what abt virtua tennis and guitar hero 3???

street fighter 4

i prefer watching quake matches aswell, but only because i've probably played quake on a higher level than all those casual sports(in relation to the top players of respective sport/game that is).

so i get much more of whats going on when i watch.

i guess if i had invested the equal amount of time training tennis then nerding around in quake, i would find tennis equally amusing and interesting to watch, because i would see more "important stuff".

someone who has never played quake or any game for that matter would just see some computer game. he wouldnt even grasp the idea of timing items or not engaging the enemy, offensive/defensive play

I'd say that's true for most sports too. The only sport I can think of that's nice to watch if you don't know anything about it is basketball.

why basketball? it works very similar to football or hockey..

those 3 are always pleasant to watch as soon as players start doing esthetic looking things.

skateboarding or other "extreme" sports are also fun to watch.

what i really cant understand howether is how people like to watch ski-jumping, or nascar racing

Well, I think basketball is the ultimate spectator sport because:
- It's high scoring, which usually means it's more fun because the goal of the game is accomplished every few seconds.
- The pace of the game is fast enough so it doesn't become boring, but slow enough so you get to see all the action.
- Everything takes place in a reduced space, so you are always watching everything that's happening.
- Basic tactics are easy to grasp, yet the game has enough depth for advanced strategy and tactics to entertain advanced viewers and it's easy to switch tactics on the fly, meaning there's a huge amount of variety (take most Euroleague matches among top teams, it's amazing how teams are constantly countering the opponent tactics).
- Even if you have never played basketball, it's easy to understand that scoring from far away or smashing in front of a huge forward takes skill. The athletic part of the game can entertain almost anybody.
- The game doesn't punish the loser in any way, so games are closer and comebacks are realistically possible at almost any time, making the games usually interesting until the last minute.
- The winning team can't go all defence and stall the game, the most they can do is wait until the last seconds of a possession to try to score.
- Defense is actually fun to watch (this is pretty unique). Watching a good zone defense where the attacking team can't penetrate or shoot while the time runs out is intense and thrilling. Compare that to a team parking the bus in football, for example.
- There's both continuous action and one/two minute stops. It's a nice format both for spectators and advertisers.

I like football, but I don't think it's nearly as much of a good spectator sport as basketball. About hockey (which kind?) I have to admit I've never been interested in it, so I can't comment much.

Personally I find skateboarding and those kind of sports where players don't face each other and everything comes down to a judge extremely boring. Also, I don't find them as aesthetically pleasing as ice skating, for example.

basketball is still nice because italians are shit in it

pray they'll never pick it up seriously.. they'll bend the rules, lower the standards and break the game just as with football :D

Italians used to be pretty good though and it's not like Yugoslavians, Turks and Greeks haven't been doing all kinds of dirty stuff for ages :P

Example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S2_XEzsfmMk

Illegal blocking and the good old trick of stopping the time in a Euroleague final.

? italians are very good at basketball

The best sports for spectating in those terms are:
- Tennis
- Basketball
- Rugby

I mostly agree too, though I find Rugby can be a bit boring due to it's physical style and stop start nature which ruins the flow a bit for spectating.

people might argue that a game having somewhat of a start/stop nature is actually beneficial to its spectator-compatibility.

tho you might want to exclude pauses for over a minute there.

football has nice pauses, for throw ins, kick offs, after goals and foal play for example.

a quake game has no pauses whatsoever.

Yeah, was just a comment that I hate it when the flow in Rugby is broken because when the ball is in play it's very entertaining.

Tennis after all is very stop start.

I don't think it can be argued that either are better.

yes i know, just saying "people might argue" because i remember people saying they prefer cs over quake, or clanarena over duel because of the start/stop nature of the games

Football has about as many pauses as quake game, and is the most popular sport in the world by far. It's no a stop or pause, when the clock is still running and you can position yourself anyway you want to in the field; the game is still on. In a real stop, like in tennis or american football, you can put your hands in your pockets and start looking where your friends are sitting in the audience. "Pauses" in football are more similar to delaying a spawn.

ya but it still has short pauses for throw ins, kick offs and penalties

Yes, but quake has a similar "pause" everytime someone gets fragged.

