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?)
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 .
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.
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 12:30 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.
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.
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.
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
I agree with you completely on some things and disagree completely on others. Without a doubt, the viability of the game as a spectator sport trumps any/all factors in determining its worth in e-sports. For that reason, I agree that GH is pointless, even if it has a fairly serious competitive side to it. However, to argue that racing is boring to watch and so are racing games is just preposterous to me. If you personally don't appreciate racing, that's fine, but it's a perfect thing to have in an event like this.
Games need to have a low entrance-level for people to be able to watch them. For all the intricacies of Starcraft, someone who has never watched the game can tell that player A makes a bunch of stuff and so does player B, and whoever still has stuff after they run into each other wins. You don't need strategical insight for the game to make sense. The same goes for Counter-Strike and the badly missed FPS dueling game (where is Q3?!!?). I'd argue that racing games fit into that too, and are fast-paced enough to be the only really viable sport simulator to ever be a decent e-sport.
This might be a bit off-track, but I'll make a bold claim to the quote from FakeSteve:
E-sports are never going to catch on in America. That grass roots element of the beginnings of Starcraft is impossible here, and probably only possibly in a city like Seoul. It'll never get on TV--how could it? No TV station (in America, at least) operates like MBC/OGN do with regard to commercials, and I'm sure there's probably some bullshit FCC regulations about maximum time without a commercial. You could never air a game in full, especially when its length is indeterminable.
If history shows us anything, any time a major corporate sponsor gets involved e-sports they totally fuck it up. CGS pretty much ruined the American CS scene and made some of the best players just uncompetitive on an international level. I'm imagining MLG will manage a similar mess.
Here's a brief New York Times article about the whole mess:
Maybe I'm being overly cynical, but I never see it happening, there are too many factors weighing against it.
Then again, who knows? Poker probably faced the same cynicism and look what happened. I just don't think there's any support. Game publishers are too content draining the wallets of all their customers to care about developing gaming as any sort of sport. Sad, but I think it's true.
On April 04 2009 16:43 benjammin wrote: Game publishers are too content draining the wallets of all their customers to care about developing gaming as any sort of sport. Sad, but I think it's true.
We can only hope that Blizzard doesn't go that way when SC2 hits shelves. I want to say more but no time, so i'll post later..
When it comes to racing games (and probably sports games in general), I think Trackmania is pretty much the only viable game (and since its a free game it has a very big fan base). If you're putting on a show like WCG you're obviously going to want some diversity in the games being played, so cutting out all sports and racing isn't really an option. If very few people want to watch just put it on the smallest stage.
I think WCG should rethink theyr business model and start adding some value to it, I dont really care for an anual championship as much as I can for the most high level leagues.
On April 04 2009 16:43 benjammin wrote: However, to argue that racing is boring to watch and so are racing games is just preposterous to me. If you personally don't appreciate racing, that's fine, but it's a perfect thing to have in an event like this.
Games need to have a low entrance-level for people to be able to watch them. For all the intricacies of Starcraft, someone who has never watched the game can tell that player A makes a bunch of stuff and so does player B, and whoever still has stuff after they run into each other wins. You don't need strategical insight for the game to make sense. The same goes for Counter-Strike and the badly missed FPS dueling game (where is Q3?!!?). I'd argue that racing games fit into that too, and are fast-paced enough to be the only really viable sport simulator to ever be a decent e-sport.
It's true that I don't personally appreciate racing. However, my complaint about racing sims is about more than that.
The problem with racing sims is that there is very little player-vs-player interaction.
Now, before this post I had never seen a high-level racing game before, so I started to wonder: what if the guys bump into each other, and knock each other off-course? Or play mind games by blocking their opponent? In that case, I'd be wrong. So I did a quick Youtube search and I found this:
ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME? THE CARS GO RIGHT THROUGH EACH OTHER!
Okay, I have to revise my position. The problem with racing sims is that there is ABSOLUTELY NO player-vs-player interaction. (Which is laughable, because real racing DOES involve a lot of racer-vs-racer interactions.)
Frankly, it is a waste of time for WCG to run that tournament. A "two player" game is no different from two single-player games, so what's the point of having players "face off" against each other? Can you do ANYTHING to affect your opponent? I suppose you can shit-talk them before the game to piss them off, or put something in their food. But in the actual game, no, you can't. You're just playing single player.
So if your opponent is better than you, then there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING you can do to win: you just have to play your best and pray to god that he fucks up.
Now, as a spectator, how is WCG's tournament any different from watching these guys playing in single player on Youtube? The only difference is that they might crack under the pressure, or just randomly screw up and lose. That's it. Thing is, every other game in WCG is also going to have that kind of "entertainment" in it. But the other games (except Guitar Hero) offer so much more.
