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.
17 Comments:
5 stars, would read again.
By
Keits, at 9:22 PM
Very nice. You obviously have a bias towards fighting games and I don't really feel like you mention some of the flaws of fighting games. But I agree with a lot of your points and hope they manifest themselves. Seriously. ;D
By
Anonymous, at 8:41 AM
Great article, as a fan of professional Starcraft and Starcraft 2, I felt you got it right in terms of how much aggregating factors decide everything, it's very exciting for people who have played the game or watched a lot, but it is definitely less accessible.
The greatest strength of the fighting game scene is the community itself, people wouldn't be so excited when watching the daigo parry video if everyone there wasn't proverbially blowing up. It's the inclusive, even if you're not there, nature of the community where even long rivalries and bitter forum drama is all tongue in cheek and relatively forgotten at tournament time, that really attracts and keeps people watching. That isn't to detract from the effects of the tangible action, just another equally important factor.
By
Anonymous, at 8:43 AM
Very good article and interesting reading.
However e-sports were born on PC and I don't think our consoles fighting games will ever be more popular than FPS ad RTS.
By
Anonymous, at 10:34 AM
Nowadays when people refer to the fighting games, what they really mean is ssf4. If James is looking at the comments, I have to ask...do you think other fighting games can gather such an audience?
A weakness I've found with fighting games as an esport, as it stands now, is that ssf4 is the only really celebrated one...and other fighting game tournaments are treated as side events. In order to prosper in the future, I think there needs to be newer games to prosper on the current boom in interest.
By
Anonymous, at 10:53 AM
"...I have to ask...do you think other fighting games can gather such an audience?
A weakness I've found with fighting games as an esport, as it stands now, is that ssf4 is the only really celebrated one..."
That was what my previous blog post was mostly about: yes, SSFIV is the only celebrated one right now, but the other communities need to start getting smarter about how to use the influx of SSFIV players to help grow their own scene by being inviting and catering their attempts to teach new players by focusing on an SSFIV mindset. It sucks that is has to be that way for the other communities, but it's the best chance they have for getting new players and getting their scene larger.
Plus, SSFIV has set a sort of new precedent with how games are being presented and "hyped" so to speak. Harada, for example, was never as public of a figure as he is now in the Tekken community and Namco never had a community manager before like they do now with Filthie Rich. I think that will help tremendously with the hype train on Tekken Tag 2. Same goes for Ed Boon and Mortal Kombat 9: Boon is a far more public figure than before.
Some of the games that are out now will have trouble gathering a scene because it's kind of late and even players of the scene have trouble accepting certain games (Guilty Gear players hating on BlazBlue for example). But I think many of the games coming up will have a GREAT chance of garnering a fanbase similar to that of SSFIV: Mortal Kombat 9, Tekken Tag Tournament 2, King of the Fighter XIII, and Marvel Vs. Capcom 3 in particular.
We're in a very interesting time within the Fighting Game community, and I think how these upcoming games will be received is going to be a very strong tell on how the future of Fighting Games will go. I'm, frankly, very excited to see where we're going and am optimistic that we can grow beyond SSFIV.
By
jchensor, at 12:02 PM
The main problem IMO with fighting games as an eSport compared to other games is that it is so hard to provide good live commentary on fighting games. It's a trade-off for the "constant action" thing you described. The fact that an RTS often has built-in lulls where players are expanding, researching, building up, etc mean that commentators have a prime opportunity to explain things, like what the goals of each player are in the given match up, nuances of the map, what strategies are currently popular and why, etc.
Good commentary is so key to drawing in new/casual viewers. The constant action of, say, SSF4 compared to SC2 means that commentators really can't convey everything that is going on. SC2 is becoming huge as an eSport, and this is one of the main reasons. I have lots of friends who don't play Starcraft at all, but they still love watching well-commentated matches because they can understand 90% of what is going on. There are actually people who religiously watch SC2 tournaments, but don't play at all themselves; I just can't see this happening for fighting games, because somebody who has never played any won't understand a quarter of what's happening in a high-level match, and there just isn't enough time for commentators to explain it all.
By
Nybb, at 3:37 PM
great article! i agree that that COMEBACKS are one of the reasons why fighting games are entertaining until the end.
I never thought about RTS having more lulls than in fighting games until you pointed it out, great argument.
STREET FIGHTER IV NEEDS TO BE AT MLG. WE'LL WITNESS ANOTHER BOOM IN POPULARITY WHEN THAT HAPPENS.
Tekken generated a lot of excitement over at MLG, and I'm sure SSF4 will create even more buzz.
By
UNPOSSIBLE, at 4:06 PM
A great read as always James.
By
Anonymous, at 10:24 PM
if you had 100 ppl and 80 of them like football and 40 like hockey... so are you implying 20 of them like both?!!? miindffuuuckkeeddd
great article though!
