The Death of Competitive Gaming -- The Average Gamer?

[Fortress | Sveet]

For a long time I've wanted gaming to become more wide spread, but I don't think I ever considered the far reaching consequences. Is it possible that because of so many people playing games that companies will no longer focus on how truly good their game is but rather how easily accessible it is to the average player? This is a post I read on the SC2 beta forums:

I like StarCraft 2, it's a fun game that I thoroughly enjoy. StarCraft is considered a real time STRATEGY game, and skill in this game is measured by your ability to create a STRATEGY that counters your opponent's. Winning a game should (and does) come down primarily to unit selection and secondarily to how well you micro those units.

I want to play a game where winning or losing is decided by my ability to scout my opponent, see what units he is building, where he is attacking, and how large his army is and build / deploy units accordingly to compensate. I don't want to play a game where winning or losing is based off of how quickly I can spam H and A while clicking madly on the map. If I wanted to play that, I'd play guitar hero or whack-a-mole.

StarCraft 2 is a very fun game, and I for one am happy about the removal of such painful micro mechanics. Now I can spend more time worrying about what units I'm producing and how my economy is fairing instead of worrying about whether or not I'm spamming attack and move fast enough to keep up with those harassing mutas.

I'm a competitive gamer and have been since I first played Starcraft when i was a kid. Initially this post made me upset; how could he not see it from the competitive side? Then I realized that this guy represents a huge portion of the gaming market these days. Why would blizzard focus any amount of their attention to making the game deep when 95% of people will play the game for a year or two at most before moving on to some other game regardless of how good it is.

I've seen this exact same thing come up in the past too. For example, Brawl. For all us melee players who have practiced long and hard to get to the skill level we are at, Brawl is completely un-fun because of how easy it is. From Nintendo's perspective, there was absolutely no point making the game fast or deep. It was designed to be played by people ages 5+, people that had no idea what they were doing, and just to have some simple laughs and fun. They didn't care about the competitive scene for their previous game because that competitive scene is too vastly small for them to base a large portion of their game around.

I don't really see an end to this. What happened to the good old times when a deep game and a widespread hit weren't mutually exclusive? Will competitive gaming future be dry and boring games that were intended for a short lived thrill by the majority of their audience? Is there anything that could pressure the major game makers into making better competitive games? I'm I wrong?

 

[xbombr]

You're right, nowadays game makers don't really make games with the intention of competition. The casual gaming market is much larger and easier to reach. Not to mention it takes a lot less effort to make a game like that.

Competitive games will show up purely by accident, much like what happened with Melee. I wouldn't call it the death of competitive gaming, but definitely a huge bump in the road.

edit: Look at how nintendo operates now, everything is for casual gamers. There was actually an interview with the head of Nintendo of America a few years ago that I watched and he actually said that the hardcore audience had Mario Galaxy to look forward to.

This shows where their minds are at.

 

[Ballistics]

The only solution is to become a video game producer, make a super competitive masterpiece!

 

[TheManaLord]

No big deal. It'll live on. Especially fps

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

The only solution is to become a video game producer, make a super competitive masterpiece!

im a programmer. If you know a dozen or so more programmers, a half dozen artists, a dozen modelers, and a group of people who can design manage and produce the game, then sure

No big deal. It'll live on. Especially fps

Halo 3.

 

[Lovage]

game companies are just starting to be smart with the games they make. they know that the more it appeals to casual gamers and girls and little kids the more money they will make. i don't see this is a "death of competitive gaming omg" more like a trend in game development as a whole. i mean competitive gaming never really took off in north america anyways so it's hard to have a DEATH here.

for the time being, korea will still play starcraft, europe will still play cs 1.6, and NA will still play halo 3 and gears of war 2 and brawl and whatever other joke casual games MLG gives us.

 

[dragnet4000]

What matters, to me anyway, is that the games which require tech skill, mental skill, strategy, etc., already exist. Sure it would be nice if another game came out that required you to build up strategies and use your head, but the most we can hope for is that they come to the same conclusions we come to; that we liked the games which posed the most enjoyable time playing, and they create more like it.

 

[Jam Stunna]

I'm not a Starcraft player, so the OP's example kind of went over my head . And I don't think Melee/Brawl is a fair example, because Melee was an accidentally deep game, and Brawl's turn had alot to do with Sakurai's personal vision for the franchise, not necessarily the state of gaming.

