I was watching some old episodes of total pwnage when I stumbled upon this clip. I sends a message and I believe it applies a lot to many new members of this community specially the last part.
I know making a thread for a youtube video is frowned upon in these lands but the recent influx of people complaining about balance and general negativity has me tired and I think this video pretty much adresses the issue.
I was pretty much agreeing on the whole message until a starcraft reference was made and I could not agree more.
Posting in the general forum as I believe it applies to all games. Not just starcraft...
Edit//
I was asked to make clear that the name of the show is Pure pwnage and that this is a parody of Zero Punctuation...
Overtime it seems many people have forgotten the most important ingredient to a good game.
This ingredient is not graphics, cut scenes etc but the actual gameplay, the controls, the combo's you need to make, the puzzles you need to solve.
Gameplay is what makes the game fun to play.
If I want a good story, I can read a book. If you like cutscenes, Go watch a movie. (if you really like that, you probably also like a bad movie because you're easily satisfied)
Games used to be about being challenged to explore new gameplay mechanics, about learning or solving new puzzles, about improving your skills against all types of adversaries, and about feeling proud of your accomplishments.
Nowadays, it's mostly shiny graphics that can even carry a soccer mom caliber gamer through a generic 3th grade story where anyone with atleast a tiny brain can pretend to be a hero and maintain the illusion that he isn't terrible at it.
You don't need a backstory, you don't need a portrait, you don't need new gear. If the process of playing a game isn't fun for you then maybe you're not a gamer.
Even though I beat these new players very easily I've started to notice that the amount of them is starting to negatively affect gamedesign.
Instead of innovating and coming up with something as huge as a new chess, we have a continuous stream of 8 hour long interactive B movie experiences for 60 dollars a pop, with unimaginatively reskinned sequels released every year.
So the people who are not good at games, who play these abominations of games are the ones that allowed for this industry to flourish and bring even more of them in.
Now, I would't actually care that much but as it turns out, these people are poor sports and hate on us! The gamers who play the games for gameplay. And so we are subject to the endless abuse of idiotic whiners, "rusherfag, no life loser, hacker, imbalance" (overpowered should be there aswell)
But the only imbalance is that you are just worse than other people. Maybe you weren't good at sports in school but that's no reason to cry when you're getting raped in game.
Even worse are the reviewers that review the games for public consumption. They are champions of mob mentality. But it seems that in the gaming media circle being a noob is some kind of prerequisite. Going through life without a reason can be frustrating but calling a 3 hour singeplayer experience the height of game design and comparing the dialog of GTA to the godfather is absolutely retarded.
Here's the unpleasant truth, your teachers lied to you when they said that anyone, even you, can become an astronaut. Some people are just naturally better at certain things than others, there's something called talent.
Many people have a genuine desire to challenge themselves to be better, this doesn't make them alien or cruel and certainly not "rusherfags", it just makes them ubergamers (better than you). There's no reason to resent them.
The next time you think, "I could beat all the progamers if I just played as much as them". Think again.
Cool, a video with a bright yellow backdrop and uses imagery to comedically display his fast-spoken narration and downplays all factors that makes a "good game".
Cool, a topic that has no opinion but rather tells us to watch the 3 minute and 50 seconds of an opinion they needed to be developed in order to justify why other topics of balance and gameplay flood our forums.
I'd voice an opinion but this guy has lead his opinion onto insulting me because we have different views of good gameplay and a good game.
tl:dr The video attempts to tell us that no matter how much we practice we cannot be a pro-gamer or those who are on the competitive scene despite numerous professionals claiming otherwise by their own persoanl experience that the video-creator has none of.
Through the insults and the attempt to be vastly witty while also side-stepping an actual point, the video lends itself to be redundantly bad with its sub-par attempt of analogies to today's pop culture and its references.
To conclude, practice does make perfect and just because this guy has a laissez-faire attitude doesn't mean I will equally give up playing a game and striving to be better that goes in conjunction with the uber-gamers that enjoy a challenge.
HAHA this is hilarious just got done also watching some eps of purepwange when I decided to listen to their songs and watch this one because I remembered it was funny. And was going to post it but read the youtube thing and said nah.
On March 08 2011 15:20 Torte de Lini wrote: Cool, a video with a bright yellow backdrop and uses imagery to comedically display his fast-spoken narration and downplays all factors that makes a "good game".
Cool, a topic that has no opinion but rather tells us to watch the 3 minute and 50 seconds of an opinion they needed to be developed in order to justify why other topics of balance and gameplay flood our forums.
I'd voice an opinion but this guy has lead his opinion onto insulting me because we have different views of good gameplay and a good game.
tl:dr The video attempts to tell us that no matter how much we practice we cannot be a pro-gamer or those who are on the competitive scene despite numerous professionals claiming otherwise by their own persoanl experience that the video-creator has none of.
Through the insults and the attempt to be vastly witty while also side-stepping an actual point, the video lends itself to be redundantly bad with its sub-par attempt of analogies to today's pop culture and its references.
To conclude, practice does make perfect and just because this guy has a laissez-faire attitude doesn't mean I will equally give up playing a game and striving to be better that goes in conjunction with the uber-gamers that enjoy a challenge.
Torte de lini your TL;DR is longer than your original statement...
I saw that vid before and I completely disagree with it. I'm really annoyed with all those 'ubergamers' who feel that they are superior because they 'pwn' all the 'noobs'. It's a really negative attitude for the competitive gaming scene and they should get off their high horse.
On March 08 2011 15:20 Torte de Lini wrote: Cool, a video with a bright yellow backdrop and uses imagery to comedically display his fast-spoken narration and downplays all factors that makes a "good game".
Cool, a topic that has no opinion but rather tells us to watch the 3 minute and 50 seconds of an opinion they needed to be developed in order to justify why other topics of balance and gameplay flood our forums.
I'd voice an opinion but this guy has lead his opinion onto insulting me because we have different views of good gameplay and a good game.
tl:dr The video attempts to tell us that no matter how much we practice we cannot be a pro-gamer or those who are on the competitive scene despite numerous professionals claiming otherwise by their own persoanl experience that the video-creator has none of.
Through the insults and the attempt to be vastly witty while also side-stepping an actual point, the video lends itself to be redundantly bad with its sub-par attempt of analogies to today's pop culture and its references.
To conclude, practice does make perfect and just because this guy has a laissez-faire attitude doesn't mean I will equally give up playing a game and striving to be better that goes in conjunction with the uber-gamers that enjoy a challenge.
Torte de lini your TL;DR is longer than your original statement...
Haha, yeah. My bad. I just hate these videos because they narrowly ignore a lot of factors and variables and attempt to grab its audience with funny wordplay and straight-to-the-point blunt attacks while indicating a somehow separation between one gamer over another.
I don't even see the relativity of this video to the topics the OP is whining about.
I mean for starters: Oh no, the interactivity of a good story is not the equivalent of 1984, God Forbid! I am clearly a low-life cretin because Mass Effect was an entertaining game coupled with a very thrilling story.
Well. At least he's trying REALLY hard to be Yahtzee. I really disagree with his "noobs suck I'm so much better" approach to the new casual gaming market and I laughed when he mentioned superiority in Call of Duty as a mark of a more veteran gamer.
Keeping in mind that that is from the point of view of Jeremy, the character in the show who is an obnoxious narcissist.
PP and Yahtzee got into a bit of a fight over this appropriation and it resulted in Yahtzee not using unlicenced music and the start and end of his episodes. The music was clever and in good taste and was just another part of ZP that made me lol weekly.
On March 08 2011 15:20 Torte de Lini wrote: Cool, a video with a bright yellow backdrop and uses imagery to comedically display his fast-spoken narration and downplays all factors that makes a "good game".
Cool, a topic that has no opinion but rather tells us to watch the 3 minute and 50 seconds of an opinion they needed to be developed in order to justify why other topics of balance and gameplay flood our forums.
I'd voice an opinion but this guy has lead his opinion onto insulting me because we have different views of good gameplay and a good game.
tl:dr The video attempts to tell us that no matter how much we practice we cannot be a pro-gamer or those who are on the competitive scene despite numerous professionals claiming otherwise by their own persoanl experience that the video-creator has none of.
Through the insults and the attempt to be vastly witty while also side-stepping an actual point, the video lends itself to be redundantly bad with its sub-par attempt of analogies to today's pop culture and its references.
To conclude, practice does make perfect and just because this guy has a laissez-faire attitude doesn't mean I will equally give up playing a game and striving to be better that goes in conjunction with the uber-gamers that enjoy a challenge.
Torte de lini your TL;DR is longer than your original statement...
Haha, yeah. My bad. I just hate these videos because they narrowly ignore a lot of factors and variables and attempt to grab its audience with funny wordplay and straight-to-the-point blunt attacks while indicating a somehow separation between one gamer over another.
I don't even see the relativity of this video to the topics the OP is whining about.
I mean for starters: Oh no, the interactivity of a good story is not the equivalent of 1984, God Forbid! I am clearly a low-life cretin because Mass Effect was an entertaining game coupled with a very thrilling story.
I actually think all of the arguments you're making in your original post and the one I quoted are what the video is trying to portray, not mock. Maybe I misinterpreted you as well. Though that being said I also didn't like it and thought the parody was way too forced and poor sport, and old as hell.
I get the impression that a majority of the people that found this entertaining (or even, original?) haven't experienced Yahtzee/ZP, and I feel disappointed for them because you'll probably love it, and there's probably tens of hours of ZP to be seen.
Practice without talent makes you a good player Talent without practice makes you a good player
Practice + Talent makes you a baller.
For example: People like capablanca are natural born geniuses. He never read a book about chess, and rolled over the other players. That were in the begining of the proffessional chess era.
If he played nowadays against people like kasparov who have huge talent and had read so many books he will get crushed.
Even a noob with good openings knowledge would have an edge against capablanca (fisher)
Edit: I understood the message wrong. It's not about practice
Anyway gaming industries don't invest in gameplay , they invest in crappy graphics, marketing, etc ..
Maybe i am too old, but with ps3 and xbox games, i never hade the same pleasure playing neogeo/megadrive/nec games back in the days .
A lot of people here are not understanding the actual message of the video, whether it's meant to be completely a parody or not. He's making fun of the trends in the gaming industry, where developers are putting less into gameplay and game content and more into having shiny effects and packaging, which is true.
edit: It has nothing to do with practice, or aspiring to be a progamer or whatnot.
On March 08 2011 15:53 Gliche wrote: A lot of people here are not understanding the actual message of the video, whether it's meant to be completely a parody or not. He's making fun of the trends in the gaming industry, where developers are putting less into gameplay and game content and more into having shiny effects and packaging, which is true.
edit: It has nothing to do with practice, or aspiring to be a progamer or whatnot.
Gliche is right. The video's discussion of "casuals vs pros" is directed toward the newer generation of players who constantly cry over a games mechanics and spit on those who have the drive and desire to be great. Like he says, people say "if I played THAT much of XXXXXX game I'd be just as good too", when I'm sure that doesn't apply to 99% of TL readers. Yes the players that are great at the games we know best DO play a lot, but they go beyond, they learn, they strategize, they practice with purpose.. It's a cheers to the people who are passionate about the games they love, who play for the challenge and not because "it's the thing to do".
i liked it, but i think that starcraft is alone in the world in the sense that *quote from day9* "Starcraft requires as much brain power as a chess grand master AND you must also have the dexterity of a musician, and it is the combination of these two things that makes starcraft such a hard game to play"
but we all play day in and day out the be the best we can be ALL for that moment you look back and reflect on your starcraft "career" and say....hey.. i have improved :D
I was ready to give this guy the benefit of the doubt until he simultaneously called reviewers at all major gaming websites terrible gamers and said that Portal was a terrible game, which it obviously is not.
On March 08 2011 16:02 ProfessorCold wrote: I was ready to give this guy the benefit of the doubt until he simultaneously called reviewers at all major gaming websites terrible gamers and said that Portal was a terrible game, which it obviously is not.
Pretty sure he was talking against those who said Portal was meh.
A lot of people are taking offense to the entirely superfluous comedic insults aspect of the video and missing the point. For those that need it spelled out, the point, which I'll admit he seems to be straying from towards the end, is that the fun of the game is the game itself, it's inherent challenge and the quest to be better at it. He seems to be saying that too many "noobs" leads to games that are designed without real learning curves or with a skill ceiling.
On March 08 2011 15:20 Torte de Lini wrote: Cool, a video with a bright yellow backdrop and uses imagery to comedically display his fast-spoken narration and downplays all factors that makes a "good game".
Cool, a topic that has no opinion but rather tells us to watch the 3 minute and 50 seconds of an opinion they needed to be developed in order to justify why other topics of balance and gameplay flood our forums.
I'd voice an opinion but this guy has lead his opinion onto insulting me because we have different views of good gameplay and a good game.
tl:dr The video attempts to tell us that no matter how much we practice we cannot be a pro-gamer or those who are on the competitive scene despite numerous professionals claiming otherwise by their own persoanl experience that the video-creator has none of.
Through the insults and the attempt to be vastly witty while also side-stepping an actual point, the video lends itself to be redundantly bad with its sub-par attempt of analogies to today's pop culture and its references.
To conclude, practice does make perfect and just because this guy has a laissez-faire attitude doesn't mean I will equally give up playing a game and striving to be better that goes in conjunction with the uber-gamers that enjoy a challenge.
it was a spoof of zero punctuation.
it's pure pwnage, it's a comedy site about video games. stop overanalyzing things
edit: just to chime in, i think that what he says is right in a sense. i guarantee if you practice and study starcraft you'll become at least plat or diamond no matter how bad your mechanics are. of course you'll never be gsl level. i agree with his opinion on newer games focusing on quality graphics instead of gameplay and etc. i just think that some games should be for the game play, some games should be for the story and the graphics. phoenix wright/heavy rain etc are more for story but sc2 would be for the gameplay.
On March 08 2011 15:20 Torte de Lini wrote: Cool, a video with a bright yellow backdrop and uses imagery to comedically display his fast-spoken narration and downplays all factors that makes a "good game".
Cool, a topic that has no opinion but rather tells us to watch the 3 minute and 50 seconds of an opinion they needed to be developed in order to justify why other topics of balance and gameplay flood our forums.
I'd voice an opinion but this guy has lead his opinion onto insulting me because we have different views of good gameplay and a good game.
tl:dr The video attempts to tell us that no matter how much we practice we cannot be a pro-gamer or those who are on the competitive scene despite numerous professionals claiming otherwise by their own persoanl experience that the video-creator has none of.
Through the insults and the attempt to be vastly witty while also side-stepping an actual point, the video lends itself to be redundantly bad with its sub-par attempt of analogies to today's pop culture and its references.
To conclude, practice does make perfect and just because this guy has a laissez-faire attitude doesn't mean I will equally give up playing a game and striving to be better that goes in conjunction with the uber-gamers that enjoy a challenge.
it was a spoof of zero punctuation.
it's pure pwnage, it's a comedy site about video games. stop overanalyzing things
edit: just to chime in, i think that what he says is right in a sense. i guarantee if you practice and study starcraft you'll become at least plat or diamond no matter how bad your mechanics are. of course you'll never be gsl level. i agree with his opinion on newer games focusing on quality graphics instead of gameplay and etc. i just think that some games should be for the game play, some games should be for the story and the graphics. phoenix wright/heavy rain etc are more for story but sc2 would be for the gameplay.
I'm pretty sure the point of the topic isn't: "Hey guys, check out this spoof of another related comedic gaming site".
I just thought it is funny how the message of the video applies even more today than when it was made. The part that I agreed most upon was the part that said that casuals will blame mechanics first instead of admitting the player that beat them was just a better player, had more practice, or more talent. I am a zerg player and just came out of a starcraft depression and finally just realized I had stopped having fun with the game and that I should just practice as much as I could and if I dont make gsl well, at least I had fun playing..
On March 08 2011 15:20 Torte de Lini wrote: Cool, a video with a bright yellow backdrop and uses imagery to comedically display his fast-spoken narration and downplays all factors that makes a "good game".
Cool, a topic that has no opinion but rather tells us to watch the 3 minute and 50 seconds of an opinion they needed to be developed in order to justify why other topics of balance and gameplay flood our forums.
I'd voice an opinion but this guy has lead his opinion onto insulting me because we have different views of good gameplay and a good game.
tl:dr The video attempts to tell us that no matter how much we practice we cannot be a pro-gamer or those who are on the competitive scene despite numerous professionals claiming otherwise by their own persoanl experience that the video-creator has none of.
Through the insults and the attempt to be vastly witty while also side-stepping an actual point, the video lends itself to be redundantly bad with its sub-par attempt of analogies to today's pop culture and its references.
To conclude, practice does make perfect and just because this guy has a laissez-faire attitude doesn't mean I will equally give up playing a game and striving to be better that goes in conjunction with the uber-gamers that enjoy a challenge.
it was a spoof of zero punctuation.
it's pure pwnage, it's a comedy site about video games. stop overanalyzing things
edit: just to chime in, i think that what he says is right in a sense. i guarantee if you practice and study starcraft you'll become at least plat or diamond no matter how bad your mechanics are. of course you'll never be gsl level. i agree with his opinion on newer games focusing on quality graphics instead of gameplay and etc. i just think that some games should be for the game play, some games should be for the story and the graphics. phoenix wright/heavy rain etc are more for story but sc2 would be for the gameplay.
I'm pretty sure the point of the topic isn't: "Hey guys, check out this spoof of another related comedic gaming site".
Let's focus.
Except Pure Pwnage is the reason this video exists. They created the video in the OP. That's why almost everyone is laughing, and you're not, because you don't understand it's a joke.
On March 08 2011 15:48 LeCastor wrote: Practice without talent makes you a good player Talent without practice makes you a good player
Practice + Talent makes you a baller.
I agree with this theory. Tyler is a good example of someone who doesn't practice much but is a good player. I can think of players who spam ladder 24/7 with 2.5k+ games and aren't getting anywhere but I don't want to call them out.
On March 08 2011 15:20 Torte de Lini wrote: Cool, a video with a bright yellow backdrop and uses imagery to comedically display his fast-spoken narration and downplays all factors that makes a "good game".
Cool, a topic that has no opinion but rather tells us to watch the 3 minute and 50 seconds of an opinion they needed to be developed in order to justify why other topics of balance and gameplay flood our forums.
I'd voice an opinion but this guy has lead his opinion onto insulting me because we have different views of good gameplay and a good game.
tl:dr The video attempts to tell us that no matter how much we practice we cannot be a pro-gamer or those who are on the competitive scene despite numerous professionals claiming otherwise by their own persoanl experience that the video-creator has none of.
