What Is A Man? A Miserable Pile Of Flaws.

I saw this posted on Facebook at one point this year. Usually I see a list like this and am happy that I do most of the things advised, but for this particular image something really struck me as terrifying:



I was guilty of being at the wrong end of all six of those things.

It really struck a nerve with me and made me realize why I probably spend the majority of my life being depressed and hating myself, which is a particularly unhealthy way to live when you are a public figure in the Fighting Game Community. I've always said that to be a commentator, one of the first requirements to have is a thick skin... which is funny because that's the one thing I definitely do not have.

I constantly contemplate quitting the commentator role because of the negativity I've received, and believe you me I probably get more negativity than the majority of commentators out there. I can't even link friends and family to YouTube videos of me commentating to show them what I enjoy doing because there are some really terrible things being said about me in the comments sections. And many times it's not even negativity about my commentary, but negative things directly about me. I've contemplated quitting even as recent as last week.

But by quitting, I'm basically falling prey to disobeying all 6 of those pieces of advice.  So I've been thinking long and hard about this, and it's prompted me to write up this post.  And no, I'm not going to try and garner sympathy from my haters with this post.  I'm not going down the "woe is me" path anymore.  What reading those 6 pieces of advice above made me realize is that I can't derive my own self worth from what people think of me.  So instead of trying to garner sympathy from people, I'm going to do the exact opposite here.

Because I'm NOT quitting.

First of all, to all the people who do constantly shit on me and say negative things about me and my commentary, I'm giving you all a big collective "Fuck you," for the first time in my life. I'm not saying this because I hate all of you, I'm saying this because I'm no longer going to let you bring me down anymore. I don't care what you the haters think: I still do this commentary shit better than most commentators out there. I have a ton of people who tell me all the time that they appreciate my commentary very much, that they are glad someone out there tries to appeal to the people who don't know the games extremely well, that they learn a lot from watching matches that I commentate, that half the time they can't understand the game at all unless myself and David are doing commentary, etc. Every new venue I go to, every time I go to a state or location I've never been, I have a lot of people who thank me and shake my hand and tell me that I'm doing a lot of good for the FGC. Many even say they wouldn't even have cared about the FGC if it weren't for some of the things I've done.

Secondly, even having said that, the sheer amount of people out there who shit on me cannot come from nowhere without an actual reason, so I realize there are definitely things I do that annoy the hell out of people. Hell, sometimes I'll rematch a match I've commentated and think, "Holy shit, I sound like a fucking idiot. What on earth was I thinking when I said that?!?" So even though I told you all to fuck off, that's not actually the case.  In fact...

I actually want to apologize to every one of you that I've ever made watching a stream an unbearable activity.

See, I started doing commentary for no other reason than to try and bring more people into the FGC and to improve commentary in general. So if I've done the opposite for you, I'm sorry. One of the most important things to do as a commentator is to realize where your weaknesses lie and continue to try and improve. It's no different than playing Street Fighter itself: you have to really analyze what you are doing to get better.

And so to all the people who hate me, instead of ignoring them or pretending their opinions don't matter, I'm going to do the opposite now. I'm tired of this whole, "If you have haters, you're doing something right," line of thinking. I use that too much to shield myself from actual critical opinions that are 100% valid. It just happens that these criticisms come from people on the internet, which allows them to critique in ways that are far more harsh than they would be if said in person. I mean, come on, we've all done this. I myself have wanted certain NBA coaches to die in fires, to have a commentator or two of national sports telecasts to shut the hell up, etc. But I never actually mean it as harshly as it comes out.