For example, even if you've seen 10 different VODs on Youtube between, say, F91 and Nony, you're still going to want to watch them fight at WCG because you want to see how their strategies will unfold this time around, in addition to whether one of them will crack under the pressure. On the other hand, if you've seen both racer X and racer Y race on track T in single player, then you know exactly what their race "against" each other is going to look like: cracking under the pressure is the only uncertainty you have to look forward to.
And that is why racing sims, Guitar Hero, and other single-player-times-two games are a waste of time in WCG.
LOL they play single player vs ghost laps in tournaments? that is terrible and is a horrid idea. look how popular kart rider is with crazy bumping and going off-track and what not. there's a potential for them if they did it right, but that is not right at all
Focus on games with a scene and pedigree instead of just switching up the rotation every year to advertise new games. They wont though because the whole thing is built around being a platform for showing off new games and their shortsighted ways will ultimately make the whole thing collapse unless they just keep throwing money at it and slightly improving it every year.
Less games as well. No one needs 10 games in a worldwide tournament. Its too much to focus on for the organization and when half the games are worthless its really just not benefiting anyone.
I think on the player end they have fucked everyone over with less qualifiers, online only quals and all that. The whole problem is some qualifiers end up being like 5 people while others have a grip. IMO they should break up large land masses into simple regionals. USA could have 3. East, west, mid. Depending on turn out top 3-16 would go to a final tourney. Shit like that, no reason to try to have 20 qualifiers in all these random places with no players. Also actually paying people their travel fees and winnings would be nice rOFL!
Actually that's a really good point: the online pre-qualifiers and pre-qualifier spam are ridiculous.
For fighting games, the US has just two qualifiers for SBO in Japan, one on the east coast and one on the west coast. And they have I think 2 to 4 for EVO in the US, again in major cities in different parts of the country. There is none of this "win a mini-tournament in bumfuck-nowhere and we'll pay you to travel to the national qualifier". Fighting game players have no trouble travelling to one of these 2 to 4 qualifier spots, or even just travelling to a major tournament that isn't a qualifier for anything. There's no reason why other game players can't do the same.
I haven't ready any posts in this thread, so sorry if this has been mentioned, but...
The most obvious thing I can think of to fix WCG is to hire competent admins that actually know what the games are. I played one of the BW admins a few months ago (Trev I think was his name), and I was speechless. He played at D level at best, was insanely BM, and had the nerve to say I mineral hacked after he lost.
If these are the kinds of people they have refereeing games, then it's no wonder the events are in such bad shape these days.
On April 05 2009 00:42 SayaSP wrote: They don't have to be A+ to just referee lol but yeah understanding the game and etc is a must
Yeah. This guy clearly didn't understand basic gameplay mechanics, as he thought I mineral hacked because my two-gas zerg was able to make more mutas than his one-gas zerg. I only made 1 muta more than he did, too.
Likewise, there are plenty of players who know all about the game, but lack something else required to play well. Maybe reaction speed, or they just have trouble keeping up with what's going on.
But I noticed the same thing when I was an admin on ICCup. None of the admins there (when I was still an admin) seemed to know anything about gameplay. I caught somebody maphacking (2v2 on Hunts, 6 games in a row this team double cannon rushed - each game straight to the opponents two bases), and the senior admins told me "antihack launcher is 100% hack proof. nobody can ever hack us" and dismissed the games as being luck. I also remember a replay I had to review of an A- vs an A. The A disconnected in the replay, and the A- got the points. However, the A had 3 bases to the A- one base, and the A- base minerals were about 600 from running out. Needless to say, it was hands down a win for the A player, and most likely the A- player drophacked him to avoid the loss. Senior admins reviewed the replay, and declared it a "clear win" for the A- player, because "he has 3 carriers". Apparently 3 carriers completely decimate 10 facts pumping gols.
So yeah, from personal experience with most of the major leagues/tournies, I've definitely noticed that the level of common knowledge amongst the people running the events is extremely poor. A recent example that comes to mind is comparing the level of knowledge that WCG/ICCup admins have about BW with Frag Dominant.
I talked to some Koreans and they said, back in high school, almost all their schoolmates play SC. I think this insane popularity among teenagers is what makes e-sport what it is in Korea today. Just my 2 cents.
On April 05 2009 02:37 ASAzerg wrote: I talked to some Koreans and they said, back in high school, almost all their schoolmates play SC. I think this insane popularity among teenagers is what makes e-sport what it is in Korea today. Just my 2 cents.