Through the insults and the attempt to be vastly witty while also side-stepping an actual point, the video lends itself to be redundantly bad with its sub-par attempt of analogies to today's pop culture and its references.
To conclude, practice does make perfect and just because this guy has a laissez-faire attitude doesn't mean I will equally give up playing a game and striving to be better that goes in conjunction with the uber-gamers that enjoy a challenge.
it was a spoof of zero punctuation.
it's pure pwnage, it's a comedy site about video games. stop overanalyzing things
edit: just to chime in, i think that what he says is right in a sense. i guarantee if you practice and study starcraft you'll become at least plat or diamond no matter how bad your mechanics are. of course you'll never be gsl level. i agree with his opinion on newer games focusing on quality graphics instead of gameplay and etc. i just think that some games should be for the game play, some games should be for the story and the graphics. phoenix wright/heavy rain etc are more for story but sc2 would be for the gameplay.
I'm pretty sure the point of the topic isn't: "Hey guys, check out this spoof of another related comedic gaming site".
Let's focus.
Except Pure Pwnage is the reason this video exists. They created the video in the OP. That's why almost everyone is laughing, and you're not, because you don't understand it's a joke.
On March 08 2011 15:53 Gliche wrote: A lot of people here are not understanding the actual message of the video, whether it's meant to be completely a parody or not. He's making fun of the trends in the gaming industry, where developers are putting less into gameplay and game content and more into having shiny effects and packaging, which is true.
edit: It has nothing to do with practice, or aspiring to be a progamer or whatnot.
Gliche is right. The video's discussion of "casuals vs pros" is directed toward the newer generation of players who constantly cry over a games mechanics and spit on those who have the drive and desire to be great. Like he says, people say "if I played THAT much of XXXXXX game I'd be just as good too", when I'm sure that doesn't apply to 99% of TL readers. Yes the players that are great at the games we know best DO play a lot, but they go beyond, they learn, they strategize, they practice with purpose.. It's a cheers to the people who are passionate about the games they love, who play for the challenge and not because "it's the thing to do".
I was gonna point out the exact same thing. New generation and console allow crappy games to be made. There's too much fancy stuff instead of just playing a game with solid mechanics. Those kinds of points are what more than 3 minutes of the video is about. The very last point he makes is also not that people can't go pro or become good, it's that there will always be someone better, someone that beats you etc, and that's just something you'll have to accept and try to work around or overcome, instead of crying about it or if you're gonna blame, blaming anyone or anything but yourself.
"Gamers play gamer for gameplay, if the proces of playing a game isn't fun for you then maybe you're not a gamer."
i think it was more about the fact that challanging games are disappearing because of mass media. catering to what sells to everyone and trash what only sells to the few.
many games produced in asia are not released in the west because they are "to hard", and wont sell.
for the few that want that challange they get left out in the cold, typically these are hard core veteran gamers. They are mad because they are out in the cold watching wanna be gamers enjoy a hot cup of cut scene coco.
take farm ville for example, its hugely popular and people are lossing jobs over it. Meanwhile hardcore gamers are stuck at jobs they hate because they have nothing fun to call in sick for.
Its like saying, "hey thanks mister explorer for finding this new land to settle, now plz dont let the door hit your arse on the way out".
There are some golden games out there that still stick with the philosophy of a challenge makes a good game. For example anyone who hasn't played Demon's Souls and like a good challenging game. Well you're missing out cause that game is epic, hard and fun.
My point being there are good games that proper gamers will enjoy you just need to look for them.
edit: Also all that at the end about people not being a pro gamer cause they're not born to be I think that's honestly just nonsense. If you want to get good at something you just need to simply put in the time and effort. Might have to do more then someone who's naturally good at something but you'll still get there either way.
Since I've shown this video to a number of people in the past and they didn't actually get the different messages. And so maybe it will add more discussion about the various points taken in the video. I took the time to write up a liberal translation of the point that I have found.
Some are condensed but here's what I found:
Overtime it seems many people have forgotten the most important ingredient to a good game.
This ingredient is not graphics, cut scenes etc but the actual gameplay, the controls, the combo's you need to make, the puzzles you need to solve.
Gameplay is what makes the game fun to play.
If I want a good story, I can read a book. If you like cutscenes, Go watch a movie. (if you really like that, you probably also like a bad movie because you're easily satisfied)
Games used to be about being challenged to explore new gameplay mechanics, about learning or solving new puzzles, about improving your skills against all types of adversaries, and about feeling proud of your accomplishments.
Nowadays, it's mostly shiny graphics that can even carry a soccer mom caliber gamer through a generic 3th grade story where anyone with atleast a tiny brain can pretend to be a hero and maintain the illusion that he isn't terrible at it.
You don't need a backstory, you don't need a portrait, you don't need new gear. If the process of playing a game isn't fun for you then maybe you're not a gamer.
Even though I beat these new players very easily I've started to notice that the amount of them is starting to negatively affect gamedesign.
Instead of innovating and coming up with something as huge as a new chess, we have a continuous stream of 8 hour long interactive B movie experiences for 60 dollars a pop, with unimaginatively reskinned sequels released every year.
So the people who are not good at games, who play these abominations of games are the ones that allowed for this industry to flourish and bring even more of them in.
Now, I would't actually care that much but as it turns out, these people are poor sports and hate on us! The gamers who play the games for gameplay. And so we are subject to the endless abuse of idiotic whiners, "rusherfag, no life loser, hacker, imbalance" (overpowered should be there aswell)
But the only imbalance is that you are just worse than other people. Maybe you weren't good at sports in school but that's no reason to cry when you're getting raped in game.
Even worse are the reviewers that review the games for public consumption. They are champions of mob mentality. But it seems that in the gaming media circle being a noob is some kind of prerequisite. Going through life without a reason can be frustrating but calling a 3 hour singeplayer experience the height of game design and comparing the dialog of GTA to the godfather is absolutely retarded.
Here's the unpleasant truth, your teachers lied to you when they said that anyone, even you, can become an astronaut. Some people are just naturally better at certain things than others, there's something called talent.
Many people have a genuine desire to challenge themselves to be better, this doesn't make them alien or cruel and certainly not "rusherfags", it just makes them ubergamers (better than you). There's no reason to resent them.
The next time you think, "I could beat all the progamers if I just played as much as them". Think again.
pretty much gameplay defines games, games become movies, movie type brings in noob players, games become noobed, gameplay gamers rape the noobs, the noobs cry foul.
I dont buy that "no matter how much you practise you never be GSL level"
There is no know natural born factors that separates GSL level players from others. It is only about amount of practise and the quality of practise. As long as you have normal intelligence and no physical disabilities, then there should be no skill cap.
On March 08 2011 18:15 Axeinst wrote: I dont buy that "no matter how much you practise you never be GSL level"
There is no know natural born factors that separates GSL level players from others. It is only about amount of practise and the quality of practise. As long as you have normal intelligence and no physical disabilities, then there should be no skill cap.
Honestly I think that was more refering to the utterly insane work ethic of the BW progamers. The amount of mental staminia to achive something like that is so insane.
Makes you appreciate how amazing Yahtzee is when you hear someone do a poor man's copy. Without the British accent and a sense of humour those videos just kind of sound elitist and highly dislikeable.
Talent is 100% true. Look at top players of most games "Tom Ogre 2" Ryan is probably the best example as he's regarded to be the best Halo 1, 2 and debatably 3 as well as Shadowrun player in the world.
And everyone knows gaming is dying fast anyway. Blizzard are probably the only good developer left now, every other developer has given up and taking the easy money route...
People underestimate the potential of human body and label those pros as "special individuals".
Unless there is clear physical factors that give other people an advantage like in basketball, there is no reason to claim that there is natural factors that prevent others from becoming the top player.
On March 08 2011 18:36 Noli wrote: Talent is 100% true. Look at top players of most games "Tom Ogre 2" Ryan is probably the best example as he's regarded to be the best Halo 1, 2 and debatably 3 as well as Shadowrun player in the world.
And everyone knows gaming is dying fast anyway. Blizzard are probably the only good developer left now, every other developer has given up and taking the easy money route...
I think gaming is actually growing. I see a lot more people nowadays playing or accepting other people playing video games. At least in the US it's like that.
Also I want to say Valve is the other developer that still makes quality games. But besides them, yeah you're right. Everyone else is usually just looking to make a quick buck.
People can keep holding on to the naive idea that practice will make you a pro, there is a reason why there are a few select players at the pro level out of the millions of players that comprise the player base... Just have fun, stop the competitive crap specially if you are diamond or below, just have fun and if you make it to masters league having fun so be it...
On March 08 2011 19:03 TheBlueMeaner wrote: People can keep holding on to the naive idea that practice will make you a pro, there is a reason why there are a few select players at the pro level out of the millions of players that comprise the player base... Just have fun, stop the competitive crap specially if you are diamond or below, just have fun and if you make it to masters league having fun so be it...
There's nothing wrong with having fun with a game but I think its that kind of attitude that prevents a lot of people from actually getting to the professional level is because they just figure oh well I can't do it and then they just give up and don't bother trying.
On March 08 2011 18:36 Noli wrote: Talent is 100% true. Look at top players of most games "Tom Ogre 2" Ryan is probably the best example as he's regarded to be the best Halo 1, 2 and debatably 3 as well as Shadowrun player in the world.
And everyone knows gaming is dying fast anyway. Blizzard are probably the only good developer left now, every other developer has given up and taking the easy money route...
I think gaming is actually growing. I see a lot more people nowadays playing or accepting other people playing video games. At least in the US it's like that.
Also I want to say Valve is the other developer that still makes quality games. But besides them, yeah you're right. Everyone else is usually just looking to make a quick buck.
Yeah it's growing but only in popularity and quantity. The quality drops rapidly every year.
Not only the quality but to make the game more popular they decrease the skill gap to where it's none existent just to increase sales. *cough* COD BS *cough*
Those who watched Pure Pwnage knows that the main character Jeremy is a childish guy, Nahtzee is obviously narrated from Jeremy's perspective. Jeremy is uber pro and everyone else is a noob, that's just how it is, no amount of practice will ever bridge that gap. It's the same basic character as "the best paladin in the world". Pure Pwnage is awesome, the first episodes are my favorites but all of them are great. It's free to watch on purepwnage.com
On March 08 2011 19:03 TheBlueMeaner wrote: People can keep holding on to the naive idea that practice will make you a pro, there is a reason why there are a few select players at the pro level out of the millions of players that comprise the player base... Just have fun, stop the competitive crap specially if you are diamond or below, just have fun and if you make it to masters league having fun so be it...
Argh people like this attitude so make me mad. I am honest, it is fucking stupid to think like that because there is absolutely no reasoning or evidence.
Your though process goes like this:
There is few people at the top -> not everybody cannot become top because there is only few people at the top.
The fact is, that to become top of starcraft you need only normal intelligence and body with no disabilities. There is no known natural born factors that makes those gsl-players apart from others.
If you are going to claim that in order to become gsl material you need to have some special and natural things that others dont have, you need to have evidence for that. In basketball, there is clear evidence of those kind of factors, like tallness.
On March 08 2011 18:36 Noli wrote: Talent is 100% true. Look at top players of most games "Tom Ogre 2" Ryan is probably the best example as he's regarded to be the best Halo 1, 2 and debatably 3 as well as Shadowrun player in the world.
And everyone knows gaming is dying fast anyway. Blizzard are probably the only good developer left now, every other developer has given up and taking the easy money route...
I think gaming is actually growing. I see a lot more people nowadays playing or accepting other people playing video games. At least in the US it's like that.
Also I want to say Valve is the other developer that still makes quality games. But besides them, yeah you're right. Everyone else is usually just looking to make a quick buck.
This is the type of elitist bullshit that i hate, but it's always going to be around. Fuck off dude. I'm probably going to be warned or temp banned, but seriously? NO other good developers aside from Blizzard and Valve? Do you live in a fucking cave or something? Do you only play games from those developers?
Just look at the countless list of awesome games that are made for nintendo systems. Metroid Prime? Super Mario Galaxy? Legend of mother fuckin Zelda? You're telling me these games aren't quality?
Final Fantasy series? Sure, Square Enix screws up sometimes, but they learn from their mistakes, and have been masters of RPG games for a long time.
BioWare? They've made some of the most revered PC RPG games. Baldur's Gate 2? Knights of the Old Republic? Dragon Age?
and what about the most important company to multi-player video games to date... ID Software. They were (I believe) the first company that made LAN between games possible. They also influenced an ENTIRE generation of FPS games, and are still coming out with new shit.
Do I need to continue? I've got a handful of other game developers I can give to you as examples.
Imo, what this guy is describing has nothing to do with a "n00b effect", he's in fact talking about the "economic effect": game producers focus on the largest customers target which, in the 21th century, is casual gamers. But this ain't nothing new at all, just a consequence.
I understand this short clip as a hard QQ against SC2, and i totally agree. Here comes the new gamer generation guys!!!
On March 08 2011 19:03 TheBlueMeaner wrote: People can keep holding on to the naive idea that practice will make you a pro, there is a reason why there are a few select players at the pro level out of the millions of players that comprise the player base... Just have fun, stop the competitive crap specially if you are diamond or below, just have fun and if you make it to masters league having fun so be it...
What makes you think that the difference is anything other than practice and dedication?
Obviously some level of mental and physical ability is required, but anyone intelligent enough to get into college and not physically disabled in some way had plenty of "natural aptitude" or whatever else you want to call it.
On March 08 2011 19:03 TheBlueMeaner wrote: People can keep holding on to the naive idea that practice will make you a pro, there is a reason why there are a few select players at the pro level out of the millions of players that comprise the player base... Just have fun, stop the competitive crap specially if you are diamond or below, just have fun and if you make it to masters league having fun so be it...
Argh people like this attitude so make me mad. I am honest, it is fucking stupid to think like that because there is absolutely no reasoning or evidence.
Your though process goes like this:
There is few people at the top -> not everybody cannot become top because there is only few people at the top.
The fact is, that to become top of starcraft you need only normal intelligence and body with no disabilities. There is no known natural born factors that makes those gsl-players apart from others.
If you are going to claim that in order to become gsl material you need to have some special and natural things that others dont have, you need to have evidence for that. In basketball, there is clear evidence of those kind of factors, like tallness.
In fact there are exceptions to every rule. Look at Spud Webb and Muggsy Bogues amongst others.
In support of your point: People who claim genetics are a factor in success lack the imagination, work effort and ingenuity to break through their own barriers.
Even the psudo-science of fast and slow twitch muscles is bogus. They have never tracked and tested anyone from birth to determine if their muscle composition is a function of genetics or the obscenely long hours they have spent training. They have only tested after the people have become top caliber athletes.
On the other hand: Becoming obscenely good at something does come at a cost. Since you will be spending the vast majority of your time on one thing you will tend towards uber-specialized and will most likely be lacking in other areas.
The point he made about talent is demonstrably wrong. There is a dearth of evidence to suggest spending 10,000 hours on something is all that is required to become an expert at it. While some of us have more RTS experience than others, and thus the threshold for expertise is lower, there is no reason that anyone can't become a pro simply by massing games.
What shocks me most about this thread is that people seem to think there is something shameful about only being good at something because you've practiced it more than anyone else...
That's insane. Look at sports players, musicians, writers. The successful ones are the ones that practice the most. The beauty of E Sports is that you can never get told you have the wrong body type, or you're too fat or injury prone. Anyone can be a great Professional Gamer if they put the time in and there is something great about that.
Obviously when you get very near the top there is a creative part and some natural aptitude for thinking differently in certain situations, but we're talking right at the top (Like the top 20). A player with amazing mechanics will beat a naturally creatively gifted player with average mechanics everytime.
On March 08 2011 23:49 derpzzz wrote: he has the point with the shitty games producers are feeding us nowadays
I'd personally argue that we're in a golden age of games. I adore the following franchises: - Mass Effect - Assassin's Creed - Halo - Gears of War - Dead Space
I'd wager most people here are RTS players though (obviously) and in a world where Strategy games are also been pushed forwards in interesting new dynamics. Strategy games had evolved so much that people were initially turned off by the idea that Starcraft relied on resource collection. People are trying new things and generally getting good critical and fan based response: - Homeworld - Dawn of War anyone?
I think it's kind of ridiculous to complain about games being too focused on the story as well. The story and canon of the games I play is a huge part of the appeal. I read massive amounts of classic Sci-Fi and I can tell you that the world created by Epic for Mass Effect is as brilliant as any created by Clarke, Dick or Asimov. If you don't want the canon, story or graphics then you may as well go and play Chess or a similar game (which has had much more time to develop strategy) and is surely a much more pure experience.
Why are people taking this so seriously, damn. Do people remember where this is even from? It's from a mockumentary that takes nothing seriously and has one of the most egotistical main characters possible which makes it hilarious. Just chill mates.
I'm going to quibble with the terminology used in the summary in the OP-the term "good gameplay" is a pretty stupid thing to say. You don't say movies have "good moviewatch" or books have good "bookread." Gameplay is an empty term. A game can have good controls, a high skill ceiling, an immersive atmosphere, etc. and it's far better to address those than have a blanket term like "gameplay."
On March 08 2011 15:20 Torte de Lini wrote: Cool, a video with a bright yellow backdrop and uses imagery to comedically display his fast-spoken narration and downplays all factors that makes a "good game".
Cool, a topic that has no opinion but rather tells us to watch the 3 minute and 50 seconds of an opinion they needed to be developed in order to justify why other topics of balance and gameplay flood our forums.
I'd voice an opinion but this guy has lead his opinion onto insulting me because we have different views of good gameplay and a good game.
tl:dr The video attempts to tell us that no matter how much we practice we cannot be a pro-gamer or those who are on the competitive scene despite numerous professionals claiming otherwise by their own persoanl experience that the video-creator has none of.
Through the insults and the attempt to be vastly witty while also side-stepping an actual point, the video lends itself to be redundantly bad with its sub-par attempt of analogies to today's pop culture and its references.
To conclude, practice does make perfect and just because this guy has a laissez-faire attitude doesn't mean I will equally give up playing a game and striving to be better that goes in conjunction with the uber-gamers that enjoy a challenge.
I agree that a lot of games have this childishly easy appeal but there still are games out there directed at serious gamers. Take the Megaman Zero collection for the DS, or the individual games for the advance. It's an awesome series of platform games that takes the kirby-ish appeal and says "no thank you".
The game is set in a post apocolyptic world where sentient robots called reploids are being "retired" without reason by the last city left on earth, Neo Arcadia. The gameplay is very... harsh, to say the least. It's brutal, yet awesome. The following series Megaman ZX is also excellent. It's similar but offers multiple biometals and each one plays and fights differently in the platform enviroment. Which one you pick is left to personal taste.
