|
United States15275 Posts
On August 24 2014 08:38 BronzeKnee wrote:
It really comes down to whether or not if we can tell how he is using it? And can we? Absolutely not.
Look at the title: "The Absolutely Necessary Feeling to Legitimize eSports." Forget titles, when constructing sentences, you should be able to replace words with synonyms or their definition...for example... Discard headings, when writing one must be able to substitute words with like words. Does that make it clear? This article could have been about one of many things, including the necessary feeling we as people must have in order to legitimize eSports. But it isn't. The title as is makes sense to many because our brains auto-correct, the same way we can read the word tonite, know it means tonight. But it isn't correct.
I think we can. It's obvious that the "imperative" is intended to be the adjective of "feeling". The problem is that "feeling" is a non-intentional gerund (intentional = directed towards some object or state of affairs) here, so it makes the title incoherent. Things like "playing to win" and "aiming to correct past wrongs" are sensible English. "The Feeling to Legitimize eSports" doesn't work, no matter what definition we use. Only something like "I feel for her" works when taking about emotions, and "feel" in that case is a metonymy. The problem is not with "imperative" but with the word it's trying to accentuate.
Alternatively, you could say the title is way too generic and doesn't line up with the content of the article. I would agree with that.
On August 24 2014 08:38 BronzeKnee wrote:
And I'm sure we agree that any given article or book needs to be titled properly. despite the fact the burden falls on the article not the title. Therefore, the title must be clear. Good titles are thought provoking and to do that, it must be clear what the author is going to write about.
I don't know if there's a set of necessary conditions that could determine that. After all, truly great titles include things like allusion and sarcasm without being misleading. In the First Circle doesn't actually describe anything in Solzhenitsyn's book, but the allusion is an apt summary for the tone and central conflicts.
I think if he exchanged "feelings" for "desire" and added a subtitle, it would work.
|
If you guys are familiar with Chinese Novels, there is a great called "Water Margin". It is about a band of brothers that wanted to become a legit army in the government to serve the Chinese citizens.
But to their dismay, when they got legitimized and made their titles official, the government body of China crucified the entire organization and end up "disappearing" each of the band's members one by one.
Now you may ask "What does this have to do with esport?" and I will tell you that I just hope that getting professional gaming into the mainstream media will set back our cultural acceptance and will be mocked by them so to further alienate us from potential big name sponsors.
I don't think we need mainstream media to grow professional gaming, everything is about how organic the growth is. If we push it too hard, it can definitely backfire on us.
What do y'all think?
|
United States15275 Posts
On August 24 2014 08:31 Torte de Lini wrote:
Oh shit, I totally missed this reply! I'm very sorry and you don't know what it means to have you compliment my work.
!_!
On August 24 2014 08:31 Torte de Lini wrote:
Do you have an example of my dismissal? Initially, I wanted to keep it short so my biggest issue with all my pieces is that I don't go further. What could be dismissal may turn out to be a future topic though!
The discussion of whether eSports necessitates being on television, radio or even in the paper is negligible. The fact of the matter is that these expansions are embraced for its venture.
Negligible in what sense?
Also, venture is a very odd word to use here. On the contrary, supporters of mainstream exposure have a set of reasonable expectations for what would happen if eSports went through older media outlets. You even describe them later on in the article.
Unfortunately, vocal communities translate eSports expanding on any outlet other than via internet streaming as a step into a heightened demand of [uptight] professionalism and an influx of curious (and sometimes skeptical) newcomers. These potential concerns about eSports changing and merging into mainstream expectancies is moot.
In what sense are they moot? The sense that they are not concerns that can materialize in the near future? The sense that those voices are not the ones who decide whether eSports will gradually become "legitimate"? The sense that their concerns are not a necessary byproduct of mainstream exposure, and eSports could possibly find a compromise?
However the public attitude as to whether there is an imperative need to focus on legitimizing eSports is opinionated without taking into consideration of companies already trying to legitimize it and have been for many years.
They do take those into consideration. The naysayers' biggest objections are based on how other "proper" sports have been affected by mainstream exposure, and they greatly dislike the idea of SC2/Dota 2/whatever moving in the same direction.
