Competitive Gaming

kainzero

kainzero

CAGiversary!
I started following the game tournament scene when I played Marvel vs. Capcom 2. The amount of brokenness in that game was ever evolving and I was always amazed to see new stuff coming out seemingly every week in tourney vids.

I bounced around from scene to scene, DDR, 3S, Tekken, Halo and even though I've never been really good and always settled around bottom-middle, I still really enjoyed the competitive scene, following tournaments and players, being a part of it, and learning how to master the mechanics of a game.

I'm just getting back into Starcraft, and I'm really enjoying watching commentated match vids. Not even so much to improve my own gameplay but they're just really entertaining.

Pro-gaming is something that I think has a lot of potential, but for whatever reason it hasn't really picked up over here. MLG's Halo 3 is probably the biggest out there.

With that said, there are a few problems. For one, I think of chess. If you're not a top 10 GM, you're earning next-to-nothing. Same can be said of pro-gaming in Korea, if you're not top 10 in Starcraft you get paid $300 a year, although room and board are provided. I can only wonder about other sports / hobbies, like Tennis and Billiards and Scrabble.

Are you interested in high level competitive gaming, either playing or watching? What's prevented you from taking it to the next step?
 
I've never been interested in playing or watching. I've always been more into single player games, especially as I've gotten older and busier. I don't have the time to get good at games even if I wanted to, and I just like to play games to veg out, not have to work at them and practice to get better.

As for watching, it's just not fun watching people play video games IMO.

But to each their own. I have nothing against competitive game whatsoever, it's just not the purpose video games serve for me.
 
I'm really hoping Starcraft II takes e-sports to a new level outside of Korea

I think it could happen. Professional gaming has a bad rap among people that think only FPS games are played at a pro level and are totally oblivious to SC, the pinnacle of pro-gaming. I'm hoping SC2 will change that
 
SC would be better over here if we had a regulating body, one of the problems with a lot of competitive games. But Bnet is all 3v3 bgh / zc / fmp for Americans, and 1v1 LT / Python for Koreans. WC3 forces you to play other maps to get on the ladder, but then it's a less fun game.

For the most part, videogames are well protected by the developer and we can't make adjustments if we need to. If, after years of playtesting, something is unbalanced, we can't modify it.
 
I play Warcraft 3 competitively, Super Smash Bros Melee/Brawl and wish i could with Starcraft but heh don't like so much macro (working on it :p)

Hoping Starcraft II does bring it over here gaming here is a joke
I go to the local arcade by my college (one of the first to get SF4) and loooove watching the guys that are really good just face off and have some GG's, I can't play it myself but I appreciate skill and love competitive play in any game.
 
I love it.

I wish I didn't have to work and I just had an endless supply of money.

Then I can focus on playing games.

That'd be neat.
 
Taking part in the competitve gaming scene, elevating up or down the ranks, generating adrenaline for the next match, or just witnessing a win or defeat is where the value lies. To be entering a high level competition, whether it's Starcraft, Halo or a Tekken tournament, isn't naturally about leaving with some money in your pocket, those in belief of that would often have the idea that they're good enough to make profit out of it. As some say, if you're good at doing something, never do it for free. Which is all understandable. It'd be nice to do something you love, and be paid for it, but not everyone is that fortunate.

What's prevented you from taking it to the next step? the thought of losing the enjoyment.
 
What I don't get is how so many people will buy a competitive game, like a fighting game or an RTS or an FPS, but not go about playing it competitively. Halo sold, what, millions? Yet I'm sure that MLG players number in the thousands if we're lucky, and that's 0.1% of the Halo fans. The highest selling PS2 fighting game was VF4, and yet it had the weakest competitive fanbase.

Is it the learning curve? A lot of people think you have to be some sort of freak to be in the top level... but that doesn't mean there can't be competition in the lower levels. My friends and I are considering joining a basketball league, and while we don't aspire to win the NBA Championship next season, we're still competitive and want to improve our skills. In the meantime, some of us are content to watch the NBA as well.

Is it the lack of competition? With the death of arcades, there's nowhere to really go to find random fighting game competition. Competitiveness has switched to FPS and RTS which have done a remarkably good job in dealing with lag issues. Console gatherings usually involve meeting at someone's house, and I really don't like going to people's houses. On the other hand, SF2HD has really good netcode, so maybe it has something to do with data and graphics being too large?

