I don't entirely agree with your post. I find myself disagreeing to most of your arguments rather then finding them persuasive. To be honest I am getting the feeling you are just jelly that you are working some dead beat job and not doing what these 'others' have taken the risk and are starting to get the pay off.
Let's take a look at your concluding statement because a conclusion in any reasonable argument should summarize your main point...
What ever happened to fun gaming? It's still fun for me, It's still fun for... thousands of people... sorry if you don't find it fun, maybe you should go watch competitive HoN or LoL.
Sometimes I worry that the competitive Starcraft scene is too concerned with the image of "eSports," and not discriminating enough of the game within the sport. I don't understand, you have a better game for eSports? Last time I checked eSports was pretty much created by Counter Strike, DoTA and Starcraft: Brood War and have been the title games of the biggest gaming tournaments like WCG since the dawn of competitive gaming. Is SCII a perfect game? Not perfect, but neither was SC:BW yet it was the choice platform that spawned into the mutli-million industry in Korea and is now the platform of the eSports movement that is rising in NA/EU.
Sometimes I think that there are too many events & wanna-be events, too many casters & wanna-be casters, too many progamers & wanna-be progamers. And this is hurting eSports how? Sorry I didn't know schools offered degrees in eSports, last time I checked it was still a "new" thing, a technological phenomena if you will. Sure too many of anything can be a bad thing but we won't know until the damage is done because there is no way of knowing.
All too often the quality is low, which is a shame when the people that put things together are taking personal risks or volunteering their time. I hope it's worth it for the people who have a lot invested. Obviously it is paying off for people that have invested a lot in it in the past. Is eSports on the brink of collapsing? Actually for the state of the economy it is doing fairly well and appears to only be growing. Investments are risks, so thanks for hoping probably the only thing you got right (?)
"I hope it's still fun for the players, because it's not going to get any better than this. This is the complete and fulfilled dream of eSports, and the only thing hurting eSports now is its own self-obsession." Wrong, there are many areas of improvements as covered by the latest State of the Game. Dreamhack, MLG and IPL can all learn from each other and there are vast space for improvement. You must have the lowest standards because I for one am pretty sure things can get better (but can also get worse).
. It's not cause of the fact that there are no Koreans, but the fact that we're trying to sell SC2 as a product when I still think the players and the games are pretty mediocre at best
So you've just obviously not watched MLG for the past year or you'd realize there's an absolute shit-ton of Koreans at every MLG.........
Is every matchup in SC2 fun to watch right now? No. Is SC2 fun to watch right now overall? Yes.
Is BW harder? Hell yeah. Is there ANY indication to your average viewer that this is the case? Fuck no. FUCK NO.
How the hell can anyone tell that those 20 gateways are being individually selected as opposed to being on a hotkey?
It is pretty obvious to the viewer of the skill difference between bw and sc2. All i ever see in sc2 are big army balls that just run into each other and die, and that's game, while the same isn't true to the same degree in bw.
I disagree with your conclusion that SC2 isn't, or can't be, a sport. Dreamhack had around 100,000 viewers at different points in the weekend.
SC2 is a sport [because] 100,000 viewers watched. 100,000 viewers watched [because] SC2 is a sport.
SC2 is a great game [because] it is so big. It is so big [because] SC2 is a great game.
What happens when someone says "SC2 is big because it has the StarCraft brand and Blizzard's economic support" ? If you agree, then the circular argument presented before is destroyed. You have to argue with this new reason and offer reasons why it is well designed, why it is interesting to watch etc. Lots of people will say 'it's so much more interesting to see storms in BW because you know they're more difficult to do and require a lot of concentration.' It's a direct comparison to SC2. I'd like to see direct comparisons to BW that are supposed to show the opposite. But then we get the 'it's a totally different game!' cop-out and the thread becomes 15 pages of nothing.
Sure. Quote one sentence from my post and then infer that I am saying 'SC2 is a sport because 100,000 viewers watched'...
I was using your post to illustrate an earlier point I'd just made. Sorry if you feel that was unfair treatment of your other ideas.
edit: To clarify, my point which was that when people want to legitimize SC2 they often turn to numbers like this. People did that in BW too, saying all the time how big it is in Korea etc. It's sort of the easiest way to get grandma's approval, but it's not really useful information for a discussion about why SC2 is legitimate/good/etc. I contend if you were not trying to legitimize SC2 with that number, I have no idea why you brought it up.
Of course you have no idea why I brought it up. You didn't read my entire post and you didn't read it as a reply to the OP, which is what it was.
If you HAD read the entirety of my post in context, ie as a reply to the OP then it would have made perfect sense. He spoke about other sports drawing money because they have an audience, and later that SC2's audience basically doesn't count because they're all introverts with addiction problems. I posted that number to demonstrate that firstly SC2 does have an audience, and then the rest of that paragraph (ie the part you didn't read) was on the irrelevance of who that audience is.
