Pro/Competitive Gaming

[Katastrophe]

Just looking to spark a bit of discussion.

As some of you may or may not be aware, there's a not-so-little thing called eSports out there. Some of you might scoff at the title of eSports, it's nothing to scoff at. Last month in Columbus, Ohio, the second event for the 2011 Major League Gaming (MLG) season was held. For the 2011 season, MLG holds competitions for Halo: Reach, StarCraft II, and Call of Duty: Black Ops. At this event, there were over 15,000 live spectators, 1,300 competitors, and over half a million people from 164 different countries that tuned into the live stream on the website. Nearly $100,000 was given away in cash prizes. The first place Halo: Reach team took home $20,000 of that - that's $5,000 per player in 3 days. Bam. This, of course, is on top of money earned by giving lessons, ad campaigns, and sponsorships.

But although MLG is arguable the largest pro-gaming community in North America, it's dwarfed by the Global StarCraft League, or GSL. StarCraft has long been the pro game of choice for most countries, namely Korea where StarCraft players are viewed as celebrities with three or four television stations devoted to professional StarCraft play. In fact, most of the competitors in the Top 8 from StarCraft at MLG Columbus weren't even from the US.

Although, there's more to this then just shooters and RTS. In fact, most games have some sort of competitive aspects, as far back as pong. Something we're all aware of is the competitive aspect of Pokemon and although it may not be on the MLG Pro Circuit, it's still competitive with online tournaments and leagues.

So, my topic for debate is... as video games change and grow, where do you stand/how do you feel about the whole concept of eSports? Are competitive gamers just try-hard nerds who suck the fun from these games, or can eSports become as legitimate as actual sports like baseball?

As personal experience, I played Halo 3 in 2009 and 2010 at MLG events and local tournaments in Free For Alls at the "semi-professional" level. I never kept track of how much money I won, but I made around $400 in the summer of 2009 after MLG Columbus through selling High Skill 50 accounts and giving lessons. Despite the fact that some people see this as a waste of my time, the friends I've made and the experiences I've had were the most important things I gained.

 

[Arcanine]

There's an MLB, does this take the fun out of little league, or highschool/college baseball? No. Just like it wouldn't take the fun out of normal gamers.

Do I think there will be a market one day for big competitive gaming like that of the MLB or NFL? Yea I think so.
Do I think it's anytime soon? Nope. Gaming as a whole as it is now isn't ready for that sort of stuff (nothing like being on TV, or making tons of money just for playing).

 

[Luck]

So, my topic for debate is... as video games change and grow, where do you stand/how do you feel about the whole concept of eSports?
I don't actually have an opinion on it. Since I try to stay away from these, I guess I have a negative opinion of it.

Are competitive gamers just try-hard nerds who suck the fun from these games, or can eSports become as legitimate as actual sports like baseball?
They usually are, depending on the game, but it still can be a major sport eventually.

There's an MLB, does this take the fun out of little league, or highschool/college baseball? No. Just like it wouldn't take the fun out of normal gamers.

Major league players are segregated from peewee players though. It's an awful feeling getting teamed up with a basement dweller named xXMLGxxSn1p3sXx and being able to hear his whining through the headphones.

But I suppose that's more of a problem with "pro" gamers than the actual "sport" itself.

 

[hyperblast81]

My basic view on eSports depends on what kind of game it is and how the basic matchmaking works. Take an example mentioned in the OP: SCII. For anyone unfamiliar with the matchmaking, there are 5 'leagues' within the game segregating what is thought to be the average "skill" of the player in terms of 20% of the community.

This obviously works well because the top 20% of the community get matched up with eachother etc. as you go down.

Now take something like Call of Duty. All matchmaking does is take random players who want to play that particular gamemode and mash them together for a game. This obviously does not work well as you can possibly have players that are completely awful / new going against possible MLG pros. Same goes for WoW BG's (I personally get a kick out of my friend who's a gladiator [top .5% of arena PvPers] go into a random battleground and stomp everything in sight.) However, if you take Arenas, which use a rating system to determine the basic 'skill' of a player to matchmake teams properly, which is clearly the much better competitive system.


So.. um. yeah, competitive gaming can only succeed if the developers can actually uphold a good competitive environment (Ie. DotA clones, SCII) as opposed to just leave balance static and usually only one or two viable ways to do things at an extremely high level (Most FPS it seems beside Battlefield and TF2)

So yeah.. No more use blabbering on now. Can't exactly end this post well with a conclusion can I?