|
Got this off r/starcraft Source (Chris "keekerdc" Schetter)
Connected it with Mrhoon's TL post about Starcraft 2's Problems in Korea: http://www.teamliquid.net/blogs/viewblog.php?topic_id=142288
The Watchability Problem
I’m increasingly convinced that this is gaming’s true final frontier. I greatly enjoy splitting hairs on the business of sport and how it pertains to gaming, but in the end, none of that matters if nobody’s watching. If a game doesn’t accommodate layperson spectators, if it’s not watchable, it’s not a ‘professional esport’ – otherwise it’s just a game played competitively.
Yea, I’m going to get uppity about semantics and argue against the application of ‘professional’ to most of the scenes it’s applied to today. It’s not your profession if you’re not making sustainable, livable cheese from it. If you’re paying out money to support your participation in it and not making it back, it’s a hobby, not a profession; it’s amateur, not professional. Not that there’s anything wrong with being honest about the amateur status of the vast majority of gamers, nor should it be taken as commentary on the skill levels of those playing; amateur sports are every bit as competitive as their professional counterparts (if they exist). My point is that the mere existence of a high level of play does not professional make. The difference is in the cashflow, and the cashflow in sports comes from spectators, not players.
There have been a handful of Counter-strike teams that could be considered professional over the course of the game’s existence – teams that have pushed their way into the black through prolific prize tournament winnings and subsequent endorsements. But these teams are few and far between. The same might be true, to a lesser degree, for DotA. On the solo side, a multitude of different duel/twitch games (mostly Quake titles) have collectively provided a platform on which many more recognizable names have been established, and the success of the SF4 scene speaks for itself. If we’re being honest, however, the teams and players that could really call themselves professional were few and far between, and gaming remains largely an amateur venture.
The exception to this, of course, is Starcraft. For purposes of this particular topic, I’m going to drag along the Street Fighter scene as well. At the very core of the success of both of these games is not a uniquely cohesive grassroots scene, or piles of money tossed at it – those are symptoms of success, not the causes. You can throw all the money you please at World of Warcraft arenas (as MLG did), for example, and it will never blossom as a professional esport. The reason why Starcraft and Street Fighter have exploded while others have floundered or stagnated comes down to that they’re actually watchable!
If it would please the court, I’d like to present my watchability, and thus ‘viable esport’ criteria:
1. You can grok the basics. Anybody familiar with the concept of a sport can easily pick up the salient objective of Starcraft and Street Fighter: pummel your opponent until there’s nothing left. I’m not talking about nuance here – all newbies to any sport require some hand holding to pick up on the details that matter. I am talking about being able to understand what the objective is, and who is generally winning, within five minutes of first exposure to a match.
2. You can understand some of the finer points without having actually played the game. This is where most games fall off the horse. DotA/HoN/LoL comes to mind immediately – huge community full of highly skilled players that have no chance of developing a legitimate professional scene due to the fact that there’s no chance in hell that laypeople can understand it. Counter-strike barely clears this bar in my mind, and most days when pondering this topic it simply doesn’t – the maps are a huge part of the game, and if you don’t know most regions of most maps by sight from a first-person POV, there’s no chance that a CS stream is compelling viewing to you. I can sit with a layperson and describe a the significance of a particular Terran build, or explain why a heavy mech-n-tech Protoss strategy is about to eat that bioball for lunch, and have them understand it; everything’s out in plain view and readable. I can’t describe the multitude of tactical variations of de_inferno to a first-time CS viewer and have them be able to even recognize an A-side rush by sight; it’s when deeper understanding of a game can only come through hours of play time does a game not pass this test.
3. The developer has provided an unobtrusive means of spectating play. This seems obvious, but is going to rain on some popular games’ parades, including some of my favorites. The Battlefield series has never been great in this regard and has actually gotten worse in recent editions. Call of Duty has never had a viable means of spectating a match without the help of someone that can stream video at an aggressive delay – an ability that’s increasingly rare in the age of free live Flash streams – and I’m afraid all the recent noise I’m seeing about Black Ops is more or less futile. At least they can take solace that they’re not Halo players; MLG can’t even make this game watchable, and they bring truckloads of video production equipment to the table. This is something that’s completely dependent on the developers. If they don’t see the value in writing extra code to accommodate spectators as well as players, then there’s really no hope for the game long-term.
