100% chance for a Cypher vs random finals is not worth $11m.

wat

No competition in video games is worth millions. Sorry if I offended any nerds with dreams.

True, but those stuff that valve sell to boost prize money is wroth their money. Imagine if Quake casuals could buy fireball rockets, red lg-beam and q4 grenades where a big portion of the sales went to tournaments. There would surely be more casuals AND the competitive scene would benefit from it.

Too late to do it now i think. They should have done it around QL release.

Gun skins, Like CS:G0 would be ideal.

Why draw an arbitrary conclusion like that? What justifies a game being worth whatever amount of dollars?

If we had 11 million dollar tournaments, Cypher wouldn't be winning everything, there'd be more new blood.

Fatal1ty would have stayed in the game and dominated everyone.

And if we talk skill then the FGC should be in the spotlight.

No one is saying only one game gets the showcase.

inb4 some pimp is caught with a team of poor malnourished Korean kids locked in his basement training 23 hours a day.

People have done a lot worse for a lot less!

Absolutely. Those figures are silly though, Half a Million for coming 8th? They're lucky I don't have a fucking basement to lure some asian kids into. Tbh if quake had these kind of prizes I wouldn't support it, I don't think any gamer should be earning that kind of money for sitting on his ass playing games all day.

'Tis insane.

Then again, it's insane how much people get for physical sports. Footballers kick a ball and run around for £300K a week.

Running or sitting at a computer; negligible really. The end result is the same; entertainment. I.e. eyes seeing adverts.

Superior health and promotion of healthy activities vs spinal disfiguration, obesity and lack of face-to-face contact.

Yeah, same thing.

At the level these dota players are and all it requires to be the best, it's no longer a game anymore. It's a job.

Just like other games with really well-known tournaments and big money, it's not like they just come home from a day at the office and play a couple hours at night. =)

Well, mobas appeal to everyone because they don't take anywhere near the skill of any Quake.

Also they would somehow mess up the casting for the finals if it was Quake.

right marketing win
game difficulty has nothing to do with viewership
i've played dota since it was still a war3 map
and i remember the tournaments had 500 viewers
with the prize money for big tournaments being
1000 euro 1st 750 2nd 500 3rd place
After valve took the game bought the name trademarked it
they made it popular

Aye, having a long term plan is the key.

that basically happened right after 1st international where vavle invested 1M to the prisepool. So now after 4 years they are collecting big big profits from that initial investment.
And not to mention, that valve managed to transfer dota from wc3 to their own engine without ruining core game mechanics and physics. Also they did great job applying small incremental chnages overtime to make the game more fast paced without sacrificing tactical and strategical part (back in wc3 days average match was ~60m, nowadays most pubs and alot of competitive matches are over in 30m).

ive played back in 6.43b np battle of carries with the carry farming and the team playing as 4

"Well since I don't spend nearly as much time playing [insert more popular game here] as I play Quake, I don't consider myself knowledgeable to give a verdict on the skill level required to be at the top."

Said no Quaker ever.

"I don't like this game, I prefer mine, thus it's easier to play yours"

"Your game gets bigger tournaments and prize money? But it's an easy game! What? No never played it, it's for noobs. What? Of course I would win your $$$ prize easily if I was playing it. But I don't like it. Thus everything you do is shit."

TLDR: You bad, me good, so me better.

Very true, I can't claim to know the ins and outs, and I don't.

I can from watching it though (I'll clarify that in the OP). And fuck me it's boring in comparison.

To someone that doesn't play quake, duel is just two guys running away for 10 minutes.

That's kinda the point, get it out there so people see how awesome it is.

Point is that dota is awesome - only to those that know how to play it. The general public finds it boring and the same happens with quake duel and across pretty much every single videogame out there. In other words, quake is awesome - only to those that know how to play it (which is a handful of people).

In real life sports you can relate with the players, so it's not necessary to be a player in order to enjoy the show. "You can see how awesome the sport is" just by watching it.
Of course being a regular player would make it more fun to watch, due to having the knowledge and being able to put yourself in the players' feet, becoming "even more awesome".

