paleoperson wrote: » I don't know how you can talk about "the skill involved", if it's not your game then you don't understand what you're watching very well at all. The major downfall of computer games and board games as spectator sports is that the spectator tends to not be able to understand what's going on or able to recognize great skill unless they're at a high skill level themselves. You're really claiming to have an idea of what's going on at the highest levels of the game already?
paleoperson wrote: » Everyone can see Messi busting through the world's greatest defenders and sending it the ball to the roof of the net. However when it comes to games like Fortnite you can't see what's going on very well and can't assess the skill involved, all you can see are the results on the screen. Any effect of skill you thought you saw was the emperor's new clothes. Even watching spectator sports like football a person who is new to the game will have a very difficult time spotting a really good player because they have nothing to compare it to.
paleoperson wrote: » Sorry, I don't know what the hell you are talking about. There's no "going in" for something unless it's a lottery. If someone is meant to be by far the best player in the world at something then overall, then you should expect them to qualify for the finals which got something like 100 participants. It'd be like Federer not qualifying for Wimbledon. You don't just "try your hand" at something involving a high skill level, that is ridiculous. It's like if you started playing football or tennis and all of a sudden you were world champion, that's not how it goes. Ninja not qualifying is a good argument because it's a good piece of evidence showing that the game has a large element of luck rather than actual skill. It's all a kind of lottery at the higher levels.
paleoperson wrote: » You are suggesting I said things I never did or would claim. I never said anything like it was "pure luck", I said it involved a very heavy element of luck. In no way did I suggest that it was all luck. I would never claim I wouldn't be buried alive by any of these players in Fortnite, I'm sure I would no matter how much practice I had. However take the most talented player in any medium-sized town in Ireland, train them up really well, and they would have as much of a lottery of chance as most of the others. A lucky noob could only kill a veteran player in FFA in Quake, not in Duel which is where all the serious competition is.
Bobblehats wrote: » We’re talking Fortnite here I would say 12. Maximum.
The Tetrarch wrote: » Small stuff. The WSOP (world series of poker) in Las Vegas had 89 events this summer. The Main Event (started 1970) has a USD 10,000 buy in, and in 2019 had 8,569 players, with a prizepool of USD 80,548,600, and USD 10,000,000 to the winner (2nd 6,000,000, 3rd 4,000,000 ..... with 9th getting 1,000,000). Many events had a 10k buy in, with event 83 a USD 100,000 entry fee. In the past there was a tournament with a USD 1,000,000 entry fee.
Atoms for Peace wrote: » Fortnite is probably one of the worst games of all time, considering sales and popularity. Completely unoriginal and derivative, run around and get killed and repeat ad nauseam.
paleoperson wrote: » Potential-Monke's post is one of the dumbest I have seen in a long time and I regret spending a significant amount of time constructing my earlier post.
Potential-Monke wrote: » Off with you so, nobody wants to listen to you when you consider skill 'luck'. Byeeeeeeeee!
Tell me how wrote: » I think their implication was that a single lucky shot could knock them from a game in a different way to say, an amateur golfer getting a hole in one isn't going to defeat tiger at the Masters, it's just a single hole out of the 72 over the weekend. I don't know (maybe re-spawning accounts for negating single lucky shots), in gaming, does the cream always rise to the top?
Tell me how wrote: » I don't know (maybe re-spawning accounts for negating single lucky shots), in gaming, does the cream always rise to the top?
Parachutes wrote: » I played games the majority of my life, I was part of the first generation in Ireland who truly grew up with computer games, I was playing crash bandicoot on the PlayStation 1 at two years of age. Gaming has been a big hobby for me ever since.
paleoperson wrote: » What do you mean "truly grew up with computer games", plenty of people twenty years older than you "truly grew up with computer games".
Parachutes wrote: » I don't think games were widely available in Ireland before the mid 90's, certainly not gaming in the modern sense we're talking here, eg. 3d multiplayer competitive.
Parachutes wrote: » I don't think games were widely available in Ireland before the mid 90's,
Parachutes wrote: » certainly not gaming in the modern sense we're talking here, eg. 3d multiplayer competitive.
Muahahaha wrote: » When they said 40 million applied for the Fortnite world cup did each entrant have to pay a few dollars to enter? If so that is serious moolah and makes the $3m first prize look like buttons.
Potential-Monke wrote: » Nope, no money needed.
Muahahaha wrote: » ah right seems like they're missing a trick, even a $3 entry fee would have generated $120m in revenue. I thought Fortnite was all about micro payments, what are the players paying for, just upgraded avatars and stuff? Any idea of what kind of revenue they are doing from in game sales?
Muahahaha wrote: » My god $2.4bn is some amount of revenue, it puts it up there with elite sports. Whats the general premise of the game, Ive only watched it for a minute on Twitch and it was hard to follow but seems like you're building a tower and fighting opponents at the same time or something? Its mad how popular it is, I know a few parents whose kids are in it up to their necks. They cant get them out of the house. I know from my own gaming days how addictive it can be but back then it was just you in your living room against the computer, when its you against everyone else with prizemoney and prestige at stake it brings it to a whole new level.
riclad wrote: »