Meh, the enjoyment of games is completely and utterly subjective, what one person finds fun does not necessarily mean another will like it. There is an endless amount of games to be played, play the games you enjoy, have fun etc but don't berrate games you personally don't like for arbitrary reasons (because they don't conform to the styles of the games you like to play) because it's just that - a personal preference.
On March 08 2011 23:49 derpzzz wrote: he has the point with the shitty games producers are feeding us nowadays
I'd personally argue that we're in a golden age of games. I adore the following franchises: - Mass Effect - Assassin's Creed - Halo - Gears of War - Dead Space
I'd wager most people here are RTS players though (obviously) and in a world where Strategy games are also been pushed forwards in interesting new dynamics. Strategy games had evolved so much that people were initially turned off by the idea that Starcraft relied on resource collection. People are trying new things and generally getting good critical and fan based response: - Homeworld - Dawn of War anyone?
I think it's kind of ridiculous to complain about games being too focused on the story as well. The story and canon of the games I play is a huge part of the appeal. I read massive amounts of classic Sci-Fi and I can tell you that the world created by Epic for Mass Effect is as brilliant as any created by Clarke, Dick or Asimov. If you don't want the canon, story or graphics then you may as well go and play Chess or a similar game (which has had much more time to develop strategy) and is surely a much more pure experience.
Most of these fit the general definition of easy, nice graphics and low skill cap (or no competitive gaming at all), which is the whole point of the gaming growth vs gaming quality.
Homeworld is old anyway.
Halo counts, i guess :E
Havn't actually played Mass Effect 1, but the second installation - are you serious? the Story doesn't even make sense, everything is obviously marked as "go here to be good/evil", missions are completely repetitive, even the very combat they made so shiny is boring repetition of covered fighting with completely useless AI companions. Maybe the backstory is nice, but you're not the backstory, you're playing some cookie-cutter 0815 save the universe story. Oh, and you can grow scars, look!
The most competitive game of the world are what, Starcraft 1 (korea) and Counter Strike (other)? Those are AGES old, people could've stopped making games 1999 and we'd have missed out on very little.
I enjoy SC2, but i can't say its anywhere near as hard or rewarding as old games. Same for all other newer games i've played with the exception of Roguelikes (which, again, could've been made anno 1995)
On March 08 2011 15:20 Torte de Lini wrote: Cool, a video with a bright yellow backdrop and uses imagery to comedically display his fast-spoken narration and downplays all factors that makes a "good game".
Cool, a topic that has no opinion but rather tells us to watch the 3 minute and 50 seconds of an opinion they needed to be developed in order to justify why other topics of balance and gameplay flood our forums.
I'd voice an opinion but this guy has lead his opinion onto insulting me because we have different views of good gameplay and a good game.
tl:dr The video attempts to tell us that no matter how much we practice we cannot be a pro-gamer or those who are on the competitive scene despite numerous professionals claiming otherwise by their own persoanl experience that the video-creator has none of.
Through the insults and the attempt to be vastly witty while also side-stepping an actual point, the video lends itself to be redundantly bad with its sub-par attempt of analogies to today's pop culture and its references.
To conclude, practice does make perfect and just because this guy has a laissez-faire attitude doesn't mean I will equally give up playing a game and striving to be better that goes in conjunction with the uber-gamers that enjoy a challenge.
The video is funny and though u can overcome through sheer willpoer some will naturally be better. Seriously why be so serious.
I don't know why people are having a problem with this. The video told me that it would be ideal if video games returned to emphasizing gameplay over story, graphics, and other "consumerability" factors, and I think most of us at this elitist gaming website would agree. It also said that people uninterested in being competitive shouldn't wag their fingers at people who dedicate their life to gaming and I think most of us would agree with that as well. Maybe Torte just doesn't like the guys accent?
On March 08 2011 19:03 TheBlueMeaner wrote: People can keep holding on to the naive idea that practice will make you a pro, there is a reason why there are a few select players at the pro level out of the millions of players that comprise the player base... Just have fun, stop the competitive crap specially if you are diamond or below, just have fun and if you make it to masters league having fun so be it...
What makes you think that the difference is anything other than practice and dedication?
Obviously some level of mental and physical ability is required, but anyone intelligent enough to get into college and not physically disabled in some way had plenty of "natural aptitude" or whatever else you want to call it.
How do you explain people being stuck in silver-diamond with 1000 games played?
For all those who are agianst this ubergamer vs noob thing id like to say that ur probly a noob, in the sense that this video is talking about. Yes there is a casual gameing audiance out there but there is also the more hardcore game players, we call them GAMERS..... so you can be a part of the cauasal gaming crowed or you are a gamer. there is a difference and gamers are better at games that casual gamers. Gamers have the mindset t improve and the thought patterns that make very hard games seem easy to them. Not to say someone of the casual gameing crowed cant become a proffessional, but the gamers have been playing games so long they can practically read the minds of the developers and can figure out the best of the best. I myself am a gamer, i play games for their difficulty and mechanics. But i am also a noob at spelling and sentince structure. we cant be good at everything
On March 09 2011 01:05 gogogadgetflow wrote: I don't know why people are having a problem with this. The video told me that it would be ideal if video games returned to emphasizing gameplay over story, graphics, and other "consumerability" factors, and I think most of us at this elitist gaming website would agree. It also said that people uninterested in being competitive shouldn't wag their fingers at people who dedicate their life to gaming and I think most of us would agree with that as well. Maybe Torte just doesn't like the guys accent?
I just hate the use of the term gameplay. Link to why: http://insomnia.ac/commentary/gameplay/. Things like better and more intuitive controls add to "consumerability" and also improve games. The OP's summary's use of "gameplay" seems to be a camouflaged use of the word "difficulty." At least come out and say you're lamenting the loss of the skill gap in gaming these days.
On March 09 2011 01:05 gogogadgetflow wrote: I don't know why people are having a problem with this. The video told me that it would be ideal if video games returned to emphasizing gameplay over story, graphics, and other "consumerability" factors, and I think most of us at this elitist gaming website would agree. It also said that people uninterested in being competitive shouldn't wag their fingers at people who dedicate their life to gaming and I think most of us would agree with that as well. Maybe Torte just doesn't like the guys accent?
I just hate the use of the term gameplay. Link to why: http://insomnia.ac/commentary/gameplay/. Things like better and more intuitive controls add to "consumerability" and also improve games. The OP's summary's use of "gameplay" seems to be a camouflaged use of the word "difficulty." At least come out and say you're lamenting the loss of the skill gap in gaming these days.
Seemed to me that he was talking about difficulty, variety, and a rewarding experience. For me those things are the key components of games. Intuitive controls are nice but like graphics and story they are secondary to the key components.
On March 08 2011 19:03 TheBlueMeaner wrote: People can keep holding on to the naive idea that practice will make you a pro, there is a reason why there are a few select players at the pro level out of the millions of players that comprise the player base... Just have fun, stop the competitive crap specially if you are diamond or below, just have fun and if you make it to masters league having fun so be it...
What makes you think that the difference is anything other than practice and dedication?
Obviously some level of mental and physical ability is required, but anyone intelligent enough to get into college and not physically disabled in some way had plenty of "natural aptitude" or whatever else you want to call it.
How do you explain people being stuck in silver-diamond with 1000 games played?
playing a lot of games does not equal practice
Practice can make you a pro, granted a large amount of natural aptitude will certainly make the process easier. People seem to think that just grinding out games can be considered practice. This is simply not true. Getting good at anything (any game, any sport, whatever) is about the quality of work that you put in, not the quantity. You have to play a lot of games, identify the things you need to to work on, play customs to improve those things, watch film, go to a lot of local tournaments, rinse and repeat.
Getting on every night and playing a ton of games back to back and not thinking about it afterwards will not allow you to reach the level of play that most people are capable of.
On March 09 2011 01:17 nGBeast wrote: I really hate coming to TL because of people like the guy with the first response, douchebaggery at its finest.
You disagree with what someone said and don't bother to respond with your opinion but just call him a douchebag? Hypocrite much, no?
I never thought about it before, but I suppose what this thread taught me most is the empty word 'gameplay'. I suppose it is just an easy abbreviation for the challenge the game gives, how good the mechanics are and so on, quite seperate from story and graphics/shinyness etc.
I suppose a good game (apart from SC1 and BW) for emphasising gameplay over story and graphics/shinyness would be Portal. The Portal mechanism was unique and fun, but the story (while also fairly unique) was far from as immersive as, say, Mass Effect or Half-Life 2 (or Ep1/Ep2), and the graphics were nothing special.
To all the doomsayers (always find these on forums), if shinyness/gimmickery was so important over solid gameplay, would Portal 2 be released, and look as awesome as it does?
On March 08 2011 19:03 TheBlueMeaner wrote: People can keep holding on to the naive idea that practice will make you a pro, there is a reason why there are a few select players at the pro level out of the millions of players that comprise the player base... Just have fun, stop the competitive crap specially if you are diamond or below, just have fun and if you make it to masters league having fun so be it...
What makes you think that the difference is anything other than practice and dedication?
Obviously some level of mental and physical ability is required, but anyone intelligent enough to get into college and not physically disabled in some way had plenty of "natural aptitude" or whatever else you want to call it.
How do you explain people being stuck in silver-diamond with 1000 games played?
playing a lot of games does not equal practice
Practice can make you a pro, granted a large amount of natural aptitude will certainly make the process easier. People seem to think that just grinding out games can be considered practice. This is simply not true. Getting good at anything (any game, any sport, whatever) is about the quality of work that you put in, not the quantity. You have to play a lot of games, identify the things you need to to work on, play customs to improve those things, watch film, go to a lot of local tournaments, rinse and repeat.
Getting on every night and playing a ton of games back to back and not thinking about it afterwards will not allow you to reach the level of play that most people are capable of.
Ofcourse. But there is still something called talent. To me talent is the rate in wich you learn. How come there are many programers who practice just as much and just as good as Flash, but will never become as good as him? Because he has talent for Starcraft, he learns faster then the other players so he willl always be the best. With 10 hours he accomplishes things other people need 15 hours for.
On March 09 2011 01:05 gogogadgetflow wrote: I don't know why people are having a problem with this. The video told me that it would be ideal if video games returned to emphasizing gameplay over story, graphics, and other "consumerability" factors, and I think most of us at this elitist gaming website would agree. It also said that people uninterested in being competitive shouldn't wag their fingers at people who dedicate their life to gaming and I think most of us would agree with that as well. Maybe Torte just doesn't like the guys accent?
I just hate the use of the term gameplay. Link to why: http://insomnia.ac/commentary/gameplay/. Things like better and more intuitive controls add to "consumerability" and also improve games. The OP's summary's use of "gameplay" seems to be a camouflaged use of the word "difficulty." At least come out and say you're lamenting the loss of the skill gap in gaming these days.
Seemed to me that he was talking about difficulty, variety, and a rewarding experience. For me those things are the key components of games. Intuitive controls are nice but like graphics and story they are secondary to the key components.
Then he should just say that he perceives those as the critical components of game design, rather than lumping them together under some nebulous umbrella of "gameplay." The concepts themselves are also far less clear-cut-take your example of variety and a rewarding experience. Story, graphics, and controls all play a critical role in making those components of a game better. Story is, in fact, one of oldest ways to make a player feel more rewarded! In Super Mario World, the reason the player doesn't "stop" when finishing a level is because the princess is an another castle. Different people enjoy different aspects of different media. Saying that a given medium is in your opinion worse is okay, but saying the design is suffering because it doesn't is shortsighted at best.
as sad as it is the last 30 sec are kinda right..... talent is talent... very rarely will hard work beat talent but thats rare but you got to bust your ass
take me for EXP: ^_^ i am 5'7' and white and i went to 3A high school state track meet FOR HURDLES! 300 hurdles...=)
I was the only person there out if 15 people that was under 6 foot.... and hell i got my ass burnt... but the fact that i got there was an accomplishment on its own
I disagree that gameplay is the sole thing that people look for in a game and i definitely think that story when done right can add a lot to the game.
i think having a more modern example could be something like half life 2. for me half life 2 is probably the best game ever made, certainly the best i've ever played and i would certainly regard the story as having a fair sized part in why that is. there are numerous counter examples of games where no story is even really offered and pure gameplay makes a game truly great, quake 1 Doom etc could be examples of this but i think used right story can add to a game and not be unnecessary.
To change to a different genre RPGs basically aren't possible without story and this came from stuff coming well before games even existed but stuff like choose your own adventure books. the thing is about the story is that it is not just experiencing a story as you would in a book which is fun but also some interaction within the story can really for some people increase fun. i don't think that kind of story has necessarily to be matched up against great works of fiction since they are aiming to do completely different things.
To specifically comment on GTA while i've never played 4 i have played San andreas and i thought it was an excellent game despite being, gameplay wise, a somewhat weak game. comparing its storyline to the godfather completely misses the point, its like comparing Dr Strangelove with Full Metal Jacket or a bond film with all the presidents men. it is satirical, parodying gangster cliches and making a few occasional minor points of social commentary and a hell of a lot of dick jokes and other immature humour which i think is pretty damn funny and made the game a hell of a lot of fun to play.
I think also commenting that games aren't unique enough and developers aren't trying enough new ideas and then slapping a big 'meh' on portal is pretty bizarre, i mean maybe the guy making this video just didn't like that game but surely he could at least appreciate how different it is and how hard it is to come up with new gameplay challenges like that is these days.
To put what i agree with yeah its probably true a lot of games are getting dumbed down to appeal to a mass audience and maybe thats not a good thing. However to completely impose his own view of what a good game is on people and say that if they don't agree its because they aren't as good as him is totally wrong, ridiculously arrogant and misses the point completely. games can be great fun for a number of reasons he just completely dismisses.
Really don't get people who go on rants liks this. Jesus, I like being engaged in good graphics and good storyline. The purpose of the game is engaging entertainment, that entertains me far more than movies or books. A good video game for me needs to have good graphics, and a semi-decent storyline, and if you're seriously upset enough about that to make a 5 minute long rant and post it on the Interwebz, god help you.
On March 08 2011 19:03 TheBlueMeaner wrote: People can keep holding on to the naive idea that practice will make you a pro, there is a reason why there are a few select players at the pro level out of the millions of players that comprise the player base... Just have fun, stop the competitive crap specially if you are diamond or below, just have fun and if you make it to masters league having fun so be it...
Argh people like this attitude so make me mad. I am honest, it is fucking stupid to think like that because there is absolutely no reasoning or evidence.
Your though process goes like this:
There is few people at the top -> not everybody cannot become top because there is only few people at the top.
The fact is, that to become top of starcraft you need only normal intelligence and body with no disabilities. There is no known natural born factors that makes those gsl-players apart from others.
If you are going to claim that in order to become gsl material you need to have some special and natural things that others dont have, you need to have evidence for that. In basketball, there is clear evidence of those kind of factors, like tallness.
On March 08 2011 19:03 TheBlueMeaner wrote: People can keep holding on to the naive idea that practice will make you a pro, there is a reason why there are a few select players at the pro level out of the millions of players that comprise the player base... Just have fun, stop the competitive crap specially if you are diamond or below, just have fun and if you make it to masters league having fun so be it...
Argh people like this attitude so make me mad. I am honest, it is fucking stupid to think like that because there is absolutely no reasoning or evidence.
Your though process goes like this:
There is few people at the top -> not everybody cannot become top because there is only few people at the top.
The fact is, that to become top of starcraft you need only normal intelligence and body with no disabilities. There is no known natural born factors that makes those gsl-players apart from others.
If you are going to claim that in order to become gsl material you need to have some special and natural things that others dont have, you need to have evidence for that. In basketball, there is clear evidence of those kind of factors, like tallness.
Let me tell you something. I am an economist so my frame of thought might not meet yours but I'll try to explain my reasoning.
If anyone could achieve greatness in starcraft with just hard work, everyone would do it. If we asume that practice time is an independent variable that has a positive correlation with skill, we must also assume the fact that practice time will have diminishing returns. If we asume this we also can asume that you will eventually peak and reach stability or equilibrium. If practice was the only variable we would not have different individuals with the same ammount of practice at different levels, clearly there must be other variables...
There is no gosu secret or quantity of games you have to grind to become the best. Some people just have the reflexes and the dexterity to play with 400 apm while others dont. No matter how hard you practice you won't get to Flash level or Jaedong level. Korean progamers grind games with the same passion and discipline and not everyone gets to be a bonjwa, many just make it to b-team and stagnate, some become coaches... not everyone has it in them to become a professional.
Blizzard does its best to hide this fact, they are removing the losses bar in the lower leagues, they make pretty icons, make you feel good because you are a "gold" player, when the truth is you are awful. Some people made it to diamond in the first day they played the game, some with rts experience, others without.
Stop tricking yourself into thinking you will become a pro with practice if you are 6 months into the game and still cant hit diamond, sure there are no studies to prove there are especific factors that determine success in starcraft but just stare at the evidence. If everyone that wanted to be a pro could, then being a pro would not be special. All these guys at the top have tons of practice and a natural inclination to succeed in these types of tasks. You can practice all you want but the law of diminishing returns will slap you in the face and you will finally understand the impotence of your position. You could eventually hit pro level with enough practice even with diminishing returns, but since we dont have INFINITE time but limited time you will never practice enough, just have fun man, just play for fun...
On March 08 2011 17:59 legatus legionis wrote: So the people who are not good at games, who play these abominations of games are the ones that allowed for this industry to flourish and bring even more of them in.
Now, I would't actually care that much but as it turns out, these people are poor sports and hate on us! The gamers who play the games for gameplay. And so we are subject to the endless abuse of idiotic whiners, "rusherfag, no life loser, hacker, imbalance" (overpowered should be there aswell)
But the only imbalance is that you are just worse than other people. Maybe you weren't good at sports in school but that's no reason to cry when you're getting raped in game.
If I look at LR threads & most of the strategy section, I can only agree with this. Always everything is "imbalanced". Protoss are OP, Terran are OP, Zerg are OP. Or someone is using a "lame/OP" strategy. "Supid allin". It's always the race/playstyle of the other player. Players almost never lose because they just had a bad day, or because the opponent just was better / had the superior strategy. No - he just abused something and used a "lame" strategy.
"Everyone who's worse than me is a noob, and everythin who's better is a cheater/nolifer" is sadly the truth as the predominant internet mentality.