By
Jeffrey Dee, at 2:55 PM
You make a better argument against FPS and RTS games than for fighters. When that friend who doesn't play fighting games was watching Evo were they just silently absorbed or were they asking you a steady steam of questions about what was going on?
I agree with Nybb that the action is TOO fast. Critical things take place in 1/60th of a second and even if you KNOW what's going on it's hard to tell some times. Without having detailed knowledge of each character how do I know if a player is putting gaps into their block strings to try to frame trap? If a player made a lucky guess or was using a clever option-select?
You talk about how good spectator sports give the viewer more information, but then you just assume (or at least imply) that fighting games are perfect. I would love to see an instant replay that somehow conveyed why something worked or a combo was dropped. What I mean is, if a football player makes a one-handed catch with his fingertips I intuitively know it was a skillful move; if the ball is just out of reach I understand that it was close. But if a gamer does a one-frame link (or misses it) I really can't see what's going on unless I've been studying frame data.
I think this warrants more discussion by the community and a call-to-action for the makers of the games to add features that facilitate "broadcasting" matches.
Meanwhile, streams should think about what they could do right now. There's a lot of people doing great jobs right now, and I don't mean to demean them in any way, but how amazing would it be if someone figured out how to show slow-motion replays during button checks? Cross-counter does some good stuff with analyzing matches, but to be mainstream this kind of thing has to be "in-lined".
By
Icy Black Deep, at 10:49 PM
Posting up an e-mail I received because it made a lot of interesting points and should be here in the discussion.
From Henry Wong:
"Hi James,
I read your most recent post about fighting games as spectator sports after it was linked on shoryuken.com. It was well-thought out and interesting to read, and I hope this doesn't sound patronizing to you, but there are several reasons why that won't happen you didn't recognize because you are too immersed in fighting game culture. A few of them follow:
1. Street Fighter is the most popular and will likely always be the most popular fighting game. This is detrimental for several reasons. For example, any matches that involve shoto characters (which is half the cast - I'm half-joking of course) quickly devolves into fireball slugfests, which someone not hardcore into fighting games would call fireball spamming. The game is also more or less the same as it was 20 years ago, which means that people with only a passing familiarity with video games probably have heard of the game before, and in that case, why would they want to watch it televised?
Another reason is that people would be rooting for the caricatures - guy in the karate suit, the sumo wrestler, English chick with a booty that would be impossible in real life for someone of her stature - and not the players, because other than Justin Wong, Daigo, or Alex Valle, why would you root for one player over another? This problem is exacerbated when a game can have literally dozens of characters but the same handful of faces keep popping up. Case in point: Magneto vs.Cable 2.
2. Not knowing what is going on. Watching a fighting game match will be novel at first, but once it wears off, there's no reason to keep tuning in if you don't even know what the hell is going on. This is an isolated example of course, but when the Daigo vs. Justin Wong video was first making the rounds, I showed it to a group of gamer friends who weren't really into fighting games, and they didn't care for it at all, saying, "What's the big deal? Some guy was about to win, had all his attacks blocked [their words, not mine], and lost instead."
The equivalent of this in real sports would be like in football, if a pass was intercepted and returned 100 yards for a touchdown. Would anyone who isn't a pigskin fan care? Probably not. When the Red Sox won the World Series in 2004, many fans were disparagingly named "Pink Sox", because they (who may or may not have been female) jumped on the bandwagon instead of being longtime baseball fans - the "Daigo Parry" moment is similar to that, and only fighting game fans would care to regularly watch these turnarounds and other tangible actions. Which is a problem, of course, because despite the recent resurgence in fighting games, they're still niche. (Even strategy games have become somewhat in vogue again with tower defense games.) Mainly owing to that is..."
(Continued in next post...)
By
jchensor, at 3:20 PM
(Continued from previous post...)
"3. Unacceptable game behavior. I touched upon this in my first point, but more casual fans of fighting games would have little patience for fireball spamming, tick throws, corner trapping, poking, ground game (which, amusingly enough, my friends call pussyfooting - not just the meaning of the word, but in the literal sense too, like if your girlfriend isn't satisfied with your fingering her, she might ask you to use your big toe), etc.
A personal anecdote: I watched an old SSF2T Evo video where one player was E. Honda and the other was Dee Jay, if I remember correctly. The Dee Jay player kept spamming projectiles and kept E. Honda in the corner, and of course, the E. Honda player was fucked. This doesn't make casual viewers - at least I didn't - think, "Poor E. Honda player. The other guy was cheap." It makes them think, "Wow, video game players are such losers in real life that they'll do anything to win a game?" (Your Evo2k8 trailer exhibits similar behavior when a Vega player constantly air throws an M. Bison player.) The Dee Jay player didn't gain notoriety in the way that Triple H of the WWF is loved to be hated, because HHH, in pro wrestling canon, is one of the best wrestlers, and he would win anyway, whether by fair or dirty means. Dee Jay was a dick, not a heel.
