The Armchair Athleticism critical series is an opinion-base article series regarding the issues and sociocultural deficiencies of the E-Sports and StarCraft scene. All articles are perceptive-base and revolving around my own experiences and understanding of the subculture.
Manager of 5 progaming teams (50+ professional players)
Writer for 11 E-sports websites (5 team sites + 4 organizations: 150+ docs/articles)
Organizer or Contributor of 11 community events (74,000 viewers/attendants)
Some video-editing for one or two organizations, nothing big, just twitch.tv highlight-editing, presentational writing, etc.
Why are you starting your own space? I was listening to the suggestions of several friends and I finally started this space after I hit a dead-end in my endeavours in E-Sports. I’m at a point where I am not really affiliated with anyone and now’s a better time than ever to do some opinion topics. Doing my own content meant I would be alone and would work around my own initiative, drive and interest. However, it also meant that I may do something that requires more work than I thought and I would be on my own. It meant that the community reception can be more direct and harsh towards me personally and my views as I would not be backed by some credible organization as when I was writer for some. In the end, this series that took me about a month of writing, editing, verification and re-writing will really be everything I’ve learned, observed and felt throughout my time. I started out with three pieces and ended up going to ten. All of them delve into inspecting the five perspectives of the scene: teams, tournaments, players, spectators and contributors. Ultimately, it aims to really take a strong look into the many issues that inhibit the StarCraft community and E-Sports culture.
In the past articles, we talked about the various difficulties and lengths E-Sports’ leading organizations, iconic figures and even the diverse community needed to go to expand this subculture. Ranging from promoting an array of talented people and areas to the importance of setting your content and events apart. The discussion of maintaining E-Sports growth has always been the centerpiece for a range of issues and affiliated opinion-makers. But when it comes to making an E-Sport, often times predictions and confidence from many sides fall flat. For game developers, a multiplayer portion of a video-game is made with modes and atmospheres (tone) in mind during production. Games like Bioshock 2 and Super Smash Bros. Brawl are vastly different in genre, but the tone was relatively silly and imbalanced [as intended]. Nonetheless, only one is played competitively (not necessarily an E-Sport) and with enough of a core participation rate to reconfigure it to more competitively sound settings. Team Fortress 2 also lived to be played competitively, but did not reach enough publicity to achieve an E-Sport level of popularity (though the game has many leagues including the long-standing ESEA league). When we look into the past, we often see games becoming competitively played before making the leap to an E-Sport perspective. Years ago, that leap was more of a gradual step but with many game developers actually incorporating an E-Sport perspective in their planning and target-audience, the way they have to market their games is angled a bit differently.
For gaming development companies, when they aim to make the multiplayer aspect of a video-game “E-Sports material”, they have to respect a whole new dimension of competition and viewership when planning. The risk of incorporating this new concept is trying to maintain an easy-to-approach strategy of the game while also keeping the game mechanics skilfully demanding. What may happen is that you end up trying to please everyone and potentially end up having no one like your product. The shortcomings of older games help limit some of the issues that [arguably] plague many games today.
What makes a game an E-Sport? Many games are played competitively, but not all of them are viewed as competitively thrilling or entertaining. Recently, as titles are coming and going, we’ve learned that not all games can be both competitively skillful as well as be interesting to watch. Tribes often showed traits of a very skillfully demanding game, but could not portray this skill in a meaningful way for the viewer.
Passing in Tribes: Ascend required a lot of timing and coordination at ultra-high speeds, but the game itself was difficult to navigate as an observer and thus, difficult to enjoy as a spectator.
A lot of games are played competitively amongst friends, online foes and small communities without necessarily becoming anything more than a pastime. So what is the attraction towards making a game an E-Sport? Right off the bat we can say that it adds a level of exposure and marketing towards your company and game. It attracts another level of dedicated players and fans with the aim in playing as talented as your professional-level players. This, in turn, helps populate your servers and games, extends the longevity of your product as well as increase sales overtime.
The top five most popular games on Steam consists of two major E-Sports titles.
The downside to it would be both the extra time and dedication pre- and post-release of the game to ensure it is both balanced and featuring the tools the community needs to jump-start their E-Sport idea. The second downside would be the increased amount of community outreaching and communication you would need.