On August 24 2014 08:31 Torte de Lini wrote:I personally think it is impossible to underling the details to what is "legitimizing eSports". That's my personal opinion, if I were to make it a thesis, it would be incomplete. To me, personally, legitimizing eSports is where it becomes equals to its main culture that it derives from: gaming and attracts similar sponsorship and businesses similar to extreme sports we see with Red Bull, Monster Gaming. I associate these events with the same as eSports events with the same amount of funding, business interest, exciting international events and content highlighting those people.
I think that may be implied by how joyous I act if advertisers moved over to online streaming, but you're right in that it lacks clear definition. Something to maybe write next?
Thanks so much!
There won't be a set of parameters that everyone will accept. But it is important to establish said parameters, even as a personal opinion, so that your argument is coherent and other people can participate in the discussion. Obviously commentators will disagree, yet it will get them thinking about how narrow or wide their definition is.
Well, your idea is very different than what most people think when they hear the term. Maybe that lack of transparency is responsible for some of the harsher comments.
|
The arguing about the use of "imperative" in the title made me not read anymore comments and subsequently dismiss this topic. The flexing of English muscles is far too strong for me. I will add that the title was easy to understand and didn't require a debate. Unfortunate start to what could have been a much better discussion.
|
On August 24 2014 03:38 Torte de Lini wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2014 03:31 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Imperative. I don't think it means what you think it means. Thesaurus much? I welcome grammar and word-choice feedback.
keep it simple stupid is my advice~ bigger words and longer sentences don't make it better!
|
On August 24 2014 07:39 hoby2000 wrote:
People need to realize that eSports is a thing in itself and needs no "legitimization." That argument is suggesting there's a self-aware 3rd party judge somewhere that makes the distinction between what is "legit" and what is not. The fact is that this being doesn't exist (at least not in a self-aware form) and eSports can fascinate itself with new ideas because it's young. The internet itself is still a new technology that society on a whole is only beginning to understand it's uses in modern day life - eSports is a child of the internet therefore making it even younger.
I don't mind using ESPN as a model though, but we should embrace the online platform we have - It's different and suits the culture of the games themselves.. We don't have a limited amount of air time, and in a sense, eSports can do something that "legitimate sports" competitions cannot - which is bring the feel of event to you through multiple streams, allowing you to browse more content at once. Or even allow you to watch a match IN GAME so you can see what you want to see when you want to see it from the comfort of your home.
I have other thoughts on the subject but I will leave it at that.
You should probably write a bl-...
...nvm, you did.
|
On August 24 2014 10:52 Joedaddy wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2014 03:38 Torte de Lini wrote:On August 24 2014 03:31 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Imperative. I don't think it means what you think it means. Thesaurus much? I welcome grammar and word-choice feedback. keep it simple stupid is my advice~ bigger words and longer sentences don't make it better!
lol, so people who are educated and have large vocabularies should refrain from using more obscure words because others can't keep up? that's silly. in many cases, "bigger" words and longer sentences are better for communicating complex ideas. it's a matter of context. yes, sometimes ornate prose isn't necessary, but that doesn't mean it's useless in all cases or that educated people should lower the level of their discourse. don't be anti-intellectual.
torte, your title is fine if you just drop the word "feeling." "imperative" as a noun in this context means exactly what you wanted it to mean, but you made it an adjective modifying "feeling," so it's a little awkward. however, personally, i think the meaning was clear, the title is fine and i can't understand what people are complaining about
|
On August 24 2014 08:35 Torte de Lini wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2014 08:16 Danglars wrote:However the public attitude as to whether there is an imperative need to focus on legitimizing eSports is opinionated without taking into consideration of companies already trying to legitimize it and have been for many years. Did this fly right over everybody else's head, too? We're too opinionated to recognize attempts to legitimize (as before, what does this mean)? The only takeaway I got was to not prematurely dismiss the TV medium for recruiting new viewers. I basically already agreed with that statement going in. The rest of the article is too muddled to grasp the main current of thought (if there is a main current of thought) . It's something about TV as validation, TV as viewer recruitment, and TV as a financial boon. I detect in the background [rhetorical] fog an unspoken vein: eSports legitimacy is shredding basement LAN stigma, being considered just another sports, and its players as athletes. AAH, someone nabbed a tooth! I think, and you can ready your harpoons here, that the vocal audience that speaks about legitimizing eSports, especially in regards to television, blurs out some progress points made over the past four years just as this article barely grazes any progress made pre-2010. Granted, I may be discrediting the large lot of folks and invested fans but I think I may have overused legitimize as I am referencing examples such as ESL bumping up their attendance at major conventions as forms of converting and directly interacting mainstream gamers with the hype of competitions. Bolded: YESYESYES. That TV, despite its coming diminished cultural impact, still plays a massive role in both acknowledgement of eSports as well as recognition that could lead to more avenues of business and interest levels on a societal level, even if met with initial skepticism (as it has been so for many years). Well, if that's what you're saying, why don't you come out and say it! And let me add, not "progress points" or "progress," because we're already in the amorphous realm of feeling. You're trying to persuade the reader that it's possible and beneficial to seek another broadcast medium.