On April 05 2009 02:37 ASAzerg wrote: I talked to some Koreans and they said, back in high school, almost all their schoolmates play SC. I think this insane popularity among teenagers is what makes e-sport what it is in Korea today. Just my 2 cents.
So wait, because SC is popular it is popular?? brilliant
On April 05 2009 02:37 ASAzerg wrote: I talked to some Koreans and they said, back in high school, almost all their schoolmates play SC. I think this insane popularity among teenagers is what makes e-sport what it is in Korea today. Just my 2 cents.
So wait, because SC is popular it is popular?? brilliant
What? He's just reaffirming that SC is a successful e-sport in Korea because it is immensely popular. And I found his post informative.
On April 05 2009 02:37 ASAzerg wrote: I talked to some Koreans and they said, back in high school, almost all their schoolmates play SC. I think this insane popularity among teenagers is what makes e-sport what it is in Korea today. Just my 2 cents.
So wait, because SC is popular it is popular?? brilliant
What? He's just reaffirming that SC is a successful e-sport in Korea because it is immensely popular. And I found his post informative.
On April 05 2009 02:37 ASAzerg wrote: I talked to some Koreans and they said, back in high school, almost all their schoolmates play SC. I think this insane popularity among teenagers is what makes e-sport what it is in Korea today. Just my 2 cents.
So wait, because SC is popular it is popular?? brilliant
What? He's just reaffirming that SC is a successful e-sport in Korea because it is immensely popular. And I found his post informative.
Unlike your post which is completely pointless.
...
The popularity came before the tournaments, or else there wouldn't be tournaments. Someone didn't start a tournament with a game that wasn't particularly popular, and then it became popular.
But I think ASAzerg's point is a good one I believe there has to be a culture of gaming that is mainstream, which there just isn't in USA/Canada/Europe or where ever. I guess there won't be for a while.
I think an important issue that is raised with ASAzerg's post is that EVERYONE played starcraft. It wasnt like a bunch of WC3 players and a bunch of SC players and a bunch of CS players etc etc all coming together to start leagues. It was because everyone played and wanted to watch one game, so the professional scene sprang up with a lot of focus rather than having that interest diffused in different areas. Obviously other esports were and are still popular in Korea, but you get my drift, I hope.
On April 05 2009 02:37 ASAzerg wrote: I talked to some Koreans and they said, back in high school, almost all their schoolmates play SC. I think this insane popularity among teenagers is what makes e-sport what it is in Korea today. Just my 2 cents.
So wait, because SC is popular it is popular?? brilliant
???? 'popular is popular'? Wow, you just post some really stupid thing, kid. Let me go the extra detail so you can comprehend it. When SC first came out, it became so popular in Korea that majority of teenagers were playing it. This insane popularity is what gave birth to Starleagues and turning e-sport in Korea into what it is today, which is a huge entertainment industry that generate nation-wide audience and million dollars revenues. Now hopefully you won't reply with another nonsense.
There's a lot that needs to be done differently in order for eSports to be successful. The eSports community in general is just full of people trying to make some fast cash, there also seems to be a complete lack of professionalism as well. (Foreign Scene)
There's also a big problem developer wise. Developers/leagues would need to work together in order for eSports to truly be successful. Games need to be changed/upgraded to keep interest alive, but they still need to be fundamentally the same game to keep things simple. Starcraft 2/Call of Duty 800 are not the answers, CS:Source was a good try, but they really shouldn't have changed how the game itself actually played out.
The situation right now with eSports is the same as if the NFL had no control over the game/rules of football and were forced to change the game completely every few years. It just wouldn't work :/.
On April 05 2009 02:37 ASAzerg wrote: I talked to some Koreans and they said, back in high school, almost all their schoolmates play SC. I think this insane popularity among teenagers is what makes e-sport what it is in Korea today. Just my 2 cents.
So wait, because SC is popular it is popular?? brilliant
What? He's just reaffirming that SC is a successful e-sport in Korea because it is immensely popular. And I found his post informative.
Unlike your post which is completely pointless.
...
On April 05 2009 06:03 Bill307 wrote: What? He's just reaffirming that SC is a successful e-sport in Korea because it is immensely popular. And I found his post informative.
I think esports in North America specifically has to be concentrated on online competition more. Let's face it, unlike Korea, most major cities in North America have small pockets of gamers, 20-30 who will come out for fun events. You want to reach out to those communities outside with the 1.5-3 million populations as well. Most being large suburbs, none of those sky scraper cities.
You will also be going up against kids who would rather have fun at the park, play some sports and b-ball, soccer instead of sittin around for a nice game of StarCraft. Maybe cyber cafes here have to reach out, and not just have PCs, but have Xbox and Ps3 competitions as well. But yah, it's gotta all be online, with better organization there and easier ways to register and play.
