StarCraft® II

how is COD an e sport?

FPS's make poor e-sports in general. They will never be on the level of a game like starcraft.

Here are just a few of the many problems with FPS e-sports

First, is that in FPS's, it is all about skill with the controols (mouse/keyboard or joystick/buttons). Cleaver tacktics are not as important as your ability to point your gun at the thing that you want to have die. So as a viewer all I can do is be like "Oh, I would have aimed more at the head if I had been him".

Also FPS are too chaotic. Too much, too fast, so you can't follow the action.

Also when you have like 10-18 players (who all look alike) per game rather than 2, it is impossible to keep track of how everyone is doing in your head.

Also no "God Camera" means you can never see the general flow of the battle at large scales, you are always stuck watching only a small chunk at a time.
Reply Quote
CoD doesn't seem like an e-sport because it doesn't seem balanced at all. Also you die too fast for any real strategy to emerge. If your going to call an fps an e-sport it should be a game like halo or CS.


Don't get me wrong, CoD is a lot of fun. But I don't think It can be considered an E-sport.
Reply Quote
CoD doesn't seem like an e-sport because it doesn't seem balanced at all. Also you die too fast for any real strategy to emerge. If your going to call an fps an e-sport it should be a game like halo or CS.


Don't get me wrong, CoD is a lot of fun. But I don't think It can be considered an E-sport.



Also Starcraft isn't a sport in the traditional sense obviously. That's why it's called Electronic Sports instead of just a sport.
Reply Quote
CoD doesn't seem like an e-sport because it doesn't seem balanced at all. Also you die too fast for any real strategy to emerge. If your going to call an fps an e-sport it should be a game like halo or CS.


Don't get me wrong, CoD is a lot of fun. But I don't think It can be considered an E-sport.



Also Starcraft isn't a sport in the traditional sense obviously. That's why it's called Electronic Sports instead of just a sport.


did you seriously just quote yourself AND double post?

My good friend the "edit" button would like to have a word with you
Edited by Banchan on 8/3/2011 2:24 PM PDT
Reply Quote
FPS's make poor e-sports in general. They will never be on the level of a game like starcraft.

Here are just a few of the many problems with FPS e-sports

First, is that in FPS's, it is all about skill with the controols (mouse/keyboard or joystick/buttons). Cleaver tacktics are not as important as your ability to point your gun at the thing that you want to have die. So as a viewer all I can do is be like "Oh, I would have aimed more at the head if I had been him".

Also FPS are too chaotic. Too much, too fast, so you can't follow the action.

Also when you have like 10-18 players (who all look alike) per game rather than 2, it is impossible to keep track of how everyone is doing in your head.

Also no "God Camera" means you can never see the general flow of the battle at large scales, you are always stuck watching only a small chunk at a time.


It may be too chaotic to *you*, but a lot of people like the fast paced, adrenaline pumping action in FPS games. For example, Fatal1ty playing Unreal Tournament 2003. Watching him make perfect shots with a railgun while wall-jumping is amazing - sure, it may be simplistic, but its incredibly entertaining.

Explain why Halo is played as one of the main events at tournaments like MLG...clearly there is an audience for fast paced, accurate gaming. Especially those that have a war theme. I would pay to watch people play Rainbow 6 or similar games (aka CoD) attack a terrorist stronghold with a perfectly executed breach, using team work and flash bangs, or setting up a machine gun in a barnyard and spraying covering fire for your team mates. Why would you consider FPS to be so unenjoyable in multiplayer when they make for some of the best selling games in PC gaming history? No other genre of PC game sells on the scale that call of duty has, or modern warfare, or any of their predecessors.

Besides I wouldn't consider Starcraft 2 to be all that different in terms of strategic depth. I think you underestimate the importance of tactical awareness, diversionary tactics, and team work in FPS games. In Starcraft 2 everything is essentially about producing a build order, or scouting your opponents and countering it effectively. Its really not *that* complicated, anyone with average intelligence can figure out how to play starcraft 2 properly. The only challenge is having a high APM and microing effectively, which is extremely similar to the challenge in FPS games (quick reflexes, shooting accurately).
Reply Quote
Why the hell are you talking about COD on a SC2 forum?
Reply Quote
There's a few reasons COD shouldn't be an E$port

1. Multiplatform - this may not seem big, but have you played Blops on the PC? It's the worse FPS experience of my life. So would the Xbox tourney champion be the best COD player even though on a mouse and keyboard he'd get rocked?

2. Screen Looking - How can you hold a tournament in which competitors can see the other's screen. That in itself disqualifies COD

3. A new verison emerges every year. Imagine if before last year a Starcraft was released around November every year on the clock. Would there be any reason to look forward to or even care about this November's new Starcraft?



Reply Quote
It is probably people like the creator of this thread that are the guys that decided it would be a good idea to boo the halo awards at MLG.
Reply Quote
08/03/2011 05:12 PMPosted by Uzee
It is probably people like the creator of this thread that are the guys that decided it would be a good idea to boo the halo awards at MLG.


