|
On December 23 2011 08:59 aut0mati0n wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2011 08:48 kappadevin wrote:On December 23 2011 08:34 aut0mati0n wrote:On December 23 2011 08:29 kappadevin wrote:On December 23 2011 08:22 Doc.Rivers wrote:On December 23 2011 08:18 kappadevin wrote:On December 23 2011 08:05 Doc.Rivers wrote:On December 23 2011 07:52 kappadevin wrote:On December 23 2011 07:30 Doc.Rivers wrote:On December 23 2011 07:07 kappadevin wrote:
[quote]
Aphrodite is a PRO FEMALE GAMER, signed to a PRO GAMING TEAM. The closest relevant comparison to her stream viewership is a PRO MALE GAMER signed to a PRO GAMING TEAM. How would comparing Aphrodite's stream viewership to any other gamer even make the tiniest bit of sense?
Also, Starcraft 2 is a sport, just like every other sport. History has shown that because males play at a higher level in every sport, they recieve more funding and viewers because people want to watch the best of the best play. Why do you think that Starcraft would be any different than the multitude of other sports that have been played since the beginning of time? You're not quite following. Aphrodite is comparable to FLo because both have similar skill and are on pro gaming teams. We have no need to compare them to pro gamer males because we're not talking about pro gamer males, we're talking about high master males. I'm arguing that Flo had greater revenue potential than the high master males you feel should be chosen over her for Quantic. You can't point to the stream numbers of featured pro gamer males as evidence that high master males have equal revenue potential as Flo. If you still can't follow, you simply aren't smart, sorry man. You're the one not following. Flo will get the same amount of veiwers as Aphrodite. Once a "high masters" player signs with a pro team, they become a, guess what, a pro gamer. As soon as someone adds a pro gaming tag to the back of their ID, they will get more viewers on that basis, as they have been put into the spotlight. Now that he is a pro gamer, he would garnish the same amount of views as any other given pro male gamer, which is why I used that as a reference (which ranges from about 300 to 3000 currently on the featured stream list). You can't compare a pro female to a non pro male just like I wouldn't compare a pro gamer to a non pro female. Um, no. The high master male signed to a pro team doesn't even get featured, bud. I like how you assume I am a male, without really thinking that through. Lol funny how after that guy suggested troll you switched to obvious trolling in order to save face from the stupidity of your previous logic  . I guess it would be tough to comprehend that a woman actually wants to not be spoon fed, right? Players, regardless of gender, should be held to the same standards. That's what my argument is. So now that you're losing an argument you state your a chick because...? Let's say for a moment that Doc is right, that she was signed because she will bring in higher ad revenue. That would still mean that Quantic is signing her because she is a woman. They would think that because she is a woman, being of lower skill value would still bring her a high number of viewers. How is that not insulting to Flo? It's basically Quantic saying that we could have signed anyone but we signed you because we know you are a woman and that will bring us more ad revenue. It isn't like she was coming off the back of some major tournament win, or had been showing consistantly good results in tournaments. I just feel like all of the arguments supporting this signing are trying to find excuses for the obvious: She was signed because she was a woman, not because she was the best player they could have signed. I want to see a real true girl pro-gamer that gets signed to a team out of pure merit, a girl who just comes through a tournament and dominates. I want female gamers to be put at the same level as their male counterparts, because I know they are completely capable of doing so. I don't want their to have to be separate female tournaments for them to showcase their skills. I think it takes away from the entire idea of the competition, as if being a woman is some sort of crutch that doesn't let them compete equally with men, and therefore need special consideration to be able to win a tournament. I enjoy the fact that you didn't field my question, but I'll humor your post anyways. Name me one female in the scene right now who is at the same skill level of anyone in code S. Now name me any number of mid-to-high-masters players with good potential to be code S material. Lets put it this way - I enjoy playing SC2, quite a bit, and attend LANs and other tournaments, some of which are female only, and post decent results. And I want to get better. It's just that I'm currently working a dull 9 to 5 and I'm paying off some student loans from back when I was at college. Do you ever expect me to get to code S (even if I have the most potential out of any person to play SC2)? Probably not. You can't train like the pros train while working 40 hours a week. It's just not possible. Playing SC2 at a very high level is a job. And usually without team sponsorship there's no way you can quit your job and go pro full time. I'm all for someone working their way up to the top all by themselves (for example the one redditor who's taking a year off to go pro), but it's naive to think that anyone wanting to better themselves as a player of SC2 would turn down team sponsorship on principle. If you want to get ahead you get ahead by any means possible. (Also I'm male, just using the above as an example)
I hope you are right about that. I mean, she seemed pretty eager to improve and learn to be better, and I hope she does do well. I already posted much earlier that I support her decision to join Quantic for those exact reasons.