In videogames on the other hand, it's pretty much necessary to know how to play a game in order to understand what's going on. In other words, in games to see "how awesome a game is" you need to play it. You can't just watch hearthstone and like it, if you don't play it. Same happens with cs:go, dota and whatnot: "we" find them boring to watch, but those cs:go and dota players at the same time find quake duel boring to watch, so they do not watch it.
The only exception I can name are fighting games. Lots of people watch them even when not playing the latest stuff, because you can relate with previous games of the genre, arcade experiences, and everyone likes flashy combos. Though it has to be said their streams aren't massively successful anyway.

So, with that said:
1. Dota is boring only to those that don't play it.
2. Quake duel is not a hidden gem for streams.
3. The only way that people will see "how awesome quake is" is that they play it. Watching is not enough.
4. As a general rule, the only videogames that have streaming and tournament potential are those that have millions of players. People from one game don't massively tune up to others or to all.
5. X game is not better or harder than Y game, and certainly that can't be said by just watching it or even by playing some pub matches.
6. The quakecon finals stream had less viewers than a sunday cup.

The sad part is that we know this since the CPL days and people still say "hur durr quake is the best all the rest are kids games, no one plays quake because it's so hard omg we so pro all the rest are peasants".

Fair points, especially those based upon physical sports - agree entirely.

Point 4 is pretty interesting, millions of players really is the minimum to have any level of potential. As for the X gamer not watching Y game I always find it quite amusing, just look at DOTA and LoL. Anyone that isn't completely entrenched in the nerd battle of DOTA>LoL or LoL>DOTA will concede that these games are basically the same, but huge sections of those two communities hate and shun the other game. It's like Rugby Union and Rugby League I guess, but way more extreme and with far more vitriol.

You get points for making a comparison that noone outside the UK will ever understand, good job!

Yeah I don't really know much about Rugby, I don't know if League is popular at all outside of UK and Australia.

It's more about Rugby in general ;). Had to google both names to understand what you meant.

It's OK I got it.

The only exception I can name are fighting games. Lots of people watch them even when not playing the latest stuff, because you can relate with previous games of the genre, arcade experiences, and everyone likes flashy combos. Though it has to be said their streams aren't massively successful anyway.

Or previous MOBA experiences in MOBA. Or shooter experiences for Quake & CS, or deathmatch experiences for Quake. RTS experiences for starcraft.

Viewing proportions (I noted them below) are drastically different for different genres, and it's not just unwatchable or fighting game.

I don't get the sports reference, why wouldn't empathy apply to virtually anyone doing anything? I cheered for Luffy last evo wholeheartedly.


1. The unfortunate thing about having lans with friends is you are introduced to all that slow, mindrotting junk. Playing MOBA games and CS have only clarified my personal expectations I like the fastpaced action of promode, my friends rainbow six. I really want to like the games my friends like, but we are just different people with different tastes.

3. Team Liquid community seemed to find Quake enjoyable by purely watching the finals on dh stream. By the very same token I like to watch MVC3 and SF4, even more so than modern Quake, having no experience in fighting games. Watching and playing are two different things, I love playing golf but I would rather watch womens knitting show than the PGA tour. To me spectator sport needs to look good. I don't care how much strategy american football has, it's boring to watch. Thus boring.

6. Quakecon finals stream didn't get viewers, because whole continent of europe was fast asleep. Only who could watch it were dudes with wonky sleeping schedules.

I could go on for a long while, but lets put it this way. Watch a hearthstone or dota stream, now watch....football (soccer). Football is much more empathetic because we all can relate to running, jumping and playing with a ball, and most of us have played it in real life.

People say they like and enjoy plenty of different stuff, but when it matters they really do not show it. Because of that is that there's a very strong correlation between amount of players and viewers.

The finals were on a saturday and at the same time other games had hundreds of thousands of viewers across many streams, others just dozens of thousands. If quake had hundreds of thousands of active players, or if teamliquid and others people from other games tuned in to watch quake, then the quakecon finals wouldn't have had around 2,000 viewers, but they don't.