The halo awards that like 20 people watched.
Reply Quote
Halo is nice.
Reply Quote
FPS's make poor e-sports in general. They will never be on the level of a game like starcraft.

Here are just a few of the many problems with FPS e-sports

First, is that in FPS's, it is all about skill with the controols (mouse/keyboard or joystick/buttons). Cleaver tacktics are not as important as your ability to point your gun at the thing that you want to have die. So as a viewer all I can do is be like "Oh, I would have aimed more at the head if I had been him".

Also FPS are too chaotic. Too much, too fast, so you can't follow the action.

Also when you have like 10-18 players (who all look alike) per game rather than 2, it is impossible to keep track of how everyone is doing in your head.

Also no "God Camera" means you can never see the general flow of the battle at large scales, you are always stuck watching only a small chunk at a time.


It may be too chaotic to *you*, but a lot of people like the fast paced, adrenaline pumping action in FPS games. For example, Fatal1ty playing Unreal Tournament 2003. Watching him make perfect shots with a railgun while wall-jumping is amazing - sure, it may be simplistic, but its incredibly entertaining.

Explain why Halo is played as one of the main events at tournaments like MLG...clearly there is an audience for fast paced, accurate gaming. Especially those that have a war theme. I would pay to watch people play Rainbow 6 or similar games (aka CoD) attack a terrorist stronghold with a perfectly executed breach, using team work and flash bangs, or setting up a machine gun in a barnyard and spraying covering fire for your team mates. Why would you consider FPS to be so unenjoyable in multiplayer when they make for some of the best selling games in PC gaming history? No other genre of PC game sells on the scale that call of duty has, or modern warfare, or any of their predecessors.

Besides I wouldn't consider Starcraft 2 to be all that different in terms of strategic depth. I think you underestimate the importance of tactical awareness, diversionary tactics, and team work in FPS games. In Starcraft 2 everything is essentially about producing a build order, or scouting your opponents and countering it effectively. Its really not *that* complicated, anyone with average intelligence can figure out how to play starcraft 2 properly. The only challenge is having a high APM and microing effectively, which is extremely similar to the challenge in FPS games (quick reflexes, shooting accurately).


Sorry Skynet but there is a reason why FPS's havn't even got a quarter of the audience as SC2 as an e-sport.

1. Why do FPS sell better than any other type of games right now?

Easy, they are fun TOO PLAY. Playing and watching are too different things man.

2. You keep talking about how fun it is to watch pure skill in action. And I completely agree with you man. Those guys could frag me a million times over. But watching a game of pure skill gets old for most people. Sorry it just does. We all love to watch the Olypics, but would you really want to watch those kind of pure skill sports over and over and over for hours each week? For most people, no.

A game like SC2 is like football and a FPS is like pingpong. Now I would argue that the average pingpong player has more pure skill than the average football player. But what pulls the bigger crowds? Football. Why? Just watch football fans watching a game for that answer. They are constantly yelling instuctions and plays at the TV. They are engadged as if they were part of the game. Excited when the coach or QB does what they think they should do, and succeed. Angry when they don't, and fail. The pacing of football is even perfect for allowing viewers to comment on stratagy and allow excitment to build up before each engadgment.

Now look at pingpong. Ya, there are definately tactics involved, but usually they go off to quickly for the average viewer to really make up their mind on weather or not they will succeed due to the pacing of the game. Thus most audience members primarily comment not on what they think the player should do mid game but on how amazing a player is afterwords.

3. Why are there FPS like halo at MLG? Why not? Now you tell me why games like Halo had such small audiences even with microsoft putting tons of money into promoting Halo?

4. Finally you argued that there is just as much tactical descision making in FPS. Wether that is true or not is irrelivent. Because the games have a bunch of players and lack a "god camera" so you only see a small snipit of what a player is doing then you leave the player, and by the time you return to them they are doing somthing completely different. You could never give a play by play for all 10 players for the entire game as a simple viewer. But you can in SC2.

Also SC2 has a skill ceiling to alot of the basics in things like build order and basic macro. Even dimond level players can manipulate their mouse and keyboard to the game basics just as well as the pros. Thus pro players distiguish themselves with cleaver choices and unusual tactics rather than mearly having better APM. I've seen Pros with APM well below 100 each game.

I am sorry you don't like it. But there is a reason why SC2 is so much more popular. I havn't even touched on how SC2 benifits from informational asymetry more than other games but I think I have said enough.
Reply Quote
Now. I'm not arguing at all that an Esport is a sport, so don't catch me wrong when I post this.

FROM WIKIPEDIA

A sport is an organized, competitive, entertaining, and skillful activity requiring commitment, strategy, and fair play, in which a winner and loser can be defined by objective means. Generally speaking, a sport is a game based in physical athleticism. Activities such as board games and card games are sometimes classified as "mind sports," but strictly speaking "sport" by itself refers to some physical activity. Non-competitive activities may also qualify, for example though jogging or playing catch are usually classified as forms of recreation, they may also be informally called "sports" due to their similarity to competitive games.

