Generals 2

C&C Community Manager Twitter Account
https://twitter.com/OfficialCnC

"hey C&C Community Manager guy... will C&C be in the ESL?"

C&C Community Manager Cire: "eSport became a serious part of the online activity for some games. So we're looking into it "

This is the only information I've seen thus far about G2 being a competitive multi-player eSport.
Has anyone seen any other comments from EA or Bioware or Victory Games or its developers about this topic?

Does anyone on "Victory Games" have eSports experience?

This post has been edited by JimRaynor: Aug 7 2012, 15:45 PM

I havent scene it no, but i damn hope that they will guide this into competitive gaming like they (kinda) did with cnc3

I'm at gamescom next week, hopefully I will see something new about the game. I doubt it will be too much of an e-sport title though. But maybe EA surprises us and learned out of their mistakes in the past. MAYBE.

Ughhh, no offense meant to CIRE as he obviously isn't going to divulge any information (especially not with Twitter's character limit), but eSports is not something you "look into", as if it's something that can be duct taped onto the game after it ships. A game has to be designed and built from the ground up with the explicit goal of being BOTH playable and watchable in a competitive context.

eSports caliber playability requires:
1. Skill contrast & depth
Motivation to play competitively is 100% dependent on players being able to distinguish themselves from other players. Everything from the sheer fun of "hey I'm really good at this game" to the actual earnings, depends on being able to be better than another player.

This sounds silly, but not all games give players sufficient opportunities, avenues, methods, and/or ways to out-play their opponents. Many games lack sufficient depth, as well as ways for different play styles to emerge. The result is often a "fuzzy" line that distinguishes good players from bad players. While this is a fantastic bit of "skill socialism" for the bad players at the expense of the good players, it discourages players from trying too hard because the game ends up skill-capping them.

2. Balance
Balance at top levels of play is crucial. If the game is deep enough that there is plenty of skill contrast between players, balance is actually LESS important, because skill differences will affect the outcome of a match more than balance differences. However, over time player skill levels will start to normalize, and as such, balance issues will emerge. It is important that the game has been designed with as many tweakable settings/characteristics as possible so as to make changes that are as isolated and low-impact as possible.

3. Ladder
Even though the truly competitive play is usually seen in 3rd party leagues and tournaments, the presence of a ladder attracts and breeds a culture that is interested in competitive play.

That's at a minimum. There are a lot of other small things that are important for true eSports, but those are the big three.

eSports caliber watchability requires:
1. Clear graphics
One would think that quality of graphics and realism is what would make a game watchable, but it's not. In reality, an audience is not going to watch a game for its graphics alone. If you're not interested in watching a game in the first place, then CGI-quality graphics isn't going to suddenly compel you.

Instead, people want to watch games for the same reasons they watch sports: (the tension, drama, excitement, fanboyism, team spirit etc). Given that, in order for them to follow the tension and drama, they have to be able to follow the "plays" of the game itself. If you can't see what each player is doing because there are explosions, particle effects, and general levels of chaos going on, then you're not going to watch the game.

A game must be readable to an audience, and that requires a certain deliberate art design direction.

2. Pacing
Pacing is hugely important to watchability. Pacing doesn't affect playability so much as long as players feel sufficiently engaged. For example, Civ games have the slowest pacing on the planet, but that doesn't matter when you're playing it because you always have "busy work" to be doing. You're engaged.

An audience, however, DOESN'T PARTICIPATE IN THE GAMEPLAY, they can only watch it. To someone playing Civ, there's a ton of stuff going on. To someone watching Civ, it's like there's nothing going on. Pacing, however, can't be too fast, either. You can't make it so fast that you lose readability.

The right pacing should afford commentators time to explain the game in general, and what's going on in the match, rather than making them frantically scramble to call one play after another. This also makes it easier for an unfamiliar audience to follow, read, and understand the game. Constant play-by-play due to overpacing is as tiring to the audience as it is to the commentators. But at the same time, the game cant be so slow that it's boring.

3. Fan-friendly
As noted above, sports spectators are fans of players and teams. They watch games not just because the games are interesting, but because they are interested in seeing how their favorite players and teams compete. This point circles back to the very first point above: you need skill contrast and skill depth in order to allow for variety in playstyles, and to make it clear who is better than who.

Rivalries should be REAL rivalries, not fake rivalries that exist because the game is so shallow, everyone is as good as everyone else.


So yeah, you don't "look into" eSports, you explicity and deliberately design your game and create your development timeline around eSports

Mate that should be a news post.
"What does it take to make it to the big league of eSports"

just like any other sport, dedication, and talent.

I'm not sure but I think he just wanted to give a hint that the game will be designed for E-Sports. That means they will hopefully do what AGM suggested in his post.

u gotta back this "blind hope" with something ... otherwise it is just that.. "blind hope"
how many employees of Victory Games have any experience at all with designing a eSports game ?
The head developer guy hasn't even made an RTS game.

i bet they are throwing around the term "RTS as Sport" the same way they did with C&C3/KW/RA3... and we'll end up with as much of an eSport as KW and RA3 were. EA's eSPorts support was abysmal with RA3.

We'll know after the first public showing of the game if, in fact, it has been designed from the ground up as an eSport... or if its graphical eye candy for the single player campaign crowd.

If anything... u design it as an eSport from the ground up.. and then what you do is ...
you 'TACK ON' a single player campaign once the heavy lifting of the competitive multiplayer is solid.