I think the issue zizou raised is more "if popularity is so important, you need to break down the factors which go into it to provide a suitable suggestion for SC2".
He's shown that's there's an obvious level of circularity in your analysis. SC WAS popular during the time around its release, but is that the reason its an e-sport? It obviously can't be the sole factor based on the fate of other popular games which failed to make it, but it clearly counts for something.
Edit: Why was BW on EVERYONE's plate at the same time? Why was it a social event? Why was it a good fit with the tv networks? Why did it draw crowds? etc.
On April 05 2009 08:05 L wrote: I think the issue zizou raised is more "if popularity is so important, you need to break down the factors which go into it to provide a suitable suggestion for SC2".
He could have done that without calling ASAzerg stupid, though. =P
Anyway, didn't FakeSteve write an essay on the rise of SC as an e-sport in Korea, or something? I'm pretty sure he did. I don't know where it is, though. (One can probably Google TLnet for it, I guess...)
On April 05 2009 08:03 Phantom wrote: I think esports in North America specifically has to be concentrated on online competition more. Let's face it, unlike Korea, most major cities in North America have small pockets of gamers, 20-30 who will come out for fun events. You want to reach out to those communities outside with the 1.5-3 million populations as well. Most being large suburbs, none of those sky scraper cities.
You will also be going up against kids who would rather have fun at the park, play some sports and b-ball, soccer instead of sittin around for a nice game of StarCraft. Maybe cyber cafes here have to reach out, and not just have PCs, but have Xbox and Ps3 competitions as well. But yah, it's gotta all be online, with better organization there and easier ways to register and play.
I disagree: if you move everything online, then you lose all the social benefits of offline gaming. Wouldn't it be easier to compete with other sports if gaming provides the same opportunities to socialize?
Actually, besides no lag and no hacking, the only other benefit of having tournaments played offline is the ability for the players to socialize with each other in-person. Therefore, e-sports organizations should promote this advantage.
I think it's simple. It needs to get on a major tv station.
I'm thinking ESPN Cyber.
99.9% of people don't really give a shit because they can't identify with pro gamers. If there was a tv show about it that introduced the tournaments, told background stories of select favorite players, drew you in, etc - then people would become much more interested.
On April 04 2009 11:27 Bill307 wrote: So I was sitting on the can playing with myself
when i read that it scared me. Also, good thoughts I think WCG should drop GH and VF and pick up SF2 (unless they already have it, in which case i'm blatantly homosexual)
On April 04 2009 16:43 benjammin wrote: No TV station (in America, at least) operates like MBC/OGN do with regard to commercials, and I'm sure there's probably some bullshit FCC regulations about maximum time without a commercial. You could never air a game in full, especially when its length is indeterminable.
Every live sporting event has a way to fit commercials in. For tennis matches, ESPN sometimes airs an entire set (30-60min) without commercials. I'm sure they could make SC work.
On April 05 2009 09:32 travis wrote: I think it's simple. It needs to get on a major tv station.
I'm thinking ESPN Cyber.
99.9% of people don't really give a shit because they can't identify with pro gamers. If there was a tv show about it that introduced the tournaments, told background stories of select favorite players, drew you in, etc - then people would become much more interested.
Kinda like poker.
If you look at MLG, they stream their coverage online because it's the only way they can get a high amount of viewers seeing as something like 98% of their fans are 18-32 year old males. The only way to get their fans to tune in is if they put it online, a tv show wouldn't be able to pull in the ratings as their target audience don't watch that much tv. That's why sites like hulu.com exist, look at the shows that you can stream there and you'll realise that it's easier to get young males to tune in online. In America at least, and I guess it would be the same for most of the rest of the world.
The show that MLG broadcast on their website is actually very much like you described, with pre and post game interviews, knowledgeable commentators that can fill the viewers in with player transactions and rivalries etc.. It's all quite well done, I suppose they have some things right. Could someone explain why MLG might fall to the same problems as the other gaming leagues?
On April 04 2009 16:43 benjammin wrote: No TV station (in America, at least) operates like MBC/OGN do with regard to commercials, and I'm sure there's probably some bullshit FCC regulations about maximum time without a commercial. You could never air a game in full, especially when its length is indeterminable.
Every live sporting event has a way to fit commercials in. For tennis matches, ESPN sometimes airs an entire set (30-60min) without commercials. I'm sure they could make SC work.