So what I'm going to do is here is ask everyone, especially the haters, to let me know what I can do to improve as a commentator. Tell me what problems you have with me, and I hope you can be as constructive as possible, especially when you know you are speaking directly to me. And please don't tell me the things I can't fix. Don't tell me my voice sucks (I know), don't tell me I'm fat (I know), don't tell me I'm stupid (I'm not). Don't tell me you hate my jokes (I could change this but... why? Being yourself is the most important thing you can do as a commentator and, frankly, humor is highly subjective. Even so, I've definitely toned down the number of bad jokes and puns I make nowadays -- I only made one bad pun at Capcom Cup, and it wasn't during a match). Don't tell me I don't know Marvel, because I know I don't, and you'll notice I've purposefully avoided Marvel commentary the past few months as much as possible.

Instead, tell me things I can change that I CAN work on.

For example, I know I ramble. I'm gonna try and keep that more in check now. I've already worked on it, interrupting myself at times to just say, "...but I'll talk about that later." I know people think I'm constantly wrong about things and say factually incorrect things. I do, but dammit everyone does. I can't watch a stream where the commentators aren't wrong about something constantly, but that "trait" has become associated specifically with me so people notice it most when I do it and have learned to ignore whenever I say things that are correct. I know I go off on a lot of randomly stupid tangents because that's just how my thought process flows, and that's something I really need to quell.

Again, give me stuff I can work with. I'll promise try to fix it. Hell, Tweet me live during commentary about stuff I do badly so I have context and can try and fix it from that point forward. I've fixed lots of things people have told me in the past (but I still can't seem to stop adding "there" and "here" and "right now" and stuff to the ends of my sentences, which I am conscious of and trying to stop... sorry, Adam). I don't know a lot of the things I do that piss people off, so, if you tell me, I can try my best to fix it.

I'm not big on resolutions, but in 2014 my goal is to really do what I can to make the FGC a better place. I have a lot of ideas and plans for making us PROUD to be a part of the FGC this year by finding ways to appreciate who we are and finding ways to fix our faults. But I can't do that unless I'm willing to fix my own flaws, so, as cliche as this sounds, I'm starting with the man in the mirror. So I've given you guys an open forum here:

Let me know why you think I suck as a commentator in the comments below. I've even enabled Anonymous posts.

It's gonna be painful, this will not be a fun process for someone who reacts poorly to criticisms.  But I'm going to do this and I'd rather get it all here, right now, and let everyone know I intend to fix and change my flaws. It always seems that, without declaring this publicly, people assume you're never changing and will continue to hate on you even if you stop doing the things they hate. Hopefully if they know I'm actively trying to fix the problems, they'll give me a second chance. In fact, Retweet the link to this to the people who aren't following me so that those who dislike me can come and leave comments.

That's my New Year's Resolution and I'll talk more about my ideas as the year goes along. Again, I have a lot of ideas brewing in my head on what we can do to make the FGC an awesome place to be and not the media dumping grounds that we always are. I'm going to try my best to use my position and make a more positive environment for us. And no, I'm not going to do this by ignoring the negatives of the FGC, not at all. I'm not gonna pretend the FGC is amazing because "if we have haters, we must be doing something right." In fact, it's better that we address all the negatives, focus on them, and try to figure out ways to fix them.

And I'm starting with myself because I'm not going anywhere in 2014. Not yet.

Now. Enough talk. Have at you.

And Happy New Years, everyone.

- James "jchensor" Chen

Evolution 2010 Season Wrap Up - Part 2

Part 2 - Putting On a Show

A key moment occurred for me at this past year's Evolution Fighting Game Tournament during the screening of "Bang the Machine," the documentary about the Street Fighter scene circa 2000 that was produced by Peter Kang and directed by Tamara Katepoo. It was the first time it was shown at an Evo post Street Fighter IV's release and, in the film, there is a scene where Alex Valle and a bunch of his friends are watching footage from a Japanese tournament. And they all marvel that the tournaments in Japan are these big events held in city halls and such.

I've seen Bang the Machine, now, maybe 7 or 8 times and that moment never resonated as ironically as it did this past year. Here is Alex Valle commenting on how big these tournaments in Japan are, and we're watching it at Evolution 2010 where, that weekend, we had just whittled down well over 1000 entrants to the top 8 players in one weekend, making it the single biggest non-qualifier tournament ever run in the history of Fighting Games... probably even in the history of video games period.