4. Video game players are losers in real life, otherwise they wouldn't be playing video games. At least that's the popular opinion. But even if they weren't stigmatized, why would anyone want to watch people play video games? Someone who has or hasn't played soccer would recognize that most kicks won't get the ball anywhere near the goal, but most people, even gamers, could not recognize or couldn't care about high-level play in a fighting game. With that in mind, fighting games and its community are very hostile to newcomers. You have people complaining about no one wanting to go to tournaments and the proliferation of "online scrubs". Others hate certain titles (BlazBlue) while loving similar ones (Guilty Gear). I think part of the reason Starcraft is popular as an eSport is because of the superb commentary. Does it work? Probably - many viewers are young girls.
I too would love to see fighting games become more mainstream, or failing that, an eSport. Unfortunately, it's not likely to happen, not even when all the people who haven't played a video game in their lives have died off.
Regards,
Henry Wong."
By
jchensor, at 3:20 PM
I wanted to respond to a point brought up by both Nybb and Icy Black Deep. Nybb said:
"The main problem IMO with fighting games as an eSport compared to other games is that it is so hard to provide good live commentary on fighting games. It's a trade-off for the "constant action" thing you described. The fact that an RTS often has built-in lulls... mean that commentators have a prime opportunity to explain things..."
Icy Black Deep said:
"I agree with Nybb that the action is TOO fast. Critical things take place in 1/60th of a second and even if you KNOW what's going on it's hard to tell some times. Without having detailed knowledge of each character how do I know if a player is putting gaps into their block strings to try to frame trap? If a player made a lucky guess or was using a clever option-select?"
I've actually covered this in my post, just not very obviously. Understand that I'm approaching this from a VERY casual point of view. You cannot gain a large audience for sports if you cannot appeal to the casual viewers. I talked about this a bit in this paragraph:
"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."
The point of this is that this is NOT what casual viewers are looking for right away. The point of mentioning the lulls and the lack of tangible action in FPS's and RTS's is that they have NO good casual viewer friendly stuff going on. Fighting games do, even if it is just landing an Ultra. I still remember at the first Bar Fights thrown by Gootecks where Ed Ma landed Fierce DP FADC into Shinryuken against Combofiend with Ken and the audience went nuts. But the hardcore players know that the combo was very low damage, but it didn't matter: the casual audience went nuts.
By the time you care enough about the One-Frame Links and the gaps for Frame Traps and such, you ARE a hardcore player. When you watch Poker, there is very little talk of how people bait each other but there is a huge hullabaloo when someone gets a bad beat. The alley-oop dunk example is perfect: commentators go nuts on Kobe finishing the alley-oop dunk, but rarely talk about what Kobe did to lose his opponent by setting him up for two quarters in a row.
Commentators should point out subtle things from time to time, but it isn't necessary for casual viewers. Again, by the time you start caring about Frame Traps and such, you are already a person who is trying to become more hardcore, whether you are actually there or not. Again, this blog post is mostly on what appeals to casual viewers, not people who want to become more hardcore. If you are a casual viewer, you watch World Series of Poker. If you want to become more hardcore, you watch Poker After Dark.
But I do agree that commentators have a HUGE responsibility on their hands, being able to talk about the obvious things AND the subtle things at the same time to subconsciously slip in hardcore info to the casual viewers. It's not an easy task, and commentary in SF if VERY green right now, myself included, which is why I strive hard to improve my commentary every time I do it. But for sure, finding good commentators will be key to the success of Fighting Games in the eSports world. Games like StarCraft already have brilliant commentators. THe Fighting Game Community needs to catch up.
- James
By
jchensor, at 3:33 PM
I do also want to add that once technology for Fighting Games improve, things can definitely get better. Icy Black Deep's point is 100% true:
"I think this warrants... a call-to-action for the makers of the games to add features that facilitate "broadcasting" matches."
Blizzard goes the extra mile to provide broadcasters with cool tools and such. Fighting Games need to step this factor up. If one company does it and it becomes a huge thing, it'll be great pressure for other Fighting Game developers to do the same.
At the same time, technology, like I said, just needs to improve for broadcasts. Right now, we are very barebones streaming. But once we can figure out a good way to provide instant replays and once tournaments become more organized to force the pace for the players as opposed to letting players drive the pace, things can get better (an example of that second statement is to force players to not choose "Rematch" in SFIV and force them to repick characters to automatically provide time for commentators to do a quick replay and discussion).
Things have to change, for sure, but they'll only change if we all start thinking about it, and that's what I'm glad this post has started doing: getting people to discuss it.
- James
By
jchensor, at 3:40 PM
A great and interesting read!
And I totally agree.
By
Unknown, at 9:18 AM
i fkn love you. Moval and I are thinking about making a series of shorts/interviews with players and community figures about how/why fighting games haven't gone mainstream yet (as compared to FPS'es RTS's and the like), and theories behind it -- you've covered it and explained a lot of it really well here.
If i decide to stop being lazy, I would love to speak to you about it :p
By
Cicada, at 12:40 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home