• Join Us |
  • |
  • Sign in with:

History Repeating

by Maarten Goldstein, Jan 08, 2001 7:27am PST
Related Topics – Games: PC

There is an article titled The Killer App Of The 19th Century on the Adrenaline Vault, saying the fact that the mainstream press is pretty much ignoring the big Quake3 tournaments is actually history repeating itself, as baseball players in 1855 had the same problem. No people back then thought you could make a living at it, and sports wasn't a worthy pastime at all.

In only a few decades, those words would seem ludicrous, as thousands of people in the growing cities of the United States, particularly New York, became sports' fans. Soon rural communities, with their round-the-clock work and distances between people, were giving way around the world to tightly packed metropolises whose citizens worked regular hours, and sometimes even had time at the end of the day for recreation. The effect would be to add a dimension to human life that had never been seen before, as sports of all kinds were invented, played, and gradually codified.
Of course there is still this big discussion over whether or not competitive gaming is actually a sport, but the article is fairly interesting.


Read all the News


Comments

34 Threads | 63 Comments
  • #61
    Refresh Thread
    By: hi-c x
    Reply
    Heh. Gotta love Avault. This reminds me of that piece they once ran that quoted Samuel Johnson, noted 18th century PC game authority. Wtf does Avault think it is, the History Channel of gaming? But no: ignoring Q3 tournaments isn't a bit at all like ignoring other sports at their inception.

    In fact, it's more a case of been there, done that. Q1 tourneys got plenty of mainstream press coverage back in the day. And you know what? Nobody outside of this subculture has been calling up newspapers ever since demanding, "More FPS coverage!"

    This is a little hard for the money men to figure out, since they're paying for higher and higher purses. Bad move. Do they imagine people watch football or baseball because there's money in it? The opposite is true: people watch those sports in spite of the high salaries, which they despise and blame for nearly ruining the games. FPS gaming is sort of coming at it in reverse, saying essentially, "Look, you don't even like this comparatively unpopular style of gaming, which never sells anywhere near what dorky games sell. But look how big the prize money is!"

    I think the lack of a Thresh factor has something to do with it, too. Thresh made good copy; he was smart and likable, and there was a Ferrari.... The current champ, Fatality, to put it mildly, isn't likely to generate much of a cult following.

    Then there is the sense that deathmatch has been left behind by Counter Strike-style military action. And if that's not bad enough, there's the inescapable fact that Q3 isn't even the most-played FPS -- it's tied for a distant second with Unreal Tournament in measurable popularity. That doesn't help it in the real world.

    But the biggest reason of all is probably the most obvious: video games are more fun to play than to watch. Sitting still and watching others play is akin to having your older brother hog the Nintendo all night; it doesn't exactly flip your cookie. :)
    Jan 08, 2001 11:17pm PST
  • #46
    Refresh Thread
    By: CC-Tapper x
    Reply
    I don't think it's fair to bash Angel because this article appeared on his website. It only stands to reason they would be keenly interested in such questions.

    That being said, I do think the article misses a couple of key points.

    First, baseball became popular, because you could buy a relatively inexpensive ticket, go to the ballpark, and have a hot dog, drink a beer or three, and holler, along with the crowd, for the "home team". And most importantly - you could actually "see" the game (the whole game).

    In Q3, watching the matches is difficult at best, and impossible at worst. Attending a LAN is an expensive proposition unless it happens in your city, and the real attraction in attending is mostly to hang out with friends from the net. QTV just sucks mostly. Crashing servers, the inability to look where *you* want to look, and difficulty finding a server to connect to, all result in a mostly annoying experience. You gotta *really* want to see the match to put up with the bother.

    Second - In Baseball, along with every single other popular sport, a spectator can see the entire game at a glance - one need merely to turn your head, or the camera, as the case may be.

    But in Q3, or in fact most any competitive computer game you can name - it is impossible to see the "big picture". Even worse, views "through the eyes" of one of the competitors are often confusing or downright boring, and certainly do not lend themselves participation by people unfamiliar with the game - in other words - the very people likely to be watching on TV.

    For computer gaming to have any real chance at success on a professional level, beyond the novelty value of a brief mention, it needs to have a clear and compelling spectator viewpoint, or software designed to render the game in a way appropriate for an audience, and that presents the games in such a way that uninformed spectators can understand the action, and appreciate the skill of the players easily.

    The bottom line is, that computer gaming *is* exciting - if you are a player yourself (and if you like the particular game, have some interest in the outcome, etc.) But without the ability for the uninitiated to see and/or be able to appreciate the skills of the competitors playing - the elusive and desirable "spectator sport" classification will continue to elude us.
    Jan 08, 2001 12:18pm PST

    Thread Truncated. Click to see all 2 replies.

  • #19
    Refresh Thread
    By: LEX LETHAL x
    Reply
    I agree that it is a professional competition. However, there are still challenges that must be overcome, the most recent being the 'Blue Bug' and other problems that have yet to be brought out into the light of day. The fact that this bug was a known problem, that directly affects scoring and game outcomes means that, in my mind, as of right now, the competitive outcomes have resulted are in question.

    Hitscan and prediction issues must be resolved to a reasonable degree of satisfaction. Knowing that an issue exists, and having a human referee determine the outcome, when the software developers determined months ago that the problem infact does exist is a serious problem. Either the ref didn't know about the so-called 'Blue Bug', which he should have, or the ref did know about the bug, but made a call to override the bug in favor of his own judgement.

    Clearly in the future, events of this nature should be reviewed and labled as what they are - a software OR a hardware limitation. Dealing with this in a fast-paced time-limited tourney is the wrong time to make snap decisions.

    Thanks!

    -Lex
    Jan 08, 2001 8:35am PST