On March 08 2011 19:03 TheBlueMeaner wrote: People can keep holding on to the naive idea that practice will make you a pro, there is a reason why there are a few select players at the pro level out of the millions of players that comprise the player base... Just have fun, stop the competitive crap specially if you are diamond or below, just have fun and if you make it to masters league having fun so be it...
What makes you think that the difference is anything other than practice and dedication?
Obviously some level of mental and physical ability is required, but anyone intelligent enough to get into college and not physically disabled in some way had plenty of "natural aptitude" or whatever else you want to call it.
How do you explain people being stuck in silver-diamond with 1000 games played?
Playing this game a lot isn't the same as playing this game a lot trying to improve.
On March 09 2011 01:05 gogogadgetflow wrote: I don't know why people are having a problem with this. The video told me that it would be ideal if video games returned to emphasizing gameplay over story, graphics, and other "consumerability" factors, and I think most of us at this elitist gaming website would agree. It also said that people uninterested in being competitive shouldn't wag their fingers at people who dedicate their life to gaming and I think most of us would agree with that as well. Maybe Torte just doesn't like the guys accent?
I just hate the use of the term gameplay. Link to why: http://insomnia.ac/commentary/gameplay/. Things like better and more intuitive controls add to "consumerability" and also improve games. The OP's summary's use of "gameplay" seems to be a camouflaged use of the word "difficulty." At least come out and say you're lamenting the loss of the skill gap in gaming these days.
Seemed to me that he was talking about difficulty, variety, and a rewarding experience. For me those things are the key components of games. Intuitive controls are nice but like graphics and story they are secondary to the key components.
Then he should just say that he perceives those as the critical components of game design, rather than lumping them together under some nebulous umbrella of "gameplay." The concepts themselves are also far less clear-cut-take your example of variety and a rewarding experience. Story, graphics, and controls all play a critical role in making those components of a game better. Story is, in fact, one of oldest ways to make a player feel more rewarded! In Super Mario World, the reason the player doesn't "stop" when finishing a level is because the princess is an another castle. Different people enjoy different aspects of different media. Saying that a given medium is in your opinion worse is okay, but saying the design is suffering because it doesn't is shortsighted at best.
I get that for some people it's different but for me it's not at all rewarding to save a fictional princess. - the reason I keep playing Super Mario World when the princess is in another castle has nothing to do with saving the princess. It is because it has good elements of gameplay: by which I mean successive levels will push skills I have gained earlier in the game to new, higher limits. If I fail the last level a hundred times the reward isn't saving the princess, its completing the damn level. The princess (the story) should not be used as a substitute reward. In my view, story can't really enhance gameplay.
On March 09 2011 01:17 nGBeast wrote: I really hate coming to TL because of people like the guy with the first response, douchebaggery at its finest.
It be the internet, and it's not like he represents the entire site.
Exactly. I'm just another opinion. It's not my kind of humor and I feel the video cut the meat the wrong way.
That's my opinion, feel free to post yours.
The thing is if you really believed u were "just another opinion," your first reply probably wouldn't have come off as so arrogant and self-important. Can you honestly say you don't see how that first reply is a turn off to some people? Or are you advising that everybody post in an elitist fashion?
On March 08 2011 15:26 Chairman Ray wrote: I saw that vid before and I completely disagree with it. I'm really annoyed with all those 'ubergamers' who feel that they are superior because they 'pwn' all the 'noobs'. It's a really negative attitude for the competitive gaming scene and they should get off their high horse.
I don't think that's the point he was getting at. The explosion of gaming as a popular pass time has created an enormous lowest common denominator that is satisfied with short, bland experiences dressed up in amazing graphics. Game reviewers are a big part of this too, because they give almost anything put out by a big publisher a perfect score, without bothering to delve into the disconnect between graphics quality and gameplay. Their job is to push product onto an ever-widening market, no matter how bad that product is. This leads to more and more crap being pushed out the door at EA and Activision.
Awesome video. Didn't know the Pure Pwnage crew made some actual quality stuff as well after I stopped following them. Since they went kinda too high-school-soapy for my tastes at some point. On that note: BOOM HEADSHOT! Yeah, gimme that kind 'o shizzle back please!
A game is a game, which is indeed played for fun. Generally speaking anyway. Since that rule does not seem to apply anymore in a lot of cases. But things change, so it makes sense gaming is an actual business now, and that means catering to the masses works best if you wanna make money. Lots of it.
For me it comes down to the following. I had a chat with a friend a while ago, who likes to hug his nostalgia feelings so hard I'd call it strangulation. His point was similar. While nostalgic feeling is the sole reason I wanted SC2 to happen so much, if SC2 sucked a hard donkey nose I wouldn't stay be playing it. I like SC2. And if I didn't like it 'cause it's too EZMODE, dull, too hard or whatever for my tastes, I'll just stop playing it. Cause no one is forcing me to play it. Like no one is forcing me to play anything. I can play what I like, and like what I play. Reality is one hell of a drug.
On March 09 2011 01:17 nGBeast wrote: I really hate coming to TL because of people like the guy with the first response, douchebaggery at its finest.
It be the internet, and it's not like he represents the entire site.
Exactly. I'm just another opinion. It's not my kind of humor and I feel the video cut the meat the wrong way.
That's my opinion, feel free to post yours.
The thing is if you really believed u were "just another opinion," your first reply probably wouldn't have come off as so arrogant and self-important. Can you honestly say you don't see how that first reply is a turn off to some people? Or are you advising that everybody post in an elitist fashion?
i thought his first comment was pretty fair really, this shouldn't get too far off topic but i'm not sure what people are seeing that makes it 'douchebaggy' or 'elitist'.
The problem with the video in the original post is that it's difficult to tell whether it's intended simply as a spoof of Zero Punctuation or as actual commentary wrapped up in a shameless ripoff of Zero Punctuation's style.
On March 09 2011 04:19 Lysenko wrote: The problem with the video in the original post is that it's difficult to tell whether it's intended simply as a spoof of Zero Punctuation or as actual commentary wrapped up in a shameless ripoff of Zero Punctuation's style.
Why can it not be a spoof of Zero Punctuation with a commentary?
On March 09 2011 04:19 Lysenko wrote: The problem with the video in the original post is that it's difficult to tell whether it's intended simply as a spoof of Zero Punctuation or as actual commentary wrapped up in a shameless ripoff of Zero Punctuation's style.
Apparently Yahtzee helped them make it, so there's your answer.
I think by increasing gaming's appeal to everybody will just make the next great game that much better. Most games aren't worth playing (to the serious gamer) precisely because of what was said in that video. But as more and more people get into games, it'll become easier for developers to make a truly great game because it'll be easier to attract capital and popularity.
If you look at the current state of the game industry, it's very similar to Hollywood. Most games lose money as a bunch of slop is being put out and a lot of the money is made on a few proven franchises and sequels. But it's now possible for more and more people to get into movie making (and game making) and every now and then, you come out with a hit that's both popular with the hardcore (gamers like us) and the mainstream.
On March 08 2011 15:20 Torte de Lini wrote: Cool, a video with a bright yellow backdrop and uses imagery to comedically display his fast-spoken narration and downplays all factors that makes a "good game".
Cool, a topic that has no opinion but rather tells us to watch the 3 minute and 50 seconds of an opinion they needed to be developed in order to justify why other topics of balance and gameplay flood our forums.
I'd voice an opinion but this guy has lead his opinion onto insulting me because we have different views of good gameplay and a good game.
tl:dr The video attempts to tell us that no matter how much we practice we cannot be a pro-gamer or those who are on the competitive scene despite numerous professionals claiming otherwise by their own persoanl experience that the video-creator has none of.
Through the insults and the attempt to be vastly witty while also side-stepping an actual point, the video lends itself to be redundantly bad with its sub-par attempt of analogies to today's pop culture and its references.
To conclude, practice does make perfect and just because this guy has a laissez-faire attitude doesn't mean I will equally give up playing a game and striving to be better that goes in conjunction with the uber-gamers that enjoy a challenge.
Protip: If you are a starcraft player yourself, it shouldn't be insulting to you.
On March 09 2011 06:07 rapier7 wrote: I think by increasing gaming's appeal to everybody will just make the next great game that much better. Most games aren't worth playing (to the serious gamer) precisely because of what was said in that video. But as more and more people get into games, it'll become easier for developers to make a truly great game because it'll be easier to attract capital and popularity.
If you look at the current state of the game industry, it's very similar to Hollywood. Most games lose money as a bunch of slop is being put out and a lot of the money is made on a few proven franchises and sequels. But it's now possible for more and more people to get into movie making (and game making) and every now and then, you come out with a hit that's both popular with the hardcore (gamers like us) and the mainstream.
Like Call of Duty, the massively popular FPS that thinks so little of the ability of the millions that play it that it has the gall to have a built in aimbot?
I could not stop nodding while watching the video, this guy explained everything I feel is wrong with today's computer games very well. Why must he talk this insanely fast though? It's almost at the point of being hard to understand and follow.
Also, lol @ July "sticking his golden mouse up your arse".
I feel a little saddened when people continue to pay $60 for an upgraded-graphics version of a game without paying attention to the fact that it's the 17th time they've done so.
Graphics whores these days >.> It's why nearly everybody I've met have never tried, say, Final Fantasy VII, and totally hate it because "the gameplay sucks". Then, I show them FFXIII and they're all like "WHOOOOOOOOOOOAAAAAAAAA EXCITING!"
This is pretty much a short documentary, because people behave just as described in the video. They dont give a shit about gameplay, they want shiny graphics and when they lose its either imbalance, maphack or "you dont have a life, fat nerd"
On March 09 2011 01:05 gogogadgetflow wrote: I don't know why people are having a problem with this. The video told me that it would be ideal if video games returned to emphasizing gameplay over story, graphics, and other "consumerability" factors, and I think most of us at this elitist gaming website would agree. It also said that people uninterested in being competitive shouldn't wag their fingers at people who dedicate their life to gaming and I think most of us would agree with that as well. Maybe Torte just doesn't like the guys accent?
I just hate the use of the term gameplay. Link to why: http://insomnia.ac/commentary/gameplay/. Things like better and more intuitive controls add to "consumerability" and also improve games. The OP's summary's use of "gameplay" seems to be a camouflaged use of the word "difficulty." At least come out and say you're lamenting the loss of the skill gap in gaming these days.
Seemed to me that he was talking about difficulty, variety, and a rewarding experience. For me those things are the key components of games. Intuitive controls are nice but like graphics and story they are secondary to the key components.
Then he should just say that he perceives those as the critical components of game design, rather than lumping them together under some nebulous umbrella of "gameplay." The concepts themselves are also far less clear-cut-take your example of variety and a rewarding experience. Story, graphics, and controls all play a critical role in making those components of a game better. Story is, in fact, one of oldest ways to make a player feel more rewarded! In Super Mario World, the reason the player doesn't "stop" when finishing a level is because the princess is an another castle. Different people enjoy different aspects of different media. Saying that a given medium is in your opinion worse is okay, but saying the design is suffering because it doesn't is shortsighted at best.
I get that for some people it's different but for me it's not at all rewarding to save a fictional princess. - the reason I keep playing Super Mario World when the princess is in another castle has nothing to do with saving the princess. It is because it has good elements of gameplay: by which I mean successive levels will push skills I have gained earlier in the game to new, higher limits. If I fail the last level a hundred times the reward isn't saving the princess, its completing the damn level. The princess (the story) should not be used as a substitute reward. In my view, story can't really enhance gameplay.
On March 09 2011 01:17 nGBeast wrote: I really hate coming to TL because of people like the guy with the first response, douchebaggery at its finest.
It be the internet, and it's not like he represents the entire site.
Exactly. I'm just another opinion. It's not my kind of humor and I feel the video cut the meat the wrong way.
That's my opinion, feel free to post yours.
The thing is if you really believed u were "just another opinion," your first reply probably wouldn't have come off as so arrogant and self-important. Can you honestly say you don't see how that first reply is a turn off to some people? Or are you advising that everybody post in an elitist fashion?
That's your interpretation, not my prerogative. Now you know my intentions, simple ones, so let's hold back on the perceived adjectives.
On March 08 2011 15:29 wonderwall wrote: Well. At least he's trying REALLY hard to be Yahtzee. I really disagree with his "noobs suck I'm so much better" approach to the new casual gaming market and I laughed when he mentioned superiority in Call of Duty as a mark of a more veteran gamer.
Ya dude cuz being successful on TWL or CEVO is laughable...
EDIT: OP should note that the name of the show is Pure Pwnage, and this is a parody of Zero Punctuation. Mod edit maybe?
I thought of posting that video at so many imbalance posts. There has been SO MUCH whinning over the imbalance in SC2 and I really think this video uproots what lies at the root of the problem.
I play Zerg and think the game is pretty balanced, I wouldnt mind having the lurker in my arsenal tho.
To say that one race is overpowered is like saying that everyone that plays it don't deserve the rank or tournament price they have, which i think is quite rude to the people that play that race.
Im not saying that SC2 is 100% balanced because it can't be achevied when players have access to different advantages. But the amount of imbalance is so small that if you win, you clearly deserved to do so.(my opinion ofcourse)
As long as people have a tiny bit of differential in ability the better player wins.
The racial balance is fine if you ask me with the exception for a few maps.
i disagree about the last part if u did spend like 10 000 hours (if u a normal capable human being and dedicated) on one thing you will become close to perfection! you can become what you put ur mind to
On March 08 2011 19:03 TheBlueMeaner wrote: People can keep holding on to the naive idea that practice will make you a pro, there is a reason why there are a few select players at the pro level out of the millions of players that comprise the player base... Just have fun, stop the competitive crap specially if you are diamond or below, just have fun and if you make it to masters league having fun so be it...
What makes you think that the difference is anything other than practice and dedication?
Obviously some level of mental and physical ability is required, but anyone intelligent enough to get into college and not physically disabled in some way had plenty of "natural aptitude" or whatever else you want to call it.
How do you explain people being stuck in silver-diamond with 1000 games played?
Playing this game a lot isn't the same as playing this game a lot trying to improve.
well people like me play starcraft to improve so we can get a sense of accomplishment and reward. to some of us fun means improving in what we do over time and looking at the transition.
Totally disagree with this douchebag Nahtzee. Games that are just about exploring mechanics are shitty and retarded and one dimensional and boring. Games with a sick storyline, awesome music, awesome atmosphere and cool RPG elements get me going. See: Deus Ex, Zelda: OOT, Final Fantasy VII, Baldur's Gate II, Planescape Torment. IE all the really good games ever made.
Comical video, outlines in a satirical (and crass) way how consumerism has murdered popular games. Anyone remember when it was actually cool to be good at a game instead of getting all the achievements? I do, and I'm glad other people are as frustrated by it as I am.
On March 09 2011 07:47 sc4k wrote: Totally disagree with this douchebag Nahtzee. Games that are just about exploring mechanics are shitty and retarded and one dimensional and boring. Games with a sick storyline, awesome music, awesome atmosphere and cool RPG elements get me going. See: Deus Ex, Zelda: OOT, Final Fantasy VII, Baldur's Gate II, Planescape Torment. IE all the really good games ever made.
I believe there was nothing mentioned about Storyline, Music, etc. being BAD. Just that it's worthless if there is no gameplay.
Every game you listed are great because their foundation includes excellent, absorbing gameplay. I doubt you would hate Ocarina of Time if it were in black and white, for example.
On March 08 2011 19:03 TheBlueMeaner wrote: People can keep holding on to the naive idea that practice will make you a pro, there is a reason why there are a few select players at the pro level out of the millions of players that comprise the player base... Just have fun, stop the competitive crap specially if you are diamond or below, just have fun and if you make it to masters league having fun so be it...
Argh people like this attitude so make me mad. I am honest, it is fucking stupid to think like that because there is absolutely no reasoning or evidence.
Your though process goes like this:
There is few people at the top -> not everybody cannot become top because there is only few people at the top.
The fact is, that to become top of starcraft you need only normal intelligence and body with no disabilities. There is no known natural born factors that makes those gsl-players apart from others.
If you are going to claim that in order to become gsl material you need to have some special and natural things that others dont have, you need to have evidence for that. In basketball, there is clear evidence of those kind of factors, like tallness.
I think you're full of shit.
Explain why some pro-gamers who practice their heart out only make it to the B-team or not even, while others can achieve greatness within only a few short years. Flash, JD, and Bisu all started playing Starcraft competitively only recently (~2006) and quickly began to dominate the scene by 2008. Meanwhile there's dozens of pro-gamers you may have never even heard of that have been around for years longer. They all follow a similar regiment of practice at their team houses.
Or explain why Bisu has ridiculously good PvZ, but shaky PvT and Stork has insane PvT, but struggles often in PvZ. They can't even explain it themselves, the only thing they can say during an interview is that they just "understand that matchup better". I highly doubt that Bisu spends all his time practicing PvZ and ignoring PvT, when it's probably the opposite. Likewise with Stork and PvT.
Talent in SC is the ability to pick up things quickly, understanding things, and multitasking extremely effectively. Most people simply aren't "mentally agile" enough to do 10 things at once like a top-tier pro-gamer can. Even though I have no scientific proof, I'm sure the top pros' brains are simply wired differently from the average person.
And another thread turning into flaming. Jesus can you take a break? It's like every thread on the starcraft 2 section is filled with people trying to disprove one another. Normally i go on the forums to relax from tough games, but the tension here makes it very uncomfortable reading the forums
That was explicitly AWESOME. Great post, video dude deserves hella recognition.
I finally realized that Starcraft is actually my hobby, not just my favourite game. Much like chess or train building is someone else's hobby, i pwn ladder noobs.
On March 09 2011 07:47 sc4k wrote: Totally disagree with this douchebag Nahtzee. Games that are just about exploring mechanics are shitty and retarded and one dimensional and boring. Games with a sick storyline, awesome music, awesome atmosphere and cool RPG elements get me going. See: Deus Ex, Zelda: OOT, Final Fantasy VII, Baldur's Gate II, Planescape Torment. IE all the really good games ever made.
And I'm sorry but are you kidding??? Zelda/FF series were so INNOVATIVE in their MECHANICS that they became ridiculously popular as a result. Zelda essentially transformed the fantasy novel genre into a VIDEOGAME and FF series did the same (or at least was the first to do it effectively) with turn-based "board games". What you are seeing as part of a game's "storyline" is also a tool for expressing it's "gameplay". Yes they are intertwined to a large extent.