I'm fairly certain commercials aren't regulated anyway, other than by the networks. Hence why you see a lot of "commercial free" or "limited commercial" programs on big networks. Think about it this way... if you buy an hour long time slot, there will be probably 3 commercial breaks. If you want your program to run commercial free, you simply buy the 3 commercial time slots too. This isn't feasible in most cases because it would cost too much to buy the time slots, but if you're broadcasting an original series (for example, if ESPN were to make a televised show), you obviously don't have to pay for your own time.
Eh that kind of thinking is why it won't work. Because they want instant ratings rather than building an audience. You can't just HAVE pedigree built into something. Starcraft in Korea now has like 9+ years behind it. Look at the early days and its clear it was cheaply done, cheesy, etc. But it got better because they refined everything and focused on what the casual audience wants(Drama, a story) but without forsaking the legitimacy of the events so that the players and hardcore audience find it appealing as well.
Personally I doubt progaming could work on TV over here for another 5-10 years until TV ratings continue to slide(They already are) to the point where commercials are different; not set up to be 9+ minutes of every 30 minutes of programming and some networks decide to put a genuine focus on quality. Right now we are in the cash-in phase with all the reality programming and huge amount of shit commercials, much like the music/radio industry.. Shit will change eventually.
On April 04 2009 16:43 benjammin wrote: No TV station (in America, at least) operates like MBC/OGN do with regard to commercials, and I'm sure there's probably some bullshit FCC regulations about maximum time without a commercial. You could never air a game in full, especially when its length is indeterminable.
Every live sporting event has a way to fit commercials in. For tennis matches, ESPN sometimes airs an entire set (30-60min) without commercials. I'm sure they could make SC work.
I'm fairly certain commercials aren't regulated anyway, other than by the networks. Hence why you see a lot of "commercial free" or "limited commercial" programs on big networks. Think about it this way... if you buy an hour long time slot, there will be probably 3 commercial breaks. If you want your program to run commercial free, you simply buy the 3 commercial time slots too. This isn't feasible in most cases because it would cost too much to buy the time slots, but if you're broadcasting an original series (for example, if ESPN were to make a televised show), you obviously don't have to pay for your own time.
Yeah, I'm assuming/hoping the FCC thing was a joke. :p
On April 04 2009 16:43 benjammin wrote: No TV station (in America, at least) operates like MBC/OGN do with regard to commercials, and I'm sure there's probably some bullshit FCC regulations about maximum time without a commercial. You could never air a game in full, especially when its length is indeterminable.
Every live sporting event has a way to fit commercials in. For tennis matches, ESPN sometimes airs an entire set (30-60min) without commercials. I'm sure they could make SC work.
I'm fairly certain commercials aren't regulated anyway, other than by the networks. Hence why you see a lot of "commercial free" or "limited commercial" programs on big networks.
This is true but for the big networks you won't see them giving up commercial time when they have a certain amount of "built in" viewership. ie, people just flipping through the channels trying to find something to watch. It also pisses off the sponsors/people who buy ad time.
I mean they have all this shit down to such a science that its really hard to get compelling programming because they know all the tricks to squeeze revenue out of cheaply made, terrible programming anyway.
I'd say maybe ESPN2 or some startup channel could do it certainly. Would be tough though. It would be more likely that a network would record games and edit them, much like watching poker or something. You watch 8 hours of poker in 30 minutes. Unfortunately for something like SC this pretty much sucks.
On April 05 2009 08:05 L wrote: I think the issue zizou raised is more "if popularity is so important, you need to break down the factors which go into it to provide a suitable suggestion for SC2".
He could have done that without calling ASAzerg stupid, though. =P
Anyway, didn't FakeSteve write an essay on the rise of SC as an e-sport in Korea, or something? I'm pretty sure he did. I don't know where it is, though. (One can probably Google TLnet for it, I guess...)
On April 05 2009 08:03 Phantom wrote: I think esports in North America specifically has to be concentrated on online competition more. Let's face it, unlike Korea, most major cities in North America have small pockets of gamers, 20-30 who will come out for fun events. You want to reach out to those communities outside with the 1.5-3 million populations as well. Most being large suburbs, none of those sky scraper cities.
You will also be going up against kids who would rather have fun at the park, play some sports and b-ball, soccer instead of sittin around for a nice game of StarCraft. Maybe cyber cafes here have to reach out, and not just have PCs, but have Xbox and Ps3 competitions as well. But yah, it's gotta all be online, with better organization there and easier ways to register and play.
I disagree: if you move everything online, then you lose all the social benefits of offline gaming. Wouldn't it be easier to compete with other sports if gaming provides the same opportunities to socialize?
Actually, besides no lag and no hacking, the only other benefit of having tournaments played offline is the ability for the players to socialize with each other in-person. Therefore, e-sports organizations should promote this advantage.