I read a pretty good explanation of the situation a while ago: the easier, mass-market games subsidize the niche titles. Take Guilty Gear Accent Core. That game is tough as nails, and according to VGChartz, every version of that game COMBINED has only sold 150,000 units, yet the director of the series has expressed an interest in doing another GG game for PS3/360. How can he do that? Well, being buoyed by 620,000 units of BlazBlue, the easier game, will certainly help pay some bills.

 

[n1000]

Why would blizzard focus any amount of their attention to making the game deep when 95% of people will play the game for a year or two at most before moving on to some other game regardless of how good it is.

Blizzard recognizes the value of having a monopoly on competitive strategy gaming. SC's success in Korea is a huge boon to the company. I recognize your qualm with dumbing down mechanics but I think that with SC2 Blizzard hopes to shift the focus from economic/unit production micro to overarching strategy and tactical execution without lessening the game's competitive depth.

The result of their changes to Starcraft mechanics is uncertain, of course, but it's premature to be dismayed just yet.

The crux of the issue is that we competitive fighting game players consider the rules of a game (that is, the game itself) as opposed to casuals who superficially look for entertainment. I play melee to dismantle the strategy of a worthy opponent, it's an effort, a labor of love so to speak. Nothing could be further removed from indulging in experiential aspects of play, watching flashy visuals or getting rapped up in the adolescent garbage that is passed off as a game's plot.

Competitive games will show up purely by accident

The accidental development of competitive games is an exception, not at all the rule. Look at the lineage of 2D fighters. Smash is the only example most of us will be able to pick out as a game developed for casual players, and it isn't a standard 2D fighter at all. Otherwise, the development of these games is academic. A body of gamers recognizes the competitive depth which this format offers. Fighting game developers are aware of this fact and so we have a genre of games where the fluff is irrelevant and the entire effort of development goes into improving mechanics.

I cite 2D fighters because it's an accessible example but there are others: Strategy games (the Civilization series is a prime example of a highly competitive, complex series' success) and shmups (vertical scrolling "bullet hell" games get more difficult and complex/competitive every year in the Japanese arcade scene) are doing well also.

NB: FPS is conspicuously absent because there's a sizable trend of xboxification with recent updates to the genre, compare UT2k4 and UT3...


Here you'll find articles exploring the topic. I like their reviews, too.

 

[TheManaLord]

Halo 3.

Didn't really impact anything at all. It's in fact more succesfull on a competitve scale than 2 was so idk what you're talking about. It's opinion that 2 is better than 3 if that's what you're implying. (even though it's one that I share)

 

[AlphaZealot]

Not really. Competitive to the OP is clearly about technical ability and not tactical mechanics. In which case Halo 2 is clearly superior to Halo 3 because it required significantly more technical ability to play. Don't even bother competing with the top 1% of players if you can't double shot every shot you take in Halo 2.

I actually agree with the SC2 post. If lowering the technical ability of a game by a third more then doubles the prospective audience then I would also even argue the game is MORE competitive.

You need to keep in mind that fact that a game can only be pushed as far as the number of people playing it can push it, and the more people you have, the further and quicker you can push a game to higher levels of competition.

1,000,000 people playing checkers will be more competitive then 100,000 people playing chess.

 

[TheManaLord]

Not really. Competitive to the OP is clearly about technical ability and not tactical mechanics. In which case Halo 2 is clearly superior to Halo 3 because it required significantly more technical ability to play. Don't even bother competing with the top 1% of players if you can't double shot every shot you take in Halo 2.

I understand that, and I am on that side... he's talking about the death of competitive gaming and Halo 3 certainly didn't kill anything. It's not like brawl.

wait a second, don't you prefer brawl over melee? something doesn't make sense here


edit on my part. a lot of the most famous professional chess player consider the art of chess to be dead. **** stagnates eventually which is why new things gotta come up y'know. like chess960 and ****

 

[INSANE CARZY GUY]

Bull crap at melee not meaning to have any depth at all. 1st off why is there autocanceling, short hopsfast falling, air dodges, wall/ceiling teching, inf. vs mode options to find the perfect wya to play, many different stages(unlike other fighters stages are a huge deal), sheild stabs, options for recovering side-B, walljump, up-B, when you stop and look you can easily get lost in the depth of the smallest things like pikachu's up-B everyone is confuesed as F*** about that right now, you are rewarded for spaceing like the tipper and sweetspots, everything is different about everyone.

Go on with the simple things and ssbm is very deep even with the simplest thingsnot even talking about advanced techs. Like L-caneling why can't G&W do it? lazy programming they quit programming G&W on a lot of small things like why he can't tech falco's d-throw and etc.


