sports hardly ever change.
For me, this is definitely it. I'll never be able to view pro Starcraft as anything but terribly terribly sad because, while I enjoyed Starcraft and understand the level of skill in the pros, like most gamers I suspect, I am sure as hell not sticking around for 9 years on the same game. Just no. I might go back and play a random game here and there, but that shit is old and I'm looking for new ways to play.
I would think the biggest issue being that the most people only have passing interest for individual games. Games just change too much.
In contrast, sports hardly ever change.
This is also a problem. So Counterstrike got huge. What's next? Halo 3? Ok, after that?
You can't form a franchise or team around these things only to have the entire team worthless in a single year or two when a new game comes out that people would rather see.
Granted, some games, like StarCraft last a while. And other games, like Street Fighter 2, are generally stuck to and ignore the newer games because they aren't seen "as good" as the previous version so the competitive people don't move to the next.
But teams are built up, and you can't build a team up and get the interest of the general populace in something that only lasts one or two seasons before the next game comes out.
Shit, ArcSyn totally posted what I posted....if only I had read through page four before I made my post. But yeah, exactly what I was thinking.
Professional gaming is no different than professional sports. Why would you criticize and look down upon people for doing something they enjoy, and taking it to the next level? I am going to be a Pharmacist in 2 years, making boatloads of cash every year, but I have no plans on stopping my competitive gaming. I am trying to learn SF4 right now in an attempt to travel the nation and play with the best.
If you have never been competitive in a game with a great community, you will find it hard to understand. The friends you make while traveling and playing the game are simply amazing--You meet people from all over the world, many of whom you keep in contact with. This is no different than playing games recreationally at all. People have the same interest as you, you play games with them, have a great time, learn more about them, and become great friends. The fact that you are bound by a game means nothing. Is it any different than if I was really into softball and went out with my friends to play in a league once a week? I don't think so. You are being just as social if you play with a group of people.
Most people have a mindset where competitive gamers practice religiously for hours upon hours in isolation. We have a great deal of fun doing what we do, and we are not hermits whatsoever. I am one of the most sociable people in my group of friends.
I would think the biggest issue being that the most people only have passing interest for individual games. Games just change too much.
In contrast, sports hardly ever change.
For me, this is definitely it. I'll never be able to view pro Starcraft as anything but terribly terribly sad because, while I enjoyed Starcraft and understand the level of skill in the pros, like most gamers I suspect, I am sure as hell not sticking around for 9 years on the same game. Just no. I might go back and play a random game here and there, but that shit is old and I'm looking for new ways to play.
Pretty much. The only way I can see this changing is if you have an ongoing platform type, like Company of Heroes is (not quite successfully, jesus Relic you patch like blind incompetents) to do. Create a game that plays well and looks awesome. A little later, release an independent expansion, later... keep doing that and with a decent underlying structure you can keep interest up by adding options while not changing it so drastically or so suddenly that it's something a fan wouldn't remain interested in.
It does, however, require much more effort by fans. If people had to learn a ruleset as long as baseball's every 2 years, they'd get pretty damn tired of it.
Although fighting games really just work. I don't need to know much about whatever version of Street Fighter that is to know that was fucking awesome.
Edit: Also, my sister's boyfriend used to play CS professionally and is now slightly embarrassed about it. Apparently he made pretty decent cash, though.
I would think the biggest issue being that the most people only have passing interest for individual games. Games just change too much.
In contrast, sports hardly ever change.
This is also a problem. So Counterstrike got huge. What's next? Halo 3? Ok, after that?
You can't form a franchise or team around these things only to have the entire team worthless in a single year or two when a new game comes out that people would rather see.
Granted, some games, like StarCraft last a while. And other games, like Street Fighter 2, are generally stuck to and ignore the newer games because they aren't seen "as good" as the previous version so the competitive people don't move to the next.
But teams are built up, and you can't build a team up and get the interest of the general populace in something that only lasts one or two seasons before the next game comes out.