Penalties are probably the only real pause in a football game, and those are there forced by the circumstances. Most of the people I know like matches that are as fluid as possible, and constant stops in the action caused by fouls are viewed as frustrating and detrimental to the match.

Or just 99% of the game, since you're really just staring at a wall most of the time.

i would say the discrete nature of the gameplay is one of the reasons why american football is so entertaining. because its a turn based gameplay ur always wondering just what the team is going to do, whether theyre going to run or pass etc etc. ofc the disadvantage is that a beginner cant immediately grasp all the intricacies so its a harder game to get into than say soccer or basketball.

wasn't talking about that football, also i do not understand that game :D

Yes, those two are really good spectator sports too imho. Rugby was a bit confusing for me when I started watching it last year because of all the stops and weird rules, but I enjoy it a lot now and I even plan to watch the Six Nations despite not having French/Irish/English coworkers any more :P

Also another thing those three share is that they have intense action at all times (excluding the NBA tactic of getting all the players out of the way with their shitty individual defences), there's hardly a way the players/teams can relax without it being harmful to their interests.

And dont forget that a slamdunk competition showcases the greatest atheletic moves youll see in a long time :)

Never watched a single basketball game in whole life :-(,
I even had to play basketball back in school,
tbh. the sports that I find most interesting to watch are artistic ice skating and tennis. Soccer and Boxing are interesting too, though the matches are sometimes too slow.
I also have never watched football or cricket and I always have to smile when I see rugby, when all these people try to run into the other player like a bull :-)
Damn, I don't even watch Quake anymore :-(

"and I always have to smile when I see rugby, when all these people try to run into the other player like a bull"

that's like saying in quake people just shoot at each other whenever they meet :> ever got into rugby? there's a shitload to discover and see, assuming you got good camera work and know the sport.

SC+QL sounds right, gogo make another World Tour with those.

SC+QL+SF sounds right, gogo make another World Tour with those.

Fixed, those are the three pure games that should be in every video game tournament.

agreed, would be perfect.

what abt cs? :)

i'd muuuuuch rather see ET.

Much respect if you go through with it.

I would rather see SF4 or Trackmania or another esports game rather than Quakelive/cq3, as it would seem unfair to other communities to have 2 different versions of quake, not to mention that it would split our already small community. But this is something that i would definitely like to see and even support if i ever become rich :P

the most watchable tdm is definitely qw 4on4, you can actually follow it as a spectator, and it's much more fast paced/indepth/exciting. cpm is a pile of crap honestly (except cpm defrag<3) :[ - only good mode is 2v2!

for duel osp/qlive is better than cpm qw.

my 2c ;-E.

i agree, except that cpm tdm would also be really good if weapon drop were removed.

tdm has little to none spectator value. ctf on the other hand has tons of it.

Wow, well fuck you too.

ever since uriels wings got altered man, i never forgave the entire cpma as a whole. but seriously, perhaps my words were harsh but i've always been dubious of cpm gameplay - so instead of the harsh words i'll give some reasons as i don't want to be unreasonable or cause more disrespect.

one major gameplay issue i have with cpm is that it is too 'free'. there aren't enough restrictive properties to control gameplay, meaning anything goes and that individual play (aim and movement/fighting ability) is much more important than any elements of map control, forward thinking or team awareness. the duel has merit but in my opinion the skill ceiling is much higher in q3 osp / cpma vq3 / ql - i could list the individual reasons why in my opinion it is like that but, i'll go with an easier overall example to illustrate 'restrictive properties'. many i suppose would then argue - surely if the game is as free as it can be then it is completely up to player innovation which means there is more depth? and my answer is going to sound like qw evangelicalism but bear with me please.

in qw, the stairs are a 'restrictive property'. whilst the movement is very free and more so dynamic than cpm's when moving around a map in practicality and combat - stairs become a useful tool to stop someone moving quickly or provide consistency at a particular area of the map. it means that opponents can fly down the stairs with speed, but not up the stairs with speed - this has many implications as a gameplay dynamic. it dictates whether holding an area is easy or difficult. juxtapose this to cpm's stairs, and they aren't at all an advantage or a disadvantage for a player essentially minus the height advantage, you can just double jump them in seconds - i'm not saying that cpm's stairs should change but only highlighting gameplay implications.

