Land of the Videogame Star

The New York Times has up an article today looking at the phenomenon of videogame players treated like rockstars in the forward-thinking nation of South Korea. There, where televised gaming is all the rage, the appearance of a favorite player can provoke a reaction not unlike a teeny-bopper concert. From the article: "The objects of the throng's adoration were a dozen of the nation's most famous athletes, South Korea's Derek Jeters and Peyton Mannings. But their sport is something almost unimaginable in the United States. These were professional video gamers, idolized for their mastery of the science-fiction strategy game StarCraft. With a panel of commentators at their side, protected from the throbbing crowd by a glass wall, players like Lim Yo-Hwan, Lee Yoon Yeol and Suh Ji Hoon lounged in logo-spangled track suits and oozed the laconic bravado of athletes the world over. And they were not even competing. They were gathered for the bracket selection for a coming tournament season on MBC Game, one of the country's two full-time video game television networks. And while audiences watched eagerly at home, fans lucky enough to be there in person waved hand-lettered signs like 'Go for it, Kang Min' and 'The winner will be Yo-Hwan {oheart}.' " ESPN, take note.

Comments

is it just me..

[MattyCobb]

or should 'forward thinking' and an still playing an ancient (though exellent) game not go together?

Re:is it just me..

[MSTCrow5429]

I think they're severely degarding the meaning of the phrase "forward thinking" here. Being lauded for playing a computer game is rather pathetic. Computer games are fun, but they're not real life accomplishments. Apparently, marketing is done excreting the words "forward thinking" out of every orifice, so now it's been handed down another level to those who don't even have real jobs (no, playing games for a living is unproductive and not a job).

Re:is it just me..

[ampathee]

Being lauded for playing a computer game is rather pathetic. Computer games are fun, but they're not real life accomplishments.

Well, neither is playing football, or running very fast around a track. People are lauded for all sorts of stupid reasons.

Athletes

[PresidentEnder]

My problem with this is that it isn't skill in "videogames" in general that they're displaying, per se, nor stratigic thinking. At that level of Starcraft, twitch becomes as important as it is in first person shooters, and everything else takes a back seat. I'd like to see competitive showings of games that aren't all twitch speed. I have nothing against Starcraft; I'd be hard pressed to argue for any other game as my all-time favorite. I just can't see myself watching it, any more than I watch tennis or ping-pong (not that they don't get airtime).

That said, since twitch becomes so important, they really do deserve to be called "Athletes."

Re:Athletes

[Mavric1337]

Except your ignoring the fact that you do not play Ms. Pacman versus another human. These people are competing against each other just like any other type of competitive sport, only difference being that they are behind a computer. Whether or not using a computer makes you an athelete is irrelevent, these people are still competitors.

Re:Athletes

[V Radcliffe]

"I just can't see myself watching it"

Allot of people say that here in the states, and I think that has more to do with presentation than game itself. No one has done it right to my knowledge (at least not in the US). We had that arcade game show on Nickelodeon (it wasn't too bad as a game show itself, but was far from a game centered around gaming), and Arena on G4 (which among other things edited the game play down too much for formating into the time slot, and had terrible commentators interrupting game play).

One of the key problems with bringing gaming to an audience is scope. Games aren't made with an audience in mind, but the vantage point of the player. For current games, the only real way to show the audience any real good picture of the game play is to show both sides simultaneously and a third perspective for the overall picture (which a spectator mode camera can easily accommodate, but would need to be trained to follow the action well). Dividing a TV screen isn't going to pan well with that for long periods of time, so the only real answer is live stream of the Internet, which isn't bad since the target audience would gladly welcome this medium over some premium cable network.

The best answer is to design a game with features to accommodate a larger audience, and not water down gameplay in the process. First of all, games have to be balanced out much better than they are. A lot of the games favored in tournaments are notorious for being severally unbalanced (any of the Namco fighting games, Capcom's Marvel vs. series to name a few). It isn't a particularity easy task, but not all together impossible (Virtua Fighter, Super Smash Bros, and Starcraft are good examples of well balanced games). Secondly, the game needs to have camera modes that takes away the player GUI, shows off the best angles for the stage or, follows the action, moves naturally, is non-repetitive, and overall gives the most entertaining angles for audience members on the fly. Lastly, whatever genre is chosen (real or turn based strategy, tournament fighting, first or third person shooter or even puzzle), the game has to be designed with the audience in mind. That doesn't have to mean watered down gameplay, but it does mean the game has to have presentable graphics, sound, and be interesting to get the audience pumping. There are a lot of sports out there that aren't action packed, but keep the audience enthralled with strategy and suspense (like golf), so this doesn't necessarily mean gore and fast paced action.

It'll take a completely different mindset to make people want to watch games, and I don't see that right now, but I'll put money down that when that right things comes around, no one would think they would have watched it when it hits big.

