What I believe is that if you play dota type game without the required skill to deny creeps and units, or if you play a fast paced FPS game which requires less skill to play than some titles from 1998 you diminish the development of e-sports as sport and as a competitive field.

Well what is esport to you? To me it's people competing in video games in some kind of organized way. No matter if you like a game like LoL you got to admit that it puts the focus of many people and companies on esports. Any upcoming high-skilled fps game can build on that if it's good enough to attract people. You can't blame LoL for being successful, you can only blame companies for not creating a good fps game.

that definition suits it as well as any I guess, and by that definition you are right. Skill criteria doesn't influence anything becoming a sport or e-sport. You could have a substantial market in growing bonsai plants and get away with making it competitive.

I'm not blaming LoL, or SM, or QUAKE, or DOTA, or SC about anything, I'd much rather blame companies and corporations that endorse and criteria by which they endorse anything.

You can't blame LoL for being successful, you can only blame companies for not creating a good fps game.

Good FPS game differs by many aspects. Graphics, gameplay, netcode, backing story. There are people who might tell you that COD is the best FPS is gonna give us, or QW, or UT2004.
If you'd compare gameplay and skill level required for some of those early FPS games you cannot compare time and effort it takes to master 90 percent of things those games provide, so I don't think there is something quite revolutionary upcoming.
Good FPS games are out there, it's the companies and commercialization that are stuck on NEW is the THING frame of deduction to sell.

When does it become good to endorse a low skill game as something as an e-sport and where do you draw a line for dropping the skill requirement?

If you want to play the best game possible, you don't drop the requirements at all.

If you want to make as much money as possible, you dumb the game down as much as you can get away with.

Yeah, but it still seems weird when you realize that any half done game can be made to replace a full featured game and people involved in e-sports eat it up!

I really haven't noticed any statements by experienced and world renown players criticizing the skill level drop in such games.

Oh, there have been so many. It's just that they don't usually want to publicly say the game is shit, but privately, they do complain. I've seen SF4 hated, SC2 hated, even Q3/QL is hated from a TDM perspective.
Some people genuinely believe it's all apples and oranges... The more money people get, the more likely people are to repeat that sentiment though.

When does it become good to endorse a low skill game as something as an e-sport and where do you draw a line for dropping the skill requirement?

when the named game has basic aspects that are mandatory, like elfs and nights and caracter building option, well this last one is a must probably becouse you have to build it somewhere if you cannot do it irl yknow, anyone that thinks this is bad is too much 90's and prolly should get stoned or somethin.

btw I think rock paper and scissors is still in the green, it just doenst have enuff money innit ATM, it needs SOME MAJOR marketing reinforcement and everything is good

games should just be art. i know i'm the best anyway

And they are, playing indie games usually leaves me quite satisfied with the art and time involved in making them. even 2d ones. But I don't see this as a relevant factor in what we are saying here :D

Yes you are , and don't let anyone tell you that you're NOT!

nah, never. excuses are my best friend

esports -> lolsports.

I guess the lower the skill level the more people will play and enjoy it (buy it) and will eventually compete leading to a succesful esports game. Not sure what's going on with shootmania, I'm still thinking those events are all temporarily being propped up financially for now but will eventually collapse under the weight of it's own ludicrousness.

I'd like to support all of esports but I think for the main part disregarding Quake and Starcraft 2, It's pretty much a croc of shit. League of Legends at least has an ironically appropriate acronym but I think alot of people have the opinion that if a game is simply fun to play it then qualifies to become an official esports game, well as an esports audience member, I say fuck that and fuck you. I've never liked the term esports anyway, it's not fucking sports you lazy fucks you're sat at a fucking computer. What's that to fool yourself into thinking you're exercising while playing?

Sorry but the whole topic drives me nuts. Quake duel or any 1v1 deathmatch game is like the perfect esports game ever as far as I'm concerned, it simply cannot be topped, but do people like it play it and watch it? no because they're all braindead retards!!!!!!!!

I've never liked the term esports anyway, it's not fucking sports you lazy fucks you're sat at a fucking computer. What's that to fool yourself into thinking you're exercising while playing?

Heard of chess?

Chess isn't considered a sport, for the same reasons. I, too, dislike the term 'e-sport', it's a bit ridiculous tbh.

Chess isn't considered a sport, for the same reasons.

How so?

IIRC that's what the IOC answered to the FIDE in the 90's when officials from FIDE tried to add chess as an olympic sport "Nope, not really a sport, you're sat on a chair, you can be a top player at the age of 60" - you get the idea. I kinda share the same view, but I know what Karpov meant when he said "Chess is everything: art, science, and sport."

Hm, that may be so. The more popular opinion is still that chess, along with other popular boardgames like Go, is a sport. Doesn't matter in this discussion as much though - if throwing darts has enough of a physical component, then DeathMatch FPS'es are in the clear in this regard.

wat

Yep, whether or not chess is considered a sport depends on how you define 'sport'. And this definition varies.

I do believe actual physical exertion is implied in it's definition. A lot of things are colloquially referred to as a sport, when in fact they're simply competetive games. Chess is one of those things.

I like how what you say is actually what I posted in #33.

It's really not. You're talking about subjective definitions. I'm talking about the objective and original one.

No, I *am* talking about objective definitions. There are numerous objective definitions by now, because numerous organizations define 'sport' and do so differently.

Some of these definitions include chess, some don't. There's not that *one* defintion of sport which is universally accepted.

it's widely considered a sport anyway.

I like how what you say is actually what I posted in #33.

