EPTDavid Ting and Sundance aren't irrelevant they put a good face on new businesses and help frame eSports and the people involved as charismatic and good PR people.
Filtered Growth & Resulted Decline of SC2 (Arm. A) - Page 4
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Torte de Lini
Germany38463 Posts
David Ting and Sundance aren't irrelevant they put a good face on new businesses and help frame eSports and the people involved as charismatic and good PR people. | ||
|
Nerech
United States2 Posts
 thanks for putting all of this together! | ||
|
AngrySalmon
United Kingdom19 Posts
| ||
|
MasterOfPuppets
Romania6942 Posts
On September 04 2013 22:43 Plansix wrote: I wouldn’t use the word elitism either. But I think there is an argument to be made that the reverence for BW does have a habit of derailing all balance discussions and generally overtaking most talks about the game. It also provides a lot of unearned authority to argument that normally might not gain a lot of traction. Most debates about how to update or change the game degrade into a debate about which aspects of BW should be copied and why those aspects are the best. The focus is never around SC2 itself, except that it is inferior to BW. Its leads to a lot of the same ideas being thrown around all the time. It also brings the cloud of negativity, since everyone looks to the BW “glory days” with rose colored glasses. I think a lot of discussions would be more positive and productive if they were not done while constantly referencing shadow of BW. Your post misses the point entirely. There are certain aspects in which no RTS has ever surpassed Brood War. It's true that there's a big big chance other games *could have*, if they were ever played and explored and exploited as meticulously as the Korean progaming scene has done with Brood War, but as it stands, Brood War is the only game with that sheer amount of depth. To not try to take things away in terms of design from it is foolish. To dismiss all of these claims as "looking to the glory days with rose colored glasses" even more so. Through an unlikely combination of game design, mapmakers' efforts, players' efforts, coaches' efforts and even the economical situation of South Korea at the time, Brood War has become the epitome of competitive RTS gaming. It's the game that other games should strive to best. While it was mostly a matter of luck that it managed to realize its full potential instead of other games, it did. It is therefore only reasonable that the only RTS game to make a big splash in recent years (the only relevant RTS game to be released recently, some might say) would be compared to what is considered the epitome of the genre. There will be nostalgic people. But by dismissing all of these suggestions and theories as nothing more than nostalgia with disregard for the underlying notions of game design is infinitely more damaging. The reason they keep getting brought up is because they are such simple and elegant solutions to the problems SC2 faces, once you sit down and analyze them and their implications. It's not about making it like BW, it's about making it good, and BW is only the best possible example. It wouldn't be hard to bring up examples from other RTS games that might suffice, but I guarantee you 99.9% of people here would go "wtf i've never heard of that game". And so the best example is chosen instead. | ||
saddaromma
1129 Posts
On September 04 2013 22:43 Plansix wrote: I wouldn’t use the word elitism either. But I think there is an argument to be made that the reverence for BW does have a habit of derailing all balance discussions and generally overtaking most talks about the game. It also provides a lot of unearned authority to argument that normally might not gain a lot of traction. Most debates about how to update or change the game degrade into a debate about which aspects of BW should be copied and why those aspects are the best. The focus is never around SC2 itself, except that it is inferior to BW. Its leads to a lot of the same ideas being thrown around all the time. It also brings the cloud of negativity, since everyone looks to the BW “glory days” with rose colored glasses. I think a lot of discussions would be more positive and productive if they were not done while constantly referencing shadow of BW. I fail to understand your logic. Why refering and looking up to some succesful game is wrong? When people create new model of car they don't throw away old concepts, contrary they take it as base and enhance it. And why sc2 should be a totally new game. Does EA make new Fifa every year? No, they use what they have and make it better. We can't fix all sc2 problems by looking at BW, but atleast we could take the best from BW. Vultures, arbiters, reavers and defilers were such iconic units. Both exciting and skill-dependant. Dustin Browder threw them away and put helions, voidrays, colossi and infestors. Pretty much all fail. | ||
|
cutler
Germany609 Posts
I am not saying that Bliizard did a perfect job with this game but people like to force Developers to find a solution nowadays. Same with Tournaments/Stream etc....you are not allowed to find your own way...everything has to be perfect. I know that some Companies are doing pretty good moves in order to achieve that...and i am often impressed by the work they put into events like Dreamhack etc...but i miss that non-perfect days there everybody could smile about minor mistakes. Today money is involved and nobody wants to see mistakes anymore... | ||
|
MasterOfPuppets
Romania6942 Posts