Games like Starcraft and Counter-Strike, the two pinnacles of pro-gaming I would say, stuck around for so long because they are balanced and people are always figuring out new strategies or ways to play
Games like Halo1-2-3 lasted because they were kind of the refuge of the pro-console gamer. There's not many other games on the console market that appeal to pro-gaming the way Halo does, and that's why Halo will last, even though it isn't entirely balanced
Relic games are another example of this balance issue. Relic has tried to gear their games towards a pro-league level of play, but their games are never entirely balanced and their patching scheme varies from adjusting sounds and speeds of units to entire reworkings of damage and effectiveness. Although games like CoH and DoW2 have their own competitive leagues, they'll never be on that stage level of Starcraft or CS
Starcraft 2 is a simple matter of wait and see. Blizzard are supposedly taking a lot of feedback from the pro scene, and if everything works right that could definitely be the RTS that the pro scene shifts to
Beyond that I'm not really sure. TF2 has a VERY active pro scene, but will it ever reach the level of CS? I think it will get very close, but not entirely all the way there. It will come into its own in the pro scene once Valve get all the weapon unlocks for all the classes done and all the maps and gametypes have been released and thoroughly balanced
edit:
My "pro-scene" experience is mostly made up of CS 1.6 CAL-M, some dabbling in the TF2 scene and half-hearted attempts at Starcraft, COH, and DOW2. I like to keep up on pro-starcraft because it is very interesting and even after all these years the players are still finding new ways to play
I would think the biggest issue being that the most people only have passing interest for individual games. Games just change too much.
In contrast, sports hardly ever change.
Very true; basketball, football, etc can and have gone years between rules changes, and when they do have changes, they aren't fundamentally altering how you perceive the game.
Meanwhile, we've now had three Halos, with significant weapons rebalances, additions, and removals, not to mention other general rules. Smash Brothers is on it's third itheration as well, with sweeping roster and item updates since it's first edition.
The only really popular competitive game that's stayed fairly consistent is Starcraft, but now that audience is about to be split.
I think we basically need technology to hit some sort of plateau before we see a game that can stay with us for long enough to become a competition staple. Like, decades.
Even rubbish games that are played competitively have been around for ages. Darts for about 140 years. Poker for at least probably 500 years.
Computer games are seen as inherently disposable.
And whilst thats the case 'pro gamers' will remain pretty much nothing but marketing spaff along with Gamer Fuel and "Luxury" Bean Bags. And so primarily a bunch of marketing spods trying to make money of the back of an industry.
Starcraft being the exception that proves the rule.
Saying that I'm all for people finding fun in competitive games and tournies and stuff.
I think fighting games and to a degree, spectated RTS games are really the only fun games to watch. FPS games are too crowded, fast, and confusing to get attached to.
You don't have enough information as a spectator watching from the POV of these players to really get into the game. It's not fun watching players run through the level picking up armor, weapons, and bunny hop everywhere to do it. The actual confrontations are interesting, but to the viewer they are random and generally over in a second. If these FPS games were viewed from a 3rd person watching over the levels it may be more entertaining, but it's debatable.
For the people that don't consider there to be any games worthy of being called sport; do you consider golf a sport?
Because most of the answers as to why a certain game isn't a sport are usually pretty much the same answers I hear as why golf isn't a sport; dumb ones.
For something to become a sport it really only needs two thing. The first is to be played competitively and the second is to have a physical or mental skill gradient (preferably one that not even the best can completely reach) which can be displayed over finite amount of time.
Call gaming a sport if you want, that doesn't make it interesting to watch.
That's all well and fine, since I don't consider the vast majority of sports interesting to watch. Pretty much only soccer when the world cup rolls around.
But I don't try and pin down golfers as 'pathetic rich dudes with too much time and beer-gut on their hands to play a real sport'. You don't have to respect the sport or appreciate the skills needed to play it, just recognize that is a sport because otherwise you're just a bigot.
Relic games are another example of this balance issue. Relic has tried to gear their games towards a pro-league level of play, but their games are never entirely balanced and their patching scheme varies from adjusting sounds and speeds of units to entire reworkings of damage and effectiveness. Although games like CoH and DoW2 have their own competitive leagues, they'll never be on that stage level of Starcraft or CS
I would say it's more an issue of skill gradient, the people at the top of CoH aren't really much better at multi-tasking or micro than the level 7-8. They just mass games and that's how most of them rank up, being original or massing games is pretty much the only other way to get ahead. Which sounds a lot better than it is, considering that viable new strategies don't come out very often. And in-between we just get repetitive games that don't showcase any particularly well executed mechanics, or at least, nothing worth getting excited about.