4. It’s entertaining to watch even if you don’t play the game. Some people are so enthusiastic about a game that they enjoy watching it just as much as they do playing it. The gaming scene can be a pretty insular crowd, and many of us think of our favorite game as the ultimate esports experience; those that argue to the contrary are simply idiots. The true test is to sit someone down that doesn’t play the game and see if they feel even remotely the same about it. Starcraft and Street Fighter, I think, can produce that sentiment most reliably. Others…I can’t feel the same about.
Really, the proof for me is in that final criteria. We need to find those gaming experiences that are supremely watchable and become tireless evangelists of them, regardless of our own affinities to particular communities or favorite late-night pub jaunts.
When you get right down to it, a large player base only goes so far when the goal is to build a new sport – you get a robust amateur scene but nothing further. Yes, you need plenty of skilled people playing, but you need more people, by an order of magnitude, that are simply around to watch, in order for a sport to come of age, and develop a professional ecosystem.
Our goal is to get people watching.
|
The fact that starcraft isn't easy to understand is what you aren't getting. It simply isn't a game you can sit a family member down and they will instantly understand what is going on. Ironically Counter-strike is more like that. It is just two teams of guys killing each other. The point I guess is that there is a lot of bias inherent in your system.
|
I agree! I think starcraft beats out sf4 in terms of entertainment for a noobie to watch On the other hand, sf4 is a bit easier to grasp just by watching, while starcraft would require at least a little bit of explaining. Fps games have historically failed to develop a good way to observe games and capture both the skill of the players and the entirety of the action. Imagine a soccer game with 5 balls flying around. No one would be able to keep up regardless of how brilliant the players are.
|
dont see what you want people to discuss here.
are you trying to get people to argue sc is an esport? or not an esport?
|
The final frontier of gaming is making games more fun to watch than playing them.
|
Nicely put. My question is why is starcraft so much more successful in the competitive scene than other RTS's like Dawn of War? Those games are hella fun to play and just as fun to spectate.
What makes a game like SC1 so popular that it can still cause Koreans to follow the scene despite it's outdated graphics 12 years later?
|
2) is not true for any major sport I can think of. Soccer, football, baseball, hockey -- the finer points are practically inpenetrable to someone who hasn't grown up watching or playing those sports.
I think the major problem with SC2 in America at least is that most people don't give half a shit about esports. Even a vast majority of gamers think esports are lame. I'm not saying it's totally fair, but people have way more respect for the skill and conditioning it takes to be a top regular athlete than a top esports athlete. As a result, they don't respect the sport and aren't interested in watching it. For esports to become more viable somehow we need to get people to start caring more about it and having more respect for the sport and players.
|
Are you saying sc2 ticks all those boxes? I'd agree. I think the problems sc2 faces in the west are same old western tv/sporting coverage problems. Sc2 should follow the Formula 1 model imo.
- Amplify inter-team rivalries. Maybe have a team points pool that accumulates over the season and has a prize. - Make each match or set of matches an event like race weekend with buildup and build down. - Get off the internet model of paid-for VODs, they're not very fun to watch imo. You want free-to-air (net or TV) with paid for tickets to the event in person and official merch and a boatload of well executed sponsorship. - Make the in person event/spectator ship experience feel special, it makes things look better for tv and allows you to charge decent ticket prices. - Axe the nerdy pop culture references and references to nerd culture. - Celebrity or Upcoming newbie or Paid-for fan slot vs Pro or 2v2 show matches for build-up/build-down. - Incidental hot chicks.
And most importantly, make a western league! You see how animated Tastosis gets when ret/jinro/idra are in the chair. That's what's missing! I'd make an Aussie one by hand, off the sweat of my back if I believed blizzard wouldn't strike me down for loving their game too much. Lol.
|
On December 08 2010 15:22 SlipperySnake wrote: The fact that starcraft isn't easy to understand is what you aren't getting. It simply isn't a game you can sit a family member down and they will instantly understand what is going on. Ironically Counter-strike is more like that. It is just two teams of guys killing each other. The point I guess is that there is a lot of bias inherent in your system.
Totally disagree (well, except for the part about bias, but this is TL after all). Let me share my perspective... I learned broodwar first by spectating games, and I still haven't played SC2 yet. When I first started watching broodwar, I quickly learned a handful of units from the commentator, and a few buildings. This was enough to watch and enjoy the games. Eventually I learned most of the units and buildings this way. This was motivation to actually play a few games and learn things like tech trees, details of builds, and so on. Now I can't get enough of proleague streams, etc.
This is probably worth emphasizing: it is completely possible to watch and enjoy starcraft ( + commentary) without knowing anything about the tech trees.