And about tastes, those things change with time. The vast majority of former quake players don't play anymore; heck even lots of us that talk about quake do not play it anymore. Actually as you get older you play less videogames if not drop gaming altogether, plus switch to slower, more thoughtful games or activities (spoiler: you won't be playing cpm in 20 years).
Also it depends on each person. Most gamers switch games like if they were clothes and play different stuff at the same time, going from the flavor of the month to the next one while being open to try everything. "We" that chose to stick with only one for decades are the exception.

In the end the reasons why ESPN watchers dislike dota being on the channel are that: 1. it's a videogame so can't relate to it, 2. It's not CoD, and 3. It's not poker, so even when poker shares the un-athletism still everyone knows how to play.

I watch SC2 before sleep nealry every day. Just calms me down and washes away troubles of the day from my mind. And I never ever played regular matches of it. Had only expirience with custom maps of SC1.

About real sports point. I find watching real sport very boring unless you do not understand what is going on too. For example I just do not get that football hype at all, some ppl running around kicking ball so what? And thousands of fans out there are even willing to fight each other "for their team"? I mean wtf wrong with those guys? On the contrary hockey and weightlifting are very intertaining because I had expirience with those.

So as you can see all this is mixed up even in one person. You can not actually predict that one thing will get millions of viewers and other won't with proper advertising of both. You have to try to do this first.

"All games are equal in terms of skill required."

Said almost everyone without thinking at all.

That is bullshit too, but all those idiots quakers who tell themselves Quake is just the hardest game ever so they can sleep at night are just as dumb.

The comment you posted is common among newbies, but mine is common among older community members. For that reason I've come to resent it more.

"If you consider total intellectual ability to play both games at the highest level, Quake dominates."

The same thing could be said about chess vs poker. Yet on TV there is more poker than chess.

That being said, i don't think a hard game like quake can gather any noticeable audience. A Game should be easy to pick up and very hard to master. And its not gonna be easy to pick up when there is a considerable number of good players who love to rape new ones.

matchmaking and ladder

I removed that statement as it was unfounded, Pill was correct in stating that. It was a 'thought' while typing (from observation) rather than the crux of the reason for the post, and I didn't want it to turn into the X vs Y argument, when it's about the potential for Quake.

Quake is hard to pick up, yes, but anyone with FPS experience will get into it pretty quickly, especially if the Steam 'gameplay changes' are aimed at newcomers (good matching and item timers for example).

I think CA/CTF/TDM will be the biggest game types anyway. CA is very friendly, and I can see that being the most played game type. Hence they should call it Rocket Arena again.

THEORETICAL BRAIN FART - JUST SCROLL DOWN:
I can see Pill's point, but that does not necessarily mean that your statement has to be invalid. There are quite a few aspects of the game which can lead to objective conclusions about required skills in different game.

For example it is possible to compare APM, or even better effective APM. I admit that this can be hard for fps games, but we could e.g. find a way to determine that Quake might require more APM than CS. On the other hand we could count the number of meaningful communications and might come to the conclusion that CS is more of a team game then CTF or TDM. We could also measure and compare neural activity.

Or we could just analyse the influence of 'random' elements in a game. If we return to the chess vs. poker example we can estimate these influences and can safely conclude that the result in chess is less dependent on luck.

In my opinion the popularity of games as a 'spectator sport' however depends mainly on how well the spectators can understand the game situation (e.g. its commonly easier to see who has the better hand of cards than to see who has the better position on the chess board). Obviously people will understand a game better if they play it themselves. And obviously more people will try playing a game if it is a popular spectator sport. So we are in some kind of vicious circle.

REAL POST BEGINS HERE:
So what can be done about this:
1) Make the game more noob friendly: prevent tier slumming with all means possible, make lots of easy tutorials, training opportunities and give big freaking shiny awards to people who successfully complete those.

2) Make the game more spectator friendly - compared to other games QL is lagging years behind when providing information to the viewers. We need:
- constant 'stack bars' (display the current stack of both opponents)
- constant weapon icons for both opponents (sorted by importance)
- accuracies comparison (toggle and sorted by importance, nobody gives a shit about GL acc, LG acc might be game deciding)
- mini-map with player and powerups positions (toggle)
- dmg and powerup comparison (toggle)
These things need to be visualy pleasing and easy to see and understand. The current scoreboard just doesnt cut it

3) Make the game more sponsor friendly - intelgrounds map ftw. we need more of this, we also need more logos and sponsor message. Replace the Quad Damage with a Red Bull can if its necessary - who cares.

