David "Walshy" Walsh, one of the most successful Halo professionals of all time with 2 National Championships under his belt recently gave an interview to Forbes:
He says it is almost impossible for FPS games to compete with SC2 and LoL in their current state, but believes FPS is the future of opening eSports to a public market. He says that while Riot and Blizzard have balance concerns in mind when developing and patching their games, 343 and Treyarch do not - at least, until Black Ops II - have eSports in mind.
How do you feel about this? Should FPS be considered the main appeal to the general audience? Walshy says FPS games are easier to follow - which is true. You don't have to learn a new game every time with an FPS, it's always going to be the same fundamentals. LoL/Dota are confusing enough for non-players, SC2 is a bit more simple.
I find a lot of anti-FPS sentiment outside of Quake and Counter Strike among the general populace of eSports. It's too casual, they claim. Is this justified? Are FPS games too casual? Do you believe they are not challenging/not a big enough skill gap compared to SC2? Is that the fault of the genre, or of the current generation?
I would be interested to hear opinions about this interview and the questions it raises. Linked as a related article is a 343 developer saying Halo 4 "had eSports in mind" - this is complete bullcrap, unless 343 have no idea about what it takes to make a good eSport. Grifball certainly isn't it.
I appear to have rambled a bit and asked a bunch of questions so I'll tl;dr - read article, should we promote FPS as eSports, leave it to SC2/Moba, are the devs to blame or the audience or indeed the genre itself?
I agree that SC2 and moba games are much harder to watch than say a fighting game of FPS. I think it's really simple, actually -- When it comes to moba/sc2, it's up to the developer to help. When it comes to the aforementioned, it's up to the community to do something about it (provided the games are 'good' enough which is another debate : S)
I think that one reason that esports hasn't taken off so much for fps games is that to watch it, you pretty much just have to watch one person's view, and this might mean you miss other action going on (assuming it is a team fps). With starcraft or mobas, you don't need to see a person's view to be able to appreciate their skill. I think that is quite a big difference. I don' think FPS games are the future of esports, at least, not for the next 20 years or so. I think that FPS games nowadays that could be contenders for being an esports are too casual, and not made with esports in mind. Also, i don't think there can be a hugely successful esport that is mainly played on a console. The fact is, the console scene is far too casual and isn't interested in watching the best at their particular game play against each other, the market just ins't there.
1v1 FPS is easier to follow, but team FPS ? No, not even close.
Esports will gain general acceptance simply because people will treat games as something that just exists, or because the games have huge enough following to make it worth it. Since distributors insist on releasing a new brown manshooter every year, they never stick around for long, which is necessary for gamers to master them and their multiplayer mechanics have been artificially skewed to make skill matter less. There's no magical game that will make everybody enjoy esports, closest to it is LoL, it seems. Just enjoy what is there right now and that's it.
The problem with FPS is that there is no spectator view, most of the time if you are watching you are seeing only 1 person's view at a time, which is a problem in a 4v4 or a 6v6 or what have you.
In sc2 and LoL there is a nice spectator view with the ability to hop between different points of action quickly, which is key because there can be a lot of things happening at once.
I would also agree that FPS tends to lean towards casuals, but I would also suggest that the problem is with the consoles.
If I get pissed from a game of Starcraft I can just close it out and start watching some one stream without leaving my chair. If someone is playing Xbox or PS3 you don't really have the option of stopping and watching someone professional play without leaving your console.
eSports grew out of FPS before starcraft even existed. He isn't saying the genre cannot compete, which it has already proven it can, but rather that the current market of FPS games just don't have the same level of eSports focus built into their development, good support from the developers, and developers having dedicated eSport representatives at their companies like SC2 and LoL do. He also does say that he is hopeful for the future and that 343 and Treyarch do seem to be committed to making changes for eSport.
Although viewing can be more difficult than with something like SC2 and LoL, the same issues still occur to varying degrees. An observer can miss showing a drop occurring at a base just like one could miss a series of quick well placed headshots. Casting from replays can really help alleviate that for any game. FPS has the advantage of being extremely easy to understand for spectators, while still having a high skill cap to master, even if it is a different skill set than those for RTS and MOBA games. FPS still has a lot of things going for it that can propel it to the same level as SC2 and LoL, if it gets good support in the future. It may not necessarily be with the current generation of shooters(maybe), but the genre itself is still going strong despite being arguably the most oversaturated genre to ever exist. It has more than enough chance, and nowhere to go but up!
Personally my problem with FPS games (going back to CS) has always been that they are too fast for a good spectator sport.
Say the camera follows player X who is trying to go by a sidepath he sees an enemy (or 2) and shoots within 1/2 of a second, for me as a casual spectator that was usually too fast to notice what he is shooting at.
That's basically why i haven't watched any FPS in years (over a decade actually) while i still watch streams of SC2 or LoL.
Once there was someting with SC2 on it somewhere in China or wherever and when I tuned in, there was some CounterStrike and it looked fun, so I watched. And because I have never played a FPS ever in my life (I have no idea why, it just did not happen), I must say it was confusing as hell.
I don't know if it is specificall a problem of CS or it is ageneral FPS thing, but I found it almost impossible to follow, mainly because of the speed of the action and also because of the lack of a catch-all point of view. In SC2, you look from a "god" point of view, where you oversee the battlefield from the air, see the units of both players etc... in CS, there was always one guy's point of view (and there is like 10 guys in the game). Also, people have a tendency to die instantly, where the shot itself is not really spectacular.
Yes, I am probably biased, as someone who has spend most of the time playing on computer with BW and SC2, but at least to me, these titles are much more likely to be observed. I also have the experience that I can quite easily get completely outside people to watch and enjoy a prarticularly good SC2 game with me, because it is possible to just show them on screen what is what and get them into the action.
I cant follow FPS match as long as its not POV + teamspeak of one player I tried to watch LoL/SC2 tourny after 3 months of not playing and I had no idea what was going on. Do you remember WoW as the main esport game on IEM ? that was crazy. Dont forget that we still got sport games and racing games, And yes I think that Fifa will be the next big thing,
Personally I'm not sold on FPS being the gateway to opening up eSports to a larger market, and that's primarily due to it not being as interesting or easy to spectate as other types of games like fighters/RTS/MOBA. If I had to pin an "intro to eSports" badge on any particular type of game, I think it'd be fighting games. They're fun to watch and it's easy to understand what's going on even if you know almost nothing about fighters.
there should be an isometric view of the map in addition to normal fps spectator view types. So the caster can tell about the overall strats of the team and whats happening.