Can't believe so many people haven't seen this before. Its Jarret Cale doing a parody on Zero Punctuation while still sort of in the Jeremy Character. Was probably through this video I learnt about JulyZerg after hearing his name mentioned I went and looked up who he was, and why he'd be able to shove a golden mouse up my arse. If anyone hasn't ever seen Pure Pwnage I suggest you go watch the web series from the beginning (ignore the tv series, it's mostly a reboot/sequel mess that wasn't as funny as the original)
i disagree about the last part if u did spend like 10 000 hours (if u a normal capable human being and dedicated) on one thing you will become close to perfection! you can become what you put ur mind to
No your missing the whole point. The point is that there is such a thing as talant. I don't have to play Starcraft every second of every day to know that even if I did I wouldn't be as good as Jaedong, Flash and the other Pro's. So many Korean kids have tried and only a few make it.
The casual market = the noob market = the noob effect. It is all the same. If game companies want to make the big bucks, they target the casual gaming market, and thus have to noobify their games, which ALSO saves them money honestly. Cheap to make + larger market.
Trying to cater games to the Gamer market (hardcore gamers) is much more costly and takes longer. They demand higher quality gameplay and don't care as much about graphix and story lines and other things that movies and books are already better at. It just isn't as cost efficient to make good games, and companies are run by people that care about money.
There aren't any philanthropist game developers that don't worry about profit. I would say Blizzard and Valve have the best record for catering towards the hardcore gamers. Next in line would be Indi developers that spend their own cash on developing something that they want to play, and don't end up making much money because it is for gameplay and not for the mass market.
On March 08 2011 19:03 TheBlueMeaner wrote: People can keep holding on to the naive idea that practice will make you a pro, there is a reason why there are a few select players at the pro level out of the millions of players that comprise the player base... Just have fun, stop the competitive crap specially if you are diamond or below, just have fun and if you make it to masters league having fun so be it...
Argh people like this attitude so make me mad. I am honest, it is fucking stupid to think like that because there is absolutely no reasoning or evidence.
Your though process goes like this:
There is few people at the top -> not everybody cannot become top because there is only few people at the top.
The fact is, that to become top of starcraft you need only normal intelligence and body with no disabilities. There is no known natural born factors that makes those gsl-players apart from others.
If you are going to claim that in order to become gsl material you need to have some special and natural things that others dont have, you need to have evidence for that. In basketball, there is clear evidence of those kind of factors, like tallness.
On March 08 2011 19:03 TheBlueMeaner wrote: People can keep holding on to the naive idea that practice will make you a pro, there is a reason why there are a few select players at the pro level out of the millions of players that comprise the player base... Just have fun, stop the competitive crap specially if you are diamond or below, just have fun and if you make it to masters league having fun so be it...
Argh people like this attitude so make me mad. I am honest, it is fucking stupid to think like that because there is absolutely no reasoning or evidence.
Your though process goes like this:
There is few people at the top -> not everybody cannot become top because there is only few people at the top.
The fact is, that to become top of starcraft you need only normal intelligence and body with no disabilities. There is no known natural born factors that makes those gsl-players apart from others.
If you are going to claim that in order to become gsl material you need to have some special and natural things that others dont have, you need to have evidence for that. In basketball, there is clear evidence of those kind of factors, like tallness.
Let me tell you something. I am an economist so my frame of thought might not meet yours but I'll try to explain my reasoning.
If anyone could achieve greatness in starcraft with just hard work, everyone would do it. If we asume that practice time is an independent variable that has a positive correlation with skill, we must also assume the fact that practice time will have diminishing returns. If we asume this we also can asume that you will eventually peak and reach stability or equilibrium. If practice was the only variable we would not have different individuals with the same ammount of practice at different levels, clearly there must be other variables...
There is no gosu secret or quantity of games you have to grind to become the best. Some people just have the reflexes and the dexterity to play with 400 apm while others dont. No matter how hard you practice you won't get to Flash level or Jaedong level. Korean progamers grind games with the same passion and discipline and not everyone gets to be a bonjwa, many just make it to b-team and stagnate, some become coaches... not everyone has it in them to become a professional.
Blizzard does its best to hide this fact, they are removing the losses bar in the lower leagues, they make pretty icons, make you feel good because you are a "gold" player, when the truth is you are awful. Some people made it to diamond in the first day they played the game, some with rts experience, others without.
Stop tricking yourself into thinking you will become a pro with practice if you are 6 months into the game and still cant hit diamond, sure there are no studies to prove there are especific factors that determine success in starcraft but just stare at the evidence. If everyone that wanted to be a pro could, then being a pro would not be special. All these guys at the top have tons of practice and a natural inclination to succeed in these types of tasks. You can practice all you want but the law of diminishing returns will slap you in the face and you will finally understand the impotence of your position. You could eventually hit pro level with enough practice even with diminishing returns, but since we dont have INFINITE time but limited time you will never practice enough, just have fun man, just play for fun...
Let me say this: you are assuming alot but havent prooved anything that you could backup your claims with.
There is no reason to beliveve anything else than that to get best of the best in starcraft you need only normal intelligence and no disabilities.
Why not everyone are at professional level? It is simply because not everyone has the right dedication and right practice quality and right mindset. And another reason is, that tournaments cannot pick up EVERY player in the earth that should have earned their place at the professional level. Current pro-skene, is just little sample of people who are capable to compete at highest level.
On March 08 2011 19:03 TheBlueMeaner wrote: People can keep holding on to the naive idea that practice will make you a pro, there is a reason why there are a few select players at the pro level out of the millions of players that comprise the player base... Just have fun, stop the competitive crap specially if you are diamond or below, just have fun and if you make it to masters league having fun so be it...
Argh people like this attitude so make me mad. I am honest, it is fucking stupid to think like that because there is absolutely no reasoning or evidence.
Your though process goes like this:
There is few people at the top -> not everybody cannot become top because there is only few people at the top.
The fact is, that to become top of starcraft you need only normal intelligence and body with no disabilities. There is no known natural born factors that makes those gsl-players apart from others.
If you are going to claim that in order to become gsl material you need to have some special and natural things that others dont have, you need to have evidence for that. In basketball, there is clear evidence of those kind of factors, like tallness.
On March 08 2011 19:03 TheBlueMeaner wrote: People can keep holding on to the naive idea that practice will make you a pro, there is a reason why there are a few select players at the pro level out of the millions of players that comprise the player base... Just have fun, stop the competitive crap specially if you are diamond or below, just have fun and if you make it to masters league having fun so be it...
Argh people like this attitude so make me mad. I am honest, it is fucking stupid to think like that because there is absolutely no reasoning or evidence.
Your though process goes like this:
There is few people at the top -> not everybody cannot become top because there is only few people at the top.
The fact is, that to become top of starcraft you need only normal intelligence and body with no disabilities. There is no known natural born factors that makes those gsl-players apart from others.
If you are going to claim that in order to become gsl material you need to have some special and natural things that others dont have, you need to have evidence for that. In basketball, there is clear evidence of those kind of factors, like tallness.
Let me tell you something. I am an economist so my frame of thought might not meet yours but I'll try to explain my reasoning.
If anyone could achieve greatness in starcraft with just hard work, everyone would do it. If we asume that practice time is an independent variable that has a positive correlation with skill, we must also assume the fact that practice time will have diminishing returns. If we asume this we also can asume that you will eventually peak and reach stability or equilibrium. If practice was the only variable we would not have different individuals with the same ammount of practice at different levels, clearly there must be other variables...
There is no gosu secret or quantity of games you have to grind to become the best. Some people just have the reflexes and the dexterity to play with 400 apm while others dont. No matter how hard you practice you won't get to Flash level or Jaedong level. Korean progamers grind games with the same passion and discipline and not everyone gets to be a bonjwa, many just make it to b-team and stagnate, some become coaches... not everyone has it in them to become a professional.
Blizzard does its best to hide this fact, they are removing the losses bar in the lower leagues, they make pretty icons, make you feel good because you are a "gold" player, when the truth is you are awful. Some people made it to diamond in the first day they played the game, some with rts experience, others without.
Stop tricking yourself into thinking you will become a pro with practice if you are 6 months into the game and still cant hit diamond, sure there are no studies to prove there are especific factors that determine success in starcraft but just stare at the evidence. If everyone that wanted to be a pro could, then being a pro would not be special. All these guys at the top have tons of practice and a natural inclination to succeed in these types of tasks. You can practice all you want but the law of diminishing returns will slap you in the face and you will finally understand the impotence of your position. You could eventually hit pro level with enough practice even with diminishing returns, but since we dont have INFINITE time but limited time you will never practice enough, just have fun man, just play for fun...
Let me say this: you are assuming alot but havent prooved anything that you could backup your claims with.
There is no reason to beliveve anything else than that to get best of the best in starcraft you need only normal intelligence and no disabilities.
Why not everyone are at professional level? It is simply because not everyone has the right dedication and right practice quality and right mindset. And another reason is, that tournaments cannot pick up EVERY player in the earth that should have earned their place at the professional level. Current pro-skene, is just little sample of people who are capable to compete at highest level.
Started to feel sorry for this guy, but I guess ignorance is bliss.
On March 08 2011 19:03 TheBlueMeaner wrote: People can keep holding on to the naive idea that practice will make you a pro, there is a reason why there are a few select players at the pro level out of the millions of players that comprise the player base... Just have fun, stop the competitive crap specially if you are diamond or below, just have fun and if you make it to masters league having fun so be it...
Argh people like this attitude so make me mad. I am honest, it is fucking stupid to think like that because there is absolutely no reasoning or evidence.
Your though process goes like this:
There is few people at the top -> not everybody cannot become top because there is only few people at the top.
The fact is, that to become top of starcraft you need only normal intelligence and body with no disabilities. There is no known natural born factors that makes those gsl-players apart from others.
If you are going to claim that in order to become gsl material you need to have some special and natural things that others dont have, you need to have evidence for that. In basketball, there is clear evidence of those kind of factors, like tallness.
On March 08 2011 19:03 TheBlueMeaner wrote: People can keep holding on to the naive idea that practice will make you a pro, there is a reason why there are a few select players at the pro level out of the millions of players that comprise the player base... Just have fun, stop the competitive crap specially if you are diamond or below, just have fun and if you make it to masters league having fun so be it...
Argh people like this attitude so make me mad. I am honest, it is fucking stupid to think like that because there is absolutely no reasoning or evidence.
Your though process goes like this:
There is few people at the top -> not everybody cannot become top because there is only few people at the top.
The fact is, that to become top of starcraft you need only normal intelligence and body with no disabilities. There is no known natural born factors that makes those gsl-players apart from others.
If you are going to claim that in order to become gsl material you need to have some special and natural things that others dont have, you need to have evidence for that. In basketball, there is clear evidence of those kind of factors, like tallness.
Let me tell you something. I am an economist so my frame of thought might not meet yours but I'll try to explain my reasoning.
If anyone could achieve greatness in starcraft with just hard work, everyone would do it. If we asume that practice time is an independent variable that has a positive correlation with skill, we must also assume the fact that practice time will have diminishing returns. If we asume this we also can asume that you will eventually peak and reach stability or equilibrium. If practice was the only variable we would not have different individuals with the same ammount of practice at different levels, clearly there must be other variables...
There is no gosu secret or quantity of games you have to grind to become the best. Some people just have the reflexes and the dexterity to play with 400 apm while others dont. No matter how hard you practice you won't get to Flash level or Jaedong level. Korean progamers grind games with the same passion and discipline and not everyone gets to be a bonjwa, many just make it to b-team and stagnate, some become coaches... not everyone has it in them to become a professional.
Blizzard does its best to hide this fact, they are removing the losses bar in the lower leagues, they make pretty icons, make you feel good because you are a "gold" player, when the truth is you are awful. Some people made it to diamond in the first day they played the game, some with rts experience, others without.
Stop tricking yourself into thinking you will become a pro with practice if you are 6 months into the game and still cant hit diamond, sure there are no studies to prove there are especific factors that determine success in starcraft but just stare at the evidence. If everyone that wanted to be a pro could, then being a pro would not be special. All these guys at the top have tons of practice and a natural inclination to succeed in these types of tasks. You can practice all you want but the law of diminishing returns will slap you in the face and you will finally understand the impotence of your position. You could eventually hit pro level with enough practice even with diminishing returns, but since we dont have INFINITE time but limited time you will never practice enough, just have fun man, just play for fun...
Let me say this: you are assuming alot but havent prooved anything that you could backup your claims with.
There is no reason to beliveve anything else than that to get best of the best in starcraft you need only normal intelligence and no disabilities.
Why not everyone are at professional level? It is simply because not everyone has the right dedication and right practice quality and right mindset. And another reason is, that tournaments cannot pick up EVERY player in the earth that should have earned their place at the professional level. Current pro-skene, is just little sample of people who are capable to compete at highest level.
Started to feel sorry for this guy, but I guess ignorance is bliss.
Relevant:
World would be better place without stupid people.
Axeinst, sorry but there's no proof to believe in what you're saying either. What, as a student psychologist, I know:
Mindset? Determined Dedication? Determined Attitude towards Practice? Determined
Gosh, Talent is not a god's gift, it's just that we're living in a deterministic world. The contingencies have shapped a Lim Yo Hwan, they have shapped a Lee Young Ho, and certainly had shapped a Lee Jae Dong to be better than people like Ma Jae Yoon, and obviously the entire TL community. If you practice, is for a reason, if you aren't used to practice, you won't suddenly and magically be used to. You need a reason to, or better said, a cause to.
There's a lot of evidence suggesting that if you're pass 20 years old you won't be able to become a progamer, so...
There is absolutely no evidence about that you cannot become progamer after 20 years.
People just assume alot and mess up with causes and outcomes and start to think totally wrong.
The difference between me, and you guys, is that I DONT ASSUME WITHOUT EVIDENCE. I just believe that there is NO REASON TO BELIEVE OTHERWISE WITHOUT EVIDENCE.
If you can provide me proof of being unable to become pro gamer after 20 years, then I can change my mind. But for now, there is no evidence.
It is just like with concept of god. There is no reason to believe that god exist because there is no evidence for it.
On March 09 2011 14:13 zappa372 wrote: There's a lot of evidence suggesting that if you're pass 20 years old you won't be able to become a progamer, so...
So I guess WhiteRa is a special case then. :Rollseyes:
On March 09 2011 14:13 zappa372 wrote: There's a lot of evidence suggesting that if you're pass 20 years old you won't be able to become a progamer, so...
So I guess WhiteRa is a special case then. :Rollseyes:
On March 09 2011 14:29 Axeinst wrote: There is absolutely no evidence about that you cannot become progamer after 20 years.
People just assume alot and mess up with causes and outcomes and start to think totally wrong.
The difference between me, and you guys, is that I DONT ASSUME WITHOUT EVIDENCE. I just believe that there is NO REASON TO BELIEVE OTHERWISE WITHOUT EVIDENCE.
If you can provide me proof of being unable to become pro gamer after 20 years, then I can change my mind. But for now, there is no evidence.
It is just like with concept of god. There is no reason to believe that god exist because there is no evidence for it.
I will give you evidence. ALL THE B-TEAMERS ON KOREAN PRO TEAMS.
Now, if you want examples from a larger sample size, sports athletes, not just e-sports athletes decline in skill as a group after mid-20s. Yes some do last a long time, but exceptions are exceptions.
And if you want to look at talent difference, everyone in and around baseball will tell you David Eckstein is the hardest worker bar none in the league, but for some reason, he just can't produce anything but the average major league players...I WONDER WHY.
On March 09 2011 14:29 Axeinst wrote: There is absolutely no evidence about that you cannot become progamer after 20 years.
People just assume alot and mess up with causes and outcomes and start to think totally wrong.
The difference between me, and you guys, is that I DONT ASSUME WITHOUT EVIDENCE. I just believe that there is NO REASON TO BELIEVE OTHERWISE WITHOUT EVIDENCE.
If you can provide me proof of being unable to become pro gamer after 20 years, then I can change my mind. But for now, there is no evidence.
It is just like with concept of god. There is no reason to believe that god exist because there is no evidence for it.
I will give you evidence. ALL THE B-TEAMERS ON KOREAN PRO TEAMS.
Now, if you want examples from a larger sample size, sports athletes, not just e-sports athletes decline in skill as a group after mid-20s. Yes some do last a long time, but exceptions are exceptions.
And if you want to look at talent difference, everyone in and around baseball will tell you David Eckstein is the hardest worker bar none in the league, but for some reason, he just can't produce anything but the average major league players...I WONDER WHY.
You are still using correlation as a causation which is incorrect logic.
Still; unless you bring evidence there is no reason to believe otherwise than everyone with normal intelligence are able to become top notch pro-gamer with right practise.
What you are trying to do, is trying to proove existence of something with absence of evidence against it.
On March 09 2011 14:29 Axeinst wrote: There is absolutely no evidence about that you cannot become progamer after 20 years.
People just assume alot and mess up with causes and outcomes and start to think totally wrong.
The difference between me, and you guys, is that I DONT ASSUME WITHOUT EVIDENCE. I just believe that there is NO REASON TO BELIEVE OTHERWISE WITHOUT EVIDENCE.
If you can provide me proof of being unable to become pro gamer after 20 years, then I can change my mind. But for now, there is no evidence.
It is just like with concept of god. There is no reason to believe that god exist because there is no evidence for it.
I will give you evidence. ALL THE B-TEAMERS ON KOREAN PRO TEAMS.
Now, if you want examples from a larger sample size, sports athletes, not just e-sports athletes decline in skill as a group after mid-20s. Yes some do last a long time, but exceptions are exceptions.
And if you want to look at talent difference, everyone in and around baseball will tell you David Eckstein is the hardest worker bar none in the league, but for some reason, he just can't produce anything but the average major league players...I WONDER WHY.
You are still using correlation as a causation which is incorrect logic.
Still; unless you bring evidence there is no reason to believe otherwise than everyone with normal intelligence are able to become top notch pro-gamer with right practise.
Well at least statistically and by scientific method, it is reasonably certain that not everyone who put in those hours can be the absolute best. In which case, every single player would be near identical on skill level, always, if they are on similar training regimen. Therefore the hypothesis of players being equally as good if they have the same practice regimen is clearly false.
The primary evidence for "not all people can reach top-level pro" is the objective skill differential between the S-class players and B-teamers while all of them are on pro teams with similar practice regimen. Now I'd like to hear what evidence you have in the contrary.
On March 09 2011 14:29 Axeinst wrote: There is absolutely no evidence about that you cannot become progamer after 20 years.
People just assume alot and mess up with causes and outcomes and start to think totally wrong.
The difference between me, and you guys, is that I DONT ASSUME WITHOUT EVIDENCE. I just believe that there is NO REASON TO BELIEVE OTHERWISE WITHOUT EVIDENCE.
If you can provide me proof of being unable to become pro gamer after 20 years, then I can change my mind. But for now, there is no evidence.
