|
Bill307
Canada9103 Posts
So I don't think I'm the only one who has lost interest in WCG in recent years.
Let's discuss what WCG should do differently. The lessons we learn from their mistakes can probably be applied to other e-sports organizations as well. (E.g. MLG?)
I felt motivated to make this topic after reading the following posts in the Economy taking the controls from some gamers topic:
On April 03 2009 17:50 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote:Show nested quote +On April 03 2009 17:11 nvnplatypus wrote:On April 03 2009 16:39 Bill307 wrote:
From this perspective, the idea that tournaments need to be sponsored is ridiculous. It's actually quite sad that people think the sole reason to travel to a tournament is to win big money. This, btw, is precisely why I'm jaded towards eSports. The few years I gamed competitively were 1996-1998 in Quake 1, before pro tournaments caught on. Rather than legitimizing and improving the experience of participating in that community, the vast majority of eSports have moved away from the fun factor and tried to create other selling-points like the "star factor" of the top players.Maybe I'm a luddite, but that doesn't work for me. SC in Korea is actually a nice exception in that it's a top-down approach that is working. SC in korea works because it was built from the ground up by small-timers organizing tournaments in PC cafes. The entire scene was spawned and is sustained by its fanatical fanbase, which boils down to the game itself every single time. Trying to emulate that success without the appropriate foundation is a horrible idea, and is why CPL folded, why CGS folded, and why MLG will inevitably suffer the same fate. SC2 is the only interesting prospect, but the game must be good enough to create that fanatical fanbase. It has an advantage in that it's StarCraft's sequel and a lot of the groundwork necessary is taken care of. All these other leagues are exactly like when SpikeTV tried to invent a new basketball; all the marketing in the world couldn't salvage that trainwreck. The entire idea of marketing "e-sports" as a whole is such a misguided approach, it's like all these people just don't care where their money goes. There seems to be this idea that since StarCraft or whatever players are getting paid $x somewhere in the world, other people playing video games for a living are entitled to a similar amount. Too bad that's not how this stuff works. So many of the efforts being put forth seem to be very forced, blatant attempts to cash in on a fad. Makes me shake my fucking head.
It certainly sounds like e-sports has much bigger problems than the economic downturn, doesn't it?
Anyway, I'm going to talk about WCG's game selection first and foremost, but I'm sure people have complaints about other aspects as well.
Especially after reading Steve's post, I'm really glad that WCG got rid of most of the trash games and now they're left with:
- StarCraft
- WarCraft
- Counter Strike
- Guitar Hero
- Virtua Fighter
- plus up to 3 other games
(source: this topic)
In my opinion, they should stick to a small number of popular, successful, and entertaining games, and maybe have one or two that they use to "test the water" if it looks like those games are going to take off.
Unfortunately, they still have GH and VF.
Guitar Hero is hugely popular, but it's just not very fun to watch. I was discussing this with some friends who were organizing a Rock Band tournament for our university, and we realized that no one wants to sit there watching 4 people stand like zombies attempting to get the highest score possible. So we made skill count for only ~25% of the team's score, with the rest based on how well the band acts like a real band, e.g. dressing up in costumes, going nuts on stage, etc. And it turned out to be fairly successful and a lot of fun to watch.
But GH or RB alone? Boring. You can only watch so much before it's just the same thing over and over again.
Virtua Fighter, meanwhile, is unpopular compared to a number of other fighters. In its defense, at least watching it is better than watching GH, even though I play GH but not VF. I would argue that there are much more entertaining fighters to watch, but I think that's more a question of opinion and difficult to show objectively.
Anyway, it seems obvious to me that VF should be replaced by a fighter (or two) that's actually very popular, such as Street Fighter 4, Super Smash Bros. Brawl, or Super Smash Bros. Melee. These games are, without question, the ones with the biggest competitive scenes in North America right now. (See the 243-man SF4 bracket I posted earlier.) In addition, they have some of (if not) the biggest #s of casual players (possibly excluding Melee). Lastly, while none of these is my "fighter of choice", and I have gripes with all of them, they are at least good and deep games, unlike say, Dead or Alive.
Unfortunately, as a major sponsor, Microsoft has WCG by the balls, so we won't be seeing Smash any time soon. (There is definitely an argument here over sponsors obstructing WCG from having the best games.) But Street Fighter 4, as an XBox 360 and soon a PC title, should definitely be in. Ideally it would replace VF, but that won't happen this year.
