When Forbes wrote the heated headline: "Why eSports Doesn't Need ESPN". There was some debate coming from both sides on whether or not the author, Paul Tassi, was making a valid point or simply coming at the topic too strongly. The author’s main argument was that the idea of eSports “needing to make it to television in order to become legitimate” was complete hogwash. When it came to whether eSports will ever be televised, the article gave a more moderate answer in which eSports may, someday, be on television, but it doesn't necessarily have to be.
That is a key highlight 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eSports broadcasting, it goes without saying that they are not all necessary and yet, we value them even if they are an outdated form of how fans consume their favourite games. The discussion of whether eSports necessitates being on television, radio or even in the paper is pointless when businesses are already embracing the opportunity to expand, and the benefits from these efforts are already accumulating. Unfortunately, vocal communities translate eSports expanding on any outlet other than via internet streaming as a step into a heightened environment of [uptight] professionalism and an influx of curious (and sometimes skeptical) newcomers. These concerns about eSports changing and merging into mainstream expectancies is moot. It is undeniable that eSports will change as coming generational cultures shift into more technologically-focused traits; this shift also includes competitions, incorporating practices of the old into the new medium. Those who question the importance of legitimizing eSports are opinionated, and do not take into consideration the companies who have already been trying to legitimize it 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 The author, Paul Tassi, is also victim of this narrow-minded view in which he dismisses cable television as an outdated media platform without understanding that although the current demographic consumes their favourite tournaments in-person or online, large consumer companies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, they should be continually pursued. The disconnect between how advertisers reach their target demographic and how fans enjoy their favourite events can become further minimized. 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 by just livestreaming for the sake of maintaining a semblance of "legitimate eSports".
A preview show for ESPN2 was produced during Valve’s Dota 2 The International 4 which, prior to its announcement, urged Forbes contributing writer, Paul Tassi, to dismiss both the television medium for eSports as well as calling it needless to expand to when your current fanbase relies on internet live streaming
It should be stated that legitimizing eSports and expanding the brands of our currently established production companies such as ESL, DreamHack and Major League Gaming are naturally one of the same. These flagships of eSports production are both representative of how attractive eSports can be for the average fan as well as the bridge to the mainstream gaming industry. While eSports doesn’t need validation from mainstream networks in a nearly exclusive online entertainment; it is heavily sought after regardless.
For DreamHack, the transition from being one of the largest LANs in the world since the 90s to becoming a fully-fledged studio as well as competitive event, has the interest of national television channels within their own country, Sweden – SVT (2009/2012) and now Finland – YLE (2014).
Likewise ESL has enticed similar national television interest with their advertised recent Dota 2 ESL ONE event at the Commerzbank-Arena World Cup Stadium. For years, they have widened their the two brands, The Intel Extreme Masters and their ESL ONE, previous EMS One, with massive events across North America and Europe. More specifically, they have been using mainstream gaming conventions to both advertise their brand as well as draw mainstream audiences into the excitement of competitive gaming including Gamescom (Cologne), SITEX (Singapore, Convention Centre), Comic-Con (New York), CeBIT (Hannover), and Fan Expo (Toronto). It’s a sort of ‘two-birds-one-stone’ plan in which ESL heightens the recognition of their branded events while also intertwining the conventions’ mainstream appeal to improve the marketability of eSports and the viewership of their own competitions.
Let’s not also discount the fact that ESL has been the frontrunner for game developers/publishers to rely on for hosting competitive events such as Blizzard’s StarCraft 2 World Championship Series (2013/Europe, 2014/North America) Titanfall at IEM Katowice (2014), Battlefield 4 at IEM Katowice (2014) and Halo at Gamescom (2014), Riot Games LCS Europe (2013), Firefall (2012), SMITE (2012) and Hawken (2012).
What’s also interesting about ESL is that their Intel Extreme Masters events attract many technology and mainstream game booths/kiosks marking that not only is competitive gaming using mainstream conventions to draw in new fans but also that technology and mainstream gaming companies can take advantage of eSports events in-person.
The progress publishers are making ranges from Riot Games’ massive budget and staff dedicated to all things LCS-related to Valve’s more long-term approach in meshing consumers with eSports fans to create cooperative businesses within competitive gaming (tickets and cosmetics that contribute directly to players, organizations or prizes at events). Together, they alleviate the risk with becoming involved in competitive gaming while also establishing a strong front for mainstream media to cover and expose both scenes (as we have seen with ESPN and The International 4 in addition to LCS World Championship on a variety of news sites)
The history in which competitive gaming has reached mainstream media stretches even farther dipping into its highs and lows with companies such as ESWC, CGS, WCG and more. This is especially true when it comes to national televised events as it is becoming the accepted norm in Asia (China, South Korea). Calling television a “dinosaur” when it has had such a relevant cultural impact in Asia for nearly a decade is just flat-out silly. ESports on television leads to better marketable numbers for tournaments, potentially more legitimate understanding and exposure of players and a step forward for generational values as generations are becoming born with access to the internet and outdated perspectives fall out. We can say that the value people put towards television is misguided especially with how impactful competitions are at conventional gaming expos. But the advantages of broadening our horizons among two audiences (mainstream gamers as well as the general population) are crucial for expanding eSports to greater heights. It answers the original article’s short-sighted question: “Why do all this work to try and expand to a medium that the majority of your fanbase may not even want or be able to access?“
What you don’t see in this image is the massive lot behind for all the booths and kiosks for other games and technology companies using eSports events to market and showcase their products.
The pitfalls from the past are always seen as two steps backwards and lessons to be learned. But these consistent outreaches from developers and eSports production companies to conventional media platforms and established gaming conventions tell us that there is a gain from continually trying to reach a wider audience; that the benefits outweigh the flaws to morph eSports to a wider accepted form of entertainment.