No, I'm honestly genuinely curious how you think that was a response to what I said in that post? Like it makes no sense in regards to what I said. A complete non-sequester*.
*Wrong word, how do you spell sequiter?
Its a critical mass. You need people to care to get enough sponsers to care and then have the basic infrastructure of people who give a fuck enough to earn a living off of it.
Pro gaming doesn't have that basic infrastructure. It won't until it evolves a bit more. I understand the starcraft thing because RTS's are hard and the korean championships were actually worth watching. There's the beginnings of an infrastructure in korea for it.
I think if anything PC gaming is substantially closer to becoming professional then consoles.
You seem to be changing what the "issue" is with pro gaming periodically. At first it's that just pushing buttons can't be considered a professional skill, you get rebuffed and then move on to a completely different angle without addressing the points made against you. Now it's apparently about infrastructure and something being justified as a sport by quantity of interested parties.
This is not a very good way to debate a point. It indicates that you're less interested in the evidence and more interested in making the evidence conform to your goal.
So how do you counter what appears to be an argument consisting essentially of 'defend what meaningful is but keep in mind I think sports are stupid'?
Think about this for a moment: I remember reading a comparison of street bikes to race bikes and street cars to race cars. And essentially what it came down to was the top-of-the-line street bikes were closer to being actual race bikes than top-of-the-line street cars would be to being actual race cars.
What makes pro gaming feel 'insignificant' to some is that the distance between home gamers and pro gamers is the willingness to spend whatever amount of time is necessary to 'get really good'. I'm pretty sure that right now Fatalonety would kick my ass in his game of choice, but given enough time, I'd become as good as he is. Recreational sports players are much farther away from professional level and it's something that time alone won't help close the gap.
Turning the argument into 'sports aren't meaningful anyway' is pathetic. If you're not willing to go all the way and state that nothing is meaningful, you're just being petty.
Really, if video game competitions were to become mainstream or even within the same area code as mainstream it would have happened many years ago.
I have now placed this DVD in my Amazon cart. It's only a matter of time before it's ordered and shipped..
You will be forever enriched by this recommendation. That DVD is a ticket to a 90 minute mashup of the Karate Kid meets Tron meets Rain Man meets Beau Bridges Nailed Your Cousin.
Are you responding to me or the issue? Because if to me, doesn't seem terribly applicable. I came here to point out that Viscount is a flip-flopping mo' fugga and is doing a poor job of furthering his position (videogames are not/are a poor sport). Not advocating videogames as a sport.
For the people that don't consider there to be any games worthy of being called sport; do you consider golf a sport?
Because most of the answers as to why a certain game isn't a sport are usually pretty much the same answers I hear as why golf isn't a sport; dumb ones.
For something to become a sport it really only needs two thing. The first is to be played competitively and the second is to have a physical or mental skill gradient (preferably one that not even the best can completely reach) which can be displayed over finite amount of time.
Call gaming a sport if you want, that doesn't make it interesting to watch.
That's all well and fine, since I don't consider the vast majority of sports interesting to watch. Pretty much only soccer when the world cup rolls around.
But I don't try and pin down golfers as 'pathetic rich dudes with too much time and beer-gut on their hands to play a real sport'. You don't have to respect the sport or appreciate the skills needed to play it, just recognize that is a sport because otherwise you're just a bigot.
I never said any of those things. All I said was nobody should expect me to care about pro gaming.
I imagine most people feel the same way. If someone wants to be a pro backgammon player or pro curler or pro ice fisher, that's awesome, good for them. Nobody's going to care, though.
I think that for pro gaming to get anywhere, the competitors need to start using their real fucking names.
I find it extremely difficult to take a bunch of "athletes" with stupid screen names seriously at all.
No see I completely disagree here. You're talking about a "sport" that will forever be considered "fake" by the mainstream. So do what Pro Wrestling did - embrace the "entertainment" aspect more than the "sport" aspect.
Examples Follow
YES:
NO:
You need managers. You need promos backstage. You need some dude named "Eliminatorusrex" telling "Destructicator" that no one has ever beaten him in a "Tetris In a Giant Punch Bowl" match.
There is a market for this shit, I am telling you.
Are you responding to me or the issue? Because if to me, doesn't seem terribly applicable. I came here to point out that Viscount is a flip-flopping mo' fugga and is doing a poor job of furthering his position (videogames are not/are a poor sport). Not advocating videogames as a sport.
