Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Four Kings, Schroet Kommando Go CS Movie Crazy

simoniker posted more than 10 years ago | from the duration-of-this-televisual-feast dept.

First Person Shooters (Games) 45

Simon Bysshe writes "Intel have just put online my latest film for them about competitive computer gaming, featuring a Counter-Strike match between Four Kings & the world's #1 Counter-Strike team Schroet Kommando. The movie includes pre-game interviews, animated tactical rundowns, live 'shoutcasted' games & finally a post-match analysis, and has already been downloaded over 40,000 times - we're trying to establish gaming as an entertaining spectator sport."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Enough sports already (-1, Flamebait)

MrBigInThePants (624986) | more than 10 years ago | (#8800546)

Gaming as a spectater sport....what is the world coming to...

Re:Enough sports already (1)

jantheman (113125) | more than 10 years ago | (#8800740)

You wait 'till you see that /. post about "an avi of spectators watching games" - that's when you should worry.

downloads (4, Funny)

adler187 (448837) | more than 10 years ago | (#8800552)

"has already been downloaded over 40,000 times"

Just wait till after the slashdotting.

Re:downloads (1)

Zevets (728720) | more than 10 years ago | (#8810805)

whats amazing is that after 100,000+ downloads, I am getting a solid 371 kbps, and that is as fast my comp downloads. THAT is impressive!

Famous? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8800574)

Here is what it says on the site:

Interview with 4K^Dark
One of the more famous CS players in the World, 4K^Dark sits down with GotFrag to talk about the recent Intel Extreme Edition Challenge 2.

Does anyone know this mofo? I sure as hell don't!

Re:Famous? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8801499)

DarK was "away" from the top-teams for some time. He's now back. I guess you are a bit new to the cs-scene? Anyhow, he has been compared to SpawN and such players a long time.

First suggestion (3, Insightful)

Pluvius (734915) | more than 10 years ago | (#8800584)

Stop calling it a sport. A sport requires athletic exertion by definition. This is also a problem with non-video games; some people love to call chess a sport even though it's not (assuming that that chess boxing [] thing never takes off).

Instead, just take pride in what your game is--a fun, challenging game.


Re:First suggestion (0, Flamebait)

Cecil (37810) | more than 10 years ago | (#8800642)

A sport requires athletic exertion by definition.

Bzzzt! Try again!


a. Physical activity that is governed by a set of rules or customs and often engaged in competitively.
b. A particular form of this activity.
2. An activity involving physical exertion and skill that is governed by a set of rules or customs and often undertaken competitively.
3. An active pastime; recreation.

Fishing, Hunting, Darts, Bowling, Auto Racing, and Golf, to name just a few, are all commonly considered to be sports. I apologise in advance for offending people who participate in these sports, but none of them involve really significant athletic exertion. If you do it competitively and professionally, there's no reason not to consider it a sport. It doesn't have to revolve around physical activity, and I don't think it should even have to involve physical activity.

Re:First suggestion (1)

Pluvius (734915) | more than 10 years ago | (#8800690)

Note that your definition is the last on the list, while mine is the first. Definitions are always listed in order of usage, which suggests that your definition is used by a small number of people compared to my definition, or even that my definition is more of a formal convention while yours is more colloquial.

I'm not trying to sound all "tyranny of the majority" about this, but if video gaming really wants to be a popular spectator event, it would probably help if it doesn't antagonize people who enjoy "real" sports. I mean heck, even fishing and hunting have a lot more physical activity involved in them than video gaming does.

BTW, what dictionary did you get that definition from? If the second definition is any judge, it's highly redundant.

Rob (People consider darts to be a sport? What the hell?)

Re:First suggestion (2, Insightful)

hambonewilkins (739531) | more than 10 years ago | (#8804250)


Thanks for your post, I've been trying to argue the same for years and you are spot on.

I also include the "cannot involving judging" in my definition of a sport, hence figure skating is NOT a sport but ice racing is. Once you involve judging (which is different from reffing) you change the sport to a game or activity, but not a sport.

Most gymnastics, while challenging (and I did it as a kid) is judged which means someone who is the best gymnast in the world can come in last due to politics or personal opinion. Just because the refs hate you in basketball, you can still score more than the other team. As far as golf and bowling... activities but certainly not sports (good luck breaking a sweat).

