next »

[Richard Kain]

For a while now various companies have been trying to promote E-Sports, video games that are played competitively in a league comparable to professional athletic sports. (such as Soccer, Basketball, Baseball, etc...) However, while the popularity of such efforts have been expanding, it still hasn't caught on with a more mainstream audience. (at least not outside Korea) While I was watching a Football match over the weekend, something occurred to me.

The pacing of most "competitive" video games is all wrong for spectator sports.

One of the reasons why professional athletic events are so much easier to sell to a larger audience is because they are fun to watch. The spectator aspect of these sports is crucial to their mainstream appeal. And the design decisions surrounding most competitively played video games doesn't provide the proper pacing for a spectator experience.

With a game like Football, the pace of the game is regularly broken up into bouts of action, followed by a cool-down period where the teams line-up for the next play. The same is true for Baseball. In Basketball, penalties often provide down-time between bouts of action. And in all of these games its possible for a time-out to be called.

In most e-sports, time-outs are usually not permitted, and the action is near-constant from beginning to end. There is literally no cool-down periods, for the players or for the audience. This seriously hampers those games potential as spectator sports. The constant barrage of non-stop action is wearying for the audience, they need regular breaks in the action.

[J-Snake]

A friend of mine doesn't play Starcraft but he is watching it, just like football. Nothing wrong with pacing for him in this one. I think the bigger issue is the entry point, you have to know more about a video-game in order to value the matches. On the flip-side everyone has a native connection to "physical sports" since even the most lazy people have to go outside from time to time.

[Graham-]

Yeah. There's an EC episode on this. You're like the one other guy who liked them. Google for it if haven't seen.

Games also don't have generated spectator views. I think that's the biggest hole to fill... other than just making better games. When I watch soccer I just watch soccer but with games I can see something different than what the player sees. A Starcraft match has an observer scroll around and stuff but that role could be seriously improved by the computer.

The machine could point out things of interest and cut together scenes to tell the story of the match. It could graphically represent what's going through players' minds. It could show the field in a fluctuating way to highlight any angle of the current strategy, or how power is shifting or what's being executed. Think about the line drawings castors use in televised sports. The game could generate those, real-time, using the existing graphics that blend with the world.  

@ JSnake

I've watched a lot of SC too. I find there's a number of elements not ideal for watching. By the end of a match it starts to feel like a slog. Play doesn't naturally climax and fade in the best ways. The game is still good to watch but could be even more interesting. For example the first 3 minutes are almost nothing, filled with castor chatter. The endings are so confusing no one knows what's going on. There's a lot of clean-up stuff where both players are going through the motions. There's no tension in those periods. When a match is over it's hard to play it back in your mind and chunk it like, "first X happened and that gave a lead, but then a skirmish at Y." You can recall it that way but it doesn't come as naturally as it would with sports.

[Richard Kain]

Games also don't have generated spectator views. I think that's the biggest hole to fill... other than just making better games.

I think the issue of spectator views is a technical issue, and is eminently solvable. With the kind of gameplay recording functions being spliced into some games, it has almost become a non-issue. With the right support staff you could even do a live broadcast of a FPS game effectively. (separate live handlers for each player deciding which is the optimal angle, with a commentator who is monitoring the various feeds and picking which one goes out to the audience)

Pacing is a design issue, not a technical issue. It involves the rules by which the game is played. For a game to be more spectator-focused, it would have to be designed with the non-interactive audience in mind.

[Graham-]

No they're very similar. Both have to do with logic understanding what is currently happening in a game. If I can create a function that can appreciate the pace of a game, the major elements at play, what they represent, then slice that up, re-arrange it, do whatever so that the audience can more readily appreciate what's happening, then that same logic can be used to help guide better pacing. It could insert elements in the game as it is being played to control momentum, according to the rules, then you the designer could identify the patterns in these insertions and modify the game's design to more naturally produce the kinds of experiences the system generated.

It is most certainly not a technical issue. Both require design to make the game more audience friendly. They are like sister problems. You can just focus on the first if you'd like. I think you'd be better off tackling both but that's just me. Watch the EC vid. They say the same thing.  

[Wilson Saunders]

Starcraft, League of Legends, and to a lesser extent Tribes Ascend have decent pacing for E-sport viewing. There are periods of down time, tension, and release just like physical sports. The problem is that the action is not focused in one area. In ball sports the camera can just focus on the ball or a wide angle shot and the spectators will have a pretty good idea of what is going on. In esports where every player/unit could be making a valuable/game-changing contribution there is no single point of focus that a spectator can latch on to. I would prefer after action highlights where the commentators/players watch a recording of the action from a point of view that best highlights what happened and discuss the action. It looses a bit of the drama of live action/commentary, but would lead to a better understanding of the game.