A medium that I've read 100 forum threads either advocating or ridiculing. When it comes to Torte's post, we're stuck in the morass of formless cultural impact and constructed gains in sponsorship revenue. I liked the concrete historical examples of what big tournaments with smart minds have done to grab attention and viewer eyeballs. I think we all fist bumped ESPN's decision to carry select tournaments this year. It's still individual organizers selling their tournament to television. It still runs against the reticence of TV viewers watching a game they don't play, the hype confined to 2-10 sweaty guys behind computers screaming at each other or just burning up the APM. The intense gamelength variability is a second big factor to overcome.
Viewership of eSports has very little appeal for non-gamers, though the sector of society that games has been growing. "What if it was mainstream" is an entertaining dream. I look forward to marginal long-term growth in the cable TV area. More and more people growing up today gamed in their youth. That's at least one step towards casual viewership. Wide-eyed enthusiasts aside, you can't change the culture to this degree by wishful thinking. Kennigit covered more than I can ever hope to the real obstacles, both fixable ones like storyline quality and fixed obstacles. So whenever we get together to talk about validation, sponsorship markets, and viewership draw, let's know the playing field and not get lost in the dreamland of what may be. Even though publishers and industry faces have made headway, let's keep our outlooks in reality.
|
On August 24 2014 11:00 brickrd wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2014 10:52 Joedaddy wrote:On August 24 2014 03:38 Torte de Lini wrote:On August 24 2014 03:31 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Imperative. I don't think it means what you think it means. Thesaurus much? I welcome grammar and word-choice feedback. keep it simple stupid is my advice~ bigger words and longer sentences don't make it better! lol, so people who are educated and have large vocabularies should refrain from using more obscure words because others can't keep up? that's silly. in many cases, "bigger" words and longer sentences are better for communicating complex ideas. it's a matter of context. yes, sometimes ornate prose isn't necessary, but that doesn't mean it's useless in all cases or that educated people should lower the level of their discourse. don't be anti-intellectual. torte, your title is fine if you just drop the word "feeling." "imperative" as a noun in this context means exactly what you wanted it to mean, but you made it an adjective modifying "feeling," so it's a little awkward. however, personally, i think the meaning was clear, the title is fine and i can't understand what people are complaining about
I'm saying that had he kept it simple stupid, he could have avoided a lot of the off topic talk. No one likes a verbose article~ and producing them doesn't prove how smart the writer is. Likewise, keeping it simple stupid doesn't mean you have to dumb down the content.
|
Can anyone make a tl;dr on single paragraphs :3 ?
|
On August 24 2014 10:52 Joedaddy wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2014 03:38 Torte de Lini wrote:On August 24 2014 03:31 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Imperative. I don't think it means what you think it means. Thesaurus much? I welcome grammar and word-choice feedback. keep it simple stupid is my advice~ bigger words and longer sentences don't make it better!
Somebody needs to go at this writing with a hatchet or a chainsaw. Many wasted words and awkward turns of phrase. Author should read his writing to himself and see that it sounds natural.
|
Hmm. Look, I read through it a little quickly so I may have missed some of this alleged poor wording, but if the wording hasn't already been edited, I don't think it's so bad. I'd ask which bits were considered "in need of hatchet and chainsaw" except I hardly want this to get further off-topic!
