The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
I know professional gaming exists, but I also know it's quite rare. In America, they hold quite a lot of competitions where pro gamers that spend 99% of their lives simply playing games can come together to display their stuff, and I'm not talking for pocket money either.
Last year in Orlando Florida, an Unreal Tournament was held where up to 300 gamers worldwide gathered to try and get their hands on the $100,000 cash prize. Not bad for a couple hours fun eh? Okay, I'll be truthful. I watched the highlights of the competition, and from the looks of things those guys (and a number of girls) were having a pretty rough time. There were occasions where sweat was introduced and the towels were brought out, but this only happened with the amateurs. The bloke that eventually won was a true pro and looked as cool as ever on his last performance as well as most of his other performances. He went away a very happy chappy with the jackpot, and surprisingly with no bodyguards.
The tournament was huge in every sense of the word. There must have been over a thousand top notch PCs there with headphones and everything. And as I sat watching all these people playing games for money I couldn't help but feel just a little bit jealous, as in "I wish I was there!" If not just for the money, but for the sheer fun of things as well. I know that SR have their own annual gaming compo, and to be honest I prefer theirs to the one previously mentioned because it doesn't test your ability with a particular game, but several other different types. All those pro gamers that turned up in Orlando last year already knew what the competition was for and would have practiced day and night to master the game, but in SR's case you're not told what game you're going to face so the unexpectancy really shows how good a gamer you are.
Still, I'm not complaining. I prefer both forms of gaming competitions. In fact, any form would do. As long as the games there are fun to play and the money is real, who cares. These competitions as far as I know are too few. This is where I think the big leaders of the industry like Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo should chip in. They should be the ones to organise these occasions once in a while, then gradually make them more frequent so there can be more pro gaming and more pro gamers. They have enough money don't they?
The whole issue stands that the mass population of the world brush aside gaming and consider it a thing of very little importance, but that's how most of the other famous pro activities started, i.e. cricket, football etc. They were once created in a mediocre environment where people simply took part for the joy of it, now this simple emotional joy has turned into a much greater joy now that people receive incredible amounts of cash for being good at what they enjoy doing. If gaming was to become a pro activity, it would obviously need sponsors and all sorts to keep the economic side of it upright, which means it's more than likely it would have to be televised. This sounds very bizarre now, but already there are programs dedicated purely to computer games, some are competitions, some simply review/preview games, which are very strong signs for the future, that pro gaming could actually one day earn itself a spot on television.
Sony and Microsoft would be the ones to really make an impact in this because they are already huge companies for things non-gaming. If people know they're involved then they might feel less reluctant to the idea of pro gaming being on TV. It would be something truly amazing!
Although there are other careers in this world to be taken up, some more popular than others, I think professional gaming would not be one I would easily pass over. The whole idea of earning huge sums of money for doing something I thoroughly enjoy is alone overwhelming. It may not be a big thing now, but I think that as technology continues to advance, gaining the interest of more people, that we could one day be partakers of televised pro gaming in full flow.
Thanks for your time
If you can explain how chess on a computer requires less skill than chess on a real board, I'll accept that gaming will never capture an audience.
> Reload wrote:
> Scoring a goal and knocking down an opponent although it may not
> appear so, do have a limit, and it's the same with games.
>
> Sorry, but you are still wrong on this point. There are an infinate
> number of ways a ball can be kicked in a straight line (variable is
> power). There are an infinate number of angles a ball can be kicked
> in (variables run on the x, y and z axis in 3 dimensions). This is
> just how the ball moves, there is also an infinate number of ways each
> of the 22 players can move, in both direction and intensity. There
> are also the effects of external aspects such as weather and human
> judgement.
You're looking at the strict details, which can also be linked with games (strafing from left to right at whatever pace) and no one really notices. And you do need human judgement when playing a game.
> Gaming has none of this - it is a strictly controlled world as someone
> has to write the rules. It is subject to an artifical set laws of
> physics, not the real world ones. Therefore there are only a number
> of set ways anyone goal can be achieved, and these will always fall
> into a strick ranking as they are black and white.
Gaming is just as limited as most pro activities around today; that's what I've been trying to explain. Activities like Snooker and Golf also have rules and a set law of physics (gravity, speed etc), which is more evidence of pro gaming playing a big part in the future.
> Gaming won't become a spectator sport for the same reasons Monopoly or
> Cluedo won't. The games run on rails (to varying extents) and are
> sold on interactivity.
Monopoly and Cluedo? These are board games, which are clearly too restricted to be compared with real games. Gaming has lots more elements at its advantage like graphics, visual movements and so on, which demand much more skill than simply rolling a dice.
> Scoring a goal and knocking down an opponent although it may not
> appear so, do have a limit, and it's the same with games.
Sorry, but you are still wrong on this point. There are an infinate number of ways a ball can be kicked in a straight line (variable is power). There are an infinate number of angles a ball can be kicked in (variables run on the x, y and z axis in 3 dimensions). This is just how the ball moves, there is also an infinate number of ways each of the 22 players can move, in both direction and intensity. There are also the effects of external aspects such as weather and human judgement.
Gaming has none of this - it is a strictly controlled world as someone has to write the rules. It is subject to an artifical set laws of physics, not the real world ones. Therefore there are only a number of set ways anyone goal can be achieved, and these will always fall into a strick ranking as they are black and white.
Gaming won't become a spectator sport for the same reasons Monopoly or Cluedo won't. The games run on rails (to varying extents) and are sold on interactivity.
> There are professional darts players.
> There are professional snooker players.
> There are professionals in plenty of other 'sports' which require
> little in the way of physical exertion, but instead focus on
> co-ordination and technique.
>
> Is that so different to gaming?
>
> As mentioned earlier in the thread, I agree that the reason we see
> little of it is because of the limited target audience. Gaming is a
> young phenomena, with a young audience. In years to come it's likely
> that the number of people who'd be interesting in watching gaming
> championships or tournaments will increase steadily. When it will
> eventually see decent coverage it's impossible to say...
My point exactly. I'm glad someone sees eye-to-eye with my views. I just cannot see how pro gaming will not have a greater status to the little it has now.
> SR have their own gaming comps?
>
> When's that then?
It's every year I think, and you win lots of prizes including a Maxx PC.
Up to 5,000 quid in prizes. Something like that. I'm really thinking of going if it's on this year.
When's that then?
There are professional snooker players.
There are professionals in plenty of other 'sports' which require little in the way of physical exertion, but instead focus on co-ordination and technique.
Is that so different to gaming?
As mentioned earlier in the thread, I agree that the reason we see little of it is because of the limited target audience. Gaming is a young phenomena, with a young audience. In years to come it's likely that the number of people who'd be interesting in watching gaming championships or tournaments will increase steadily. When it will eventually see decent coverage it's impossible to say...
With football (or any professional activity), you get the odd boring shows as well as the really exciting ones, and it's the same with games. Sometimes you encounter really dull moments of gameplay where you're simply playing to pass boredom and at other times things are very lively and involving. I get a happy sensation from simply seeing game adverts and programs just because it's strictly related to what I enjoy doing, and it's a rarity on television.
I just think that gaming holds so much potential for public interest in which only a minority group of gamers have come to realise. It holds so much potential and yet it's still seen as such a small thing in today's world.
I want world media wide pro gaming.
Computer games have always been sold on interactivity, not spectical - that's the difference.