Disregard the term if you don't like it. But when you consider the skill needed to be in the top of the game it's as much a sport as anything.

But as far as people I've seen commenting games it flies.

It boggles me because yes I can understand you are being payed off to even promote the game and you want more people to play with you, but how in the right mind don't we already have some established standards for games and skill sets required for something to enter a competitive ring. It's been nearly 20 years of some of these games being revamped and new games trying to dumbify the originals but noone is saying it out loud.

I've never liked the term esports anyway, it's not fucking sports you lazy fucks you're sat at a fucking computer.

anything can be a sport where attendants compare their psychical traits on equal ground. in esports that trait is hand-eye coordination, the same with table tennis, its just the equal ground is provided by a computer device instead of 2 bats, a net and a table... obv it should require high level hand-eye coordination, but that causing the game being hard which you know by now doesnt get out much money of the mass of deluded teenagers.

I was quite drunk when I wrote this.

how many times did you play halo to realize it had auto aim?

on the first place "esports" never meant to be real sports like its just a buzzword that sells tickets for the competitive video gaming theatre. sc2 being the exception, other real esport games in their last minutes before fading away.

glad you decided to substitute e-sports for competitive video game theater :) much better.

Should we call the olympics a world wide competitive physical game theater?

no since real sports not watched by only sportsman, so the quality of competition not being lowered on purpose to get more people participate. you can be 60 year old alcoholic fat fuck on the brink of a hearth attack and still enjoy watching football. now think: who on earth watches LoL who not play the game? or why quake not being watched by masses? because viewers=players. in terms of korean broodwar you can talk about esports, in the western world that is the video game theatre...

I actually like this comparison, Quakecon or Dreamhack is akin to the Olympic games because of the distance between consecutive events. What we want is to make Quake more like football which is followed every week and has a season over a year, every year.

2gd started something I thought it would be good. It made sense anyways. Learn how to play series, mixed with little invitationals. I thought he would do more of quake, maybe introduce those memento_moris duel rundowns. Maybe use Iscjus tdmmrundows etc. Bring more of the quake community and show them!

Or maybe do a thing like "IEM Classics" and sit down with a player (or even over skype) and talk through a demo.

"When does it become good to endorse a low skill game as something as an e-sport and where do you draw a line for dropping the skill requirement?"

Recently I wrote a post on another thread stating my opinion on this issue. tl;dr I think there is precedent set in SC2 and DoTA2 that difficulty does not matter if there is sufficient marketing to create initial numbers and correct implementation of difficulty mitigation through social and competitive features.

I would agree to a certain extent. Time will tell how DoTa2 and LoL go against each other. As far as SC is concerned it's a well rounded game to which you pretty much nail what works to make it as appealing to noobs and the hardcore.

Where Quake is considered, I really don't know what to say. Rarely does an FPS title even contend with Quake to me. As for the platform running QL at this point, it lacks many aspects and is totally underused.
A centralized web platform brings in many limitations like how it is scaled etc.
It could be way better and could be something pushing the envelope not only in game but in web development and design. But it would require way more work on ids part and more investment. Whether the correct implementation of social and competitive features is all it takes.

If anything DoTA 2 vs LoL should be interesting to see. Which one holds out.

im not personally familiar with the dota to lol downgrade, but sc2 doesnt look all that much easier than bw (i play sc2, never played bw). i dont think either comparison is good when considering shootmania in relation to quake.

I've only read comments by SC players about SC2 being a little bit easier for play, but that would be a natural title progression.
SC doesn't have only gameplay and skill as primary bonuses for people playing it.

If you have a game in which some of most crucial moves sometimes are to deny XP gain and is considered as a skill equal to that of killing the enemy creep, and disperses your concentration not to only to know how to move around enemy but to keep track of your own automated units. A game that just drops a whole aspect of play like that is reducing the skill needed for competing in it.

I'm here wondering about this:
You've got so many players that have and have developed their skill over a long period of time. Investing time and money into their hobby, and that hobby is getting reduced for some of the most fun things in it. Beating your own limitations while defeating other competitors.
Why would people already beefed up with game skill wanna go for that.

I'm not talking about new players. Players new to a gaming field will try to have as much fun and won't get to far in a game. They need it to be easy, and to have some gratification with completing certain task, and performing skillfully to the extent the game permits. Lower is better.

I wouldn't like that. Since then I'd find skill I gathered playing my game of choice is reduced by the game itself.

sports>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>e-"sports"

i didn't read any posts here, so this might be repetitive... BUT, a game that is lower skilled to the general audience is different from a game that is lower skilled at the very highest level. I feel that LOL is just as competitive as any other eSport at the highest level, but much easily playable and fun to get into at the lower levels. where as quake, I played for 2-3 months I think without really much improvement, and constantly getting beat on by other players who were MUCH better... and there weren't very many players at my level. i finally started to get better and better and hit ok shots and learning the maps.. i mean i've played the game for an year and im still pretty damn shit at it.. on and off, but still.

Yeah quake seems to need more than your average game. more time and more practice than most FPS games out there.

You can compete in anything, including how fast you can eat a hotdog. Point here is that games are competitive, game clones have similarities with the originals, but should upgrade the game, here the upgrade is reducing the skill needed to reach top level. Meaning more people reach it, meaning more fun and good games. Sounds perfect.

What about people that are TOP level in DoTA, or Quake, or any game that has skill drop tendency? Instead of making the TOP level hard to get to and regarding the skill needed to get there as something worthwhile and honored, you diminish already developed skills.

This is just a matter of how can things develop with this trends. Either it can become more available to wider audience limiting possibilities, or it can go the other way.