I've seen some decent casting from CS and CS GO. I was introduced to esports by CS & I used to really appreciate good matches. There is map view for the beginning of the round, however I agree it requires some skill from the commentator to catch most of the action & it's unavoidable to miss some frags. Back in 1.6 there was also a slow motion during intense teamfights & it would just skip the buy time of next round (10 sec buy time).
On February 12 2013 03:24 Torte de Lini wrote: The problem with FPS games is that their strategy is not obvious to most viewers and the commentators need to convey that with excitement.
The other issue is that it is visually not as stimulating to watch in most perspectives as it is for LoL or SC2.
If anything, I think fighting games are the gateway to E-Sports, their levels of depth and strategy is much more translatable than the other games.
I have to disagree, I think the strategy to FPS (at least, Halo 3) is more apparent than that of SC2 and Moba which needs a fair amount of analysis and explanation. You can watch a collection of Halo 3 plays from MLG back in the day and see how intricate - but understandable - the team play is.
Visual stimulation is subjective, however. There is just as much excitement for a huge baneling attack as there is a sick cross map no scope or a triple kill in a moba game.
In fact, the consistent level of entertaining plays coming from FPS can be higher than SC2 (certainly in the current metagame)as shown in this example.
Interesting about fighting games though. MLG has kept them going for a while but they've never attracted huge crowds, though EVO is always a success.
On February 12 2013 06:12 NIIINO wrote:
Dont forget that we still got sport games and racing games, And yes I think that Fifa will be the next big thing,
MLG has tried to make Fifa work before to no avail.
It is scripted, and so inherently imbalanced. If that gets resolved and people find a way to make team selections okay with everyone, it could be very popular (Virgin are running a $1m tournament for it, so something is going right).
I really hope someone could make a FPS or TPS in a style similar to GunZ without it's problems, the amount of mobility the players can have is ridiculous, though you probably get into even faster linear speed with Quake's circlejump stuff. Most of the shooters just tend to be cover based (in case of TPS) or very Arcadey in COD sense (FPS) these days.
Usually games can be confusing to watch if you don't play the game or those similar to it. It's also hard to appreciate the skill if it isn't very easily distinguishable from the visuals, of course it helps to have commentator or two to give it an icing by explaining the not so clear stuff while accompanied some play-by-play.
On February 12 2013 07:43 NeonFlare wrote: I really hope someone could make a FPS or TPS in a style similar to GunZ without it's problems, the amount of mobility the players can have is ridiculous, though you probably get into even faster linear speed with Quake's circlejump stuff. Most of the shooters just tend to be cover based (in case of TPS) or very Arcadey in COD sense (FPS) these days.
Usually games can be confusing to watch if you don't play the game or those similar to it. It's also hard to appreciate the skill if it isn't very easily distinguishable from the visuals, of course it helps to have commentator or two to give it an icing by explaining the not so clear stuff while accompanied some play-by-play.
GunZ yes. 1v1 duel was awesome to watch.
The problem I find with watching CS-style FPS's is that the action is often too fast and your vision too narrow. It's very easy to miss things and without knowing the map layout well, it just looks like people show up out of nowhere. Quake is also really hard to watch due to not understanding exactly how the timers on the buffs work. You'll see people jumping around the map seemingly at random but it's all very calculated.
While SC2 and LoL require a lot of knowledge to properly spectate, the action is quite a bit more obvious. Army vs army, one guy wins. Fighting games are also pretty easy to watch in the same sense--the spectator isn't necessarily going to understand the difficulty of performing certain moves or combos but the action and flow of the game is very obvious.
I've never really felt that team FPS would make a good spectator e-sport, but 1v1 FPS games have always held a spot in my heart and I think watching them, as well as playing is a blast. It makes me really sad there isn't much competition in the 1v1 category anymore ever since UT2k4 and Quake faded away. When the money went to Painkiller that was popular for a very short amount of time, and then after that as far as I know, no other 1v1 FPS games really blasted out and made a big impact.
Hm, so perhaps games like Halo 2 and 3 where the kill times were actually quite long (compared to CS/CoD) are the better choice for an FPS flagship? Since it gives players the chance to get away from fights they can't win, thus rewarding teamshooting and encouraging accuracy if headshots do more damage.
Team FPS have never been fun to watch imo. There's just not very much that is very visually stimulating from a viewer perspective. This is for a lot of reasons... Bullets not being very visually stimulating, strategies usually aren't as intricate, and one big issue is players die a lot faster making the fight's not as entertaining.
For example CS was featured at some tournaments I've went to that also featured SC2... OMG it's so boring to watch, I don't know how people could stand it. It had a FAR smaller crowd than SC2 did at those events, and at one in particular (IEM) SC2 was about to start but was getting delayed because CS was going on so long. Just mentioning Day9 as the caster made the crowd erupt louder than they were the entire CS tournament. And since the CS teams had to win by 2, it got delayed longer and longer as both teams went 1-1 back and forth. Every single time either team won the entire crowd started boo'ing, because they wanted it to end so SC2 could start. It was bad...
I guess in this kind of realm i have a few things to say, though just my personal opinions.
Unfortunately for FPS, the genre these days is dominated in terms of public play by the COD's, blackops and halo's.
Not saying that they are bad games, but they never created the competitive element or atmosphere that SC, counterstrike (hell even NS2) did. Those games were built for a specific purpose - for your average joe who likes some games to play, and to sell a TON of copies, over and over again, every year. Then they are built to the purpose of generating "ESPORT" as some form of marketing.
Unfortunately, there is quite a lot less focus on what actually most gamers want and enjoy out of the game, which is the gameplay itself.
I think MMO's are the classic of this feature as basically a HUGE and VAST majority of mmo's have boiled down to the WoW/Lineage (or however you want to describe it) formula.
I mean, what happened to Ragnarok? Ultima? You'll never see games like that again because of the domination and saturation of that genre into the market.
You'll never see CS or Quake ever in the market again because it wasn't built to sell a million copies, it was built to be a great game, which are two very different things (though generally correlated to some extent). The same kind of innovation and genius that created those games will never break the CoD market.
