The problem with games as a spectator sport is that to appreciate what is happening in a game you have to be able to play the game at a decent level yourself. This isn't the same for sports where people that have never picked up a ball can imagine what it's like to be a footballer kicking the ball into the back of the net. I love watching Street Fighter matches, but I play a lot of Street Fighter myself. I don't watch Starcraft matches because even though I have plenty of RTS experience, I don't understand Starcraft well enough to know what is going on.
If you do want to start watching SC2 esports. First find some videos that teach basics, and some good casters. Totalbiscuit and HuskyStarcraft are two great ones. A lot of husky's casts should explain things going on.
I have played soccer and basketball. I can't stay awake if I am watching them on TV. Or in person for that matter. I understand the rules, I just find it very hard to care. I will watch other people play a video game though. Even single player ones. The point of many video games is that they are just an interactive way to tell a story. This has never been more true than today. I know how I would play some of these games, but I find it interesting to watch other people play them as well. If you like Skyrim then go watch how different people play it, or watch someone spin a story about their character, as in the case of Olaf.
People can watch both sports and e-sports on casual levels. You don't need expertise to watch a ball getting intercepted or banelings destroying an entire army to get excited. The action and commentary speaks for itself.
Everybody should watch the Super Smash Bros documentary, The Smash Brothers. It's 100% story and extremely easy to follow. Fighting games usually are. Apex 2015 happened, and with CEO and Evo on the way, 2015 will be a big year for Melee as an ESport.
Smash also has an excellent narrative and options of who to root for. Do you root for the 5 Gods? Do you count Leffen, the villain, as the 6th God? Do you root for Mango, the kid, or do you root for Armada, the beast from Sweden? Hungrybox is often cheered against for being gimmicky but he's a lot of people's favorite smasher. And who doesn't love Mew2King?
So recently we had a Dota 2 and CS:GO championsip in our town. And a hockey one. The only person I know who went to the hockey is my uncle. It feels like everybody i know (except my parents, lol) went an esport competition.
Perhaps this is because I have aspergers, but I don't understand this mentality . I don't care who is playing or why they got there or about any sort of player narrative, I care about the game and the actions. I have no personal investment in the people or teams, so why SHOULD I? Perhaps it has to do with me having trouble with empathy, but I just don't "get" sports for the most part, because of this. I can watch a game off football or a pro. video game match and appreciate and enjoy the skills showcased by the players and teamwork and enjoy that, but I do not care at all about the actual players, only their contribution to the spectacle.
Video games definitely do have the potential to be a spectator sport. This has been proven by the increasing popularity of lets play videos, where people record themselves playing through video games with their commentary and explanations on the game. I also did recently watch a 4 person split screen video on a super metroid speed run competition race/ which seemed to have a lot of views. So I think video games could definitely be as popular as sports if they were just put into the correct easily viewable and understandable format.