Sorry for mega-post

TL;DR:
id get your shit together and arrive in the current millennium please.

On the other hand we could count the number of meaningful communications and might come to the conclusion that CS is more of a team game then CTF or TDM

lol, you haven't seen the chat in QW TDM have you. CS players could use that AFAIK, but they don't. Shit's hardcore, that game is the hardest teamgame out there.

Overall I think you can simply compare the amount of hard skills required (meaning skills that don't get (to a meaningful extent) almost capped with a couple weeks of playtime) and how difficult they are (how close is a the average player with X, 2X, 10X, 100X hours played, how close are the pros and the like).

Using this comparison we can arrive at the conclusion that for example bowling is easier than football rather easily. This is no disrepect to bowling players out there, the game is awesome and I'd never say anyone can be at top level, I'm just saying a football player will have more potential to meaningfully improve because the game is hard in so many areas. This leads to all sorts of advantages - because of the depth - to the sport.

Now, when games focus on different types of skills it may be somewhat confusing, but you can still use the method described to judge the clearer cases. Extremely hard games different their genres are hardly comparable (Quake Duel, sc:bw, fighting games). Games too similar yet different are hard to compare too (Quake vs Unreal). But games where another doesn't include large portions of the skill-gap in another, but doesn't offer enough new stuff to become as hard can be compared somewhat meaningfully, i.e. cs vs Quake TDM, or RTS vs Dota. And then there's versions of games which are the same just dumbed down, so easy cases, like Quake vs Shootmania, Magic vs Heartstone, Dota vs LoL.

was just meant to be an example - and was a wild guess. I don't know anything about CS and i don't know anything about TDM. I was just trying to point out, that skills can be measured and compared in objective manner.

Yeah, I definitely agree, I'm saying that the way I described is the best as far as I understand. The games were just examples for it.

Some combat statistics would be nice for spectators too, like LG% in fights and avg rocket damage in fights.

And graphs are always nice.

Eurosport > ESPN

[img1]

Attached Image: 102081-download.php.gif (6967KB)

Video games on TV is completely pointless, there is no way to appreciate the skill involved unless you understand the game. Who is it going to appeal to outside of people who already watch it on twitch/<other stream platform>?

Real sports have actual appreciable skill on display. Whether it's the supreme athleticism of a Lebron James or the technical prowess of a Roger Federer. The shit on the screen in a game like DOTA or Quake has no grounding in reality, nobody outside of the people who understand and already watch these games will be able to appreciate it in the slightest.

How will they bring across the skill needed in a game like DOTA? Or even just the knowlege? 1 hour shows every day breaking down different heroes etc.? That'll definitely work LOL. How would you make anyone who has never played an FPS game, or even just held a mouse, understand that the gun waving around on screen shooting at the green monster is in anyway impressive? You can't, there is nothing there to appreciate, even the impressive levels of hand-eye co-ordination needed is a completely invisible concept when watching these games.

Also the myth that these games like DOTA and LoL are a huge viewing success really pisses me off. Guess what, they're really not doing that well. Millions of people play these games, tens of millions, yet only a few hundred thousand will watch them? That is honestly terrible.

Only a tiny fraction of gamers who play these games actually want to watch them being played by others, but apparently it's a good idea to stick them on TV. Yeah ok good one.

Those games have tens of millions viewers in their most important events.

I agree with the rest, and love you.

yes

you pretty much summed up peoples opinions in this picture

http://i.imgur.com/QeGJwmU.jpg

Damn, I want to slap each one of those in the cunt

It's not pointless if people watch it. If they don't, it's pointless.

Mentioned this in reply to megaman, but will re-iterate here - agree entirely, and valid points regarding physical vs online.

>> Guess what, they're really not doing that well.

No, not at all.

Global ESPN coverage and $11m prize pot is a bit shit really.

I'm talking about viewing success, prize money is irrelevant. The prize could be one billion and it wouldn't help the audience connect with all the shit flying around the screen any better. It would only draw in more criticism if anything.