With that said, there are about 5 simple points to consider when asked: “What would help make a competitively-played game an E-Sport?”
1. It must be thrilling to watch. Despite the limitations of development in the past, games such as StarCraft: Brood War, Counter-Strike: 1.6, Quake 3 and DotA were still exciting to watch. Excitement is key to an E-Sport and that excitement must be both innate as well as injected from the viewer’s perspective. Some games are less challenged by this first point than others. Fighting games for example are much easier to showcase and spectacular to watch than first-person shooters.
2. It must have a good demonstration of skill in a spectacular way. The word “spectacular” was mentioned in my first point and it is an essential piece to maintain viewership and excitement levels. This helps draw in more viewers who are not familiar with the game, but can easily digest what is going on. Demonstrated skill is layered by the amount of active knowledge and participation a spectator has for the game.
For fighting games, two foes duke it out to overcome one another.
For first-person shooters, coordinated teams of players determine the best trajectory towards achieving their goal.
In real-time strategy games; players command a base and collect resources to establish an army to overcome their opponent.
These are preliminary understandings of a video-game genre. How well do video-games today display the difficulty of these goals to the average viewer? If we were to take each game further, we’d see there is another level of knowledge demanded from the spectator and an aspect to consider for the players involved, let’s take real-time strategy games for example:
Real-time Strategy Games: A player must simultaneously efficiently ensure his resources are kept low (macromanagement) to produce a manageable army against his opponent’s planned attack (timing attack during a point of time the other player would be typically vulnerable).
Thankfully, commentators are present to help translate some of the finer details of video-games, but as the game gets more and more in-depth, its initial attraction towards watching it becomes more and more demanding for the spectator to decipher and interpret.
Strenx offers analysis of his match in Quake. This analysis helps display the depth of knowledge needed to play Quake at a competitive level.
3. The game cannot do everything for the player(s). When one’s designing their game, tendencies to make the game more convenient than some of the older generations of E-Sport games are common – such as the thought of what one couldn’t do then, could easily be done now. This thought-process is based on hoping one’s good intentions to make a more convenient game will attract more people previously intimidated by the first game’s learning curve. The problem with this is that it detracts the ability for people to evaluate skill levels when they spectate or as they play. Determing what should be left in the game as an integral part of its challenging personality is often overlooked by many current developers.
Consider this example: In Brood War, your workers would not automine on their own as they were created. You had to manually do it one by one. This is pretty difficult to both keep track of and remember in a regularly heated game. In StarCraft II, it was done automatically for you and that was considered good because it was a tedious task that deterred focus onto more exciting areas of the game (such as battle engagements and micromanagement). In contrast, in StarCraft II, when a siege tank unit detects an enemy unit, it would know, along with other siege tank units, how many shots it would take before it destroys the unit, thus no shots are wasted. This is not necessarily a good thing because the game starts taking control and figuring things out for the player rather than letting the player handle and overcome situations on their own.
4. Do not just throw money at it: Believe it or not, money does not get people to dedicate or surround their profession around a game. There will be people playing it, but the community will be much smaller and the amount of media exposure will likely be a lot less. When it comes to E-Sports, it is a very community-focused affair and just having prized-tournaments doesn't really show how much you want the scene to grow, just that you support it financially. Companies such as Ubisoft and their game, Shootmania, do more than financially support exterior tournaments, but really aim and grow their brand as an E-Sport title both through initial presentations at E3 as well as in conjunction with IGN's Pro League to kickstart and expose their game's competitive modes and competitions.
Ubisoft presents their E-Sport FPS title, Shootmania, with a showmatch including CounterStrike & Quake progamers. Shootmania comes complete with a map-editor, customized settings for competition/events and a revised FPS style to keep in touch with standard FPS play, but also create its own mechanics.