And the next day, after Bang the Machine, thousands of people populated a room and tens of thousands of people had their browsers pointed at the live stream of Evolution 2010 and they all watched every move made by the top 8 qualifiers, cheering every victory from GamerBee of Taiwan, rooting for the People's Champ Mike Ross, going nuts over Korea's Infiltration locking people down in Akuma's "vortex," watching intently as America's top hope, Ricky Ortiz, took out opponents one by one, and, of course, rooting for Japan's very own Daigo Umehara as he took the crown. And it was then that I really started to think about how mesmerizing Fighting Games actually are to watch.


And that's when it hit me: Fighting Games could be the greatest eSport for this very reason.

Now don't get me wrong, here. FPS's (First-Person Shooter like Quake, Modern Warfare, and Counter Strike) and RTS's (Real-Time Strategy games like StarCraft, StarCraft II, and League of Legends) have been dominating the eSports scene for years. So it's rather ostentatious of me to call Fighting Games the greatest eSport when other genres have already obtained huge popularity and Fighting Games are currently playing catch up. So no, I'm not going to sit here and try to tell you Fighting Games are the greatest eSport around. It's simply not true.

Not yet.

What I AM going to sit here and tell you, however, is that Fighting Games may take that spot very soon. It doesn't seem long before Fighting Games become the most popular eSport in competitive video games.

There are always two sides of competitive sports, in both athletic ones like football and virtual ones like Street Fighter. There are those who play and, in order for a scene to prosper, there must always be the players who play. That's what I talked about last time: how to grow the scene by taking advantage of the recent influx of players and make sure we continue to craft new players for the scene.


But then there's the other half of competitive sports: the viewers. The spectators. The fans. And this aspect is just as important, if not more, to the continued growth of a competitive sport. You could have the greatest sport in the world, but if no one watches, it will never go anywhere. Yes, if you are an expert of your game, it is always fun to watch high level play no matter what because you are aware of things that are going on. But for a competitive game to prosper from a mainstream standpoint, it must be enjoyable for the casual viewer. And it's this area that Fighting Games truly shine. They are, by far, the best game to watch for spectators. And the reason for this comes from three main factors: Viewer Information, Tangible Action, and Balanced Pacing.

Viewer Information

The nice thing about competitive sports on TV is that the viewer has MORE information than the actual players themselves at almost every point. It's hard to realize, when you're watching a full view of the basketball court, how hard it is for a player like Steve Nash to slip one of those no-look lead passes through defenders to his intended target. In football, as a defender, when you try to block the receiver from getting himself open for a pass, it's hard to keep track of where you are in relation to the receiver to make sure he doesn't double-back on you to sprint down the field for a long pass. In both cases, the viewer at home watching on TV has a bird's eye view of everything so they are aware of so much more than the players themselves, who can only see what's in front of them. And even in non athletic sports, like poker, the actual players have no idea what cards their competitors have, but thanks to the hole cams during poker broadcasts, viewers not only know what each hand is but the percentages of how often each hand wins.

FPS's and RTS's suffer from a very distinct lack of viewer knowledge. These games suffer from a problem where each player involved has their own screen and, thus, their own viewpoint that intentionally hides information from that player. What this causes is what I like to call "viewer blind periods" because these games usually are broadcast by displaying only one player's view at a time. So what ends up happening is that the viewers experience the same lack of knowledge that the player they happen to be watching at the time has.


Now, lots of things have been done to try and fix this problem. There are split screen views for FPS's that allow for multiple views being shown at once. There are also overhead map views which show where all players are as icons. There are even "spectator" modes where a cameraman can control a camera view around the entire playfield. That same concept exists for RTS's where a cameraman can view any area of the map without any "fog of war" (the term used to describe the blacked out areas you have not visited yet in RTS's).