Even in the interview, though, it felt to me like they were drawing unneeded attention to the fact that she was a woman. Most of the questions they asked were in reference to that fact, as if it was a critical part of their decision to sign her, which rubbed me the wrong way. I mean, one of the questions was about how guys would be able to pick up a pro-gamer girl... It was all in good fun, but still...
EDIT: To clarify, I am upset about Quantic's decision to sign her and their motivations for it, not for Flo's decision to join them.
|
IOn December 23 2011 08:48 kappadevin wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2011 08:34 aut0mati0n wrote:On December 23 2011 08:29 kappadevin wrote:On December 23 2011 08:22 Doc.Rivers wrote:On December 23 2011 08:18 kappadevin wrote:On December 23 2011 08:05 Doc.Rivers wrote:On December 23 2011 07:52 kappadevin wrote:On December 23 2011 07:30 Doc.Rivers wrote:On December 23 2011 07:07 kappadevin wrote:On December 23 2011 07:00 Doc.Rivers wrote:
[quote]
Irrelevant, we're talking about well-known female SC2 players, not female players from other sports. We don't need to look at basketball to determine whether a female SC2 player has greater revenue potential than a random high master male.
[quote]
Again your attempt at comparison is completely irrelevant. Your entire argument concerns high master males because they're the ones you think are more skilled than Flo and should be chosen over her. Yet you point to the stream numbers of professional, featured male streamers to try to demonstrate that high master males have equal revenue potential to Flo. Can you not see why that example is irrelevant? Think it about it for a minute.
EDIT: And to claim that Quantic signed Flo for her to serve as eye-candy for the rest of the team...well, I hope you realize you aren't helping yourself appear intelligent. Aphrodite is a PRO FEMALE GAMER, signed to a PRO GAMING TEAM. The closest relevant comparison to her stream viewership is a PRO MALE GAMER signed to a PRO GAMING TEAM. How would comparing Aphrodite's stream viewership to any other gamer even make the tiniest bit of sense? Also, Starcraft 2 is a sport, just like every other sport. History has shown that because males play at a higher level in every sport, they recieve more funding and viewers because people want to watch the best of the best play. Why do you think that Starcraft would be any different than the multitude of other sports that have been played since the beginning of time? You're not quite following. Aphrodite is comparable to FLo because both have similar skill and are on pro gaming teams. We have no need to compare them to pro gamer males because we're not talking about pro gamer males, we're talking about high master males. I'm arguing that Flo had greater revenue potential than the high master males you feel should be chosen over her for Quantic. You can't point to the stream numbers of featured pro gamer males as evidence that high master males have equal revenue potential as Flo. If you still can't follow, you simply aren't smart, sorry man. You're the one not following. Flo will get the same amount of veiwers as Aphrodite. Once a "high masters" player signs with a pro team, they become a, guess what, a pro gamer. As soon as someone adds a pro gaming tag to the back of their ID, they will get more viewers on that basis, as they have been put into the spotlight. Now that he is a pro gamer, he would garnish the same amount of views as any other given pro male gamer, which is why I used that as a reference (which ranges from about 300 to 3000 currently on the featured stream list). You can't compare a pro female to a non pro male just like I wouldn't compare a pro gamer to a non pro female. Um, no. The high master male signed to a pro team