Okay, then allow for in game voice chat. It's just harder for most North American cities because the way they are built. I'd attribute to the large success of the college starcraft league to the fact that you have these early to mid 20s students gathered in one location, but were the split back into their home towns, it would be much harder to get the same success. each one of those colleges could prob hold a decent lan tournament, but back to their cities, not as easy. Compare person per km from korea to the states, it's huge. even if most of the population in the states live in large cities, it doesn't compare.
On April 05 2009 08:33 Bill307 wrote: I disagree: if you move everything online, then you lose all the social benefits of offline gaming. Wouldn't it be easier to compete with other sports if gaming provides the same opportunities to socialize?
Actually, besides no lag and no hacking, the only other benefit of having tournaments played offline is the ability for the players to socialize with each other in-person. Therefore, e-sports organizations should promote this advantage.
I don't mean to offend, but... I pointed out the social benefits of playing offline that you lose online, and your solution is to use voice chat? My mind is blown..... I don't even know what to say.....
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.
That is too fucking true, ESWC, WCG etc. all seem to treat gaming as some sort of gimmick. Their tournaments are boring and dysfunctional. These days I only watch Korean eSports.
On April 05 2009 08:33 Bill307 wrote: I disagree: if you move everything online, then you lose all the social benefits of offline gaming. Wouldn't it be easier to compete with other sports if gaming provides the same opportunities to socialize?
Actually, besides no lag and no hacking, the only other benefit of having tournaments played offline is the ability for the players to socialize with each other in-person. Therefore, e-sports organizations should promote this advantage.
I don't mean to offend, but... I pointed out the social benefits of playing offline that you lose online, and your solution is to use voice chat? My mind is blown..... I don't even know what to say.....
okay reading from your replies to me, you've only said that it offers the chance for people to socialize. That's it for 'social benefits'. what's so ridiculous about voice chat? vent channels support communities in a very positive way.
i'm guessing tho when you say offline events, you must draw a lot from your TL lan experiences at yonge and finch or something. i'm saying yes, okay you can get 15-20 people show up for that. but even then, 5-10 of those people drive out at least 20-30 minutes to meet you there. where in Korea, you could probably have 15-20 live 10-15 minute WALK from the area you want to chill at. geographical limitations make for live events very hard.
you remember the TFL operating in toronto several years ago? that is one of the most successful lan organizationers i've seen, and now it's dead. I don't know why, but I think further inquiry into that topic might help boost your discussion here. i'll try to find out why when i have more time.
tbh the only games I find fun to watch are RTS and Fighting games, and RTS by a long shot...there really should be more emphasis placed on competetive RTS gaming in the global e-sports scene as they're by far the most enjoyable to watch.
Until professional gaming becomes mainstream enought to attract sponsors that aren't related to software companies the games will be dictated by sponsors looking to promote their respective games.
WCG will do fine (but not spectacular) imo whilst it maintains the popular games like SC, CS and War3, but until Western attitude towards e-sports shift to a spot where mainstream sports today are (like basketball, tennis etc) it will just be another niche entertainment market like the WWE.
E-sports will be successful as the gaming generation slowly becomes the leaders of the future and attitudes towards gaming change.
On April 05 2009 09:32 travis wrote: I think it's simple. It needs to get on a major tv station.
I'm thinking ESPN Cyber.
99.9% of people don't really give a shit because they can't identify with pro gamers. If there was a tv show about it that introduced the tournaments, told background stories of select favorite players, drew you in, etc - then people would become much more interested.
Kinda like poker.
That's exactly what we need, sc needs to be made popular, not by having it on tv, but by having a show about it be on tv. Hikaru no Go style baby! A drama about a boy dreaming about becoming a professional starcraft player. When his mother dies from cancer he takes her advice to live his own life and follow his dreams, but his father wants no part of it and tries to keep him at the family farm. The young boy runs from home to the city where he joins an amateur team. At first he sucks, but his hard work and passion plus an amazing ability to learn fast make him the best player on the team. All his rivals become his best friends and they all become progamer, and in the end he gets the girl becomes the best player and reconciles with his father.
Yea CPL is apparently making a comeback, and MLG is doing okay with their sponsors even though they had to cut back on one event. CGS had its finals on G4 and a million watched so it is possible. Or even do ESPN Game or something. I mean, people are still going to buy entertainment and games. Marketing and sales for this stuff has not been higher. I wouldn't say E-sports is recession-proof, but there is definitely some room to maneuver.
Besides, didnt the original Starcraft come during a bad economy? I am sure SC2 can have same effect since we've been wanting a new game outside of Korea, but I am sure they want it too. You know MLG will DEFINITELY pick up SC2 when it drops, but then why get WoW since CEVO and others have it? So Blizzard will be nice :p.