---
DotA and LoL are unique because in their own way, they were the FIRST into the market. Also DotA being a carbon copy of DotA1 is a HUGE powerplay from valve (and a great one, true salute to them) DotA was not built to sell trillions of copies (it's free) - it was built by a group of guys (who then became icefrog but i'll leave out the history lessons of eul and danite etc.) who just wanted to make a good game.
If for some reason, valve decides to make "dota 3" (or rather, had made dota2 to be some genuine sequel like HoN was supposed to be) - then you'll see a repeat of the utter failure that is the CoD or the MMO/WoW market.
It's for this reason that DotA and LoL will dominate the market of "esports".
SC2 will eventually fade away - it has nice intentions, but it was built on the "sell tons of copies and use ESPORTS as marketing" - as opposed to BW which was built on the "make a great game". BW will have the true legacy of esports (and would have continued on if SC2 never came into play) - it was the first one and relied on excellent gameplay that developed it's community that way.
---
Maybe there will be another genre. Another wave of innovation focused on great gameplay (as opposed to selling copies) - the same innovation that make our quakes, our ragnaroks, our CS, our BW's, our DotA.
Or maybe not.
But it's a hell of a challenge to try and kick the CoD's out of the market with a game that was made for people to play instead of sell alot. If that happened, then yeah, i can see esports being focused on FPS maybe. There are certainly plenty of games out there which are great (hell, NS2 is great and NS1. Tribes not so much so cause hi-rez kind of sold out and switched to the sell copies mode instead of make great game mode), but the market is already dominated.
On February 12 2013 03:12 RustySpork wrote: I think that one reason that esports hasn't taken off so much for fps games is that to watch it, you pretty much just have to watch one person's view, and this might mean you miss other action going on (assuming it is a team fps). With starcraft or mobas, you don't need to see a person's view to be able to appreciate their skill. I think that is quite a big difference. I don' think FPS games are the future of esports, at least, not for the next 20 years or so. I think that FPS games nowadays that could be contenders for being an esports are too casual, and not made with esports in mind. Also, i don't think there can be a hugely successful esport that is mainly played on a console. The fact is, the console scene is far too casual and isn't interested in watching the best at their particular game play against each other, the market just ins't there.
This pretty much sums it up. The third person bird's eye view is perfect for spectating, first person is not. And if an FPS ever does become a successful e-sport, it will be through the PC rather than the console, since e-sports for LoL and SC2 thrives on streaming.
The Reasons that make FPS more mainstream, are the same exact reasons that make it a terrible Esport, and is why Casuals dont give a shit about esports.
Nobody watches CoD, Halo, etc and goes "WOW that guy is freaking amazing! holy cow! what a demonstration of skill!" (Im not mentioning Quake, as i never followed it... or CS even). But even comparing Quake or CS to Halo/Cod is a JOKE. The skill gap/cieling is MUCH smaller in those games. Which is why Casuals enjoy them. Casual players enjoy simpler games - fact.
Also, team fps games are a JOKE to spectate/follow. Its simply not possible, and it has nothing to do with lack of spectating modes. There is just simply "And here we see team A..shooting Team B." Anything past that is a bit of a stretch imo.
IMO it would be ridiculous for him to say "Ya FPS are dying... and will be out of esports soon" He makes a living off of FPS in esports. Ofcourse he is going to say that FPS are the future of esports, lol. That's where he comes from. The fact is that Casual players, are NOT interested in Esports. Do you know how many CoD/Halo players actually watch MLG? Literally look at the stream numbers, and the empty chairs at MLG and you can get an easy explination as to why FPS are NOT the future of esports.
People love the current Esports - LoL, Dota, SC2, because they are demonstrations of mental skill. They show strategy and critical thinking, that you do not see outside of competitive sports. We see exhibitions of mental skill. The same way people watch conventional sports for physical skill and ability demonstrations.
When you get into CoD/halo you dont get extreme mental or physical skills. It's all twitch reactions.
I don't see team FPS ever becoming a major Esports player, simply because the average CoD/Halo player is too much of a drooling fratboy knuckle dragger to ever give a shit enough about anything but their own K/D ratio and bragging on facebook.
Not to mention.... Cod/halo are console driven... how many of u watch video streams/tourneys through ur Xbox or PS3? Thats what I thought.
Good luck Walshy, but i think ur prediction is a joke.
The problem with shooter games is that there is no efficient way of spectating, thus why it cannot become a good eSport, there are good games out there, but if you cannot consistently and apprehensively spectate it, it will not become mainstream.
If an FPS want's to be an esport and a team game, it can't be TDM. 1v1 duel is fine to watch because you can follow pretty much everything. Sure it's still hard to appreciate mechanics (ex. strafe jumping in quake), but that's the same for someone watching ex. starcraft without any game knowledge. If you want to make a team FPS watchable, you really need to focus on something like CTF, and not have it happen inside. Make watching the FPS more like watching a game of football, but with 2 balls. Tribes:ascend does an ok job, too bad the mechanics are fundamentally broken.
FPS will never be E-Sports as long as they are mature rated games. Make them 12+ or 16+, so you can actually show them before 22:00 (I think that's the time set by German law). Else: No chance, at least in Germany.
Imo the trends are just always changing. FPS -> RTS -> MOBA. Maybe in a few years FPS will be the focus again.
On February 12 2013 10:34 MaestroSC wrote: The Reasons that make FPS more mainstream, are the same exact reasons that make it a terrible Esport, and is why Casuals dont give a shit about esports.
Nobody watches CoD, Halo, etc and goes "WOW that guy is freaking amazing! holy cow! what a demonstration of skill!" (Im not mentioning Quake, as i never followed it... or CS even). But even comparing Quake or CS to Halo/Cod is a JOKE. The skill gap/cieling is MUCH smaller in those games. Which is why Casuals enjoy them. Casual players enjoy simpler games - fact.
Also, team fps games are a JOKE to spectate/follow. Its simply not possible, and it has nothing to do with lack of spectating modes. There is just simply "And here we see team A..shooting Team B." Anything past that is a bit of a stretch imo.
IMO it would be ridiculous for him to say "Ya FPS are dying... and will be out of esports soon" He makes a living off of FPS in esports. Ofcourse he is going to say that FPS are the future of esports, lol. That's where he comes from. The fact is that Casual players, are NOT interested in Esports. Do you know how many CoD/Halo players actually watch MLG? Literally look at the stream numbers, and the empty chairs at MLG and you can get an easy explination as to why FPS are NOT the future of esports.