This is a theory, and you're offering it as fact.

It's entirely possible that people would connect. It's far easier to watch Quake than it is to play it. How it's presented - look at any TV sport - has a huge effect, the way the casters/commentary is spoken does also.

As a side note, people watch any sport and thinks it's easy. Just go to any tennis grounds in the UK when Wimbledon is on and watch people hit balls all over the place thinking they were going to be good.

You're also not counting for long term exposure. The more people watched, the more they'd get it. No one gets any sport or game straight away when rules are involved.

I can agree with this.

League of Legends NA scene is very interesting to view, mainly due to casters as they are entertaining to watch. Dota 2 however, from my perspective, doesn't have as good casters, it looks a little bit pale and stale in comparison.

That's why I sometimes tune up the 2014 LCS streams, the games are pretty good also.

The casters are fine, the game is just a step up from LoL, thus making it harder to follow. Heck, I actually think watching Quake duel on ESPN would of been easyer to follow compared to knowing every hero, its abilities and interaction within dota2...

Exactly this.

Actually all the people that I've shown quake to that have never even played an fps before in their lives, have been blown away by the combat. Sure they don't understand the deeper aspects of it and wouldn't watch it on tv, and I agree with your main argument as a whole.

Polish football team have no appreciable skill on display.

Fuck sports play doto \o/

What if video games would have similar status as normal sport?
Games are for nerds and nolifes.
Yelling at screen on 11 guys running with ball while drinking beer is cool.

You have some good players. Kuba, Lewa, Lukasz, can't complain too much.

And then we have guy who can't even stand on his legs and BAM! 0-1 for Germany ; _ ;
Lukasz? Lukasz Podolski plays for Germany, same as Miroslaw Klose.
We need next world war to get on the top >.>

Lukasz Piszczek.

Nice hair! Clone these motherfuckers few times and maybe there would be a team : )
Now it would be better to make San Marino'ish team and just have fun!

Very interesting. The OP was 'holy shit check this out, wish Quake had this, look what is possible', and the replies, in a Quake forum, are entirely divergent from that notion.

Not a single: "yeah that would be sweet!".

Everyone here would watch finals if presented in this manner, getting excited over the prize money, coverage and all the hype. The DOTA2 community will be BUZZING right now.

But perhaps that's why this perspective is being ignored here.

Poor 'lil broken Quake.

Yep, you're right.

vor had some good points, but, if it was quake with 5m to first place? Not only would people on ESR comment about spraying everywhere, they'd upload full videos of themselves doing it in 4K quality.

=)

I've played a lot of Dota 2, it's worse skillcap-wise than Quake. I played it specifically because it was casual. I've watched tons too.

I've elaborated what you need to truly appreciate Dota 2, it's more than you need to appreciate Quake. If you've played shooters, you can appreciate aim & hand-eye coordination, and soon enough you should be able to appreciate predictions with projectile weapons, and movement to some extent.

ESPN viewers don't enjoy Dota, but that isn't really saying much.


Vor was right that MOBAs aren't a big viewing success. In fact, hardcore games like starcraft (sc2 is mostly a spectator sport, last scbw finals almost 15 years after game's release attracted half South Korea to watch) and Quake (does a majority in ESR still even play anymore?) have proportionately huge viewing numbers, whereas Dota 2 (concurrent 500k+ daily peak players, maybe 20-120k average viewers) and LoL (millions concurrent players, viewing numbers perhaps twice higher than Dota 2) have low viewing numbers comparatively. Team games and easier games in general tend to have a much larger playerbase, but proportionately lower viewing numbers. CS 1.6 used to have terrible proportional spectator numbers, but to the end almost all of the playerbase tuned in, as by the end all the casuals were in other games.

I've been saying this for years BTW.

>last scbw finals almost 15 years after game's release attracted half South Korea to watch

link pls or is it behind a paywall

Edit: Here is most of the stuff:
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/bw-tournament...rand-final

The problem is that the english cast is audio only, so I don't know if you care to try and sync it up.
http://www.twitch.tv/ominousc2/b/327377559

At least you can find most of the BW stuff around that time under SayleBW, including semifinals and BW tournaments after the last OSL.
https://www.youtube.com/user/SayleBW/playlists?view=1&sort=dd

A viewing success is based only on the amount of viewers. Proportionality is not what determines success.