To Summarize:
To dismiss television is to be caught in the progress of internet livestreaming without admitting the cultural significance and habits of those who still consume a vast amount of television (not to mention how it is best to show eSports to newcomers via television, a more shared media medium) and where television still has an impact on national societies.
eSports businesses and publishers are making major headway in developing eSports into a professional, long-term and stable interest for players and fans alike. This includes integrating mainstream consumers and gamers with the hype and excitement of eSports via live interaction at mainstreaming gaming conventions: Chinese, Korean, Finnish and Swedish national television. Whether the public dismisses television or not is superseded by these years of established action.
In many aspects, eSports is a legitimate marketing platform for many companies, audiences and businesses as there is an intertwining of cross-marketing for both sides (developers to eSports and eSports with developers; discounting technology companies). That content can be further reached to advertisers who still prioritize television over any other entertainment outlet – sustaining businesses further.
Placing competitions at conventional gaming conventions may have a stronger interaction and impact on the gaming mainstream audience.
However, the question remains: at what point is eSports considered “legitimate”? What kind of measurements should it rely on to mark achievement: prize amounts? Media coverage (news, television channels, gaming conventions)? Or its influence on development companies’ business practices? It may very well be a combination of those areas and more but it goes without saying that the more eSports spreads, the higher its peak of interest and ultimately, acceptance as a showcase of the values in competitions, sports or not.
Timothy Young - Shindigs (Producer/User Researcher) Emily Gera - (Senior Reporter at Polygon) James Hu - Lemon (Finance and Business Analyst) Team Liquid User, jubil
I think someone who never saw a game like DotA2 on TV, they'd be like "What the fuck is this shit?", listen for a bit, ridicule everyone involved, i.e., "I BET THESE NERDS DON'T HAVE GFS XAXAXAXAXA )))))" and then switch to Real Housewives of Mobile, Alabama to see Jodi's crazy antics. Oh, Jodi, you so crazy, girl.
On August 24 2014 03:31 Dangermousecatdog wrote: Imperative. I don't think it means what you think it means. Thesaurus much?
Imperative - expressive of a command, entreaty, or exhortation.
The word is fine.
Torte, I take issue with two things. Your use of rhetoric to dismiss concerns seems like sleight-of-hand to ignore arguments you can't actually answer. You often hand-wave them away with extremely vague, unconvincing rebuttals. The second paragraph is especially rife with this. You make no serious attempt to detail what "legitimizing eSports" actually means, or whether there is one interpretation that should be embraced above others. This is a fairly important point as your entire article is predicated on a definite idea of what constitutes legitimate eSports.
Otherwise I think it's well-written and thought-provoking.
On August 24 2014 03:31 Dangermousecatdog wrote: Imperative. I don't think it means what you think it means. Thesaurus much?
Imperative - expressive of a command, entreaty, or exhortation.
The word is fine.
Well, it is being used very oddly, could have multiple meanings and is confusing in this context. Is it an urgent feeling to legitimize E-Sports? Is it an instant feeling? Or is it an obligatory feeling? Those words are all synonyms of imperative, as it has a broad meaning.
Even your definition makes it confusing, "the exhortative feeling to legitimize E-Sports." What?
I assume what he means is that some people believe it is imperative to legitimize E-Sports and he wants to talk about that. When I construct the sentence that way, the meaning is clear (ie very important to legitimize E-Sports). However, that same meaning in his sentence would talk about "The very important feeling to legitimize E-Sports." What is important? The feeling or legitimizing E-Sports? With it's title, this article could very well have been about some very important feeling he had after a some life event last night that made him to go on a crusade to legitimize E-Sports.
Therefore, it shouldn't have been used. But it really isn't a big deal.
On August 24 2014 04:37 BronzeKnee wrote: Well, it is being used very oddly, could have multiple meanings and is confusing in this context. Is it an urgent feeling to legitimize E-Sports? Is it an instant feeling? Or is it an obligatory feeling? Those words are all synonyms of imperative, as it has a broad meaning.
If he is using imperative in either of its two primary definitions ("absolutely necessary vs "expressive of a command, entreaty, or exhortation", that's perfectly fine. A word can have multiple meanings within a sentence as long as they adequately describe the subject and are complementary. It would only be a problem if we couldn't tell if imperative was an adjective or a noun: those definitions are irreconcilable.
On August 24 2014 04:37 BronzeKnee wrote: Even your definition makes it confusing, "the exhortative feeling to legitimize E-Sports." What?
That's because you're trying to substitute part of a definition as a synonym.
On August 24 2014 04:37 BronzeKnee wrote: I assume what he means is that some people believe it is imperative to legitimize E-Sports and he wants to talk about that. When I construct the sentence that way, the meaning is clear (ie very important to legitimize E-Sports).
"Imperative" is an adjective describing the gerund "feeling". Imperative would have to be used as a noun to meet your interpretation.
On August 24 2014 04:37 BronzeKnee wrote: However, that same meaning in his sentence would talk about "The very important feeling to legitimize E-Sports." What is important? The feeling or legitimizing E-Sports? With its title, this article could very well have been about some very important feeling he had after a some life event last night that made him to go on a crusade to legitimize E-Sports.
Therefore, it shouldn't have been used. But it really isn't a big deal.
The burden of clarification falls on the article, not the title. Titles are not bound to be complete summaries of their content except in certain, extremely dry fields. For what it's worth, he's being slightly sarcastic with the first interpretation. I don't see any blatant subject confusion in the title. If anything, the problem is the word "feeling" and its lack of intentionality. "The feeling towards legitimizing esports" makes no sense.
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.
On August 24 2014 07:59 tshi wrote: I dont think anything will be legitimate as long as /r/starcraft is a thing =/
Certainly not my opinion or articles there unfortunately, but I digress. Vocal minorities always seem more influential than they really are. Don't disparage all of a community because of some occurences, chin up!
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.
I think 'legitimization' is a shortcut word to an ambiguous final "we made it" that's joked around a lot. I do think there is a third-party judge but its a gradual move towards acquiring larger interest from businesses. That's my "third-party judge" and obviously people value this checkmark of authenticity differently.