5. Proper community support, outreaching communication: Getting an E-Sports division within the company's community team is often suggested because of how much representation is often demanded both at other major events as well as through online interaction. In our previous article, we mentioned the roles of tournaments and events game developers are more focused towards in comparison to competitions and companies depending the success and popularity of a video-game. With an E-Sports division, one is not necessarily playing God, but being representative of receiving community information, learning the inner-workings of said community (ranging from scene leaders to writing contributors and pretentious analytical blog writers writing high-school essays about what may make an E-Sport). While major event organizations can help keep the game in the spotlight, a company's presence will matter beyond words of support for E-Sports: ArenaNet (Kotaku) and 343 Industries (Forbes) all talk in support of E-Sports, however their inclusion with both the community as well as the overall growth of their scene are lacking in comparison to some of the veterans such as Blizzard and Capcom.
(6. Accessibility): While obvious for most, accessibility has to be maintained through different structures for different economies, its people and the way they live and approach entertainment. For most of North America, they all have their own consoles, personal computers and televisions to play video-games. However for Japan, consoles and arcades are the most popular mediums towards accessing entertainment. For Asia, PC Bangs (LAN Gaming Centers) are commonly used, leading towards the popularity of games that don't require ownership of the product (thus free-to-play games such as League of Legends retain a large following). Ultimately these cultures that morph around a country's habitual time-constraints and economy help determine the best ways to make one's video-game accessible to the common consumer. In areas where owning a computer is a major luxury, time-cards and free-to-play models help popularize a specific game, but also rely on the more fortunate countries to supply a financial return.
These are the five things amongst many other considerations that would help aim a game into an E-Sport-like level of attention. I think for a good scene, you need a good game that will withstand the test of time. We can see this in DotA and most off-shoots from it, but you can also see how a successful game idea can also have a terrible developer support (Quake Live and Heroes of Newerth for example) and vice-versa; a supportive developer, but the game lacks the spectating components to make it interesting (Tribes: Ascend). Ultimately, it's all about right-timing, good hooks of interest and the right demonstrators to really showcase your game.
In the past, E-Sport titles were eventually created through community popularity and events, later on becoming more professionally played and dedicated. Now, the trend is the contrast, where we are trying to create E-Sport products to garner community popularity and support. With that comes a new wave of adversities and challenges not previously seen.
This informed series of written pieces could not have been achieved without the help and opinions of my peers and friends. Below are the people I wish to thank for their insight, accuracy/consistency check or expert opinion on the numerous topics: thank you
Alex Shieferdecker (Team Liquid Progaming Team Content Manager - tree.hugger)
Brad Carney (Lefty)
Chris Chan (Founder of ChanManV Production)
Eric Grady (Cyber-Sports Network's Director of Events - Usurp)
Flo Yao (Quantic Gaming’s Progamer - Flo)
Jacqueline Geller (eSports Network Coordinator of Blizzard)
John Clark (Cyber-Sports Network Executive Director of Operations)
Josh Dentrinos (FXOpen’s Director - Boss)
Marc McEntegart (Team Liquid Writer - SirJolt)
Matt Weber (Team Liquid Director of Operations - Heyoka)
Payam Toghyan (ROOT Gaming Progamer - TT1)
Shawn Simon (Team Liquid Progamer - Sheth)
Steven Bonnell II (Progamer/Entertainer - Destiny)
Thomas Shifrer (ESFI World Senior Journalist)
If you'd like more information about the series (more pieces about different aspects of the scene will be released periodically), to contact me privately or to generously give me some siteviews on my website, you can follow the following link:
You can also follow me on Twitter where I tweet public news and information about the scene including roster changes, controversy and/or overall E-Sports news: @TorteDeLini
Thank you very much and I appreciate all feedback or corrections.
I'm curious about your take (and others') on the longevity of esport scenes.
I am typically skeptical of the idea of "esports" because video games seemingly cannot stand the test of time, given their graphics limitations, the difficulty of older games that may be perceived as "primitive" mechanically, dwindling player bases as new games come out etc.
As I see it, "esport" is a broad, general term, encompassing every game that is played competitively rather than making, say, Broodwar or SC2, synonymous with the name of a sport (ie instead of saying, "esport" (the general) one might say "SC2"(the specific), just like how you dont say, "i love to play sports" when referring to soccer, cricket, basketball etc)
Sports like football, baseball and soccer don't have this problem. Is the death of individual esports inevitable or are there ways to solve this crucial problem? Do developers have to remake these games or can the community develop ways to keep these old titles relevant in new ages and markets? Or is continuing to develop sequels the best thing esports titles can hope for?
