Kimosabae said:
With that said, while the reputations of many of these players in regards to talent will change little, their reputations in regards to winning clearly are. If that reputation diminishes enough, a random beating Daigo does not become exciting. Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised at all if we see something like that over the weekend considering it's freaking Canada.
Consistent winners in a competitive scene give chasers reason to believe there's integrity behind the mechanics/rules of the game they're competing in. When a different player is winning every tournament (or an increasingly wide range of different players in a subset), the game's integrity becomes questionable when people start doubting any one player can become the definitive "best" and lowers the incentive to compete. If players can't deduce a consistent strategy for winning; why play?
I'm not saying this is where SSF4 is headed, but I believe they are legitimate issues worth raising and discussing, considering the scattershot performances of notable players, and the new faces being elevated everyday. Yes, comp is tighter. Yes, info is more accessible. Does not follow that there aren't other aspects of the phenomenon to consider.
Tek responded to this well, but I want to add the way I see it. I really got into poker towards the end of High School/beginning of College when it blew up in popularity. As I got more into SF4 I noticed a lot of similarities (Of course poker does have more luck to it than SF) and posted about it at least once in the Vanilla thread. From reads, setups, and measuring risk vs. reward to offline/online play being extremely similar to live poker with real money vs. online poker with fake money, in terms of intelligent play when something is on the line vs. when nothing is on the line. Now it's starting to look like the scene is even going a similar route.
Poker always had its big yearly events and its group of pros who always participated, and generally dominated, with a mix of "normal" people who would enter and give it a shot. When poker exploded it wasn't because a poker pro won his 5th huge event in a row or something like that. It was because a normal average dude beat the pros and won. That feeling of anyone can do it is why it took off shortly after. I think the recent results could lead to something similar with SSF4. With other names winning, and it becoming apparent that tournaments here aren't free for Daigo, people will be more confident to learn, train, and then play rather then feel like nothing more than a pot monster if they did enter.
This is also in no way a "black eye" on the integrity of the game. If anything, it only goes to show how balanced the game is and that there isn't one strategy you can learn, ride to the top, and then stay there with.
As for the reputations of pro players if they continue to lose to "randoms"? They'll be fine as long as 2 things continue to happen: 1.) They consistently play/place solidly in big tournaments (Even if they don't necessarily win many or any) and 2.) Keep doing those "pro-like" things. With regards to the first point, Mike Ross might still be chasing the big one, but he still has a following that would lead you to believe he has won almost as much as Daigo. This is obviously partly due to his personality (Which is another way pros can remain relevant even if "randoms" are winning the big events) but it's also due to his consistently solid play. As tournaments get larger like they have since this fighting game resurgence, consistently finishing well in major tournaments is almost as impressive, if not more than, as winning one big one. And with regards to the second point, sure Gamerbee may have won the Ohio tournament (Not sure if he's considered a "random" or out of nowhere anymore) and FChamp won SCR (Who isn't a "random" or out of nowhere either), but the thing I'll remember most about the last few months is Daigo's cr.fierce xx super on Art's Sim. If pros keep doing "pro-like" stuff like that then their reputations will be fine even if they aren't dominating every event.
I respect your opinion and your desire for there to be a top dog to shoot for, but I think most people would rather have parity. Or at least the opportunity for parity if you put the work in. Though if I were strictly going to spectate SSF4 then maybe a new face winning every tournament would get boring. But if you're into the game beyond spectating then I don't see how this is anything but exciting.
All that said, I sorta touched on it, but it isn't like "randoms" are winning yet. Unless you consider Gamerbee and FChamp to be "randoms." :lol
