Competitive BC2

[Kylee!]

Re: Competitive BC2

Kyle, CS is not the only competitively good FPS on the market. By far not the only one.

It's what I'm familiar with - I've said that before, but from what I've seen it is either the best, or one of the best.

Requirements are-
1. The game has to be ridiculously fun
1A. The game has to come from a developer, in a franchise which has a significant following both competitively aswell as casually
1B. Game has to be well balanced, in every aspect, to tiniest of details
2. The game has to support a wide range of tweakability to suit server/game settings for competitive needs
3. Spectator view + demo recording (first person demo recording)
4. SourceTV kind of function to broadcast games to a wide audience with minimum hassle

If a game meets each and every one of these requirements, its going to be a success in pubs aswell as in competition. Success in both creates a spectator sport.

Sadly this is not where the game development is moving these days.

Agree'd.

And what does my stat say about the way I play? I don't ask sarcastically; I want a honest opinion of what you think my playstyle is based on my stats alone.

Cos one thing I'm certain is I don't play these games to show off my stats; I don't have a practice account where I try the new stuff, I do it all on my main; so it accurately reflects all the decitions I take during gameplay. Yet I will never pad it in any way, my goal is winning the round even if my team of randoms is bad, stats be damned.

Yes, but it adds up. I don't have a practice account... lol... Look to Lunatiks post for my rebuttle here.

Now on to the other thing: yes, we can even start a league about booger throwing, it would be competitive and it might be successful. the real question is should we start one?

Blah blah blah... subjectiveness... this applies to anything. Do you really want me to compare the aspects of booger throwing and FPS games?

What I meant with my posts, and if I wasn't clear I'm sorry; is that in the current state of affairs; FPS gaming is nowhere near being remotely interesting to a mainstream audience. Us gamers can appreciate the subtle nuances of a well placed headshot, but even on slow motion using battlerecorders it isn't interesting or awesome in the least from a mainstream audience point of view.

Do you realize how many people have played MW2 over the last year? Gaming IS mainstream, especially among males our age.

Regarding sport equipment: in most sports, gear is standarized and regulated; it just depends on budget. But go ahead and tell me every team in basketball has different height loops, different materials for the ball's rubber, so on and so forth. F1 racing recently started cutting down on the team's freedom to spend wildly on technology; in order to close the gap between Ferrari and all the other teams; what you would call a "nerf" on their cars.
This is where I got the idea of a regulated PC configuration hardware FOR LEAGUES. Same hardware, OS and clock speeds for everybody competing in any given event, not for pubbing.

The hardware is the game itself... not your computer parts. You don't need to regulate hardware... it doesn't have that much of an affect. It doesn't define your skill. Sure it can help you out, but think of it this way...

I recently went to the Dominican Republic to lend a helping hand, and I got the opportunity to play some pick up baseball with some of the kids in the village. Some of those kids were seriously legitimate ballplayers... but what did they have to play with - some didn't have gloves, they made their own balls sometimes, the outfield had garbage on it... but regardless - some of them were damn good. Now what happens if one of them gets a lucky break and gets scouted by a Major League baseball team?

All of a sudden hes flown on a nice plane to the United States and he's got top gear, nice fields, and good players all around him with similar skill levels. Then, based on how good of a player he is - if he can compete, and win in this new arena, he'll eventually find his way to the Majors and a multi-million dollar yearly salary.

Do you see what I'm getting at? You can have the skills... without the gear, but when you get to the point where you do have better gear, it'll just be that much of an awesome benefit and just make you better. I can be playing CSS on a pentium 4 workhorse from the early 00's with an performance configuration and barely be getting 40 FPS ... but still kick some ***. I somehow get myself on Complexity Gaming Syndicate and then all of a sudden I have the latest gear and super clean gameplay to make me even better - and then compete at a high level with everyone else.

There are multiple scenarios that could stem from this... but I hope you see my point.