People love the current Esports - LoL, Dota, SC2, because they are demonstrations of mental skill. They show strategy and critical thinking, that you do not see outside of competitive sports. We see exhibitions of mental skill. The same way people watch conventional sports for physical skill and ability demonstrations.
When you get into CoD/halo you dont get extreme mental or physical skills. It's all twitch reactions.
I don't see team FPS ever becoming a major Esports player, simply because the average CoD/Halo player is too much of a drooling fratboy knuckle dragger to ever give a shit enough about anything but their own K/D ratio and bragging on facebook.
Not to mention.... Cod/halo are console driven... how many of u watch video streams/tourneys through ur Xbox or PS3? Thats what I thought.
Good luck Walshy, but i think ur prediction is a joke.
What a childish and incorrect attitude. People DO watch Halo and think "man, this guy is amazing, I wish I could do that." I was pretty freaking good at it and was still nowhere near pro level. Watching Halo at MLG was always a revelation because of the new strategies and ways of playing the teams had developed. To think they don't require mental or physical skill beyond "twitch" is just plain wrong.
The reason people aren't interested in Halo anymore is because the games after Halo 3 SUCKED. They weren't fun to play and they weren't fun to watch. The community is huge but they're not going to watch or play something they don't enjoy - and many of the pros feel the same way.
Yes, they are console driven, and that's a major problem with it that he identifies, if you actually read the article.
On February 12 2013 21:30 -Archangel- wrote: Maybe the pro player should not complain while competing in Halo LOL. If he was a Quake or CS player I might take him more seriously.
That's absolutely ridiculous. A player's opinion on eSports isn't dependent on the game he plays. The man's been in the scene since 2001. He's the grandfather of FPS.
On February 12 2013 22:16 Rorra wrote: Its cute that he thinks halo and cod etc, are actually competing with sc2 and LoL, they attract completely different audiences.
besides both those games a pretty unsuited to becoming esports when u consider their competition within the fps genre.
That's not what he says at all, did you read the article? He says they CANNOT compete.
On February 12 2013 07:37 Larkin wrote: Interesting about fighting games though. MLG has kept them going for a while but they've never attracted huge crowds, though EVO is always a success.
That's cause the fighting game community almost unanimously hates MLG and prefer community tournaments, EVO being -the- premier community tournament. Though IPL picking up Capcom fighting games might actually bring traditional "esports" and the FGC closer, given IPL promised to work with the community and not around it like MLG has. Here's to hoping it works.
Also, to chime in on the discussion, I guess fighters can be considered a good -gateway to "esports"- for the average crowd, due to them being games of perfect information (no fog of war, etc), but this is extremely paradoxical to the reality that FPS games have a far bigger playerbase and audience than fighters. I guess the modern FPS crowd are more concerned about simply playing their games instead of making a tournament industry like SC2 and Mobas, which is not necessarily a bad thing mind you. Like, TF2 has a giant player-base, yet I'm sure 99% of TF2 players don't know a single thing about "competitive TF2".
On February 13 2013 09:06 Maxyim wrote: FPS as a watchable e-sport? Not a chance. Congrats on your ability to aim with a mouse, but it's just not that exciting to watch.
For you, perhaps. I found Halo 2 and 3 very enjoyable to watch, as did a lot of people. I find Halo 4 and Black Ops 2 however insufferable to watch. Perhaps it is the quality of the game rather than the quality of the players.
I think the FPS genre has a ton of potential to be grown as an eSport, but all of them are mainly limited by how hard it is to watch. I remember watching Halo 2 and CS:S highlight videos, which were great. The biggest problem is that it is really hard to spectate live matches.
If you go from an overhead view like how SC2 or LoL does it, its not really that fun to watch because it's much harder to distinguish any of the players skills, which is the thing that people enjoy watching. I think the easiest comparison would be kind of like watching the boxscore for a traditional sport. Yeah, its great for being able to see how the game is progressing, but its not really fun at all.
On the other hand, if they do first person view, the opposite problem exists. While its easy to see the individual players skill, you can't really grasp whats going on overall. Jumping around between several players doesn't help that much either as you have to actually know a lot to begin with to be able to follow at all (i.e. who the players are, what each of them do.etc).
A possible solution would be to have replays and just cast those. This way it would be easy to figure out who to spectate beforehand and ensure that nothing important is missed. However, I don't think a lot of people like watching replays and it wouldn't be possible to do live events this way.
If someone can develop some other way for people to spectate, the FPS genre could easily compete with SC2 and LoL. Until they do, the entire genre will remain as games which are fun to play but hard to watch.
@Ario: Black Ops 2 (yeah, of all games...) actually does a good attempt at solving those issues. A Black Ops 2 stream shows a minimap with player positions on the right side, close by is a scoreboard, and taking up most of the stream's video is the actual game itself in first person view. This type of view should've been in every competitive FPS a long time ago.
On February 13 2013 09:06 Maxyim wrote: FPS as a watchable e-sport? Not a chance. Congrats on your ability to aim with a mouse, but it's just not that exciting to watch.
Watch some Quake Live. That is some exciting stuff, really fast paced and easy to follow with good commentators and power up timers.
as an ex CAL-I CS Player who also went to a few CPL's - the main issue with FPS's at the moment are the games themselves.
it's a mix of quake and counter-strike - running around twitch shots with a shit load of different guns you pick to start with. imo the worst of both.
Quake is great because it's all about map control Counter-Strike is great because it's all about strategy
Somehow that has been lost and instead we are force fed this overbred pile of shit that is FPS today. Pretty graphics, nice sun flare effects, quick death, quick respawn.
So in order to bring FPS back to it's former glory we need a game to provide us the platform to do so, but at the moment (even CS:GO has fallen short; although it's a very big improvement over CS:S) there are no games to offer us that.
For me, no other fps has ever managed to capture the glory of cs 1.6. CSS was horrible, and CSGO is not bad at all but it still just isn't as fun as the original for some reason. I never really got into the Quake games but I have huge respect for those guys, that is easily the most demanding fps purely from a skill PoV.
As for CoD or Halo, I don't really have much of an opinion on those because they're primarily aimed at gamepad users.