I did read your whole post (and read it again now) and I still feel like bringing up the point about SC2's numbers being legitimate is giving importance to those numbers. It doesn't make sense to talk about something if you don't think it is important to your argument. It's like 'ok my thesis is that SC2 is good... but for some reason I'm going to argue a point in my essay that I don't think proves my thesis just because it's there' That doesn't make sense, right? Either you don't think the point about numbers is relevant and you explain why it doesn't further his argument, or you do think they're relevant and explain why his interpretation of numbers is wrong. You don't just argue something that is irrelevant to your beliefs.
When analysing poetry we often ask 'why use this word, why bring up this fact?' because there is always a reason or it is just banal and stupid. Like a poet chooses from an entire dictionary of words to make his point, so does the poster choose from the entire OP what to make his point. To say that you just wanted to counter that point for no reason even though you don't think it matters makes me not pity you at all for being the butt of my example.
I only bring this up because you're continuing to bat things back and forth with the respondents, and it's important to me that something I care about is not misrepresented.
On December 01 2011 06:06 mmp wrote: When I was in middle school, I used to go to Magic: the Gathering tournaments at my nearby card/game store. I really liked playing the game with friends, I had a lot of fun building creative decks -- and then I'd go to these tournaments where I'd meet kids who were assholes, had bought-out decks with all the rares, and they'd win and I'd lose and it was no fun. The only way to play a good game is draft, imo. I don't hate MtG, I think it's made a lot of bad decisions post-5th edition, but somewhere in there is a redeemable game that's been zombified under the notion of constant cycles so that WotC can keep printing shiny cards to little boys (and men) who like the fantasy elements. MtG will keep releasing repetitive cycles with shitty concepts long after they "got it right" just as Blizzard will keep selling computer games as long as we keep buying them.
Re: MtG, you obviously have no idea really. That is a very slanted and one-dimensional characterization of the competitive scene.
I wouldn't presume to judge your BW/SC2 opinions and argumentation based on entirely separate opinions on a different subject, but --- based on your comments about MtG you clearly have some kind of nostalgia complex, like many of us, and it is clouding your view. The quote above would indicate to me that you have little authority to evaluate design choices and competitive culture.
I am bashing your MtG slander more than you, sorry. -___-
I enjoy futbol, I ridicule football. One is celebrated worldwide, invokes violent nationalism, and is a joy to watch even if you've never followed the game or the teams. The other is bogged down in rules, stoppage of play, and turns its players into human battering rams. Both are sports in that they can draw an audience, but if you have watched American NFL you will understand that the genius of football as a "sport" is not its spectacle, or strategy, or anything else that might define a sport. Televised football is in fact a genius of marketing. It provides just enough hard-hitting violence in 1-2 minute blocks and then the clock stops, and that means a commercial break. In short, it's ripe for whoring out.
This is the single most ridiculous thing ive ever read in my life. The increased prevalence of 3+ wide receiver sets and overall "pass-happy" trend that offenses adopt more and more. The shifting role of the tight end from mostly a blocking role to a much more pass catching one, which requires a change in the skillset for emerging players. The increased use of the 3-4 defensive alignment and the emphasis on quicker, faster, more versatile linebackers designed to make it harder for the offensive line to read who the pass rushers are. The west-coast offense and its revolutionnary idea of opening up running lanes by employing short, high percentage passes. Because you dont see the strategies and tactics involved in football doesnt mean they dont exist.
For all I care 'futbol' is 22 guys running after a ball for 90 minutes and sometimes shooting it at a big net. See how that works? (btw I dont actually think that, just pointing out how any sport can be made to sound stupid)
I disagree with your conclusion that SC2 isn't, or can't be, a sport. Dreamhack had around 100,000 viewers at different points in the weekend.
SC2 is a sport [because] 100,000 viewers watched. 100,000 viewers watched [because] SC2 is a sport.
SC2 is a great game [because] it is so big. It is so big [because] SC2 is a great game.
What happens when someone says "SC2 is big because it has the StarCraft brand and Blizzard's economic support" ? If you agree, then the circular argument presented before is destroyed. You have to argue with this new reason and offer reasons why it is well designed, why it is interesting to watch etc. Lots of people will say 'it's so much more interesting to see storms in BW because you know they're more difficult to do and require a lot of concentration.' It's a direct comparison to SC2. I'd like to see direct comparisons to BW that are supposed to show the opposite. But then we get the 'it's a totally different game!' cop-out and the thread becomes 15 pages of nothing.
Sure. Quote one sentence from my post and then infer that I am saying 'SC2 is a sport because 100,000 viewers watched'...