I am going to agree and disagree with you. First off, as someone who watches lots of Let's Plays (since sitting in front of a computer 8 hours a day with little work to do for 4-5 months lets you get around RU-vid a few times), a lot of the most popular Let's Play channels have commentary that is either not germane (on-topic) or is highlighting the struggle of the game in the moment. When someone is detached from the situation (whether it is a post-commentary, which you may see on an episode where audio recording has failed the person or announcer commentary), it does not give the same sense of appeal as live. When it comes to League of Legends (since it currently has the largest e-Sport scene at the moment by viewers), almost 100% of the current viewer base of the major tournaments are actual players of the game who are either A. use the tournaments as how-tos (or how-to-not) play instructional videos or B. people who support the "high level" (I hate using that term, forgive me) players of the game for whatever reason, sometimes it is because they can be informative, sometimes it can be just because they are huge douches. Now, all that disagreement being said, the problem is relatively easy to rectify (at least in theory). As Extra Credits has so well illustrated in one of their chats about e-Sports, the issue is that games are designed with player in mind, not the spectator. Sure, we have a 100 champions, extremely complex move sets, and a load of things that make the experience more enjoyable for us, the player, but for the average spectator who watches a game, the game is not intuitive or seems very cheap (i.e. how in Ultimate Marvel vs Capcom 3 it is relatively easy to drop someone from 100% health to 0% without them having a reasonable opportunity to response). In additional, I will add onto that idea by saying one of the biggest issues that if fixed can help the cause is a regulating body. One of the most common issues with these games is that the regulating bodies simply put basic rule sets, like the professional Super Smash Bros. community saying 4 lives, 7 minutes, Final Destination, yada yada yada. However, instead of regulating player behavior in an real manner, they only change the external rule sets. When Brawl had the major glitch with Meta Knight able to infinitely teleport to the point he would never show up again, instead of going, "Well, don't do that or we'll DQ you," they simply ban Meta Knight. Not with just in-game behaviors, out-of-game behaviors are hardly regulated. While a few e-Sport communities try to do that (Riot with League of Legends for example), many go relatively unregulated and the player base is . . . well, hostile (look at the CoD/Halo e-Sport community - there are some montage videos of seeing how even in celebration, they can't even say "Good game" and immediately start dropping F-bombs at the enemy, claiming it is just "mind games"). Imagine if in football, instead of a celebration in the end-zone, the first thing players did was to scream obscenities at their opponent as clear as daylight for the world to hear? The players would be much less likeable and possibly it would kill the ratings. I realize how much of a rant I have presented here, but to sum it all up, the issues with trying to gather an audience for the professionalization of video games is a two fold one. While on the developer side, it might not be the hardest thing to fix, the biggest concern is are the players ready to adjust their attitudes to make focusing a camera on them not so cringe worthy? Personally, I believe because of the culture we are willing to foster on these games, I doubt it - CoD got the reputation it has for obvious reasons, the fighting game scene has fostered sexism quietly and has to do damage control whenever it rears its ugly head (see the Street Fighter x Tekken incident a couple years back), and the MOBA community as a whole (whether it is League, DotA2, HoN, Infinite Crisis, whatever), ha, I don't think we need to go there. It would take a lot in order to straighten out people enough in order to begin the process.
Interesting. As someone who watches a few lets plays, and has recently began to do a few group lets plays with friends, I must say that LPs are best when the commentary is recorded at the same time as the gameplay and i prefer a mix of straying from the topic with interesting stories or funny side tangents as well as pointing out the key points and making sure people get the point of the game and whats going on. I also agree that the difference in sportsmanship in video game communities and sports is a major road block to enjoying competitive gaming.
FizzyFlaskGaming Right - it is a nice spice of life that makes Let's Plays succeed. Obviously you have to indicate you actually are paying attention and give a damn, but being purely informative is pretty hard to get away on a Let's Play (albeit it is relatively easy when you are doing something like TotalBiscuit's "WTF is..." series). Personally, I don't care to see e-Sports flourish. Regular sports already make me cringe between the fans doing the sort of things the host mentioned, the uncritical worship of people that are very likely uncaring of their own fan base (though they do know enough to at least fake it for the few times they have a spotlight, whether it is after scoring or they have a mic shoved in their face), or whatever your critique may be. Video games has been a thing I just want to cherish and not have see spoiled where every person tries to compare themselves to some national figure, even those who don't even play the game themselves.
This is why League of Legends is so huge of a spectator sport right now (compared to every other video game) The understandable story's behind the players, Riots effort to make a more or less unified system for the players to compete in, the LCS in Europe and NA to be specific. Great events and competent and lovely commentators and analysts.
Great video! I am a gamer myself and I was one of the many who watched the LoL championship. The reason I watched it was I enjoy the game and amazed at the quality of play made by the players. This is the same reason I watch hockey, I play it and understand the game and Im impressed by the athleticism. I feel if eSport are to become the next spectator sport more people will have to understand the games that are being played.
Some games can be competitive BUT only some games: strategy(Starcraft, Age of Empires) games very fast phased FPS games(Quake and Unreal Tournament) or very Strategic FPS(Battlefield, Arma) NO COD!(It's so much fun to watch someone quickscope and using the same weapon. The PROS only use 2 weapons all the time). I watched the European COD Tournament and after 30 minutes I wanted to pore my eyes out, seeing all the noobs and the campers was so painfull!