However, all of these come with problems by default. Split Screen views are nice, but a viewer can't process all the action at once, especially if you show three or more views at the same time. It's simply information overload. Overscreen "summary" maps are good for knowing where all players are in relation to each other, but you have no clue what they are actually doing nor what they are seeing. The free moving spectator view is probably the best option for FPS's, provided some advancements are made (such as highlighting where every player is at all times so it's easier for the cameraman to find people). But for the most part, FPS's are broadcast watching one view at a time and that simply won't suffice. I was watching one FPS tournament on YouTube involving a team 5-on-5 battle and, while the view happened to be of one particular player's screen, I think 2 or 3 players were killed in a sudden crossfire... but it all occurred off screen! So there could have been the most epic kill ever, but we just happened to miss it. This feeling of "missing out" on something is really bad for viewers.


For RTS's, the free camera works very well but it still requires the commentator controlling the camera to know when to go back and forth and which player to focus on. He/she can still miss some vital action due to no fault of their own. Obviously, the skill of the commentator makes a huge difference in this department, and most of the top commentators are pro at what they do so, from a viewer standpoint, RTS's usually do not have as bad of a problem when it comes to viewer blind periods, especially since the action in RTS's is a lot easier to follow. But every once in a while, there can easily be three or four critical action points going on in the map at one given moment, especially in games like League of Legends where the gameplay just naturally leans towards three areas of conflict at once (due to the three paths players almost always follow), and you can only really watch one of them at a time. No matter how skilled a commentator is at controlling the camera, they can still only focus on one area of action at once, and jumping back and forth between areas too often can make for a dizzying experience for viewers.


The beauty of Fighting Games is that everything you need to know is confined exactly to one screen. In fact, there is almost nothing the players themselves know that the audience doesn't know in terms of information. Everyone can see who is winning in life. Everyone knows how much time there is left on the round's clock. Everyone knows how much Super Meter you have or if you have one, two, or no Barrier Bursts left or which Super Art you've chosen or which Assist Type was selected. And, most importantly, both characters that are being used by the players are always on the screen at all times and they are always doing exactly what the players are controlling them to do. There will never be a moment where you miss anything. It allows viewers to focus on the match in its entirety at all times, so there is never a feeling as if you're missing something. And that is key to the enjoyment factor of a casual viewer.

Tangible Action

Let's face it: what people like to see are slam dunks, hard tackles, home runs, and amazing goals that slip through the fingers of the goalie. In other words, people want to see action. Even though there are purists who think dunks are meaningless and leagues that try to cut down on the hard hits, it's still what the people want. It's these things that I like to call "tangible action." People enjoy these things because something is not only happening, but happening in an extremely standout and exciting fashion.

That is not to say there is no appreciation for the subtle skills needed to play a game. Those who know the games well enough don't marvel at the actual alley-oop dunk, but marvel at how the player lost his defender off a fake screen and back cut. They enjoy the sacking of the quarterback as much as they enjoy the way the player slipped through the defensive line into the pocket to catch the QB. And landing the wicked combo against the opponent is awesome, but the top players know that it was in the previous round that the player figured out his opponent's tendency that allowed him to set up the combo opportunity in the first place.

But it takes a long time to get there as a viewer. And once you are there, you've definitely graduated from being a casual viewer to a hardcore viewer. But in the meantime, you need the "big plays" and the SportsCenter highlights to get the casual people interested and excited. Fighting Games provide plenty of "SportsCenter highlights." Many, many trailers for Fighting Game events and their respective DVD collections of matches, including ones I have personally made for Evo DVDs, take advantage of this.

