E-SportsPN

The Major League Gaming season of 2011 began not with a bang, but a whimper, reminding those of us who were skeptical about the future of e-sports in general that our concerns were not without merit. The slap in the face to MLG fans that was Dallas, however, ended up being the exception to the season and not the rule. Follow up events in Columbus, Anaheim, Raleigh, Orlando and Providence were not only professionally executed, but each seemed to build on the success and momentum of the one before.

By the end of the season, I had gone from being a serious critic of MLG to an active and excited subscriber. In every conceivable way the broadcast of the fall finale in Providence a few weeks ago was better than the rough attempts of late spring and early summer. It was the sort of broadcast that could make you begin to become a believer in this seemingly fledgling venture of gaming as spectator event. It engaged me on the same competitive and excited level as other sports.

The reality, though, is that E-sports is more than 15 years old now, and though it has experienced what is arguably its best year ever, it’s hard to say that it is much further along, at least in the sense of Western mainstream popularity, than it was five or ten years ago. As much as I may have come to enjoy watching e-sports, I still find it hard to imagine a reality where it can gain a mainstream audience — which is, by the way, very good news.

Frankly, I’m not sure mainstream popularity should be a goal. For anything. Ever.

If there’s one thing I can say about the “mainstream,” it’s that it usually tends to take things I like and make them much, much worse. Mainstream success only gains the attention of those who would seek to corrupt and profit, marginalizing something that was worthwhile and reducing it down to its most meaninglessly titilating parts, all in an effort to get you to buy Tide detergent and the latest square hamburger from Wendy's. Imagine for a moment an MLG broadcast with only three or four actual matches shown, and none of them broadcast in full, the action broken up every 15 minutes by Cialis and Buick ads.

The charm of e-sports in its current form is that it is entirely geared toward fan service. Regardless of the quality of the final execution, I have no doubt that the first and foremost priority for the organizers is to create an event that actual gamers want to watch. The commentators are not restrained from being “our people” and are selected as much for their credibility and knowledge in e-sports as their ability to be good on TV.

There is really only one sport I can think of that has beat the odds and walked the thin line between niche sport authenticity and the glimmer of mainstream success, and that is poker. Poker is a deeply cerebral game, where much of the action occurs in the expressions and subtle feints that usually wouldn’t seem to make for great television. One year I watched the entire World Series of Poker Main Event broadcasts on ESPN, something like a 20 hour total endeavor over several months, and what I began to realize is that if I were a real and true fan of poker I wouldn’t want to dance from table to table as the broadcast did, only catching the big all-ins and river draws. As an outsider this effort seemed like what the real thing must be, but I can imagine now being a real fan of poker and thinking that even this was a thin shadow.

The reality is that the game of poker happens on the small pots, on the pattern of pre-flop betting, on the tough folds and small bluffs for what seem like chump change. None of that makes for particularly good TV.

Even in the best possible examples, what I am left with is a broadcast that is at best vaguely close, but still marginalized because the real meat of the game doesn’t sell cars. StarCraft via something ESPN2 (much less basic cable or network television) would be meaningless: quick glimpses of the big battles and all-in cheese games, but never that slow build of intensity in a drawn out Protoss versus Protoss first game that sets up the big finish.

I’ve made the mistake before of wishing for mainstream success, and too often I have been cursed with my wish. In this case, it’s not a mistake I intend to make again. I have grown very fond of e-sports over the year, which is exactly why I hope it never goes mass-market.

Comments

I used to be actively involved in Counterstrike as an e-sport probably more than 10 years ago, which I think was the genesis of the entire genre, at least here in North America. It was fun at the time because I had enough free time on my hands to really understand Counterstrike and recognized skilled play. I really could care less anymore, for a couple of reasons:

1. The sport is always changing as new games become favored over old games. In real sports, the game/rules stay essentially unchanged, allowing for a continuity which esports simply don't have. I have never played Gears of War and am therefore not interested in watching it as an esport.

2. the sport is dominated by pubescents and teens. For whatever reason, as an older responsible adult, I just can't get into rooting for these slack-jawed juveniles who have yet to bed a babe. In addition, careers are short and seem to end as soon as you get out of college and need to get a real job.

Stain. Gone. In the first wash.
Stain stain gone, in the first first wash!