What's really missing from FPS's IMO is a dedicated spectator perspective. Possibly an overhead camera that can see everything happening as it's happening. The problem is that watching from the same camera view as the players is inherently bad for spectators because you can only see what the players see which is obviously very different from SC2 and LoL.
Bear in mind that in most live tournaments, the spectators who are there can see all eight screens as well as the one being shown on stream.
The casters are able to jump to who they want to spectate, so they can pick the guy who is doing the most important thing at the time. Though it's interesting, I had never really considered the spectating aspect as the problem with FPS, rather the games themselves (as Norway said).
On February 14 2013 08:59 idonthinksobro wrote: Fps is really boring to watch, that's all.
This.
Take Natural Selection 2 for instance. It is currently my most played game. It has the amazing strategy of a TvZ. The very familiar FPS style game play. The iconic sort of alien vs human in space thing going on.
Is it fun to watch, even as a player? Nooooot really. From a top down point of view fps's are very bland and boring, the aesthetics are not designed for it like in an actual RTS. First person point of view? You've got only a very small picture of the entire game. Quake with its 1v1 is probably the best for first person view spectating, because that is the entire game.
Sure, NS2 doesn't have anywhere near as much publicity of some of the heavy hitters, but if it did I still couldn't see it competing for views to the degree top down games are.
On February 14 2013 08:59 idonthinksobro wrote: Fps is really boring to watch, that's all.
But that's just what you think, as you like Moba/SC2 (I don't know which, sorry). The FPS community obviously don't find them boring to watch. I've had more tension and excitement watching Halo 3 than I have watching SC2.
I mean, look at this. It's obviously not the same scale as SC2 or LoL but no one can deny the tension of that situation (first 2 minutes), where if Str8 lost they would take 2nd place, to win it at the death. Having watched the whole game I can assure you I thought it was all over, for them to bring it back like that was phenomenal.
Excitement in FPS games has died down because the games themselves a worse, I think.
Fighting games are definitely the best spectator esport. Whether or not they are the best esports is a different story, but if you are talking about random non-gamer audiences, then there's really no argument
I think a fundamental problem with FPS games as an esport is that they're hard to spectate. It's difficult to get an overall picture of what's going on in team games.
I do think that with the right support, Black Ops can compete. It has too large a player base to not be able to.
The problem is that there is no current FPS to bridge the massive divides that exist in the FPS community. Ignoring the classic split of console vs PC on the shooter question there really isnt a great modern PC shooter to take the helm that Ive played lately which basically leaves console games. Of the console games you would of course focus on the Xbox because thats the console for competitive FPS.
That basically leaves you with Gears Cod and Halo. Of those 3 CoD is the most popular but I feel its gameplay is probably the weakest of the 3 for a viewing experience but it does have developer support which is important. Gears I could probably say the same thing with even though they both play at virtual opposite ends of the spectrum That leaves the 3rd game Halo which I feel has the best gameplay for a FPS experience but the least developemental support of the three which truly truly shows in there recent events basically garnering the same viewer count (the 40k at MLG for Halo 4 not withstanding).
Basically FPS in order to break out and compete in the big market needs gameplay that can be attractive to an audience WITH developer support and so far no game has made that magical leap forward. I would keep an eye on the latest Bungie project Destiny but I dont like to get to hyped over things I havnt played yet.
On February 12 2013 07:37 Larkin wrote: In fact, the consistent level of entertaining plays coming from FPS can be higher than SC2 (certainly in the current metagame)as shown in this example.
well.. compared to mediacore q3 highlight videos, that one is still lacking. then again that might be because I dont know that much halo, or I know alot of q3. but then again too, it might be that halo is just not good enough. back then fps was the king, quake, then cs. they ruled the scene.
I revitilize the scene, maybe we just need a good fps game first.
I gotta give some props to Red 5 on this issue, and how they're trying to enhance and support a much better and more rounded spectator mode for their FPS. I really hope the rest of the FPS scene catches on and makes better spectator modes of their own.
On February 15 2013 14:25 Wangsta wrote: Fighting games are definitely the best spectator esport. Whether or not they are the best esports is a different story, but if you are talking about random non-gamer audiences, then there's really no argument
WARNING : INCOMING HUGE WALL OF TEXT ON FPS / FAST FPS
On February 12 2013 03:16 Savant wrote: I'm surprised nobody's developed a spectator mode with a top-down view of the map, avatars, weapons, and stats. I think it'd be more watchable.
On February 13 2013 15:12 Vindicare605 wrote: What's really missing from FPS's IMO is a dedicated spectator perspective. Possibly an overhead camera that can see everything happening as it's happening. The problem is that watching from the same camera view as the players is inherently bad for spectators because you can only see what the players see which is obviously very different from SC2 and LoL.
It exists in cs 1.6. you have this kind of "tactical map" view in spectator mode, and if you hit "e" while using that view you can add a third person cam of some player ( which you can cycle through ) in the top left corner of the screen. 1.6 is pretty much the best esport fps ever with quake being the best fast fps. The issue is that dev teams kept ruining the game. 1.5 to 1.6 changed a few things ( hardcore players will remember deagle awp switch and the likes ... ), but not a whole lot. And yet it went for a free mod for hl to a full game you have to pay for from 1.5 to 1.6. AND valved shut down the WON system to force the players to switch over. And what you used to get after buying half life you now have to pay for, with no alternative ( as you can't play 1.5 aynmore ) and the change is mostly just a patch. But oh wait : 1.6 added the shield i belive, which is so freaking bad that it wasn't just banned in tournaments, even your average public server has it banned, so essentially the dev just added something completely useless which everybody hates.
Then you had condition zero, which was working on the same engine but had a few different things to it, mostly graphic and some gameplay changes. The gameplay changes are effing terrible ( HE nade kills in 1 hit HELLO, wallbangs greatly reduced HELLO, trololo recoil HELLO etc ... ) and the graphics are basically just high res textures and different skins. In games like cs you can freely mod the sh*t out of your game by changing skins and stuff, like having a lightsaber replace the knife etc etc... so basically most graphic changes are not worth it. Oh and they added new maps to this game, but those were basically the maps from the original game, except worse. I'm not sure CZ was made by the game creators tho, i think it was some guys from the community or something.