Re:First suggestion (1)

Terminal Saint (668751) | more than 10 years ago | (#8800698)

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a racing fanboy or anything, but I understand it is pretty physically demanding pulling three or four G's sitting behind a rather hot engine on a 120 degree track for 500 miles.

Re:First suggestion (1)

saden1 (581102) | more than 10 years ago | (#8800723)

I'm not a racing fan but the possibility of crash, fire, and death qualifies it as a sport.

I'm sorry but moving your mouse around and punching some keys doesn't qualifies as a sport.

Re:First suggestion (3, Insightful)

Pluvius (734915) | more than 10 years ago | (#8800747)

I'm not a racing fan but the possibility of crash, fire, and death qualifies it as a sport.

Actually, that qualifies it as "dangerous." War definitely carries a risk of death with it, but I don't think any sane person would call it a sport.

Even so, though, it's probably true that auto racing requires somewhat more physical exertion than video gaming does.


Re:First suggestion (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8800994)

I dunno there, a gamer needs to scratch his ass every now and then

Ever heard of War Games? (1)

empaler (130732) | more than 10 years ago | (#8898032)

Ever talked to a soldier who's been deployed? They talk about it like a big game.

Apart from that, most people actually watch racing because of the possibility of maiming injuries, they just don't want to admit it.

Some years ago, they installed a (mandatory) computer system in all F-1 cars that automatically slowed them down, just a smidgeon, whenever they turned.
Injury rates fell, so did viewer figures.
Then they removed the computers, viewers came back.

Re:First suggestion (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8800732)

It's also pretty physically demanding to watch out for campers with one hand while frantically typing "OMG WALLHACK" with the other.

But that's probably not what you meant.

Re:First suggestion (1, Informative)

bersl2 (689221) | more than 10 years ago | (#8800727)

Football: sport
Baseball: sport
Basketball: sport
Hockey: sport

Fishing: recreation
Hunting: recreation

Darts: game
Bowling: game
Counter-Strike: game

Golf: Golf

Re:First suggestion (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8800856)

Your opinion: worthless

Re:First suggestion (1)

bersl2 (689221) | more than 10 years ago | (#8800885)

You're welcome.

Re:First suggestion (0, Redundant)

snakattak (592921) | more than 10 years ago | (#8801132)

Why couldn't video gaming be considered a sport? Training to be the best at a video game, or win a competition, could easily take as many hours as a player puts in to win a sporting event. Now I'm not comparing the physical aspects of the training, just the time itself invested. The fact is, if it'll bring in crowds, and more importantly the almighty dollar, companies are gonna start marketing these events as sporting events, no matter what you call them. Just look at Poker. A few years ago I don't remember seeing anything about poker in the media. Its gotten so famous, ESPN, ESPN2, the Travel Channel, and i'm sure plenty more television shows play "Texas Hold'em" at least once a day, including a celebrity poker show on Bravo. Now, playing poker may not be a sport, but they sure market it like a sporting event. I mean, the biggest event in poker is called the "World Series of Poker". The fact is, poker is exciting to watch, it brings in spectators, and even more importantly it brings in television and Advertising. If they can get video gaming to somehow become exciting to watch, it'll eventually generate revenue like other sporting events. I really wouldn't be surprised if in 20 years, there were famous "Gamers" giving out autographs at the malls. I can even see FPS games named after the good players, kinda like sports games are named now.

Re:First suggestion (1)

IpalindromeI (515070) | more than 10 years ago | (#8803500)

I think you've hit on what really qualifies for something as "a sport," as opposed to something done "for sport" which is where it originates. Doing something for the sport of it is just having fun. That's how all "sports" began: some fun game that people enjoyed playing together. Soon other people started gathering around, not waiting to play, they were too lazy for that, but just to watch those that liked to play anyway. It was entertaining.