the following is in the context of 4on4.

to look at this in a practical example however, imagine cpm27 with stairs that acted in the same way as qw? the atrium/YA middle room woudl become a complete deathtrap. any team who was holding YA/RL would have a -massive- advantage in controlling the upper areas because enemies would be such easy pickings running up the long stairs - the height advantage would be amplified. this then would mean the map would have an equilibrium of RA rail mega vs high RL YA quad.

if you keep this example in mind, then imagine the place of the middle YA room, lg is a strong weapon - but to get it you would have to risk position quite severely, no player in control would go down there to get one if they are smart. yet that area will be the one that remains contested and the team taht is in full control will have high YA RL and LG - yet the RA guys have rail - so they can actually actively contest the atrium, but there is a choke point coming out of RA high, so the players with RL's could keep the railers close and prevent them from using their rails.

honestly if you look at this like i'm seeing it - using the simple change of the stairs, the gameplay would suddenly improve dramatically, because you are providing limitations on what players can do.

in cpm, players can extremely quickly get to ANY PLACE in the entire map of their pleasing without any restrictions at all. is this good or bad? it all depends on what you are trying to do i suppose.

sorry for being disrespectful in my original post :<

You equate limitation to depth, but should that not be an argument for removing jumping? Capping strafe speed? etc?

It's still an argument of map design, though.

He's talking about complexity not depth.

He said depth, though.

He also said gameplay.

Fix

Also, please don't use meaningless words like "gameplay".

You wouldn't describe a book as having good bookread, describe what you mean specifically using more accurate terms.

on the same note:

removing weapon drop would have an equally good impact on promode tdm dynamics, imo.

Sounds like a job for a MAPPER

one major gameplay issue i have with cpm is that it is too 'free'. there aren't enough restrictive properties to control gameplay, meaning anything goes and that individual play (aim and movement/fighting ability) is much more important than any elements of map control, forward thinking or team awareness.

Aim and movement are elements of map control. I can think of no other way to control a map besides having 10 gimmicks per map operated by buttons, at which point you aren't playing an fps anymore. I see your point though - removing skillsets shortens the skillgap thus forcing the players to do more with the things that are left. And this is exactly why vq3 is supposedly so tactical - you just can't shine with anything else. This is exactly why I hate it - it's tactics in the group stage, tactics in the finals. I wan't domination in the group stage so when the final comes tactics are that extra edge one has over another and the game is truly exciting instead of the same shit I've seen over and over again since the start. In short - I think the elements that you're talking about should decide the result, but only when the basic ones(aim/movement) are at par.

+d. couldn't have put it better.

I think it's the same with all of the team games, dumbing the game down only creates more teamplay at the pub-level.

tru.dat

I hope you life forever.

I am like.

All team games would benefit drastically from a spectator overlay similar to CS. CTF you can follow if the POV is switched appropriately, TDM is really hard to follow no matter what.

ql seems to have some decent ctf spectator stuff

CTF needs to be "one flag" and you take it to the opponents base.

Too much going on, too little focus in standard CTF.

wat

Yes and then the enemy has 30 seconds to remove the flag from their pedestal or the enemy team wins the round.

why not have them score a point and reset the flag?

Else a match might be over after 2 minutes.

I think he means they have 30 seconds to stop the point being given before a reset.

that does sound like a better idea, maybe with less waiting time.

But "winning the round" doesn't sound like a reset to me.

In CA a point = round right?

yes, but the modes are hardly comparable as CA has a fixed timelimit per round. and a fixed number of rounds you need to win.

And i'm still not convinced that what he meant was that the whole game should be reset on the same map, a new countdown and everyone spawns fresh. It's possible though.

Rather it didn't reset myself.

Weaponstay+spawn delay would be nice.

Go outside, get a life ;) Gaming over sports....

golf is a great specator sport aswell, if you are familiar to the game.