Edit: A thought. If you want to get, say, a family member to watch starcraft, don't try and explain too much. Just let them watch it, and answer any questions they have.
Edit2: (Sorry, keep thinking of stuff.) It's also worth mentioning that most people don't know the exact details of sports like soccer, hockey, baseball, etc. How does an offside work in hockey, for example?
|
DotA/HoN/LoL -> Maps are big, and action can be happening at many points at the same time while it can be rather stagnant for the most part due to people farming up.
I'd like SC2 to not be a be a 1 giant death ball push that ends a game most of the time. Would be more fun to watch then.
|
I think the only issue with watchability tot he layman is the issue of the commentator and how they view the map. If the commentators are good at explaining what is going on and why it matters quickly and easily that it does not bore the expert but informs the layman, then it is watchable. It is like some of the commentators are great to listen to, interesting, funny, and educational, but some are just boring or cover the same thing over and over or do not explain why something is exciting, and those are the ones that can really kill the watchability of the game for people.
|
On December 08 2010 15:40 TheAmazombie wrote: I think the only issue with watchability tot he layman is the issue of the commentator and how they view the map. If the commentators are good at explaining what is going on and why it matters quickly and easily that it does not bore the expert but informs the layman, then it is watchable. It is like some of the commentators are great to listen to, interesting, funny, and educational, but some are just boring or cover the same thing over and over or do not explain why something is exciting, and those are the ones that can really kill the watchability of the game for people. This is actually a really good point. The quality of the commentator and the observer (if they are not the same person) is unbelievably important. They are essentially the medium through which we can watch and understand games. Esports needs them as much as it needs hero players like Boxer
|
starcraft 2 can be a little hard to watch on low quality videos. The main reason for this, i believe, is the camera is further away than in bw. Bw's camera was close enough so that even low quality vids were more or less clear. Idk why I'm mentioning this, but i'm not sure what else to discuss here lol.
|
1001 YEARS KESPAJAIL22271 Posts
To those disputing Number 2: he is not saying that you can understand all the implications of every build just by watching 5 minutes of the game. What he means is that you can understand:
1. The purpose of the game (destroy the enemy); 2. Who has the advantage (this is difficult for FPS games where map control is crucial); 3. How to gain an advantage (by having a better economy, more units, better positioning) 4. What the things on screen do (units have unique properties); 5. What certain strategies imply (turtling, flanking, setting up siege tanks, drops, etc.).
All of these are arguably easier in spectating RTS than FPS (for example) if only because of perspective--in RTS, you see the big picture. Another factor is that most people at least have a grasp of the basics of war and conflict, especially on a large scale (armies). The average viewer will understand armies shooting at each other and being micro'd more than watching snipers jump-strafing. You don't need to have a pro's level of understanding for the game to be enjoyable, and for it to make sense. Similarly, you don't need to understand the complexity of a 4-3-3 and its difference with a 4-4-2 to enjoy the football of Barca.
Again the articles is talking about watchability, not playability. Starcraft, compared to other games, is easy to understand from a spectator's perspective, and is easier to enjoy.
|
On December 08 2010 15:55 lichter wrote: To those disputing Number 2: he is not saying that you can understand all the implications of every build just by watching 5 minutes of the game. What he means is that you can understand:
1. The purpose of the game (destroy the enemy); 2. Who has the advantage (this is difficult for FPS games where map control is crucial); 3. How to gain an advantage (by having a better economy, more units, better positioning) 4. What the things on screen do (units have unique properties); 5. What certain strategies imply (turtling, flanking, setting up siege tanks, drops, etc.).
I understand what the original poster means, but it still has a long way away from reaching a casual viewer.
I think what Starcraft is MISSING compared to other sports is:
1. A clear and readily available understanding of a competitors options. It takes a while before a person can understand the implications of a particular build or unit composition.
2. NOW THIS IS BIG: A clear display of a player's virtuosity or skill level. The biggest problem is that it's not obvious -- until you actually sit down and play the game -- how fucking hard it is!
It's not like a 6'8 basketball player getting four feet off the ground and dunking on some guy. It's hidden. A marine micro'ing against four lings is meaningless to a casual viewer.
Basically, players are so good they make the game look easier than it actually is. SC2 is way harder than at least five or six 'sports' you see on ESPN2.