I think online live streaming is embraced pretty heavily, especially as new generations are born into its accessibility. It's not like we can both accept television as its impactful status while continually utilizing livestreaming. I think you make a fair point about the qualities of livestreaming but also dismiss the context and hypotheticals of television such as watching in public places, at your home with your family, etc. This can all be substitued with PCs and a good internet connection but that's the case the majority of the time.
On August 24 2014 04:10 CosmicSpiral wrote: Torte, I take issue with two things. Your use of rhetoric to dismiss concerns seems like sleight-of-hand to ignore arguments you can't actually answer. You often hand-wave them away with extremely vague, unconvincing rebuttals. The second paragraph is especially rife with this. You make no serious attempt to detail what "legitimizing eSports" actually means, or whether there is one interpretation that should be embraced above others. This is a fairly important point as your entire article is predicated on a definite idea of what constitutes legitimate eSports.
Otherwise I think it's well-written and thought-provoking.
It is rhetorical sleight of hand. What is this "legitimacy" to you, why should I believe your take on it, how would I even know if it was gained? There's a lot of points wafting in that second paragraph that don't come together into a persuasive whole.
Publicity Broadcast medium New viewer entry Cultural impact of TV Advertiser-Viewer Monetization
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.
On August 24 2014 03:31 Dangermousecatdog wrote: Imperative. I don't think it means what you think it means. Thesaurus much?
Imperative - expressive of a command, entreaty, or exhortation.
The word is fine.
Torte, I take issue with two things. Your use of rhetoric to dismiss concerns seems like sleight-of-hand to ignore arguments you can't actually answer. You often hand-wave them away with extremely vague, unconvincing rebuttals. The second paragraph is especially rife with this. You make no serious attempt to detail what "legitimizing eSports" actually means, or whether there is one interpretation that should be embraced above others. This is a fairly important point as your entire article is predicated on a definite idea of what constitutes legitimate eSports.
Otherwise I think it's well-written and thought-provoking.
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.
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!
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 joyious I act if advertisers moved over to online streaming, but you're right in that it lacks clear definition. Something to maybe write next?
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).
If he is using imperative in either of its two primary definitions ("absolutely necessary vs "expressive of a command, entreaty, or exhortation", that's perfectly fine. A word can have multiple meanings within a sentence as long as they adequately describe the subject and are complementary. It would only be a problem if we couldn't tell if imperative was an adjective or a noun: those definitions are irreconcilable.
The burden of clarification falls on the article, not the title.
I don't think we disagree.
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.
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'm getting a large feeling that I should make a sequel to this article about "legitimizing" and eSports What that entails, the end-goals should be, etc. I think it would be very opinionated and perhaps even wrong, but I'm up for the challenge as it seems to be lacking in this article: a missing cog!
Damn I hate the word legitimize and the whole discussion that come from it in the Esport world. I really feel like it's not something worth discussing at all. Legitimacy isn't something to be concerned about because it's a pointless and stupid goal.
Let's just work toward growing what we have without making compromises in what we think will help our " legitimacy" to people that don't care and won't care.
edit : My rant isn't really addressed to the article itself.
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.
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 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.
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
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 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.
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!
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.
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!
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 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.
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 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? unimportant in view of what's already being done
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? 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.
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.
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 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
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.
I can never understand this feeling though. I guess at first I felt it, when casters starting telling everyone "tell your family in friends to watch this tournament" and everyone started babbling about the growth of the scene as if the game's viewership was more important than the game itself. As if we should "crowdsource" the hype instead of letting the promoters and the event organizers build up the hype to get people involved. And while at first it was a genuine way to try to get more people interested, it seems to me like the growth of the scene is now in the hands of the promoters and the devs and indeed it is their job to get people interested.
In the grand scheme of things, people will really get interested in large numbers if there's something to be interested about. And that's why television despite what we might think about it is a massive milestone. Yet I don't think it's not really our place to feel like we should work up to getting SC2 on TV. I think if it ever made it there, it would be a sort of natural progression toward the big boys platform and it will only happen if the promoters and the devs are credible enough to be taken seriously by the TV people, at least while TV is still a relevant factor which will be true for the next few years or decades.
But whatever happens, eSports won't be on TV all that much until people change their views on videogaming. And their views have been changing. So we have to hope that the promoters and devs are doing their jobs!
above poster is right, i think my generation is the first to see video games as a recreational hobby and not so much a kids thing, (born in 1980) basically i think by the time im in my 50s and my kids have grown up, its going to be much more accepted . . .and ill be too old to take part . . or so my actual parents tell me . . but my mother sure rocks that pogo site
On August 24 2014 03:31 Dangermousecatdog wrote: Imperative. I don't think it means what you think it means. Thesaurus much?
Imperative - expressive of a command, entreaty, or exhortation.
The word is fine.
Ok then as you say; An "expressive of a command, entreaty, or exhortation" feeling to legitimise esports.
Yeah, somehow I don't think whatever intention he had, if he had any, had been expressed in the title by your own interpretation.
Anyhow, I thought it was pretty clear to anybody that ready the post that the whole post was just a meandering pile of undistinct and vague sentences one after the other, where nothing is defined, and everything is written in the manner of an overblown movie. There no information, no ideas, no argument to express or exchange, it's just mostly pomposity bereft of substance, as if like that was the purpose of the post. Mostly, the extravagant language are being used to hide the nature of the vacuous post. I thought my comment was rather apt as it rather neatly wraps up the article and my thoughts in one brief statement. Rather telling that it will be two other posters with a pen and paper icon defending his choice of title. Perhaps you two are sponsoring him or something in gaining these icons; I have no idea how these status symbols are given on TL. [/QUOTE]
On August 24 2014 03:31 Dangermousecatdog wrote: Imperative. I don't think it means what you think it means. Thesaurus much?
Imperative - expressive of a command, entreaty, or exhortation.
The word is fine.
Ok then as you say; An "expressive of a command, entreaty, or exhortation" feeling to legitimise esports.
Yeah, somehow I don't think whatever intention he had, if he had any, had been expressed in the title by your own interpretation.