Basketball > * tho

I do enjoy the good ctf match aswell (altho matches can be very boring when the teams play gay!)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AbSRCjG-VLk#t=4m40s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8qPrR49qsDc&feature=fvw

I don't like golf at all... There is no direct interaction between competitors, no 'yomi', which makes it boring to watch imo...

It's not a sport innit, it's a past-time or even athletics.

It's like watching every running event at the olympics, what's the point?

agree

you have to play it to love it

I want to see an augmented reality (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGNgyGU-81E) game incorporating Quake Elements, full scale.

Imagine Lasertag quake! And, It'd be great excersise!

Only problems are weapon knockback, tp's, jumppads etc but good level design can alleviate this. You can already implement Augmented Reality ET though....

I love buzzwords

we need one fps, one rts, one racing game, and a beat-em up game.

Quake
Starcraft
iRacing
Street Fighter

All you need :-)
Let us all unite to one game of a genre,
then I might make a comeback too :-)

why iRacing ?

iRacing is from a company that was formerly known as Papyrus.
Papyrus in its time delivered the most realistic raing games,
for example indy car racing and nascar racing.
But you are right, maybe iRacing is not the right thing,
since its subscription service is quite expensive compared to other multiplayer platforms on the net. But I think trackmania nations has no real multiplayer, everyone just has his personal time trial.
Anyway there are many racing games out there, they are more or less all the same. The possibilities to create racing game are quite limited compared to many other games, so many racing games are very similar, can't really say one game is better than the other (this argument also applys to a certain degree to street fighter)
many many competitors in racing games, hard to make a decision there.

What's the point in having a racing game at all?

Anyone actually interested in racing games will be interested in actual motor racing which is infinitely superior.

I think competitive racing games should be completely unrealistic and ultra-fast, then you could attract people interested in racing while still being different than the "real deal".

Gran Turismo and Forza are still infinitely more popular than the arcade racers.

real life racing is very expensive, that's why.

Most racing fans are more than content to watch, and lets be honest that's what most people do in pro gaming anyway.

forget about the pipedream of gaming being a spectatorsport,
there is neither blood, nor sweat, nor tears in pro gaming.
Only people playing the game themselves can be attracted to watch an online game, in a virtual reality the emotional component is cut down to zero. Tbh. I prefer to watch a tennis game over a quake game, the tennis game could even last longer ..., although I played quake a lot, and I have played tennis only about a dozen times.
Tbh. I myself feel also more attracted to watch a demo from quake 2, or Quakeworld, than of Q3A, simply because I know the other 2 parts much much better ... I also have tried to watch a starcraft sometimes, but my problem is I don't understand anything going on there, because I never really played the game (only on its release maybe 2-3 levels, was just too boring for me).
Gaming will stay interesting for gamers only.
You know real life sports are very simple in its rules,
but they are very hard to do ... computer games just have too many rules and different objectives, a normal guy not knowing the game just can't understand it ... in running you know just the fastest wins,
in throwing the one who throws the farer distance ... in tennis the one wins who manages to score the ball in the rectangle and the opponent can't return it ... so simple rules ... and soccer is also quite simple ... but games .... there are so many different weapons ... the maps are very complex ... first you have to know the map inside out, know there the items are, etc. before you can understand a bit of the demo ... a normal spectator doesn't know what is coming after the next corridor ...
and then as already said there are no emotions at all,
and physically there it not that much happening ...
the mouse sliding and keypressing is not really spectacular,
and the gamers are fully concentrated and you don't perceive almost no emotion at all ...

You do know what the original post was regarding right?

I've watched plenty of online games I don't play and have no interest in playing.

Gaming will stay interesting for gamers only.

And the people who play racing games are, for the majority, racing fans who play racing games to have a bit of fun. They aren't as interested in the competitive nature and they often switch games.

Regardless I wasn't really thinking of it being a spectator sport, I couldn't care less about gaming as a "sport". Generally all of that post is stuff I agree with.