I would just say that this section:
+ Show Spoiler +On August 24 2014 03:03 Torte de Lini wrote:That is a key distinguishing in regards to outlets in which eSports can be publicized. While there are a variety of avenues to produce eSports broadcasting, it goes without saying that they are not all necessary and yet, we value them regardless of their impact or outdated forms of how fans consume their favourite games. The discussion of whether eSports necessitates being on television, radio or even in the paper is negligible. The fact of the matter is that these expansions are embraced for its venture. Unfortunately, vocal communities translate eSports expanding on any outlet other than via internet streaming as a step into a heightened demand of [uptight] professionalism and an influx of curious (and sometimes skeptical) newcomers. These potential concerns about eSports changing and merging into mainstream expectancies is moot. It is undeniable that eSports will change as generational cultures shift into more technologically-focused traits and qualities; including competitions. However the public attitude as to whether there is an imperative need to focus on legitimizing eSports is opinionated without taking into consideration of companies already trying to legitimize it and have been for many years. The author, Paul Tassi, is also victim of this narrow-minded view in which he dismisses cable television as an outdated media platform without understanding that although the current demographic consumes their favourite tournaments in-person or online, large consumer companies and products go through mainstream television to access their audience. Not to mention the cultural significance of television and that viewing habits still favour TV-watching by nearly 20 hours more than online viewing a week ( MarketingCharts.com - 2013). As the internet becomes more widespread, advertisers are turning to online livestream channels but that doesn't mean efforts to access television should be halted; on the contrary, it should be continually pursued. The diminishing disconnect between how advertisers can reach their target demographic while fans enjoy their favourite event can be hastened. To add, broadening eSports' horizon will only create more opportunity for organizations currently starved for financial support, hopefully avoiding taking up offers from explicit companies such as from the pornography industry who have been losing advertising options more and more. From a business perspective, your produced events will have stronger marketable points by being live on national television (whether it is Sweden, Finland or North America - ESPN) than restricting themselves to just livestreaming for the sake of maintaining a semblance of "legitimate eSports".
could really do with some line breaks.
If I can get the time, I might start reading more of these as I admit I haven't really gotten into many of these eSports articles of late.
|
I don't know about you, but I get a Feeling of Shooting as I watch SC2.
|
On August 24 2014 15:36 Fuchsteufelswild wrote:Hmm. Look, I read through it a little quickly so I may have missed some of this alleged poor wording, but if the wording hasn't already been edited, I don't think it's so bad. I'd ask which bits were considered "in need of hatchet and chainsaw" except I hardly want this to get further off-topic! I would just say that this section: + Show Spoiler +On August 24 2014 03:03 Torte de Lini wrote:That is a key distinguishing in regards to outlets in which eSports can be publicized. While there are a variety of avenues to produce eSports broadcasting, it goes without saying that they are not all necessary and yet, we value them regardless of their impact or outdated forms of how fans consume their favourite games. The discussion of whether eSports necessitates being on television, radio or even in the paper is negligible. The fact of the matter is that these expansions are embraced for its venture. Unfortunately, vocal communities translate eSports expanding on any outlet other than via internet streaming as a step into a heightened demand of [uptight] professionalism and an influx of curious (and sometimes skeptical) newcomers. These potential concerns about eSports changing and merging into mainstream expectancies is moot. It is undeniable that eSports will change as generational cultures shift into more technologically-focused traits and qualities; including competitions. However the public attitude as to whether there is an imperative need to focus on legitimizing eSports is opinionated without taking into consideration of companies already trying to legitimize it and have been for many years. The author, Paul Tassi, is also victim of this narrow-minded view in which he dismisses cable television as an outdated media platform without understanding that although the current demographic consumes their favourite tournaments in-person or online, large consumer companies and products go through mainstream television to access their audience. Not to mention the cultural significance of television and that viewing habits still favour TV-watching by nearly 20 hours more than online viewing a week ( MarketingCharts.com - 2013). As the internet becomes more widespread, advertisers are turning to online livestream channels but that doesn't mean efforts to access television should be halted; on the contrary, it should be continually pursued. The diminishing disconnect between how advertisers can reach their target demographic while fans enjoy their favourite event can be hastened. To add, broadening eSports' horizon will only create more opportunity for organizations currently starved for financial support, hopefully avoiding taking up offers from explicit companies such as from the pornography industry who have been losing advertising options more and more. From a business perspective, your produced events will have stronger marketable points by being live on national television (whether it is Sweden, Finland or North America - ESPN) than restricting themselves to just livestreaming for the sake of maintaining a semblance of "legitimate eSports". could really do with some line breaks. If I can get the time, I might start reading more of these as I admit I haven't really gotten into many of these eSports articles of late.
