your annalogy fails, there are several different styles of "chess" to play, they re-arrange pieces, another example is checkers, there are several different checker styles... yet another is Monopoly (collect $$ for landing on freeparking, etc) and another is UNO (they actually got people to write in their favorite "style" and made a list of their favorite)... things get updated to prevent getting old and boring (another physical example would be creation of rugby... iirc it was an alteration of football (soccer)
Yes there are lots of different sorts and variations on games...but if I say lets play UNO or chess you know exactly what I am talking about and you wouldn't need the rules explained to you beforehand.
Soccer? Boring? Its the world sport buddy. People with no attention spans who get bored make changes to stop things being boring. All games undergo large changes initially...post-release market research. Rugby may have been a spin off but they are vastly different games and neither have undergone significant changes past that initial phase.
With regards to monopoly...the free parking cvar is only one that I can think of for that game. I was protesting large amounts of options and changes. When people play monopoly they ask are we playing the free parking rule? They don't have to ask whats the 50 different settings for todays game.
Rule changes in sport are only very minor and do not affect gameplay very much at all. An example would be soccer where competition rules might affect whether you play substitution or interchange. Other things are to do with competition structures and how the actual comps are organised.
we've seen a slow, constant decline in real world sports interest though in the past decade or so though...
Thats because people are getting fatter and lazier...
there have been changes in how ties are decided, etc. because long drawn out tied games are no fun for either players or spectators.
People don't like seeing a winner decided though through these means. A penalty shootout is used in soccer as a last resort and is not deemed to determine the better side...only to produce a result. A draw in soccer is an exciting thing to watch and the result inducing penalty shootout is great for spectators. I think there should be more of a focus on some other way to settle a draw in ET post match rather than altering the game to ensure a result during the game. As I suggested before maybe its the ladder structure that should change. Maybe stopwatch isn't the best way to ladders. I think the timed element is terrific but maybe there is another way to implement it.
As an aside...
If you want to talk about long drawn out games that don't produce a result...try test match cricket. I live in Australia and "we" love our cricket here. The game goes for 5 days and very often results in a draw. (A draw and a tie is a different thing). Its an incredibly boring thing to watch...
sports have (had) a very very long lifespan because there was no alternative
I don't think thats necessarily completely true. There are new sports popping up here and there but most never make it into the mainstream. I guess the lack of a technology aspect has a fair bit to do with their longevity. I think part of is it if someone says "soccer" you know exactly what you are going to get...you don't have to ask is it soccer 2.1 or soccer 2.2? and what are the cvars?
and league rules do change (though not often), sometimes to better accomodate spectators (and ugh, advertisers).
I said before that games are about the players...they only become about the spectators when there are a few bucks to be made. Typically most major sports have an international governing body which determines what the league rules should be for all internationals. These rules then filter down through all levels of competition so typically everyone will be playing the same rules.
I know in my local soccer comp most of our league rules and even small changes to gameplay come directly from FIFA.
i guess we will have to agree to disagree here. your claim is basically that there is no room for improvement to ET (or that despite any remaining flaws, people should just learn to live with them).
No no no that isn't my claim at all!!! I said:
Changes if they do happen should be a slow evolution. Have a look at how blizzard handles starcraft/diablo and the rest of battlenet. Bring in a few small changes at a time, let them become the norm before bringing in any others. I have to say in most regards this has been done with ET and I applaud the ETPro boys for their work...But there has to be a point where it stops...a point where the gameplay stops changing and the only things added are "features".
Changes should only be very small and adopted very slowly. I really think blizzard's handling of starcraft and in general their online community for all their games is absolutely superb. Starcraft went through some rapid patching early on with a lot of balance changes. Then with each patch the balance changes became less and less severe until it converged on the game that has been constant for about 4 years. The occasional patches that come out now only add features and fix the odd bug.
the logical extension of your argument carried to its conclusion would then be, there should never be any new maps, ever.
Thats probably a fair comment bani. I am in general opposed to new maps. I feel that most amateur mappers are not up to the task of creating great maps. Having said this, I can't claim to be a fountain of knowledge of this topic. My personal bias prevents me from wanting to even try out new maps which I guess is my loss. Out of all the custom maps I have played I guess I have liked more than I have disliked so maybe in time I will come around. I think its important though, like any other changes, that new maps be brought in slowly. If I was running a league, or even competing in a league (which I am) I wouldn't want more than maybe 2 new maps in a season.
and I say ET can become better than it is, if people would just be open to debate instead of slamming the door at every suggestion of something new (maps, gameplay changes, etc).
Can you at least understand why people oppose changes in general... whether you agree with their stance or not? All they want is to know that ET will always be ET and not just look like ET.
).
