"What about the esports connection here, though? Just because something's not a MOBA doesn't mean it can't be an esport"

"soo is this like a skill-based shooter, like counter strike? Like how does this work?"



...I know it's 2016 and IGN is scraping the bottom of the barrel esport "webzine", but you're basically subtly trash-talking the granddaddy of online gaming.

I have no idea who's the target audience for those two rhetorical questions, but it leaves me bitter and kinda mellow. I know quake's long gone and only the few of us left care about it, just seems like a cruel reality check when "big name" websites question if it has a place in esports and whether the game is kinda like counterstrike.

God dammit you guys.

Well i think that bald guy is just a clueless console fag.
Theres new info in the video however. The progression is not based on achievements, but on tackling the mechanical skills needed to be good. Stuff like this s nice to hear

It's IGN, IGN is cancer.

It's not IGN's fault. With any news outlet or TV shows they have to adjust their communication for popular culture. In the case of the gaming industry, CS is 'the' shooting game that anyone knows about. My grandparents know about CS, for example, and other relatives who haven't touched a PC game in their life know about CS over any Quake game.

This new information is encouraging though, and I'm very surprised iDsoftware is taking this route.

It is IGN's fault, this is the same organisation which allows devs to pay them more for better reviews of their games.

You shouldn't be surprised though, surely?

#Q
#U
#A
#K
#E
#P
#R
#I
#M
#E

He's just there to prompt the other speaker, and to put the other's comments in context for the general viewer--Counter-Strike is salient in the collective minds of video-game players as a skill-based shooter. The comment about e-sports not needing to be M.O.B.A. games was a bit queer, but again, he's just trying to provide prompts and context.

I don't believe either speaker questioned Quake: Champions' validity as an e-sport, but I do think it's an interesting question: could a F.P.S. like Quake (with classes) exist as an e-sport in today's environment? Counter Strike isn't as popular as the M.O.B.A. games, and I have a suspicion that Counter Strike's popularity is up-help by gambling and its cosmetics. Would it survive as a popular game without those two aspects?

'm not up to date with the world of e-sports, but the impression I've received is that the e-sport hierarchy looks something like this:
The M.O.B.A. games on top,
with the Counter-Strike games below,
then the StarCraft games,
and others (?) bring up the rear.

Games that may be similar to Quake: Champions are games like Team Fortress, or Overwatch. I don't know how Overwatch is doing in the tournament scene, so maybe someone can chime in here and give a forecast as to its future on the e-sport circuit, but I don't think Team Fortress ever flourished. Neither did DirtyBomb, another class-based F.P.S.. A precursor to Overwatch though is Shadowrun, and that game completely failed to thrive as an e-sport even though it was picked up by M.L.G.. Do class-based, arena-esque F.P.S. games have a future in today's environment? Did they ever? I am personally not fond of them.

Class-based F.P.S. games impose artificial restrictions on players of the fundamental-game and try to impress with gimmicks. A generic class-based F.P.S. might have a fast, and weak class; a slow, and strong class; and a class that bridges the two extremes. Quake 3/Live has players that are faster than others, players that are stronger than others, and players in the median ranges of these qualities. Classes don't artificially restrict them. What restricts them in a quality is their mechanical execution of the fundamental-game. Some players are really good at strafe-jumping, wall-clipping, rocket-jumping, etc.; others are really good with the LG; some people are really good at predicting their opponents moves; some are really good at hiding from their opponents when they don't want to be found; etc.. Classes take player attributes and shove them into game-mechanics. So now there exists classes with wall-hacks, classes with beefed-up/watered-down character stats, classes with personal- teleporters, etc.. It's awkward, and it's not as fun as having the fundamental-game accessible to all.

That was a bit of a tangent... Needless to say, I'm interested in seeing what the developers of Quake: Champions do, and how it all pans out. I wonder how many "champions" will exist in the game. Whether or not they'll be 'unlocked' at the start. Perhaps the player will have to gradually unlock them, or buy them. Do the developers plan on adding more after the game's release? It'll be interesting to observe... What is the progression that was talked about in the video?

doubt if there are any champions in the game, its just a quake 3 arena remake, trying to catch to mainstream ESPORTS deal

IGN best gamerz of all times wot u expect m8?

well that clears it up