The game wasn't a sport yet, still just a game, but now with spectators. Of course this didn't last long once some industrious business man noticed that people would probably get hungry and would pay for something to eat while they watched. And hey, since you're buying food, how about a hat of some sort, or a small, unusable version of a piece of equipment with someone's name scribbled on it. And hey, since you're already buying that stuff, why not just pay to be able to see the game at all. After all, those players work hard at having fun and they'd like some compensation too. At this point the game becomes a "sport": people pay just to watch the game, players play the game full time, many of them probably don't even like to play, and businessmen get rich.

This is what qualifies something as a sport. Think about it: do you think of croquet as a sport? The activity itself is rather similar to golf, but it isn't a sport while golf is. Why is that? Because there are no professional croquet players with millions of fans, nationally televised events, and advertisers beating down the door. It's just a "game," definitely not a "sport." Much like video games are just "games" right now. But just wait until the money starts rolling in. Then video games will be sports just like croquet, er, football.

Re:First suggestion (2, Insightful)

Pluvius (734915) | more than 10 years ago | (#8805865)

Training to be the best at a video game, or win a competition, could easily take as many hours as a player puts in to win a sporting event.

It also takes a lot of time to become a soldier, or attain an MD. However, being a soldier or doctor isn't a sport.

Just look at Poker. A few years ago I don't remember seeing anything about poker in the media. Its gotten so famous, ESPN, ESPN2, the Travel Channel, and i'm sure plenty more television shows play "Texas Hold'em" at least once a day, including a celebrity poker show on Bravo. Now, playing poker may not be a sport, but they sure market it like a sporting event.

IIRC, no one ever tried to call poker a sport, either. (And the fact that it's on ESPN means nothing. How much music is on MTV now-a-days?)


Not Happening (1, Interesting)

illuminata (668963) | more than 10 years ago | (#8800714)

we're trying to establish gaming as an entertaining spectator sport

With such a low barrier for entry (the price of the game), and the ease of becoming good (just invest a lot of time) why should I watch somebody else play?

Try all you want to, video games will never become a spectator sport because it's easy enough for too many people to do.

Re:Not Happening (3, Informative)

MachDelta (704883) | more than 10 years ago | (#8801080)

Thats the thing - its NOT EASY to be world class. Yeah, its no big deal to jump online and smack some 12 year olds around. But going up against the best of the best in the CPL, etc? They will hand your ass to you on a silver fucking platter man. You wouldn't even know what the hell hit you. Those guys are better than just good. They're friggin amazing.

Re:Not Happening (0)

illuminata (668963) | more than 10 years ago | (#8810894)

The point is, being world class in a video game is nowhere near as hard as being world class in a sport (athletic). A sport involves heavy physical and mental conditioning, something that a video game does not. A video game only requires a lot of time and practice. For example, in an FPS, you study what weapons do what, how people react to certain events, and the layout of the map. Refine your movements, know what's going to happen beforehand, and it won't be long until you're at the top of your game. That's how I became one of the top players in Unreal Championship. Sure, there was nowhere near as much competition as some of your other PC games, but when you're able to lay waste to others with an XBox controller with no auto-aim, you're not doing so bad. For the record, I was never a rocket whore, and I'm much better with a mouse and keyboard.

Also, video games have nowhere near the level of depth in strategy as a game like Chess does. For the most part, you have to have a little extra edge in a game like Chess to become better than others at it, and Chess knowledge has been passed down through many, many years, making it that much harder to become better than others who already have that knowledge.

Really, there isn't that much separating a CPL player from your average gamer, just a bit more of an investment into certain games than others care to put into them. There is not a single CPL player out there who has the same level of mastery in their game as, say, a Favre, Clemens, or Kasparov.

Re:Not Happening (1)

IpalindromeI (515070) | more than 10 years ago | (#8803579)

With such a low barrier for entry (the price of the game), and the ease of becoming good (just invest a lot of time)

Do you realize that you've just described nearly every game ever invented? You can become good at any game by "just" investing a lot of time: it's called practicing. If you think becoming good at a video game is any easier just because you don't move around much, you must be playing against some pretty lousy opponents.

Designed for spectators (4, Insightful)

cgenman (325138) | more than 10 years ago | (#8800742)

One of the problems with Video Games as a spectator sport, is that they aren't designed for spectators. They're designed to give the player exactly what they need to know, and occasionally to occlude things from the player that they aren't supposed to know.