It is just like with concept of god. There is no reason to believe that god exist because there is no evidence for it.
I will give you evidence. ALL THE B-TEAMERS ON KOREAN PRO TEAMS.
Now, if you want examples from a larger sample size, sports athletes, not just e-sports athletes decline in skill as a group after mid-20s. Yes some do last a long time, but exceptions are exceptions.
And if you want to look at talent difference, everyone in and around baseball will tell you David Eckstein is the hardest worker bar none in the league, but for some reason, he just can't produce anything but the average major league players...I WONDER WHY.
You are still using correlation as a causation which is incorrect logic.
Still; unless you bring evidence there is no reason to believe otherwise than everyone with normal intelligence are able to become top notch pro-gamer with right practise.
Well at least statistically and by scientific method, it is reasonably certain that not everyone who put in those hours can be the absolute best. In which case, every single player would be near identical on skill level, always, if they are on similar training regiment.
Now tell me a better argument for the contrary, thank you.
People practice wrong/not style with suiting best for them
And there is one thing which affects alot: not everyone can be professional because teams cannot pick up everyone and there is always certain little percentage of player base that is took to compete as professional.
There is nothing else.
There is absolutely no reason to believe that there is any birth gift talent unless existence of that is prooved.
You guys are still ASSUMING, not prooving anything.
On March 09 2011 14:29 Axeinst wrote: There is absolutely no evidence about that you cannot become progamer after 20 years.
People just assume alot and mess up with causes and outcomes and start to think totally wrong.
The difference between me, and you guys, is that I DONT ASSUME WITHOUT EVIDENCE. I just believe that there is NO REASON TO BELIEVE OTHERWISE WITHOUT EVIDENCE.
If you can provide me proof of being unable to become pro gamer after 20 years, then I can change my mind. But for now, there is no evidence.
It is just like with concept of god. There is no reason to believe that god exist because there is no evidence for it.
I will give you evidence. ALL THE B-TEAMERS ON KOREAN PRO TEAMS.
Now, if you want examples from a larger sample size, sports athletes, not just e-sports athletes decline in skill as a group after mid-20s. Yes some do last a long time, but exceptions are exceptions.
And if you want to look at talent difference, everyone in and around baseball will tell you David Eckstein is the hardest worker bar none in the league, but for some reason, he just can't produce anything but the average major league players...I WONDER WHY.
You are still using correlation as a causation which is incorrect logic.
Still; unless you bring evidence there is no reason to believe otherwise than everyone with normal intelligence are able to become top notch pro-gamer with right practise.
Well at least statistically and by scientific method, it is reasonably certain that not everyone who put in those hours can be the absolute best. In which case, every single player would be near identical on skill level, always, if they are on similar training regiment.
Now tell me a better argument for the contrary, thank you.
People practice wrong/not style with suiting best for them
And there is one thing which affects alot: not everyone can be professional because teams cannot pick up everyone and there is always certain little percentage of player base that is took to compete as professional.
There is nothing else.
So you are acknowledging there are intangible difference between the players right? Let's expand this further.
I will use two top-level players and contrast them. Bisu and Stork (sorry sc2 this example is just really good) are both S-class protoss. However it is clear that Bisu is better at PvZ while Stork is a monster at PvT. They are both ace player on their respective teams (bisu do get challenged by fantasy but it's irrelevant to discussion). They have both enjoyed successes for extended periods, and are likely as dedicated as each other for the game. Now please explain, why after an extended period where both players have repeatedly acknowledged respective weakness in their game and practiced extensively for it, the stat-line for bisu still reads PvT being his worst match-up and for Stork PvZ?
Now your initial hypothesis is likely not valid.
If you don't know that B-teamers are actually pro, I will then use a sc2 example regarding the "be a pro is near impossible and only the best of the best are pros" argument. Look at ROOT.Destiny and ROOT.Minigun. Both players are on professional team, and both risen from stream, small tourneys and good laddering. If there is talent, and it is exposed, professional teams will POUNCE on new talent.
Edit: actually, the best example of all time is the rise of Flash. Please look up his bio. And tell me how he is equally as gifted as the b-teamers.
And please what do you expect as proof? Human genetic diversity is common knowledge among most biologically educated community. You do realize this is the best proof to "not everyone can achieve exactly the same result with exactly the same effort“ argument, right?
Edit 2: I did realize, ignorance is indeed a bliss.
I think the point is talent DO exist. Everyone else who wants to be as good as the pro gamers, they need to practice and work many times harder to achieve the same level of mastery. In the end, due to the hardships encountered by the average gamers, they stopped practising like crazy and hence failed to reach the level of Flash and Jaedong.
Anyone can be Flash and Jaedong, it depends on how badly you want it. Depending on your existing talent, you will face differing level of hardships/challenges along your journey. So many Korean kids "did not make it" because they can no longer take the punishment, as they also have other concerns or options other than competitive gaming. Why bust your ass trying to be pro-gamers when you can graduate and get a job and play games casually?
On March 09 2011 14:29 Axeinst wrote: There is absolutely no evidence about that you cannot become progamer after 20 years.
People just assume alot and mess up with causes and outcomes and start to think totally wrong.
The difference between me, and you guys, is that I DONT ASSUME WITHOUT EVIDENCE. I just believe that there is NO REASON TO BELIEVE OTHERWISE WITHOUT EVIDENCE.
If you can provide me proof of being unable to become pro gamer after 20 years, then I can change my mind. But for now, there is no evidence.
It is just like with concept of god. There is no reason to believe that god exist because there is no evidence for it.
I will give you evidence. ALL THE B-TEAMERS ON KOREAN PRO TEAMS.
Now, if you want examples from a larger sample size, sports athletes, not just e-sports athletes decline in skill as a group after mid-20s. Yes some do last a long time, but exceptions are exceptions.
And if you want to look at talent difference, everyone in and around baseball will tell you David Eckstein is the hardest worker bar none in the league, but for some reason, he just can't produce anything but the average major league players...I WONDER WHY.
You are still using correlation as a causation which is incorrect logic.
Still; unless you bring evidence there is no reason to believe otherwise than everyone with normal intelligence are able to become top notch pro-gamer with right practise.
Well at least statistically and by scientific method, it is reasonably certain that not everyone who put in those hours can be the absolute best. In which case, every single player would be near identical on skill level, always, if they are on similar training regiment.
Now tell me a better argument for the contrary, thank you.
People practice wrong/not style with suiting best for them
And there is one thing which affects alot: not everyone can be professional because teams cannot pick up everyone and there is always certain little percentage of player base that is took to compete as professional.
There is nothing else.
So you are acknowledging there are intangible difference between the players right? Let's expand this further.
I will use two top-level players and contrast them. Bisu and Stork (sorry sc2 this example is just really good) are both S-class protoss. However it is clear that Bisu is better at PvZ while Stork is a monster at PvT. They are both ace player on their respective teams (bisu do get challenged by fantasy but it's irrelevant to discussion). They have both enjoyed successes for extended periods, and are likely as dedicated as each other for the game. Now please explain, why after an extended period where both players have repeatedly acknowledged respective weakness in their game and practiced extensively for it, the stat-line for bisu still reads PvT being his worst match-up and for Stork PvZ?
Now your initial hypothesis is likely not valid.
If you don't know that B-teamers are actually pro, I will then use a sc2 example regarding the "be a pro is near impossible and only the best of the best are pros" argument. Look at ROOT.Destiny and ROOT.Minigun. Both players are on professional team, and both risen from stream, small tourneys and good laddering. If there is talent, and it is exposed, professional teams will POUNCE on new talent.
Edit: actually, the best example of all time is the rise of Flash. Please look up his bio. And tell me how he is equally as gifted as the b-teamers.
And please what do you expect as proof? Human genetic diversity is common knowledge among most biologically educated community. You do realize this is the best proof to "not everyone can achieve exactly the same result with exactly the same effort“ argument, right?
Edit 2: I did realize, ignorance is indeed a bliss.
None of what you said, prooves that there is mystical talent that gives some people ability to get higher than other without this mystical talent.
Science does not work like that. If there is hypothese, then it needs to be evaluated and needs to stand after multipronged critisism.
There is currently no evidence about this mystical birth gave talent.
Only known variables are: amount of practise and quality of practising. Unless there is clear and believeable evidence about brain sections that work better than average people, that are also unarguably birth related, then only reason to believe why not everyone can not be Jaedong level, is just practice issues.
Now, I am no longer interested in with arguing people that are just plain stupid.
On March 08 2011 15:20 Torte de Lini wrote: Cool, a video with a bright yellow backdrop and uses imagery to comedically display his fast-spoken narration and downplays all factors that makes a "good game".
Cool, a topic that has no opinion but rather tells us to watch the 3 minute and 50 seconds of an opinion they needed to be developed in order to justify why other topics of balance and gameplay flood our forums.
I'd voice an opinion but this guy has lead his opinion onto insulting me because we have different views of good gameplay and a good game.
tl:dr The video attempts to tell us that no matter how much we practice we cannot be a pro-gamer or those who are on the competitive scene despite numerous professionals claiming otherwise by their own persoanl experience that the video-creator has none of.
Through the insults and the attempt to be vastly witty while also side-stepping an actual point, the video lends itself to be redundantly bad with its sub-par attempt of analogies to today's pop culture and its references.
To conclude, practice does make perfect and just because this guy has a laissez-faire attitude doesn't mean I will equally give up playing a game and striving to be better that goes in conjunction with the uber-gamers that enjoy a challenge.
I think I may need to sit you down and explain what tl:dr actually means..
To those of you saying that everyone is equal and skill is just based on how much you play, you know there is something called IQ. People with higher IQs can learn stuff faster, so theoretically people with higher gaming related IQs (whatever skills pertain to gaming) will always be ahead of someone with lower gaming related IQ as long as they practice enough to outweigh the rate at which the lower player increases their skill (i.e. maybe 5 hours for 1 guy can be equivalent to 5 days of another guy.) It might not be exactly that straightforward, but IQs do exist.
Im a little confused about the video. What was the original intent? Was it just a rant? He kinda went from "Noobs are ruining game development" to "You are a noob and will always horrible". I mean, besides the self-satisfied condescension and the generally verbose rambling, I do agree with some points of the video. I think its really annoying when people have a need to make themselves feel better by telling themselves that they lost because "they arent nerds, and if they played more theyd be better".
Besides that though, it seemed kinda like a guy who takes himself too seriously. I dont get whats wrong with wanting a good story to go with the game? Hes talking like its a zero sum game. Some games have excellent stories and excellent gameplay. I havent bought a game for the story in a long time, but back when I played a lot of RPGs I know I enjoyed them.
On March 09 2011 18:03 Supamang wrote: Im a little confused about the video. What was the original intent? Was it just a rant? He kinda went from "Noobs are ruining game development" to "You are a noob and will always horrible". I mean, besides the self-satisfied condescension and the generally verbose rambling, I do agree with some points of the video. I think its really annoying when people have a need to make themselves feel better by telling themselves that they lost because "they arent nerds, and if they played more theyd be better".
Besides that though, it seemed kinda like a guy who takes himself too seriously. I dont get whats wrong with wanting a good story to go with the game? Hes talking like its a zero sum game. Some games have excellent stories and excellent gameplay. I havent bought a game for the story in a long time, but back when I played a lot of RPGs I know I enjoyed them.
I think the original intent of the video is a guy venting that the influx of 'casual gamers' has forced game devs to dumb down their games to require less skill, more of a nostalgic look on the old 8-bit days when games were hella tough.
As for this thread, he's trying to use it to say anyone who complains about balance is a noob because all your problems are skill related. I say it's not so black and white. There is plenty of misplaced and ill-informed QQ, but the game isn't perfect either.
On March 09 2011 14:29 Axeinst wrote: There is absolutely no evidence about that you cannot become progamer after 20 years.
People just assume alot and mess up with causes and outcomes and start to think totally wrong.
The difference between me, and you guys, is that I DONT ASSUME WITHOUT EVIDENCE. I just believe that there is NO REASON TO BELIEVE OTHERWISE WITHOUT EVIDENCE.
If you can provide me proof of being unable to become pro gamer after 20 years, then I can change my mind. But for now, there is no evidence.
It is just like with concept of god. There is no reason to believe that god exist because there is no evidence for it.
I will give you evidence. ALL THE B-TEAMERS ON KOREAN PRO TEAMS.
Now, if you want examples from a larger sample size, sports athletes, not just e-sports athletes decline in skill as a group after mid-20s. Yes some do last a long time, but exceptions are exceptions.
And if you want to look at talent difference, everyone in and around baseball will tell you David Eckstein is the hardest worker bar none in the league, but for some reason, he just can't produce anything but the average major league players...I WONDER WHY.
You are still using correlation as a causation which is incorrect logic.
Still; unless you bring evidence there is no reason to believe otherwise than everyone with normal intelligence are able to become top notch pro-gamer with right practise.
Well at least statistically and by scientific method, it is reasonably certain that not everyone who put in those hours can be the absolute best. In which case, every single player would be near identical on skill level, always, if they are on similar training regiment.
Now tell me a better argument for the contrary, thank you.
People practice wrong/not style with suiting best for them
And there is one thing which affects alot: not everyone can be professional because teams cannot pick up everyone and there is always certain little percentage of player base that is took to compete as professional.
There is nothing else.
So you are acknowledging there are intangible difference between the players right? Let's expand this further.
I will use two top-level players and contrast them. Bisu and Stork (sorry sc2 this example is just really good) are both S-class protoss. However it is clear that Bisu is better at PvZ while Stork is a monster at PvT. They are both ace player on their respective teams (bisu do get challenged by fantasy but it's irrelevant to discussion). They have both enjoyed successes for extended periods, and are likely as dedicated as each other for the game. Now please explain, why after an extended period where both players have repeatedly acknowledged respective weakness in their game and practiced extensively for it, the stat-line for bisu still reads PvT being his worst match-up and for Stork PvZ?
Now your initial hypothesis is likely not valid.
If you don't know that B-teamers are actually pro, I will then use a sc2 example regarding the "be a pro is near impossible and only the best of the best are pros" argument. Look at ROOT.Destiny and ROOT.Minigun. Both players are on professional team, and both risen from stream, small tourneys and good laddering. If there is talent, and it is exposed, professional teams will POUNCE on new talent.
Edit: actually, the best example of all time is the rise of Flash. Please look up his bio. And tell me how he is equally as gifted as the b-teamers.
And please what do you expect as proof? Human genetic diversity is common knowledge among most biologically educated community. You do realize this is the best proof to "not everyone can achieve exactly the same result with exactly the same effort“ argument, right?
Edit 2: I did realize, ignorance is indeed a bliss.
None of what you said, prooves that there is mystical talent that gives some people ability to get higher than other without this mystical talent.
Science does not work like that. If there is hypothese, then it needs to be evaluated and needs to stand after multipronged critisism.
There is currently no evidence about this mystical birth gave talent.
Only known variables are: amount of practise and quality of practising. Unless there is clear and believeable evidence about brain sections that work better than average people, that are also unarguably birth related, then only reason to believe why not everyone can not be Jaedong level, is just practice issues.
Now, I am no longer interested in with arguing people that are just plain stupid.
User was warned for this post
No offense, but I think you should put more weight in common sense in this discussion instead of the scientific method. And even if we talk about science and statistics, many things are not 100% proven. They are proven beyond a reasonable doubt, so I dont know why you are demanding for this "proof". It is pretty clear that some people are born more talented than others (IQ tests, physical handicaps, mental handicaps are all "evidence" of that).
Some people will always be better at certain things than others. I will never be as good as LeBron James in basketball. My genes do not allow me to be as tall as him, they dont allow me to be as strong or as big as him (trust me, I work out at least 3 times a week, but I am still smaller than some people who work out less). I will never be able to drive to the hoop as well as him no matter how hard I try.
I think its ridiculous that you require such a high confidence level to believe that at least some of us here will never be able to be as good as Jaedong. The fact that there are so many people who want to be the next NBA star, the next MVP quarterback, the next top SC player, etc. coupled with the fact that the overwhelming majority of them fail despite how hard they try suggests that some people are naturally more talented.
I know what youre going to say. "None of this is prooof! I need proof!" The burden of proof isn't on me. Im gonna say it again, the fact that superstar players and geniuses have been recognized throughout the history of mankind may not be absolute proof that some people are born more gifted, but each one of those geniuses DO serve as supporting evidence. The fact of the matter is, in the current state of things most people arent as good as Jaedong, or Lebron, or Payton Manning. Telling us that we need to supply YOU with proof and not the other way around is like those religious guys telling you to go prove that God DOESNT exist. Our evidence that some people are born more talented than others is the world as it exists today. How about you show us your evidence that everyone can be as talented as anyone?
On March 09 2011 18:03 Supamang wrote: Im a little confused about the video. What was the original intent? Was it just a rant? He kinda went from "Noobs are ruining game development" to "You are a noob and will always horrible". I mean, besides the self-satisfied condescension and the generally verbose rambling, I do agree with some points of the video. I think its really annoying when people have a need to make themselves feel better by telling themselves that they lost because "they arent nerds, and if they played more theyd be better".
Besides that though, it seemed kinda like a guy who takes himself too seriously. I dont get whats wrong with wanting a good story to go with the game? Hes talking like its a zero sum game. Some games have excellent stories and excellent gameplay. I havent bought a game for the story in a long time, but back when I played a lot of RPGs I know I enjoyed them.
I think the original intent of the video is a guy venting that the influx of 'casual gamers' has forced game devs to dumb down their games to require less skill, more of a nostalgic look on the old 8-bit days when games were hella tough.
As for this thread, he's trying to use it to say anyone who complains about balance is a noob because all your problems are skill related. I say it's not so black and white. There is plenty of misplaced and ill-informed QQ, but the game isn't perfect either.
The real problem is there is more misplaced and ill-informed QQ than there are balance problems.
If lose you a PvT to mass Marauder and you complain that Marauders are imba you must be a noob, this is because anyone using deductive logic would find a reasonable way to defeat mass marauder with little trouble. Its easier to cry imbalance than it is to workout a solution to your problems.
Basketball is different thing, because in that sport there is clear evidence of natural born factors that have impact on how high you can go in basketball. Though, there is some exceptions to this rule aswell.
On March 09 2011 18:03 Supamang wrote: Im a little confused about the video. What was the original intent? Was it just a rant? He kinda went from "Noobs are ruining game development" to "You are a noob and will always horrible". I mean, besides the self-satisfied condescension and the generally verbose rambling, I do agree with some points of the video. I think its really annoying when people have a need to make themselves feel better by telling themselves that they lost because "they arent nerds, and if they played more theyd be better".