I think the most frustrating part is when the game is being played competitively but there is no competition being set up. We all know how popular CoD4 is, but the competitive scene is just dead.

I feel that this an untapped market full of potential, and I'm trying to figure out why.
 
well for one, some people don't play for the competition... some don't see it as fun, so they play casually. I have no problem with people doing that. Some people just don't have the time to get good. Can't really blame them

The problem with games like CoD4 is that people know that there's just going to be a new game just around the corner and they're going to have to relearn a whole bunch of stuff if they want to keep up... I imagine it would be a pain.

that's part of the reason of the success of SC. Over ten years after it's release and we still have yet to see the release of a sequel. People can spend time practicing and researching the game, without having the knowledge that there's a newer game that they could be spending time on instead. Same can sort of be said for CS 1.6
 
If I knew I was the absolute best at a game, or thought I could become the best, I'd care more about competitive play, but I personally cannot stand losing. It just makes me angry and ruins the fun of a game to me (fun being pwning them noobs ya heeeerd?). On the flip side, when you do finally beat someone who is reported to be really good/better than you, you have to make sure to talk all sorts of shit no matter how cheap or lucky your victory was and then don't give them a chance for a rematch. I know that pisses people off and gives me the warm fuzzies. Team based games are different for me, because you can choose to be best at a role, and then when you lose, you can just blame your team without blaming yourself.
 
[quote name='crystalklear64']If I knew I was the absolute best at a game, or thought I could become the best, I'd care more about competitive play, but I personally cannot stand losing. It just makes me angry and ruins the fun of a game to me (fun being pwning them noobs ya heeeerd?). On the flip side, when you do finally beat someone who is reported to be really good/better than you, you have to make sure to talk all sorts of shit no matter how cheap or lucky your victory was and then don't give them a chance for a rematch. I know that pisses people off and gives me the warm fuzzies. Team based games are different for me, because you can choose to be best at a role, and then when you lose, you can just blame your team without blaming yourself.[/quote]
Note to self: never lose to CK.
 
[quote name='Oktoberfest']well for one, some people don't play for the competition... some don't see it as fun, so they play casually. I have no problem with people doing that. Some people just don't have the time to get good. Can't really blame them[/quote]
I'm gonna keep coming back to the basketball analogy. Sure people get together and play to have fun, but recreation leagues are alive and healthy everywhere. Just because you like basketball but can't put in the time to be Michael Jordan doesn't mean that they can't have competitive fire.

There are people like dmaul, who don't care. But I'm more interested in casual-competitive players (like those who fire up CoD4 every day), and wondering how big that base is and if it could be unified, and try to establish a bigger professional scene.

The problem with games like CoD4 is that people know that there's just going to be a new game just around the corner and they're going to have to relearn a whole bunch of stuff if they want to keep up... I imagine it would be a pain.

That's part of the reason of the success of SC. Over ten years after it's release and we still have yet to see the release of a sequel. People can spend time practicing and researching the game, without having the knowledge that there's a newer game that they could be spending time on instead. Same can sort of be said for CS 1.6
Click to expand...
I'm really interested in the concept of what makes SC and CS 1.6 so timeless, and it makes me wonder about the role of the game and developer support when it comes to establishing a competitive scene.

I thought that SC's competitive scene flourished because of battle.net. No RTS to this day has such a well established matchmaking system. WC3 and DOTA both use it. No other RTS games had such a great interface to find matches. As for CS, I haven't really understood their scene because I was never actively involved in it. The development of CAL is something I'm interested in.

Interestingly enough with CS, there was CS: Source which was shunned by nearly everybody in favor of 1.6. Something like this makes me wonder about the relevance of sequels and what can make people stick with older games competitively, especially with the release of SF2: HD.

I'm tending to think that COD4's unpopularity in the tournament scene stems mostly with the unfairness of the levelling system and the poor LAN support. Similarly, when I was in my TF2 phase, the biggest problem for competitive players was getting a time to play. It's hard to coordinate 8v8 games.

So how much of it can be attributed to the game, developer support, and how much of it is infrastructure and awareness of the competitive scene?
 