Originally, it was 1/2 that size! I think I will add a line break somewhere!
On August 24 2014 10:27 Taidanii wrote:
The arguing about the use of "imperative" in the title made me not read anymore comments and subsequently dismiss this topic. The flexing of English muscles is far too strong for me. I will add that the title was easy to understand and didn't require a debate. Unfortunate start to what could have been a much better discussion.
As long as you read the article, it's not an issue!
On August 24 2014 10:02 Xiphos wrote:
If you guys are familiar with Chinese Novels, there is a great called "Water Margin". It is about a band of brothers that wanted to become a legit army in the government to serve the Chinese citizens.
But to their dismay, when they got legitimized and made their titles official, the government body of China crucified the entire organization and end up "disappearing" each of the band's members one by one.
Now you may ask "What does this have to do with esport?" and I will tell you that I just hope that getting professional gaming into the mainstream media will set back our cultural acceptance and will be mocked by them so to further alienate us from potential big name sponsors.
I don't think we need mainstream media to grow professional gaming, everything is about how organic the growth is. If we push it too hard, it can definitely backfire on us.
What do y'all think?
I've never read this before. I might pick it up as it sounds interesting. I think your novel and the current scene differ greatly as we're fear skepticism to dictate business when the numbers would be the strongest influence.
People playing video games professionally? That could lead to a lot of skepticism
Someone playing video games for 10 million dollars and over 1 to 2 million people are watching + a full theater of live attendance + ESPN broadcasting + Sales number made by Valve from this event (compendium, etc.). Shows that despite how ridiculous people think eSports is, it generates a lot of value for people involved. Audiences can deny the core concept of eSports, but the business it draws is difficult to scoff at.
I think the progress organizations are making now is, overall, pretty good. I would like to see DreamHack nab more national broadcasting channels too!
On August 24 2014 11:00 brickrd wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2014 10:52 Joedaddy wrote:On August 24 2014 03:38 Torte de Lini wrote:On August 24 2014 03:31 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Imperative. I don't think it means what you think it means. Thesaurus much? I welcome grammar and word-choice feedback. keep it simple stupid is my advice~ bigger words and longer sentences don't make it better! lol, so people who are educated and have large vocabularies should refrain from using more obscure words because others can't keep up? that's silly. in many cases, "bigger" words and longer sentences are better for communicating complex ideas. it's a matter of context. yes, sometimes ornate prose isn't necessary, but that doesn't mean it's useless in all cases or that educated people should lower the level of their discourse. don't be anti-intellectual. torte, your title is fine if you just drop the word "feeling." "imperative" as a noun in this context means exactly what you wanted it to mean, but you made it an adjective modifying "feeling," so it's a little awkward. however, personally, i think the meaning was clear, the title is fine and i can't understand what people are complaining about
Thanks! I will leave the title but work on being more direct in future articles.
|
On August 24 2014 11:35 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2014 08:35 Torte de Lini wrote:On August 24 2014 08:16 Danglars wrote:However the public attitude as to whether there is an imperative need to focus on legitimizing eSports is opinionated without taking into consideration of companies already trying to legitimize it and have been for many years. Did this fly right over everybody else's head, too? We're too opinionated to recognize attempts to legitimize (as before, what does this mean)? The only takeaway I got was to not prematurely dismiss the TV medium for recruiting new viewers. I basically already agreed with that statement going in. The rest of the article is too muddled to grasp the main current of thought (if there is a main current of thought) . It's something about TV as validation, TV as viewer recruitment, and TV as a financial boon. I detect in the background [rhetorical] fog an unspoken vein: eSports legitimacy is shredding basement LAN stigma, being considered just another sports, and its players as athletes. AAH, someone nabbed a tooth! I think, and you can ready your harpoons here, that the vocal audience that speaks about legitimizing eSports, especially in regards to television, blurs out some progress points made over the past four years just as this article barely grazes any progress made pre-2010. Granted, I may be discrediting the large lot of folks and invested fans but I think I may have overused legitimize as I am referencing examples such as ESL bumping up their attendance at major conventions as forms of converting and directly interacting mainstream gamers with the hype of competitions. Bolded: YESYESYES. That TV, despite its coming diminished cultural impact, still plays a massive role in both acknowledgement of eSports as well as recognition that could lead to more avenues of business and interest levels on a societal level, even if met with initial skepticism (as it has been so for many years). Well, if that's what you're saying, why don't you come out and say it! And let me add, not "progress points" or "progress," because we're already in the amorphous realm of feeling. You're trying to persuade the reader that it's possible and beneficial to seek another broadcast medium. A medium that I've