doesn't even get featured, bud. I like how you assume I am a male, without really thinking that through. Lol funny how after that guy suggested troll you switched to obvious trolling in order to save face from the stupidity of your previous logic . OI guess it would be tough to comprehend that a woman actually wants to not be spoon fed, right? Players, regardless of gender, should be held to the same standards. That's what my argument is. So now that you're losing an argument you state your a chick because...? Let's say for a moment that Doc is right, that she was signed because she will bring in higher ad revenue. That would still mean that Quantic is signing her because she is a woman. They would think that because she is a woman, being of lower skill value would still bring her a high number of viewers. How is that not insulting to Flo? It's basically Quantic saying that we could have signed anyone but we signed you because we know you are a woman and that will bring us more ad revenue. It isn't like she was coming off the back of some major tournament win, or had been showing consistantly good results in tournaments. I just feel like all of the arguments supporting this signing are trying to find excuses for the obvious: She was signed because she was a woman, not because she was the best player they could have signed. I want to see a real true girl pro-gamer that gets signed to a team out of pure merit, a girl who just comes through a tournament and dominates. I want female gamers to be put at the same level as their male counterparts, because I know they are completely capable of doing so. I don't want their to have to be separate female tournaments for them to showcase their skills. I think it takes away from the entire idea of the competition, as if being a woman is some sort of crutch that doesn't let them compete equally with men, and therefore need special consideration to be able to win a tournament.
Every single one of your points can be refuted by two words: female tournaments. You haven't really given any reasons against them except your own personal feelings about what competition should be. Would you argue against female events in chess or snooker, both of which arguably involve less physical dexterity than sc?
|
People in this thread are right, if she was male there is a 99% chance she would be unknown, she got recruited solely based on her gender. I don't get why people are trying to say she wasn't.
Girls have an easy in in esports, they simply don't have to work as hard/know the same people. This does not mean its easy for them just significantly easier than for a male of the same skill level. this is the world we live in, deal with it.
If you honestly believe she got signed for any reason other than being a girl you are completely delusional.
|
On December 23 2011 09:09 kappadevin wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2011 08:59 aut0mati0n wrote:On December 23 2011 08:48 kappadevin wrote:On December 23 2011 08:34 aut0mati0n wrote:On December 23 2011 08:29 kappadevin wrote:On December 23 2011 08:22 Doc.Rivers wrote:On December 23 2011 08:18 kappadevin wrote:On December 23 2011 08:05 Doc.Rivers wrote:On December 23 2011 07:52 kappadevin wrote:On December 23 2011 07:30 Doc.Rivers wrote:
[quote]
You're not quite following. Aphrodite is comparable to FLo because both have similar skill and are on pro gaming teams. We have no need to compare them to pro gamer males because we're not talking about pro gamer males, we're talking about high master males. I'm arguing that Flo had greater revenue potential than the high master males you feel should be chosen over her for Quantic. You can't point to the stream numbers of featured pro gamer males as evidence that high master males have equal revenue potential as Flo.
