EPTWe’ve all seen the arguments before, “DotA takes more skill than LoL”, “Brood War takes more skill than Sc2”, “SF3: Third Strike takes more skill than SF4” and “Quake 3 takes more skill than Counter Strike”. This is a rather tiring debate that we’ve seen many times where every time I’ve seen it brought up seems to devolve into a “X game is superior than Y game” because…it simply takes more skill. Regardless of whether the comparison is apt or not, we can all make a distinction as of right now which game of the two has more mass appeal (both in peak value and consistency) than the other when making these comparisons.
I believe that for a game to qualify as an e-sport it needs to obviously be competitive in some way or another, that much I think we can all agree on. The part where I see myself rather conflicted on the topic is whether a game needs mass appeal or not to qualify itself as an E-Sport. One side seems to representative of a niche, the mentality that believes for a game truly qualify as an “E-Sport” it must be hardcore in a sense and the other seems to be accepting that mass appeal is an important asset to a game to solidify itself as a game worthy of being an e-sport. Need it be this way?
Initially I believed that the common trait that later games had over the other was its volatility. It’s just simply harder to show a level of consistency in say Street Fighter 4 than it is in Third Strike or Starcraft 2 over Brood War. I do believe in my list of comparisons there is a game that rewards mechanical superiority as an asset more so than the other. I can say for sure that the game that holds more mass appeal however is ultimately more accessible towards new-comers. Say in Street Fighter 3 is a game that is more mechanically intensive than 4 because it requires you to have perfect timing to parry correctly than the focus system that was present in SF4. I’m actually left with the impression that pro SC2 players want the game to revert back to its predecessor given how many comparisons they make and the general feeling of reminiscence (but it might just be me though) yet this begs to bring up another question, would Starcraft 2 be as big as it would have been otherwise if it was just Brood War with revamped graphics? (This is a question that I believe DotA 2 would inevitably answer for us in the future).
After talking to a friend who has close very ties with current e-sports, is when I became unsure. I retain my point where I believe that the games that qualify as an e-sports today or rather the games that are currently leading it is certainly indicative of the direction of where e-sports is heading. However what I don’t know is whether a game being more accessible has the repercussion of opening the game towards more volatility or instability.
Which side of the fence are you on? Do you believe E-Sports should retain its niche or do you want it to further grow into a direction it’s been heading towards, mass appeal? Or do you believe differently in that there are alternatives in approaching the topic? Please share your thoughts.