Games are transient

[Das Modell]

They've played Starcraft for a while now, but they'll stop playing eventually. They used to play Quake, but now they're playing something else, and soon they'll abandon that and play yet another new game. Compare this to chess or any of the physical sports that have been practised for centuries or millennia. Gaming is quite unlike any sport (that I can think of) because the "sport" keeps changing. It's like using tennis rackets but changing the rules and the playing area every few years. If you're competing with consoles, then even the controller keeps changing. Everything is completely transient. Can you think of a sport or similiar activity that is similiar to video gaming in this way? What about hardware and software settings - does everyone use the same gear and settings in tournaments? It's really amazing what kind of a difference your mouse can make.

Anyway, it's cool that people are competing in computer and video gaming, but I just can't take it seriously as a professional "sport" for some reason. I don't think there's really even any effort in video gaming. Anyone can do it. Those guys just sit on their asses twelve hours a day, play a video game and drink Coca-Cola. Kind of like every other hardcore gamer on the planet, but the only difference is that for some reason they're just a little better than others... with the current game, anyway. There just isn't any real effort involved. Think about how much effort someone needs to put into a sport like boxing. All the training, conditioning, repetition, injuries... if we compare video gaming with something like chess, I don't think it still qualifies. Chess is an ancient and well-established game, and being the best isn't quite as simple as being the best Counter-Strike player. It requires more effort, more intelligence, more talent, more training.

Re:Games are transient

[ElleyKitten]

I've been gaming since I was a little kid, too. I frequently participate in local game tournaments, especially Super Smash Bros. I practice several hours a week, and I run through the single player modes on very hard like it's nothing, but I'm still pretty much shit at the tournaments. I will never take first place, no matter how much I practice. And you know what? The people who do take first place don't have shit on the professional players who place in the national and international tournaments, the kind of people who are "rockstars" in Korea.

Anyone can throw a football in their backyard. Anyone can knock off a few rounds in Smash Bros. or Counterstrike or whatever. Few people have the skills that take them into the professional leagues, that make them the best of the best.

Re:Games are transient

[Lars512]

I don't think there's really even any effort in video gaming. Anyone can do it. Those guys just sit on their asses twelve hours a day, play a video game and drink Coca-Cola. Kind of like every other hardcore gamer on the planet, but the only difference is that for some reason they're just a little better than others... with the current game, anyway. There just isn't any real effort involved.

I was once told by a lecturer that if you want to be world class at something, you need to spend at least three solid hours a day on it alone, as athletes might train. Given that everyday people spend this much time on a popular game, I imagine that to be world class you need to spend 5 to 8 hours or a day playing. It's probably not good enough anymore just to play, you need to train in a group with other like minded people, determine your weaknesses, and play through scenarios which aren't exactly fun, but which make you a better player. That is a lot of work. Competition gaming is different to playing for fun.

Think about how much effort someone needs to put into a sport like boxing. All the training, conditioning, repetition, injuries... if we compare video gaming with something like chess, I don't think it still qualifies. Chess is an ancient and well-established game, and being the best isn't quite as simple as being the best Counter-Strike player. It requires more effort, more intelligence, more talent, more training.

Unlike Chess, video gaming has real injuries. If you're twitch gaming for 8 hours a day, don't believe that RSI isn't coming your way. Unlike programming, you can't stand up and take a break and stretch your arms/shoulders/neck in the middle of a competitive multiplayer game. Agreed, current video games emphasise different player characteristics than chess. We're not comparing to chess though, we're comparing to sports, and there games fit the bill.

That said, I'd love to see some new games with the simple rules, high branching factor and emergent play styles. Basically modern competitors to Chess and Go. The problem is that the uptake is never high enough to warrant serious competitions. Then again, a mixed competition, where competitors play a variety of turn-based games? That would be cool!

"Forward-Thinking"?

[Anonymous Coward]

The New York Times has up an article today looking at the phenomenon of videogame players treated like rockstars in the forward-thinking nation of South Korea.

An unhealthy obsession with video games by the South Korean youth is considered "forward-thinking"?

Re:Excellent?

[PlasticArmyMan]

Seeing as how it's an entirely opinion based system it could indeed suck ... for him. There is no correct opinion.

Timelessness

[DreadPiratePizz]

If we look at baseball for example, it's a timeless sport. People did, do, and will continue to play the game. It's a part of our culture, the great american past time. It's going to be with us for a long time. But what about Starcraft? Can it last 100 years like baseball? Or will the crowd move on to the newest RTS or Starcraft 2, perhaps leaving these players out in the cold when their skills don't carry over? There will always be a great deal of people who would go to a baseball game. In 15 years, will there even be anybody still interested in Starcraft?

I think it's great that they are able to achieve fame, but they should enjoy it while it lasts, for they will never be as remembered as baseball legends, like Babe Ruth or Jackie Robinson.

Re:No, parent was right.

[grumpyman]

Your comparison breaks down because The Beatles had talent, Bob Dylan has talent, Elvis had talent, so someone saying "Bob Dylan sucks" is perhaps trying to incite something, maybe they are simply a blowhard about what they like/dislike, or whatever but that does not remove the talent these artists have. Starcraft on the other hand just plain sucks.

This is the exact point there - you are exactly trying to incite something with absolutely no justification for your argument. At least you point out why the artists mentioned don't suck. "Yeah it fucking sucks" or "It just plain sucks" doesn't mean a whole lot. And commenting as anonymous makes the argument worth even less.