What are you talking about? RTS require way more skill than your average FPS. Anyone with enough practice can have a good shot in a game. RTS is different because you have to be really smart at what you do. You have to have strategies far more complex than your typical FPS. It takes more thinking to play an RTS than FPS. RTS is way more than just pointing and clicking...gosh how dumb and naive are you....

Playing in over 20 seasons for CS i can tell you that it is probably the only good competitively good FPS on the market. It has lasted so long...the only other game that has lasted really long is QUAKE. You judge a good competitive game by how long it lasts and that makes CS one of the only good competitive games on the market. I mean no other game can compare...BF2 did not last that long neither did CoD4 and neither will BC2. I mean there may be some competitive games that are alright...but if they do not last..you can't say they were good competitive games.

Anyway back on topic, yeah if those issues are resolved in this game then the game might last for competition a couple seasons. If not then it will die quickly. Just need dice to support the game fully and not just half *** their support like they have almost every other game they have created.

You mis-read Chris's post I think... lol.

[Chris_Redfield]

Re: Competitive BC2

What are you talking about? RTS require way more skill than your average FPS. Anyone with enough practice can have a good shot in a game. RTS is different because you have to be really smart at what you do.

You know the oppositions credentials are pulled out of their rear when they make absolutely false claims. You say you have 20 seasons in CS, and you come out and claim that theres no thinking required in an FPS game? Youre either lying about your "CS veterancy", or you have no idea about FPS games or RTS games for that matter. Because I play both genres, extensively. When it comes to FPS games, you can pretty easily close the aiming gap between a top player and a good one with methodical practice. But you will not match situational awareness, thinking, reactionary situational assessment and decisionmaking by being a slightly better shot, and thats what separates a good player from a worse one, because when the mechanical skill matches, its all about the mindgames.

RTS require a lot more physical input, and the PvP gameplay is different, but claiming that one is worse than the other with some BS claims which prove you know jack****, backed with vague "credentials" means youre just wasting everyones time. If your claims were true, RTS players would make the worlds best FPS gamers. The winning formula for an FPS progamer is the same as for an RTS progamer. You wouldnt have a clue what it takes to become at either genres.

You have to have strategies far more complex than your typical FPS. It takes more thinking to play an RTS than FPS. RTS is way more than just pointing and clicking...gosh how dumb and naive are you....

Yeah, Im the dumb and naive one. You just misread the context of that particular sentence and fully raged out on me. And what the hell are you talking about "strategies"? Do you even know about *any* of the said strategies? You can easily draw parallels between a standard Starcraft build order, specific unit micromanagement skills needed to utilize said build orders advantages and specific map strats, their counters and specific strategies/tactics which utilize the advantages of said map strats (it goes on and on to certain locations in maps, best defensive positions with tactical advantages, et cetera). These genres, from a winning teams/persons perspective, have a very similar thought process. Obviously you have jack **** of a clue about Starcraft professional competition, and you probably dont have a clue about competitive gaming in the FPS genre either.

Playing in over 20 seasons for CS i can tell you that it is probably the only good competitively good FPS on the market.

Competition goes where the money is at. Quake, Painkiller, UT2004, COD4 (still very much alive in Europe, where even BF2 lived for 2 years after it died off in NA competitive scene) have all been very good competitive games. CS is by far not the most profitable competitive game there is, which is how competitive professional gamers would rate the games aswell among the obvious chriterias. And playing over 20 seasons in CS you should at least portray some sense of authority on this matter and not come off as a blatant CS fanboy who played with a clan for a few scrims. What makes a good competitive game is not its longetivity. Longetivity comes from certain specific features. Were talking about the same thing, except you dont know what the **** youre talking about.

It has lasted so long...the only other game that has lasted really long is QUAKE. You judge a good competitive game by how long it lasts and that makes CS one of the only good competitive games on the market. I mean no other game can compare...BF2 did not last that long neither did CoD4 and neither will BC2. I mean there may be some competitive games that are alright...but if they do not last..you can't say they were good competitive games.