As for other genres, I'm not in a position to recommend any other games. However, I will say this: racing games and slow-ass sports games (like football/soccer) are a definite "no".
Real life racing in itself is pretty boring imo, but at least there is the danger / extreme factor. Does staring at a virtual car driving on a virtual road really have widespread appeal? Besides, like Guitar Hero or Bejeweled, it's practically a single-player game. "Beating" another player is essentially the same as having a better score or time than them. Why even bother flying these players out to a tournament to "face" each other when they'd might as well be playing alone at home?
Slow sports games are self-explanatory. I can see why people watch e.g. football/soccer live: to support their team / country, and/or to watch the skills of the individual players and the players working as a team. But there's none of that in video game sports. Real life sports also have the physical athleticism aspect to marvel at. Using soccer again, not just anyone can make an accurate pass across a field, or kick a ball from one keeper's box to the other half of the field. You could say that the spectators are constantly being shown examples of great physical fitness, even while nothing is really happening in the game. The same isn't true for sports video games, not even close.
Therefore, I'm very glad that WCG dumped their existing racing and sports titles, and IMO it'd be best if they didn't pick any others up.
Let's face it: not all games "deserve" to have tournaments or an e-sports scene. Not even all genres "deserve" to be represented. Not even all good and strategically deep games "deserve" it. A game needs at least the following:
- To be fun to play at a competitive level.
- To be fun to watch at that level.
- To have a big enough competitive community to support it.
- To have enough widespread appeal.
Right now, there is only a small handful of games that meet these criteria. Games that clearly don't, or were given a chance and failed to live up to them, should not be in WCG. They will basically leech off the success of the games that deserve to be there -- both financially and in terms of air time -- and slow the growth of WCG.
And that concludes my remarks on WCG's choice of games, which I believe will apply to most/all other e-sports organizations as well.
|
nice OP. im all for sf4 appearing on wcg but ive been playing sf2 since i was 6 so i dont count lol
|
Bill307
Canada9103 Posts
So I was sitting on the can playing with myself (playing Devil's Advocate). I realized that most of the stuff I said to put down football/soccer games can be said about StarCraft, too. So, in response to my own complaint about my own post, here are some ways in which StarCraft is different from soccer games. (Feel free to use this to convince your FIFA-loving friends that StarCraft is better.  )
Firstly, the physical aspect. Honestly, I haven't played a soccer game since the SNES, but there is no way the physical demands of that genre come anywhere close to what SC demands. SC might not require physical strength, but it definitely does have steep physical requirements. They're not obvious to the casual gamer at first, but flash a first-person-view up on screen, or let them see the players playing live, and they'll start to appreciate it.
Second, the whole "nothing is going on" aspect that makes it boring to watch. Well, for one thing, SC matches vary between constant action after the first minute, and large amounts of inaction. But even in the more boring games, when no one is fighting, at least you can usually see the two players acting out their strategies. Even as a casual watcher, you see a dropship flying along the edge, or a group of units moving to some other part of the map, and you know the player is preparing something. As for soccer, whatever strategies it might have, they certainly aren't apparent from just watching it.
In short, the previous two points can be summed up as: StarCraft >> any sports game unless the player is controlling every single "unit" on the playing field.
Lastly, the action itself simply has more widespread appeal in SC. Not only is it more "flashy", but things like unit losses are tangible losses. In soccer, the only tangible changes are goals being scored and players being kicked off the field: all the other "action", such as losing ball control, is intangible. In terms of actual tangible stuff happening, SC completely dominates soccer.
Well, I think that shows objectively why video game football/soccer just isn't as entertaining to watch as StarCraft is. 
|
Where in canada do you live? my friend was talking about a guitar hero competition that sounded just like yours, he lives in winnipeg.
|
This was a really good article I liked it a lot. I agree with pretty much everything said in the article. To add to that, Guitar Hero also has a large competitive scene on youtube. GuitarHerophenom, Hellashes, IamChris4life are examples of people competing. Fighting games actually aren't bad, but I think that they would get tiresome after a while. Super Smash Bros. Melee/Brawl would be the most entertaining imo.
I think WCG has been trying to shove E-sports down people's throats by putting on pretty much any game they can afford to put on in an attempt to get more people watching.They should stick to the popular games imo like SC, WC3, and CS and maybe a couple new titles every year that would at least seem like they have a legit chance to be a good e-sport
|
I agree with almost everything you said. WCG has really had some awful games in the past that were basically a waste of time and money as the amount of players was low and the amount of spectators for those games were even lower.