There was some level of depth that was 100% to happen like in PAL they changed sheik's down-throw geuss why? to make her less broken.

FPSs need more skill I like CS

 

[Rain(ame)]

Great example with GG, by the way. I personally think Blazblue is just stepping stones to reviving the series. Easing them into what is the more complicated GG.

Good example is Streetfighter 4. the game is so overly simplified it's actually more difficult to play I want to scream every time I play that game because the shortcuts kick in when I don't need them to. However, the franchise as a whole has brought in a whole new demographic of players. (this includes female gamers in both US and Japan)

Anybody who has played 3rd Strike or Alpha...heck even SFII (and it's millions of iterations) know that there are things you can get away with in Super that you normally wouldn't have. Also, tell me how Alex Valle suffers so much in that game? Dude is a beast, and if you doubt me...he's beaten Daigo in both Super Turbo and 3rd Strike. Look it up.

Case in point...what competitive gamers as a whole built themselves on, has been made more readily accessible to say maybe, that guy down the street who is just "okay". (We also have youtube to blame, but that's a WHOLE different discussion)

 

[Kanelol]

There have been average gamers ever since Pong, it doesn't matter. Sure, they'll probably always outnumber us competitive gamers, but as long as we have enough to play with each other, who cares?

 

[JPOBS]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7VAhzPcZ-s

pretty much says it all.

 

[Lore]

Not really. Competitive to the OP is clearly about technical ability and not tactical mechanics. In which case Halo 2 is clearly superior to Halo 3 because it required significantly more technical ability to play. Don't even bother competing with the top 1% of players if you can't double shot every shot you take in Halo 2.

I actually agree with the SC2 post. If lowering the technical ability of a game by a third more then doubles the prospective audience then I would also even argue the game is MORE competitive.

You need to keep in mind that fact that a game can only be pushed as far as the number of people playing it can push it, and the more people you have, the further and quicker you can push a game to higher levels of competition.

1,000,000 people playing checkers will be more competitive then 100,000 people playing chess.

^This. Let me use an example from real life.

I shoot in international/bunker (either name works, and) competitions all the time (trap shooting is where you shoot at the orange disk with a shotgun, btw). Most of the time a few people from the national team, etc are there, and many skilled shooters are there as well.

There are two kinds of bunker trap shooting: Singles and Doubles. Singles is the most competitive with 100+ people at most decent-sized competitions. Doubles, however, usually only has 20ish at most, and it is considered to be not as competitive as Singles.

However, I find Doubles to be the variant that requires the most technical skill. There are several key differences between Singles and Doubles that cause this, but I won't go in depth about them here.

So, the more competitive sport is NOT the one with the most required technical skill. What can we figure out from this?

Perhaps the community decides how competitive a sport is.

 

[Rain(ame)]

Well...simply put, people will jump into a game that's easier to "get good" at. If a person hears there is work involved in getting good, they'll shy away from it. I find that...oddly sad and rather frustrating, but it's the truth. That is the average person, and I've seen this with my friends. (My area sucks.) A game where you don't have to figure anything out...rather it's kind of just there for you is what people like. It's a shortcut to putting them on a more "even" playing field with those who work for their abilities.

To them: Fun is being good without work
To us: Fun is practicing to get good and be better. (aka work)

 

[Kanelol]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7VAhzPcZ-s

pretty much says it all.

I approve

.10approves

 

[INSANE CARZY GUY]

Why can't that noob win once at ssbb?

 

[Merkuri]

What is and what is not competitive is arguable in my opinion. People saying Melee is more competitive than Brawl because it requires more tech skill is purely subjective. The emphasis on spacing, good judgement and mind games is so much greater in Brawl that is adds a dimension of depth that Melee doesn't have(I'm not saying Brawl is the deeper game). Being able to do 0 to deth combos with Falco simply because I can press L when I land doesn't increase the competitive value of melee. Of course this dimension of depth is somewhat ruined by the existence of meta knight.

 

[n1000]

Merkuri read the article in my above post. Competitive depth is a function of the complexity of a game which is not "purely subjective".

 

[Dai Tian]

Those 0 to death comboes with Falco also only work because of the existence of good spacing, good judgement and mindgames. With how much easier it is to die in Melee as compared to Brawl, I'd argue Melee requires a bigger dose of all 3.

 

[I.B]

What is and what is not competitive is arguable in my opinion. People saying Melee is more competitive than Brawl because it requires more tech skill is purely subjective. The emphasis on spacing, good judgement and mind games is so much greater in Brawl that is adds a dimension of depth that Melee doesn't have(I'm not saying Brawl is the deeper game). Being able to do 0 to deth combos with Falco simply because I can press L when I land doesn't increase the competitive value of melee. Of course this dimension of depth is somewhat ruined by the existence of meta knight.