Actually, by this definition CS is pretty much at the bottom of the list because Pong and Tetris have been played for a much longer time than this skilless garbage (thats sarcasm, just in case). CS has been active for a long time because it has met all of the chriterias which a good competitive and public game needs to meet in order to keep up to date and stay fresh. If COD4 had a CODTV and a bit more hype, it would have taken over CS-s position. Claiming that its a terrible competitive game because its competitive lifecycle in North America is nearing its end shows ignorance as the game is very much alive competitively in EU.

[imported_0Zero]

Re: Competitive BC2

You're probably right kylee lol..but this ***** chris is annoying as ****. He doesn't know much about competitive gaming yet he comes on and talks as if he is gods gift to competitive gaming lol. He's most likely going to rage me after this post but oh well...

[Cicchetti]

Re: Competitive BC2

I can't express how much this game is not ready for competitive gaming.

[Lordsethonan]

Re: Competitive BC2

I think with each passing generation we will get closer to it being similar to South Korea. Will be a long time if ever for it to become just like South Korea though. It's popularity will obviously be concentrated to the larger urban areas.

There are companies that want to make sure they are the first to score big and they are mostly the big television companies like Comcast.

---------- Post added at 08:19 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:11 PM ----------



I think it shows that he scores a lot more points per minute than you do. This could mean you possibly do one or more if these things: camp a lot ; die a lot; not coordinated enough; understand all the different ways to score; don't q spot and the list goes on. I'm not saying you do any of these things because I would obviously have to watch you play. The main thing is you simply do not score as many points per minute and we all know having a high kdr like he does doesn't automatically give you a high score.

Yes I infered that with my question but it's off topic and I'm genuinely curious as to what Kylee thinks my playstyle is. You get a much clearer picture with detailed weapons and gadget stats; but you'd still have to see the other person play in a real match to assess if the info matches the notion. I'm not looking for validation tough; without dismissing anybody in here, there is so much stats alone can't tell you. I've only played with Crunch a couple of times, and I could say he's a lot more restrained than I am.

I didn't ask to start a debate regarding my own stats, I asked sincerely what he thinks is my playstyle or what he can infer from my statpage without playing with me before.

Now on topic again; somebody else mentioned this too; for FPS in specific to be mainstream like Starcraft is mainstream and big in Korea, but world wide; you'd need a new paradigm of FPS, one universally appealing to all countries, with a new gamemode. Starcraft is easier to watch and understand for a general audience that might not be completely in the know about strategies; but an audience can easily start recognizing obvious strategies like amassing certain units, even if they don't know the names.
Fighting games are also easier to understand for audience that aren't gamers; it's pixeleated boxing in the end, andthe rules are clear: 2 out of 3 rounds, 3 out of 5, or 5 out of 7; there is knockout and/or Ring out; time out and highest lifebar wins.

FPS as they are in conquest or deatmatch are not so clearly defined; it can go any way very quickly; and there is no real way to tell who is doing best at first glance unless you constantly monitor the K/D, wich is in constant flux. Conquest in BF style could be an event, but not a main event; game modes like rush or capture the flag could work better since they are more like a football or soccer match, and kills are not a really important part of them, they bacome a mean, not an end in itself.

And Kylee, for gaming to truly become mainstream you'd have to get people to say things more on less on this level "oh that was just like a last minute flag cap", like videogaming was once upon a time "playing nintendo". It's more popular now than ever before yes, but it still hasn't topped the magic 80's age. There are a lot more gamers today than 20 years ago, but we are still nerdy or geeky; we are not mainstream even if The Big Bang theory airs on prime time, we are not THERE yet. Games are still "kiddie stuff" and Nintendo is working hard to keep it like that. Microsoft is attracting the fratboys and Sony has no clue really nowadays. Facebook games are more mainstream than FPS, and the thing most likely someone who is not into gaming will think if you tell them "I play games on my computer at home".