These highlights are the "Tangible Action" for virtual competitive sports. They are very important for spectators and Fighting Games are full of these. FPS's actually contain a lot of these as well, so that is one of the biggest selling points for FPS's. However, RTS's definitely fall short in this area. The problem with RTS's is that a large majority of the action is what I like to call "Implied Action" in that you can't really highlight specific moments. I watched a match of StarCraft on YouTube and the audience got really excited over something that was implied: one player had managed to generate particularly powerful units so quickly that when the audience saw them deployed, there was a collective gasp and build up of excitement. However, the actual battle, which was won decisively by this player, was not the event that got everyone excited.

What this results in is a distinct lack of "moments" that can be focused on. I can't ever imagine an RTS game ever producing something even remotely close to the "Daigo Parry" moment that is so famous now in gaming circles. You don't even have to know the general details of what is happening in the Daigo Parry video, but you can tell something spectacular is happening. I've had many non-gaming people tell me they've seen the video and were amazed by it, even though they didn't really know what was going on. It's this Tangible Action that allows Fighting Games to appeal to a wider audience. I've also heard many stories of people watching the Evo stream and their significant others and non-gaming friends were able to be hooked by the matches as well. These types of moments are key to producing something that can become more enjoyed by the mainstream.

Balanced Pacing

In the previous section, I spoke about a StarCraft match that I watched where one player won a decisive confrontation at one key moment. And although the audience was excited and I'm sure the match was a good match, that decisive battle was probably a good 5% of the entire video I watched. In actuality, the video was about 80% watching players build their resources, units, and bases. The next 10% of the match was the audience getting hyped about seeing the units about to collide. The next 5% was the actual face-off, and the last 5% was the defeated opponent giving up and conceding victory.

I know this is not particularly indicative of what a StarCraft match can go like at high levels, but the pacing is always an issue with me. Matches start very slow, and the viewer, if not already familiar with the game, needs to be very patient before anything really happens. So much of RTS's is the initial build-up, and the two players very rarely interact with each other for a good portion of the game. If you don't play RTS's at all, this initial phase of the match can be very tedious and boring.

(Scroll to 2:45 for match start)

And then add to that the fact that, after that one confrontation was won by the one player, his opponent almost immediately conceded the match! There was essentially no reason to continue fighting, and so the victory was pretty anti-climactic from a viewer standpoint. In fact, with many of these types of games, be it StarCraft or League of Legends, the victor is usually determined much earlier than the actual end of the match, so much of the final moments of a match are meaningless. Comebacks, therefore, are virtually non-existent, and comebacks are huge for spectators. Without huge potential for comebacks, there's little reason for players to remain invested in the match during late stages.

FPS's also suffer from rare comebacks. Because it's very hard to maintain momentum in an FPS, the player who gets a sizeable lead in kills usually wins thanks to the whole nature of spawning after being killed (being brought back to life in a random location or at a spawn point on the map). Once you kill an opponent, you have to start searching for them again and who finds the other first is usually a crapshoot. And in free-for-alls involving more than 2 players, it's very easy to just be caught off guard and killed by someone you didn't see. Momentum is the key factor in comebacks, and it's just too hard to keep up momentum in an FPS.

Another small problem that FPS's seem to suffer from is that the majority of the matches are spent looking for each other -- that is, the actual confrontation between two-players is almost always quick and brief with a kill resulting in a matter of seconds. Then, it's back to searching for the other player again. This means that viewers spend a lot of their time waiting for things to happen. Granted, the benefit of this is the tension: FPS's excel in the department of mounting tension and the release of said tension in these quick shoot outs (thus, successfully having those "moments" I mentioned in the previous section).

One of my absolute favorite things about Fighting Games is that, right when the round begins, there is potential action. And that potential never dies until the round is actually over. Yes, there are moments of turtling and long periods of players feeling each other out, both remaining at opposite sides of the playing field. I'm not saying that Fighting Games have constant action, but there is nothing inherently built into the game that causes lulls. Lulls are a result of the player's choices and decisions, but not an inherent part of the game.