I was using your post to illustrate an earlier point I'd just made. Sorry if you feel that was unfair treatment of your other ideas.
edit: To clarify, my point which was that when people want to legitimize SC2 they often turn to numbers like this. People did that in BW too, saying all the time how big it is in Korea etc. It's sort of the easiest way to get grandma's approval, but it's not really useful information for a discussion about why SC2 is legitimate/good/etc. I contend if you were not trying to legitimize SC2 with that number, I have no idea why you brought it up.
Of course you have no idea why I brought it up. You didn't read my entire post and you didn't read it as a reply to the OP, which is what it was.
If you HAD read the entirety of my post in context, ie as a reply to the OP then it would have made perfect sense. He spoke about other sports drawing money because they have an audience, and later that SC2's audience basically doesn't count because they're all introverts with addiction problems. I posted that number to demonstrate that firstly SC2 does have an audience, and then the rest of that paragraph (ie the part you didn't read) was on the irrelevance of who that audience is.
I did read your whole post (and read it again now) and I still feel like bringing up the point about SC2's numbers being legitimate is giving importance to those numbers. It doesn't make sense to talk about something if you don't think it is important to your argument. It's like 'ok my thesis is that SC2 is good... but for some reason I'm going to argue a point in my essay that I don't think proves my thesis just because it's there' That doesn't make sense, right? Either you don't think the point about numbers is relevant and you explain why it doesn't further his argument, or you do think they're relevant and explain why his interpretation of numbers is wrong. You don't just argue something that is irrelevant to your beliefs.
When analysing poetry we often ask 'why use this word, why bring up this fact?' because there is always a reason or it is just banal and stupid. Like a poet chooses from an entire dictionary of words to make his point, so does the poster choose from the entire OP what to make his point. To say that you just wanted to counter that point for no reason even though you don't think it matters makes me not pity you at all for being the butt of my example.
I argued with him using that point because it demonstrates his inconsistent application of the criteria for what makes a sport. It wasn't a question of relevance or irrelevance, it was a question of inconsistency. An argument rife with inconsistencies isn't an argument at all, and it makes no sense to pretend that it is and then argue with it anyway.
Maybe my original post wasn't as clear with my intentions as it could have been, but I certainly don't think your interpretation was at all reasonable. To be honest I think you were just looking for a way to post your 'numbers don't make a game legitimate' spiel without it being off topic, and I gave you the in that you needed.
There's money in golf because it draws an audience. Sports entertain for spectacle, games entertain personal satisfaction.
I think your basic premise is wrong. Sports entertain because there are people watching wanting to be entertained. Your choice of golf is enlightening. The reason there is money in golf is not because it has a mass audience hungering for amazing feats of skill. It is because the people who play golf are generally middle-aged to older white middle class males with disposable income. Note the sponsors, Tag Heur, Rolex. Not exactly screaming out to your average blue-collar bloke.
There is money in golf because of what demographic is draws, not the numbers. How many people who don't play golf actually watch it? It has weird rules and customs that most people just shake their heads at. It is simple enough to get the gist but to really understand you need to play. It is similar for E-Sports, it is just that instead of middle class white guys it is focused on younger nerdier types.
This is the best blog i've ever read i gave you 5 Stars. I'm not sure why i loved your Blog so much i don't really care about the points you made its just funny to read you ranting in this manner about this stuff i laughed out loud several times.
Well how about the Internet? Surely eSports can flourish there. Whether or not it's flourishing, that's pretty much what we have today, and even if you get tens of thousands of people tuning in to GSL/IPL/TSL/etc, you've pretty much accounted for everyone that's potentially interested in watching. And no, your non-nerdy friends aren't interested in watching space-pokemon blow each other up for great glory.
Your non-nerdy friends also don't care what "damage" Savior dealt to eSports. The fact that such a large amount of personal profit could be made on the black market proves that Broodwar went mainstream... SC2 can only hope to achieve such notoriety in its lifetime. Fixed computer games, like fixed boxing matches, fixed wrestling matches, fixed horse races, or any kind of thrown victory upset people because they destroy the illusion of spectacle. Ruined matches remind you just how meaningless the game actually is and how much emotional stake you've entrusted inside the hype. Have established strategy games like chess ever had this kind of identity crisis, or do we play games for other reasons?
Barcrafts are another manifestation of this identity crisis. What could be more mainstream than drinking beer and watching "the game" with other young men in the commons? Beer is great, I love beer, but the game sucks, so stop pretending that you're having a good time or that it validates your lifestyle. You're not having a good time, and you're still a nerd. You're a lonely yuppie (or worse, underage!) with nerdy hobbies desperately seeking acceptance inside an alienating society. The bartender doesn't give a fuck what the customers want to watch as long as the hockey/baseball/basketball game is not on and no one else complains. You can attend bar meetups on almost any hobby group if you look hard enough, but your willingness to spend money to be with people just like you is no more of an indicator that eSports is growing than weekend book clubs among housewives are an indicator that competitive literary leagues are on the rise.