They should be called something different, like an E competition. Or a Pro gaming fest.
Either way.... we aren't a sport and shouldn't pretend to be.

Call of duty isn't bad, the fact is that the skill ceiling isn't very high. Your going to be as good as you are. For instance, my brother (he used to play this a lot) probably could have gotten on with his British friends (Beasts) and win 2-4 out of 10 matches against the best team on call of duty. This is because the individual skill ceiling is low. So, watching it isn't fun because most people could be as good as you, and you really don't get a sense of the whole scene. Halo is a little better (Own a PS3), but not too much. Both are fun games for a casual gamer though.

If we wanted a shooter to be a ESport, It should be MAG, for it's teamwork element and map control qualities (256 players does mean map control is important), Socom: 2 or confrontation for teamwork that is not forced, but is needed, or CS for individual skill.

Starcraft 2 has a limitless skill ceiling


I agree with everything you just said. Mag is pretty much the only game I have ever played ( I still play it) that actually involves teamwork( unless your play with random raven and valor blue dots). What I do not understand is how fps can even begin to be as entertaining as starcraft. When you watch fps you can only see so much because you can only spectate one person at a time which means that lots of the time you will miss what is happening in the game.
Reply Quote
All of these games are important parts of the e-sports community. Half of you trashing on call of duty have never played it, let alone played it at a competitive level. I admit, the newer call of duty games appeal more to the masses rather than the intense gamers, but I assure you games such as Call of Duty 2 and Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare have such depth, it ranges beyond simply "pointing and clicking". I have played Call of Duty 4 for at least 3 years and starcraft since I was about 8, and both are equally capable of high, intense gaming action.

Looking at Call of Duty just to be a simple FPS is like saying "How is starcraft an esport? More units kill less units." A huge amount of practice and dedication is required for both types of games -- "game sense" is what I'm talking about here. Even more than starcraft, however, is the need for teamwork in the Call of Duty games: coordination and team awareness. Comparing it to real sports, Starcraft would be the equivalent of 1v1 tennis and Call of Duty would be soccer (or football if you prefer). Soccer and tennis are both sports.

IMO I don't believe XBOX 360 or PS3 gaming to be worthy of all the attention it is getting because the skill cap is just so much lower when compared to games on the PC.
Reply Quote
08/03/2011 03:41 PMPosted by SNiZerG
Why the hell are you talking about COD on a SC2 forum?

CoD ans SC2 are both esports. Plus this is the 'Games, Gaming, and Hardware' section
Reply Quote
[quote][quote] Now I would argue that the average pingpong player has more pure skill than the average football player.


This one statement alone did two things for me. It confirmed you knew NOTHING about football, and that you know nothing about sports in general. Your example would make sense if you compared Bowling and Pingpong. Football player skill < Pingpong player skill in terms of what?

You know how much skill is involved in reading coverage packages in football? Take the best pong player in the world and compare him with Peyton Manning reading the Patriot defense.

I am not saying pingpong players don't have skill, but....
[quote][quote] Now I would argue that the average pingpong player has more pure skill than the average football player.

is not accurate
Edited by DankTassadar on 8/3/2011 11:01 PM PDT
Reply Quote
I remember the days when I used to steal my older brother's Unreal tournament or Warcraft 3 games. In those times, I did not have to hear little kids screaming "You're My B!tch!". Games are just becoming more and more competitive (E-sports). I can't even come home from a hard days work, turn on my PC run Starcraft 2 and play with good people anymore. There is always someone calling someone else a noob, saying "you suck". In all actuality I really don't care, I've got more important things to worry about than being a Pro gamer.

As far as Call of duty goes. Okay, there comes a time when things just get boring. Do I want to eat a slice of pizza every single day for dinner? What is this the need for speed franchise? Release the same game (every year) with a few tweaks here and there and call it a day? I don't think so. To top it off, have other people copy the same formula? No thanks.

I would choose Gay-lo.....I mean HALO, over the piece of crap this forum is talking about.

However if you must, rampant is right. COD4 on PC is decent.
Edited by Crust on 8/4/2011 12:11 AM PDT
Reply Quote
Posting a hate comment about CoD on a Starcraft forum.

Expected outcome is expected.
Reply Quote
Listing strategys in order to win a game is not a negative/positive thing to a game.. YOU ARE ALL looking at this wrong. The reason CoD is so terrible is not its in game mechanics. It's the fact that its a 5 year old engine, it has overpriced dlc considering what you get for the cost. It has a community that is often at times inapropriate and just all around !@#-holey... And yet we QQ over someone not saying gg/gl/hf
Reply Quote

Please report any Code of Conduct violations, including:

Threats of violence. We take these seriously and will alert the proper authorities.

Posts containing personal information about other players. This includes physical addresses, e-mail addresses, phone numbers, and inappropriate photos and/or videos.

Harassing or discriminatory language. This will not be tolerated.

Forums Code of Conduct

Report Post # written by

Reason
Explain (256 characters max)
Submit Cancel

Reported!

[Close]