read 100 forum threads either advocating or ridiculing. When it comes to Torte's post, we're stuck in the morass of formless cultural impact and constructed gains in sponsorship revenue. I liked the concrete historical examples of what big tournaments with smart minds have done to grab attention and viewer eyeballs. I think we all fist bumped ESPN's decision to carry select tournaments this year. It's still individual organizers selling their tournament to television. It still runs against the reticence of TV viewers watching a game they don't play, the hype confined to 2-10 sweaty guys behind computers screaming at each other or just burning up the APM. The intense gamelength variability is a second big factor to overcome. Viewership of eSports has very little appeal for non-gamers, though the sector of society that games has been growing. "What if it was mainstream" is an entertaining dream. I look forward to marginal long-term growth in the cable TV area. More and more people growing up today gamed in their youth. That's at least one step towards casual viewership. Wide-eyed enthusiasts aside, you can't change the culture to this degree by wishful thinking. Kennigit covered more than I can ever hope to the real obstacles, both fixable ones like storyline quality and fixed obstacles. So whenever we get together to talk about validation, sponsorship markets, and viewership draw, let's know the playing field and not get lost in the dreamland of what may be. Even though publishers and industry faces have made headway, let's keep our outlooks in reality.
If I were to say that, it'd be too much of an absolute statement that would be flawed. It would offend readers and give me a pompous attitude when none is intended. I want to set up a setting for discussion, not excessively inject my opinion at the very start.
The one thing I drew from the ESPN thing is that it let a lot of people introduce their family and friends to eSports and that was something I wanted to mention but ultimately decided against it and just kept saying "cultural impact". I think as gaming envelops more and more of the general population to the point where everyone has at least tried competitive games, we'll start to see television also get into competitive gaming. I think that's a big wall to overcome as television can introduce a lot of people to LCS or WCS or The International, but it will still alienate people who have never seen or play the game and maybe it'll be all rather pointless.
Did not know that topic from Kennigit, I'll have to take a gander!
On August 24 2014 10:27 CosmicSpiral wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2014 08:31 Torte de Lini wrote:
Oh shit, I totally missed this reply! I'm very sorry and you don't know what it means to have you compliment my work. !_! Show nested quote +On August 24 2014 08:31 Torte de Lini wrote:
Do you have an example of my dismissal? Initially, I wanted to keep it short so my biggest issue with all my pieces is that I don't go further. What could be dismissal may turn out to be a future topic though! Show nested quote +The discussion of whether eSports necessitates being on television, radio or even in the paper is negligible. The fact of the matter is that these expansions are embraced for its venture. Negligible in what sense? unimportant in view of what's already being doneAlso, venture is a very odd word to use here. On the contrary, supporters of mainstream exposure have a set of reasonable expectations for what would happen if eSports went through older media outlets. You even describe them later on in the article. Show nested quote +Unfortunately, vocal communities translate eSports expanding on any outlet other than via internet streaming as a step into a heightened demand of [uptight] professionalism and an influx of curious (and sometimes skeptical) newcomers. These potential concerns about eSports changing and merging into mainstream expectancies is moot. In what sense are they moot? The sense that they are not concerns that can materialize in the near future? The sense that those voices are not the ones who decide whether eSports will gradually become "legitimate"? The sense that their concerns are not a necessary byproduct of mainstream exposure, and eSports could possibly find a compromise? moot being pointless in the grand scheme of things. Meaning the concerns of going "mainstream" are needless when 1. the changes eSports will go through may or may not lead in a direction they like and 2. the gain from going to a variety of new outlets will have higher benefits than what we may lose.Show nested quote +However the public attitude as to whether there is an imperative need to focus on legitimizing eSports is opinionated without taking into consideration of companies already trying to legitimize it and have been for many years. They do take those into consideration. The naysayers' biggest objections are based on how other "proper" sports have been affected by mainstream exposure, and they greatly dislike the idea of SC2/Dota 2/whatever moving in the same direction. How have they been affected exactly and are we sure that in many ways SC2/DOTA2/LoL have not already applied those changes? Especially when at major conventions etc. Show nested quote +On August 24 2014 08:31 Torte de Lini wrote:I personally think it is impossible to underling the details to what is "legitimizing eSports". That's my personal opinion, if I were to make it a thesis, it would be incomplete. To me, personally, legitimizing eSports is where it becomes equals to its main culture that it derives from: gaming and attracts similar sponsorship and businesses similar to extreme sports we see with Red Bull, Monster Gaming. I associate these events with the same as eSports events with the same amount of funding, business interest, exciting international events and content highlighting those people.