I've gotten much more into E-Sports in the past year with the quick rise of the LoL scene. I've never been much into physical sports as they have no connection with me. I've also started watching some Starcraft 2 lately. I've hardly played the game but I find it pretty interesting to just watch and learn.

Also, this seems like a good place to plug our E-Sports discussion threads for fellow enthusiasts
Starcraft 2
League of Legends

Copingsaw wrote:

1. The sport is always changing as new games become favored over old games. In real sports, the game/rules stay essentially unchanged, allowing for a continuity which esports simply don't have. I have never played Gears of War and am therefore not interested in watching it as an esport.

2. the sport is dominated by pubescents and teens. For whatever reason, as an older responsible adult, I just can't get into rooting for these slack-jawed juveniles who have yet to bed a babe. In addition, careers are short and seem to end as soon as you get out of college and need to get a real job.

Disagree on point 1. Even games I've never played I still enjoy watching. Most games you can get an idea of what's going on at any given time, and for the times where things get really confusing the shoutcasters generally help with keeping it flowing. Like I said, I've played Starcraft 2 like twice but I still enjoy watching it a lot. I don't understand all the specific details but I still know what's going on most of the time.

Agree/disagree on point 2. Most of the pro players are really hard to look up to or like. There are some that I've seen that are very respectful and mature, though, so hopefully that sort of attitude will take over more. I think that E-Sports organizations should have restrictions on the actions of the players. You'd think a sponsor would look down on their players calling 5,000 viewers various homophobic and racial slurs.

I don't think it necessarily has to be a temporary thing anymore. The reason why being a competitive player wasn't very sustainable a few years ago was due to the distance between tournaments and HAVING to win. Now with live streaming and sponsors it's much more viable as a career. Take LoL's Team Solomid for example. They sustain themselves with streaming and their website. They were placing 3rd or lower in most tournaments before just recently but still were able to afford a team house for 6 people.

FedoraMcQuaid wrote:

Agree/disagree on point 2. Most of the pro players are really hard to look up to or like. There are some that I've seen that are very respectful and mature, though, so hopefully that sort of attitude will take over more.

For both CopingSaw's point and this, I feel the urge to compare professional athletes.

wordsmythe wrote:
FedoraMcQuaid wrote:

Agree/disagree on point 2. Most of the pro players are really hard to look up to or like. There are some that I've seen that are very respectful and mature, though, so hopefully that sort of attitude will take over more.

For both CopingSaw's point and this, I feel the urge to compare professional athletes.

I'm unfamiliar with pro atheletes but I'm pretty sure if they called somebody a fa**ot or ni**er on national television they would go through hell for it.

I was specifically thinking that most pro athletes are younger than most goodjers, and that most seem to make pretty terrible role models.

I also think part of it depends on the game. I'd wager that the professional StarCraft players conduct themselves differently than the professional Call of Duty players. Not passing a judgment one way or the other, but it seems to be a different kind of player altogether.

If you'd told me last year that I'd be watching professional Starcraft 2 matches this year (with genuine interest) I would have scoffed heavily. As it is, I spent far too much time watching the GSL instead of doing my dissertation :). I'd definitely go to a barcraft event if there was ever one near me (which is extremely unlikely, at least for the near future).

Elysium wrote:

I also think part of it depends on the game. I'd wager that the professional StarCraft players conduct themselves differently than the professional Call of Duty players. Not passing a judgment one way or the other, but it seems to be a different kind of player altogether.

Well yeah, because SC and CoD are two very different games. To compare that to pro athletes, like wordy mentioned, you could say the same for pro NBA players and pro tennis players.

To the topic, I've only watched a couple of e-sport matches (SC1 several years ago). They were mildly interesting, I guess. For me to be interested enough to watch other people play video games competitively, I would first have to be very interested in the game itself. That way I would actually understand what is happening, as well as actually have the desire to see the game being played by people much better than me.

Another problem that some types of video games (particularly FPS) have with being a successful e-sport is that there is just too much going on in different places at the same time. One reason that traditional sports are so successful as a spectator event is because there is a single, primary focal point to devote your attention to - the ball (or puck).

<3 Starcraft 2

I've been super impressed with how much things have improved in just a year.