What they do not have are good angles for crowds. If you want really good camera shots, you need 5 or 6 ghost spectators floating around the arena, and someone to switch between them (like a traditional sporting event). In theory you can have automated roving, rotating, or fixed cameras, but they tend to be poor at anticipating action. Likewise, the most popular Sporting videogames are FPS. But thanks to the perspective and the needs of the game, FPS games tend to have terrible character animation / environmental interaction, which is exactly what the audience is going to be watching. Furthermore, effects and crowd-pleasers must be kept a bit down, as the player has to be able to see though that thick fog of whatever.

Except for racing titles, most gaming companies just don't devote resources to a "passive spectator" mode. All the better for the players, of course, but if gaming is going to take off as a spectator sport (not only doubtful, but of dubious value) they'll need a better passive spectator presentation.

Re:Designed for spectators (1)

Torgo's Pizza (547926) | more than 10 years ago | (#8801016)

Ah, that is the rub. A better passive spectator presentation built into the game is ripe for abuse outside a presentation. What you say is true, but I think a separate build would be needed; one that is *just* for televised or recorded showings. It would take extra effort on the part of the developer, but could pay big dividends down the line.

Re:Designed for spectators (1)

Gwaredd (725621) | more than 10 years ago | (#8801669)

Actually that's not true at all ;) A lot of the games played competitively (esp. those based on the quake engine) have the ability to record and playback games for postgame analysis. Games like wolfenstein ( have a spectator mode which lets you roam freely and observe/record the game - with many top clans releasing demos/recordings of their games ( Bani who produce the very popular ET Pro competition mod for wolfenstein ( have been working on "ET TV", a broadcast mechanism for the game which will let players tune in and watch the top teams fight it out live - complete with comentators (on shoutcast), cameramen and editors who select the best shots to watch. Unfortunately there are patent issues in broadcasting games over the internet which may scupper the ET TV project :( Of course, it is a niche - but for anyone thinking there isn't a demand for this kind of thing ... I suggest you try playing competative games ;)

Re:Designed for spectators (1)

b0r0din (304712) | more than 10 years ago | (#8802090)

I would add that TV doesn't like video games. If you want it to become a big 'sport' you'd need to get broadcast TV involved. Guess what? TV doesn't want televised games because they've found that gaming cuts in on peoples' time watching TV, ie. ratings ie. MONEY.

People can much more easily turn on their TV and watch an NBA than pay 100 bucks or drive 50 miles to get tickets. That is why televising a sport like basketball pays off. Not so with video gaming, where you merely have to turn on the computer AND turn off the TV to start up a game of counterstrike.

Ever notice the absolute lack of coverage video gaming gets in general? NPR did a series about MMORPGs yesterday, and I was rather shocked they even did a story about it. Then I thought about it - I haven't seen a single TV story cover MMORPGs. I'm sure there's been one somewhere, but frankly you don't see a lot of it. There is something like 1-2 million people gaming on these places, and it's a new thing - but how much news coverage does it get? None. Same reason TV doesn't reveal news about itself - content control and the media's self-interest. Back a long time ago, when TV was just forming, the movie industry did the same thing - you'll notice none of the old films had television sets at all -this was done on purpose because the film industry thought TV was infringing on their business.

Besides, online/LAN gaming is considered anti-social behavior (even though it really is a different form of social behavior) and in the context of current 'reality TV' with its emphasis primarily on competitive content involving humans doing stupid things for a small bit of cash (as far as the networks are concerned, pennies on the dollar) there's no desire to do anything different. Let's face it, TV is a joke nowadays, and frankly, gaming hasn't become mainstream enough. It's beginning to get close, but I think PC counterstrike players are probably not the killer app that would inspire a TV show. A lot of video gaming is fast reaction timing and hand-eye coordination, but this isn't hand-eye in the sense of college basketball, where you can watch a brilliant move being played out on TV and say, Wow, damn. And it isn't poker either, where you watch guys try to read each other and can see the cards of the other players, really see the thought and intensity of it. Games like chess have been around for hundreds of years, and guess what? Not a popular TV sport. ESPN shows chess games every so often, but it comes off as comical.

I think eventually there will be a solid game that really fits the mold of high-intensity action. I just don't think our country is ready for it yet.

