E-Sports

[MasterDex]

I recently wrote an article about e-sports over at PXOD where I pondered their future a little bit. I'm curious about what the rest of you think however.

 

Where do you see e-sports going in the future and what are your thoughts on e-sports themselves? Any opinions you have on the topic would be great to hear and feel free to berate my article while you're at it too! Just keep it above the belt, I'm a sensitive guy!

Edited September 13, 2011 by MasterDex

[deanb]

I've never really followed them. But then again I'm neither big into sports, or watching let's plays so I guess that would explain a fair bit. However if people wish to compete n watch these things then more power to them. It does seem to be a sport most gamers can really get behind. Won't be long before EA is cranking out E-sports 2017 with only minor differences from E-sports 2016.

[Hot Heart]

I think the problem is really a matter of balance or an even playing field.

 

With games, people will always find exploits and such, which you would not see in actual sports. Even if athletes aren't physically the same, they usually have an even-footing.

 

I'm not too sure how SC and such work, but even in FPSs there's the rush for power weapons, which can immediately affect an outcome, and I don't think that's something you'd see in sports.

[Strangelove]

I dont see how it's really a sport. Even Nascar is more of a sport, and thats not even a sport.

[Johnny]

Yeah people totally don't exploit nuances of non-electronic sports. Totally not.

 

 

 

For a more serious response, in those FPSes with weapon pickups, rushing for the powerful weapon is in no way an exploit. Controlling weapon spawns is one of the most important factors of positioning in those kinds of games. It's about as much of an "exploit" as intercepting a pass is.

[RockyRan]

I didn't think e-sports were "legit".

 

Then I watched EVO

 

Now I do.

 

Fin.

[Cyber Rat]

Games are art thread -> "No, games are too competitive. You'd never call basketball art!"

 

Games are sports thread -> "No, games are too exploitable. You'd never find exploits in basketball!"

[Yantelope]

The reason why esports haven't taken off is the lack of observeability. Until they load the matches with groups of observer cameramen and have a controller switching angles to show you the views of what's happening in different areas it's going to be difficult. The hardest part about FPS is that there's no central point of focus. In most sports you just follow the ball but you can't do that with a Halo match. All the money is made in observation of the sport. If you want to make money for the MLG they need to create events with lots of large screens with multiple viewing angles so you can see the events. You'd need to be able to do on the fly replays and such. All this of course sets up what stadiums are which is just giant vending areas. If you can't get nerds to come buy beer and nachos you can't make money.

[Johnny]

For spectator sports, it's important to make it easy for the spectators to understand the basics of what is going on without being expert at the subject matter. Ideally you should be able to learn a lot about the game just by spectating it. RTSes and fighting games usually do this the best:

 

 

 

Action-RTSes (also known as the retarded name MOBA, DotA-likes and Aeon of Strife) are somewhat less good at this, but only requires a short amount of time spent with the game before strategy starts becoming apparent.

Dota 2 - International Championship - Grand Final - Highlights

 

FPSes are probably the worst genre for spectator sports because so little of the metagame and why some players are doing well is apparent looking on from outside. Ever try spectating a Quake 3 or Counter-Strike match without knowing much about the game beforehand? It's not a very enlightening experience and ends up being boring for the average viewer.

 

[Luftwaffles]

The reason why esports haven't taken off is the lack of observeability. Until they load the matches with groups of observer cameramen and have a controller switching angles to show you the views of what's happening in different areas it's going to be difficult. The hardest part about FPS is that there's no central point of focus. In most sports you just follow the ball but you can't do that with a Halo match. All the money is made in observation of the sport. If you want to make money for the MLG they need to create events with lots of large screens with multiple viewing angles so you can see the events. You'd need to be able to do on the fly replays and such. All this of course sets up what stadiums are which is just giant vending areas. If you can't get nerds to come buy beer and nachos you can't make money.

 

I think you hit the nail on the head here. I remember watching a BFBC2 somewhat competitive match where the way they filmed it was having 2 guys sit on top of a hill with mortar designators looking down on the rest of the map and trying to "commentate". And if I remember correctly, this was a pretty high profile event, with fairly high profile teams.

 

Sure, the gameplay was exciting enough, and I knew the map and the teams pretty well, but the asinine way of commentating and actually observing the match really took the excitement out of it, and without the excitement and action of the games E-sports doesn't really have any audience outside the other e-sport "athletes".

 

Without better ways of recording and capturing the games I just can't see it getting big anytime soon.

[Johnny]

@Spork: Well, BFBC2 is far from being designed for competitive play anyways. Other FPSes like Quake and Counter-Strike have much more effective ways of spectating. Although, as mentioned, the whole genre has a problem with making it spectatable.