This post has been edited by JimRaynor: Aug 9 2012, 16:47 PM

But that's not True CNC™

Only the most stubborn fans would object to that. The ones who adamantly believe that everything that isn't tib series (often including RA as a prequel) is either meh or terrible. The others are just as much in it for fun gameplay as the story.

As long as there is a little chance I will hope that they finally learned out of their mistakes. But in the end you will be probably right.

i hope i'm wrong..
i hope you are correct.

but i doubt it

on a related and further depressing note.. about "RTS as Sport"

the last few years Blizzard and Morhaime have basically been given a "blank cheque" to spend whatever he deems necessary to make a AAA title.

there is trouble in paradise dude... those lazy hazy crazy days may be coming to a close as the people above Morhaime begin to question his judgement.

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2012...admits-blizzard

this combined with Vivendi squawking about selling may force Blizzard to lower their amazing post sales support levels.

Blizzard has become shit as well. Diablo 3 was an epic fail so far. I stopped playing it when they tried to patch Inferno. Unbelieveable how much they fucked it up. Number one record means shit I guess. Same about SC2. The last patch I've come across was the buff of queens. I mean.. wtf? Zerg was already imba and they buff it?

Actually they should think about a system like LoL - free to play, while people pay tons of money for the modifications of the game. Then they don't need to think about sellings and can work more on the support.

Maybe they'll finally make SP an add-on for people that want to blow cash on the equivalent of a D quality movie. Meanwhile the actual gameplay can be the focus and purpose of the game, and that can be free (or hell, even a $20 MP addon would be cool since that's $40 less for the only gameplay mode that has any real replay value).

dont expect them to say anything at gamescom (this week) either... gens2 isnt on their announced lineup

http://trendygamers.com/2012/08/10/ea-reve...scom-2012-line/

all this lack of news + the wishy-washy info they gave out last year (especially on multiplayer/esport) casts serious doubt on the direction (perhaps even lack of) of this game's development



This post has been edited by cnc315d34d: Aug 13 2012, 10:47 AM

ummm anything below GM and any balance whining is grossly mis-informed.
and at the top level Terrans are doing just fine... do you want them to win every single GSL ?

Blizzard has a long history of nailing RTS games starting in 1995.
Morhaime, Sigaty, Pierce and Browder didn't "get dumb" in the last 2 years.

D3 ... well remember the top Blizzard developers were not involved in its development. It was made by Blizzard North. Pierce, Morhaime and Adham had nuttin' to do with it. Remember D3's top designer leaving and then weeks later a giant announcement stating the game was far from finished. They said their goodbyes in a polite way, but if you talk to anyone who was in teh closed beta ( day9 etc ) the game radically changed after he left.

So the issues with D3 I blame on the fact that the current core of Blizz did not make previous Diablo games. and the head designer guy they fired.

Blizzard is giant machine pumping out quality content all the time. I hope the support for the RTS genre continues because I've had a great time playing their Starcraft series.

Also, even if a certain game isn't "to your taste" that does not mean the company is "shit". I am not into MMOs or Diablo at all. This does not mean Blizzard, WoW and the Diablo series are complete and total garbage.


there will be some Heart of the Swarm stuff at GamesCom though


This post has been edited by JimRaynor: Aug 14 2012, 02:44 AM

Note that I was talking about the game 3-4 month ago. I didn't touch it since that time. Back then Zerg was totally imbalanced and Toss couldn't win anything. Several GM's said that playing Zerg is a joke. Same like Terran in the Beta. I never talked about my own experience since I know that playing Gold/Platin can't be considered in such a balance discussion. Although I think that the problems are the same. We don't do different things actually, we just do them slower.

And to D3... It's not just me who said that it's a fail. Especially the patch. There have been enough whining threads and people wo stopped playing the game because Diablo 2 was SO MUCH BETTER.

I really don't care which people from Blizzard developed the game. It's the company who is responsible for it and it's D3 nonetheless. It doesn't change anything that they fired the head designer or that the others didn't make previous Diablo games. That's no excuse at all. If I want to sell quality then I have to produce it. And if it takes longer than I thought then so be it. But to bring out a game which is not close to be finished is pure cheekiness.

That is not true. Lower league player (such as myself) do many, many mistakes and fail to play their race in the right way. The lower league players do not lack APM they primarily lack understanding of the game like timings, unit compositions, expansion and teck transitions. Therefore their game is much different than high level player.
Unfortunately the Blizzard forums are flooded by Silver to Diamond players, who blame the game balance for their faults.
I do not want to state SC2 to be completly balanced, it still has some flaws, but Blizzard does care and every patch has a good reason behind it. And always remember 95% of the "OMG Terran/Protoss/Zerg totally imba PATCH NOW!"-poster are whining players after a loss streak.


I agree strongly. It all seems a little strange.
But I really hope this is a good sign and they take their time to develop a proper sequel and dont rush the release of a unfinished game.

The beta for SC2 was lengthy and very open.
every one had lots of time to make up their mind before they spent their money at a total cost of $0.
the game was dissected 10,000 ways over.

the 10,000 other RTS games out there.. just play 1 you like instead of wasting your time whining about SC2 because Blizzard does not watch these forums.

most of the guys i know who were in the beta thought SC2 was worth the $60... which is part of the reason D3 did well 2 years later.

if Blizzard produces garbage they'll go out of business.