A very powerful and well written article has gone up on Destructoid.com. The article covers the growth of e-sports and compares fighting games to certain sports that share some similarities with them. It's very thorough and is a must read for any kind of gamer. Here's a snip from the article and hit the link to get to it.
Most fighting games are rather fast-paced and visceral as well. Games like Mortal Kombat, Super Street Fighter IV: Arcade Edition, Marvel vs Capcom 3, BlazBlue: Continuum Shift II, and Tekken 6 are very colorful, feature full-contact battles, and have their own unique feel to them despite being in the same genre. However, this does bring up a point that cannot be ignored about the nature of fighting games: both the arena and the fighters themselves are a product. When I say the fighters are a product, I am, of course, referring to the characters in the game who have preset moves and stats. They have a set amount to their abilities that cannot be changed via exercise or training.
This creates a phenomenon not seen in other sports. The competitors must work around the virtual constraints of their chosen avatar. Unlike a conventional sport where players must maintain their physical condition, fighting game players must assume the identity of their character and use strategy to win. That's not to say that sports don't employ strategy, rather fighting games use strategy exclusively. The training a fighting game player undergoes is less about physical condition and more about timing to get combos down correctly and testing out the tools their character has. This is also enhanced by the fact that fighting games nowadays have new iterations/patches very frequently, meaning that gameplay and strategy is kept fresh due to game mechanic and character changes.
I've thought a lot about this point, in fact. Some observations.
-As an average player playing Street Fighter, often times I feel like I'm just trying to unlock the full potential of my character, to get as good with them as the top players. Essentially I'm trying to work my way up to the correct way to play the character.
- This is where MvC has a slight advantage. The 3v3 system for characters means that very few people in the world use the same exact team as me, and maybe only 1 or 2 use them in the same order, this at least allows me to feel as if I have a unique team and can discover things unique to my play experience.
- I'm hoping at some point Capcom makes a fighter where you can choose the look, basic move set, and advanced skill set of your character, so we can attempt to create something more unique. Of course balance would be a huge pain.
This is something my mom would read in very a small column in the weekly paper.
@1 you rarely see a 45 min starcraft (talking about the original starcraft here) match unless it is TvT or extraordinary situations. Fighting games are definitely easier to follow, but a RTS game can get really hype and interesting, a starcraft match between top players (Bisu, Jaedong, Flash etc) is always action packed!
I can't say I enjoy one type more than the other, fighting games and RTS games are both aaaaaaawwwweeeesssoooommmmeee!!
There is also a not-so-well written or powerful counter-blot/article on destructoid posted a day later or so. Called "esports: really?" The writer of the counter-article is not as experienced, though.
http://www.destructoid.com/esports-re...
However, the thought of the debate still stands. It all comes down to definition and semantics really. For some, "Sports" is immediately preceded by the verb "play". As in "do you play sports?" Baseball and Football come to mind. Well that view certainly rules out Martial Arts and Gymnastics from what I've seen; nobody has said "I play gymnastics" or "I play Kung fu". Yes there are competitions but all I hear is "I do kung fu" or "I train gymnastics".
Martial Arts and Gymnastics, just as 2 examples, are both something you train in (like piano) as an art form, and something you can compete in (like football). But then we get to video games where both may apply as well. Furthermore, we can say we "play" video games just like we "play" football. Unlike Dance, where we have to specify in a conversation if we're talking about a "participating in dance competition" or a "participating in a dance performance", we always PLAY video games and football.
Oh wait, but gymnastics is included in the Olympic "Games", and we do PLAY "games" right? Well, poo...
So what really counts as a SPORT? Anyways, my point is who cares and that this semantic crap is too confusing and unspecified in our culture to start naming things as other things. I am one of the many who feel that the "eSports" tag is kind of lame. It's as if the term "sports" was already set in stone, when it's obviously not (chess? yes or no?).
And remember, not all "video games" encompass human-human competition! I'll enjoy my Zelda and Portal in a room by myself, yup. So we can't use the term "video games" purely for competitive gaming purposes either. "Purely" being the key word.
If video games like SF and Starcraft become as big and mainstream as Football in 60 years, it might be called many things: a "sport", a "game", a "video game", a "competition", etc. But that won't change the identity of what it is. Another spectator/competitive friendly formula that evolves with time. How big? Well, that's up to the individual formula. Most Fighting games look like they're on a growing track for sure.
starcraft 2 has an amazing pace.. usually last about 8 to 11 minutes long.. not like the original.. really fast pasced and action packed..
I think there is one major point missing that will never allow fighting games to make it big in sports-
Casual viewers.
Think of how many people watch American Football who really don't understand the rules. However, the game (Like most sports) is built in a way that makes it easy to understand AND to see who's winning, when they score, etc. It's easy for the casual viewer who knows nothing about the sport, or the players who are playing, to celebrate with their teams accomplishments. The viewer is given something that, in essence, to them is meaningless and turns it into a competition, and pride, and joy.
It's much more difficult to gain that from a fighting game. ESPECIALLY a game like marvel. Who's in the lead? Oh, did they just make a good move? Who's getting hit right now?
Now there's one sport that penetrated that barrier and that's poker. But poker is played at such a slow pace that people could piece together that someones had was good, when someone paired cards....I mean, cards is an ancient game, so everyone knows it. But poker is viewed lopsidedly by men.....and you know you need the women to really make your sport take off. Which is why poker has kind of died off lately.
I just think fighting games and "eSports" in general has a bigger mountain to climb before we're watching it on ESPN...if ever. Although I would love it.
@9
What?
Marvel is one of the only fighting games that don't work to a casual viewer. But Any other fighting game practically is a match made in heaven for the casual or hardcore spectator. 2 health bars, 2 characters, one screen shows all, 2/3 rounds and 2/3 games for SF at least, then slight variations for other fighting games. Whether it's "FINISH HIM" in Mortal Kombat or someone knocked out of the screen and "exploding" in Smash Bros, it's very easy to tell who is in the lead or who is doing good.
Poker is slow, which does not equate to viewer-friendly or to those who don't play the game by the week. Not a good comparison. Fighters are fast, real-time, visually pleasing with a very active live crowd and good commentary, which boosts that edge-of-your-seat feeling for those watching at home.
One of the biggest barriers honestly is communicating to non-players how technical, adaptable, skilled, and smart these competitors have to be at high-level play, and I feel the commentary helps that notion for not just outsiders but for even people like you and me, when the commentators point out bits and pieces of what a player was thinking or what he should be going for.
If the aspect of skill and intelligence is not conveyed to unfamiliar viewers, they will continue to think that us fans are infatuated with the spamming of fireballs, mashing, or randomness, or cool characters on screen depicting violence (when we really know that the visual depiction of a cool fight is just the icing on the cake of a great tactical game).
I think that's my point though king of sharks, now that you've taken it a little further.
A casual viewer doesn't understand the underlying intelligence and strategy that a street fighter is putting into the game, JUST like they don't understand the ridiculous amount of strategy that goes into play choices etc on the football field.
There is one big difference though. It is still possible to see the amazing feats of athleticism that has to be performed to execute the strategy laid out by the coach. With street fighter there has to be excellent execution as well, but it's execution that you don't see, and only truly appreciate as a player yourself.
A 2 minute fighting game match is definitey better than watching a 45 minute Starcraft match thats for sure. Well I guess it depends on the game and players, but definitely easier to follow and way more hype!