At the same time, "ultimate esports" projects like Challenge ProMode Arena for Quake 3 have proven to be failures with respect to attracting players. Warcraft 3 and Counter-Strike lose players to WoW, DotA and whatever else is there to appeal to the lowest common denominator.
The dumbification of competitive gaming wins.
The ones that would like to lament this process will have to take a step back and get a better perspective on it, though. It is time to get off your high horse. A mere six years ago, Quake players complained at how Counter-Strike is gaining popularity thanks to how attractive it is to... countless masses of mediocrities unwilling to put in some hard work into becoming good at something. Warcraft 3, ladies and gentlemen, was regarded as newbiefied and a step back in gameplay from StarCraft.
"The dumbification is really not a new thing. Neither a bad one."
If you want to complain about how lame and undemanding games like WoW and DotA are, then you should remember that in all likelihood the very same things were said about the game you love to play. And from the perspective of the people that said them, they were as well backed-up as what you may have to say now. Ironic, isn't it?The dumbification is really not a new thing. Neither a bad one.
This process, although it is as old as multiplayer games themselves, will go into reverse one day, after it reaches an extreme. Every trend eventually does.
I believe that everything in life undulates. Look at how soccer goes back and forth between being defensive and offensive. When defensive strategies dominate, coaches start adding players to their defensive lines at the expense of forwards. But as soon as this hits an extreme, a team will notice there is only one striker to guard for five defenders and will put extra men up front. A trend towards the attack starts.
Look at how the world undulated from the peaks of debauchery and sexual promiscuity to prohibition and chastity, and back again. How many times already?
"Games are too difficult to learn, especially the ones with old and developed gameplay."
The same will happen in esports. I have already seen it happen. I thought at some point that Unreal Tournament had died out, its players fleeing into real life, to other games or the lowest form of FPS gaming, instagib UT. Then there came a wave of new players for whom instagib was no longer enough. They quickly became formidable opponents in deathmatch. The very same ones for whom its complexity used to be a reason not to play.The reality right now is that games are too difficult to learn, especially the ones with old and developed gameplay. There are so many elements to a game like Warcraft 3 that becoming decent at it is too painstaking to handle. People naturally lean towards the simpler games.
But each of those simpler games introduces a community of players with the basic skill set that makes them ready to get a seamless start in something more complex. For every ten players in a simpler game there will be a couple that will want more. They will be tired of checkers and will start looking for chess.
It may still turn out that DotA will be the best thing that has ever happened to StarCraft 2.
lifetap, lifetap, lifetap .. u win.
I play Instagib UT just as much as I play deathmatch.
DotA and Instagib are nice to play when you want a fast fun match with friends. But you are right Carmac, also when playing with friends, you are into competitive gaming and everyone will try to win. So it can be more than a pastime and it can be fun to watch. -->eSport compliant
And I think Dota, WoW or Instagib are not too easy to be esport titles. You need experience and skill. :)
Your conclusion is correct and fundamentally right. But we both know that there isn't enough money to go round and it's always the technically better games which get the chop. Quake should never be compared to Counter Strike when justifying its inclusion at an event. If you want to showcase the very best gaming skills then you include a 1v1 death match game, it's as simple as that.
Not everyone likes FPS, so you cater for more technical strategy type minds with RTS. You look and find aspects of skill in gaming, and then find the genre's which best showcase them. Then you've to bring into focus common sense.
This is where the differing opinions come into play. I think eSports should be made to look as abstract as possible. People need to be baffled by what someone is doing. It's a learning process in itself.
Choosing genres and games with ready made mass appeal is a cop out, it's lazy and it will backfire. I cringe every time I see events picking FIFA, PGR3 and console shooters. If it's the case that there aren't new games which can replace the terrible threesome (Quake III, 1.6', and WCIII - European model) then find alternative ways to make money.
Look at WCIII and Counter Strike 1.6, they've terrible tv functionality and crash constantly. Why don't they fix the games and charge for it? BAM, look I just found you an alternate income source. Add better cheat protection. BAM, another way to make money.
While there's a need for simpler games, they should never take preference over technical superior games, and you'll always find the people who support games like that, saying they're evolving eSports.
Nice column
1v1 - Quake III
Team based FPS - Call of Duty 4
1v1 RTS - Warcraft III
The reason why I choose CoD4 over 1.6', is because I believe they're almost basically the same as it's, but I believe CoD4 uses a better engine, and the health 'regen' system is a real advantage.
Nice article, agree.