[LunaTiK TunaLiK]

Re: Competitive BC2

The media idolize South Korean gamers.

Chris makes valid points and points I would think would be obvious to anyone.

I do not think one fps game has to make it, although it would be easier for the "sport" to grow if there was. Painkiller has had the largest FPS gaming purse to date. These people will compete in multiple games not just 1, you don't have to have 1 single popular game but it would help if there was a game that appealed to everyone.

You seriously think this is hard follow? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pF169CJMe54

unless you constantly monitor the K/D, wich is in constant flux.

When this statement is true about a competition isn't usually considered to be a great game? Switch out kdr with points and you should see the obvious. Yeah some people want to see there team blowout the other but in reality a game that the scoring is going back and forth or a game with a huge come back are always the best. This can happen in FPS gaming just like any sport. So many of you are being biased with no real logic.
-----------------------------

Now lets take a step back and look at casual gaming at home where you are competing with your friends. If you played games with a bunch of your friends did you not notice that someone always stood out as being the best? If you started playing a game at the same time you never stood a chance. You'd have to get your little gaming books memorize all the codes and have them on a cheat sheet so you can memorize and perform your combos to beat a guy that has never played the game. Now you want to come on some forums and say FPS takes "less skill". I don't hold one genre over another but some of you people are obviously being biased.

I've been sick for a few days and the meds/lack of sleep are really getting to me for those who witnessed this post as it originally was.

[Chris_Redfield]

Re: Competitive BC2

FPS as they are in conquest or deatmatch are not so clearly defined; it can go any way very quickly; and there is no real way to tell who is doing best at first glance unless you constantly monitor the K/D, wich is in constant flux. Conquest in BF style could be an event, but not a main event; game modes like rush or capture the flag could work better since they are more like a football or soccer match, and kills are not a really important part of them, they bacome a mean, not an end in itself.

I disagree. Check the archived video casts of Battlefield 2 Conquest matches (video.google.com), CS and COD4 SnD matches (www.pwnage.tv) and Quake CTF/1vs1 casts (heck, Youtube). They are all very easy to follow. If you know how an FPS game plays out, you can watch the casts with a high dose of excitement even if you dont really know all the rules or what it takes to get the win. It depends a lot on the commentators and the "video man". Starcraft is actually one of the most difficult e-sports titles to watch because of its hectic nature on screen, strategies and tactics people dont understand and which have to be reminded and told them constantly. Unless youre a very, very good Starcraft player, most of it is going to go right past you (2 hatch mutas, fastexpand, 14CC, 9-pool, overpool, Bisu-build, et cetera). In contrast, FPS is very straightforward because of how the game is developed, because of the genre. In essense, its easier for the viewer to see the players actions in the FPS genre, than it is in the RTS´.

Why Starcraft is popular? It has very little to do with the game. Its a selfsustaining hypemachine. Television hypes up games, people hype it further by talking about it, television creates stars, people want to become like the stars and start playing it, in turn watching the games. Cycle repeats. It could have been Counter Strike, for all we know.

---------- Post added at 06:42 AM ---------- Previous post was at 06:40 AM ----------

You're probably right kylee lol..but this ***** chris is annoying as ****. He doesn't know much about competitive gaming yet he comes on and talks as if he is gods gift to competitive gaming lol. He's most likely going to rage me after this post but oh well...

He isnt "probably right", he *is* right. You misread the post completely, and I thought I had it covered by quoting the important part to make sure everyone got the sarcasm.

[LunaTiK TunaLiK]

Re: Competitive BC2

One of the most important points the people claiming RTS utilizes more "skill" and fps games are point and click obviously don't understand how much those RTS games rely on being quick to win. When you get into professional RTS games being quick is as important as your strategy. If you lose time between each input you are obviously going to be slower and at a huge disadvantage just the way you would be at shooting someone in an fps game.