MLG Dallas was horrendous compared to all of the MLG events that have followed, so I'm glad you stuck with it. I've stopped trying to keep up with all of the worthwhile SC2 action throughout the year because there are simply too many good events to watch. I do a lot more cherry picking now, catching the best of various tournament matches on VODS and watching particular events live, like MLG. It's certainly a nice problem to have.

FedoraMcQuaid wrote:
wordsmythe wrote:
FedoraMcQuaid wrote:

Agree/disagree on point 2. Most of the pro players are really hard to look up to or like. There are some that I've seen that are very respectful and mature, though, so hopefully that sort of attitude will take over more.

For both CopingSaw's point and this, I feel the urge to compare professional athletes.

I'm unfamiliar with pro atheletes but I'm pretty sure if they called somebody a fa**ot or ni**er on national television they would go through hell for it.

They certainly get away with it in Britain.

Copingsaw wrote:

I used to be actively involved in Counterstrike as an e-sport probably more than 10 years ago, which I think was the genesis of the entire genre, at least here in North America. It was fun at the time because I had enough free time on my hands to really understand Counterstrike and recognized skilled play. I really could care less anymore, for a couple of reasons:

1. The sport is always changing as new games become favored over old games. In real sports, the game/rules stay essentially unchanged, allowing for a continuity which esports simply don't have. I have never played Gears of War and am therefore not interested in watching it as an esport.

Interestingly that you should mention CS since it hasn't changed much in the last decade at all -- at least the competitive CS 1.6. But then even if we include CS:S, it's evolved at a sloth pace compared to most games. CS:GO is mostly the same game with modern technology. Unfortunately it's not as spectator-friendly as a top-down RTS.

2. the sport is dominated by pubescents and teens. For whatever reason, as an older responsible adult, I just can't get into rooting for these slack-jawed juveniles who have yet to bed a babe. In addition, careers are short and seem to end as soon as you get out of college and need to get a real job.

This sounds EXACTLY like a lot of athletic sports. (you know, outside of the stereotype you threw in there)

It's fine if you don't like it. You don't have to come up with silly reasons to. As for myself, I get great enjoyment out of it, more so than the days I watched football. I think my favorite thing is how personable some of these commentators are. (eg. Day9) These are self-made geek heroes.

And I know MLG has a big marketing budget and all, but you should give some better tournaments a look. MLG was a joke until they got SC2, and it's a cruel world that they get the most attention these days. BTW, Dreamhack was amazing, and definitely bested the MLG event, imo. NASL is sadly way too restricted for free users. (worse than GSL) They need better promotion.

To a bigger point, re: mainstream success.
Thank God for the Internet!
Really, this whole bit about connecting everyone in the world really makes it easy to find your niche.

MLG: I watched a few games thanks to the mention in the podcast a while back, I don't know enough about Starcraft to really get it, although I was happy to see that terrain and the timing and placement of attacks actually matters. It's really a strategy game! I still can't click that fast, of course. I own a bunch of RTS's so I hope to train myself to think almost that fast.
The Halo guys died too often so the camera wasn't on the action as much as it should have been.

Elysium wrote:

I also think part of it depends on the game. I'd wager that the professional StarCraft players conduct themselves differently than the professional Call of Duty players. Not passing a judgment one way or the other, but it seems to be a different kind of player altogether.

There is a really interesting editorial by UltraDavid about Esports and the Fighting Game Community that people are talking about these days. He touches a little bit on this.

http://shoryuken.com/2011/12/12/guest-editorial-momentum-matters-a-historical-perspective-on-the-fgc-and-esports-communities-2/

PseudoKnight wrote:

MLG was a joke until they got SC2

MLG has been the staple of competitive Halo for years. They've carried games from Smash Brothers to Tekken to COD and more. Any live event you attend is a blast and gives the gaming fans what they want. Every event I've attended has been that way. To discredit all of that is not fair.

Copingsaw:

Amusingly enough, Korean SC2 pros get mad girl fans. Like totally groupie fangirls. I imagine it's the money and the fame more than it is the actual activity. Calvinball is both a mental and highly physically demanding sport, but I can't imagine many girls going for a pro Calvinball player.

I'd also like to piggyback on BNice's point. Though I've been writing about the gaming community [communities] for a couple years now, I've been an active Fighting Game Community advocate.