On April 06 2009 09:04 SayaSP wrote: MLG can't even pickup another fighting game, how are they gonna pickup sc2 lol
Because they know the $$$ is still in Halo and WoW (somehow WoW). Gears 2 is just extra and they moved Call of Duty 4 and Rainbow 6 to online only. They know SC2 can bring in $ so that is why they will get it.
On April 04 2009 10:43 Bill307 wrote: 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?)
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
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.
I liked most if not everything but your idea of smash being a good competitive game.
WCG needs only three games, quake 3 cpma, CS 1.6, and starcraft:bw.
On April 06 2009 09:27 red.venom wrote: FPS's are terrible spectator games
About that, I'm actually quite curious as to what sort of interesting spectator tools that could be made to help combat this notion.
I think with the right set of tools, I'm willing to bet an FPS could become a great spectator sport. The trouble is figuring out just how to fix the problems with watching it.
Most games are boring to watch unless you've played them and can really understand it. When you watch a game of basketball, you can really get an appreciation for how skilled and athletic the players are just by watching. You can't get that from any computer game. Some pale skinny kid tapping away on a keyboard just isn't impressive unless you know the amount of effort they're really putting in.
Unfortunately games just aren't appealing to people that don't play them. It's got a certain factor whereby it may be interesting for a watch out of curiosity, but sustaining casual audiences long-term is really hard. I've watched other games like CS, War3 and some of the FPSs and they bore me to tears after five mins. I just don't get it and probably never would unless I played the game. I can't appreciate the skill involved and hence it just becomes guys shooting and hitting eachother which gets dull very quickly. With a game of basketball, you get absorbed by the skill, theatre and sheer athleticism of the players. Gaming just can't replicate this as it requires a certain level of implied knowledge to get maximum enjoyment.
On April 06 2009 10:14 RowdierBob wrote: Most games are boring to watch unless you've played them and can really understand it. When you watch a game of basketball, you can really get an appreciation for how skilled and athletic the players are just by watching. You can't get that from any computer game. Some pale skinny kid tapping away on a keyboard just isn't impressive unless you know the amount of effort they're really putting in.
Unfortunately games just aren't appealing to people that don't play them. It's got a certain factor whereby it may be interesting for a watch out of curiosity, but sustaining casual audiences long-term is really hard. I've watched other games like CS, War3 and some of the FPSs and they bore me to tears after five mins. I just don't get it and probably never would unless I played the game. I can't appreciate the skill involved and hence it just becomes guys shooting and hitting eachother which gets dull very quickly. With a game of basketball, you get absorbed by the skill, theatre and sheer athleticism of the players. Gaming just can't replicate this as it requires a certain level of implied knowledge to get maximum enjoyment.
I think progaming showcases a much better display of athleticism.
On April 04 2009 10:43 Bill307 wrote: 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?)
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
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.
I liked most if not everything but your idea of smash being a good competitive game.
WCG needs only three games, quake 3 cpma, CS 1.6, and starcraft:bw.
Are you saying Smash is not competitive? You must be referring to Brawl.
The main issue as I see it is, games have to be fun to watch, and there have to be obvious displays of skill when you're watching. The WCG Ultimate Gamer TV show really helps illustrate my point; The first game they did was Rock Band 2. During the elimination match, I was bored out of my mind. I was basically sitting there listening to music I didn't particularly care for while some commentator in the background was like "ooh, looks like contestant A is falling behind... he really needs to start hitting these notes to catch up... there's no way he can win now." It was mind-numbing.
By contrast, the next week featured Virtua Fighter 5. Even though it was pointed out earlier that VF5 is not a very popular fighting game, it was a hell of a lot more fun to watch than rock band. I was literally on the edge of my seat, because despite the fact that the players were not particularly wonderful at VF5, it was still exciting to watch.
In the middle of these two was the third week: Project Gotham Racing 4. (Anyone else noticing the prevalence of numbers in the titles?) I'm not a particular fan of racing games, but at the very least, it was better than Rock Band. One mistake by one of the contestants could cost them the game, which is something not possible.
As for sports games, forget about it. If I want to watch football, I'll watch football. One person doesn't even control the entire team; Just general "plays" and then they control one player at a time. I realize that one person controlling all the players with that much detail is impossible, but that's why sports-based video games are boring to watch.