[excel_excel]

I dont see how it's really a sport. Even Nascar is more of a sport, and thats not even a sport.

 

Darts. If darts can be considered a sport than as far as I'm concerned its fair game for anything else competitive.

Edited September 13, 2011 by excel_excel

[MasterDex]

I think the problem is really a matter of balance or an even playing field.

 

With games, people will always find exploits and such, which you would not see in actual sports. Even if athletes aren't physically the same, they usually have an even-footing.

 

I'm not too sure how SC and such work, but even in FPSs there's the rush for power weapons, which can immediately affect an outcome, and I don't think that's something you'd see in sports.

 

Like Johnny said, the rush for power weapons can be a smart power play - like leading with your queen in Chess (Which is recognized as a sport by the International Olympic Committee). It becomes a 'fair play' move through its risk assessment. If you're leading a game of Chess with your Queen, you're risking your most powerful piece. If you're going straight for the powerful weapons in a game like Quake or Unreal, you're creating risk in a similar way. Like you said, there's often a rush for the powerful weapons and not everyone can get the powerful weapon. That's all but gone now however from newer games as loadouts are often chosen before the match begins and where "overpowered" weapons or unbalances are removed by a mod (See: Promod for CoD4).

 

You do have a strong point though. Right now, it's up to the community to balance the game to their needs, if they can or rely on the developers to shore up any exploits or rebalance any maps or weapons. It's one of the big hurdles that e-sports faces as it grows and without developer or publisher backing, it's going to be difficult to overcome.

 

I dont see how it's really a sport. Even Nascar is more of a sport, and thats not even a sport.

 

Why don't you think it's really a sport (or can be a sport)? Also, Nascar is generally considered to be a sport - Motorsports - Stockcar Racing.

 

The reason why esports haven't taken off is the lack of observeability. Until they load the matches with groups of observer cameramen and have a controller switching angles to show you the views of what's happening in different areas it's going to be difficult. The hardest part about FPS is that there's no central point of focus. In most sports you just follow the ball but you can't do that with a Halo match. All the money is made in observation of the sport. If you want to make money for the MLG they need to create events with lots of large screens with multiple viewing angles so you can see the events. You'd need to be able to do on the fly replays and such. All this of course sets up what stadiums are which is just giant vending areas. If you can't get nerds to come buy beer and nachos you can't make money.

 

Exactly! Spectator modes are becoming more common these days and the tools on hand that broadcasters would have at their disposal along with them so things are slowly improving. Tied into that issue, I think, is the view of the general population that videogames can't be sports. With only a portion of the gaming populace interested in e-sports, it's hard to create the swell of popularity it would require to organise a full-on event. South Korea has succeeded with StarCraft for the most part, with dedicated channels and large events dedicated to competitions of the game.

Edited September 13, 2011 by MasterDex

[Yantelope]

Yeah, I have a hard time caring about watching pro gaming events. I think there's a level of athelticism associated with pro sports that changes things. I have no hope of ever being LeBron James because I just wasn't born that way but I could (I tell myself anyway) be a pro gamer. I think the lack of athletic awe hurts the observability.

[Hot Heart]

I see what you're saying about 'exploits' in actual sports but I don't think the consequences are always as severe as in gaming where it can can amount to actual kills or whatever. In football, a foul doesn't automatically result in a goal and even play is stopped, not necessarily to assess the situation, but to get things back in order. There are referees and such who ultimately 'control' the game whereas gaming takes some of that away. I know there are games that are balanced very well so it's no always such a problem, and I'm no expert on the matter, so I can't speak for everything.

 

With the power weapon stuff, I can see that it's something you learn to play with but I think that element still sets it apart in a way. I wouldn't compare it to chess because it is just very different. The other factor is that pPitches, courts, fields, etc. are all even, whereas maps and respawns can vary (based on player position algorithms and such...or not). I can only assume teams switch sides or whatever, as in something like tennis. I'm not too sure.

 

I'm not saying these things should change for gaming in general, but I feel in certain cases there are a few too many 'variables' that set them apart from accepted sports.

 

About the 'athletic awe' thing, I find myself in awe of some gaming stuff I've seen. It might be that I suck but watching SF stuff always impresses me. As Johnny said, spectators should be able to understand what's going on; for SF I know 'how' to play, I'm just terrible. Some Halo stuff can be really impressive too. I would sort of understand StarCraft but I wouldn't know what each unit is like and such, so I'd miss some of the nuances; I would, however, be impressed by the amount of multi-tasking going on.