If you still can't follow, you simply aren't smart, sorry man. You're the one not following. Flo will get the same amount of veiwers as Aphrodite. Once a "high masters" player signs with a pro team, they become a, guess what, a pro gamer. As soon as someone adds a pro gaming tag to the back of their ID, they will get more viewers on that basis, as they have been put into the spotlight. Now that he is a pro gamer, he would garnish the same amount of views as any other given pro male gamer, which is why I used that as a reference (which ranges from about 300 to 3000 currently on the featured stream list). You can't compare a pro female to a non pro male just like I wouldn't compare a pro gamer to a non pro female. Um, no. The high master male signed to a pro team doesn't even get featured, bud. I like how you assume I am a male, without really thinking that through. Lol funny how after that guy suggested troll you switched to obvious trolling in order to save face from the stupidity of your previous logic . I guess it would be tough to comprehend that a woman actually wants to not be spoon fed, right? Players, regardless of gender, should be held to the same standards. That's what my argument is. So now that you're losing an argument you state your a chick because...? Let's say for a moment that Doc is right, that she was signed because she will bring in higher ad revenue. That would still mean that Quantic is signing her because she is a woman. They would think that because she is a woman, being of lower skill value would still bring her a high number of viewers. How is that not insulting to Flo? It's basically Quantic saying that we could have signed anyone but we signed you because we know you are a woman and that will bring us more ad revenue. It isn't like she was coming off the back of some major tournament win, or had been showing consistantly good results in tournaments. I just feel like all of the arguments supporting this signing are trying to find excuses for the obvious: She was signed because she was a woman, not because she was the best player they could have signed. I want to see a real true girl pro-gamer that gets signed to a team out of pure merit, a girl who just comes through a tournament and dominates. I want female gamers to be put at the same level as their male counterparts, because I know they are completely capable of doing so. I don't want their to have to be separate female tournaments for them to showcase their skills. I think it takes away from the entire idea of the competition, as if being a woman is some sort of crutch that doesn't let them compete equally with men, and therefore need special consideration to be able to win a tournament. I enjoy the fact that you didn't field my question, but I'll humor your post anyways. Name me one female in the scene right now who is at the same skill level of anyone in code S. Now name me any number of mid-to-high-masters players with good potential to be code S material. Lets put it this way - I enjoy playing SC2, quite a bit, and attend LANs and other tournaments, some of which are female only, and post decent results. And I want to get better. It's just that I'm currently working a dull 9 to 5 and I'm paying off some student loans from back when I was at college. Do you ever expect me to get to code S (even if I have the most potential out of any person to play SC2)? Probably not. You can't train like the pros train while working 40 hours a week. It's just not possible. Playing SC2 at a very high level is a job. And usually without team sponsorship there's no way you can quit your job and go pro full time. I'm all for someone working their way up to the top all by themselves (for example the one redditor who's taking a year off to go pro), but it's naive to think that anyone wanting to better themselves as a player of SC2 would turn down team sponsorship on principle. If you want to get ahead you get ahead by any means possible. (Also I'm male, just using the above as an example) I hope you are right about that. I mean, she seemed pretty eager to improve and learn to be better, and I hope she does do well. I already posted much earlier that I support her decision to join Quantic for those exact reasons. Even in the interview, though, it felt to me like they were drawing unneeded attention to the fact that she was a woman. Most of the questions they asked were in reference to that fact, as if it was a critical part of their decision to sign her, which rubbed me the wrong way. I mean, one of the questions was about how guys would be able to pick up a pro-gamer girl... It was all in good fun, but still... EDIT: To clarify, I am upset about Quantic's decision to sign her and their motivations for it, not for Flo's decision to join them.
Unfortunately Quantic has to play to their audience, with is currently something like the 16-30 male demographic, so I can't blame them for their reasoning behind their acquisition. I will say, however, that I stopped watching the interview after a couple minutes because it was just way too awkward to watch. But this sort of...inappropriateness (I can't think of a better word) with interviews isn't contained just to female players. You can look at the dreamhack winter finals as an example of the same thing happening to male players. It's something as a community we're coming to understand is not okay, and I'm fairly certain that this type of thing should go away in the future.
And honestly I'm happy whenever anyone gets signed to a major team, male or female. they're getting a chance to pursue a dream of being a pro-gamer. And I think that's pretty cool.
|
On December 23 2011 09:15 Daniel C wrote:I Show nested quote +On December 23 2011 08:48 kappadevin wrote:On December 23 2011 08:34 aut0mati0n wrote:On December 23 2011 08:29 kappadevin wrote:On December 23 2011 08:22 Doc.Rivers wrote:On December 23 2011 08:18 kappadevin wrote:On December 23 2011 08:05 Doc.Rivers wrote:On December 23 2011 07:52 kappadevin wrote:On December 23 2011 07:30 Doc.Rivers wrote:On December 23 2011 07:07 kappadevin wrote:
[quote]
Aphrodite is a PRO FEMALE GAMER, signed to a PRO GAMING TEAM. The closest relevant comparison to her stream viewership is a PRO MALE GAMER signed to a PRO GAMING TEAM. How would comparing Aphrodite's stream viewership to any other gamer even make the tiniest bit of sense?