Anyhow, I thought it was pretty clear to anybody that ready the post that the whole post was just a meandering pile of undistinct and vague sentences one after the other, where nothing is defined, and everything is written in the manner of an overblown movie. There no information, no ideas, no argument to express or exchange, it's just mostly pomposity bereft of substance, as if like that was the purpose of the post. Mostly, the extravagant language are being used to hide the nature of the vacuous post. I thought my comment was rather apt as it rather neatly wraps up the article and my thoughts in one brief statement. Rather telling that it will be two other posters with a pen and paper icon defending his choice of title. Perhaps you two are sponsoring him or something in gaining these icons; I have no idea how these status symbols are given on TL.
They're staff, I'm a community member. There's no other relation.
While I welcome criticism, the bolded area is a bit ridiculous considering I did have a point and it is broken down into bullets in the summary section so even though my word-choices may be off or disliked, you can still gather what I'm saying in the summary. I take into account that not everyone enjoys my style writing. Despite so, people are still interested in making conversation and discussion on the topic regardless how the writing makes them feel. They weren't quick to dismiss it because the title didn't suit their reading nor the overall topic's style of wording. I think you come off as very childish and a bit insecure by not only being among the first to comment with little actual input but also be so strangely obsessed with it; going so far as to put the whole thing down without remotely arguing about the whole point.
You raise some pretty good points. I've been typically against television growth, but after readin your article, I'm not so sure it would be a bad thing, fiscally and for the growth of the scene overall, due to, like you said, being able to connect to tv exclusive sponsors and audiences.
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.
Unless proper nouns, only the first word of a sentence gets an uppercase. Maybe it's different in english, but I doubt that.
Edit : Now that I'm looking, seems like pretty much every title here is formated the way you did. Would be curious as to why it is so...
Capitalize the first and the last word. Capitalize nouns, pronouns, adjectives, verbs, adverbs, and subordinate conjunctions. Lowercase articles (a, an, the), coordinating conjunctions, and prepositions. Lowercase the "to" in an infinitive (I want to play guitar). Paraphrased from The Chicago Manual of Style: 16 ed. paragraph 8.155
I was taught that you uppercase all major words.
On August 25 2014 00:08 goiflin wrote: You raise some pretty good points. I've been typically against television growth, but after readin your article, I'm not so sure it would be a bad thing, fiscally and for the growth of the scene overall, due to, like you said, being able to connect to tv exclusive sponsors and audiences.
Thanks for writing this!
Thanks! I can see the difficulty in not only getting eSports on television but also the difficulty in adhering to the format television demands.
Capitalize the first and the last word. Capitalize nouns, pronouns, adjectives, verbs, adverbs, and subordinate conjunctions. Lowercase articles (a, an, the), coordinating conjunctions, and prepositions. Lowercase the "to" in an infinitive (I want to play guitar). Paraphrased from The Chicago Manual of Style: 16 ed. paragraph 8.155
I was taught that you uppercase all major words.
Yeah sorry about that, researched a bit and you are absolutely right. Looks very weird as a non english speaker, but hey, this one's on me !
On August 24 2014 03:31 Dangermousecatdog wrote: Imperative. I don't think it means what you think it means. Thesaurus much?
Imperative - expressive of a command, entreaty, or exhortation.
The word is fine.
Ok then as you say; An "expressive of a command, entreaty, or exhortation" feeling to legitimise esports.
Yeah, somehow I don't think whatever intention he had, if he had any, had been expressed in the title by your own interpretation.
Anyhow, I thought it was pretty clear to anybody that ready the post that the whole post was just a meandering pile of undistinct and vague sentences one after the other, where nothing is defined, and everything is written in the manner of an overblown movie. There no information, no ideas, no argument to express or exchange, it's just mostly pomposity bereft of substance, as if like that was the purpose of the post. Mostly, the extravagant language are being used to hide the nature of the vacuous post. I thought my comment was rather apt as it rather neatly wraps up the article and my thoughts in one brief statement. Rather telling that it will be two other posters with a pen and paper icon defending his choice of title. Perhaps you two are sponsoring him or something in gaining these icons; I have no idea how these status symbols are given on TL.
I've been part of this forum for a good long while and I've put up with some seriously bad writeups in my time and while OP's choice of words is not always perfect, I think he raises an important issues and makes pertinent comments. Not only that, Torte De Lini has a long and fairly glorious history of involvement in this scene. What have you been up to? Criticizing the choice of words in an article which is perfectly understandable despite its few shortcomings? Feel free, but there's no need to go about it like that.
I recognize the pertinence of criticizing the choice of words, and Torte himself has shown that he's open to criticism. So what's the point of using words like "vacuous" when the post is not "vacuous" by any means? I think that many of us can appreciate Torte's thoughts about eSports and television given that he's a contributing member of this community, but very few of us actually care about your basic contrary opinions about form.
Maybe if you're going to use the word "vacuous" while making a post which requires no intelligence of its own, you should take one for the team and also make some effort to come up with something insightful.
Personally I dont get the whole discussion. I love esports and there is more content out there than I can ever consume. If someone else likes it or thinks it is "legitimate" (whatever that means) is entirely irrelevant to me.
On August 25 2014 00:45 Redox wrote: Personally I dont get the whole discussion. I love esports and there is more content out there than I can ever consume. If someone else likes it or thinks it is "legitimate" (whatever that means) is entirely irrelevant to me.
What is there not to understand? Certainly anyone who's given any thought to this question for even a few minutes will realize that there's more to gain from the growth of a competitive activity than the quantity of content that is being created. The quality will improve too.
The first implication would be that people would be more accepting of competitive gaming, an activity which is still scoffed at by the media at least in the West and by a lot of the people who still think gaming is just children fucking around with an Atari.
But also you have to consider that growth means more money, better production value, more players, better players (because there's more of an audience AND more of an incentive to get good). Odds are the level of play would increase. Plus to people like myself who've grown up being fans of a sport like hockey, there's an inherent value to this. Now I don't expect eSports to ever reach that level, but there's something amazing about getting to work in the morning and talking about last night's amazing (or horrible) game with a bunch of coworkers with whom(?) I have nothing else in common. It's cool to get to work and hear about it on the radio.