Torte, I just wanna say I've read every topic you've posted so far, and I've enjoyed each and every one. I only wish I had more to contribute, as I can find very little if anything worth taking issue with. Perhaps add in a few talking points at the end, a few audience questions? That's all I got.
On December 19 2012 04:34 Knee_of_Justice wrote: I'm curious about your take (and others') on the longevity of esport scenes.
I am typically skeptical of the idea of "esports" because video games seemingly cannot stand the test of time, given their graphics limitations, the difficulty of older games that may be perceived as "primitive" mechanically, dwindling player bases as new games come out etc.
As I see it, "esport" is a broad, general term, encompassing every game that is played competitively rather than making, say, Broodwar or SC2, synonymous with the name of a sport (ie instead of saying, "esport" (the general) one might say "SC2"(the specific), just like how you dont say, "i love to play sports" when referring to soccer, cricket, basketball etc)
Sports like football, baseball and soccer don't have this problem. Is the death of individual esports inevitable or are there ways to solve this crucial problem? Do developers have to remake these games or can the community develop ways to keep these old titles relevant in new ages and markets? Or is continuing to develop sequels the best thing esports titles can hope for?
I am typically skeptical of the idea of "esports" because video games seemingly cannot stand the test of time, given their graphics limitations, the difficulty of older games that may be perceived as "primitive" mechanically, dwindling player bases as new games come out etc.
Games die and become outdated, but that doesn't necessarily mean the genre dies and progamers can convert (as well as sequels). So WC3 and BW died, but those players moved to StarCraft II. Some couldn't adapt and some couldn't be interested. We ushered in new players. Everything moves and E-Sports doesn't die because of its title game dying, sequels are made to continue a scene and legacy.
E-Sport is the next level of competitive gaming for me. People play sports, people watch professional sports. That's how I see it. Different leagues, levels of dedication and heigh of skill (pee-wee, little league, baseball, softball, etc.)
Your last question is tough because there's no right answer. As I see it, sequels help establish consistency (so further building blocks can be made) while new games help garner new interest and expand the scene in more ways (like branches on a tree).
On December 19 2012 04:41 farvacola wrote: Torte, I just wanna say I've read every topic you've posted so far, and I've enjoyed each and every one. I only wish I had more to contribute, as I can find very little if anything worth taking issue with. Perhaps add in a few talking points at the end, a few audience questions? That's all I got.
Oh thank you very much! I don't get much responses, so it means the world when readers write this!
On December 19 2012 04:41 farvacola wrote: Torte, I just wanna say I've read every topic you've posted so far, and I've enjoyed each and every one. I only wish I had more to contribute, as I can find very little if anything worth taking issue with. Perhaps add in a few talking points at the end, a few audience questions? That's all I got.
Oh thank you very much! I don't get much responses, so it means the world when readers write this!
What kind of questions do you think?
Well, with the topic of what exactly "makes" an e-sport, it would probably make sense to invite poster conceptions of ideas you might not have hit on. For example, I'm of the opinion that a possible 7th aspect of an "e-sport" might be a certain je ne sais quoi, a difficult to pin down compelling factor that invites attention, sort of like what makes a song catchy. Nowadays, developers certainly have better blueprints with which to attempt to craft an e-sport game, but inevitably, if they don't get that "thing" right (I'm looking at you Zenex ), their game will simply not catch on. Now I realize this is all a bit nebulous, but it serves as an interesting segue way into further discussion, such as what makes an e-sport fail? Like, what might be missing from HoN or potentially Shootmania, stuff like that. I guess just try flipping and inverting your subject material and see if any interesting questions or perspectives shake out.
I am typically skeptical of the idea of "esports" because video games seemingly cannot stand the test of time, given their graphics limitations, the difficulty of older games that may be perceived as "primitive" mechanically, dwindling player bases as new games come out etc.
Games die and become outdated, but that doesn't necessarily mean the genre dies and progamers can convert (as well as sequels). So WC3 and BW died, but those players moved to StarCraft II. Some couldn't adapt and some couldn't be interested. We ushered in new players. Everything moves and E-Sports doesn't die because of its title game dying, sequels are made to continue a scene and legacy.