"You do know what the original post was regarding right?"
Well you said people would prefer to watch real motorsports over virtual motorsports. Of course I do agree. But for the players, the online racers, a championship is still interesting, believe it or not there are hardcore racing communitys out there on the net, there are communitys for grand prix legends, rFactor and iRacing and many others ... there are leagues, championships, etc. too. So there is also a lot of competition, also some winner of an iRacing championship has gotten a place for a trial in some real racing team. And online racing is also attractive for people who would like to race in real life, but can't take part in races.

"I've watched plenty of online games I don't play and have no interest in playing."
I don't think you have watched more than 2 or 3 demos of the games you don't play, you probaby watched these games only out of curiosity.

"I couldn't care less about gaming as a "sport"
Well for me gaming is a sport, you can play games on a very high level, in quake for example is a lot of skill involved,
and I respect this.

Of course there are communities, but I'd assume they are quite happy doing what they do. Just like there is a QW community, but it's not in there interest to switch to one DM game unless there is a tangible reason to (e.g. money).

Sadly, as much as racing games are fun to play, they aren't to watch ergo nobody will watch (except the hardcore who as we know are never numerous).

I used to watch streams of tournaments for all sorts of games whenever games were on and I've played any f those games (or even own some of them).

Sports are games that require physical activity, games are games, fighting/combat is fighting/combat, racing is racing, athletics is athletics etc etc. We have words for a reason.

"Sadly, as much as racing games are fun to play, they aren't to watch ergo nobody will watch (except the hardcore who as we know are never numerous)."

Tbh. real life racing is also boring to watch ... :-)
Racing is not really spectatorfriendly in its nature.

"we have words for a reason",
but in speech words don't have a meaning themselves, they have a meaning according to the context!
Sport is not only connected to athletics,
sport can also have the meaning of competition.
I did not mean gaming to be a sport in terms of an athletic workout,
I meant that you can play certain games on a very high level and compete against others. And this is not a bad thing.

SC has been a spectator sport for almost a decade.

Korea can prove you wrong.

rFactor?

Quake is great in my opinion because there is no equivalent in "real life". It's completely unique experience in this planet. Sport games, fighting games, racing games, realistic shooters, flight simulators etc. all exist in a better format outside of virtual reality.

yeah right..

if we are to GROSSLY associate gaming genres with real life sports/games, then StarCraft is the only one that has no equivalent in real life.

Go is a lot like SC.

???

Go:

Turn-based
Time to think about your move, No reaction time needed
No physical skills needed
Every move in plain sight
one type of piece (no direct Rock - Paper - Scissors system, only in tactics.)


Yes, that does sound a lot like SC.

Your trolling has grown weak while on my ignore list.

your analogy is quite stupid tho

Strategy? Economic expansion? Macro and micromanagement?

They are very much alike, unless you don't know either.

It's not trolling when it's correct.


Sure there are similarities, but there are many more difference.
Just picture two guys playing each game.

In one game they are moving their mouses at high speed while flying over the keyboard for hundreds of apm. While they usually see only a small fraction of the map and not everything the opponent does.

In the other one, there is one guy sitting at the board, not moving a finger, thinking about his next move. He see all the pieces his opponnent has set. The other guy gets up to get himself a cup of tea.

If you consider the game to be the interface, you don't know what a game is.

If you claim that the interface is not a vital part of a game, you have no business discussing it.


Have you ever played chess (or a similar game) without a board?
The rules are completely the same but it does become quite a different game to play.

Oh and just for shits and giggles, would you like to try to play go simultaneously, players placing stones as fast as they can? It would be so much more like Starcraft ...

No.

a game sets its playing rules and restrictions through the interface too.

durrrrrr..

No, it's the other way around, interfaces are designed around rules.

and how is that different of what i've said?

let me reformulate: the game enforces its rules and restrictions through the interface too. clear enough?

anyway, this is meaningless.. StarCraft is not like GO. Quake is not like laser tag and paint ball. Street Fighter is not like MMA.

What you said was that a game sets its rules through the interface, which suggests that the interface is intertwined with the rules, which isn't true.

A game with the same rules could theoretically have very different interfaces.

the interface partly dictates the way a game is played.. if you change it, the game plays differently

Interfaces are designed around the rules, and there can be different solutions in terms of interface for the same rules.