Then you had source, which was even worse. No wallbangs, except in some wooden doors and very thin metal walls ( nuke ) and grenades take 0 skill. You see in 1.6, when you throw a grenade, because of the game physics you have all those kind of rebounds and stuff. Nades bounce off in various ways. So you have to LEARN how they bounce off; and it becomes a SKILL to throw nades. Some of the most impressive things i've seen involve, for instance, a flashbang i've seen ave from mtw do, where you open the door on nuke and throw the flash on the top left corner of the door AS IT OPENS, thus making it bounce up. In source flashes and nades don't bounce off like that. So if you're faced with a wall that has a certain angle to it, there is very little you can do with it. This is counter balanced by the fact that in source, if somebody flashes you you will 100% BE BLIND FOR FREAKING SECONDS. This point is very important because in 1.6, if you just turn around when the flash comes ( understand : 180 degree turn, basically look in the opposite direction of the flash ) you won't be blinded. Hence why in 1.6 people have learned to throw flashbangs properly, people have learned the various angles and flashes you can use. This means that flashing is very interactive, it's not just about you using it on other players and them being blind hurp durp. It's also about having it used against you and you countering it to an extent. ( sc2 analogy : Z makes banelings vs T's marines BUT T can split marines and doesn't just DIE because zerg made unit B while terran had unit A. In turn Zergs have learned to surround the marines first, or send banelings from two directions etc etc ) Basically nades take pretty much no skill in source compared to 1.6. And it's very frustrating to have them used against you because there is NOTHING you can do. They did change this a little bit ( a little bit, not as in "1.6 style" ) near GO's launch ( maybe the year prior to that ). Still wasn't a good game. Also source has many things that are just straight up terrible, such as its netcode, where people often die while being behind walls ( not through wallbang ). Basically it's like there's a 1 second lag built within the game, and while you're behind your wall, you eat the bullet that was shot at you 1 second ago, when you showed half your body so you could fire 2 bullets from your m4 or something. This is obvious with the awp. Pistols are overpowered in source, especially the deagle, tho this isn't as much by choice, it's more due to the fact that the engine just isn't designed properly for this type of game. It would help a lot of you had tagging like in 1.6 ( basically when you get hit in 1.6, if you don't have kevlar you will be slowed for 1.5 seconds after the hit, your accuracy is also a bit reduced. This is i belive fairly important to reducing the "cost eifficiency" of pistols vs gear, thus greatly affecting eco rounds. ) but it doesn't. And don't even get me started on GO, for this game basically just shows how retarded the devs are.
Now that you have ( or haven't ) read this huge wall of text explaining why the counter strike franchise is never going to be even close to lol / sc2, i have to tell you why quake failed. This is fairly easy as there are only two big reasons : - QUAKE 4 was a failure, because, just like counter strike ( and to an extent sc2 ) the devs failed to understand why people loved their game. - Quake 3 arena / promod / osp and now QL is FREAKING HARD ! That killed the casual scene. Seriously the gap is far closer to brood war noob / pro than sc2 noob / pro, where you have the impression that you can reproduce a lot of what you see on stream. Also streaming wasn't that big before 2010 and so quake just didn't benefit from those " viewers but not players ". When your casual scene dies off you have only a very small core of hardcore gamers to watch events. Because there aren't many noobs, and because the game involves so much skill, newcomers get roflraped, ( as opposed to a call of duty where any 14 yo kid can buy the game and get some kills after less than 30 minutes of playing, and without prior fps experience. ) which doesn't exactly help creating a good atmosphere for noobs to enjoy the game and stay. Which leaves with mostly the fun mods the noobs don't usually know about, like defrag, to have fun. And even then i mean to properly enjoy defrag you already need to know a fu*klot about the game ( strafe jumping, rj'ing, plasma elevator etc etc ).
Halo is never going to be big unless huge changes are made to its gameplay. In fact halo isn't big outside of the U.S. Also console gaming is generally considered a joke, as gamepads are hugely inefficient compared to the superior accuracy of a mouse and the superior amount of buttons a keyboard has to offer. Basically only sports and fightning games really benefit from the gamepad compared to mouse + keyboard. Compare that to 1.6 where you have to hit that one pixel hitbox to get the deagle oneshot. Keyboard doesn't really provide THAT much more in fps / fast fps, except when it comes to buy menu in cs and weapon switching in ql. There i just b82 kevlar b14 deagle b42 rifle b7 ammos b84 he etc etc etc ... And in quake it's mostly because, as is common with good fast fps(es), you can carry all the guns that you like ( not limited to primary secondary ). And because quake is so intrinsincally good and well designed, the weapons are all VERY different. Some have hitscans ( hits directly when you click, like a pistol ) some take time to reach target ( like the rocket launcher where you have to anticipate greatly, and sometimes take a guess "is he gonna dodge left or right ?" ) and some have limited range, be it physically ( like the shaft, i love my teslapistole but if it had unlimited range like a rail it would be freaking imbalaneced ) or by them just being terrible past a certain range ( shotgun, i hate that thing seriously. It's half a troll gun, kind of like if dan was maybe not god tier but close to it yet still had is super that does nothing from SF4 ) So the result of that is that you need to get the right gun right away, it's not like you have pistol a and pistol b, or ak / galil m4 / famas.
Sh*tmania is not going to take off. Tribes ascend just isn't good enough ( not just compared to previous tribes, just generally speaking ). The "yellow" of fast fps, unreal tournament just isn't coming back. Painkiller is also not coming back.
Fast fps is a dead genre, and modern fps are bad games designed to appeal to casuals, including 14 yo kids who don't want to learn how to play, but rather want an interactive movie where they get killed but also get to kill and where there isn't too much thinking ( no brain involved, hahahaha ozstriker is 100% useless now ) and little skill involved so they don't have to "learn" things, they just get instant and completely undeserved reward .
That's it for the fps / fast fps rant. Now i don't know about other games, but i think sports games just don't appeal to enough people. Fighting games also don't appeal very much to people, not because " their community isn't politically correct enough, it's bad " as people on tl seem to think, but rather because fighting games that are worth watching involve skill which often isn't very intuitive for most people, who i belive, think fighting games are mostly about random button smashing, can't see the mindgames ( can't blame them for that, you gotta have a certain amount of knowledge for that ) going on. I don't really see what other genre could compete.
I hope it was readable, at least for the ones who had the will to read it. I might edit it / spoiler some parts, i'm just not sure how to yet. Can't randomly cut things off.