Korea is often cited as an example because it truly is a good one. There is something to be envious of when I see crowds of thousands crammed into a huge plane hangar, cheering like crazy for the OSL finalists while it's being broadcasted on national television and nearly the entire population of the country is aware that it's a thing.
You may not value those things, but you can hardly deny that they're a big deal.
On August 25 2014 00:45 Redox wrote: Personally I dont get the whole discussion. I love esports and there is more content out there than I can ever consume. If someone else likes it or thinks it is "legitimate" (whatever that means) is entirely irrelevant to me.
What is there not to understand? Certainly anyone who's given any thought to this question for even a few minutes will realize that there's more to gain from the growth of a competitive activity than the quantity of content that is being created. The quality will improve too.
The first implication would be that people would be more accepting of competitive gaming, an activity which is still scoffed at by the media at least in the West and by a lot of the people who still think gaming is just children fucking around with an Atari.
But also you have to consider that growth means more money, better production value, more players, better players (because there's more of an audience AND more of an incentive to get good). Odds are the level of play would increase. Plus to people like myself who've grown up being fans of a sport like hockey, there's an inherent value to this. Now I don't expect eSports to ever reach that level, but there's something amazing about getting to work in the morning and talking about last night's amazing (or horrible) game with a bunch of coworkers with whom(?) I have nothing else in common. It's cool to get to work and hear about it on the radio.
Korea is often cited as an example because it truly is a good one. There is something to be envious of when I see crowds of thousands crammed into a huge plane hangar, cheering like crazy for the OSL finalists while it's being broadcasted on national television and nearly the entire population of the country is aware that it's a thing.
You may not value those things, but you can hardly deny that they're a big deal.
Level of play is always relative. I enjoyed watching League in s2 when it was comparatively much lower level than now just as much. I enjoyed sc2 more in the beginning stages when it was lower level than I do now. Bw was awesome when Boxer played it even if it was much lower level than later play. People love watching Smash although the pro player base is rather low (which makes me assume the level of play could be way higher).
When it comes to talking about the games, a specific community like the one on TL is completely sufficient to me.
You want a certain minimum size to have a stable pro player base. But beyond that I dont see a correlation between bigger size and greater enjoyment of the game.
On August 25 2014 00:45 Redox wrote: Personally I dont get the whole discussion. I love esports and there is more content out there than I can ever consume. If someone else likes it or thinks it is "legitimate" (whatever that means) is entirely irrelevant to me.
What is there not to understand? Certainly anyone who's given any thought to this question for even a few minutes will realize that there's more to gain from the growth of a competitive activity than the quantity of content that is being created. The quality will improve too.
The first implication would be that people would be more accepting of competitive gaming, an activity which is still scoffed at by the media at least in the West and by a lot of the people who still think gaming is just children fucking around with an Atari.
But also you have to consider that growth means more money, better production value, more players, better players (because there's more of an audience AND more of an incentive to get good). Odds are the level of play would increase. Plus to people like myself who've grown up being fans of a sport like hockey, there's an inherent value to this. Now I don't expect eSports to ever reach that level, but there's something amazing about getting to work in the morning and talking about last night's amazing (or horrible) game with a bunch of coworkers with whom(?) I have nothing else in common. It's cool to get to work and hear about it on the radio.
Korea is often cited as an example because it truly is a good one. There is something to be envious of when I see crowds of thousands crammed into a huge plane hangar, cheering like crazy for the OSL finalists while it's being broadcasted on national television and nearly the entire population of the country is aware that it's a thing.
You may not value those things, but you can hardly deny that they're a big deal.
Level of play is always relative. I enjoyed watching League in s2 when it was comparatively much lower level than now just as much. I enjoyed sc2 more in the beginning stages when it was lower level than I do now. Bw was awesome when Boxer played it even if it was much lower level than later play. People love watching Smash although the pro player base is rather low (which makes me assume the level of play could be way higher).
When it comes to talking about the games, a specific community like the one on TL is completely sufficient to me.
Well like I said, it may not be important to you but it's important to many and I'm sure you understand this even though you disagree.
I liked watching in the early days of SCBW but I liked it the most when it was Jaedong/Bisu/Flash. SCBW got better as the plays got more complex, IMO.
Being legitimate doesn't have anything to do with respecting mainstream values or winning public approval.
I see two ways to be legitimate: (1) be an independent and stable business and (2) respect the values of your field. eSports can be legitimate business-wise by being a good participant in the economy and it can be legitimate ethically by being true to its values.
eSports fails on (1) very often. Most events happen at a loss for the investors, by piggybacking off of some other event or by a lot of "volunteer" work (from people who are aspiring to forge a career and would rather be fairly compensated).
I thought it was funny to see so many eSports fans get excited by the prospect of working with ESPN. ESPN is successful and profitable as hell but isn't seen as legitimate itself by a lot of hardcore sports fans because they don't respect the values of their field. Working with ESPN could certainly help eSports achieve (1) but it would almost certainly involve sacrificing (2).
Evaluating legitimacy of (2) becomes trickier when things transform into something else. Does ESPN practice legitimate journalism and reporting of the news? No. But are they sports journalists and sports news reporters? Arguably no, so we shouldn't judge them by those values anymore. They're more like sports news entertainment. eSports could become some kind of "video game entertainment" that appeals to the masses and makes more money but doesn't respect the competitive values it currently holds dear. Its values would change and so it could still be seen as legitimate but it would have transformed into something else without changing its name.
On August 25 2014 00:45 Redox wrote: Personally I dont get the whole discussion. I love esports and there is more content out there than I can ever consume. If someone else likes it or thinks it is "legitimate" (whatever that means) is entirely irrelevant to me.
What is there not to understand? Certainly anyone who's given any thought to this question for even a few minutes will realize that there's more to gain from the growth of a competitive activity than the quantity of content that is being created. The quality will improve too.
The first implication would be that people would be more accepting of competitive gaming, an activity which is still scoffed at by the media at least in the West and by a lot of the people who still think gaming is just children fucking around with an Atari.