Also, Starcraft 2 is a sport, just like every other sport. History has shown that because males play at a higher level in every sport, they recieve more funding and viewers because people want to watch the best of the best play. Why do you think that Starcraft would be any different than the multitude of other sports that have been played since the beginning of time? You're not quite following. Aphrodite is comparable to FLo because both have similar skill and are on pro gaming teams. We have no need to compare them to pro gamer males because we're not talking about pro gamer males, we're talking about high master males. I'm arguing that Flo had greater revenue potential than the high master males you feel should be chosen over her for Quantic. You can't point to the stream numbers of featured pro gamer males as evidence that high master males have equal revenue potential as Flo. If you still can't follow, you simply aren't smart, sorry man. You're the one not following. Flo will get the same amount of veiwers as Aphrodite. Once a "high masters" player signs with a pro team, they become a, guess what, a pro gamer. As soon as someone adds a pro gaming tag to the back of their ID, they will get more viewers on that basis, as they have been put into the spotlight. Now that he is a pro gamer, he would garnish the same amount of views as any other given pro male gamer, which is why I used that as a reference (which ranges from about 300 to 3000 currently on the featured stream list). You can't compare a pro female to a non pro male just like I wouldn't compare a pro gamer to a non pro female. Um, no. The high master male signed to a pro team doesn't even get featured, bud. I like how you assume I am a male, without really thinking that through. Lol funny how after that guy suggested troll you switched to obvious trolling in order to save face from the stupidity of your previous logic . OI guess it would be tough to comprehend that a woman actually wants to not be spoon fed, right? Players, regardless of gender, should be held to the same standards. That's what my argument is. So now that you're losing an argument you state your a chick because...? Let's say for a moment that Doc is right, that she was signed because she will bring in higher ad revenue. That would still mean that Quantic is signing her because she is a woman. They would think that because she is a woman, being of lower skill value would still bring her a high number of viewers. How is that not insulting to Flo? It's basically Quantic saying that we could have signed anyone but we signed you because we know you are a woman and that will bring us more ad revenue. It isn't like she was coming off the back of some major tournament win, or had been showing consistantly good results in tournaments. I just feel like all of the arguments supporting this signing are trying to find excuses for the obvious: She was signed because she was a woman, not because she was the best player they could have signed. I want to see a real true girl pro-gamer that gets signed to a team out of pure merit, a girl who just comes through a tournament and dominates. I want female gamers to be put at the same level as their male counterparts, because I know they are completely capable of doing so. I don't want their to have to be separate female tournaments for them to showcase their skills. I think it takes away from the entire idea of the competition, as if being a woman is some sort of crutch that doesn't let them compete equally with men, and therefore need special consideration to be able to win a tournament. Every single one of your points can be refuted by two words: female tournaments. You haven't really given any reasons against them except your own personal feelings about what competition should be. Would you argue against female events in chess or snooker, both of which arguably involve less physical dexterity than sc?
It's true that chess is also a male dominated game, and also features female only tournaments. There's a difference though. There's already been a female chess grandmaster, which proves that women can and do compete with men at the highest level, and not only that, but can also beat them. There's never been a female that's won any major tournament in the history of Starcraft, so it's hard to argue that point with you. I do think female only tournaments do have a place in Starcraft, but I don't think the results of those tournaments should be held with too high of a regard until females prove they can take on males too.
EDIT: Refering to Susan Polgar, who earned it by competing directly with males.
|
On December 22 2011 09:27 WhiteraCares wrote:
If only I had a vagina I'd be in a sweet team aswell by now.
