The Extremes of Internet Gaming In South Korea

Rick Zeman writes "CNN has an expose showing that in South Korea, the world's most wired country, Internet gaming breeds two extremes: elite 'athletes' who earn fame and six figures, and addicts who literally play until they die and tells the stories of players on both sides of that real-life divide. From the article: 'The first thing you notice about the professional video game players are their fingers — spindly creatures that seem to flail about at their own will, banging at the computer keyboard with such frequency and ferocity that to visit their live-in training centers in South Korea is to be treated to a maddening drum roll of clicks and clacks.'"

Comments

Typical of their culture

[buk110]

"To impress his father, he wanted to be the world's best." Swap out gaming with piano and would the media be so concerned?

Re:Typical of their culture

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

I'm guessing that, at very least, the pianist would get a more... pleasant... description of his likely-equally-active freakish horror fingers.

"The first thing you notice about the professional video game players are their fingers -- spindly creatures that seem to flail about at their own will, banging at the computer keyboard with such frequency and ferocity that to visit their live-in training centers in South Korea is to be treated to a maddening drum roll of clicks and clacks."

Seriously guys? Are you going to mention their horrid, bulbous, glassy eyes, or their vile inhuman mandibles next?

Re:Typical of their culture

[RogueyWon]

Well... up to a point.

There are skills involved in competitive Starcraft play that will be transferable to other games. If you were a world-class Starcraft player at the point when Starcraft 2 was released and you decided to move to the new platform, then you'd be at a pretty big advantage compared to somebody like me, who played Starcraft for a few months at release, for the campaign and a bit of LAN multiplayer then moved onto other things.

I've known a few people over the years who have gotten deeply into the hardcore competitive gaming scene (though I've never had the talent, time or inclination to go that way myself). They are an incredibly conservative bunch of people when it comes to their games. These are not people who will pick up the latest releases and mess around with them for fun. They have their game, they play it, and they do not want it to change. They might speculate about when the sequel is coming out, but unless it's nothing more than a direct graphical uplift of the original, then it's highly possible that they'll angrily reject a sequel when it does appear.

I remember when Quake 3 appeared. Here was a game that had been designed by id for - and with the co-operation of - players from the hardcore QuakeWorld and Quake 2 scenes. And yet I also remember that, at release, most of the hardcore community from those games refused to make the transition for as long as possible (or in some cases, ever). I've always got the feeling that id were a bit bruised by Quake 3's reception - certainly, it was the last time they put multiplayer at the heart of their game design.

Why the ultra-conservatism? In part, it's driven by ego and a desire to protect their position. These people are among a tiny elite in a game and their self-esteem and (if they've gone professional) their income depends on remaining part of that scene. Change - particularly transition to a new game - represents a risk to that. What if they fall behind the curve?

But there's also a broader point, which gets to the difference between professional video gaming and more traditional games and sports. Now, some sports do evolve over time - but they do so slowly. In some extreme cases such as Chess and Go, while the tactics people use at the top levels have evolved, the rules of the games themselves have been constant for centuries. Video games, on the other hand, are a fast evolving medium. Technological advances don't just mean better graphics - they make it practical to realise entirely new types of game. And at the same time, games are developed to make a profit, so they will evolve to chase whatever the marketing men believe is the new big-selling trend (currently modern military shooters with objective-based competitive multiplayer).

I suspect that what will happen in the end is that a couple of defined "standard" professional-level video games will emerge, with largely fixed game mechanics. Quite plausibly, this will mean one core RTS, one core FPS and one core MOBA. These will receive occasional graphical uplifts to reflect technological advances, but gameplay mechanics, balance etc will become much more locked than they are now. So if, hypothetically, Starcraft should become that RTS "standard", the hitpoints of a Zergling would basically become set more or less in stone, perhaps being reviewed in 20 years time. Meanwhile, "normal" commercial games development will separate further away from these games, continuing more or less as it is at the moment. So Blizzard might put out Starcrafts 3, 4 and 5, with new storyline, units and balance changes, but with no expectation of these becoming the new hardcore professional standard.

Is any of the above an argument that there is any worth in becoming a professional gamer, other than the money you can make from it during the fairly brief window where you can stay at the top? Absolutely not. But then, I'd say that the same goes for professional sports.

Re:Typical of their culture

[DreadPiratePizz]

The difference is that if you are a player in say, the NFL, you will make a ton of money, and after 8-12 years retire and draw a pension from the NFL. Bench warmers make 150K+ a year, so if you're even halfway decent you will be making good money.

But in E-Sports, the 150K figure is for the very best. The very best are making less than a bench warmer in the NFL. Being the very best means practicing in your team house for 10-12 hours per day. Many top Starcraft players have needed surgery for RSI injuries.So even if you're the best in the world, you're going to get 10 years at best. You think 150K a year is a lot, but after your career is over what do you do? What skills do you have? All you can do is play a video game. You're hostage to it. Former top players have gone on to become coaches, and this is the only real progression left. If you are near the middle or bottom of the pack, your situation is even worse since you have less money.

This is not a long term career like traditional professional sports is.

It's Called Entertainment

[eldavojohn]

Virtuoso violinist practices night and day to perfect their art and everybody applauds their performance at Carnegie Hall. Talented athlete spends night and day on the field, even alters their diet to tune their body for better athletic performance and everyone applauds their super bowl pass.

From a utilitarian standpoint, I don't see a whole lot of different between these entertainers and the entertainers in this story. They are sacrificing everything and taking one risky gamble to do what they love for a little chunk of change that only the 0.01% enjoy. Why does society apply stigmas to people trying to do what they love? If you're going to rip on pro-gamers about job security, get ready to rip on pro-entertainers. Comedian jokes get old much faster than Starcraft I. A professional football players body lasts far shorter than the run of Starcraft I. Music seems to only enjoy popularity for about two weeks considering what you hear on popular radio stations. Hell, Olympic gymnasts are left with hip problems if their career lasts too long. Everything fades, even computer languages. If that's not true of your field, you're in a dead and boring field anyway. Even framing houses has become a different ballgame since I did it as a kid.

Instead of lecturing them about transient skills, you'd be better off pointing off that putting all your eggs in this basket means that their is a very high chance you're going to live the life of the starving artist. There's a small percentage you could rake in massive endorsements and if they do, they should take a page from broke athletes and musicians who squandered that money the instant they got it. Save that money. Save it. Spend money like you're making $50k a year instead of a million a year because that income is fleeting.

People playing themselves to death is no different than that stupid high school athlete shooting up steroids in the locker room. Both are terrible actions that should be criticized but there is a point where you just have to let people do what they want if they truly love what they do.

Having your life taking over with something like becoming a scientist or learning everything there is to know about repairing internal combustion engines will last you for your whole life, probably.

Are you really saying that the useful science today is the same useful science that came out when Starcraft I came out? Everyone has to keep learning to stay relevant. Even entertainers. Or they grow old and become has-beens, the same applies to Starcraft players.

Re:"blah" as atheletes

[dcw3]

Oh, you mean to discount things like drag racing, or skeet shooting, or maybe golf?

20 million kids are eaten every second

[Rogerborg]

By bats.

Nice think-of-the-kids scare piece, it'll play well with Tammy Teaparty. But couldn't he at least have worked in some sinister Ender's Game reference and asked how America's cyber-soldiery will fare on the battlefield against these little yellow freak-children? (Note: All Korea is North Korea to Tammy Teaparty).