Foreigners need to stop wishing for South Korea to come to their neighborhood; you cannot force culture. SC2 is an entertainment platform developed by Blizzard, delivered by the Internet streaming sites, promoted by high-end computer hardware manufacturers (i.e. shit you don't need), energy drinks, & other providers of "gamer gear," and ultimately consumed by you, the lonely PC gamer of the Western world who wants a sense of community in his hobbies. The benefactors of this niche market don't care about social recognition, they just want your money. If you advertise it to your friends, that makes "eSports" more money.
So when iNcontroL writes that he wants 2012 to be an even bigger year for eSports, he should probably just be satisfied that he's got a home, friends, and a semi-stable career playing a mediocre computer game with some gore and neat explosions. EG is doing better than most. Prize pools may increase under better sponsorship, but the payout is still chancey and not going to improve the quality of life of players. Under the facade of "dedication to the game," players are required to work long hours for little pay (a tiny bunkbed & Ramen noodles is not pay, it's slave wages, or the college experience without the education) and sacrificing the best years of their lives for what... the entertainment of some netizens? A slim chance at fame and riches?
I bolded the parts that were so funny i actually did lol
Wow, you are totally ignorant and wrong, you obviously have no idea what you are taling about. I could write a 20 page essay about how twisted your mind is, but i really have better things to do.
It's amazing how americans in general can be so.... I'll let this video speak my mind:
I disagree with your conclusion that SC2 isn't, or can't be, a sport. Dreamhack had around 100,000 viewers at different points in the weekend.
SC2 is a sport [because] 100,000 viewers watched. 100,000 viewers watched [because] SC2 is a sport.
SC2 is a great game [because] it is so big. It is so big [because] SC2 is a great game.
What happens when someone says "SC2 is big because it has the StarCraft brand and Blizzard's economic support" ? If you agree, then the circular argument presented before is destroyed. You have to argue with this new reason and offer reasons why it is well designed, why it is interesting to watch etc. Lots of people will say 'it's so much more interesting to see storms in BW because you know they're more difficult to do and require a lot of concentration.' It's a direct comparison to SC2. I'd like to see direct comparisons to BW that are supposed to show the opposite. But then we get the 'it's a totally different game!' cop-out and the thread becomes 15 pages of nothing.
The storm comparison is particularly good; in another blog post on here about the Dreamhack finals someone compares a single storm to that of Jangbi storms. Not only a BW example actually being used as the skill comparison but also an example completely another level and not even close to the same skill.
I liked the OP, it wasn't exactly a game vs game comparison like people are making it out to be though. Too many people back down from their real opinions just cause it might piss people off; least he's backing his opinion up rather than simply using a circular argument as a reason.
Edit: also the guy who continues this stupid thought that in the future there will somehow be 5 pronged attacks all individually microed.. what the hell are you talking about. I doubt that SC2 even has more actual actions dedicated to unit micro than BW does, considering the fact you have large engagements lasting 5 seconds. People are not going to develop the ability to have 1000 APM and do 5000 actions in 5 seconds.
On December 01 2011 14:17 Ninjahoe wrote: Wow, you are totally ignorant and wrong, you obviously have no idea what you are taling about. I could write a 20 page essay about how twisted your mind is, but i really have better things to do.
You are an idiot to to take a comment by an american on a forum and generalize it to all rofl. Did you know there are stupid people in your country as well? Hell all over the world. Maybe I should take that next time I see a sweden who's dumb just assume its all of sweden jesus christ -_-.
On December 01 2011 14:17 Ninjahoe wrote: Wow, you are totally ignorant and wrong, you obviously have no idea what you are taling about. I could write a 20 page essay about how twisted your mind is, but i really have better things to do.
Wow, the OP has opened my eyes to the fact that i don't actually enjoy watching competetive eSports, not just SC2, i mean, i know you were going with the whole personal attacks, but i saw past that argument, i saw what you really meant. You of course meant to say, no one really likes anything they enjoy doing at all, we just pay money and spend time doing things because as a race were all too retarded to realise we dont actually enjoy anything we think we do. Well thank you so much for telling me that all meaning in everyones lives are completely hollow, now that i know i don't actually enjoy any activity i previously thought i enjoyed, i can really free up a lot of my time to sitting staring at a wall, i mean, i wont enjoy, but that's impossible anyway right?
*Wee, i can make illogical statements based off previous illogical assumptions too, woopy look at me, all growed up*
EPT