It does look like this could be a really strong year for WCG though. They have the new show to attract a lot of new players, and they are trying to weed out the boring, less competitive games. It also looks like they will have special in person events that could be really fun. However, they really should consider adding melee or brawl, those games have big communities that would love to have another huge tournament to go to.
|
Bill307
Canada9103 Posts
On April 04 2009 11:42 freedom yay wrote:
I think WCG has been trying to shove E-sports down people's throats by putting on pretty much any game they can afford to put on in an attempt to get more people watching.They should stick to the popular games imo like SC, WC3, and CS and maybe a couple new titles every year that would at least seem like they have a legit chance to be a good e-sport
It probably looks good on paper. Company Y sponsors Game X, and not only does WCG get more money, they can also appeal to the fans of Game X. It's win-win!
... Except for the part where Game X takes away airtime and tournament resources from the games with mass appeal, so it actually costs them viewers overall. They lose reputation, too.
Hopefully they've finally figured this out.
|
Yeah I'd love to see SSBM up there. Or Soul Calibur 2... lol I used to dominate everyone I knew at that game.
Hopefully SC2 will really take off. We can only hope.
|
They should run it like Evo imo.
|
i think adding street fighter 4 and melee would create quite a spark for wcg
mvc2 would be nice too lolz
i am dreaming xD
im really impressed in how they are trying to get their shit together tho..
|
Haha in terms of lineup, this is the best WCG has ever had.
I think of the major reasons that contributed to such a poor lineup of games in the past (i.e. racing, sports games) is that those games are way easier to understand than Starcraft. We understand the game, we know the different strategies, we can see the game on a meta level. But SC also has a ridiculously steep learning curve, so many people who watch it don't see the majority of what we see when we watch a starcraft match.
Racing and sports games on the other hand, are easy to watch, to understand. I think WCG failed here in that they assumed that these games, because of this reason, would attract a lot of viewers and have widespread appeal.
Starcraft is so much more fun to watch, even if you're just watching it for the action. But then again, we are inherently biased  .
|
pshaw... just add WoW or GW PvP
problem solved
|
I think that Starcraft is an incredibly fun game to watch, but a big part of making it appeal to new views is the effectiveness of the commentary at allowing new viewers to grasp the basic concepts of strategy behind it.
|
Bill307
Canada9103 Posts
Okay, here's another, less blatant criticism I have for WCG.
WCG should not hold qualifiers on a strictly country-by-country basis.
They're not the Olympics. They should look and see if it really makes sense to strictly divide qualifiers up by country.
My first complaint is, does it make sense that there is one qualifier for the entire USA, and also one qualifier for [insert small country]? Why should US (and Canadian) players be forced to travel SO FAR for their country's ONE final qualifying event, while players in a smaller country might have to travel the equivalent of just one US state to reach their event?
Note for European readers: there is a stereotype that Europeans don't realize how friggin' huge the US and Canada are. If you are one of these people, thinking "it's not THAT big", then go on Google Maps, zoom out until your state / province / country fits in your screen, then scroll over to North America and move around. I think you'll understand pretty fast why it's ridiculous for our players to have to travel from one side of the continent to the other for their qualifiers.
See, if the US is getting say, 2 spots, then why not split the spots between two "final qualifiers", one on the west coast and one on the east coast? The same goes for Canada.
My other complaint is that players aren't allowed to compete in a country unless they are a citizen of that country. If those players have their own qualifier, then the rule makes sense. But what about that one year when the Netherlands didn't have a qualifier for SC, while all their neighbours did? Why would you completely exclude their players? Alternatively, WCG could have said, okay, let's have a single StarCraft qualifier for both the Netherlands and [a neighbouring country without a language barrier and whose sponsor will cooperate]. Arguably, it won't always be possible to do this, due to language barriers and reluctant sponsors, but WCG should at least be open to the possibility.
As a better example, iirc last year Canada had no qualifier for SC. So why not combine the US's SC qualifier with Canada's for that year? And take it a step further and have one qualifier on the east coast and one on the west coast? Most Canadians live adjacent to the US so it wouldn't be much harder for Canadians to attend US qualifiers. Money-wise, WCG is still sending only two SCBW players to go to Korea, and they can have two half-sized qualifying events instead of one big one, so it's not really more expensive. Lastly, the sponsors should be happy since they're now getting advertising in two countries rather than just one, without having to pay extra. And most ads that apply to an American near the border will apply to a Canadian on the other side.