Just the position. I'm not saying Viscountalpha isn't flip-flopping, but he is attempting to respond to an argument that his 'opponents' will never lose. It is not altogether unreasonable to suggest that playing actual sports is more meaningful then professionally playing video games. But it's an argument in bad faith to require that sports be proven as more meaningful when not everybody has the same values as to what meaningful is to them.
I think that for pro gaming to get anywhere, the competitors need to start using their real fucking names.
I find it extremely difficult to take a bunch of "athletes" with stupid screen names seriously at all.
While I understand how playing online requires the necessity of a username, once you start playing in pro tournaments or are being referred to by the public in media or sponsorship, I should NEVER see Fatal1ty or 1AML33t on anything other than my screen in game scoreboard.
So yes, if you want people to take you seriously, use real names. Athletes have nicknames too (ie Refrigerator Perry - dating myself), but people who are fans of the sport can easily make the connection, and they will do so in gaming as well.
I think that for pro gaming to get anywhere, the competitors need to start using their real fucking names.
I find it extremely difficult to take a bunch of "athletes" with stupid screen names seriously at all.
While I understand how playing online requires the necessity of a username, once you start playing in pro tournaments or are being referred to by the public in media or sponsorship, I should NEVER see Fatal1ty or 1AML33t on anything other than my screen in game scoreboard.
So yes, if you want people to take you seriously, use real names. Athletes have nicknames too (ie Refrigerator Perry - dating myself), but people who are fans of the sport can easily make the connection, and they will do so in gaming as well.
I'm not paying money to watch Rick Johnson vs. Larry Smith.
I will possibly, however, pay money to get drunk and watch "El Dorito" take on "Stupor Mario"
Which is a better game to promote? Team based games or individual competitive games?
Teams can have names which make them more interesting than "Rick vs. Larry", but not all games are suited for team play. Individual games struggle with making "Rick vs. Larry" interesting, but boxing does it, as I'm sure other individual competitions do. I think it makes the sport a bit more "serious" in the public eye than equating it to pro wrestling.
Which is a better game to promote? Team based games or individual competitive games?
Teams can have names which make them more interesting than "Rick vs. Larry", but not all games are suited for team play. Individual games struggle with making "Rick vs. Larry" interesting, but boxing does it, as I'm sure other individual competitions do. I think it makes the sport a bit more "serious" in the public eye than equating it to pro wrestling.
Paintball is essentially a live action videogame. When was the last time you saw a major network carrying Paintball? Why? Because it's marketed as an actual sport. Now if you played up the show and pageant aspect of it and created some interesting gimmicks to throw in it, who knows, maybe you'd be better off. But I think it's safe to say that if people aren't buying into a sport like paintball, you're not going to get folks lining up to watch Halo Tournaments. At least not without some serious window dressing.
Are you responding to me or the issue? Because if to me, doesn't seem terribly applicable. I came here to point out that Viscount is a flip-flopping mo' fugga and is doing a poor job of furthering his position (videogames are not/are a poor sport). Not advocating videogames as a sport.
Just the position. I'm not saying Viscountalpha isn't flip-flopping, but he is attempting to respond to an argument that his 'opponents' will never lose. It is not altogether unreasonable to suggest that playing actual sports is more meaningful then professionally playing video games. But it's an argument in bad faith to require that sports be proven as more meaningful when not everybody has the same values as to what meaningful is to them.
I never said any of those things. All I said was nobody should expect me to care about pro gaming.
I imagine most people feel the same way. If someone wants to be a pro backgammon player or pro curler or pro ice fisher, that's awesome, good for them. Nobody's going to care, though.
Obviously, people do care; the only reason I even know about curling is because I've seen it broadcast. But yeah, you're right. You shouldn't expect anyone to care about a sport, but then, what were you replying to in the first place?
I wasn't exactly making a case for the importance of sports to society.
Streltsy on
0
Options
SixCaches Tweets in the mainframe cyberhexRegistered Userregular
Which is a better game to promote? Team based games or individual competitive games?
Teams can have names which make them more interesting than "Rick vs. Larry", but not all games are suited for team play. Individual games struggle with making "Rick vs. Larry" interesting, but boxing does it, as I'm sure other individual competitions do. I think it makes the sport a bit more "serious" in the public eye than equating it to pro wrestling.
