What defines an Esport? (self posted) - General

[media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZ6ZDQl2Rw4[/media] This is basically my response to the trend of every game trying to jump on the Esports bandwagon. Even Evolve and Battleborn tried jumping on. Opinions and criticisms are welcome since others might think differently.

Good video, well thought out points, only thing I will say is there was a bit where a clip of Zangief in SFV spiked the audio uncomfortably, but aside from that I thoroughly enjoyed your video and subscribed.

what happened to your mic at like 4:30

Your sport analogy with the high number of players on at a time went into a different direction than what I thought it was going to be. I thought that sports could get away with having so many players because you just have to focus on the ball, not because you can see everything. With BF4, there is no ball to focus on, there is too much going on.

[QUOTE=Dr.C;51842994]Your sport analogy with the high number of players on at a time went into a different direction than what I thought it was going to be. I thought that sports could get away with having so many players because you just have to focus on the ball, not because you can see everything. With BF4, there is no ball to focus on, there is too much going on.[/QUOTE] That's a good point I didn't think about. I think capture the flag could be seen as similar. [QUOTE=Burnyhands;51842839]Good video, well thought out points, only thing I will say is there was a bit where a clip of Zangief in SFV spiked the audio uncomfortably, but aside from that I thoroughly enjoyed your video and subscribed.[/QUOTE] Yeah, I realized that only after I uploaded it. I will try to fix the audio a bit and do a reupload.

What defines an eSport? Same thing that defines any professional sport. Sponsors, publicity, and lodsofemone

This is your least controversial video yet outside of saying Overwatch isn't an Esport which I know would probably offend a few people.

[QUOTE=Metist;51843300]This is your least controversial video yet outside of saying Overwatch isn't an Esport which I know would probably offend a few people.[/QUOTE] You are right. I should have specifically insulted league or dota and say they weren't "True" Esports or something. That would have gotten nice discussion :v:

At least nowadays, coaches are very common for nearly all competitive scenes with actual money in them. Also I know overwatch's competetive balance isn't particuarly good- I don't disagree with you- but you're... pretty wrong on it competitively. Especially on the viable heroes. For being good esport games, arena fps and rts in the esports scene (and in general) are pretty much dead. Esports has a lot more to do with money and advertising/publicity than the actual game. I agree it's pretty much dumb marketing for flavor of the month games/yearly releases though. This is more of an issue of nomenclature, but to me it sounds like you're describing what you think makes a good [I]competetive [/I]game and why, not what makes an esport :v:

[QUOTE=Jammymanrock;51843421] For being good esport games, arena fps and rts in the esports scene are pretty much dead. [/QUOTE] I disagree. Quake is still played by a dedicated fanbase and so is Starcraft. Something doesn't become or not become a sport based on it's popularity. In fact I am willing to wager in 10 years people will still be playing quake and starcraft competitively because their fans are that hardcore about it.

[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;51843489]I disagree. Quake is still played by a dedicated fanbase and so is Starcraft. Something doesn't become or not become a sport based on it's popularity. In fact I am willing to wager in 10 years people will still be playing quake and starcraft competitively because their fans are that hardcore about it.[/QUOTE] I think it's a rather nebulous definition. There's a lot of games that have a dedicated competitive base despite low popularity, just without the history that quake and starcraft has. How old does a game have to be with a competitive playerbase to be an esport? Does it have to have a certain level of mechanical depth? What about a game like blade symphony, that despite it's tiny playercount had a tournament scene for ~3 years until the game lost enough active players to die out? Sorry if I'm being too harsh, it's a nicely edited video essay, but the point seems kinda vague :v: BTW cypher, cooller and rapha off the top of my head are all top level quake pros that play overwatch now. just fyi

[QUOTE=Jammymanrock;51843518]I think it's a rather nebulous definition. There's a lot of games that have a dedicated competitive base despite low popularity, just without the history that quake and starcraft has. How old does a game have to be with a competitive playerbase to be an esport? Does it have to have a certain level of mechanical depth? What about a game like blade symphony, that despite it's tiny playercount had a tournament scene for ~3 years until the game lost enough active players to die out?[/QUOTE] Age doesn't necessarily matter either but it's definitely a good sign if a game has managed to have a competitive playerbase for 10 years+. That is a good sign that a game has the depth and is interesting enough to be a good Esport. As I explained in the video Depth is important. Technically you can do anything competitively but it wont really be meaningful if say you were just trying to randomly flip coins and see who gets heads the most. That long term player base, depth, balance and ability for a player to get better is all very important.

[QUOTE=Jammymanrock;51843421] Also I know overwatch's competetive balance isn't particuarly good- I don't disagree with you- but you're... pretty wrong on it competitively. Especially on the viable heroes.[/quote] I see competitive Overwatch sort of the same way I see competitive TF2. It's a great game to play casually but breaks down in competitive. In Tf2 competitive spy is basically just used as an invisible scout a lot of the time to tell enemy positions and a lot of classes are played in ways valve didn't specifically design for. This is true in a lot of ways for Overwatch as well. [quote] For being good esport games, arena fps and rts in the esports scene (and in general) are pretty much dead.[/QUOTE] This is only true if you think an Esport needs mainstream popularity to count as one. I am certain smash 4 is played by magnitudes more people than melee but melee doesn't stop being an esport because of that.

[QUOTE=Metist;51845078]I see competitive Overwatch sort of the same way I see competitive TF2. It's a great game to play casually but breaks down in competitive. [/QUOTE] This is also true for Brawl. A lot of people who play it casually really don't understand why someone would still play melee even though brawl had so much more content.