Isaac Thomas Something being very competitive doesn't make it a good for spectating... like previously stated, camping, noobs and the lack of diversity in game will make it boring to watch.
Disagree completely. COD is VERY entertaining. Nobody is "camping". People do what they do for a reason. They're not doing it because they want to get 100+ kills. They do it to win.
You should have done a bit more research before you did this video in my opinion. A lot of the things you said that esports lack are actually very present. Just watch one game of the LCS for League of Legends, or a set of Street Fighter matches at Evo and you'll not only see all these things in action, they can sometimes be more exciting than more established sports. Personally I don't think Baseball could ever be more exciting to watch than League. The problem is familiarity in my opinion. And that's not a problem that is unique to Video Games it's just much more common. People don't know names like Dyrus or Justin Wong outside of their gaming spheres, and people don't know the rules and mechanics of games like League and Street Fighter, so they aren't inclined to watch them. Just like if you don't know who is popular or skilled in a sport you probably wouldn't be inclined to watch that sport. Also, regular sports have lots of technicalities but its easy to dumb it down so that people can understand the goals. Once Esports manages to do that as well to open it up to more viewers, I think it'll be watched more.
I can speak for LoL in saying that, regardless of whether you like it or not, it is the one that is most close to that "goal", or at least one of the most ones...
The fact that games change around a lot is one of the things i like about competitive gaming, new games bring new challenges, new strategies and, most importantly, new heroes to cheer for.
Gaming will never become a major spectator sport... not like... football (soccer). For example, 2.4 billion people have access to the internet. That's about 30% penetration on a global scale. The entry into e-sports, is also pretty daunting. You need a rig that can play games and a broadband connection... or a reliable connection of sorts. Just compare the two... for a group of chaps sitting around... in one of the, 6 billion plus people who don't have internet, they will likely pick football as their sport because: The cost of entry is low. PC and internet are expensive, and lets face it, food is more important than gaming. And if you're poor and you need some fun, finding something that looks like a soccer ball is a lot easier than... you know... knocking up a computer rig for gaming... This is like the Olympics. Often the Winter Olympics is seen as "less relevant" because the competition is so narrow. Only so many nations have the conditions for sports in the cold. So the field from which the "talent" is pulled from is very limited. Well, e-sports has this same exact issue. The field to draw talent from is very narrow because the entrance into the sport is so high. So yeah, E-Sport isn't happening any time soon. Not on the levels that football (soccer)... E-sports is kind of a "first world" thing... and because that is true, it is likely never going to become a "spectator sport" of any large scare...
One, Competitive eSports, isn't always on PC. Two, you can not bring your own PC or console to a tournament. Three, in competitive eSports there is no actual need of internet, all systems are connected to a one or more routers (SYSTEM LINK) also known as (LAN). Four, everyone has there own definition of "poor", so you should stop assuming those less fortunate will choose soccer. Five, the chances of you becoming a pro gamer is 200% more likely then you becoming a pro footballer. Six, you are judging a sport in which you've never watch or participated in, unlike myself, because over 95% of what you stated above is pure BS. Finally, you are no god, so you can't predict the future,plus gaming is apart of technology and as long as technology progresses pro gaming chances at becoming a "spectator" sport is constantly and consistently growing.