If half of QL players watch streams it still is 5,000 viewers, which is nothing. If 10% of LoL players watch streams then it is 5-10 million. Which is better?

esports is young and a higher proportion of players watching or other such characteristics may be more important than 2X the viewers, considering that one day we may have ten times as many viewers, on many games as large as LoL atm.

LOL! Quake players live in a fantasy world where Quake is the only game that requires "skill." Quake, especially VQ3, isn't nearly as interesting, or skillful as your fantasy has carved it out to be.

c p m a
p
m
a

What the fuck? Both teams in finals are Chinese?
Much personality. Very likable. Wow.

nice memes there m9 :^)

thanks m8==D

As for skill, I like how nearly every time it's mentioned, it's either someone mocking the idea of different skill-caps in games or random people making comments how game X is the best.

I've challenged dozens to discuss this idea, but hardly anybody goes beyond that single comment.

Either have arguments or shut the fuck up about it.

PS. I should probably elaborate, my opinion is that QW TDM is probably the hardest teamgame out there, Deathmatch (Quake? I'm not educated on UT), SC:BW and probably Fighting games (not very educated on those) are the hardest for Duel.

Counter-Strike limited the skill to some smaller areas, but it's very hard by today's standards and MOBAs limited it much more. Modern shooters are an abomination.

I'm in no way saying that being the best in those games is easy, not any more than being the best in bowling is easier than being the best in football.

Fighting games have TONS of skill involved and some of them quite understandable for casual auditory. Not like any real life sport thought.

Sorry, I don't think you understood me. I was speaking of the difficulty of the actual games, not understandability for newbies.

Last point regarding the prize pool. Only 1.6mil is by valve, everything else is generated by casuals buying 10 dollars or more worth of cosmetic items. Only 25% goes to the prizepool, you can calculate the bank valve is making yourself. The same model is applied to fund many other 100k+ tournaments throughout the year, and nobody knows where this will go. CS is getting huge tournaments via similar methods too.

I've argued how this microtransactions model is the way to go for esports for a long time, as have many others. Fuck those who think we should go retail and have no buyable content.

Microtransactions is a highly polarised subject, people generally back it or totally spaz out about it :)

Considering the rubbish people spend on iPhone apps/games, the odd in-game purchase in QL wouldn't harm anyone. Could offer mini training vods for maps/tactics/weapons by pros or something. Newbs would buy that stuff by the truckload.

Not all gamers are skint / tight.

When it's opt in, I can't see the problem as long as basic gameplay isn't nerfed for those not wanting to spend additional money.

Either way, if it helps fund and build the community, it can be argued that ultimately it's a good thing.

Side note: 1.6m is still a huge amount!

In LoL you use microtransactions to get in-game items. In Dota 2, you only use them to gain cosmetic shit and the like, nothing that changes gameplay. If anybody opposes that, he's a straight up idiot. Either way, buying misc. gamemodes or weird maps wouldn't hurt anyone more than subscriptions.


As for 1.6mil, it's largely irrelevant with such a playerbase, the game is just incredibly attractive to newbies.. If we were getting those other 100k tournaments with no starting prizepool, we surely wouldn't be sad about valve dishing out that cash and id not doing it.

i won't talk about LoL or Dota because they are another game, so i`ll focus on duel FPS and FPS scene. Ive started duel in 2004 while playing UT2004 1on1, at that time i was damn noob but at least i got 2nd in the regional qualifier for WCG in Brazil, since that time what really surprises me is that "events" such as WCG, ESWC and CPL have died, why? because they haven't spent their money in these massive games that have so damn high media capture in it. Were these tournaments for Quake, UT and Painkiller so professional? Maybe the community has changed, old school people in duel are rare nowadays (i mean back in 2002 for example till nowadays). If in 2005 instead of Painkiller it was Quake 4, maybe we would have a different agenda and sponsors. We also need to mention the economic crisis that hit the world since 2008. It is really complicated in my opinion, i wish the scene were "more pro" and more events could attend to host a "at least" duel tournament in FPS.