But also you have to consider that growth means more money, better production value, more players, better players (because there's more of an audience AND more of an incentive to get good). Odds are the level of play would increase. Plus to people like myself who've grown up being fans of a sport like hockey, there's an inherent value to this. Now I don't expect eSports to ever reach that level, but there's something amazing about getting to work in the morning and talking about last night's amazing (or horrible) game with a bunch of coworkers with whom(?) I have nothing else in common. It's cool to get to work and hear about it on the radio.
Korea is often cited as an example because it truly is a good one. There is something to be envious of when I see crowds of thousands crammed into a huge plane hangar, cheering like crazy for the OSL finalists while it's being broadcasted on national television and nearly the entire population of the country is aware that it's a thing.
You may not value those things, but you can hardly deny that they're a big deal.
I think what he's saying is that his enjoyment is not influenced by larger idealisms
On August 25 2014 00:51 Broodwurst wrote: Mainstream media just looked at this thread. After laughing their asses of for 20 minutes they decided to give more focus to competitive grammar.
As compelling as Spelling Bees are, I think they consider other areas for their consideration.
On August 25 2014 00:45 Redox wrote: Personally I dont get the whole discussion. I love esports and there is more content out there than I can ever consume. If someone else likes it or thinks it is "legitimate" (whatever that means) is entirely irrelevant to me.
What is there not to understand? Certainly anyone who's given any thought to this question for even a few minutes will realize that there's more to gain from the growth of a competitive activity than the quantity of content that is being created. The quality will improve too.
The first implication would be that people would be more accepting of competitive gaming, an activity which is still scoffed at by the media at least in the West and by a lot of the people who still think gaming is just children fucking around with an Atari.
But also you have to consider that growth means more money, better production value, more players, better players (because there's more of an audience AND more of an incentive to get good). Odds are the level of play would increase. Plus to people like myself who've grown up being fans of a sport like hockey, there's an inherent value to this. Now I don't expect eSports to ever reach that level, but there's something amazing about getting to work in the morning and talking about last night's amazing (or horrible) game with a bunch of coworkers with whom(?) I have nothing else in common. It's cool to get to work and hear about it on the radio.
Korea is often cited as an example because it truly is a good one. There is something to be envious of when I see crowds of thousands crammed into a huge plane hangar, cheering like crazy for the OSL finalists while it's being broadcasted on national television and nearly the entire population of the country is aware that it's a thing.
You may not value those things, but you can hardly deny that they're a big deal.
I think what he's saying is that his enjoyment is not influenced by larger idealisms
I get that, and I thought my response showed that I get that. I'm just saying that you have to look at the big picture and not just your particular opinion. I recognize that some people are fine with eSports being a relatively small thing and I understand that. But there are serious benefits to being a big thing that a lot of people enjoy. Not saying the size of the eSports is what legitimizes it, but yeah.
from that title i thought this was gonna be about how it's a bit silly for a regular community member with no aspirations to make money off esports to be so concerned with its "growth". i would've enjoyed that more.
I think it's better to grow it steady with the help of the gamers because in some years everybody will be a gamer much like almost all of us like sports and movies etc..
some will always like more some or the others but it's almost a given that the next generations will put games together with sports, fitness, action sports etc.
Keep it with the community and we will grown slowly but honest and legitimate, it's better if we love it then trying to go to far and messing what they allready have
For what it's worth, I completely agree with the underlying point; I get excited when I see some new (positive) coverage, new mainstream company sponsorships (Visine, anyone?), and new celebrity enthusiasts. In addition, increased legitimization in the form of professional, legal contracts can help protect players, teams, and organizations from shady and unscrupulous behavior. Increased legitimization through more notable companies' sponsorships circulates more money into the scene, allowing more players to follow their dreams. Finally, increased legitimization through mainstream media coverage brings new players, giving rise to a more vibrant scene and higher general social acceptance.
Regarding the piece itself, I do think it could have made its point even more strongly by properly addressing the other side of the debate. It's very thorough in explaining the benefits of legitimizing eSports, but I don't think you can be fully persuasive without explaining why these benefits outweigh the downsides - that eSports might become overly sanitized, overly commercialized, or even overtly ridiculed (as in Xiphos's story). The diehard "anti-legitimist" might very well read all your points about increasing cultural awareness, business contacts, marketing, and outreach to mainstream consumers yet reply with "I don't want or need all that".
I also have some grammar/usage nitpicks, but perhaps those are best addressed via PM
On August 24 2014 03:31 Dangermousecatdog wrote: Imperative. I don't think it means what you think it means. Thesaurus much?
Imperative - expressive of a command, entreaty, or exhortation.
The word is fine.
Ok then as you say; An "expressive of a command, entreaty, or exhortation" feeling to legitimise esports.
Yeah, somehow I don't think whatever intention he had, if he had any, had been expressed in the title by your own interpretation.
Anyhow, I thought it was pretty clear to anybody that ready the post that the whole post was just a meandering pile of undistinct and vague sentences one after the other, where nothing is defined, and everything is written in the manner of an overblown movie. There no information, no ideas, no argument to express or exchange, it's just mostly pomposity bereft of substance, as if like that was the purpose of the post. Mostly, the extravagant language are being used to hide the nature of the vacuous post. I thought my comment was rather apt as it rather neatly wraps up the article and my thoughts in one brief statement. Rather telling that it will be two other posters with a pen and paper icon defending his choice of title. Perhaps you two are sponsoring him or something in gaining these icons; I have no idea how these status symbols are given on TL.
[/QUOTE]
Yeah your "criticism" is just so exaggerated as to render it worthless.
Then again~ considering almost the majority of the articles he has posted have created less than 3 pages or less worth of discussion.... maybe this title and style are his greatest stroke of genius yet. We are on page 4!!! Congrats Torte!
On August 24 2014 22:52 Dangermousecatdog wrote: Ok then as you say; An "expressive of a command, entreaty, or exhortation" feeling to legitimise esports
Yeah, somehow I don't think whatever intention he had, if he had any, had been expressed in the title by your own interpretation.