Re:Designed for spectators (1)

jefeweiss (628594) | more than 10 years ago | (#8803502)

Well, I'm almost ashamed to say that I downloaded and watched it. I have never played CS, but I have occasionally played FPS, and I'll just say that it's almost impossible to tell what is going on. I think you would have to know the maps and the strategies in order for the video to be watchable and interesting. The problem I see is that the "live" game coverage is very split up by jump cuts between players on different teams and 3rd person cameras. The fact that the video resolution is much less then monitor resolution doesn't help as you can't really even see most of the players that are being shot at.

The better part is that post game commentary on the one part of the match. They show an overhead type view of the map, and where the players are as the action progresses. This would be a more interesting way of showing the match if it were interspersed with first person POV views of the action. With five players on a team it's very difficult to tell what is going on when you can only see one POV, or a third person POV where the players move around very fast. In a match that lasts a minute it is hard to have any kind of drama build up with a real time approach, instead the minute long match could be stretched to a five minute interspersed match and commentary format.

A more layed back approach to the coverage would be helpful in sorting out the action. I don't feel that the loss of the "live action" feel would really be a detriment as it mostly reminded me of the old Nickolodeon show Double Dare where the guy was just yelling all the time at things that weren't really all that crucial. If someone is yelling the whole time it's tough to tell what is important. Football commentary is the tone to shoot for, most of the time kind of laid back and more in depth, then raising in tone when a very important event occurs.

Re:Designed for spectators (1)

cgenman (325138) | more than 10 years ago | (#8808763)

I have played counterstrike, and love FPS gaming, and I too have no clue what was going on. Part of the problem is that the people who were covering the event were forbidden from giving the opposing team's positions away. Hence, the commentators could never say anything like "Frag boy is running right into a trap and he doesn't know it. Where is his scout?" Because that would tip him off as to what was going to happen. The teams need to be sequestered for the commentary to work, but I doubt they would go that far yet. How would you get those stunningly dramatic response shots of the people staring at their monitors if they were in sound-proof booths?

And yes, it was very difficult to make out anything that was about to happen. Part of this is due to the fact that Counterstrike is tuned to be a one-mistake-and-you're-dead type of game. Many, many people in the video fell over dead before you could see who shot them. People claim that Counterstrike is more "realistic" and less "twitch" than other FPS games, but in practice it relies a lot more on reflexes than many others. If the players are barely keeping up with what is happening, what chance do the viewers have? I would think an Unreal Tournament type of game would be timed better for a spectating crowd.

Re:Designed for spectators (1)

patternjuggler (738978) | more than 10 years ago | (#8803677)

If you want really good camera shots, you need 5 or 6 ghost spectators floating around the arena, and someone to switch between them

I've always thought it would be interesting to have cameramen player classes, where there would be a bunch of cameras controlled by in-game characters, shoulder mounted even. Perhaps dead players waiting in limbo or casual spectators would switch among them and find the best shots, and the cameraman with the most views would get the most points. None of that would help with storytelling though, but it might be interesting. Cameramen could be killed just like anyone else, which may be necessary to keep tactics secret, but it would cost the killing side a little. To further complicate matters, the type of stuff captured on video would affect the outcome- if one side wins, but there aren't any cameras to see it, then that's not worth as much as a gloriuos victory broadcast live to the world.

Re:Designed for spectators (1)

nodrama (73489) | more than 10 years ago | (#8812434)

Sports are generally not designed for spectators either. Spectator friendliness is pretty irrelevant. IMHO gross number of participants and spectators multiplies by the dollars extracted per person is key. Therefore many combinations are successful:

Large # participants work, e.g. football (soccer), running, fishing...
High revenue participation, e.g. Golf, Snowboarding...
High revenue from spectators (often TV revenue), e.g. NFL, Cricket, NBA, NHL, football (soccer)...

Can eSports find a combination of participants and dollars? I think it can. High end PCs, console SW, elite level mice, pads, etc compare well with golf and snowboarding in terms of participation revenue.