On September 08 2013 21:46 cutler wrote: From my point of view too many people think they have a clue about game design and balance and are not willing to take one step back in order to enjoy the game and let people develop it. I am not saying that Bliizard did a perfect job with this game but people like to force Developers to find a solution nowadays. Same with Tournaments/Stream etc....you are not allowed to find your own way...everything has to be perfect. Wrong. People developed Brood War because they were willing to try things out (that's why there have also been some retardedly crazy maps used in tournaments). Blizzard aren't willing to think outside of the box that they created for themselves. They see something that is objectively better and refuse to at least incorporate some elements into it, regardless of whether they copy it outright or put their own spin on it. And it is the combination of their approach to monetization ("oh we can't implement such game-redefining changes before the next expansion [which is probably 3 years off]) and humongous pride/ego when it comes to admitting their mistakes. Everything doesn't have to be perfect. Nothing can be perfect. But when you are unwilling to listen to people who have a different approach, even though theirs has been tested as being better and isn't just some theory/fantasy/what have you, that's when people are right to be frustrated with you. | ||
|
Grumbels
Netherlands7028 Posts
| ||
|
revel8
United Kingdom3022 Posts
On September 08 2013 21:56 MasterOfPuppets wrote: Wrong. People developed Brood War because they were willing to try things out (that's why there have also been some retardedly crazy maps used in tournaments). Blizzard aren't willing to think outside of the box that they created for themselves. They see something that is objectively better and refuse to at least incorporate some elements into it, regardless of whether they copy it outright or put their own spin on it. And it is the combination of their approach to monetization ("oh we can't implement such game-redefining changes before the next expansion [which is probably 3 years off]) and humongous pride/ego when it comes to admitting their mistakes. Everything doesn't have to be perfect. Nothing can be perfect. But when you are unwilling to listen to people who have a different approach, even though theirs has been tested as being better and isn't just some theory/fantasy/what have you, that's when people are right to be frustrated with you. Not sure what you mean when you say has been tested as being better? Can you clarify what you mean? Also what do you mean when you say something is objectively better? I think you mean subjectively better. | ||
|
MasterOfPuppets
Romania6942 Posts
On September 08 2013 22:12 Grumbels wrote: This "normal decline in interest after the hype from release was over" is so cynical. Dota and lol all predate sc2 and are still growing. Brood war kept growing for a decade. Why should the scene be declining if so much of the infrastructure has improved? If the game has supposedly improved after all the patches and the expansion. Isn't esports still growing? Then why shouldn't we be very alarmed at the state of sc2? An interesting thing to note, as I've pointed out in a different thread a few days ago, is that DotA 2 and LoL are both multiplayer-centric games. Meanwhile, SC2 is very much the opposite. Most of the people who buy SC2 do so only for the campaign and never touch the multiplayer, and if they do, many of them get bored and move on to a different game. So what's saddest of all is that we shouldn't even be expecting Blizzard to compete in the eSports scene, considering they make money off of selling people games and expansions, unlike Valve and Riot's business models with their MOBA games. Still, they do compete, and so they're open to criticism all the same. | ||
|
MasterOfPuppets
Romania6942 Posts
On September 08 2013 22:20 revel8 wrote: Not sure what you mean when you say has been tested as being better? Can you clarify what you mean? Also what do you mean when you say something is objectively better? I think you mean subjectively better. Game design and depth (in terms of how much more you can do than what may be initially apparent, or how many more factors are involved in something than one may notice at first) are actually not subjective. Viewer enjoyment is, player enjoyment is, and both are proportional to how well a game is designed. | ||
|
Xiphos
Canada7507 Posts
| ||
|
theBALLS
Singapore2935 Posts
| ||
|
lamprey1
Canada919 Posts
it never was "self sustaining" as you've noted. eSports growth locations are in the far east. On September 05 2013 14:56 Torte de Lini wrote: Yes, someone mentioned I should have put an argument that SC2 has a good hold on the RTS genre. David Ting and Sundance aren't irrelevant they put a good face on new businesses and help frame eSports and the people involved as charismatic and good PR people. are they? Sundance came off as a carnival barker by dropping SC2 with a tweet. For all of David Ting's "leadership" IPL still has not paid their prize winners. A real leader and event promoter threatens to resign when his guys don't get paid. Check out what Don King does when the money behind the event does not pay up. Don King looks like a genius compared to these guys. David Ting is a coverted engineer. He may be a great engineer with many talents. He is a lousy live event promoter relative to any one who has done it professionally. A real live event promoter who really knows what they're doing would not go near SC2 in North America... they would not touch it with a 100 foot pole. CONTEXT: as i've stated in earlier posts. eSports is sustainable when live events bring in millions in revenue from ticket sales. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On September 08 2013 23:33 lamprey1 wrote: they "sold" RTS eSports in a meaningless market: North America. it never was "self sustaining" as you've noted. eSports growth locations are in the far east. are they? Sundance came off as a carnival barker by dropping SC2 with a tweet. For all of David Ting's "leadership" IPL still has not paid their prize winners. A real leader and event promoter threatens to resign when his guys don't get paid. Check out what Don King does when the money behind the event does not pay up. Don King looks like a genius compared to these guys. David Ting is a coverted engineer. He may be a great engineer with many talents. He is a lousy live event promoter relative to any one who has done it professionally. I am sorry, I can't take any argument seriously that suggests the folks running Esports events should be more like Don King. No matter what positive traits he has, his flaws smoother them a thousand times over. | ||
|
lamprey1
Canada919 Posts
On September 08 2013 23:40 Plansix wrote: I am sorry, I can't take any argument seriously that suggests the folks running Esports events should be more like Don King. dont worry. a promoter of Don King's calibre would not go any where near an SC2 live event in NA. King , Mcmahon, Zuffa, are all 1000000000X better at putting on, promoting, and profiting from a live event than the chicken outfits that ran SC2 events in NA. maingly, Sundance and Ting. with NASL in TO , Blizzard is the client paying for the event. talented promoters are motivated by 1 thing : $$$. and there is none of it in the NA SC2 scene. | ||
|
Torte de Lini
Germany38463 Posts
On September 08 2013 23:33 lamprey1 wrote: they "sold" RTS eSports in a meaningless market: North America. it never was "self sustaining" as you've noted. eSports growth locations are in the far east. are they? Sundance came off as a carnival barker by dropping SC2 with a tweet. For all of David Ting's "leadership" IPL still has not paid their prize winners. A real leader and event promoter threatens to resign when his guys don't get paid. Check out what Don King does when the money behind the event does not pay up. Don King looks like a genius compared to these guys. David Ting is a coverted engineer. He may be a great engineer with many talents. He is a lousy live event promoter relative to any one who has done it professionally. A real live event promoter who really knows what they're doing would not go near SC2 in North America... they would not touch it with a 100 foot pole. CONTEXT: as i've stated in earlier posts. eSports is sustainable when live events bring in millions in revenue from ticket sales. They're all at a strangehold in general right now. I wouldn't call the far East as marketable as the West in recent times. There are way worse businessmen than David Ting and Sundance. It's just not public and it certainly isn't talked about. | ||
|
lamprey1
Canada919 Posts
On September 08 2013 23:48 Torte de Lini wrote: They're all at a strangehold in general right now. I wouldn't call the far East as marketable as the West in recent times. There are way worse businessmen than David Ting and Sundance. It's just not public and it certainly isn't talked about. A business man never would've tried to make IPL work financially. it was bleeding red from day 1. claiming there is "someone worse" is hardly an endorsement. i consider Mike Morhaime to be one of the best game designers in the history of the industry. that sets a high standard. thus, i want a live event held to an equally high standard or have no live event. based on the quality of Blizzcon events i'd say Blizzard upper management agrees. and i'm more than willing to pay for high quality.... Video games as a hobby is dirt cheap. | ||
|
Torte de Lini
Germany38463 Posts
On September 08 2013 23:53 lamprey1 wrote: A business man never would've tried to make IPL work financially. it was bleeding red from day 1. claiming there is "someone worse" is hardly an endorsement. i consider Mike Morhaime to be one of the best game designers in the history of the industry. that sets a high standard. thus, i want a live event held to an equally high standard or have no live event. based on the quality of Blizzcon events i'd say Blizzard upper management agrees. and i'm more than willing to pay for high quality.... Video games as a hobby is dirt cheap. Ha, true! Agree that IPL was bad for them from the start, but the press and publicity he personally got and the scene got was definitely an upside. He spent huge and it made things look more legitimate and grandiose than they really were. I think I mentioned something alluding to that in my entry, how we mistaken grandeur with actual progression. If not, definitely something to criticize about the scene. | ||
|
KelianQatar
303 Posts
On September 08 2013 23:40 Plansix wrote: I am sorry, I can't take any argument seriously that suggests the folks running Esports events should be more like Don King. No matter what positive traits he has, his flaws smoother them a thousand times over. Don King is a better promoter than David Ting... does that even need to be said? Are you living under a rock?! Ting could shell out a quarter mil to King for about an hour of consulting time..if he wasn't booked! http://gaming.unlv.edu/hof/index.html | ||
| ||