It's really interesting to see someone on the fringe viewing the the MLG/IPL as something vying for popularity. When in the fighting game community there are prominent members fighting for less exposure ... or at least this kind of exposure.

Much like my views on how journalism covers the gaming community [moreso] as an industry, RATHER than a community. The pros and cons of something like the fighting game community [FGC] being absorbed into something like the MLG would seemingly cause a similar, isolating, effect.

I still find it difficult to watch streamed eSports [versus actually playing]. There's no attachment. Well, there is, just not something I find as interesting as I do in the FGC.

Just my measly two cents,
Isaiah

BishopRS wrote:
PseudoKnight wrote:

MLG was a joke until they got SC2

MLG has been the staple of competitive Halo for years. They've carried games from Smash Brothers to Tekken to COD and more. Any live event you attend is a blast and gives the gaming fans what they want. Every event I've attended has been that way. To discredit all of that is not fair.

I agree with your point, but I only started caring with the addition of SC2. I think there are some games that lend themselves to being watched while others less so. I think SC2 is a great game to watch. Even though I played a little LoL I haven't been able to get into it as much. Other games like halo I find it tough to even follow the action that is going on.

The great thing about live events though is getting swept away with the crowd. The super bowl is like that for me. I don't even like football and I love to watch the super bowl.

I don't see MLG making it to our television sets anytime soon, but I will tune in and watch from time to time. I even coughed up the 30 bucks for this last season.

PseudoKnight wrote:

Interestingly that you should mention CS since it hasn't changed much in the last decade at all -- at least the competitive CS 1.6. But then even if we include CS:S, it's evolved at a sloth pace compared to most games. CS:GO is mostly the same game with modern technology. Unfortunately it's not as spectator-friendly as a top-down RTS.

Your right but my point was that CS, Quake, etc. are no longer premier esports. Since I don't follow it anymore maybe I'm misinformed but my impression is that other games have taken over and that most games may enjoy a run of a few years as an esport and then something else takes over. It seems to me that this sort of dynamic makes it very difficult to establish a long-term fan base.

PseudoKnight wrote:

This sounds EXACTLY like a lot of athletic sports. (you know, outside of the stereotype you threw in there)

It's fine if you don't like it. You don't have to come up with silly reasons to. As for myself, I get great enjoyment out of it, more so than the days I watched football. I think my favorite thing is how personable some of these commentators are. (eg. Day9) These are self-made geek heroes.

The point that got lost in my juvenile banter is that the popularity of most sports is directly tied to the superstars of the sport. In esports, this is very hard to establish since players are so young and careers seem so short. I think a lot of this is tied to the fact that being an esport superstar requires a lifestyle that is perhaps even more difficult to maintain once your in your 20's than a traditional sports star.

I do think the shifting nature of the flavour of the month 'esport' game is potentially an impediment to greater acceptance. Starcraft 2 has already been around a while in videogame terms, and will have (probably) another 3 years worth of legs before the entire trilogy is released. Then it has the potential to last for years after that, probably until being replaced by Starcraft 3.

I also think that strategy games are better for the spectator than shooters. An FPS is frantic, confusing and nauseating to watch. A strategy game is far more like a team sport to the casual viewer. Tactical play is far more visible, Starcraft is a game all about timing and pressure, much like rugby or soccer. Shooters are too chaotic.

Your comments about how the coverage of poker jumped around to the visually exciting moments while missing the deep strategy of the game speaks to one of my biggest peeves about the way American football is covered. The camera angles used in the broadcasts serve to conceal what is going on rather than illuminate it. You can't see receiver routes developing. You can't really tell how the lines are moving. And more than anything else, sports broadcasts completely fail to instruct. Jargon is tossed around and not explained. I actually play a game of spotting when an announcer says something and the exact opposite thing immediately happens on the field. And I know relatively little about the rules, formations, etc. I suspect I would dearly love a program that analyzed football games the way Day[9], for instance, looks at Starcraft games.

How does this reflect on e-sports? Hard to say, but I suspect while they are much more niche, they are also much, much more approachable than the so-called mainstream sports. Imagine sitting down in front of a tennis match for the first time and trying to decipher what the love, 15, 30, 40, deuce, advantage, break point, etc. all means, and that's one of the simplest sports out there. Imagine a world where you can download analysis of all the games of all the teams in your chosen division, or just the last five games of your team's opponent of the week to watch before the live streamed event. E-sports are already pretty much there.