E-Sport is the next level of competitive gaming for me. People play sports, people watch professional sports. That's how I see it. Different leagues, levels of dedication and heigh of skill (pee-wee, little league, baseball, softball, etc.)
Your last question is tough because there's no right answer. As I see it, sequels help establish consistency (so further building blocks can be made) while new games help garner new interest and expand the scene in more ways (like branches on a tree).
thanks!
Well, I dont want to start a discussion that may be tangential to the point of your articles, but if I may, Id like to press my point a little bit more. Feel free to take it to PMs if you dont want to clutter your thread.
It seems that you dont see a problem with the idea of games dying and becoming outdated, but I think this is what truly separates "esports" from real "sports." True sports do not die. While sports do evolve over time (you can trace the origins of sports and find that they were once very different), they do not just cease to be played. I am especially considering modern sports with huge scenes. Maybe it is a bit unfair to compare video games to soccer or american football, but shouldn't we see this type of mass cultural spectacle as an ultimate objective?
Of course, there are numerous other complicating factors that seem likely to resign esports to niche audiences, but there are plenty of modern sports that do that too and while they aren't as popular as football, they are certainly in no danger of dying the way esports titles tend to.
Consider the players: if they have to continually shift from game to game as their old jobs become obsolete, there is little incentive to pursue such a skill. Dedicated players might, but ultimately, they are investing their time mastering games that will not last much longer than a decade or two. Shouldnt scenes focus on not just developing new styles, but of developing a long lasting "sport" that will exist for all time, regardless of what technology it is run on.
If I may use a metaphor, I see esports like a glass with a hole in the bottom. Over time, as you fill up the cup, it will become more full, but since the water leaks out of the bottom, it will always require new water to be poured in. The water itself comes and goes, but the glass of water will always be there. Not many people would consider using this glass.
I think one could write an entire article on just this topic, but I dont have the energy.
I am typically skeptical of the idea of "esports" because video games seemingly cannot stand the test of time, given their graphics limitations, the difficulty of older games that may be perceived as "primitive" mechanically, dwindling player bases as new games come out etc.
Games die and become outdated, but that doesn't necessarily mean the genre dies and progamers can convert (as well as sequels). So WC3 and BW died, but those players moved to StarCraft II. Some couldn't adapt and some couldn't be interested. We ushered in new players. Everything moves and E-Sports doesn't die because of its title game dying, sequels are made to continue a scene and legacy.
E-Sport is the next level of competitive gaming for me. People play sports, people watch professional sports. That's how I see it. Different leagues, levels of dedication and heigh of skill (pee-wee, little league, baseball, softball, etc.)
Your last question is tough because there's no right answer. As I see it, sequels help establish consistency (so further building blocks can be made) while new games help garner new interest and expand the scene in more ways (like branches on a tree).
thanks!
Well, I dont want to start a discussion that may be tangential to the point of your articles, but if I may, Id like to press my point a little bit more. Feel free to take it to PMs if you dont want to clutter your thread.
It seems that you dont see a problem with the idea of games dying and becoming outdated, but I think this is what truly separates "esports" from real "sports." True sports do not die. While sports do evolve over time (you can trace the origins of sports and find that they were once very different), they do not just cease to be played. I am especially considering modern sports with huge scenes. Maybe it is a bit unfair to compare video games to soccer or american football, but shouldn't we see this type of mass cultural spectacle as an ultimate objective?
Of course, there are numerous other complicating factors that seem likely to resign esports to niche audiences, but there are plenty of modern sports that do that too and while they aren't as popular as football, they are certainly in no danger of dying the way esports titles tend to.
Consider the players: if they have to continually shift from game to game as their old jobs become obsolete, there is little incentive to pursue such a skill. Dedicated players might, but ultimately, they are investing their time mastering games that will not last much longer than a decade or two. Shouldnt scenes focus on not just developing new styles, but of developing a long lasting "sport" that will exist for all time, regardless of what technology it is run on.
If I may use a metaphor, I see esports like a glass with a hole in the bottom. Over time, as you fill up the cup, it will become more full, but since the water leaks out of the bottom, it will always require new water to be poured in. The water itself comes and goes, but the glass of water will always be there. Not many people would consider using this glass.
