Apreche really wants humans to be computers, but we knew that already.
Most people know from the time they're 5 years old that there is cheating which is against the rules, and cheating which is simply understood by consensus to be cheating, on an ad hoc basis.
Apreche really wants humans to be computers, but we knew that already.
Most people know from the time they're 5 years old that there is cheating which is against the rules, and cheating which is simply understood by consensus to be cheating, on an ad hoc basis.
Apreche really wants humans to be computers, but we knew that already.
Most people know from the time they're 5 years old that there is cheating which is against the rules, and cheating which is simply understood by consensus to be cheating, on an ad hoc basis.
It's not a fallacy when you're talking about the meanings of words, because popular usage is the greatest factor in determining them. If most people define cheating the way muppet proposes, then that's what "cheating" means.
Either way, while I agree more with Scott's definition of "cheating", arguing about the meaning of that particular word is silly, and misses the more important avenue of discussion.
The point in the larger argument is that while professional gaming isn't about to explode like crazy in the US, it is growing quite rapidly. However, the major thing in its way is not that people are concerned about exploits or cheating. It's simply that the majority of our population are old and don't care about or understand video games, let alone complex ones.
The point in the larger argument is that while professional gaming isn't about to explode like crazy in the US, it is growing quite rapidly. However, the major thing in its way is not that people are concerned about exploits or cheating. It's simply that the majority of our population are old and don't care about or understand video games, let alone complex ones.
And that's your opinion. I think it's a bit of each, plus a few more.
I'm sorry but competitive Quake just is not as interesting from a spectator standpoint as physical sports (and I don't even watch sports.) Play Quake? Sure! Watch other people play quake? I don't even watch Youtube videos of INTERESTING things that happen in games, why am I gonna watch a whole match?
Also, I agree that Quake is not an especially good spectator sport. However, this has little bearing on the value of other video games as spectator sports.
There are lots of differences between South Korea and the United States beyond MLG. You can't draw a direct comparison. Why haven't "the old and ignorant" stagnated the industry there as well as here? Video games are no older there than they are here.
The point in the larger argument is that while professional gaming isn't about to explode like crazy in the US, it is growing quite rapidly. However, the major thing in its way is not that people are concerned about exploits or cheating. It's simply that the majority of our population are old and don't care about or understand video games, let alone complex ones.
I would also add that the internet has caused a major fragmentation of culture, where the savvy, internet generation is able to tune into precisely what interests them, rather than what the 6 basic TV channels of yesteryear broadcast.
To me, this means that MLG will never reach the same level of popularity as the MLB or NFL on a national level (there may be more people tuning into an event globally, but it will still be a paltry fraction of a nation). As a result, I think the games chosen as MLG competitions are only going to increase in complexity. There's no reason to appeal to the casual observer - show games that involve a ton of decision making and strategy, and convince fans of the game that watching the video will help them get better (in addition to being entertaining to them, naturally).
Professional gaming is much different in Asian countries. In Asia, professional gamers are similar to professional athletes here. They are hired and paid yearly salaries by private sponsors, sign contracts, get traded around, have endorsement deals, etc. They practice at "training facilities" full time.
Whereas in Western culture, most "professional" gamers play them more like a hobby and it is near impossible to make a living doing it. This is why currently in the Dota 2 internationals the top teams right now are all Chinese.
It's kind of like that scene in 300. Western countries send their students, fast food workers, etc to play and China sends their professional gamers.
There are lots of differences between South Korea and the United States beyond MLG. You can't draw a direct comparison. Why haven't "the old and ignorant" stagnated the industry there as well as here? Video games are no older there than they are here.
Yeah, I don't like Scott's phrasing in terms of "old and ignorant". A better way to put it would be to say that any current lack of popularity in MLG is mostly due to the overall culture, and has little to do with any problems with exploits or "cheating".
I would also add that the internet has caused a major fragmentation of culture, where the savvy, internet generation is able to tune into precisely what interests them, rather than what the 6 basic TV channels of yesteryear broadcast.
To me, this means that MLG will never reach the same level of popularity as the MLB or NFL on a national level (there may be more people tuning into an event globally, but it will still be a paltry fraction of a nation). As a result, I think the games chosen as MLG competitions are only going to increase in complexity. There's no reason to appeal to the casual observer - show games that involve a ton of decision making and strategy, and convince fans of the game that watching the video will help them get better (in addition to being entertaining to them, naturally).
Actually, I don't think that's true. I think that a significant proportion of MLG viewers don't really play the games they're watching at anything but a casual level.
Scott's right. That's not to say that poor sportsmanship should be reveled in, but sportsmanship is different from cheating.
When you start regulating behavior like that in the way you regulate cheating, you create issues.
I think the problem is also that few of us are agreeing on the definition of cheating. We're arguing rung 4 on the ladder without making sure we're even on stable footing. Scott's is more or less concrete, but I feel like Muppet hasn't really given us something to work with. If you were writing a dictionary, how would you define cheating, Muppet?
My whole point is that "cheating" is an amorphous concept that can't readily be constrained by definition. It's defined, but not well. Cheating is either black and white, in the case of rule breaking, or it's intuited by like-minded members of a community, where "community" can range from the participants of a single instance of a single game to an entire fan base.
You can scream that letter-of-the-law adherence to the rules is not technically cheating, and you're right, but you're not going to get much of the community to agree with you, which is the point.
I don't think that's true. I think that a significant proportion of MLG viewers don't really play the games they're watching at anything but a casual level.