[Graham-]

Yeah this is a big advantage of generated views: highlight reels.

It would also mean a player could watch their own matches back in an interesting way, or see their friends, or players only a level or two above them. It would make getting into the sport easier. There would be this ramp up.

A big issue is comprehending the major moves that are happening across a map. Game's have an advantage in that the players can focus on several things at one. It allows for broader strategy. But that obviously makes it harder to follow. I'd like to see helpers. Maybe there's a zoomed out view in Starcraft, a cross between mini-map and regular view. I can see what's going on at a broader scale but with less detail. Maybe I'm given a sense for positional advantage. There's a lot of stuff here.

Then you could build smarter commentator tools on top of that. They make it even easier for castors to shape the view to their demands.

[Richard Kain]

It is most certainly not a technical issue. Both require design to make the game more audience friendly.

To solve the view problem all you need to do is throw people at it. Camera manipulation is much easier in games than it is in real life, because the cameras in games are invisible points in space. And in the context of a live competitive match, it would be quite easy to assign a number of different people for running any number of virtual cameras. You don't need to cook up complex algorithms or AI for camera management when you can just throw a few people at it.

And solving the issue of multiple camera angles doesn't address the pacing issue. Having better management over what to look at isn't going to change the pace of the game. The action can still barrel onwards without any natural breaks or cool-downs between. The nature and rules of most current competitive titles make it impossible to pace them for broader appeal. You are at the mercy of the players. You have to start from the ground up with a game whose rule set is more in keeping with audience engagement.

[Graham-]

Yeah that's why I called them sister issues. One does not solve the problems of the others.

I don't think you understood what I meant though. Camera manipulation is the tip of the iceberg. Why require people to handle cameras? Why not put in logic? It is your game. Don't use a model for sports casting. Take advantage of the fact that everything that happens in the game is run through a computer, and understood by it, before anyone sees it.

The logic doesn't have to be that smart. For example, how cool would it be if a spectator could see the changing power structure in a battle in Starcraft. I want to see who's winning. Normally it's just a massacre until it's over and the winner is declared. Often the castors can't tell. What if I could visually see that certain units have been "flanked," or a slow-down on a mass cast to show its impact, or a highlight on the incoming Valkyries that turn the tide. I want to see a visual representation of who takes the leading edge. Maybe just in the animations of the soldiers I see courage that comes with grasping a victory in the mind, coming close to it.

Often matches aren't engaging (if they aren't) because I can't tell what the hell is going on. The players go through these nice transitions of tension but the audience doesn't because we miss out on all these details. What you want is a game that paces itself naturally but also communicates this pacing to the audience. Sister issues. You don't have to solve both but I guarantee you get a big synergy bonus if you try.


edit:

That reminds me. So much of SC is boring as shit. Some is so interesting, like in time and in screen real estate. Sometimes I want to see 3 things from across the map simultaneously. Sometimes I want to see some intense micro slowed down from 5 seconds to 10. Sometimes I want to see the boring stuff soon after sped up from 10 to 5 (to catch up). Sometimes I care about what's happening to a few units on the screen more than I do about the others. and on like that....

It's like when there's a run against an opponent's mineral line. Some SCVs get crushed. Why not visually show how much of a hit that was to the opponent's economy. The castors always pull up a screen that shows the worker counts, then they do the math, then they compare that to the history... every time, imperfectly, in a non-aesthetic, easy to understand, way. That stuff should all be automated.

[Wilson Saunders]

My proposal for after action commentary would alleviate the pacing issue. The spectators could get a 2 minute analysis of 15 seconds of intense action from multiple points of view on a replay. Game time does not have to have a 1 to 1 relationship with spectator time.

The problem is this involves a lot of work and I don't think the Esport leagues outside Korea have enough funding or man power to bring out the best in the game's action.

[Graham-]

Yeah that's the advantage of doing it automatically. You could also build a community around players doing semi-scoring on popular games, getting ranked for their skills etc. You'd need to build good tools for them, but that's a big endeavor. Do not undertake lightly.

[s0]

i think the real problem is more along the lines of what wilson saunders and j-snake are saying. there's too much going on to digest in a lot of videogames and it's often hard to tell good from bad players if you aren't familiar with the intricacies of the game.

also there's a probably huge cultural aspect as well. for instance, a lot of americans i know hate soccer because it's "boring" to watch and it takes "forever" to score a goal. or, to use an example relevant to this thread,  starcraft is a popular spectator sport in korea despite the supposed "pacing issues."