User was banned for this post.
I agree with your point entirely and I'll happily take my ban for that opinon. Sure she's more marketable than your random high master male player and will thus definetly generate more revenue but I don't care about how marketable players are I just care about how skilled they are. I watch tournaments to see the best players play not the most likeable players or the best looking players. I don't care if they have a vagina or a penis. In my opinion the only deciding factor should be their skill. But it's not really the teams fault because they are a buissness and have to do what generates the most money for them. It's obviously we the people that prefers eye candy infront of actual skill and that's really sad. If the audience put pure skill in front of their personality and gender then the most skilled people would also be the most marketable people but that's obviously not the case.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
skill isint everything unfortunantly :/
|
So what if she was recruited because she's a woman? A lot of people will watch her play and she'll draw attention to the team/sponsors.
Let's say a team recruited day9/tasteless to play as a 2on2 team. Maybe they wouldn't be top tier, but there is not a single starcraft fan that wouldn't skip their own wedding to watch them play.
|
On December 23 2011 09:35 VoirDire wrote:
So what if she was recruited because she's a woman? A lot of people will watch her play and she'll draw attention to the team/sponsors.
Let's say a team recruited day9/tasteless to play as a 2on2 team. Maybe they wouldn't be top tier, but there is not a single starcraft fan that wouldn't skip their own wedding to watch them play.
But don't you find it disappointing that people will watch her play just because she's a woman? It boils down to being people that disappoints me not the actual team or sponsors.
|
On December 23 2011 09:27 softan wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2011 09:27 WhiteraCares wrote:
If only I had a vagina I'd be in a sweet team aswell by now.
User was banned for this post. I agree with your point entirely and I'll happily take my ban for that opinon. Sure she's more marketable than your random high master male player and will thus definetly generate more revenue but I don't care about how marketable players are I just care about how skilled they are. I watch tournaments to see the best players play not the most likeable players or the best looking players. I don't care if they have a vagina or a penis. In my opinion the only deciding factor should be their skill. But it's not really the teams fault because they are a buissness and have to do what generates the most money for them. It's obviously we the people that prefers eye candy infront of actual skill and that's really sad. If the audience put pure skill in front of their personality and gender then the most skilled people would also be the most marketable people but that's obviously not the case.
Now you felt important didn't you? See you in a week
|
On December 23 2011 09:38 softan wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2011 09:35 VoirDire wrote:
So what if she was recruited because she's a woman? A lot of people will watch her play and she'll draw attention to the team/sponsors.
Let's say a team recruited day9/tasteless to play as a 2on2 team. Maybe they wouldn't be top tier, but there is not a single starcraft fan that wouldn't skip their own wedding to watch them play. But don't you find it disappointing that people will watch her play just because she's a woman? It boils down to being people that disappoints me not the actual team or sponsors.
This is why most women that want to be taken seriously don't make their gender public because it is inevitable that their gender will play a factor in whether or not people enjoy their play.
|
All I see here are a bunch of people that have no idea how to run a business, trying to advise Quantic of how to run theirs.
|
On December 22 2011 21:48 turdburgler wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2011 21:33 Paladia wrote:
While I think the pickup of SaSe and Naniwa is great for Quantic, as they are extremely good and dedicated player. I have to question where they are heading when they pick-up players such as Destiny and especially Flo. Players not known for any type of skill but rather for some marketing hype.
How will you do in the team leagues with just two good players? ask EG what their opinion on marketing is. only teams like quantic seem to get shit because of marketing, its so weird
Well, for the record, I do not like EG at all. I consider their Managing Director a bully and one of the worst people in esports. The general attitude of both the management and some of the players is also far below what I would consider acceptable.
The management of Quantic is in my opinion much better and much more friendly. I'd actually consider playing for them myself if I was a pro. I think it is fine that they pick up some of these "hype" players as well, I just hope they don't go overboard as right now they only have two really solid players.
|
On December 23 2011 09:40 LittLeD wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2011 09:27 softan wrote:On December 22 2011 09:27 WhiteraCares wrote:
If only I had a vagina I'd be in a sweet team aswell by now.