Edit : what those guys said :
On February 13 2013 15:08 AnomalySC2 wrote: For me, no other fps has ever managed to capture the glory of cs 1.6. CSS was horrible, and CSGO is not bad at all but it still just isn't as fun as the original for some reason. I never really got into the Quake games but I have huge respect for those guys, that is easily the most demanding fps purely from a skill PoV.
As for CoD or Halo, I don't really have much of an opinion on those because they're primarily aimed at gamepad users.
On February 13 2013 14:53 Norway wrote: as an ex CAL-I CS Player who also went to a few CPL's - the main issue with FPS's at the moment are the games themselves.
it's a mix of quake and counter-strike - running around twitch shots with a shit load of different guns you pick to start with. imo the worst of both.
Quake is great because it's all about map control Counter-Strike is great because it's all about strategy
Somehow that has been lost and instead we are force fed this overbred pile of shit that is FPS today. Pretty graphics, nice sun flare effects, quick death, quick respawn.
So in order to bring FPS back to it's former glory we need a game to provide us the platform to do so, but at the moment (even CS:GO has fallen short; although it's a very big improvement over CS:S) there are no games to offer us that.
/rant
Most people in this thread have absolutely no idea what they are talking about ( talking about lack of camera, talking about "FPS NOT A WATCHABLE ESPORT LOLOLO CONGRATZ ON UR ABILITY TO AIM". 1.6 and quake are both very easily watchable, easy cameras, quake doesn't have "overview" like cs does , but that's because there is no need, it's a freaking 1v1 game. And to the other troll : cs 1.6 and ql take infinitely more brain and skill than maxing out on three bases and then smashing your deathball against the opponent's deathball like stephano just did against effort in round 3 )
Also I believe you've made a proper FPS when you also have skill movies coming out.
Man I remember so many CS movies, not only did they expose me to really great music that I would have never even heard of but it also provided feedback on how pro's were playing the game, where they were playing, how they controlled recoil - it made you want to elevate yourself to that level and I think the main reason why I got so sucked into the game and wanted to accomplish and wanted to be in someone's skill video.
edit - Also when I think about it, I don't think I've made more friends playing any other game than I have through playing Counter-Strike - Clans, competitive leagues, servers based in your city or near your city, IRC clan channels - SO many more venues to be very interactive within your community, whether it be overall or finding local players. I think right now that is what almost ALL games are lacking, a sense of community - that's what I think I miss the most. I remember after a match wanting to follow other clan's matches, so i'd either hop into their HLTV server to watch or flip to their IRC channel where they had a bot updating kills & deaths live in channel.
A kills B A kills C A kills D Oooooo A kills E Ooooooooo F Kills A CT's win the round Oh damn haha
I also give you the movie that kicked it all off (for me anyways) - Frag or Die
On February 16 2013 12:07 Marti wrote: *snip giant quote*
I want to cover the part about how CS 1.6 was so much more "skillful".
Your attitude is typical of the old school CS/DotA players in their attitude towards more modern games of the genre, and to you I'd pose a question: Would it make the game better if I made it so that bullets always went slightly up and to the right of the crosshairs even on the first shot? It'd make the game harder and take time to learn, but it'd make the crosshair fucking pointless because it doesn't ever tell you where the bullets are going to go.
This is the same thing with stuff like wallbangs in CS and animation canceling in DotA. It's hard to learn and represents bugs/deficiencies that came with the old ass engines that these games are running. When people FIX those bugs, you flip your shit and call the game "EZ mode" because you no longer have to fight outdated technology and can actually focus on... you know, PLAYING THE FUCKING GAME rather than learning all sorts of tricks to cheat the engine.
It's no less impressive for someone in CS:GO or CSS to pull off a brilliant flank and triple kill a team than it is in 1.6, and it takes no less skill or reaction time to pull of a fantastic initiation in HoN/LoL than in DotA. Just because the games aren't broken doesn't mean they don't require skill or practice to be good at, or are inferior. I'm not gonna say CS:S and HoN/LoL are perfect games, they all have their issues, but this perceived "difficulty" thing isn't one of them.
Bringing the discussion back to what makes things fun to watch, animation cancelling in DotA and controlling the wider sprays in 1.6 are things that 90% of spectators don't even notice. So even if they do require more "skill" and are harder to pull off, they don't do shit in making it more fun to watch. The inherent problem with FPSs from a spectator standpoint is that it's impossible to cover everything going on at once. Let's say everyone is at long A in Dust2,, you have 5 people covering 5 different angles on BOTH teams, an aerial view is shit because it doesn't show where the bullets are going, all you can commentate on is the one person you're viewing and when someone dies.
I think 2 things can improve the FPS scene for a spectator: enhanced tools (instant replay, realtime damage reports, etc. the Red5 thing shown above is a good example of a decent start) and casting from replays. These things happen too fast to be entertaining live the vast majority of the time, if you can set them up on a highlight reel or cast them from replays where you can focus on the important parts of the match while they're going on, you'll have a much more entertaining experience.
I think the major weakness of FPS games in this regard is clearly the camera. The viewing experience just isn't good, particularly in team based shooters.
Also, both dota 2 and SC2 have awesome casters right now, who make jumping into the action remarkably easy.
I always enjoyed watching talent as in random sport, art or whatever. Watched quite a lot of professorial play in games as well but I always hated the perspective of it when it comes to FPS.
Starcraft is more natural to watch somehow. FPS is often observed in the first person view and their pow move so quick and they do so much stuff that I get pretty tired of watching.
Much nicer with a guy pointing at stuff in a base and being all analytic. The perspective is that of an "observer" because it's what you are supposed to be when you play, some kind of general having overview and giving orders.
Umm guys.. SPL ran Special Force 2 and I really enjoyed it. When they would release vods of people playing BW I would afterwards watch the SF2 vods. FPS games are shitty right now, when you talk about the mainstream ones that the most people play. Much like how I think most people can agree that CoD is not as demanding as Quake when it comes to map dominance, this works more in CoDs favor as this allows a huge base of casuals. The issue is that without this ability to really control the flow of game past fundamentals, though there is some abilitity to control the flow of the game in games like CoD and moreso in Halo, pros are harder to define from pubstomping joes; from what I have seen from GameBattles on CoD, some of those players are not at all different from the players on Optic. This is much different from the teams that play SC2 or LoL where pros are very different from joes. CS and Quake are a bit different, but that would be my hypotheis as to why those never took off as much.