Edited September 13, 2011 by Hot Heart

[SixTwoSixFour]

Yeah, I have a hard time caring about watching pro gaming events. I think there's a level of athelticism associated with pro sports that changes things. I have no hope of ever being LeBron James because I just wasn't born that way but I could (I tell myself anyway) be a pro gamer. I think the lack of athletic awe hurts the observability.

People who say "I could do that" when they see a pro gamer are people who don't realize how great the gulf between them are. You can play a game. You can play a game well. You could probably not be a pro gamer. Okay, maybe you could, if you played that game five hours a day every day for a year. But you aren't willing to do that. That's part of what separates you from them.

 

Brain and I play fighting games all the time, and we're not incredible, but we're pretty solid players. When Brain went to PAX, he had a chance to fight Justin Wong, a pro player. In two rounds, he landed one blow.

 

The difference is bigger than you realize.

[Johnny]

Yeah, I have a hard time caring about watching pro gaming events. I think there's a level of athelticism associated with pro sports that changes things. I have no hope of ever being LeBron James because I just wasn't born that way but I could (I tell myself anyway) be a pro gamer. I think the lack of athletic awe hurts the observability.

 

Personally I'm not so sure that "anyone" could become that good. I know gamers who have played "competitive" games all their life that can just not manage to wrap their head around them at all.

And if it IS a more even playing field and more people could get that good if they put down an equivalent amount of effort, I would only see that as a good thing. I was never much for that whole athleticism fare anyways. What interests me is good plays, not raw muscle strength.

 

I see what you're saying about 'exploits' in actual sports but I don't think the consequences are always as severe as in gaming where it can can amount to actual kills or whatever. In football, a foul doesn't automatically result in a goal and even play is stopped, not necessarily to assess the situation, but to get things back in order. There are referees and such who ultimately 'control' the game whereas gaming takes some of that away. I know there are games that are balanced very well so it's no always such a problem, and I'm no expert on the matter, so I can't speak for everything.

 

In gaming, these things aren't actually exploits. Well, for the most part. An exploit is when you manage to break the game to do things that weren't intended and aren't balanced. It's not an exploit to rush for the biggest weapon, the game was designed so that you can do that, but you're taking a risk because everyone is gonna watch that spot and try to take you out if you try to grab the weapon.

In gaming, the game itself is the referee. It's designed with limitations to the point.

And yeah some games have lesser balance. They are generally not taken too seriously as an e-sport, for that specific reason. The ones that are taken seriously are in general very well-made.

 

With the power weapon stuff, I can see that it's something you learn to play with but I think that element still sets it apart in a way. I wouldn't compare it to chess because it is just very different. The other factor is that pPitches, courts, fields, etc. are all even, whereas maps and respawns can vary (based on player position algorithms and such...or not). I can only assume teams switch sides or whatever, as in something like tennis. I'm not too sure.

 

Yeah, it's different. Different like chess is different to hockey, or any other sport. Doesn't make it NOT a sport.

Spawn points are "random" in some games, but in the cases where they are in "serious" games, the game is generally balanced enough with good enough level design that they aren't really a deciding factor.

 

I'm not saying these things should change for gaming in general, but I feel in certain cases there are a few too many 'variables' that set them apart from accepted sports.

Quite. Most games are not considered serious e-sports. The ones that manage to support an e-sport scene (with a few fluke exceptions) were designed for it from the ground up. It's a significantly different design template than for say recent Call of Duty games where you just throw in a lot of weapons and stuff because in the eye of the public, more is always more.

[Hot Heart]

I'm not saying power weapons are exploits. Just a factor that can seriously unbalance things in ways regular sports wouldn't see. As I said though, I'm not an expert on the matter so I'm sure some of these things are sorted beforehand. A lot of sports revolve around racing, targets or possession of a ball; I can see 'teams of people killing one another' as a much harder thing to control.

 

Exploits would be things like in Halo 3 where a melee to the shoulder from the front (right shoulder, I believe) can result in an assassination and, therefore, an easy one-hit kill. It shouldn't really happen that way but if it's not patched in the game, and no one's going to stop a match and do anything about it, players would then have to keep this in mind and adjust to it. Although, in the case of pro-gaming I guess the players are always making sure they're aware of this.

 

It's not that I think games can't be sports based on those grounds but I'm not entirely sure there's a perfect model for one, currently. You could argue that there are random factors in actual sports but, again, I don't think those factors wind up with as severe consequences due to the rules of play.

[P4: Gritty Reboot]

It's not that I think games can't be sports based on those grounds but I'm not entirely sure there's a perfect model for one, currently. You could argue that there are random factors in actual sports but, again, I don't think those factors wind up with as severe consequences due to the rules of play.

I don't know if any of you Brits play baseball, but "random" factors like wind, sun position, and especially what field you're playing on is extremely influential towards the outcome of the game. I'm sure cricket is similar.