And CoD4 is a great game... but I still think CS1.6 has an advantage over it.
for fun CoD4 > CS1.6
in cw's CS1.6 > CoD4
tho thats my first impression, having not played many CoD4 cw's, I'm drawing my opinion from demos i've seen
And I'm guessing every engine is based on an older version of some engine... so i don't see your point.
if ppl can regen hp, there are less 1v1 fights
in cs an 1v3 can still turn out suprising, cuz the 3 was low on hp
has nothing to with money//weapon safe
CoD4 is actually still based on the Q3 engine, though I'd doubt they would publicly admit to that.
esports works about sponsors, commercials, player masses
dota and wow both got the masses
dota for example got 550 registred 5on5 teams for the 9th mym pride tourney, that is a NUMBER
atm its rly hilarios, i am an active dota player and can stop puking if a see wc3 and cs players flaming dota and not to have the needet esports history experince or some brain skills overall to understand that cs and wc3 growth cuz THEY ARE easier to play than q3 and sc
but the most dota flamers never played some rly highskilled games to understandt how esports developed over the last years and why dota COULD be the next big game
i know dota IS a noob game compared to wc3 and i accept it, but u ll never see a wc3 or cs player accept that their games are noob games compared to q3 and sc(what whould took them the rights to flame dota)
for them cs and wc3 are "different" and not comparable......
yeah for sure
flame on noobs(but get a clue first)
JK!!
dota is not an easy game, thats for sure, but it is easier than some others(and that is the point)
:D
pleaaaaasseeeeeeeeee
I know DotA is easy, but what the hell makes it noob?
DotA is easy but has a huge and growing fan base
WC3 is great but I am shit at it
CS 1.6 will be the #1 for a while longer, probably COD4 will take over
CSS Will still be the ultimate e-sports fail
WoW will continue to grow until someone makes a more realistic game with the same kind of player and PVP ability, along with insanely massive dungeons which take 40 people to conquer.
FIFA will always have a fan base and as the games come out in line with the season/year of football the people will keep playing it
imo
Peace and Love!
saw some old skool names i member from ages ago come back! Good times!
Take for example a hypothetical coin-flip competition, where the winner is the one who has the most heads after 100 throws. Now you could argue that the winner would be completly random each time and he/she would have needed no skill whatsoever to win. On the other hand suppose that after holding the competition several times it's turns out that a certain person X wins several times in a row. And after questioning person X she explains that after a lifetime of practice she has perfected throwing coins to such a degree that she can actually change the odds of throwing heads slightly from 50-50 to 55-45. The amount of "skill" required to achieve something like that would be insane, but it is still plausible that someone crazy enough could do it.
The same applies to computer games, it would be much much harder to dominate some simple game with a huge playerbase (e.g. dota, wow etc ) as opposed to some complex game with a small userbase. Simply because it will be very difficult to seperate yourself from the pack. So this whole elitist attitude is a bit misplaced (carmac :).
The real point why low skill games fail is that nobody is interested in watching them. Coin flipping was a good example ;)
That more and more players PLAY Dota or WoW doesn't mean there's a scene of people interested in competitive gaming. I mean, who watches, casts or presents offline an 1-hour Dota game?
550 registred clans for a tourney are for sure not fun gamer, fun gamer play publics but dont register for a tourneys
and there are pretty decent reps and ac downoad numbers
It is the same when you watch something you don't know anything about, and dismiss what you see as "having no skill". It is more likely that you don't understand the subtle nuances of the game and therfore cannot appriciate what is going on. E.g. to someone cultured in coin-throwing, seeing someone do 10 heads in a row trough some amazing techniques might be the best thing he has ever seen in his life, to others it is just random luck.
and I will go and play dota now
It isn't an elitist attitude as such, there are just less people able to compete in these sort of games, which makes the communities smaller by default. Simplicity and popularity don't automatically mean a game is harder to master, nor does having a huge community make a game competitive or good.
For me, watching Counter Strike or bomb defuse/round based team fps games is a complete step down from where I am from. While being the best in any game means being very good, I think you'll find that the proportional odds involved means that the popularity of a game doesn't really come into play. Picking games with more aspects to master is always the best choice (while keeping it as fun for as many people as possible).
This is why Unreal Tournament has never replaced Quake, and Call of Duty or any of the Wolfenstein games have replaced Counter Strike. You can get to a point where games require too many different skills and aspects for most people to appreciate, (especially with Wolfenstein games) so they go with the next best thing.
The more elements to master are in a game, the greater is the sum of skill it takes to win. The smaller the number of elements to master, the greater the randomness of a game. That it is harder to stand out in a more random game has more to do with the randomness of a game than the amount of skill it takes to win.
If you add the number of players into the mix, then of course it is different. If you have 15 players in a game where every little difference of skill is illustrated by 3 frags on the scoreboard, then of it is very easy to stand out. If you have instagib with 500 players, then of course it is much more difficult to stand out, but still... does it take more skill?
...ie. You have to notice when a tree is moved (in a patch) on a map... like Grubby does :)