In FPS's, you automatically have lulls when one player dies. In RTS's, you cannot choose to rush down and attack the opponent instantly (you can, but usually that will result in you losing). So these points of "non-action" cannot be prevented. Whereas, in many Fighting Games, you can have rounds where one player literally rushes down and defeats the opponent without ever letting up from start to finish. There are no forced mechanics that inherently generate lulls during a match.

And the best thing about Fighting Games is that they are never over. Ridiculous comebacks are practically synonymous with Fighting Games. Everyone's favorite and most memorable matches usually stem from this. This is a direct result of momentum, and Fighting Games live off of momentum. That's why you can never feel like you've won a round in a Fighting Game until you've actually won and, thus, must always remain on your toes. This allows the viewers to always maintain that hope of a comeback regardless of how bleak it may seem, which gives these spectators a vested interest in the match up until the very last moment. So there's rarely a point where it feels like you're viewing "filler" footage.

So what's the deal then? If I'm so insistent that Fighting Games are so great to watch, why are they less popular than FPS's and RTS's? Why are there more gaming leagues for those other genres than Fighting Games? Well, there are two main reasons. The first important reason is that there are more players for the other genres. And thus, naturally, that means they have a bigger audience to be spectators. If you had 100 people and 80 of them love playing football and 40 of them love playing hockey, naturally you have a better chance of having more people who love to watch the football event over the hockey event.

The second reason is that the concept of eSports is only JUST making its way to something accepted by the general public. Even a simple 5 years ago, I think people would scoff at the concept of video games being a huge competitive gaming market. But thanks to the improvement of technology and the awareness of game companies to provide things such as the controllable cameras or alternate views for spectators, we've seen huge strides in the production value of eSports and, thusly, the viewership. With this improvement in production value, it allows for eSports to obtain a level of professionalism and credibility that wasn't possible before. And the games themselves just look so much better. I don't think casual people would sit around a stadium watching Mario Kart on the SNES. But with how good games like Call of Duty and StarCraft and such look these days, it's easy to see why people can find themselves watching it.

So eSports are definitely still new. And as long as it continues to grow, more and more people will be drawn to it. And that is when, I believe, Fighting Games will take over as the most popular eSport. As more and more people become curious to see what the rage is all about and as more and more people start to watch games at events like Evo or WCG, I truly believe that Fighting Games will stand out immediately. They are a joy to watch.

And each year, as I see the crowds at Evo get larger and larger (and the streams for Fighting Games get bigger and bigger -- recent tournaments such as Seasons Beatings V, Southern California Regionals, and the Canada Cup all reached over 10,000 viewers at their highest viewer points), I can't help but think that Fighting Games will become the most popular eSport of them all.

Evolution 2010 Season Wrap Up

For a period of time, I would write up a summary of Evolution each and every year right after Evolution finished. However, I skipped writing anything after last year's Evolution (2009). This year, after the epicness that was Evolution 2010, I really wanted to write an article. I had a lot to say about the Fighting Game Community, but it took me some time to formulate my thoughts into words. So though I'm about two-and-a-half months late, I think it's finally time for me to write my first blog post in over two years. Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you:

The Evolution 2010 Season Wrap-up

Part 1 - The Fighting Game Boom

Except this year, I'm doing things differently. Normally, what I did in the past wrap ups, as mentioned earlier, was discuss each community individually and talk about the strengths and weaknesses of each individual community from what I observed. This year, however, I think it would be a mistake to do such a thing. And the reason for this is because, this year above all other years, we need to focus not on the individual communities, but the Fighting Game Community as a whole. And that's because this year, the Fighting Game Community may have taken its first steps into becoming something much bigger.