If the money is there than spectator problems will be solved so more kit can be sold. Because the sport in inherently digitized it is likely that production techniques will emerge that present it very nicely (obviously it has a way to go). I think making CS spectator friendly is a smaller challenge than making NHL or AFL (Australian football) spectator friendly because those sports struggle when presented on a TV.

Now that the NHL and AFL fans are angered I'll annoy the Tennis fans too. Tennis is a terribly boring game to watch, but it translates to TV so well (2 camera is pretty much enough to capture the game) that has been very successful. There are multiples paths to success: high value or low cost. Video games could end have tiny production costs (if the production is automated) which is very attractive for non-mainstream content.

If poker can be a spectator "sport" than Video Games will make it too!

Spectator issues (2, Interesting)

mksavi (768274) | more than 10 years ago | (#8801206)

I think there are several reasons why video games will never make it huge as spectator sports (or activities w/e):

1.) Its faceless. Who the hell is [Sk]-l337sh00t3r- anyway? And besides the name, (which any player on any server can make their own) what is there to differentiate that player. Most clans will all use the same skin. Without being able to recognize the player quickly and easily it is more difficult to root or cheer for them.

2.) The teams come and go like the wind. If you stop going on the CS IRC servers for a couple of months, then the CPL or CAL-I teams that everyone is talking about are completely different the next time you go on. Theres no Red Sox-Yankees type rivalry, or even the possibility for that kind of rivalry.

3.) If I like a video game, Id rather play it then watch somebody else. This is different from other sports because if you are sitting on your couch and want to play say football, then you have to go through the hassle of getting people together and get off your couch and actually move. With video games, Im sitting at my box and can either spectate a match or jump on a server and play. No movement necessary. I want real competition? Go on IRC and find a scrim.

4.) Most people who do spectate video games are people who think they can at some point get to that professional level. You never hear of someone who doesnt play Counter-Strike watching a CPL match. Most people who watch football havent played in years, or at least dont play competitively. Yeah, there are a lot of people that play FPSs but by only drawing on that limited pool, they will never achieve a very high response to FPSs as spectator sports.

5.) This is kind of flame-starting, but I find that most people really into the culture of a video game, Counter-Strike in particular, are 12-yr old kids who have way too much time on their hands. As soon as they grow up a little and start having other responsibilities, they are going to spend less time on video games and what is the first thing theyll cut out of their gaming habits? Watching someone else play. Most likely theyd rather spend the time actually playing.


Re:Spectator issues (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8801346)

#1 Hey as for not knowing who these people are and "cheering" them on. If youve ever spectated a CS match its pretty easy to tell since their names are tagged on the bottom of the screen. Also, its not that hard to follow where the people are, its just 10 people.

#2 teams and rivalries. They do exist in the world of CS. Im not too particularly sure on the higher ranked CPL and CAL-I levels but im for damn sure that on the local level theres tons of competition and rivalry.

#3,4 CS being a spectator sport is in its infantcy. Thats why people from TSN started shoutcasting high profile events and Intel sponsored this Extreme Challenge event. Obv its NOT for everyone. Really, not everyone is going to watch it. Heck, i dont like watching golf, but theres still tons of people participating as spectators. So why not CS? Heck, look on tv and you see POKER on espn2. And all the people do is sit at a table and look at cards (obv at high stakes). I would rather watch organized teams duke it out firing AK-47's and desert eagles at eachother.

On another note you have to give TSN some level of credit. They are taking a game that wasnt even endorsed by Valve (makers of HL) and its grown big enough to almost become a spectators sport.

Re:Spectator issues (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8803729)

1] - Do It On Lan.

2] - "European" Counter-Strike Has More Than A Fair Share Of Rivalry.....Especially By Nation.

3] - That's Your Call, But Then Again, You Could Easily Scrim Against Bots.

4] - Oversimplifying? Tennis? Golf?

5] - "Professional" Counter-Strike Is Far From 12 Year Old Kids -- LAN In North America [CPL] Prevents This.

Commentary (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8801443)

Just one thing about the actual video. What the hell was the point of the commentary? First off, I'm sure they gave away some relevant information to the other team. Secondly, they didn't say anything that wasn't blatantly obvious from watching. I think a birds-eye view map with all the players displayed and some selected screenshots (Picture in Picture, the map clipped into whatever the given first person view happens to be) would be a better way.
The commentating was bloody annoying.