Besides that though, it seemed kinda like a guy who takes himself too seriously. I dont get whats wrong with wanting a good story to go with the game? Hes talking like its a zero sum game. Some games have excellent stories and excellent gameplay. I havent bought a game for the story in a long time, but back when I played a lot of RPGs I know I enjoyed them.
I think the original intent of the video is a guy venting that the influx of 'casual gamers' has forced game devs to dumb down their games to require less skill, more of a nostalgic look on the old 8-bit days when games were hella tough.
As for this thread, he's trying to use it to say anyone who complains about balance is a noob because all your problems are skill related. I say it's not so black and white. There is plenty of misplaced and ill-informed QQ, but the game isn't perfect either.
The real problem is there is more misplaced and ill-informed QQ than there are balance problems.
If lose you a PvT to mass Marauder and you complain that Marauders are imba you must be a noob, this is because anyone using deductive logic would find a reasonable way to defeat mass marauder with little trouble. Its easier to cry imbalance than it is to workout a solution to your problems.
You have a very good point. However there's the other side of the spectrum, where a pro gamer comes in with an observation on balance and ten thousand bronze noobs tell him why's he's wrong.
I think the 'Portal' example over there was a bit inappropriate.. I mean, it was short, but it was very very fresh and new thing. I don't believe anyone done that before. It was original and fun, even if short. It wasn't supposed to be long anyway I believe, just some sort of a minigame, bonus, or whatever you call it.
On March 09 2011 14:13 zappa372 wrote: There's a lot of evidence suggesting that if you're pass 20 years old you won't be able to become a progamer, so...
So I guess WhiteRa is a special case then. :Rollseyes:
haha yeah
Sorry, think we were talking about korean bw progaming, I mean, people at the end of the curve of skills, not at the 70 or 80 percentile.
Anyway, there's pretty much evidence for the fact that your brain wires at your first years of life, and progressively loses the capacity of re-wire as the time passes by. If you are a JD, and you're born in an enviroment that develops such talent during the most part of your life, there's a good probability that you would become a progamer, but if you lack of that combination of genetic material and rich enviroment, sorry, you'll never be a progamer (skill-wise, obviously).
As we are talking about korean bw scene, which is the skill-cap of bw nowadays, you couldn't reach those levels of skill if you aren't born and raised in Korea (WCG domination anyone?), they have "talent" because they have every component to develop that talent, but, to note, not every korean progamer reaches that level.
Edit: About that basketball argument. Basketball's skills are easier to relate to fenotypic characteristics that Starcraft ones. Have you watched the NatGeo documental on korean bw-scene? There was a neuroscientist interested on how much different were the EEGs of progamers and casual gamers while playing. The difference was abrupt, the brains of progamers were optimized to play the game at a high skill level. Those brains became what they are, there's just so much involved on the talent notion; as I said, it's not a gift or a reachable goal, it's determinism (or destiny if you don't understand the exquisite interaction of multiple variables)
That has nothing to do with the fact, that every single humanbeing with normal intelligence are able to become top notch pro gamer. It is just matter of proper training and that training must be fitted perfectly for that persons needs.
It has nothing to do with being korean, for an example Idra recently said that it is issue of proper teamhouse behavior and other things like that, it is not issue of genetics.
About those EEGs, their brains have been shaped to that point, that they distinguish themselfs from average players brains. There is still no reason to believe that anything in this sense is gift in born.
On March 09 2011 21:21 Axeinst wrote: That has nothing to do with the fact, that every single humanbeing with normal intelligence are able to become top notch pro gamer. It is just matter of proper training and that training must be fitted perfectly for that persons needs.
It has nothing to do with being korean, for an example Idra recently said that it is issue of proper teamhouse behavior and other things like that, it is not issue of genetics.
About those EEGs, their brains have been shaped to that point, that they distinguish themselfs from average players brains. There is still no reason to believe that anything in this sense is gift in born.
You really don't understand the relation about fenotype and genotype right? As an example, people sometimes are born with higher or lower amounts of neurotransmitters (dopamine, acetylcholine, etc) that determine some neural development.
It appears that between us, is just me, without affirmating as a fact my point of view (but just providing some related evidence), the one who's not taking for granted the argument. You just made your argument a fact by just saying that is a fact. More interesting, Idra himself was on CJ house, did he became, with all that proper teamhouse behavior, an ace player? He just started too late his carreer as a progamer, Idra has some serious skill, don't misunderstand me, but he, in that time, started a race that he couldn't win.
All I am saying, is that every human being could become Jaedong with proper training. It is different thing, that what is the age line that training should start before.
Oh, and i totally know things about fenotypes and genotypes dont come to teach me about them. But the thing is, that fenotype doesnt provide information about genotype even though fenotype can change when genotype changes but the quality or amount of mutations cannot be determined by looking at fenotype.
People too often labels Jaedong-like players as God that is in unreachable level by "lower" people.
While there is absolutely no evidence for claim that to be Jaedong you need to be genetically gifted, it is logical and reasonable to assume that you need only proper training.
Just like with concept of god, it is only logical to assume that there is no god because there is no evidence for it.
I you accept that there are genetic differences and environmental differences that impact the brain and its ability to preform a specific set of tasks optimally, and you accept that a set of random players you choose will have said differences, then logically you must conclude that their ability to preform optimally will probably be different.
On March 09 2011 22:47 ZarMulix wrote: I you accept that there are genetic differences and environmental differences that impact the brain and its ability to preform a specific set of tasks optimally, and you accept that a set of random players you choose will have said differences, then logically you must conclude that their ability to preform optimally will probably be different.
There is only evidence for individual types of learning, but no evidence for skill cap.
My corean teacher said me something like that : "to be good at something you need 1%skill and 99%practice". Everyone can be mid masterleague, only skilled guys can reach top100.
On March 09 2011 22:57 Hane wrote: My corean teacher said me something like that : "to be good at something you need 1%skill and 99%practice". Everyone can be mid masterleague, only skilled guys can reach top100.
There is no evidence for claims like that.
Please, stop saying that unless you have evidence.
On March 09 2011 22:57 Hane wrote: My corean teacher said me something like that : "to be good at something you need 1%skill and 99%practice". Everyone can be mid masterleague, only skilled guys can reach top100.
There is no evidence for claims like that.
Please, stop saying that unless you have evidence.
Doesn't Outliers by Malcolm Gladwell prove that 99% of "ability" is a result of practice? He did quite a few studies on it and provides a lot of evidence, I generally trust Gladwell's research.
On March 09 2011 22:57 Hane wrote: My corean teacher said me something like that : "to be good at something you need 1%skill and 99%practice". Everyone can be mid masterleague, only skilled guys can reach top100.
Your teacher is a moron, and that does not surprise me since you're French and everybody knows that french's education system is becoming more and more garbage.
I have one question for you: how is it possible that your 1% skill is not equally distributed in our society despite gender / social class ?
Wow, just read the article on Expertise in Wikipedia... I'm not sure why everyones arguing about this. It's somewhat common knowledge that the more you expose yourself to a game the better you become at it. If your looking for a rough number for being an expert at something, it's said to be around 10,000 hours (or, approximately 3 hours a day for 10 years). Then, one could argue that the way in which you use your time training and practicing could expedite this. However, that being said, no one is an expert at SC2 yet, however, there are certainly experts in SC, and in RTS games in general.
On March 09 2011 22:57 Hane wrote: My corean teacher said me something like that : "to be good at something you need 1%skill and 99%practice". Everyone can be mid masterleague, only skilled guys can reach top100.
Your teacher is a moron, and that does not surprise me since you're French and everybody knows that french's education system is becoming more and more garbage.
nt, she is corean. Edit :
On March 09 2011 23:26 WhiteDog wrote: I have one question for you: how is it possible that your 1% skill is not equally distributed in our society despite gender / social class ?
Hum, i don't have the actual skill to speak about it in english ;( And i'm not rly sure that we are speaking about the same skill.
QQing is everywhere today because it was not possible during BW's era : there were not as many communication tools that there is today. Mr Nobody can argue with blizzard's employee through internet. Trying to resume everything by saying: well today everybody who play is noob, that's why they QQ, it was better yesterday, is narrowminded. And it's also funny to think that most of the player who are telling other to stop QQing are the one that will most likely QQ themselves if their race goes down/face difficulties.
We are not equal in terms of either intelligence or dexterity.
And i'm not talking about disabled people. I'm not disabled, i do pretty good at football (soccer), yet i will never be a Messi (not even Missi with his legs cut below the knee).
And i'm not mentally disabled either, i actually consider myself above average, yet would never accomplish half of what let's say, Albert Einstein could have accomplished while being in coma.
And intelligence is not a linear magnitude, it is multidimensional. It is time and spacial sensitive. It's the ability to both abstract and generalize scenarios. Its knowing how to extrapolate and predict using only partial information. It's skill at the time of assigning a value to a situation compared to other. It's the ability to empathise with the opponent, which happens to be another human, and thus be able to use such information as an advantage, as a deceit, or psychological warfare. It's being able to do all this things in speed. It's being able to have many ideas in mind at the same time. It's about being organized.
This kind of stuff is in part genetic and in part learned. And we are not equal in either of them. What you have been doing, and what your surrounds were will make you develop some skills better than others, always limited by genetic factors.
And the stage in life in which you approached them also makes a dent. It is easier to learn some things when you are young than as you grow older.
So the only truth about success in whatever, is that you will get better with practice. Comparison with other people other than playing some matches is meaningless.
If talking about "chance", you can be pretty sure you are not going anywhere near GSL. It is just statistics.
The same way there is "disabled" people, there are "super-able" people. And if we as a society are reluctant to see it and try to shield our thought-to-be damaged dignity by being "politically correct" and hug the "Little engine that could" tale without really trying as an excuse for sucking then we are bound to be mediocres compared to what each, individually could have been compared to ourselves, not others.
I'm not saying that it is "bad". In the end it is all about being happy right? But it is the kind of retarded happiness i could smile upon in a monkey, not in the superior animals we usually like to think we are.
this is a good meter as to how much of a noob you are it goes beyond just gaming if your offended by it your most likely a noob, but its ok Jeremy already stated that the world needs noob and not everyone can be pro
On March 09 2011 22:57 Hane wrote: My corean teacher said me something like that : "to be good at something you need 1%skill and 99%practice". Everyone can be mid masterleague, only skilled guys can reach top100.
There is no evidence for claims like that.
Please, stop saying that unless you have evidence.
Doesn't Outliers by Malcolm Gladwell prove that 99% of "ability" is a result of practice? He did quite a few studies on it and provides a lot of evidence, I generally trust Gladwell's research.
That doesn't change the fact that Hane's post had nothing to back up his claim with.
On March 08 2011 15:20 Torte de Lini wrote: Cool, a video with a bright yellow backdrop and uses imagery to comedically display his fast-spoken narration and downplays all factors that makes a "good game".
Cool, a topic that has no opinion but rather tells us to watch the 3 minute and 50 seconds of an opinion they needed to be developed in order to justify why other topics of balance and gameplay flood our forums.
I'd voice an opinion but this guy has lead his opinion onto insulting me because we have different views of good gameplay and a good game.
tl:dr The video attempts to tell us that no matter how much we practice we cannot be a pro-gamer or those who are on the competitive scene despite numerous professionals claiming otherwise by their own persoanl experience that the video-creator has none of.
Through the insults and the attempt to be vastly witty while also side-stepping an actual point, the video lends itself to be redundantly bad with its sub-par attempt of analogies to today's pop culture and its references.
To conclude, practice does make perfect and just because this guy has a laissez-faire attitude doesn't mean I will equally give up playing a game and striving to be better that goes in conjunction with the uber-gamers that enjoy a challenge.
Torte de lini your TL;DR is longer than your original statement...
Haha, yeah. My bad. I just hate these videos because they narrowly ignore a lot of factors and variables and attempt to grab its audience with funny wordplay and straight-to-the-point blunt attacks while indicating a somehow separation between one gamer over another.
I don't even see the relativity of this video to the topics the OP is whining about.
I mean for starters: Oh no, the interactivity of a good story is not the equivalent of 1984, God Forbid! I am clearly a low-life cretin because Mass Effect was an entertaining game coupled with a very thrilling story.
Id say you missed the point because if you found it to be a good game AND have a compelling story.
Really before you rage and sound like the kind of noob he is talking about l2p at english?
His point is you cant be pro at everything, accept it. Now get pro at the things you are good at and dont whine unless you are pro because your a noob and none cares what you think.
There is no evidence of a skill cap?!?!?! WTF of course there is ... people carry out actions IN TIME. Because there is a finite amount of time and people do not learn at an infinite rate there is a skill cap by necessity.
Please if you are going to talk philosophy under the guise of pseudo psychology l2p philosophy because otherwise you are talking rubbish.
To elucidate the % skill comment, the quote origionates from Kants definition of genius (I think in his wors on the aesthetic) which is esssentially talent mixed with dedication (Think rock lee). He was a prodestant and had a podestant work ethic. The point is you take 2 euqally skilled people in potential and the one who works harder will be better.
Skill is a combination of knowledge and automation allowing you to abstract higher and higher away from a task allowing you to concerntrate on ever more general problems. High skill comes from high practise not your parents. Naturally if your genes / education suck you wont get sill as fast.
On March 09 2011 19:01 Axeinst wrote: Basketball is different thing, because in that sport there is clear evidence of natural born factors that have impact on how high you can go in basketball. Though, there is some exceptions to this rule aswell.
In sc2, there is no known things like that.
Really? do you find action accuracy and multi-tasking to be trained traits ONLY? Physical limitation is present for every part of the body, including hands and brain development.
I was hoping if I ignored this it would die and go away, but it's not doing that.
This kind of thing is only written by people in their teens/early 20's before they get a bit older and realise that if they had dedicated themselves to something they could have been/done ANYTHING they wanted.
If you're a normal 15 year old or younger, and reading this right now, and you want to be a professional footballer or doctor you can do it, but you must work consistantly every day towards your goal.
Of course there are a few people who have a natural talent, but there are many fewer people who have the focus and determination to work towards being excellent at whatever they choose to do.
I still don't understand what I just watched, the narrator whos talking at 5.0x speed is continually bringing up different points while calling everything, ''ghey'', and stupid. If the whole video was mean't to be sarcasm, then just ignore this, but if it was to be taken seriously, then it doesn't make a very valid point does it?
Skill is something that is not natural. However, physical/mental traits may give you an edge at doing something. If I play basketball and I'm 6''5, then obviously I would have an advantage over most of the other players. If I had a voice that had a large dynamic range, and healthy lungs, then I could easily become a singer. I cannot though, as this is not the case. Starcraft 2 is something that everyone sucks at when they've never played it before. It's not like JulyZerg immediately knew how to play starcraft 2 as well as he does now when he was born. These, ''n00bs'' screaming certain aspects of the game are imbalanced is simply from the lack of knowledge surrounding the game (or they're just trollin because they have nothing else to do). It may seem like mutalisks are imbalanced in the sense that they have so much mobility, they can poke in and our of your mineral line and continually make you feel closed in. You might try building stalkers but you don't know how to control them well enough to stop the mutalisks. Or maybe you place some cannons but they're in the worst possible positions. Or maybe you just don't UNDERSTAND the game well enough to counter this. Starcraft 2 is not perfectly ''balanced'' and it won't ever be. The thing is though, the game is set up so that no matter what your enemy does, there is a counter to it. Its like playing a game of rock-paper-scissors, except its not based on chance. Its based on your own understanding of what's at your disposal and how to execute what you wanna do properly.
On March 09 2011 22:02 Axeinst wrote: People too often labels Jaedong-like players as God that is in unreachable level by "lower" people.
While there is absolutely no evidence for claim that to be Jaedong you need to be genetically gifted, it is logical and reasonable to assume that you need only proper training.
Just like with concept of god, it is only logical to assume that there is no god because there is no evidence for it.
No. Clearly you didnt read the end of my post. The burden of proof isn't on us to prove that us lower level players can't reach Jaedong's level. In our world as it is now, there is only 1 Jaedong and only a handful of others who are near his level. People who train their asses off but aren't anywhere near his level, on the other hand, are a dime a dozen.
I'm gonna say it again. Our evidence that not everyone can get to the top level is the current state of the world and the history of all mankind. You saying that we need to provide the proof here is like religious people saying that you have to prove that God DOESNT exist. In this case the burden of proof is on YOU to provide evidence than anyone and everyone can get to his level with the proper training.
Edit: Oh and no one said he was a God. Hes just way better at SC than us. I dont really follow BW so im no dick rider here. Im just saying, different people are born different, and some people are better than others at some things while being worse at other things.
Edit #2: Im not gonna say people should use this as an excuse to go "aww fuck it" about everything in life. Of course you should try your hardest in everything you do. To quote Antoine Ego: "Not everyone can become a great artist, but a great artist can come from anywhere."
I don't like this video (which i saw awhile ago) because it assumes that easy games are low quality games. I think that just because a game like Assassin's Creed is piss-easy doesn't mean it's not a well-done game, and i know of multiple hardcore gamers who love Mass Effect solely for the writing and story elements. Portal isn't a long or hard game, but it is well-designed and very well-written and is therefore fun and funny to play.
The problem is games like MW2, which changes from CoD4 mainly consist of taking every problem and making it ten times worse, then releasing it without adequate security or good game-testing. Or, not quite as bad, games like Halo Reach, which tries to split the middle between competitive and casual and then fails on both fronts. Games can be a challenge all they want, but gameplay doesn't have to be hard for it to be good. And don't get me wrong, i'm a competitive player who loves a challenge, but i don't assume everyone or everyone should be.
I disagree that people have natural talent for things. Talent is a product of practice. I remember reading an article about how the most talented people in the world have over 10,000 hours dedicated to their craft. That experience is what makes them talented. It's true that some people could never paint the Mona Lisa, but that's because they're not interested in painting and would never dedicate enough time to do it. And it's true that there are players in Bronze League with 1000 games and still suck balls, but that's because they're not playing to get better. Drawing a circle a thousand times won't teach you how to draw the Mona Lisa.
On March 10 2011 12:54 KevinIX wrote: I disagree that people have natural talent for things. Talent is a product of practice. I remember reading an article about how the most talented people in the world have over 10,000 hours dedicated to their craft. That experience is what makes them talented. It's true that some people could never paint the Mona Lisa, but that's because they're not interested in painting and would never dedicate enough time to do it. And it's true that there are players in Bronze League with 1000 games and still suck balls, but that's because they're not playing to get better. Drawing a circle a thousand times won't teach you how to draw the Mona Lisa.
Yes, youre right. Anyone could practice long enough to paint the Mona Lisa. But could that same person create a new piece of art as well renowned as the Mona Lisa?
