The Future Of Competitive Gaming

[Purtle]

I don't feel like finding the specific quotes I want to respond to, but there were about 30k people on the Ustream I was watching. The stream crashed a few times because of so many viewers. IT CRASHED DURING THE FINALS D:! That was so saddening. I missed the last few rounds.

As far as that number of 3600 or whatever unique brawl players. That really does not mean anything. You can enter a small tourney, like alpha has said a number of times, that is a weekly thing, and have no competitive experience/aren't very good.

Sure, 3600 is a big number, but how many of those 3600 still play brawl actively, competitively, and at a high level. Probably not nearly as many as SFIV, etc.

In my opinion, the SFIV scene is bigger, in the sense that there are WAY more players that are on high level of skill than that of brawl/ or melee I guess.

Neither of those are anywhere close to the StarCraft scene, Counter Strike 1.6, and possibly/probably WarCraft3.

I think that the thread title does not really fit the original post. Like someone else said, it is more about fighting games than general gaming. Even so, it would seem to be an obvious thing that competitive gaming is on the rise. Rise of Technology/Available to more people = more people playing = more people playing games competitively, it just makes sense.

inb4peoplerespondtomeeventhoughIdon'tcare/won'tlikelyrespondback.

 

[Black Mantis]

Seriously what is this about a new Darkstalkers that was stated?

 

[SpongeJordan]

MLG is trash. Bunch of scum bags playing a game without a gap between hight to low where once a single person gains a lead they resort to campy tactics. Sound familiar?

Shooting games are not a viable spectator sport. Sports can not thrive off of a player base alone, in order to grow, they must build a spectator side. It is impossible for the viewer to get a full view of what is going on in a FPS. The camera is limited due to the nature of the games. Fighters on the other hand have the wonder of having all the action on screen at all times (except moments on MvC2 haha), as well as being aesthetically pleasing. G4 attempted to do non-fighting games as a spectator sport with Arena, and they failed, because the viewer can not comprehend what is going on to a full extent.

You have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to competitive FPSes. Please stick to 2D fighters, you seem to at least appear to know what you're talking about there.

Neither of those are anywhere close to the StarCraft scene, Counter Strike 1.6, and possibly/probably WarCraft3.

This.

 

[El Nino]

Shooting games are not a viable spectator sport. Sports can not thrive off of a player base alone, in order to grow, they must build a spectator side. It is impossible for the viewer to get a full view of what is going on in a FPS.

Well, they used to say that about MMA. Once the fight goes to the ground, it's just a couple of guys lying on top of each other. But it still has a following (and a growing base) because if you know what's going on, it isn't boring.

I would agree that fighters are more interesting to watch than FPSs, but I get the impression that all games (no matter what kind) look like a hot mess to people who don't normally play them. My brother and I were playing SSBM with some cousins, and another relative and his fiancee walked in. They couldn't comprehend what was going on on the screen. We asked them if they wanted to play, but they were like, "It's too fast! What's going on? It just looks like flashing lights!"

I think games as spectator sports in general still has a way to go if it wants to get mainstream attention. And I would apply that to all competitive games.