That aside, I've tried to explain APM to my girlfriend, but because she won't touch the game with a ten foot pole she still isn't impressed.
|
The thing with FPS is its hard to tell when a person is doing something skilled that sets them apart from the rest, whereas the better SC player will end up being visually ahead
On December 08 2010 16:10 Defacer wrote: That aside, I've tried to explain APM to my girlfriend, but because she won't touch the game with a ten foot pole she still isn't impressed.
your going to have to tell her the relationship isnt going to work out or something, make her try it
|
On December 08 2010 15:37 munchmunch wrote:
Edit2: (Sorry, keep thinking of stuff.) It's also worth mentioning that most people don't know the exact details of sports like soccer, hockey, baseball, etc. How does an offside work in hockey, for example?
People don't understand the details of these sports, but they can recognize the difficulty of getting a puck through a goalies legs or a great save or hitting a home run.
The problem with SC2 is that instead of watching players on a field, you're watching sprites. You're one layer removed from the actual player, and unless you can interpret what is happening 'on the field' -- and this is were commentating is critical -- then you're not going to appreciate the game.
Without understanding how skilled the players are, the game itself loses its sense of drama or importance.
|
On December 08 2010 15:22 SlipperySnake wrote: The fact that starcraft isn't easy to understand is what you aren't getting. It simply isn't a game you can sit a family member down and they will instantly understand what is going on. Ironically Counter-strike is more like that. It is just two teams of guys killing each other. The point I guess is that there is a lot of bias inherent in your system.
I found the opposite to be true. I had a few friends watch the MLG finals with me and they loved it. They asked a few questions, but once they decided who to root for it was a blast. Did they fully understand all the nuances of the game? No. Did they enjoy watching it? They sure did.
We tried Halo for a while too, but it was just too difficult to understand what was going on. Sure, it's just a few people shooting eachother, but trying to grasp the strategy was difficult, especially since the game is shown from each player's perspective. With Starcraft you get to see the big picture all the time.
Obviously that's anecdotal evidence, and there's probably someone out there with the exact opposite story. but I thought it was worth mentioning anyway. I think StarCraft 2 is only going to be going up in popularity from here, simply because it's one of the best games to watch from a spectator's standpoint.
|
I think a lot of the problems can be rectified with better commentary (and no I am not QQing about tasteosis because they are fine). If you listen to (and can understand) korean BW commentators, they usually drop a lot of knowledge about the game and you can quickly learn a lot about the subtlety of the game. However, SC2 and SC2 metagame is not fully understood yet, so it's hard for commentators to say a lot or to say anything too nuanced (yet).
|
1001 YEARS KESPAJAIL22271 Posts
On December 08 2010 16:10 Defacer wrote: I understand what the original poster means, but it still has a long way away from reaching a casual viewer.
I think what Starcraft is MISSING compared to other sports is:
1. A clear and readily available understanding of a competitors options. It takes a while before a person can understand the implications of a particular build or unit composition.
2. NOW THIS IS BIG: A clear display of a player's virtuosity or skill level. The biggest problem is that it's not obvious -- until you actually sit down and play the game -- how fucking hard it is!
It's not like a 6'8 basketball player getting four feet off the ground and dunking on some guy. It's hidden. A marine micro'ing against four lings is meaningless to a casual viewer.
Basically, players are so good they make the game look easier than it actually is. SC2 is way harder than at least five or six 'sports' you see on ESPN2.
That aside, I've tried to explain APM to my girlfriend, but because she won't touch the game with a ten foot pole she still isn't impressed.
I don't see why Number 1 is so important. It is certainly a factor, but I doubt most fans of other sports really understand the "tactics" behind the game. I doubt most fans of Basketball understand how the Triangle offense works, or how complex a pick-and-roll actually is, or how the many defensive schemes work. Similarly I doubt most football fans know why coaches prefer 4-4-2 or 4-3-3 or 4-2-3-1 or other formations aside from personnel, or even what each position (including really specific ones, such as being a target man, support striker, defensive midfielder, etc) really does aside from the obvious.
Number 2 though, is true. That is probably one significant hurdle: people actually enjoying a "play" or strategy because of what it is, and not only because of its effect on the game. A fantastic sling/bling surround is certainly less "awesome" to the casual viewer than Blake Griffin dunking on 3 people.
I'm not saying that watching Starcraft is, right now, just as enjoyable as physical sports. At the very least, everyone understands how difficult it is to do certain physical moves, and is knows more about even unpopular sports than Starcraft. But among gaming's many different e-sports, I believe Starcraft is the most watchable.
|
|
|
|