You brought up a good point about getting a game going for FPS. For SC, it's all 1v1 so it's easy to get games going. For FPS games, you need to depend on like 10 or more people to show up to get the match going.

The reason no one liked CS:Source was that it was easier. Some people have the same concerns for SC2 (that it will be too easy) but Blizzard realizes this, and are working hard to up the skill required to play it to it's full potential

Also for SC, one reason it's so competitive is that it's the closest to a perfectly balanced game that you will ever see (here's hoping SC2 matches it). It's also a very good spectator e-sport
 
I play and love online First Person Shooters.

I'm soo into the multiplayer that it' to the point where I don't even play single player FPS's. I have days logged on COD4, and 0/1000 achievement points. I only played World at War's campaing mode to unlock Zombies.

When I was younger I was playing them semi-professionally, but I was a few years too early to where you could make a living out of it. I was at an age where I could devote nearly all my waking hours to Quake II, Team Fortress Classic, Counter-Strike, Quake III, etc. Now I'm a married man who works full time, and I know I will never have the opportunity to be that good again.

But I still love to play, I love playing against real people. I love shooting real people in a game, its cathartic, a release of the stress of work and life. I still try to be the best I can, but I can't invest the amount of time it would take to dominate again.

I also hate losing, but that just drives me to play more and get better, learn the maps, put in the time.

For these same reasons I also love fighting games, although compared to shooters I completely suck at Fighters.

Nowadays I'm no longer in Clans, and I don't track my progress on websites and ladders. I don't get free computer parts anymore. But my desire, and addiction to the competition only real people can provide, that's still there.

I may only play for an hour or two after work some nights, but during that time I will be looking to fuck your world up if your on the other team. lol
 
I would be willing to play games for a living---so long as it provides a salary comparable to my present career and matches benefits.
 
[quote name='Puffa469']I play and love online First Person Shooters.

I'm soo into the multiplayer that it' to the point where I don't even play single player FPS's. I have days logged on COD4, and 0/1000 achievement points. I only played World at War's campaing mode to unlock Zombies.

When I was younger I was playing them semi-professionally, but I was a few years too early to where you could make a living out of it. I was at an age where I could devote nearly all my waking hours to Quake II, Team Fortress Classic, Counter-Strike, Quake III, etc. Now I'm a married man who works full time, and I know I will never have the opportunity to be that good again.

But I still love to play, I love playing against real people. I love shooting real people in a game, its cathartic, a release of the stress of work and life. I still try to be the best I can, but I can't invest the amount of time it would take to dominate again.

I also hate losing, but that just drives me to play more and get better, learn the maps, put in the time.

For these same reasons I also love fighting games, although compared to shooters I completely suck at Fighters.

Nowadays I'm no longer in Clans, and I don't track my progress on websites and ladders. I don't get free computer parts anymore. But my desire, and addiction to the competition only real people can provide, that's still there.

I may only play for an hour or two after work some nights, but during that time I will be looking to fuck your world up if your on the other team. lol[/quote]
These are the kinds of replies I'm interested in.
After graduating college and working full-time, there isn't much time to really invest to get to pro-level. 4 hours at the end of the day while taking care of other needs like food, maintenance, etc. doesn't compare to the amount that a high schooler can get.

Even then, I'm still really interested in the development of a possible amateur scene. All too often I see guys that pick up a competitive game, and then quit because "it takes too much time to be the next BoxeR / fata1ity / Daigo Umehara." We don't have to get to the top level to enjoy competition and get on the ladder to get better.

What I'm also curious is about is the perception of someone's skill. From a lay person's view, it's extremely hard for a person to appreciate a top level game because we can't think as far as the pros do and we can't see their setups. A low-level fighting gamer sees a combo and thinks it's impossible to do, when in reality it's just the most basic of basics. A low level shooter fan thinks that the guy won because his aim was better, not because he had better map control / spawn control / tactics or whatever is involved. I'm thinking that, if an amateur competitive system were somehow established, then we could appreciate it more.

What do you think?
 
I think you need to realize that not everyone takes games so seriously :p and I'm sure each game has it's own competitive scene (if the game is suited for it). I'm really only knowledgeable in the SC scene and a little of the WC3 scene so I can't really comment on how FPS or fighting games are. But for SC there is iCCup, and WC3 B.net is somewhat competitive
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top