Ultimately, the idea that participants NEED to be seperated based on nationality makes no sense. Ideally, WCG should be holding qualifiers for areas of roughly the same size, rather than having like 8 qualifiers in an area smaller than the US, which gets only 1.
By the way, combining multiple small countries' qualifiers (and spots) into a single qualifier would also save a lot of money on organizers and other staff. It would also allow them to find a small number of very good staff for tha tregion, rather than having to hire so many people that they end up hiring guys who don't know what they're doing or who just don't care.
Besides, isn't one of WCG's goals to unite gamers of all nationalities? Insisting on seperating them by nationality seems counter-productive to that end.
|
On April 04 2009 12:52 liger13 wrote:pshaw... just add WoW or GW PvP problem solved
/shudder
I love me some WoW, but WoW arena is not a good esport
|
Bill307
Canada9103 Posts
On April 04 2009 12:30 Midnight)Sun wrote:
I think of the major reasons that contributed to such a poor lineup of games in the past (i.e. racing, sports games) is that those games are way easier to understand than Starcraft. We understand the game, we know the different strategies, we can see the game on a meta level. But SC also has a ridiculously steep learning curve, so many people who watch it don't see the majority of what we see when we watch a starcraft match.
On April 04 2009 12:53 GGQ wrote:
I think that Starcraft is an incredibly fun game to watch, but a big part of making it appeal to new views is the effectiveness of the commentary at allowing new viewers to grasp the basic concepts of strategy behind it.
I think these are all really good points.
I've noticed that commentary makes fighting games a lot more fun to watch, as well. But I agree that there isn't nearly as much time to talk about strategies and mind games compared to RTS games.
Edit: They should add commentary on the Guitar Hero games as well. Then when people realize the commentators have nothing to say other than "He hit all the notes for the first part... he hit all the notes for the chorus... he hit all the notes for the solo..." they'll realize just how silly and boring it is to watch Guitar Hero.
|
United States12240 Posts
Bill, regarding your comment on the nationalist approach of WCG, their entire schtick is to be what is essentially (if not outright announced to be) the Video Game Olympics. The object and spirit of the Olympics is not to divide athletes by country, but to unite the athletes of all countries under a single banner of friendly sportsmanlike competition. To a large extent, I think they've accomplished this goal. I do agree that the player slots of each nation aren't necessarily balanced, but that's another matter.
I also don't agree with freedom's post saying that WCG has tried cramming poor-quality games down viewers' throats. Some of the games are included in the lineup by merit, such as Starcraft and Counter-Strike, and others are included simply on an experimental basis in my opinion. It provides good exposure for relatively new games and allows viewers and developers alike to determine in a real-world setting whether a game is worth showcasing at a competitive level. I believe this was the approach that CPL used with Painkiller. That game failed miserably, but it was an exercise in putting forth a new game directly into the competitive level. Sooner or later, companies will discover that that is not a successful or desirable business model, and we can hope this is one of the first years where the lack of that attitude will become the norm.
|
Bill307
Canada9103 Posts
On April 04 2009 14:21 Excalibur_Z wrote:
I also don't agree with freedom's post saying that WCG has tried cramming poor-quality games down viewers' throats. Some of the games are included in the lineup by merit, such as Starcraft and Counter-Strike, and others are included simply on an experimental basis in my opinion. It provides good exposure for relatively new games and allows viewers and developers alike to determine in a real-world setting whether a game is worth showcasing at a competitive level. I believe this was the approach that CPL used with Painkiller. That game failed miserably, but it was an exercise in putting forth a new game directly into the competitive level. Sooner or later, companies will discover that that is not a successful or desirable business model, and we can hope this is one of the first years where the lack of that attitude will become the norm.
But if you agree with us that racing and soccer games are failures, then you'd have to explain why they were in WCG for so long (i.e. more or less since the beginning) before finally being dumped this year. That's not just "experimenting".
Moreover, who would even consider "experimenting" with DoA instead of the myriad of other more popular and better-made fighting games? That's just an undisputably bad choice of a game, period. Not to mention how many games arguably deserved to be "experimented" with that never had a chance.
|
i was under the impression that it wasnt so much experimenting as sucking up to the people who give them money
|
with the CPL going under and then re-surfacing im inclined to take a hands off approach on all things competitive gaming related, e-sports came a long way in S. Korea and the rest of the world will go through the same ringer
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