I believe you are trying to see two things seperately that are closely connected.

For example chess:

It was clearly designed with pieces and a board, which are reflected in the rules but which can also be seen as the interface.
Now, if nerdy chess players don't have their trusty magnetic board with them, they sometimes play "blind", i.e. without pieces of the games. This obviously changes the interface, but it also changes the rules, because noone can actually see the real board.
It also changes gameplay a lot.

I would say it's impossible to play chess "blind", with only changing either the rules or the interface.

The board isn't the interface, it's the field of play something which is integral to the rules.

The interface is how you interact with the game, in the case of chess it's hands, in the case of starcraft it's the mouse and GUI.

You can play chess without hands, with a mouse, via e-mail or speech and it doesn't change how the game is played one bit. You could play starcraft without a map and the game's mechanics would change drastically, but you could change the interface to something else and it would play the same.

It's quite an important distinction to make and using the wrong words just leads you into blind alleys.

The interface is how you interact with the game, in the case of chess it's hands, in the case of starcraft it's the mouse and GUI.

Wrong.

When you use a cell phone, the fingers aren't the interface, but the keys or with an iphone (and similar phones) the screen.
In technology, e.g a manufacturing machine, the interface can be a screen and a keyboard.
With computers, as you know there is a GUI (Graphical User Interface).

With chess, the interface would be at least the pieces as material, which can be altered through moving them. However, I'll give it to you that whether the board is an interface is debatable, it does make moving the pieces a lot easier though.
When you play without pieces you basically have no interface, nothing you can directely manipulate the game. You opponent has to "imagine" you changing a piece. You can still keep your hands when playing like that, though ;)

You can play chess without hands, with a mouse, via e-mail or speech and it doesn't change how the game is played one bit.

Have you ever played chess like that? Cause it most certainly does not stay the same. Half of the "blind" games with 30+ moves end because the players disagree where the pieces are exactly. That happens way less with a board and pieces. You also employ diffeent strategies depending on how good you are at remembering the different positions of the pieces. Something, that doesn't really matter in normal chess.

It's quite an important distinction to make and using the wrong words just leads you into blind alleys.

I very much agree.
But I would say the interface is more an integral part that can be manipulated (or in case of output delivers information) than the object (in your example hands) that does the manipulating. Another example: In voice activated alarm system, the interface would be the microphone, not the voice.

An interface is where an input is "received" and processed before the output is given.

With chess, the interface would be at least the pieces as material, which can be altered through moving them.

Like you say, in this case the interface is the hand and pieces, hand->mouse->GUI->pieces or in the case of playing blind the voice and ear.

The game itself doesn't change, what does change when you play blind is your ability to read the information, the game rules themselves do no change at all. If both players were able to remember every move and every position then the game would play as normal.

It's like playing Quake but turning the monitor off, the game is the same you just can't make the right decisions because now you are playing blind.

well, I suppose once again it has come down to a matter of opinion.

I believe that playing without pieces changes the rules, i.e. the other player may not secretly set up a board to show the game. While that would be acceptable in the other case, as long as he doesn't analyze the game.

In your example, turning the monitor off when playing quake does not directly change the game, only the mechanics. I agree. But there is nothing stopping the player from turning it on again. You would need a change of rules to ensure that. A broken or stolen monitor would of course keep him from doing that, but I think you agree that that is a different case altogether.

IN the end, I believe I see where you are coming from, but I still think you are wrong :)

The specific rules don't change in blind chess just the strategies and tactics, which are independent from the game and are natural rather than constructed (Rules/Mechanics).

The only change is a rule to prevent cheating by gaining an unfair advantage, in this case setting up a board secretly, when it was agreed to be played blind.

It's comparable to an RTS with Fog of War on/off. The game itself is the same but the strategies and tactics change totally because you are either operating in an information restricted or complete information environment. This is why Fog of War hacks are so damaging to the game.

Yes, and the rule is pretty much to change the interface.

That is (more or less) the connection I have been talking about.

durr is right.