Let's just cut to the chase, first and foremost. Street Fighter IV has changed everything. What this game and Super Street Fighter IV have done to the Fighting Game Community cannot be denied. One main reason that it's not proper to focus on the communities of Marvel Vs. Capcom 2, Tatsunoko Vs. Capcom, Melty Blood, Tekken, and Super Street Fighter II: HD Remix is because, quite simply put, these communities are overshadowed by the sheer size and power of the Street Fighter IV community. And while this may make some of these other communities upset to hear me say this, especially because some members of these communities look down on Street Fighter IV, I think communities need to look at the positives that Street Fighter IV has been bringing the Fighting Game Community as a whole.

Whenever I talk about the Fighting Game Community to friends and where it needs to go and how it needs to grow, the topic of poker always comes up. Of any mainstream gaming communities that exist today, the Poker Community is the one that I feel as though the Fighting Game Community needs to follow and emulate as much as possible. There are many facets that can provide similarities between the communities, but the reason I bring this up today is because I feel as though the way Chris Moneymaker's win in 2003 initiated the Poker Boom, Evolution 2010 may have been the closest thing we've yet seen to achieving a similar boom. And it's all a direct result of Street Fighter IV's immense popularity.

You see, Chris Moneymaker was an unknown player. He was what we would refer to, in the Fighting Game Community, as a "newb." But he got entry into the World Series of Poker by winning a satellite tournament and proceeded to not only win the Main Event as the World Series of Poker, but to do so by taking down veteran professional player Sam Farha heads-up at the final table. After Chris won, everyone believed they could also win. And thus: the Poker Boom. Though a similar situation where a "newb" has taken down a pro hasn't happened in the Fighting Game Community, the huge increase of players at events like Evolution from one year to the next upon Street Fighter IV's release was very similar to the increase of players at the World Series of Poker the following year after Moneymaker won.

Now, I dunno about most of you people, but before the Poker Boom, poker was one thing to me: people sitting in a smoke-filled room asking for more cards and trying to bluff each other. Whenever you saw poker on TV shows or in movies, it was always the same format: each player is dealt 5 card hands and they are allowed a maximum of 3 cards for redraw. Texas Hold-Em was a version of the game I had never heard of even though it had been the Main Event at the World Series of Poker since forever.

After the Poker Boom, Texas Hold-Em was the main form of poker played. Even TV and movies began to reflect that. Casino Royale -- the recent James Bond film -- for example, had a plot that revolved around Texas Hold-Em. Without the Poker Boom, they probably would have played the same 5 card style of poker that we had seen in TV shows and movies for forever. Hell, they might have even just played Baccarat, the game that was originally played in the book.

Since Moneymaker's win in 2003, Texas Hold-Em has exploded. Everyone plays that version in home games, and when you hear "poker," Texas Hold-Em is now the first game you think of. Even your average joe pictures Texas Hold-Em as what poker is now. But here's the question: are there other versions of poker? Are there even more skilled versions of poker out there, that rely less on luck and require more knowlege and skill?

The answer to both of those questions is "Yes." There are tons of poker versions out there, and many of them do require stronger knowledge and take away some of the luck. There's Omaha High-Low, Stud Eight or Better, Razz, and on and on. Heck, there's even huge differences between tournament play and cash game play. Some formats are more skilled, some are less skilled, but none are as popular as tournament Texas Hold-Em. But here's the question: do you think fans of these other versions are frustrated that Texas Hold-Em is the most popularly played poker format out there?

Maybe. But most of them more than likely have accepted Texas Hold-Em as the main format in the poker world. In the mid 2000's, when ESPN showed the World Series of Poker, they used to televise many different games. They showed the Omaha games, the Stud Eight or Better games, and so on and so forth. But recently, in the past couple of years, ESPN has moved away from showing these games. They only show Texas Hold-Em events now. Why? Because the other formats simply didn't get as many viewers.

So by now I'm sure many fans of the other games like BlazBlue and King of the Fighters and Tekken are either sad or outright angry with me because they think they know where I'm going with this poker analogy. Am I really sitting here, telling you all to declare Street Fighter IV as king all-mighty of the Fighting Game community and to just accept it, like many poker players have just accepted Texas Hold-Em as the top-most played poker format? Am I saying that everyone should drop their games and go learn Street Fighter IV? Well... no. Not at all.