Are there any team-based video games that are even remotely interesting to watch. I mean, I can understand how people might get into watching a SF2 or Starcraft match - as cynical as I am about the whole endeavor, that one video (which I think was posted in this thread) of some guy holding on for dear life in a sf2 match with a crowd going nuts is kind of cool - but I can't imagine trying to follow a halo or CS match as a spectator.
I never said any of those things. All I said was nobody should expect me to care about pro gaming.
I imagine most people feel the same way. If someone wants to be a pro backgammon player or pro curler or pro ice fisher, that's awesome, good for them. Nobody's going to care, though.
Obviously, people do care; the only reason I even know about curling is because I've seen it broadcast. But yeah, you're right. You shouldn't expect anyone to care about a sport, but then, what were you replying to in the first place?
I wasn't exactly making a case for the importance of sports to society.
Sports are certainly important to society. I wouldn't argue that.
While gaming certainly could be called a sport, I don't think pro gaming is important to anyone in particular.
This Fatal1ty filled dystopia will never come to pass.
Electronic games are not like physical sports in so many fundamental ways that it boggles the mind to think people are serious about this becoming mainstream any time soon. I'll just illuminate a few of them;
Video games generally have non-trivial rulesets. Televised sports games generally have reasonably simple core rules.
Physical sports have a fairly high barrier to hobbyist entry. Video games do not. By this I mean it is significantly harder to organize and participate in amateur football than it is to play CoD4. This shifts some of the thrill of physical sports from participatory to spectating. You don't need to do that with video games.
Video games change all the time. Physical sports are relatively static.
The economic incentives for corporate sponsorship are lacking in most video game genres. Many games don't allow for built in commercial breaks (some do like FPS matches of a set duration, or breaks in between bouts of a fighting game, but for instance an RTS? no). Nor do they have effective sponsorship mechanisms until/unless game companies are willing to mod the games for them to have custom art assets. In addition there isn't any localization for video game teams. Most of them are global.
Saammiel on
0
Options
Dr Mario KartGames DealerAustin, TXRegistered Userregular
edited April 2009
I made about $1500 in 2008 playing Smash. I'm out now. Back to being not so serious with gaming.
I follow the Street Fighter 4 scene casually though.
You have to change games every 18 to 24 months or possibly even less since you're only playing the games while they are hot.
This guy is Denmark's resident pro-gamer. He represented our great nation in some tournament last week, where he got absolutely butchered in Street Fighter. Professional gaming in the Western world often seems like more of a marketing stunt than something that actually accomplishes anything on a competitive level. And it doesn't really work.
But really, isn't he just a "pro gamer" in the sense that he thinks he is?
Here is another issue that adds to the fact that watching people play video games is horribly boring. Nothing unexpected ever happens. (I'll add that this is why, in my opinion, games like chess, poker, etc are also extremely boring to watch.)
In physical sports there is chaos. A wind gust knocks down a field goal. A baseball hits a divot and takes a bad bounce. In hockey tempers flare and we get fights and penalties. None of this ever happens in gaming. I have never seen a terran marine trip over a hole in the ground or miss a shot. I have never seen a counterstrike player lose a target in the sun. Gaming is predictable.
Are you responding to me or the issue? Because if to me, doesn't seem terribly applicable. I came here to point out that Viscount is a flip-flopping mo' fugga and is doing a poor job of furthering his position (videogames are not/are a poor sport). Not advocating videogames as a sport.
Just the position. I'm not saying Viscountalpha isn't flip-flopping, but he is attempting to respond to an argument that his 'opponents' will never lose. It is not altogether unreasonable to suggest that playing actual sports is more meaningful then professionally playing video games. But it's an argument in bad faith to require that sports be proven as more meaningful when not everybody has the same values as to what meaningful is to them.
Sure it is.
Responding with non sequiturs is also bad form for argument/debate. It the internet forum equivalent of trying to 'win' an argument by forcing the other side to stop debating because they're only presented with nonsense.
Dr Mario KartGames DealerAustin, TXRegistered Userregular
edited April 2009
You're always going to get unexpected events when watching human actions. Its plenty entertaining if you understand whats happening.
Someone playing a fighting game jumps in and attacks. You dont know whats going to happen. It could be one of several things. He could also mess up and do something outside of that range. The response from the other player is also going to be interesting.