[Graham-]

i think the real problem is more along the lines of what wilson saunders and j-snake are saying. there's too much going on to digest in a lot of videogames and it's often hard to tell good from bad players if you aren't familiar with the intricacies of the game.

hence the better view... it's also a design problem.

there's 3 core issues to communicating a game to an audience:
  1. Make the game clearer.
  2. Make the game easier to learn.
  3. Offer a separate view for the audience that better communicates what is happening.
And Kain's idea:
  4. Redesign the game so that pacing suits both the players and an audience. One tip here is different game types. SC is always.the.same.thing. That's a sports artifact, for reasons I'll leave you to imagine.

[s0]

huh? i didn't say it isn't a design problem.

[Graham-]

no I mean the stuff I was talking about goes to solve the problem of "game clarity." the other bit was just an add-on.

[Richard Kain]

there's 3 core issues to communicating a game to an audience:
  1. Make the game clearer.
  2. Make the game easier to learn.
  3. Offer a separate view for the audience that better communicates what is happening.
And Kain's idea:
  4. Redesign the game so that pacing suits both the players and an audience. One tip here is different game types. SC is always.the.same.thing. That's a sports artifact, for reasons I'll leave you to imagine.

These are decent ideas. Permit me to elaborate.

1. Simple objectives - Most spectator sports have very simple objectives. There are two goals, each team tries to protect their goal while assaulting their opponents goal. The objective, the goals, are very simple. The goals don't move, or change. They are constant, and the flow of the game is built around them. They contextualize the game into a space that is easy to grasp, and easy to follow. The closest analogue in E-Sports would be the flag in capture-the-flag.

2. Teams - A major problem with current E-Sports is that they largely focus on competitions between individuals. The majority of the actual matches are 1-on-1. 1-on-1 sports are usually not nearly as much fun to watch as team sports. Team sports also allow for a greater degree of strategy and teamwork. The interactions between players on the same team becomes part of the game, and is a hook that the audience is able to latch onto. It makes the sport more relatable to a general audience. Matches for a proper E-Sport should involve teams of no less than four players.

3. Offer a separate view for the audience that better communicates what is happening - Though we have different ideas as to HOW this should be implemented, I think we're all in agreement on the general principle. A separate perspective that makes it easier for the audience to follow the flow of the game is just a good idea.

4. Referees - It is tempting to allow the computer to handle the position of referee. After all, it is making all of the calculations anyway. This is a mistake. The position of referee adds a human element to the proceedings, another way for the audience to relate. The game needs to be flexible enough to allow for interpretation of the rules by a human. It also gives a face for the audience to either cheer or boo. Assigning the interpretation of the rules solely to the computer is too limiting.

[Muz]

also there's a probably huge cultural aspect as well. for instance, a lot of americans i know hate soccer because it's "boring" to watch and it takes "forever" to score a goal. or, to use an example relevant to this thread,  starcraft is a popular spectator sport in korea despite the supposed "pacing issues."

lol, most arguments involving soccer pace often have something to do with them falling down and not wearing body armor too. It's just an excuse to hate something. Most haven't reached the stage where they're used to the pace - you can detect this based on how often they blame the goalkeeper for letting in goals.

There's also a lot which casual soccer watchers don't understand.. to most, it's just passing around a ball and waiting for it to hit the goal. For a real fan, it's about loosening up the defense, getting them in a position where it's easy to score, distracting and catching key players when they're off guard.

Soccer's very similar to RTSes in that manner. Difference is that when you don't understand anything, soccer looks like nothing is happening, but Starcraft looks like people clicking all kinds of buttons.

SC has its 'silent' times too, when people are doing something completely anticipated.. this is similar to dribbling or passing the ball in sports terms.

A casual spectator can easily identify a pass in football; boring. A hardcore spectator can spot bad and good passes, and whether certain players were poorly marked/poorly positioned or what makes a bad tackle. They get frustrated on bad passes, and excited on good ones that lead to opportunities (which is why you don't see soccer fans getting off the seat even during the 'slow' moments).

A casual RTS spectator has no idea why he's making those troops. He's still trying to figure out what a Sword of the Last Starqueen does or learning that a Shotgunman does 20% extra damage on a Sniper. And by the time he's figured that out, the player's already bought a dozen other units. An experienced spectator has already expected him to buy that Sword or follow those build orders.


It's not really about pace, but more about learning curve. Depends on how fun it is to watch it in the early stages. Computer games are simply not fun to watch if you don't understand it. Games like football, poker, basketball are really easy to appreciate with no knowledge of the game, and even more impressive with full knowledge.

[Richard Kain]

lol, most arguments involving soccer pace often have something to do with them falling down and not wearing body armor too. It's just an excuse to hate something.