[Chris_Redfield]

Re: Competitive BC2

One of the most important points the people claiming RTS utilizes more "skill" and fps games are point and click obviously don't understand how much those RTS games rely on being quick to win. When you get into professional RTS games being quick is as important as your strategy. If you lose time between each input you are obviously going to be slower and at a huge disadvantage just the way you would be at shooting someone in an fps game.

Yeah, thats what Id call "mechanical skill". There are a few exceptions of top tier progamers having a significantly lower Actions Per Minute than their competitors but most of the time people with 250+ APM are significantly superior than people with below 150. But the essence still remains, people "point and click" in both genres. And while they do it differently with different purpose, the success is still measurable and you can still arrange people in an order based on how well they perform. Not to mention for the simple fact that some people are better than others (for obvious reasons).

Thinking, situational awareness, mechanical skill. These are all existent in both genres, which is why calling FPS unfit for competition is ridiculous.

When it comes to the frequency of command inputs (clicking and pointing), I believe good RTS games are above FPS games, though. But not as much as saying one is "skilless" and other is not.

[imported_0Zero]

Re: Competitive BC2

---------- Post added at 06:42 AM ---------- Previous post was at 06:40 AM ----------
He isnt "probably right", he *is* right. You misread the post completely, and I thought I had it covered by quoting the important part to make sure everyone got the sarcasm.

Yeah i know im sorry i misread your post and just raged on you lol. I know RTS are point and click and see who can do it the fastest. But there is so much more to it like strategy and counters trategies and stuff like that.

[Chris_Redfield]

Re: Competitive BC2

Yeah i know im sorry i misread your post and just raged on you lol. I know RTS are point and click and see who can do it the fastest. But there is so much more to it like strategy and counters trategies and stuff like that.

Of course there is. But the same applies to the FPS genre aswell. There are a lot of similarities between competitive Starcraft and competitive COD4, for example. Its actually very interesting once you start connecting both games individual aspects.

[LunaTiK TunaLiK]

Re: Competitive BC2

Yeah i know im sorry i misread your post and just raged on you lol. I know RTS are point and click and see who can do it the fastest. But there is so much more to it like strategy and counters trategies and stuff like that.

Monitoring your opponent during game play and adapting accordingly is surely your best weapon. This considers the game is some what balanced and there isn't a cookie cutter strat that dominates.

[Kylee!]

Re: Competitive BC2

Yes I infered that with my question but it's off topic and I'm genuinely curious as to what Kylee thinks my playstyle is. You get a much clearer picture with detailed weapons and gadget stats; but you'd still have to see the other person play in a real match to assess if the info matches the notion. I'm not looking for validation tough; without dismissing anybody in here, there is so much stats alone can't tell you. I've only played with Crunch a couple of times, and I could say he's a lot more restrained than I am.

I didn't ask to start a debate regarding my own stats, I asked sincerely what he thinks is my playstyle or what he can infer from my statpage without playing with me before.

Ok, so we're suddenly going back to this because I got you with the DR example? Allright good.

This has been explained already, if you were good - it would show, end of story. Sure stats on paper are not the end all, but when my SPM (and I don't consider myself that awesome...) is twice yours, its easy to make assumptions. Score is a pretty accurate measure of playstyle, teamwork, and etc.

[[Expletive Deleted]]

Re: Competitive BC2

Ok, so we're suddenly going back to this because I got you with the DR example? Allright good.

This has been explained already, if you were good - it would show, end of story. Sure stats on paper are not the end all, but when my SPM (and I don't consider myself that awesome...) is twice yours, its easy to make assumptions. Score is a pretty accurate measure of playstyle, teamwork, and etc.

Do you run a server?

[Kylee!]

Re: Competitive BC2

Do you run a server?

Nope. I just play the game when I have some free time... I don't really even play with a team or a clan or anything.