Posts
Call gaming a sport if you want, that doesn't make it interesting to watch.
yeah, I realized and ninja edited :P
For me, this is definitely it. I'll never be able to view pro Starcraft as anything but terribly terribly sad because, while I enjoyed Starcraft and understand the level of skill in the pros, like most gamers I suspect, I am sure as hell not sticking around for 9 years on the same game. Just no. I might go back and play a random game here and there, but that shit is old and I'm looking for new ways to play.
White FC: 0819 3350 1787
This is also a problem. So Counterstrike got huge. What's next? Halo 3? Ok, after that?
You can't form a franchise or team around these things only to have the entire team worthless in a single year or two when a new game comes out that people would rather see.
Granted, some games, like StarCraft last a while. And other games, like Street Fighter 2, are generally stuck to and ignore the newer games because they aren't seen "as good" as the previous version so the competitive people don't move to the next.
But teams are built up, and you can't build a team up and get the interest of the general populace in something that only lasts one or two seasons before the next game comes out.
Professional gaming is no different than professional sports. Why would you criticize and look down upon people for doing something they enjoy, and taking it to the next level? I am going to be a Pharmacist in 2 years, making boatloads of cash every year, but I have no plans on stopping my competitive gaming. I am trying to learn SF4 right now in an attempt to travel the nation and play with the best.
If you have never been competitive in a game with a great community, you will find it hard to understand. The friends you make while traveling and playing the game are simply amazing--You meet people from all over the world, many of whom you keep in contact with. This is no different than playing games recreationally at all. People have the same interest as you, you play games with them, have a great time, learn more about them, and become great friends. The fact that you are bound by a game means nothing. Is it any different than if I was really into softball and went out with my friends to play in a league once a week? I don't think so. You are being just as social if you play with a group of people.
Most people have a mindset where competitive gamers practice religiously for hours upon hours in isolation. We have a great deal of fun doing what we do, and we are not hermits whatsoever. I am one of the most sociable people in my group of friends.
Pretty much. The only way I can see this changing is if you have an ongoing platform type, like Company of Heroes is (not quite successfully, jesus Relic you patch like blind incompetents) to do. Create a game that plays well and looks awesome. A little later, release an independent expansion, later... keep doing that and with a decent underlying structure you can keep interest up by adding options while not changing it so drastically or so suddenly that it's something a fan wouldn't remain interested in.
It does, however, require much more effort by fans. If people had to learn a ruleset as long as baseball's every 2 years, they'd get pretty damn tired of it.
Although fighting games really just work. I don't need to know much about whatever version of Street Fighter that is to know that was fucking awesome.
Edit: Also, my sister's boyfriend used to play CS professionally and is now slightly embarrassed about it. Apparently he made pretty decent cash, though.
Games like Starcraft and Counter-Strike, the two pinnacles of pro-gaming I would say, stuck around for so long because they are balanced and people are always figuring out new strategies or ways to play
Games like Halo1-2-3 lasted because they were kind of the refuge of the pro-console gamer. There's not many other games on the console market that appeal to pro-gaming the way Halo does, and that's why Halo will last, even though it isn't entirely balanced
Relic games are another example of this balance issue. Relic has tried to gear their games towards a pro-league level of play, but their games are never entirely balanced and their patching scheme varies from adjusting sounds and speeds of units to entire reworkings of damage and effectiveness. Although games like CoH and DoW2 have their own competitive leagues, they'll never be on that stage level of Starcraft or CS
Starcraft 2 is a simple matter of wait and see. Blizzard are supposedly taking a lot of feedback from the pro scene, and if everything works right that could definitely be the RTS that the pro scene shifts to
Beyond that I'm not really sure. TF2 has a VERY active pro scene, but will it ever reach the level of CS? I think it will get very close, but not entirely all the way there. It will come into its own in the pro scene once Valve get all the weapon unlocks for all the classes done and all the maps and gametypes have been released and thoroughly balanced
edit:
My "pro-scene" experience is mostly made up of CS 1.6 CAL-M, some dabbling in the TF2 scene and half-hearted attempts at Starcraft, COH, and DOW2. I like to keep up on pro-starcraft because it is very interesting and even after all these years the players are still finding new ways to play
Very true; basketball, football, etc can and have gone years between rules changes, and when they do have changes, they aren't fundamentally altering how you perceive the game.