Well in general E-Sports has to be in some way superior to real sports. I think thats why fighting games and sport games arent that sucessful. Real sports are too similar and much more thrilling and exciting. "Gameplaywise" some games are even inferior to real sports. (madden, nba, fifa) Some fighting games might be superior "gameplaywise" (more complex) than boxing, wrestling (real wrestling not wwe), ufc but they cant really make up for the thrill of 2 real humans actually punching each other in the face. So in the end they always have to share and compete for the attention of those interest groups.
Starcraft 2 (moba's also?) are like a superior version of chess. Theres no way you can play it in real life except for some crazy board or card games that are tiresome to handle. So it definetely has a unique feature to it.
Im not so sure about FPS (so correct me if im wrong on some stuff). They do have a fanbase and CS used to be quite big in esports. They do have the asset that you can not have a shooter tournament IRL because of moral reasons, but paintball hasnt become a spectator sport either. I think basically they share some of the same issues.
1. Observing is a pain in the ass (some do make an effort but there hasnt really been a breakthrough.) 2. moral issues (in the end killing someone by simple force or a simple way of point and shoot isnt socially accepted and is at at least somehow restraining ) 3. fast speed. it all happens so fast, its hard to follow and theres not so much time/space to display skill. 4. low complexity. in the end it comes down to point and shoot and thats not so exciting to watch. I guess you need a lot of positional skill, too but its hard to observe and in counter strike i feel like a positional advantage equals camping most of the time. (=boring to watch) 5. bad esports support for recent titles in favor of more casual gameplay, i guess
But its quite remarkable that stuff like the hunger games for dayz were quite popular on twitch. Its boring most of the time imo because nothing is happening but it does have some appeal to it. If i want to see simply a lot of action i go watch a movie. Esport is exciting because of strategy and skill and recent fps arent really able to display much of it and fail therefore in esports.
In what world do you live in where fighting games and sports games aren't successful? The FGC is thriving more than it has ever been and games like Madden, Fifa, and Football Manager are always topping charts when they release.
On February 17 2013 08:19 LoLAdriankat wrote: In what world do you live in where fighting games and sports games aren't successful? The FGC is thriving more than it has ever been and games like Madden, Fifa, and Football Manager are always topping charts when they release.
Americas Army had the appropriate pacing, skill curve, and complexity to be a very good game. The competitive scene for it was great as well, but unfortunately it was never designed as an esport. It was easy to observe and fun to watch, but it didn't have any support from the game developers (the U.S. Army) in that regard, because it was designed as a recruiting tool.
I don't think it would be impossible for an fps to be on a similar level as games like SC and LoL.. if it were created properly and with the esports scene in mind. That isn't going to happen though, because FPS games are dominated by huge titles that are simply marketable reskins. Much like you'll never see a great football game complete with support and patching, because EA runs such a monopoly on those games they have no incentive to make them better. Enough people will buy Fifa 14, or CoD 10 or whatever that there isn't a big reason to change too much. If we want to whine about what's killing esports, we have to look at how many genres are completely dominated by a single game, and realize how terrible that is for that genre's quality of gameplay, spectator entertainment value, and marketability.
For me esport is all about the skill cap. It should be very high and the skill of the players should be very high. That's it why broodwar attracted me. I find it to be more fun watching micro being axecuted with hard macro than seeing micro while the macro isn't that hard.
On February 12 2013 06:12 NIIINO wrote: I tried to watch LoL/SC2 tourny after 3 months of not playing and I had no idea what was going on.
I don't know. I don't follow the SC2 scene closely anymore. But everytime I tune in very little has changed. For LoL, I didn't played the game much and I didn't care for strategies or builds when I played because it was way to dumbed down to get me interested (played it for friends). When a friend sends me a link to a tournament I start watching a game and am like "yeah, they are doing this and this, obvious, that action was kinda cool but where are the things that makes them so pro?...".
Video games have a very limited ability to reach the audience beyond their playerbase (including less active or former players).
What games should try to do is come up with elegant designs so that people that do actually play them, however casually, are able to understand how the systems and mechanics within it work without having to consult external sources to "learn" it.
What's going on in a game should be clear to anybody who spent no more than 5 hours playing it - so that even if he decides to never play it again or prefers playing other games actively, he can still enjoy watching it.
On February 17 2013 08:19 LoLAdriankat wrote: In what world do you live in where fighting games and sports games aren't successful? The FGC is thriving more than it has ever been and games like Madden, Fifa, and Football Manager are always topping charts when they release.
This entire thread is about spectating.
Like this?
There's actually quite a lot of people who watch fighting games even though they don't play themselves, too.
If I could add in something, it would be that FPS gameplay is too "repetitive".
From a casual viewer's perpsective, although I am highly impressed by the skills of the players, I lose interest after about 15-30 minutes of watching. It gets boring seeing round after round of de_dust being played. And matches are decided by a few split second decisions.
I think NS2 might have some potential though, as it is an RTS FPS with some building up of a base involved. The game apparently has a high skill cap as well, but I have yet to see a live streamed tournament of it though.
On February 17 2013 08:19 LoLAdriankat wrote: In what world do you live in where fighting games and sports games aren't successful? The FGC is thriving more than it has ever been and games like Madden, Fifa, and Football Manager are always topping charts when they release.
were you guys alive 10 years ago with the big quake and esp cs scene? i had my first lans back then with prize pool, big screen tvs for spectators etc. esp in my country no game has ever come near to the success of cs as an esport.
I think if we are just talking about spectating, then fighting games are the most entertaining. Especially from a causal point of view because even if you have no knowledge of the game and its mechanics, everything you need to know is right there on the screen in front of you. I'm talking life bars, rounds, match time, the number of combatants, it's all there. Clearly seeing a character who is a hit a way from dying coming back to take the round or match is just pure hype in every way imaginable.
I have no idea why people are bringing up anecdotal evidence and personal opinions into this. Once again, we already have sources of clear, significant data. "I went to a LAN and it was huge" is not remotely the same as "50,000 people are watching this game at any given time".
nooo way, FPS is insanely boring to watch and there are so many FPS games its not even funny. When anyone tells me they play FPS now I just write them off as a casual gamer, thats how much the FPS genre has been shit on lately. Used to be great when it was quake and early counterstrike, but now it is just terrible
EPT
