Should pro gamers be pressured to look good? - Page 11

On August 13 2010 03:38 Arcticc wrote:


This stubbornness is why e-sports will never fully take off in the west. The stereotypical image of a gamer is not good. And in the end, that truly does matter.

If people want e-sports to become big in the west, you need to drop that "rage against the machine" mentality you picked up in high school. To survive in the western capitalist society as a viable source of entertainment, you must play into a level of materialism. "Rich & successful athletes" need to appear the part.

On August 13 2010 03:54 fyyer wrote:

Can't say I disagree in terms of what's required to achieve the end goal, but it's pretty damn sad and just goes to show you the state of affairs we're in. Being highly successful in South Korea doesn't require these empty values, but in order to succeed in the west we have to play the materialistic part. And simply "dressing well" wouldn't work either. Because then all you got is well dressed nerds. Gaming itself here is viewed as extremely casual, and anything more is considered "uncool". That is the very first thing that has to change, the view on gaming itself.

On August 13 2010 04:03 Arcticc wrote:



Korea does not have the same culture as America.

But I disagree on the well dressed nerd part. You get a series running on G4/ESPN and if pulled off correctly it could be fairly successful. I think Poker is a great example. Before the 2004 WSOP on ESPN there was no national movement for playing hold'em.

If all of the poker players in that WSOP looked like Greg Raymer and didn't win a gigantic money prize, do you think it would have taken off the same?

On August 13 2010 03:54 fyyer wrote:


Can't say I disagree in terms of what's required to achieve the end goal, but it's pretty damn sad and just goes to show you the state of affairs we're in. Being highly successful in South Korea doesn't require these empty values, but in order to succeed in the west we have to play the materialistic part. And simply "dressing well" wouldn't work either. Because then all you got is well dressed nerds. Gaming itself here is viewed as extremely casual, and anything more is considered "uncool". That is the very first thing that has to change, the view on gaming itself.

On August 13 2010 04:21 Liquid`Tyler wrote:

I don't understand what you're saying about South Korea. A ton of the StarCraft fans are young girls. They are into the progamers more than they are into the games. And the progamers (and their sponsors) cater to the girls. Progamers try to look as good as possible, obsessing about their hair and working out. There are photoshoots done in gyms with progamers flexing and going shirtless. And on the other end of the spectrum, progamers appeal to girls by doing cute and feminine things like dressing up cute costumes and wearing other weird clothes, making heart signs with their hands, and doing dance routines.

And what is this you know about the west? It seems like you are just bullshitting. Give some examples at least. In the west we have guys like Steve Jobs who is so fucking nerdy (dresses notoriously bad, really skinny, bad haircut) and does not have a job that lends itself to being a celebrity, but somehow he's a huge celebrity anyway. He's not in the entertainment industry, but that makes him an even better example because he could be in the entertainment industry if he wanted and he's gotten to that point just by being a hugely successful nerd.

On August 13 2010 04:25 fyyer wrote:


It probably has something to do with the fact that he's CEO of Apple? What does popularity of a person have to do with popularity of a sport and it's perception of the participants? Let's talk about Bill Gates next.

On August 13 2010 04:25 fyyer wrote:


It probably has something to do with the fact that he's CEO of Apple? What does popularity of a person have to do with popularity of a sport and it's perception of the participants? Let's talk about Bill Gates next.

On August 13 2010 04:19 fyyer wrote:


Poker is embedded in tradition. And while I used to think the same thing with reference to a large money prize, I ultimately came to the conclusion that it isn't necessarily the driving force either, although it would help. Look at Chess for example. Huge money prizes but it doesn't get any publicity at all anymore. Why? Becaue Americans can't relate to it anymore. It received huge publicity during the cold war when it was "USA vs Russia" and Bobby Fischer was taking on the Russian machine by himself. It was viewed as an extension of the cold war. After that publicity died out despite the large prizes.

The problem with gaming is that it doesn't have any history, it's a new concept. And as it is right now it's not considered "cool" except in the casual sense. It's cool to come home and play Madden 12 for a half hour while you wait to go out and party with your friends. It's cool to play the Wii with your son/daughter before they do their homework. It's not cool to sit on the computer and play a game for 10 hours a day, that's what has to change somehow. Having gamers dress in suits won't change that. The view on the activity itself must be related to something positive, and even more so since it doesn't have a history to lean on.

On August 13 2010 04:35 Liquid`Tyler wrote:


Bill Gates is a bad example because he got famous for being the richest person in the world. Being the CEO of a big company does not make a person a big celebrity. If Bill Gates had been just another CEO of another big company, then yeah I would have used him as an example too. Most people who could be the CEO of Apple would not become celebrities.

The popularity of Steve Jobs shows that a person who spends all their time doing something that is commonly regarded as an uncool thing can still achieve celebrity status. Isn't that the point you were making? The potential spectators of progaming entertainment would never be as welcoming to it as they are to sports because they view gaming all day as uncool and they view playing sports as cool. So in order to argue against that, I must give an example of a celebrity who does something uncool. That way, I teach you that there is a precedent for nerds having large followings.

And please, expand your thoughts on South Korea, America, empty values, what it takes to be successful, and materialism. I still can't see anything legitimate in what you were saying there but perhaps with a little more discussion about it I will understand.

On August 11 2010 05:48 Qzy wrote:
Wrong! Cloth doesn't make people less nerdy. Wait a minute...



You are right! It worked!

(ps. i <3 idra)

On August 13 2010 04:39 Arcticc wrote:


That's where the entertainment value comes in. That's why it's good for someone like Idra to be so BM. Poker is not inherently entertaining. When you add some graphics, silly commentators and BM players, you have entertainment. And the gratification that the best are going to win some money.

Chess is boring from a spectator's perspective. But competitive gaming, being relatively young and having infinite limitations for graphic stimulation and variety offers a higher ceiling for entertainment. It being a new concept is actually incredibly beneficial.

But it goes beyond that. In today's fast paced, always changing culture, your subject must have a gimmick. If you're gimmicky you can succeed regardless of the subject. I've seen UFC blow up from a single reality show (TUF).

Throw a bunch of SC2 gamers in a house and have a winner in the end, you will have an audience (if done correctly). It's just how you adapt your subject to the current trend in culture, NOT the other way around. You need to make videogames cool to the culture, not attempt to make a culture for the games.

There is a demand for new entertainment. It's not far-fetched.


For a further example, MP3 players and laptops were considered 'nerdy' when they first appeared on the scene. We just went through a phase where iPods were actually stylish and are incredibly popular. Stereotypes can easily change.