Meanwhile, we've now had three Halos, with significant weapons rebalances, additions, and removals, not to mention other general rules. Smash Brothers is on it's third itheration as well, with sweeping roster and item updates since it's first edition.
The only really popular competitive game that's stayed fairly consistent is Starcraft, but now that audience is about to be split.
I think we basically need technology to hit some sort of plateau before we see a game that can stay with us for long enough to become a competition staple. Like, decades.
Computer games are seen as inherently disposable.
And whilst thats the case 'pro gamers' will remain pretty much nothing but marketing spaff along with Gamer Fuel and "Luxury" Bean Bags. And so primarily a bunch of marketing spods trying to make money of the back of an industry.
Starcraft being the exception that proves the rule.
Saying that I'm all for people finding fun in competitive games and tournies and stuff.
2009 is a year of Updates - one every Monday. Hopefully. xx
You don't have enough information as a spectator watching from the POV of these players to really get into the game. It's not fun watching players run through the level picking up armor, weapons, and bunny hop everywhere to do it. The actual confrontations are interesting, but to the viewer they are random and generally over in a second. If these FPS games were viewed from a 3rd person watching over the levels it may be more entertaining, but it's debatable.
I have now placed this DVD in my Amazon cart. It's only a matter of time before it's ordered and shipped..
That's all well and fine, since I don't consider the vast majority of sports interesting to watch. Pretty much only soccer when the world cup rolls around.
But I don't try and pin down golfers as 'pathetic rich dudes with too much time and beer-gut on their hands to play a real sport'. You don't have to respect the sport or appreciate the skills needed to play it, just recognize that is a sport because otherwise you're just a bigot.
I would say it's more an issue of skill gradient, the people at the top of CoH aren't really much better at multi-tasking or micro than the level 7-8. They just mass games and that's how most of them rank up, being original or massing games is pretty much the only other way to get ahead. Which sounds a lot better than it is, considering that viable new strategies don't come out very often. And in-between we just get repetitive games that don't showcase any particularly well executed mechanics, or at least, nothing worth getting excited about.
I find it extremely difficult to take a bunch of "athletes" with stupid screen names seriously at all.
Your posts are delicious.
White FC: 0819 3350 1787
Think about this for a moment: I remember reading a comparison of street bikes to race bikes and street cars to race cars. And essentially what it came down to was the top-of-the-line street bikes were closer to being actual race bikes than top-of-the-line street cars would be to being actual race cars.
What makes pro gaming feel 'insignificant' to some is that the distance between home gamers and pro gamers is the willingness to spend whatever amount of time is necessary to 'get really good'. I'm pretty sure that right now Fatalonety would kick my ass in his game of choice, but given enough time, I'd become as good as he is. Recreational sports players are much farther away from professional level and it's something that time alone won't help close the gap.
Turning the argument into 'sports aren't meaningful anyway' is pathetic. If you're not willing to go all the way and state that nothing is meaningful, you're just being petty.
You will be forever enriched by this recommendation. That DVD is a ticket to a 90 minute mashup of the Karate Kid meets Tron meets Rain Man meets Beau Bridges Nailed Your Cousin.
In SC the players are known/referred to by the their actual names, in Korea anyways.
To Santa
Are you responding to me or the issue? Because if to me, doesn't seem terribly applicable. I came here to point out that Viscount is a flip-flopping mo' fugga and is doing a poor job of furthering his position (videogames are not/are a poor sport). Not advocating videogames as a sport.
White FC: 0819 3350 1787
I never said any of those things. All I said was nobody should expect me to care about pro gaming.
I imagine most people feel the same way. If someone wants to be a pro backgammon player or pro curler or pro ice fisher, that's awesome, good for them. Nobody's going to care, though.
No see I completely disagree here. You're talking about a "sport" that will forever be considered "fake" by the mainstream. So do what Pro Wrestling did - embrace the "entertainment" aspect more than the "sport" aspect.
Examples Follow
YES:
NO:
You need managers. You need promos backstage. You need some dude named "Eliminatorusrex" telling "Destructicator" that no one has ever beaten him in a "Tetris In a Giant Punch Bowl" match.
There is a market for this shit, I am telling you.