I don't think Soccer (aka, international Football) has bad pacing at all. In fact, it could be argued that soccer is the prototypical team sport. It is the template from which most modern team sports are struck. Two goals, one ball. It would be difficult to make a sport simpler or more fundamental. And as to the perception of soccer in the U.S., I really think it is more of a cultural bias than anything else. I attended a soccer match while traveling in Sweden, and the energy from the crowd was frankly intimidating. You couldn't help but get swept up in the excitement. And this was just a local regional match with no real stakes. The pacing was clearly not the problem there. The rules of soccer set up natural lulls and peaks of exuberance.

At the moment, I would say that the competitive game-type that is closest to conventional sports is capture-the-flag. This is a team effort involving very simple and clearly defined objectives. There is a natural flow of both offense and defense, and a decent pacing for anyone watching the match. (the "highs" usually occurring when one team secures the flag and attempts to race it back to their own base for the point) While the intensity might be near-constant for the participants, the whole affair could be made much more palatable for a larger audience with a differing view of the action.

[Graham-]

@ Kain

I don't think we disagree on how to generate a separate view for spectators (from that of players). You're talking about man-controlled techniques, like camera men etc. I don't mind those ideas. They are good ones. I was just also talking about software tools that help the "camera-men" out, or do much of their work for them. Here are the advantages:
  1. You can evolve them, w/ play testing, metrics etc. Software compounds, forever, under many hands. Human skill does neither.
  2. Any addition is made available to spectators of any match, not just those with budgets.
  3. Any addition can be used by actual camera-men (to increase their ability at creating an engaging live spectator stream).
  4. You can try them out before your game becomes a big sport.

I don't devalue actual humans creating streams. I want to watch man-made streams when I watch Starcraft online. My ideas don't exclude that.

--

Teams are great. Not a lot of team play in the world right now (in video games).

Refs I'm not so sure about. Refs are meant to adjudicate, not provide color. There are rules in some sports, like soccer, to allow the rejection of tech-adjudication over ref-adjudication in some cases, but I think that's a legacy issue. In video games the question would always arise, why not have the game ref, then have every ruling be fair?

If you want another human element, design the game in a different way. Team sports are limited in their designs, but video games are an open field. Come up with tertiary roles for other people to fill. We don't need to stick with the evenly matched teams model. We can have other players take on side roles in the game, who are trying to serve their own purposes. These others players can be affiliated with the core teams or not. We can have substitutions, and different segments of game type, or 3-way combat, or varying roles per match. Some systems can come down to campaigns.

We can have 2 teams face off, and depending on the results, the following match is setup in a certain way. Race cars vie for position in upcoming races. That's a small change. Our games could be far more nuanced in that respect. Maybe a particular result in one match for a team opens up a smaller match with a different opponent in their pool, that follows different rules. You can get as crazy as you want.

In tournament play in regular sports, each game is exactly the same, except in borderline cases. In video games, the game design could account for tournaments, or sets. There could be much more of an impact on tournament structure than just a team's win/loss record. You could put some players in a penalty box, or in a special ring because they did something one game, then force them to play a side role in some other game that their team isn't playing in, as a "representative." Then in serving some particular purpose, they add the unpredictable neutral "human element" that a referee would normally provide. There is a whole world to explore. Decide what factors you want to add to an average match, then design the system to provide it. Very cool.

You can dig, and dig, and dig.

One advantage to video games, riffing on your "simple objectives" point, is that they - the system - understands what's going on. In soccer, complex objectives are being sought. There is a richness to it. One team tries to unlock a position, or weaken a pattern, or confuse a player. Then they leverage their results into a different strategy, over and over, culminating in an attempted goal. Those sub-pursuits just happen to be invisible to many spectators. Well, not entirely invisible, but shadowy at different angles for each person.

The spectators have to see beneath the surface of the game. To contrast, in a video game the designer can make sub-goals explicit, and he can highlight the implicit ones. What if in Starcraft your units animated differently when they were surprised, like when they are caught in a poor position when attacked? Their animation would show their surprise. No mechanics are changed, just the look. That would be cool. The implicit goal of a player would be shown explicitly by the system. That would help train players and teach the audience about what's going on. You could take it even further and confer a slight penalty to surprised units. Maybe that penalty can be exploited only situationally. Maybe it exists only in player training, like a corked or heavier bat in baseball practice that helps build player confidence or skill.

Fun ideas. If you have some more I'll riff with you. I'm kind of working on this problem too. I've got lots more to say I think.

[Udderdude]

Fighting games are much faster paced and it's rare you get a time-out turtle match with very little going on, at least in a decent fighting game.