"The hot plate fell on the floor"
"The [having a high degree of heat or a high temperature] plate fell on the floor" "The plate, which was [having a high degree of heat or a high temperature], fell on the floor." "The plate was [having a high degree of heat or a high temperature] and it fell on the floor." "[having a high degree of heat or a high temperature], the plate fell on the floor."
According to your idea of 1:1 substitution, we can never use "hot" in a sentence except when completely isolated from a clause. Similarly, any use of "imperative" with that specific definition would have to be put after its subject lest the sentence becomes grammatically incorrect. Direct word -> definition substitution does not work in all cases for English, or any other language known to man.
I explained the actual issue with the title two pages back:
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.
On August 24 2014 22:52 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Anyhow, I thought it was pretty clear to anybody that ready the post that the whole post was just a meandering pile of undistinct and vague sentences one after the other, where nothing is defined, and everything is written in the manner of an overblown movie. There no information, no ideas, no argument to express or exchange, it's just mostly pomposity bereft of substance, as if like that was the purpose of the post. Mostly, the extravagant language are being used to hide the nature of the vacuous post. I thought my comment was rather apt as it rather neatly wraps up the article and my thoughts in one brief statement. Rather telling that it will be two other posters with a pen and paper icon defending his choice of title. Perhaps you two are sponsoring him or something in gaining these icons; I have no idea how these status symbols are given on TL.
The pot should not call the kettle black.
I'm a writer. I got this icon because I understand English and how to use it.
On August 25 2014 11:05 Joedaddy wrote: Then again~ considering almost every article he has posted has created less than 3 pages worth of discussion.... maybe this title and style are his greatest stroke of genius yet. We are on page 4!!! Congrats Torte!
Not to mention that readership is very steady and good across the board.
I think every time you interact with me, you have managed to not only be condescending, but rather obtuse and personal. For the past 2 years you have always been both rude and insensitive towards me for a variety of reasons ranging from getting a casual stream removed because it portrayed something unprofessional to just personal dislike. Nothing is more aggravating than a tiny tick who just leeches off any personal interest a person has just to be a nuissance and fat up his passive-aggressive testicles.
That's all I'm going to say about it.
On August 25 2014 03:31 NonY wrote: Being legitimate doesn't have anything to do with respecting mainstream values or winning public approval.
I see two ways to be legitimate: (1) be an independent and stable business and (2) respect the values of your field. eSports can be legitimate business-wise by being a good participant in the economy and it can be legitimate ethically by being true to its values.
eSports fails on (1) very often. Most events happen at a loss for the investors, by piggybacking off of some other event or by a lot of "volunteer" work (from people who are aspiring to forge a career and would rather be fairly compensated).
I thought it was funny to see so many eSports fans get excited by the prospect of working with ESPN. ESPN is successful and profitable as hell but isn't seen as legitimate itself by a lot of hardcore sports fans because they don't respect the values of their field. Working with ESPN could certainly help eSports achieve (1) but it would almost certainly involve sacrificing (2).
Evaluating legitimacy of (2) becomes trickier when things transform into something else. Does ESPN practice legitimate journalism and reporting of the news? No. But are they sports journalists and sports news reporters? Arguably no, so we shouldn't judge them by those values anymore. They're more like sports news entertainment. eSports could become some kind of "video game entertainment" that appeals to the masses and makes more money but doesn't respect the competitive values it currently holds dear. Its values would change and so it could still be seen as legitimate but it would have transformed into something else without changing its name.
What companies do you considered legitimate by point #2. To note that they must be a service, not a product.
On August 25 2014 07:16 shell wrote: I think it's better to grow it steady with the help of the gamers because in some years everybody will be a gamer much like almost all of us like sports and movies etc..
some will always like more some or the others but it's almost a given that the next generations will put games together with sports, fitness, action sports etc.
Keep it with the community and we will grown slowly but honest and legitimate, it's better if we love it then trying to go to far and messing what they allready have
I think in many ways, people already game, especially with the prevalent technology of cellphones. I think, ultimately, that will probably be the case as eSports touches down with media outlets from time to time, will just grow slowly but steadily.
On August 25 2014 10:30 jubil wrote: For what it's worth, I completely agree with the underlying point; I get excited when I see some new (positive) coverage, new mainstream company sponsorships (Visine, anyone?), and new celebrity enthusiasts. In addition, increased legitimization in the form of professional, legal contracts can help protect players, teams, and organizations from shady and unscrupulous behavior. Increased legitimization through more notable companies' sponsorships circulates more money into the scene, allowing more players to follow their dreams. Finally, increased legitimization through mainstream media coverage brings new players, giving rise to a more vibrant scene and higher general social acceptance.
Regarding the piece itself, I do think it could have made its point even more strongly by properly addressing the other side of the debate. It's very thorough in explaining the benefits of legitimizing eSports, but I don't think you can be fully persuasive without explaining why these benefits outweigh the downsides - that eSports might become overly sanitized, overly commercialized, or even overtly ridiculed (as in Xiphos's story). The diehard "anti-legitimist" might very well read all your points about increasing cultural awareness, business contacts, marketing, and outreach to mainstream consumers yet reply with "I don't want or need all that".
I also have some grammar/usage nitpicks, but perhaps those are best addressed via PM
In the end, my view is that higher exposure will offer a better sustainability in the career of a pro gamer (something I still wouldn't advise anyone to go after at the moment) as well as better coverage of their needs. Yes. exactly about shady company sponsorships or teams (Eclypsia anyone)? It's about bringing eSports beyond the consideration of these desperate forms of support but I don't think that will fully go away no matter how far we go, it'll just become less and less valued or considered.
You're right I could have flipped the table and made points from another's point-of-view, I could have dug up ESGN, the past organizations who maybe pushed too hard during their team and set the scene back. It might have been perhaps too convincing though as well
Go for the grammar/usage fixes. I will fix it so long as I understand the changes! Thanks a lot :D
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.