I really dislike this argument. You're making a terrible assumption that since Brawl is less technical and slower paced, it automatically makes up for it by becoming more strategic in the area of landing hits and controlling the match.

 

[n1000]

don't even dare to turn this into a brawl vs melee thread. I swear to god...

 

[Merkuri]

Merkuri read the article in my above post. Competitive depth is a function of the complexity of a game which is not "purely subjective".

Let me clarify I meant to say what classifies as more competitive and less competitive is subjective. My entire post was that tech skill doesn't make melee more competitive as in Brawl there is more emphasis on mind games, good judgment and spacing.

 

[Carom]

Well...simply put, people will jump into a game that's easier to "get good" at. If a person hears there is work involved in getting good, they'll shy away from it. I find that...oddly sad and rather frustrating, but it's the truth. That is the average person, and I've seen this with my friends. (My area sucks.) A game where you don't have to figure anything out...rather it's kind of just there for you is what people like. It's a shortcut to putting them on a more "even" playing field with those who work for their abilities.

To them: Fun is being good without work
To us: Fun is practicing to get good and be better. (aka work)

QFT
Seriously

 

[Rat]

Lowering the Technical Barrier to Entry (MBS and increased unit selection cap in SC2) for new players seems good and all. I'm not just sure where I stand on this matter.


When I was younger I tried multiple fighting games (MvC, VF, some others) but failed as the controls were too hard. Smash was much easier to get into as all I had to learn was how to do smash attacks and roll. This was enough to stomp on my circle of friend.

Without SSB's easy controls I never would have played Smash as much I did. I would have never gotten into this amazing competitive scene.


Yet I really appreciate the super technical aspects of gaming. Like in Lovage's vid berserker, the dashing shield drops were awesome (among other things). With Pro SC, watching Flash stupid amazing Macro or say Jaedong's Muta micro is awesome.


Both sides seems to have something good going for them. =/

 

[pockyD]

the guy is right; artificial tech skill barriers don't really make the game any better

For example, let's say i invent an "expansion" for smash, which is really just a pair of wool gloves that each player must wear. Is it harder to play and perform technical actions? Of course... but it contributes absolutely nothing to the depth of the game

The reduction of necessary APM doesn't say anything about how deep gameplay will be

 

[Dai Tian]

As far as SC2 goes, just watch any of the newest vids on HDStarcraft's or HuskyStarcraft's channels. APM's are still being kept high and the new additions to unit and building selection don't seem to have dumbed the game down one bit.

 

[xbombr]

Games should be easy to get into and deep enough to keep you playing. That's exactly what smash is.

Rather than having to press 3 different inputs to shoot a fireball across the screen I press a single button (and a direction for some characters). But I have all these crazy combinations of things I can do with this fireball. I can approach behind it, retreat with it, camp, ect. because I don't have to stop and press d, df, f b every time to do it.

The problem is that deep games that take longer to make are no more profitable than a game that isn't as deep. Extra production is wasted and the extra depth might even turn off some people from it.

Game companies don't really care how big the game (or several games) gets competitively, they care how big it gets commercially because at the end of the day that's what keeps them going and puts bread on the table.

 

[Lovage]

the guy is right; artificial tech skill barriers don't really make the game any better

For example, let's say i invent an "expansion" for smash, which is really just a pair of wool gloves that each player must wear. Is it harder to play and perform technical actions? Of course... but it contributes absolutely nothing to the depth of the game

The reduction of necessary APM doesn't say anything about how deep gameplay will be

of course, which is why it wouldn't mean anything for the depth of melee if wavelanding was harder to perform or something, but the removal of it in brawl removes so many offensive and defensive options it really does help dumb the game down. it's your brain getting dumbed down that matters, not your fingers, because you have less tools available to you and your strategy more limited.

 

[Charlesz]

Who says sc2 won't be as deep as the original?

 

[Fortress | Sveet]

Lowering the Technical Barrier to Entry (MBS and increased unit selection cap in SC2) for new players seems good and all. I'm not just sure where I stand on this matter.


When I was younger I tried multiple fighting games (MvC, VF, some others) but failed as the controls were too hard. Smash was much easier to get into as all I had to learn was how to do smash attacks and roll. This was enough to stomp on my circle of friend.