I personally believe physical/mental traits are very important in determining if someone is good at something or bad at something. Although it definitely depends on what the activity is. Some things are mindless and practice only will bring a person to a top level. Also some peoples genetic makeups make them able to practice much more than another person and allow them to practice at a more efficient rate. Of course there's no way to prove this.
So basically I definitely feel like people have natural talents for things, this "thing" could even be a natural talent for practice. (motivation, work ethic, etc)
On March 10 2011 10:52 Supamang wrote: You saying that we need to provide the proof here is like religious people saying that you have to prove that God DOESNT exist.
No, you are wrong. The thing is exact opposite.
YOU need to prove that talent DO EXIST. I dont have to prove that it DOESNT exist. Currently, there is no evidence for it, deal with it.
It is not evidence that there is only few people at the top.
On March 10 2011 10:52 Supamang wrote: You saying that we need to provide the proof here is like religious people saying that you have to prove that God DOESNT exist.
No, you are wrong. The thing is exact opposite.
YOU need to prove that talent DO EXIST. I dont have to prove that it DOESNT exist. Currently, there is no evidence for it, deal with it.
It is not evidence that there is only few people at the top.
No, talent is observed empirically, unlike the presence of a creator. You need to prove the opposite.
Edit: The fact you acknowledge talent difference in other sports give you a shaky ground to give evidence to your shaky hypothesis
On March 10 2011 10:52 Supamang wrote: You saying that we need to provide the proof here is like religious people saying that you have to prove that God DOESNT exist.
No, you are wrong. The thing is exact opposite.
YOU need to prove that talent DO EXIST. I dont have to prove that it DOESNT exist. Currently, there is no evidence for it, deal with it.
It is not evidence that there is only few people at the top.
No, talent is observed empirically, unlike the presence of a creator. You need to prove the opposite.
Edit: The fact you acknowledge talent difference in other sports give you a shaky ground to give evidence to your shaky hypothesis
There is no empirically proved talent in starcraft 2 unlike some other sports.
In science, there is no need for even hypothesis to say that something does not exist. In science, you need hypothesis and later on theory to proove that something do exist.
Currently, there is no scientifically prooved existence of genetic talent for starcraft 2.
On March 10 2011 10:52 Supamang wrote: You saying that we need to provide the proof here is like religious people saying that you have to prove that God DOESNT exist.
No, you are wrong. The thing is exact opposite.
YOU need to prove that talent DO EXIST. I dont have to prove that it DOESNT exist. Currently, there is no evidence for it, deal with it.
It is not evidence that there is only few people at the top.
No, talent is observed empirically, unlike the presence of a creator. You need to prove the opposite.
Edit: The fact you acknowledge talent difference in other sports give you a shaky ground to give evidence to your shaky hypothesis
There is no empirically proved talent in starcraft 2 unlike some other sports.
In science, there is no need for even hypothesis to say that something does not exist. In science, you need hypothesis and later on theory to proove that something do exist.
Currently, there is no scientifically prooved existence of genetic talent for starcraft 2.
Well again, the statistical difference of your average A-teamer and S-class players. No scientific journal has been written about this yet because nobody would pay the research funds, and it is amazing how people can train together for extended period of times while on pro teams but there are only so few superstars among them.
Now, please look up scientific journals regarding hand-eye coordination and see if humans as a whole have any variation on that based on factors other than practice. If there are variation at all then your theory is in a lot of trouble. Because it is well established in scientific field that video game ability is closely related to hand-eye coordination skills.
On March 10 2011 10:52 Supamang wrote: You saying that we need to provide the proof here is like religious people saying that you have to prove that God DOESNT exist.
No, you are wrong. The thing is exact opposite.
YOU need to prove that talent DO EXIST. I dont have to prove that it DOESNT exist. Currently, there is no evidence for it, deal with it.
It is not evidence that there is only few people at the top.
No, talent is observed empirically, unlike the presence of a creator. You need to prove the opposite.
Edit: The fact you acknowledge talent difference in other sports give you a shaky ground to give evidence to your shaky hypothesis
There is no empirically proved talent in starcraft 2 unlike some other sports.
In science, there is no need for even hypothesis to say that something does not exist. In science, you need hypothesis and later on theory to proove that something do exist.
Currently, there is no scientifically prooved existence of genetic talent for starcraft 2.
Well again, the statistical difference of your average A-teamer and S-class players. No scientific journal has been written about this yet because nobody would pay the research funds, and it is amazing how people can train together for extended period of times while on pro teams but there are only so few superstars among them.
Now, please look up scientific journals regarding hand-eye coordination and see if humans as a whole have any variation on that based on factors other than practice. If there are variation at all then your theory is in a lot of trouble. Because it is well established in scientific field that video game ability is closely related to hand-eye coordination skills.
I dont have any theory, because there is no need for theory to say that something does not exist.
You have the burden of evidence, sir.
Currently, you have not provided any evidence, instead of that you are just saying statistical clutter. Statistics does not prove that there is genetic talent.
On March 10 2011 17:17 TheBlueMeaner wrote: Hey Axeinst what rank are you on the ladder?
His rank is "as good as IMMVP if I tried as hard as him", just like the rest of us...
Axeinst, the burden of proof lies with whoever takes the position against the general state of things. There is no hard evidence for God existing and having an impact in our lives, so therefore the burden of proof lies with the Christians. Currently, there ARE pros who excel far above other pros who also practice ridiculously hard. This may not be your desired proof, but it is evidence and the general state of the world. There is no evidence and there are no cases showing that anyone and everyone could be as good as the super stars if they just tried as hard. Tell me again, why does the burden of proof lie with us when it is your side that is going against the status quo?
On March 10 2011 17:17 TheBlueMeaner wrote: Hey Axeinst what rank are you on the ladder?
His rank is "as good as IMMVP if I tried as hard as him", just like the rest of us...
Axeinst, the burden of proof lies with whoever takes the position against the general state of things. There is no hard evidence for God existing and having an impact in our lives, so therefore the burden of proof lies with the Christians. Currently, there ARE pros who excel far above other pros who also practice ridiculously hard. This may not be your desired proof, but it is evidence and the general state of the world. There is no evidence and there are no cases showing that anyone and everyone could be as good as the super stars if they just tried as hard. Tell me again, why does the burden of proof lie with us when it is your side that is going against the status quo?
Because it only proves, that there is only few people as good as those top pros. It doesnt prove genetic gift.
Scientifically, it doesnt prove that they have genetic gift that others do not posses. You can assume as much as you can, but it does not prove anything.
Btw, alot of people believe god exist. You are so wrong about that if enough people believes in something it will make it valid argument.
There is false argumentation called "Argumentum ad populum". Your argumentation just relies in popular opinion.
Please, stop using logical fallacies in argumentation.
This is like players in bronze league with a few thousand games already... I'm sure they're trying hard. But this will never make them "good" players. Like taking a look at top master league players. They will have a huuuuge spread in games played - however their ranks will be fairly equal (and yeah, I know like ½ their games are customs - but you got my point, right?).
I don't want to call it a biological/genetic advantage. But I will call it natural talent!
On March 08 2011 15:20 Torte de Lini wrote: tl:dr The video attempts to tell us that no matter how much we practice we cannot be a pro-gamer or those who are on the competitive scene despite numerous professionals claiming otherwise by their own persoanl experience that the video-creator has none of.
To conclude, practice does make perfect and just because this guy has a laissez-faire attitude doesn't mean I will equally give up playing a game and striving to be better that goes in conjunction with the uber-gamers that enjoy a challenge.
Truly hard work and brilliant analytical play are TALENT and SITUATION based. Just saying that since I have both the time and the internet access to be a better gamer does not mean everyone else can. Just because every idiot under 35 believe they could run away to a buddhist temple and become a martial arts master doesn't mean they can. In fact they couldn't and in the IMMENSELY tiny circumstance that they do, it was merely because they were gifted to begin with.
True, almost anyone can hit the 98th percentile, but to someone standing on the 99.8th percentile the 98th percentile seems like trash beyond comprehension. The Ubergamer is someone with the hard work AND the brilliance AND the compatible situation. Not everyone can be Boxer of 2002, but everyone can be... well... Hyuk of 2008. And that's actually pretty damn good.
This topic is far too complicated to reduce down to talent vs hard work in it's simpliest forms.
For example, nobody has even mentioned the way the brain develops and the result of learning there in. It is much easier to learn new skills when you are younger, and every activity a young person is engaged in is developing their mental and physical capacity. In relation to SC2, most people are starting to play when their brains are for the most part fully developed. However the different experiences of similar activites such as hand-eye co-ordination exercises, would obviously have an influence over their relative skill capacities.
Then there is the QUALITY of learning. Some practice is better than others. Also, external factors might hinder your development, such as if you are distracted by social pressures.
It's hard to argue against genetic predisposition in really any scenario, however external influence is acting upon the brain and body from the moment you are born, and it can radically change the nature of who you are.
So, just because the amount of practice someone puts in is not directly proportional to their skill level, does NOT mean that they were instead born with insane abilities.
On March 10 2011 17:17 TheBlueMeaner wrote: Hey Axeinst what rank are you on the ladder?
His rank is "as good as IMMVP if I tried as hard as him", just like the rest of us...
Axeinst, the burden of proof lies with whoever takes the position against the general state of things. There is no hard evidence for God existing and having an impact in our lives, so therefore the burden of proof lies with the Christians. Currently, there ARE pros who excel far above other pros who also practice ridiculously hard. This may not be your desired proof, but it is evidence and the general state of the world. There is no evidence and there are no cases showing that anyone and everyone could be as good as the super stars if they just tried as hard. Tell me again, why does the burden of proof lie with us when it is your side that is going against the status quo?
Because it only proves, that there is only few people as good as those top pros. It doesnt prove genetic gift.
Scientifically, it doesnt prove that they have genetic gift that others do not posses. You can assume as much as you can, but it does not prove anything.
Btw, alot of people believe god exist. You are so wrong about that if enough people believes in something it will make it valid argument.
There is false argumentation called "Argumentum ad populum". Your argumentation just relies in popular opinion.
Please, stop using logical fallacies in argumentation.
AGAIN, NO.
Jesus christ, im not sure if youre intentionally "misreading" my posts just so you can continually repeat your "I NEED PROOF" arguments. My argument is, the current state of the world shows people excelling above others despite comparable training time. I AM NOT SAYING THIS IS PROOF. I am saying that neither, let me repeat, NEITHER of us has absolute proof to defend our positions. However, since there are, and always have been, people who rise up as stars among other exceptional people, my position is better supported as it is now. THEREFORE, the burden of proof lies with you.
If you want to talk about logical fallacies, you saying that "I am so wrong about that if enough people believe in something it will make it valid argument" is a strawman. That is a weaker and more incorrect position than the one I am holding, and you put it up to shut it down to make yourself seem right.
On March 10 2011 20:49 Axeinst wrote: You just dont get it.
I am done with you, learn to make arguments.
Learn to address them instead of walking away with your nose in the air.
Anyone here can see that I made completely legitimate arguments, you just ignored them. You can go ahead and believe that fairy tale of "anyone can become anything they ever want to be," but you can't demand us to show you proof when we say "no you can't." It is your job to prove us wrong, not the other way around.
On March 10 2011 20:49 Axeinst wrote: You just dont get it.
I am done with you, learn to make arguments.
Learn to address them instead of walking away with your nose in the air.
Anyone here can see that I made completely legitimate arguments, you just ignored them. You can go ahead and believe that fairy tale of "anyone can become anything they ever want to be," but you can't demand us to show you proof when we say "no you can't." It is your job to prove us wrong, not the other way around.
Not everyone can become anything they want, because there is people with mental retardness or physical disabilities.
On March 10 2011 02:26 ElPeque.fogata wrote: We are not equal.
We are not equal in terms of either intelligence or dexterity.
And i'm not talking about disabled people. I'm not disabled, i do pretty good at football (soccer), yet i will never be a Messi (not even Missi with his legs cut below the knee).
And i'm not mentally disabled either, i actually consider myself above average, yet would never accomplish half of what let's say, Albert Einstein could have accomplished while being in coma.
And intelligence is not a linear magnitude, it is multidimensional. It is time and spacial sensitive. It's the ability to both abstract and generalize scenarios. Its knowing how to extrapolate and predict using only partial information. It's skill at the time of assigning a value to a situation compared to other. It's the ability to empathise with the opponent, which happens to be another human, and thus be able to use such information as an advantage, as a deceit, or psychological warfare. It's being able to do all this things in speed. It's being able to have many ideas in mind at the same time. It's about being organized.
This kind of stuff is in part genetic and in part learned. And we are not equal in either of them. What you have been doing, and what your surrounds were will make you develop some skills better than others, always limited by genetic factors.
And the stage in life in which you approached them also makes a dent. It is easier to learn some things when you are young than as you grow older.
So the only truth about success in whatever, is that you will get better with practice. Comparison with other people other than playing some matches is meaningless.
If talking about "chance", you can be pretty sure you are not going anywhere near GSL. It is just statistics.
The same way there is "disabled" people, there are "super-able" people. And if we as a society are reluctant to see it and try to shield our thought-to-be damaged dignity by being "politically correct" and hug the "Little engine that could" tale without really trying as an excuse for sucking then we are bound to be mediocres compared to what each, individually could have been compared to ourselves, not others.
I'm not saying that it is "bad". In the end it is all about being happy right? But it is the kind of retarded happiness i could smile upon in a monkey, not in the superior animals we usually like to think we are.
excuse my english, maybe it came out messed up.
We are equal, but not in everything. We develop different skill through our biography. Some are good to math because math is/was the thing they need to climb up society (mom said she likes math teacher) while others did not see the utilitary behind "math". We are not equally good for everything, but we are equal overall.
On March 09 2011 21:21 Axeinst wrote: That has nothing to do with the fact, that every single humanbeing with normal intelligence are able to become top notch pro gamer. It is just matter of proper training and that training must be fitted perfectly for that persons needs.
Prove it. You just made this statement about 10 times (and used it as the basis for your shoddy and flawed arguments) while offering absolutely zero proof for it. Have you done empirical studies to show that all kinds of different people with normal intelligence can all become progamers given the correct training? Do you even know what their intelligences are (in different areas)?
Like someone said, intelligence is multi-faceted and encompasses dozens of different areas (IQ is far too simplified and narrow). Can you even test people's intelligence in all conceivable areas even remotely accurately? (No)
No? Didn't think so. Meanwhile, you keep asking others for proof to counter your own proof-less assumptions. The burden of proof is on you. As I said earlier, you're full of shit.
On March 10 2011 20:49 Axeinst wrote: You just dont get it.
I am done with you, learn to make arguments.
Learn to address them instead of walking away with your nose in the air.
Anyone here can see that I made completely legitimate arguments, you just ignored them. You can go ahead and believe that fairy tale of "anyone can become anything they ever want to be," but you can't demand us to show you proof when we say "no you can't." It is your job to prove us wrong, not the other way around.
Not everyone can become anything they want, because there is people with mental retardness or physical disabilities.
There you go. You just agreed that people can differ significantly on a biological level, whether it be physical or mental. You also agreed that "not everyone can become anything they want" due to these disabilities.
Mental retardation is clinically defined as being below roughly 70 to 75 IQ. Obviously, there are people within the high 70s, 80s, and 90s range of IQ who are below he average IQ of 100. You said "mental retardedness" can preclude peoples ability to become anything they want. Is there some magical curse that once you are officially labeled "mentally retarded" that prevents high achievement, or do you admit that there are differences in intelligence that can allow gifted people to rise above others? Are you telling me that people without mental retardation within the 80s to 90s range will be able to function as well as people up at the 120s to 130s range as long as they practice long enough in SC (or anything else for that matter) just because they arent "mentally retarded" by definition?
Let me repeat my argument so you cant just ignore it. You just admitted biological differences can stop people from become anything they want. But you also said people can get to the top purely through practice. So which is it? Can people or can people not overcome their biological deficiencies with practice?
Note: I am not usually the one to defend pro SC as a "sports worthy" feat, but i think its ridiculous to deny that being at the top in anything that requires skill should be noteworthy.
People want easier games because they can't handle hard ones. He's not saying you can't be a pro gamer if you practice your ass off and have talent. But if you don't have talent then no matter how hard you try July will show his golden mouse up your ass.
I think I speak for everyone on the internet when I say LATE PASS @ the OP; however, the video did strike me in a profound way about 3 years ago when I first saw it. The game industry, for the most part, is working very hard to rope in the "casual" gamer and keep him entertained/sucking on the teet of the game industry. Can't blame them for that; it is a business. Competitive players make up a very small percentage of people who play video games these days. Casual players are the majority. Of course they're going to cater to casual players.
This brings me to another point though. Some casual players think they can be competitive. And of course, they're idiots, most of the time. Take fighting game players. Hardcore players are capable of ripping apart casual players easily. This usually has one of two effects: to the scrub (that is, the idiot who will complain of cheating, abuse, cheapness, etc. to explain his loss), it makes him want to quit and never play again. The n00b, however, will sometimes take this as a learning experience, and sometimes, become a decent competitive player.
I dunno where I was going with this rambling, but yeah. Videos from the internet that are 3+ years old are fun to post on forums.
On March 11 2011 14:37 Axeinst wrote: If human is not mentally retarded and has the average of 100 IQ then there should not be problems.
It is scientifically proved that if IQ is lower than 100, then humanbeing starts to have kognitive problems.
IQ of 100 is the mean of the population. Statistically, roughly 50% of the population would be below an IQ of 100. Are you seriously suggesting that half of the people in the world have cognitive problems? I honestly dont know here so Id like to see where you got that information.
Also, since you said in an earlier post, "None of what you said, prooves that there is mystical talent that gives some people ability to get higher than other without this mystical talent," Im going to have to throw your argument back at you in this case. What is the mystical anti-talent that suddenly happens if you happen to be below that magical 100 IQ mark?
Finally, it seems like youve conceded your original argument. Practice is apparently not the only deciding factor for how good you can be at SC anymore. Apparently you admit that intelligence is also a significant factor. So why is it that 100 IQ is the be all end all deciding factor here? 85 IQ is obviously worse than 100 IQ. 115 is obviously better than 100. What makes it so an 85 IQ person cant perform as well as the 100 IQ person, but the 100 IQ person CAN perform as well as the 115 guy?
EPT
![[image loading]](http://www.growingyourbaby.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/3207291_s-300x200.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_D_Z-D2tzi14/S8TTPQCPA6I/AAAAAAAACwA/ZHZH-Bi8OmI/s1600/ALOT2.png)