User was banned for this post. I agree with your point entirely and I'll happily take my ban for that opinon. Sure she's more marketable than your random high master male player and will thus definetly generate more revenue but I don't care about how marketable players are I just care about how skilled they are. I watch tournaments to see the best players play not the most likeable players or the best looking players. I don't care if they have a vagina or a penis. In my opinion the only deciding factor should be their skill. But it's not really the teams fault because they are a buissness and have to do what generates the most money for them. It's obviously we the people that prefers eye candy infront of actual skill and that's really sad. If the audience put pure skill in front of their personality and gender then the most skilled people would also be the most marketable people but that's obviously not the case. Now you felt important didn't you? See you in a week
Not sure what you're trying to say here? Mind explaining what you mean or at least add anything to the topic at hand with your response so we can have an actual discussion on this forum? Or do you simply like to make some wisecrack remarks and then leave?
|
It's not like quantic has a set number of slots and she's occupying one of them instead of another "more deserving" player, like a lot of people are seem to think.
|
On December 23 2011 09:41 TotalBiscuit wrote:
All I see here are a bunch of people that have no idea how to run a business, trying to advise Quantic of how to run theirs.
Isn't this statement kind of ironic because you frequently criticize the way game companies market and sell their games? I am criticizing how Quantic market and sells their newest player.
|
Is he from California? I swear I saw her at WinterGameFest in SD. Had no idea who she as tho but holy APM batman.
|
On December 23 2011 09:38 softan wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2011 09:35 VoirDire wrote:
So what if she was recruited because she's a woman? A lot of people will watch her play and she'll draw attention to the team/sponsors.
Let's say a team recruited day9/tasteless to play as a 2on2 team. Maybe they wouldn't be top tier, but there is not a single starcraft fan that wouldn't skip their own wedding to watch them play. But don't you find it disappointing that people will watch her play just because she's a woman? It boils down to being people that disappoints me not the actual team or sponsors.
Not in the slightest. Were you also disappointed when boxer was invited to a bunch of foreign tournaments instead of higher ranked koreans? Or that day9 and tasteless was invited to HDH and TeamLiquid SC2 Invitational 2? Or that players of the hosting nationality are more likely to be invited to LANs?
|
On December 23 2011 09:38 softan wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2011 09:35 VoirDire wrote:
So what if she was recruited because she's a woman? A lot of people will watch her play and she'll draw attention to the team/sponsors.
Let's say a team recruited day9/tasteless to play as a 2on2 team. Maybe they wouldn't be top tier, but there is not a single starcraft fan that wouldn't skip their own wedding to watch them play. But don't you find it disappointing that people will watch her play just because she's a woman? It boils down to being people that disappoints me not the actual team or sponsors.
I don't find it any more disappointing than people preferring to look at a pretty actress over one who is really good at acting but has no physical appeal. It seems pretty natural. While a person's ability to micro well might draw you to their stream, it's not what's going to draw your eyes to the logos plastered on their t-shirts on stage or at an event. Gamers are just people being paid to draw attention to their sponsors. Whether they do that through great looks, a shining personality, or inspiring gameplay, I think they're all equally qualified for the job they're hired to do. This goes for both guys and girls, of course.
|
On December 23 2011 09:41 TotalBiscuit wrote:
All I see here are a bunch of people that have no idea how to run a business, trying to advise Quantic of how to run theirs.
Isn't it your entire job to comment on what players do right and wrong (casting), even though you don't have much of an idea on how to play yourself?
While it is true that to run something that depends on sponsors you need hype and many people here fail to realize that, I don't think you should be so fast on judging people who have opinions about it. A better way to go about it is use your own experience and comment on how good or bad you consider this move to be from your own perspective. It is always better to give a personal opinion instead of just bash the opinions of others.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