The computer as a medium is still extremely young and quickly evolving. At some point games will come along that have a longer lifetime. We are already seeing games like counter strike and starcraft existing well beyond the "normal" cycle of game playing. Now we are seeing the first games designed with the spectator/analysis experience considered in the design rather than just the player(s). I doubt a computer game will reach the spectator level of football in my lifetime, but you never know.

I've seen that picture before but I still don't know when it was taken. Makes me want to watch the game that they were casting at the time. Is there a video I could watch?

consciousness wrote:

Your comments about how the coverage of poker jumped around to the visually exciting moments while missing the deep strategy of the game speaks to one of my biggest peeves about the way American football is covered. The camera angles used in the broadcasts serve to conceal what is going on rather than illuminate it. You can't see receiver routes developing. You can't really tell how the lines are moving. And more than anything else, sports broadcasts completely fail to instruct. Jargon is tossed around and not explained. I actually play a game of spotting when an announcer says something and the exact opposite thing immediately happens on the field. And I know relatively little about the rules, formations, etc. I suspect I would dearly love a program that analyzed football games the way Day[9], for instance, looks at Starcraft games.

There is usually some of that on ESPN's NFL Live, which airs at 4pm weekdays. They will do a little more breakdown of the previous weekend's game film. There's also a show they used to show, but I'm not sure if they do, called NFL Matchup on Saturdays I think? It would show film from the exciting teams for the next day and some of the schemes they might try to run. A lot more of the overhead or behind-the-QB camera angles, with the highlight markers on the screen diagramming routes and coverages. Very entertaining and educational.

If there’s one thing I can say about the “mainstream,” it’s that it usually tends to take things I like and make them much, much worse. Mainstream success only gains the attention of those who would seek to corrupt and profit, marginalizing something that was worthwhile and reducing it down to its most meaninglessly titilating parts, all in an effort to get you to buy Tide detergent and the latest square hamburger from Wendy's. Imagine for a moment an MLG broadcast with only three or four actual matches shown, and none of them broadcast in full, the action broken up every 15 minutes by Cialis and Buick ads.

Soccer manages to still be broadcast in full uninterrupted 45 minute segments. Just having an "ad" for something on the edge of the screen is a nice compromise in getting ad revenue and still having the full sport shown uninterrupted. Maybe that's they model they should follow?

Fantastic article. Since MLG began focusing on Starcraft 2 I've been hoping for more mainstream success, but hadn't really been thinking through all the side effects. Truly we should be careful what we wish for. Thanks Elysium!

MrDeVil909 wrote:

I also think that strategy games are better for the spectator than shooters. An FPS is frantic, confusing and nauseating to watch. A strategy game is far more like a team sport to the casual viewer. Tactical play is far more visible, Starcraft is a game all about timing and pressure, much like rugby or soccer. Shooters are too chaotic.

I've not been too deep into FPS spectating, but I have some of the same concerns. Seems to me you could do some cool things with a floating spectator cam there-by cutting out a lot of the nauseating first-person views, but I haven't seen to much of this done. Does this functionality exist / do casters use it?

Dax wrote:

Seems to me you could do some cool things with a floating spectator cam there-by cutting out a lot of the nauseating first-person views, but I haven't seen to much of this done. Does this functionality exist / do casters use it?

No one has done it even close to satisfactorily yet. I keep waiting for someone to find a way to make team based FPS games watchable but it just hasn't happened.

1v1 games like Quake worked ok because you had fewer viewpoints to worry about. Once you learned why they were moving the way they were and what they were trying to accomplish it wasn't super hard to follow, despite the speed.

But once you make it team based and put five people on each team following the events of even a single round gets really messy.

Section 8 Prejudice has a spectator mode, actually I thought all PC shooters had them.
The game works exponentially better with teamwork too.

I saw this and thought it was interesting and true. Also, one reason I don't watch esports is because they are playing for money. I don't want to see the winner standing on stage with a giant check. I want to be fooled that they are playing for pride or to prove they are the best. All that goes out the window when the big check shows up.

Edit: That could be the reason I don't watch golf.

I really love Idea Channel.