Re:Commentary (1)

riotous (113418) | more than 10 years ago | (#8825484)

See I think the commentary was funny as during some of the gun fights you couldn't hear them over the sound of the gun

Commentator: Oh here we have the four kings going into....(lots of guns noise)......completly covered in jam.....(lots of guns noise)....look at the size of it....(lots of guns noise)...he'll be nursing that wound for a while


I'm interested in watching the match, but.. (2, Interesting)

Propagandhi (570791) | more than 10 years ago | (#8801679)

I'm not interested in worthless comentary and having someone else determine which part of the match I'm watching. The only reason to watch it is to see what "uber-l33t" cs players play like and video of monitors showing them in third person is pretty useless. Why not just release the hltv demo and let me decide what part of the match I'm watching?

In related news... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8801920)

...Tetris has just been accepted for the comming Olympics.
A new 50,000 seat stadium is being build with a floor-mounted 400x300ft display, state-of-the art security measures will be installed to prevent hooliganism.

Similar to paintball (1)

Mostly Monkey (454505) | more than 10 years ago | (#8804153)

I can see how trying to make this into a spectator sport is going to be tough just as it is with paintball. Many players want to be able to watch PB matches but this type of action just isn't formatted to be watched comfortably. Most popular sports have one main focus, the ball. In CS or paintball the action is all over the place and very difficult to get a good viewing angle on. If I were to watch either one (PB or CS), I would want to see it from the ground level slightly behind a player. That way it would be possible to see the strategy involved in shootouts verses an aireal view of people just plinking at each other. When the action jumps from one player to another it's very jarring and it takes a while to refocus on what is going on. I guess about the only way I could truely enjoy watching either PB or CS is to have a head-cam on each player and view the game splitscreen with enemies on each side. Even doing this it would still be necessary to watch the same game several time to see what was going on with other players throughout the field.

Re:Similar to paintball (1)

johnopolis (631035) | more than 10 years ago | (#8806593)

As I was watching the video and later as I read though the comments I was also thinking about paintball. I think the best way to bring either a FPS video game or Paintball to TV/Video would be from more of a storytelling standpoint. Switching only between an overhead view and the first person view of one player. Then have that player describe strategy via the overhead shots and action via the first person view. I don't know if it'll ever work on TV but I hope it does.

The biggest problem (1)

jayhawk88 (160512) | more than 10 years ago | (#8807656)

...with video games becoming a spectator sport, is that so many people so desperately want it to become a spectator sport.

No sport hit the ground running as a viable spectator sport. You think anyone gave a shit back in 1820 when a bunch of nuts went chasing a little white and red-stitched ball all round a grass field? Maybe their families and drinking buddies, but that was about it. It took 50-60 years before even the first signs of professional baseball started to show up in places like New York, Boston and Cincinnati, and even longer than that until you had an MLB that could legitimately be recognized as a national sports league. How old is multiplayer gaming, at least the kind that we could classify as ever having a chance at becoming a spectator sport? Quake 2 is only about 7 years old. Starcraft was released in 98. I'm sure you can think of other examples that are older, but the point is that competitive gaming is still in it's infancy.

Competitive gaming as a spectator sport will occur naturally. When we can produce fully immersive 3-D virtual worlds that 30,000 people can plug into and view the action simultaneously, then people are going to pay money to watch the worlds best Quake 9 players frag each other. Players will be reproduced in this virtual world exactly, down to the last mole on their cheek. They'll move their avatars not with a keyboard and mouse but with Gundam-style movement suits, which will even perhaps require them to be in top physical shape. Their reaction and hand-eye skills will be world class.

But people can't resist trying to make this happen now, and it's just not going to work when the best you can offer them is essentially watching a TV show of someone playing a video game.

Video games are good as a spectator sport... (1)

Zangief (461457) | more than 10 years ago | (#8809029)


Come on, videogames are fun because YOU ARE IN CONTROL. I find boring to sit and watch some guys play soccer, basketball, whatever, if I can be playing some Mario Kart, or some other thing, with a friend or alone.

Yeah, you can watch the ocasional "ten minutes" ran on SMB3, but apart from that...
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?