Just the position. I'm not saying Viscountalpha isn't flip-flopping, but he is attempting to respond to an argument that his 'opponents' will never lose. It is not altogether unreasonable to suggest that playing actual sports is more meaningful then professionally playing video games. But it's an argument in bad faith to require that sports be proven as more meaningful when not everybody has the same values as to what meaningful is to them.
While I understand how playing online requires the necessity of a username, once you start playing in pro tournaments or are being referred to by the public in media or sponsorship, I should NEVER see Fatal1ty or 1AML33t on anything other than my screen in game scoreboard.
So yes, if you want people to take you seriously, use real names. Athletes have nicknames too (ie Refrigerator Perry - dating myself), but people who are fans of the sport can easily make the connection, and they will do so in gaming as well.
I'm not paying money to watch Rick Johnson vs. Larry Smith.
I will possibly, however, pay money to get drunk and watch "El Dorito" take on "Stupor Mario"
Which is a better game to promote? Team based games or individual competitive games?
Teams can have names which make them more interesting than "Rick vs. Larry", but not all games are suited for team play. Individual games struggle with making "Rick vs. Larry" interesting, but boxing does it, as I'm sure other individual competitions do. I think it makes the sport a bit more "serious" in the public eye than equating it to pro wrestling.
Paintball is essentially a live action videogame. When was the last time you saw a major network carrying Paintball? Why? Because it's marketed as an actual sport. Now if you played up the show and pageant aspect of it and created some interesting gimmicks to throw in it, who knows, maybe you'd be better off. But I think it's safe to say that if people aren't buying into a sport like paintball, you're not going to get folks lining up to watch Halo Tournaments. At least not without some serious window dressing.
Sure it is.
Obviously, people do care; the only reason I even know about curling is because I've seen it broadcast. But yeah, you're right. You shouldn't expect anyone to care about a sport, but then, what were you replying to in the first place?
I wasn't exactly making a case for the importance of sports to society.
Are there any team-based video games that are even remotely interesting to watch. I mean, I can understand how people might get into watching a SF2 or Starcraft match - as cynical as I am about the whole endeavor, that one video (which I think was posted in this thread) of some guy holding on for dear life in a sf2 match with a crowd going nuts is kind of cool - but I can't imagine trying to follow a halo or CS match as a spectator.
This man right here has vision.
White FC: 0819 3350 1787
Sports are certainly important to society. I wouldn't argue that.
While gaming certainly could be called a sport, I don't think pro gaming is important to anyone in particular.
Electronic games are not like physical sports in so many fundamental ways that it boggles the mind to think people are serious about this becoming mainstream any time soon. I'll just illuminate a few of them;
Video games generally have non-trivial rulesets. Televised sports games generally have reasonably simple core rules.
Physical sports have a fairly high barrier to hobbyist entry. Video games do not. By this I mean it is significantly harder to organize and participate in amateur football than it is to play CoD4. This shifts some of the thrill of physical sports from participatory to spectating. You don't need to do that with video games.
Video games change all the time. Physical sports are relatively static.
The economic incentives for corporate sponsorship are lacking in most video game genres. Many games don't allow for built in commercial breaks (some do like FPS matches of a set duration, or breaks in between bouts of a fighting game, but for instance an RTS? no). Nor do they have effective sponsorship mechanisms until/unless game companies are willing to mod the games for them to have custom art assets. In addition there isn't any localization for video game teams. Most of them are global.
I follow the Street Fighter 4 scene casually though.
You have to change games every 18 to 24 months or possibly even less since you're only playing the games while they are hot.
But really, isn't he just a "pro gamer" in the sense that he thinks he is?
In physical sports there is chaos. A wind gust knocks down a field goal. A baseball hits a divot and takes a bad bounce. In hockey tempers flare and we get fights and penalties. None of this ever happens in gaming. I have never seen a terran marine trip over a hole in the ground or miss a shot. I have never seen a counterstrike player lose a target in the sun. Gaming is predictable.
Responding with non sequiturs is also bad form for argument/debate. It the internet forum equivalent of trying to 'win' an argument by forcing the other side to stop debating because they're only presented with nonsense.
Your argument is not meaningful.
Someone playing a fighting game jumps in and attacks. You dont know whats going to happen. It could be one of several things. He could also mess up and do something outside of that range. The response from the other player is also going to be interesting.