I think one could write an entire article on just this topic, but I dont have the energy.
I think the underlying issue with your entire argument is the comparison between E-Sports and Sports. While they both encompass the same word/term, they aren't the same whatsoever (E-Sports is just an easier word to summarize competitive gaming played at a very serious and trained level, similar to athletes [or imitated as]. The viewpoint that E-Sports is like MMA or Wrestling is probably more accurate and easier to digest.
Ultimately, you want games to entertain as games evolve, so do their ability to entertain. While BW and CS 1.6 were amazing to play and watch, what CS: GO and SC2 can do now in terms of giving spectators more information and a better way to display amazing matches is something I am comfortable as a trade-off. This is why games dying is not a problem, because the next game keeps the core mechanics and gameplay to what we're familiar with, but also improves in areas to further enjoyment (see Dota 2). The hurdles of Sports and E-Sports are too circumstantially different and varied to really be compared.
E-Sports titles die, but everyone else remains and moves on. There isn't a problem because there is no limit of capabilities a game can offer.
A lot of skills needed to be masted for RTS games are easily translated in other games. It's all about learning to break it in and contrary to what we think, it isn't as hard to translate skills from WarCraft III to StarCraft II. While I see the issue of careers only last 10 years maximum, I also understand that this is still a growing scene and naturally shifts will happen a lot as we continue to try and root ourselves.
Shouldnt scenes focus on not just developing new styles, but of developing a long lasting "sport" that will exist for all time, regardless of what technology it is run on.
This is where it gets hairy because you're talking about video-games and companies. Companies cannot live solely off E-Sports, it's just not possible yet. From a community and scene perspective, innovating what we already have may sound good, but its not feasible to developing companies who need to keep making games for both non-Esports people who enjoy the game as well as for the sake of their company. This is why the comparison of Sports and E-Sports are beyond not the same.
I can see your predicament, but I only don't think its as dire as you think.
E-Sports is Jenga. The first foundations seem solid, as organizations die off, blocks of people start leaving the bottom and reinventing new layers of the scene/Jenga tower. Your original foundation is now holed and flawed, it will soon no longer become the foundation of E-Sports and what the scene grows from.
This is cycle process will continue for a good while :B
On December 19 2012 04:41 farvacola wrote: Torte, I just wanna say I've read every topic you've posted so far, and I've enjoyed each and every one. I only wish I had more to contribute, as I can find very little if anything worth taking issue with. Perhaps add in a few talking points at the end, a few audience questions? That's all I got.
Oh thank you very much! I don't get much responses, so it means the world when readers write this!
What kind of questions do you think?
Well, with the topic of what exactly "makes" an e-sport, it would probably make sense to invite poster conceptions of ideas you might not have hit on. For example, I'm of the opinion that a possible 7th aspect of an "e-sport" might be a certain je ne sais quoi, a difficult to pin down compelling factor that invites attention, sort of like what makes a song catchy. Nowadays, developers certainly have better blueprints with which to attempt to craft an e-sport game, but inevitably, if they don't get that "thing" right (I'm looking at you Zenex ), their game will simply not catch on. Now I realize this is all a bit nebulous, but it serves as an interesting segue way into further discussion, such as what makes an e-sport fail? Like, what might be missing from HoN or potentially Shootmania, stuff like that. I guess just try flipping and inverting your subject material and see if any interesting questions or perspectives shake out.
I don't get that much of a response to really incorporate from readers ):
I incorporate a lot of opinions from the people I thanked (second post), but you're hitting the mark on me not finding ways to write the article in a fashion that attracts conversation ):
What are your thoughts on the current saturation of eSports in the sense there are SO many games trying to be eSports? Do you think its sustainable, do you think there will be even more games in the future or do you think various communities will consolidate around fewer, better games?
The reason I ask is ultimately for a game to maintain itself as a popular eSports it needs good competition that is generated through good prizes which are in turn generated by good viewer figures. With a limited market of viewers, how long can so many game hope to maintain themselves as eSports?
