How You Like Your Tournaments

Fried or fertilized

Now that the controversy surrounding the PowerUp 2011 bracket/match tampering has somewhat died down, I think this would be a good time to reflect upon the overall implications from these events and the possible direction that the fighting-game scene will be taking. More specifically, I'd like to know if the majority of people would agree or disagree with a continued, and possibly expanded, organization of tournament structure. Specific player names won't be mentioned because, in the grand scheme of things, they don't necessarily matter. (And I'm sure you already know)

Anyway, I will admit that I wasn't playing and/or following tournaments closely in the past but I'm sure that situations concerning bracket and match modifications are nothing new; however, the amount of exposure tournaments receive due to streaming is definitely something that has come to the forefront within the past few years. There are also a plethora of media and social websites that allow for quick and potentially personal accounts of things that may have transpired. Likewise, there has been an influx of companies signing players who excel in fighting-games as opposed to FPS's or other genres. So now, with this more "team-centric" mindset coming into play, issues of moral conduct, in major events at the very least, are being raised and examined. 

The PowerUp fiasco is quite similar to a player of any sport coercing the referee to change the rules in his or her favor. There is, however, a clear disconnect between the regulators and the players. Not only are they set apart by their clothing but they are completely separated from the team while they are discussing strategy and are practicing. This can also be easily observed in children's sports wherein, if a child tries to change or dispute a decision, the rules are explained to them and things proceed as per the ref's call OR the child is ignored and things proceed as per the ref's call. From both physical and psychological standpoints, the distinction between the two parties is apparent. In this instance the referee is clearly on another level. The difference with tournaments today is that many of the so-called officials/organizers were at one time or are still currently players themselves, which in turn creates a very awkward situation between people who are essentially friends. There is no governing body of core officials who train others in the fine art of tournament organization, but rather a group of people who volunteer their time to do something that will help not only the tournament itself but, and perhaps more importantly, their friends as well. It's very much an evocation of "don't forget where you come from".

Now, am I suggesting that the fighting-game scene bring in completely unrelated second or third parties to run tournaments? Not necessarily -- with the amount of events being run it would be unreasonable to fly people around the country just to run one tournament in that area. Likewise, it is generally much faster and more efficient to have people already familiar with the current systems running things. 

It really boils down to what spectators want to see and, to a lesser extent, the type of events players want to participate in. By using a more grassroots approach both tournament organizers and players have more freedom in how things play out. There can be more drama, more "salt" as it were, and potentially more hype with little if any repercussion -- for better or worse. Conversely, a more professional acumen would promote less observable "beef", while placing emphasis quite simply on high-level play. Sure there would be more money involved but one runs the risk of losing a major sticking point that undoubtedly keeps people coming back for more -- the personality. In addition to the matches being played spectators are given an opportunity to listen to commentators whose various phrases, quirks and quandaries becomes a part of one collective conscious, so to speak, that makes the scene so interesting. We recognize players based not only on their style but also on their demeanor when they lose, their trash talking ability, their hype, their humility and their egos. It’d be hard to imagine a scene without these things, really. However, that is not to say these aspects can't be evoked in professional circumstances. Although player attitudes might be less verbose on stage, the low-level rumblings and money matches could prove to be much more entertaining because of the money involved. 

That being said, with either of these directions both players and organizers alike have a responsibility to uphold a certain level of moral character which, as it turns out, will be decided by you -- the stream monster, forum poster, blogger, podcaster, etc. The majority's attitude and response will shape the way in which negative situations are handled in the future. After all, if no one cares, why bother issuing a punishment? At this moment in time there seems to be a movement toward the more professional and organized approach but will this really be the most beneficial option in the long run?

I'm sure you're all familiar with the Mo Money Mo Problems chorus:

I don't know what they want from me
It's like the more money we come across
The more problems we see