EPTWhere are Grand Strategy games in E-Sports? - Page 2
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
LaSt)ChAnCe
United States2179 Posts
| ||
|
Talin
Montenegro10532 Posts
| ||
|
Ohyra
Sweden59 Posts
On October 04 2012 19:31 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote: Later that day... Hahaha! Truthman of truthness. Seriously though, as it has been said many times in this thread already, a game which is not Real-Time orientated could never make it into e-sports. I myself love these kind of games (EU, Medieval etc.) Sadly, the timeframe just isn't managable if you want an audience :< | ||
|
Passion
Netherlands1486 Posts
The main argument for grand strategy e-sports is cricket. | ||
|
Aqualoung
22 Posts
User was warned for this post | ||
|
Passion
Netherlands1486 Posts
On October 04 2012 21:23 Aqualoung wrote: i don't understand how has this been "in your mind for some time now" and u don't understand it's plain stupid. Go play 1 turn based strategy multiplayer game. How much time did it take ? How much time did u spend doing nothing but planing and thinking ? You think somebody would watch all that ? It's hard enough to stay focused while playing it, let alone watching Am I missing something or did he never mention turn based? | ||
|
Aqualoung
22 Posts
| ||
|
tissue
Malaysia441 Posts
| ||
|
Djabanete
United States2786 Posts
On October 04 2012 19:35 red4ce wrote: Unfortunately for you this mentality is simply incompatible with e-sports. The only reason people would ever choose to watch somebody else play a video game rather than simply playing it themselves is to witness something they themselves are unable to do. People watched the OSL because Jangbi can cast 7 perfectly placed psi storms in 7 seconds whereas the average player can't even get high templars within range of siege tanks. People watch GSL because MMA can micro 3 drop squads of marines better than most people can manage 1. People watch EVO because Daigo can string together 15 hit combos with ease whereas most players only know how to spam hadouken. I've never played EU3 but from the way you described it I presume I could beat anyone as long as I had a complete understanding of the game's rules. This is not true for any of the e-sports. If Flash and I were to play 1v1, he could tell me exactly what he was going to do, when he was going to do it and how he was going to do it, and I still wouldn't have any chance of beating him. Did Jangbi lose an arm or something? Try 3 seconds. (Kidding aside, "complete understanding of the game's rules" guarantees nothing. Anyone can have complete understanding of Chess's rules, but still have no hope against a grandmaster. It's not purely the real-time aspect that generates skill differences and makes the game worth watching.) The main design hurdles in making a grand strategy game viewable (not that the audience would ever be huge) are: - Dead time needs to be reduced/eliminated in the replay - Game state, and changes to game state, need to be clearly represented I could imagine having fun watching a strategy game unfold if those criteria were met. I've always been curious to watch a HoMM3 PvP play out, but I don't have anyone to play it with. | ||
|
Ljas
Finland725 Posts
On October 04 2012 21:27 Aqualoung wrote: well most of these games are turn based Civilization and the like are the only turn-based grand strategy games I know. EDIT: And HoMM, before anyone calls me on forgetting it. | ||
|
Butterednuts
United States859 Posts
| ||
|
Sok4R
Germany124 Posts
But the problems are the same: Balance is hard with 15+ Races (which aren't as diverse in look than in SC2), which meant you have the "good" and the "bad" civs - with the pros only playing the strong races. Also: In AoK, after 30min you have a small army, while in SC2 you can play two average games in that timespan. So it takes a long time for something to happen - just building up your stuff isn't enough to entertain people that are not fans of the game with a great unterstanding of gameplay, strategies, etc. This is the reason why Broodwar was that successfull in Korea: even people not familar with the game could tell if a unit is Zerg or Protoss or what is happening on the screen. While with AoK and the civs sharing graphics, units and techs, this would be quiet hard. I also guess that is why Dota-styled games are that succesfull: by removing the economic part and completly focusing on the action, it is more appealing to non-games to watch and try it (F2P also plays its part here). Since I'm not really into the Grand Strategy Scene, this could all be a bad guess, please correct me if I'm terribly wrong. | ||
|
Aterons_toss
Romania1275 Posts
I love strategy but it's long hard and boring for some, not exactly the "appeal to everyone from dog to grandma" style that esports game should have. | ||
|
karazax
United States3737 Posts
| ||
|
ibraishome
Germany337 Posts
| ||
|
CrtBalorda
Slovenia704 Posts
Normal rts takes more skill. Normal rts is more simple to watch and play. MOBAs arent stratagy games and anyone who claims so is stupid. | ||
|
boon2537
United States905 Posts
| ||
|
Marksman
Malaysia523 Posts
Can you finish a tournament of this genre within a maximum of 3 days? I think otherwise. When I played EU3 with my friends, we go into 3 - 5 hours per session and we can't even get close to the end of the game after a week. What criterias would you use to determine the winner for these kind of games? My 2 cents. | ||
|
KaiserJohan
Sweden1808 Posts
I would watch for example Paths of Glory all day everyday if it was a videogame and an esport | ||
|
Passion
Netherlands1486 Posts
On October 04 2012 23:26 CrtBalorda wrote: Cuz once eveything is figured out there is no skill involved anymore. And also drags on. If its turned base its boring. Normal rts takes more skill. Normal rts is more simple to watch and play. MOBAs arent stratagy games and anyone who claims so is stupid. Want to talk about it? | ||
| ||