 

Knowing where the warning track starts and ends, knowing the height and makeup of the walls, knowing the type of dirt and grass are all essential to winning the game. Stealing opponents' signs, watching the pitcher for tells, even trying to catch mouthed words on the mound in a pitcher-catcher meeting on the mound are "exploits", but they're part of the game. You use them or you lose.

 

A fascinating case study in this was hitter Will Clark, who read the lips of the pitcher in an important championship game.

 

In 1989, Clark and the Giants defeated the Chicago Cubs in the National League Championship Series. In Game 1, Clark had already hit a solo home run. Prior to a subsequent at-bat, Cubs' catcher Joe Girardi went to the mound to discuss with Greg Maddux how to pitch to Clark. From the on-deck circle, Clark watched the conversation and read Greg Maddux's lips saying "fastball high, inside." The first pitch was a fastball high and inside which Clark sent into the street beyond right field for a grand slam. Following this, pitchers began to cover their mouths with their gloves when having conversations on the pitchers mound.

 

Don't know if I'm on-topic still, but I love that story. Carry on.

[MasterDex]

Personally I'm not so sure that "anyone" could become that good. I know gamers who have played "competitive" games all their life that can just not manage to wrap their head around them at all.

And if it IS a more even playing field and more people could get that good if they put down an equivalent amount of effort, I would only see that as a good thing. I was never much for that whole athleticism fare anyways. What interests me is good plays, not raw muscle strength.

 

That's my biggest annoyance about the definition of sport. It's the 21st century yet so many of us still insist that athleticism is the only way to show off your prowess. I'm not asking for a switch to brains over brawn but as I said in my article, I think a more balanced society that champions both is more forward-thinking.

Yeah, it's different. Different like chess is different to hockey, or any other sport. Doesn't make it NOT a sport.

Spawn points are "random" in some games, but in the cases where they are in "serious" games, the game is generally balanced enough with good enough level design that they aren't really a deciding factor.

 

A good example of what you're saying can be seen in TF2. Valve has collected data on their maps for a while in an attempt to keep them balanced for competitive play and give both teams a fair chance of victory. You can't always succeed since maps are more complex than the ovals and rectangles of ball pitches but it can be accomplished

 

Quite. Most games are not considered serious e-sports. The ones that manage to support an e-sport scene (with a few fluke exceptions) were designed for it from the ground up. It's a significantly different design template than for say recent Call of Duty games where you just throw in a lot of weapons and stuff because in the eye of the public, more is always more.

 

And therein lies the biggest hurdle. So long as the competitive scene is relatively small compared to the (seems the most appropriate term here) casual market, the majority of development focus is going to be on selling the game to casual gamers. Hot Heart does have a point. Right now, even the best suited competitive games aren't perfectly suited to e-sports but I can see that changing. In the e-sports timeline, we're just entering into the world of professionalism. I think looking back at the rise of hurling in Ireland is a good way to show how the timeline could progress. For a long time, Gealic sports were disorganised. They were all amateur matches held for the love of the games. Then the GAA were set up in 1884 in an attempt to cement the rules and organise games and their popularity has grown since then. Technically, Hurling and Gaelic are still amateur sports as the players aren't paid to compete. There's even a New York and London team that have joined the fray.

[Yantelope]

@Johnny and 6264, I agree with you that it may just be a misconception but the fact that that void between the great and the elite is hard to see makes it harder to sell. I don't claim to be a master Halo player. I've been bested plenty of times. At the same time I've never seen anyone do something in Halo that I've thought "Wow, that's just amazing, I'll never be able to do that." You see that all the time when LeBron jumps through the air and slam dunks the ball. You see it when Randy Moss would make a flying catch in the end zone and you see it when someone cranks a 500ft out of the park home run. It's spectacle, it's awe and it's lacking in the virtual world.

 

http://mlb.mlb.com/video/play.jsp?content_id=19127709&topic_id=10025018&c_id=mlb

[Johnny]

@HH: Halo is in the category of "games not taken very seriously as an e-sport."

It's a bit of a joke in those terms, really.

 

@Yante: That's a matter of perspective. Pro gaming is far more awe-inspiring to me (and many others I know) than, say, soccer is. Watch the Evo Moment #37 video above, and tell me that the spectators there didn't feel awe at it.

[Yantelope]

Well that's just because soccer is really boring. And yeah, there are some awe inspiring videogame performances out there.

 

[Hot Heart]

@HH: Halo is in the category of "games not taken very seriously as an e-sport."

It's a bit of a joke in those terms, really.

 

I can agree with that!

[Johnny]

Extra Credits has a new epsiode out. It's about professional gaming.