I lost my ideas about the FPS scene. If somebody else have a great idea that could capture our scene back please just mention something here, If we gonna stay here and wait forever for something to happen we would die here cuz nobody that works with creating these games are going to do something i think.

For QuakeLive, ladder matchmaking for duel and teamgames, new mappool for competitive play, maybe different gamemodes for new players, a few social features like clans (for teamgames and achievements) and chatrooms, an automated tournament system like blc. None of this would really take up that much time.

Or something like that, as everybody has been saying this for years. We can't expect a MOBA-sized playerbase, but it could be enough for a healthy scene. But it doesn't matter. The problem is id software, that's it.

my friend unfortunately i agree with you and i understand your point of view.

but there is a thing, we need to show to ordinary people that quake as a 1on1 FPS game for tournaments looks like tennis or some sport like this, in order to us to make it happen.

why don't we make a thread and invite people to get together in order to us to send a giant thead for ID software for them to make it happen? I mean thousands of people arguing about it?

If we filter out jokes ESR has been that thread for 6 years now, id doesn't care.

:/ so the community needs to make our own gameplay-software :0

ok, rage game? :( I'm worried by the next reply that you are gonna make in hahahahahah

We do need new games. I wouldn't say that I'm absolutely sure one of the upcoming games is going to work out, but one can hope.

Or people could actually start using focus..

I'm watching the international (as best i can) and it feels more like a final of robot wars than champions league.

LOL

Man, that takes me back a bit.

HYPNODISK ALLTIMES BEST

People even within Quake community cannot appreciate high octane, better game modes TROLOLOL

most boring finals ever for a TI... aired on tv... for 5 million dorra...

Chinese conspiracy!

quake 1st= $10,000...? lolz

QUAEK?

Quake is the only game that would deserve these ridiculous amounts of money, but instead we have these shitty MOBAs.

You're boring.

Truth is boring.

No, you are.

Im truth.

sc:bw is insane hard bro, it deserved all it got and if blizzard had left it alone, it'd still be there.

I started playing dota at the beginning of the year. The in-game features amazed me. Every feature that we could have wanted for quake was right there, built in. GTV with commentary! Online guides on how to play, in game help on how to play, in built communication. Etc. Even the graphics is tailor made for competitive play, but looks good and enthralling.

At the end of the day it is more professionally produced and presented, and like quake, easy to start playing with a high skill ceiling.

There is really no hope for quake unless it can compete with those features, I reckon the first FPS to have all these features will be what is played in future.

The difference between Quake and dota isn't that much, at least competitively, the main difference is that dota doesn't require aim and movement, and in quake you don't need to learn the powers of 120 heros and 100 items and their counters. Things like timing "items" is fairly similar, positioning and calculations is fairly similar, timing (as in when to attack or back) is the same.

>>> ... it's about what Quake could be.

If it could be, it would be.
It isn't. Therefore it couldn't.

I could take a shit but I didn't.
Do I live in lie?

>>> Do I live in lie?

You could live in shit, if you're not careful with that. ;)

2ezy

Sometimes I do need to be careful... When pee pee tries to trigger poo poo...

In parallel universe prize pool depends on gameplay and skills

and not on marketing decisions based on population and ROI

never seen any dota match nor does i know what kind of game this is

If dota2 wasn't high skilled as people claim to be, then quake players like vor, son1dow and nemecel should have been dota2 world champions by now.

yeah, no. Not how it works.

ESPN happy with their numbers, looking for more esports broadcasts.

http://www.dailydot.com/esports/espn-dota-2-the-international/

Good news indeed. The prize money was the obvious pull.

<feed>Don't expect much reply to that here, it seems some people want Quake to fail just to they can whine/troll about it.</feed>

I tried watching a Quake VOD the other day and felt motion sick. I played Quake for 10 years and casted it for around 4. If I cant watch it after a 6 month break, I very much doubt the general public will be able to. It is too fast.

LOL DOTA SC are all 2D games that will not make the viewer sick. But even then you really need to play the game or invest tonnes of time to have any clue what's going on. When you do work it out, you realise how boring they are as games and the only exciting elements are the hype around the tournaments.