I don't understand this sentence at all.. also the first sentence ends with an adverb which is a cardinal sin!
I think there are some neat ideas in here, but the language is excessively verbose. The paragraphs are too long, sentences don't flow into each other. Ideas are jumbled and the piece lacks focus.
I'd recommend getting a merciless proof reader and reading the whole piece out loud - there are many missing words, jarring word choices and it really garbles the message you're trying to convey.
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.
I don't understand this sentence at all.. also the first sentence ends with an adverb which is a cardinal sin!
I think there are some neat ideas in here, but the language is excessively verbose. The paragraphs are too long, sentences don't flow into each other. Ideas are jumbled and the piece lacks focus.
I'd recommend getting a merciless proof reader and reading the whole piece out loud - there are many missing words, jarring word choices and it really garbles the message you're trying to convey.
I touched it up only a little bit yesterday. As for the style of writing, it is unfortunate that that is my style for many years so it's something needing continuous work. I think even my last article is written in a similar fashion.
On August 25 2014 18:57 Torte de Lini wrote: What companies do you considered legitimate by point #2. To note that they must be a service, not a product.
I don't know what you mean with your second sentence but I'll try to answer the first. I think a good example of a successful company is HBO. Their original content is high quality and mostly respects the wishes of the creators. Their other programming stays true to their purpose. I'd say NPR and PBS have also done a good job. I think grantland.com is pretty great, though it is ironically owned (or just sponsored?) by ESPN and full editorial control is in the hands of Bill Simmons, who was an ESPN columnist when grantland.com was created. They put a passionate writer in charge of the content and let him recruit other passionate writers who just write what they're passionate about.
There are countless restaurants who stay true to their values despite being able to modify their dishes to get more customers. They want to stick to their vision and/or make authentic food. If it doesn't work, it doesn't work.
For eSports, a great example is TL.net itself. Any tournament it runs has the integrity of the competition as a top priority.
Ultimately, as an outsider, it is hard to determine and usually unfair to judge a company on how well it is meeting its own values. Insiders have more information and the people in charge have the right to change their minds. However if they state their values publicly or some values are strongly implied and they fail to meet them, then I think it's fair when they lose legitimacy in the eyes of the public.
I'd add that judging legitimacy based on (2) isn't necessarily a good thing to do. A lot of people just don't care. Let a company do whatever it wants and if you are interested in what they're doing, give them attention and business, otherwise ignore them. I'm much more in that camp myself. The important thing is to not be tricked. Don't let a company's history or their advertising and propaganda affect your evaluation of their current work. Being hypocritical is bad only when both actions are in the present or are ongoing. I think contradicting your past self is harmless or even encouraged since it's often necessary for improvement.
P.S. I'm not a great person to ask. All my examples are from my own little personal experience.
I also dont like the way you write, I find it very pretentious. You also do a bad job at delivering your points to the reader. I am honestly put off from reading your topics just because of it. Please accept this as criticism and nothing personal.
On August 26 2014 04:16 NukeD wrote: I also dont like the way you write, I find it very pretentious. You also do a bad job at delivering your points to the reader. I am honestly put off from reading your topics just because of it. Please accept this as criticism and nothing personal.
I'm hoping for more concrete criticism rather than a blanket point as it is difficult to narrow down what needs to be changed and what sort of sentences are accepted.
On August 25 2014 18:57 Torte de Lini wrote: What companies do you considered legitimate by point #2. To note that they must be a service, not a product.
I don't know what you mean with your second sentence but I'll try to answer the first. I think a good example of a successful company is HBO. Their original content is high quality and mostly respects the wishes of the creators. Their other programming stays true to their purpose. I'd say NPR and PBS have also done a good job. I think grantland.com is pretty great, though it is ironically owned (or just sponsored?) by ESPN and full editorial control is in the hands of Bill Simmons, who was an ESPN columnist when grantland.com was created. They put a passionate writer in charge of the content and let him recruit other passionate writers who just write what they're passionate about.
There are countless restaurants who stay true to their values despite being able to modify their dishes to get more customers. They want to stick to their vision and/or make authentic food. If it doesn't work, it doesn't work.
For eSports, a great example is TL.net itself. Any tournament it runs has the integrity of the competition as a top priority.
Ultimately, as an outsider, it is hard to determine and usually unfair to judge a company on how well it is meeting its own values. Insiders have more information and the people in charge have the right to change their minds. However if they state their values publicly or some values are strongly implied and they fail to meet them, then I think it's fair when they lose legitimacy in the eyes of the public.
I'd add that judging legitimacy based on (2) isn't necessarily a good thing to do. A lot of people just don't care. Let a company do whatever it wants and if you are interested in what they're doing, give them attention and business, otherwise ignore them. I'm much more in that camp myself. The important thing is to not be tricked. Don't let a company's history or their advertising and propaganda affect your evaluation of their current work. Being hypocritical is bad only when both actions are in the present or are ongoing. I think contradicting your past self is harmless or even encouraged since it's often necessary for improvement.
P.S. I'm not a great person to ask. All my examples are from my own little personal experience.
Sorry, my forearm is really cramping from PC use, so my replies are slow!
What I meant was that the company would have to be service-related not product as I consider all these events and eSports companies creating a service more so than a product. What do you think?
I think HBO is a good example to support your point while the rest, though known, aren't as strong in terms of indicators success. I could be wrong as I am not familiar with how successful they are. I see your point in that if eSports were to become a contributor to a channel of sorts, it would exhaust its own audience or break #2. I guess I never considered that.
I think for eSports, periodic events being run on television is not that bad and I can't think of the sacrifices it would need to make for a periodic broadcasted event. Right now, I think creating products that are purely eSports and valued for consumers to let teams turn a profit is still incredibly difficult beyond basic merchandising.
For me personally, at this current moment, I'm okay with what shaky grounds eSports considers if it sees itself gaining from it in the long run. I think once it is established, I would expect some a higher level of standards to be met: better pay for staff, no more volunteers, medical care for players (if not already done so), etc.
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/kwkQa.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/gP0nY7F.jpg)