Nope, it's quake/dm. I did not mention RTS games because while they have equivalent in strategic board games, I think virtual reality is better platform for them, atleast from a technical point of view. One could argue though, that when you switch from board to virtual reality, you lose too much of the social aspect.

what about people shooting fireballs out of their bare hands? stretching their limbs to kick/punch or teleporting across a 2D fighting field? emitting electricity through their skin? etc.

You talking about street fighter? Physical reality is better, more deep and more interesting platform for fighting, fireballs or not. Let me ask it like this; would you rather be a good fighter in "real life" or shoot fireballs from your hands in a game? From there you can apply that to any game you want: flight simulators, racing, sports...all those things are better in real life, despite the restrictions in physical reality. But Quake has no equivalent, so you cant do that in any meaningful form outside of the game.

this is a highly preferential and selective classification.. it bares no logic

You'll never get proper pro games until the Holodeck is invented.

Even then I would rather see original concepts like Quake, instead of football with magic missiles and ability to jump like michael Jordan.

What about lasertag or paintball?

They are as as close to Quake as MMA is to Street Fighter, perhaps more.

Those fall in to realistic shooters category. Are you saying that someone watched paintball and came up with the concept of quake? I'm saying that someone watched fighting, and came up with the concept of fighting games.

I'm not saying that street fighter, for example, is not a good game or more importantly a fun game. Just that pretty much every person would rather be good at the real activity that is behind the concept of that game.

What I'm saying is that Quake is as close to the real thing as most 2D fighting games are.

Exactly what concept is quake as close to as fighting games are fighting?

Have you ever played a 2D fg?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Heo2WukBiZo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OC4kgeI4kZI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-7nddEaWEDw

Wtf has that to do with real fighting apart from spacing being important?

The whole concept behind it. I can show that to pretty much anyone above the age of 6 and they will say that it's a fighting game and then they will proceed to imitate those movements with their friends in school. If I show them quake, are they going to say thats paintball? Stop dodging the question.

shooting guns in Quake is just as easy to understand

Have you really watched those videos????

Most 2D fighting games nowadays aren't even about using normals (which is the part that is kind of similar to real fighting).

It's all about zoning and using weird specials. There's nothing like that in real life and I bet a child could act as if he summoned a demon or launched lots of swords from remote places or did burning kicks with high jumping arcs, but he also could make as if he fired a rocket launcher.

I'm telling you the concept of real fighting is as close to those games as war or lasertag are to Quake (read: not even close). You don't agree, it's okay, but saying that "physical reality is better, more deep and more interesting platform for fighting, fireballs or not" is just dumb because the skills and mindset aren't even comparable.

PS: I once paid a guy to do real life bunny hopping under the rain with headphones, a mouse on one hand and a mousepad on the other. He actually did it.

You are actually claiming that if you show someone quake for first time they will associate it with lasertag? Personally I can't see that happening, and never have. What I have seen is people starting to talk about real fighting when someone plays fighting games,like is some move possible in real life or not. It's still crystal clear concept. Kickboxing is still fighting even though you cant do flying armbar or shoot fireballs, and it stays fighting (with different flavour) even when you add those things. It's about existing concepts, not about games and reality being identical.

I dont know if the skill required are so much different than the real thing just being so much deeper, that it requires a larger variety of skills to perform.

And again (I'm going to speak in absolutes for the sake of making a point and keeping it short) if every fifa player would rather be a professional football player, every flight simulator player would rather be a real pilot, every street fighter player would rather be a good fighter in real life, and then every quake player would rather be...what?

You are actually claiming that if you show Guilty Gear to someone for the first time they will associate it to any fighting sport out there? At most they'll say "hey, here are two guys beating down each other", same as they could say "hey here are some guys shooting down each other".

Fighting games, for example, usually have lots of long range combat and aerial combat, something that doesn't exist in fighting sports.

You are also assuming that people who are interested in fighting games are interested in fighting sports too, which is not true. I like fighting games, I couldn't care less about fighting sports and I certainly don't want to be a fighter and neither does anyone I know who likes fighting games.

He's right.

Those games do feature stuff that is wildly different but people always think about fighting.

CS/CoD etc -> War/Terrorism

Quake/UT etc -> they don't think about paintball or lasertag

RICHARD BURNS RALLY