A decade or two? That's a huge stretch. There are only a few titles that have lasted over a decade. Competitive gaming is very short-term. It's what's here right now and as long as you have an audience. That's enough for me. Madals it isn't self-sustaining. It's never been self-sustaining. Even as there are many people who drop anywhere from nothing to several hundreds of dollars a year for high quality streams. The market share is too small and exposure is limited, which goes back to ease of access. In terms of growth, that is the most important one.
Do you think we should esports to the level of accessability in the form of mobile gaming for example, fruit ninja classic mode or tiny wings longest distance?
Hold on... I hope you know Team Fortress 2 also has a competitive scene? It's not as big as CS or Dota 2 because Valve doesn't invest anything into it and barely supports it, but it is definitely there and fun to watch. If you knew but don't count it as major e-sports title, fair enough.
On December 19 2012 06:33 Trotim wrote: Hold on... I hope you know Team Fortress 2 also has a competitive scene? It's not as big as CS or Dota 2 because Valve doesn't invest anything into it and barely supports it, but it is definitely there and fun to watch. If you knew but don't count it as major e-sports title, fair enough.
I used to cast some TF2 games and I participated in the ETF2L (The European league, I forget its name). I have about 4,500 hours of TF2 with PUG experience.
I didn't write out that TF2 is played competitively, but unsupported by Valve because their current methodology is much more accomodating for their largest playerbase, but yes I'm aware it is played competitively and even casted. I don't feel it holds enough of a spectatorship to be considered an E-Sport, but more of a competitive game.
On December 19 2012 06:16 madals wrote: What are your thoughts on the current saturation of eSports in the sense there are SO many games trying to be eSports? Do you think its sustainable, do you think there will be even more games in the future or do you think various communities will consolidate around fewer, better games?
The reason I ask is ultimately for a game to maintain itself as a popular eSports it needs good competition that is generated through good prizes which are in turn generated by good viewer figures. With a limited market of viewers, how long can so many game hope to maintain themselves as eSports?
I support so many games and developers trying to make E-Sports title, it means they're seeing the viability of it as well as accomodating towards another level of fans and players.
I also think that games devoting their game purely to an E-Sport market are hoping for the trickle-effect of players. Where all players are thrilled to see what the game can potentially be played as as a professional, and play to aspire to that level of gameplay and skill (I used to play a lot of Soccer because I always to be able to do a bicycle kick - the comparison is a bit off). Impression matters.
On December 19 2012 06:32 Rescawen wrote: Do you think we should esports to the level of accessability in the form of mobile gaming for example, fruit ninja classic mode or tiny wings longest distance?
I can be a bit of an elitist when it comes to what games should be E-Sports or not. But for a game to become an E-Sport have to respect the three major aspects: 1. Entertaining to watch. 2. Can demonstrate skill and strategy. 3. Accessible to play.
If Fruit Ninja can do this to a general audience, I firmly believe it can garner competitive interest. But as I've written above, right hooks of interest, timing and a lot of proper marketing would need to be considered.
On December 19 2012 04:34 Knee_of_Justice wrote: As I see it, "esport" is a broad, general term, encompassing every game that is played competitively rather than making, say, Broodwar or SC2, synonymous with the name of a sport (ie instead of saying, "esport" (the general) one might say "SC2"(the specific), just like how you dont say, "i love to play sports" when referring to soccer, cricket, basketball etc)
I kind of understand what you're trying to say but...this does happen. Saying "I like sports" and then transitioning into the specific activities you enjoy is common, I have tons of friends who will tell people their biggest hobby is sports as a shortcut to say they enjoy some combination of soccer/basketball/baseball/football without necessarily meaning all of them.
There is a lot going on with your posts but this idea that esports has no commonality between the games and that makes it different than real sports isn't accurate. Many talented athletes don't pick a game until they're ready to go pro - off the top of my head Jacky Robinson was famous for having decided on baseball as the game he would go pro in despite being offered positions within basketball/football organizations and that's not exactly uncommon.
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/kwkQa.png)
![[image loading]](http://tortedelini.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/untitled.png?w=584&h=288)
), their game will simply not catch on. Now I realize this is all a bit nebulous, but it serves as an interesting segue way into further discussion, such as what makes an e-sport fail? Like, what might be missing from HoN or potentially Shootmania, stuff like that. I guess just try flipping and inverting your subject material and see if any interesting questions or perspectives shake out.