What I'm telling you is this: use the exposure of Fighting Games to the general public through Street Fighter IV to help your own community grow. Look at the influx of potential players and, instead of looking down upon the casual Street Fighter IV fan, nuture them and introduce them, slowly, to your game of choice.

Everyone nowadays goes into poker learning Texas Hold-Em. But it's almost a guarantee that, through the natural course of exposure to Texas Hold-Em, players who become serious about the game eventually move on to learn the other formats. They start learning how to play the other games due to general curiosity and the need for variety.

Is Street Fighter IV a simple game? Yes. But it's approachable and it's easy to learn. People who don't understand poker at all can watch poker on TV, see the percentages written on the screen, and recognize when someone catches a miracle card to win a hand and understand the elation or devastation experienced by the players. What they don't see is the slow-plays and the fake over-betting with a strong hand to feign weakness by appearing to try and buy a pot. People watching Street Fighter IV can tell everything that's going on and see who's winning thanks to the life bars and get excited by Ultra Combos and their pretty animations and recognize big comebacks and narrow victories and understand the elation or devastation experienced by the players. They don't see a lot of the subtle strategies that go on with Footsies and Option Selects and finger dexterity, but they don't need to: the game looks fun to them and they can understand it.

So the same thing starts to happen with Street Fighter IV that happens with poker: people who spectate start to get interested in playing because the game is so fun to watch. And they step into it and learn the subtleties little by little and their appreciation of the game grows. You start to understand why poker cannot be played without chips and why Street Fighter cannot be played without Throws. And then they start to understand the idea of why slow playing the set of kings is so effective and why baiting Wake-Ups becomes a fundamental tactic. And then they slowly but surely become good at a game that is actually friendly enough to allow them to get to a point where they are truly competitive. Yes, they are still going to lose to Patrick Antonius and Phil Ivey and Chris Ferguson and Johnny Chan 99 out of 100 times at the poker table, but they can at least play. And yes, they are still going to lose to Alex Valle and John Choi and Arturo Sanchez and Justin Wong 99 out of 100 times, but at least they can play!

And then what happens? They go to events like the World Series of Poker or Evolution and they start watching. They start seeing other games like Omaha or Marvel Vs. Capcom 2 or Seven Card Stud or Tekken and they become intrigued. And it's really up to those other communities, now, to bring those players in and introduce them to a different game. And who knows? Some of those people coming in as Texas Hold-Em fans may become one of the best Omaha players ever. A few of those Street Fighter IV kids may become pro BlazBlue players. You never know.

And this is bringing me to my main point: the Fighting Game Community needs to act as a whole from this point forward. This is why I do not want to discuss each community individually anymore. The Fighting Game Community is one entity, and it will only become successful and mainstream if it acts like one entity. The separate games of the Fighting Game Community need not ostricize and fight against other games. They need to start learning how to bring in other players and take advantage of the other communities.

Tekken players need to write up articles such as, "If you like using a Rush Down character like Cammy in Super Street Fighter IV, well then you should look at these characters to play in Tekken because they have similar sensibilities." BlazBlue experts need to write how strategies you've learned in Street Fighter IV apply to BlazBlue, such as Option Selects and BnB's and safe Block Strings and such. Heck, why stop at Street Fighter? They should even write articles that say "If you appreciate the Okizeme games of Tekken, here's how BlazBlue implements their Oki game in similar fashion."

The Fighting Game Community can only benefit from the influx of players that Street Fighter IV has brought in, and it's time for people to start realizing this and taking advantage of it. Only by doing so will the Fighting Game Community not only continue to grow, but to thrive and become truly a mainstream form of competitive entertainment.

Next up: Evolution 2010 Season Wrap Up Part 2 - Are Fighting Games the Best eSport?