Another point I would like to add: Super Smash Brothers and the subsequent sequels (at least they're not numbered, thank god) differ from other fighting games like VF5 and SF4 in several very important ways, the main one being the health system. In VF5 and SF4, there is a set health bar, and you win when your opponent's health bar reaches zero. In SSB, you have the percent system. each attack increase your percent, which makes the throwback from each attack increase. Your opponent loses a life when they are not able to reach the stage after being throw off, or if they are throw so far or so high that the stage kills them. I think this alone would be enough variation from the other fighting games to make SSB a worthwhile addition to the WCG, except Nintendo pretty specifically designed it to be a casual game. There was a thread about the viability of SSBB and SSBM as esports, so I won't repeat everything that was said, but I feel that if Nintendo took the SSB franchise and said, "hey, let's make a game that can be a competitive e-sport," they could. Unfortunately, SSBB isn't it.
This post is way too long, but I guess I had a lot to say on this subject.
I disagree with a lot that was said in this thread.
The WCG is an attempt to be the game olympics, or at least that is the banner that it hides behind. Having national qualifiers is not fair because our country is big? That's a pretty silly argument. Olympians don't bellyache about this. So the WCG argues that neither should you. (And frankly, I don't disagree)
With that in mind, the WCG also picks games that are from a wide variety of genres, not simply spectator sports. The point of this is to pull in from multiple genres, and not just X,Y, and Z because they are the most entertaining.
How many people who watch the olympics watch Discus over Swimming? Discus is a sport which essentially single player. So, too, there are racing games ( though lol, why they play like that is beyond me). There are sports games. So you don't like them. That's fine. Some people do, and that's why I think it's okay they have it on there. Even more so, a lot of people play them!
The WCG, no matter what, (in this era) will not be as popular as starcraft in korea is. Our society is not ready for that. I mean, think of the average american. The average american would probably be more interested in a madden game than a starcraft game. Or maybe an FPS game (this is more likely). Not everyone sees starcraft the way you do or the way korea does.
Now, this is very WCG favored so far, so let me angle away from that for a second.
I think the WCG still needs help.. first, if they want to be olympic, they need to have standards and better qualifiers (there was a thread about this, and it is very, very well argued) in all nations.
Second, and this one is impossible, they are locked into microsofts pocket, which is a problem when you're trying to pick the best titles. I agree on SF4 over VF5. I'm also surprised there isn't some DDR event, based on the popularity of the game.
I think the biggest problem is the fact that they try to be as grand as the olympics, yet they fall soooooooooooooooo short... which leads to opinions like the OP (which I think are justified, but in the ideal world I disagree with them).
E-sports are not the same as physical sports. They are played in different ways. They are played by largely-different demographics. They can attract completely different amounts of sponsorship. Etc.
So why would we want to emulate a physical sports event? Instead, we should find solutions that make the most sense for e-sports.
On April 06 2009 11:40 Elian wrote: Having national qualifiers is not fair because our country is big? That's a pretty silly argument.
I explained clearly why it's bad to have a single qualifying event for an entire continent. Do explain how my explanation is "silly".
How many people who watch the olympics watch Discus over Swimming? Discus is a sport which essentially single player. So, too, there are racing games ( though lol, why they play like that is beyond me). There are sports games. So you don't like them. That's fine. Some people do, and that's why I think it's okay they have it on there. Even more so, a lot of people play them!
Like I said earlier, that's not relevant, because WCG is not the Olympics. Different fanbase sizes. Different financial situations. Different political situations. WCG's solutions have to stand on their own merit with respect to WCG's unique situation: saying the Olympics does it that way is not a valid point.
About the ESPN Cyber thing, ESPN sort of has that with ESPN 360, but it is online-streaming only and only in certain areas/providers (I think Verizon). I remember they showed some of the non-broadcast WSOP final tables through that and it was pretty nice. I wish MLG or someone would work with them on developing content.
On April 06 2009 09:00 TW WiNNinG 54 wrote: Yea CPL is apparently making a comeback, and MLG is doing okay with their sponsors even though they had to cut back on one event. CGS had its finals on G4 and a million watched so it is possible. Or even do ESPN Game or something. I mean, people are still going to buy entertainment and games. Marketing and sales for this stuff has not been higher. I wouldn't say E-sports is recession-proof, but there is definitely some room to maneuver.
Besides, didnt the original Starcraft come during a bad economy? I am sure SC2 can have same effect since we've been wanting a new game outside of Korea, but I am sure they want it too. You know MLG will DEFINITELY pick up SC2 when it drops, but then why get WoW since CEVO and others have it? So Blizzard will be nice :p.
Ummm I would really like to see a source for CGS getting 1 million viewers for their finals. That sounds really wrong.
What proof do you have that MLG will pick up SC2? MLG has never had a game that was primarily 1v1, and has only had 1 other computer game ever.
EPT
)
.