If you mean casually competitive (as in they play to win and want to get better but don't practice enough to become more than mediocre) then this is definitely true.
You couldn't call me anything more than a casual SSFIV:AE or SCII player, but I know enough about both to recognize, understand and enjoy high level play because I was a casually competitive player.
My whole point is that "cheating" is an amorphous concept that can't readily be constrained by definition. It's defined, but not well. Cheating is either black and white, in the case of rule breaking, or it's intuited by like-minded members of a community, where "community" can range from the participants of a single instance of a single game to an entire fan base.
You can scream that letter-of-the-law adherence to the rules is not technically cheating, and you're right, but you're not going to get much of the community to agree with you, which is the point.
If cheating is so amorphous a concept that you can't define it well enough for a debate, then basically anything could be defined as cheating, and the debate is pointless. At a certain point you have to be able to constrain a word to mean a specific, definable thing. Otherwise, it's so open-ended as to be pointless.
No, because we weren't debating the definition of cheating, we were debating what the holdups are for MLG becoming on par with the NFL or similar. You can enter the assertion "cheating may be an issue but the definition of cheating is fluid within the/a/all communit(y|ies)" without much trouble.
And now, I have reached the end of my wick for today. So declare me wrong and move on. :-)
I would also add that the internet has caused a major fragmentation of culture, where the savvy, internet generation is able to tune into precisely what interests them, rather than what the 6 basic TV channels of yesteryear broadcast.
To me, this means that MLG will never reach the same level of popularity as the MLB or NFL on a national level (there may be more people tuning into an event globally, but it will still be a paltry fraction of a nation). As a result, I think the games chosen as MLG competitions are only going to increase in complexity. There's no reason to appeal to the casual observer - show games that involve a ton of decision making and strategy, and convince fans of the game that watching the video will help them get better (in addition to being entertaining to them, naturally).
Actually, I don't think that's true. I think that a significant proportion of MLG viewers don't really play the games they're watching at anything but a casual level.
Different definitions of casual. By casual, I meant someone who doesn't participate in the event beyond observing competitions. I never play football, but I'll gladly watch a game. I think MLG players will always be people who play the game more often than they watch the sport.
So, Valve is yet again using Dota 2 to experiment with ways to get money from people. Last year at the International -tournament, they monetized showing your support for a team, this year they seem to monetize the act of making predictions about the tournament.
They revealed a thing called The International Interactive Compendium. The info on what that actually is, is kinda vague, but it seems to have stuff like predicting who's gonna win, and what heroes will be picked and making your own dream team. Also it somehow gives you a chance to win Dota 2 hats. Also interesting part of that is that quarter of it's prize gets added to the prize pool of the tournament.
Because the info available is kinda vague I can't say I'm interested of this, but I'm intrigued.
You know, out of the people I know who watch DOTA matches on a regular basis, I could see almost all of them getting REALLY into a DOTA fantasy League.
Comments
Most people know from the time they're 5 years old that there is cheating which is against the rules, and cheating which is simply understood by consensus to be cheating, on an ad hoc basis.
Logical fallacy argumentum ad populum.
Either way, while I agree more with Scott's definition of "cheating", arguing about the meaning of that particular word is silly, and misses the more important avenue of discussion.
I'm sorry but competitive Quake just is not as interesting from a spectator standpoint as physical sports (and I don't even watch sports.) Play Quake? Sure! Watch other people play quake? I don't even watch Youtube videos of INTERESTING things that happen in games, why am I gonna watch a whole match?
Also, I agree that Quake is not an especially good spectator sport. However, this has little bearing on the value of other video games as spectator sports.
To me, this means that MLG will never reach the same level of popularity as the MLB or NFL on a national level (there may be more people tuning into an event globally, but it will still be a paltry fraction of a nation). As a result, I think the games chosen as MLG competitions are only going to increase in complexity. There's no reason to appeal to the casual observer - show games that involve a ton of decision making and strategy, and convince fans of the game that watching the video will help them get better (in addition to being entertaining to them, naturally).
Whereas in Western culture, most "professional" gamers play them more like a hobby and it is near impossible to make a living doing it. This is why currently in the Dota 2 internationals the top teams right now are all Chinese.
It's kind of like that scene in 300. Western countries send their students, fast food workers, etc to play and China sends their professional gamers.
When you start regulating behavior like that in the way you regulate cheating, you create issues.
I think the problem is also that few of us are agreeing on the definition of cheating. We're arguing rung 4 on the ladder without making sure we're even on stable footing. Scott's is more or less concrete, but I feel like Muppet hasn't really given us something to work with. If you were writing a dictionary, how would you define cheating, Muppet?
You can scream that letter-of-the-law adherence to the rules is not technically cheating, and you're right, but you're not going to get much of the community to agree with you, which is the point.
You couldn't call me anything more than a casual SSFIV:AE or SCII player, but I know enough about both to recognize, understand and enjoy high level play because I was a casually competitive player.
And now, I have reached the end of my wick for today. So declare me wrong and move on. :-)
They revealed a thing called The International Interactive Compendium. The info on what that actually is, is kinda vague, but it seems to have stuff like predicting who's gonna win, and what heroes will be picked and making your own dream team. Also it somehow gives you a chance to win Dota 2 hats. Also interesting part of that is that quarter of it's prize gets added to the prize pool of the tournament.
Because the info available is kinda vague I can't say I'm interested of this, but I'm intrigued.