I think that may be implied by how joyous I act if advertisers moved over to online streaming, but you're right in that it lacks clear definition. Something to maybe write next?
Thanks so much! There won't be a set of parameters that everyone will accept. But it is important to establish said parameters, even as a personal opinion, so that your argument is coherent and other people can participate in the discussion. Obviously commentators will disagree, yet it will get them thinking about how narrow or wide their definition is. Well, your idea is very different than what most people think when they hear the term. Maybe that lack of transparency is responsible for some of the harsher comments.
This is what happens when you have yourself as your own editor. I'm glad this is at least generating interest and comments, even if a bit off-topic. I'm hoping my next article achieves the same (should be in two weeks or so!)
|
I don't really care about how the main stream media will look at esport.
The only fact is that it is growing and it keeps on developing, fast.
It is getting so big that Google bought out twitch.
We don't need main stream media's regonition
We will be just a huge community that is too big for them to ignore
|
I'll be editing the article's word-choices based on your criticisms!
|
I would be very careful at the minute with trying to make esports more mainstream because i feel if it did go more mainstream, and ive said this before on these forums over the years all of our personalities will be gone and what you would get is a over produced dry and highlighted spectacle only focusing on SOME games and aspects of games. Major TV companies if they were to take over would replace every single tv presence with their own and some of you may react to this and start saying it wont happen but trust me you only have to watch a BBC, FOX, CBC, SKY, ITV, (im british btw) and look at the kind of people they put infront of the camera. Clean accents, Sharp looking (in britains case the older the better) and 'presenter' qualities.
i doubt games would ever be live. Cant chance that 2 hr stalemate and not only that, look at the redbull this weekend, i told the wife, im watching the esports today (usually she goes mad at me for for watching 2.5 hrs formula 1) and i watched 9 hrs of it . . .its great./ I feel all this will be a thing of the past (unless thees the dual stream like we have now)
Just going back to the casters a minute, all of them would be replaced, all of them i feel, only retaining a few to pundit the games before they start (watch match of the day to get an idea of what i mean if ur not british) The language we use and the style in which we commentate the games would not be allowed.
Its really difficult to say what i mean, ive just woke up and got the flu but for the love of god, we need to keep esports like this for as long as you possibly can. The brilliant world we know of i think will be ruined. As the industry gets bigger we need to make companies know that this is how we do it. Anyway, theyve tried this over the years by making gaming channels on sky, they have always shut down. My Forza clan 10 yrs or so ago got invited to one of the studios in London, xleague, we came 2nd against the best gears of war and forza and halo2 clans. I suppose its come along way since then but for the love of god we need to keep it where it is and keep growing the brand as an online presence
|
1001 YEARS KESPAJAIL22272 Posts
Video games is no longer a niche market. 59% of Americans play.
Just wait til we get competitive candycrush or zoozoobubble. They'll accept us then I promise you!
|
On August 24 2014 21:47 lichter wrote:Video games is no longer a niche market. 59% of Americans play.Just wait til we get competitive candycrush or zoozoobubble. They'll accept us then I promise you!
Video games has also been expanded to many large/casual games.
I went for a job interview a few days ago for a PR position. All three of them told me they didn't play video games or they only played mobile games.
It was weird as they asked me what I played and I must have named 7 different games on PC and console.
Besides that anecdote, I think mainstream gaming has reached a lot of ways to entertain a variety of people, especially Americans, but competitive gaming is still a "through-the-looking-glass" situation.
+ Show Spoiler +Did I use that term right?
On August 24 2014 21:47 lichter wrote:Video games is no longer a niche market. 59% of Americans play.Just wait til we get competitive candycrush or zoozoobubble. They'll accept us then I promise you!
I'm hoping speedrunning becomes the figure skating of competitive gaming!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