Without SSB's easy controls I never would have played Smash as much I did. I would have never gotten into this amazing competitive scene.


Yet I really appreciate the super technical aspects of gaming. Like in Lovage's vid berserker, the dashing shield drops were awesome (among other things). With Pro SC, watching Flash stupid amazing Macro or say Jaedong's Muta micro is awesome.


Both sides seems to have something good going for them. =/

I agree. I've never gotten into those fighters either even though i've tried.

Starcraft, though, doesn't really have a large technical barrier at the beginning. Its not hard to figure out that the attack button makes the units attack. There aren't 4 attack buttons that each have 8 variations based on which direction you push and then combos where you have to press weird button combination in precise order to do damage. Just like smash, its simple enough to pick up for the first time and not be overwhelmed but at the same time there is almost always new things to learn.

I just don't see how making the entry skill requirement low and the maximum skill requirement high should be mutually exclusive, and i think SC1 did it well.

Who says sc2 won't be as deep as the original?

I've played it. I'm rank1 in my gold division. I micro less in SC2 than i do in WC3. I play protoss, but terran simply has to do this: Sit in their base making marines and marauders. Scan the enemy semi frequently to check their build and make sure they didn't expand. Wait for them to attack. If they dont attack, expand. Eventually when you hit 200/200 you attack cause you're bored and can't press "A" and "D" to make units anymore.

For a battle all they have to do is this: Select all units, press A, click towards the enemy

 

[Roneblaster]

bad decisions in melee = You get ****ed up

bad decisions in brawl = you get hit by a move, maybe 2.

which puts a greater emphasis on not making mistakes?

@Sveet

its just how it is bro, game developers need that $$$.
also, not enough people talk about cs 1.6 vs source, that **** is exactly like melee vs brawl.

 

[INSANE CARZY GUY]

games should never be like this.

offese>defense
defense>offese they need to be equal, simple controls for movement however I've played a game that makes me go < > triangle, circle, square to unlease a huge combo, pess 3 buttons to jump, and 2 buttons to run very freely. HOwever there are much simpleer options, O,O,O is a combo, press R1 when facing a wall to climb and to hit a direction twice. there are easy and hardish options that can act as a mix up. You can throw sand or a projectile to approach.

It's hard but also easy like smash. The only problem is if you dash camp long enough your hands really hurt. So camping seems to take skill and to be hard to keep up. Plus you can throw in increased triping(not like brawl this tripping adds depth and is mad funny/cool and only when you have someone run into you or into a wall)

 

[pockyD]

of course, which is why it wouldn't mean anything for the depth of melee if wavelanding was harder to perform or something, but the removal of it in brawl removes so many offensive and defensive options it really does help dumb the game down. it's your brain getting dumbed down that matters, not your fingers, because you have less tools available to you and your strategy more limited.

of course

the primary culprit of my example is L-canceling

is there a single instance where you CAN L-cancel where it would be advantageous to not do so? no... it's just there to force you to press buttons

this is different from teching (when not teching is a very commonly used option) or wavelanding (where you often just land regularly since it's less laggy) in that good play involves it being used 100% of the time when you can

barlw got it right in getting rid of l-cancels; it's just too bad they both maintained landing lag (not a huge deal) and added the stupid action window a set number of frames after getting hit (THE biggest problem)

 

[Geist]

I have to disagree with the competitive gaming doomsday-sayers. Relative to video gaming's age, there's an unprecidented amount of people that play them. And right now we're practically in the middle of a revolution that's multilying that number.
Who's to say that there won't eventually be a gigantic increase in competitive gaming? It's possible that once more people accept video games as a mass form of entertainment like television, there will be an explosion of competition in games. Video games honestly haven't been out long enough to predict the trends that the market will go through, and odds are when it gets big enough, it'll go through fluxuations just like any other entertainment medium.

 

[n1000]

The gamespot forums a couple years back had a Great War of 1.6 vs Source that put any brawl/melee bickering to shame.

Beautiful pouit, pockyD. I was honestly in the process of writing up a post condemning lcanceling to be made tonight..well crap now I'm just going to have to think of something else.

L-canceling is simply a dexterity tax. Some video game commentors suggest that the ability to make meaningful decisions is what makes games fun. I would agree with them, meaningful choice is identical to complexity, frankly. L-canceling is something you have to do, but it's not a choice at all. There is no situation where you should not L-cancel. It's a redundant button press and Melee would be better without it.

 

[Roneblaster]

n1000, link me a major thread of 1.6 vs source.

i'd love to see all the tremendous lulz-worthy material on the CS:S side.