Apollo Skywalker The core idea, was that for there to be athletes in e-sports there needs an underlying infrastructure. You can't have e-athletes, if the average cost of gaming exceeds the cost of the rent. In many parts of the world, this is an economic reality. So, the pool from which athletes are chosen from is extremely narrow. Much like the Winter Olympics, where the pool of talent is smaller than say, the summer Olympics. The basic infrastructure to make e-sports viable just doesn't exist on a global level. Literally billions of people don't even have phones and live on less than a buck and a quarter a day. But, in those environments football (aka soccer) thrives. Because the underlying infrastructure for that sport isn't as restrictive economically. The athletes have to come from somewhere... For me, e-sports will always be a "wealthy mans" game. Relative to something like football. "the chances of you becoming a pro gamer is 200% more likely then you becoming a pro footballer." What does that say about the sport that it's likely you'll become a pro more EASILY... Do you know why this is? Because the pool from where talent comes from is narrow. I'm not predicting anything. It's simple economics. If the cost of a console/pc is more than the income a family earns in a year, it's likely they won't own one. Thus creating fewer potential "pros". I've watched e-sports. It's ok. But I understand the underlying economics of e-sports. It has its audience, which is great, but as far as I'm concerned e-sports, globally considered, is no different than curling, sure there's a measure of skill at play, but it can't be taken seriously until the sport goes global and isn't just restricted to a few million gamers... Crunch the numbers... 80 million xbox 360's sold 80 million PS3's 110 million Wii's That's 270 million units sold. There is about 2 billion computers sold in the world. Now, assuming every single computer is a gaming device... it's still less than about 30% global penetration. This is ignoring the reality that many console gamers ALSO own another console AND a computer and that many household have more than one computer... and that computers for productivity likely make up a huge number of that 2 billion figure. It's not BS when you look at the numbers. There's a reason why football is popular... it's easy to pick up and play and get into. There is a very low investment required to gain entry into the sport. E-Sports has a tech heavy infrastructure which requires some cash. Football, doesn't... and because it's the case, you see more competition which leads to more talent, better refined strategies... all those goodies required for a great sport.
You don't need a rig or a broadband connection to compete in E-sports, thats like saying that people who play football (soccer) have to own their own field to compete in, the places they go to play usually have things they can use for them to compete.
Sport: an athletic activity requiring skill or physical prowess and often of a competitive nature, as racing, baseball, tennis, golf, bowling, wrestling, boxing, hunting, fishing, etc. This is the only reason I would not say it is the next spectator sport, because they cannot be defined as a "sport" in the first place. You could compare it to Chess, or Shogi, or Go. While it is a widely celebrated competition or game, it is NOT a sport. If there were a more specific term to define games in which you very much use your mental skills, rather than you physical ones.
We meet again! :D I'm with you. Somewhat... ;-) As much as I love Chess, I would never call it a sport for precisely that reason: you don't need to be an athlete because it doesn't require "physical" ability [now yes, you could say the brain is a muscle, but can we keep the words intellectual and physical separate please?]. The problem with the word sport is that it is so fuzzy. How much does something need to require physically for it to be a sport? Is having incredible dexterity in the fingers [video games] enough? Is walking across a field and occasionally hitting a ball enough [golf]? Where do we draw the line?
Well I think sport is a bit broader than that. After all, if an opponent is "sporting" (adjective not internet speak verb) then it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with his physical abilities, and hunting "for sport" clearly implies a feeling. And if you've ever seen that stats of APM in starcraft, I defy you to say that's not an amazing physical feat. I think the technical aspects are often underlooked by many people.
John Walsh-Wadlegger While other terms many be applied to the games, such as sporting, or for sport; one could not define this as a sport simply because a sport must contain "athletic activity". Actions per minute is not physical in any sort of way. It is all mental, the only thing that is physical is the clicking of buttons, which truly is no more physical than me testing how many times I can click the mouse button in 10 seconds (104 time btw), if it is not less physical. The technical aspects are all within the mind. Believe me, the technical aspects and precision are not being overlooked, we all understand how intelligent and quick-minded you must be to be a professional; that, however, does not change the definition of the word itself.
The number of clicks may not be that intensive, but the precision of where they are clicking and the timing are critical in high level play. Games have been won/lost because a click was a frame too fast or early, or a couple pixels off.
I found that the movie "free to play" fixed most problems with this. they showed each of the top players back stories and the commentators as well as the beautifully animated scenes work to fix those problems. the problem with this is the fact that it isn't exactly live and is difficult to work on. however, i must lead you to walking the planes youtube series for magic the gathering, a much easier example of making a cheap explanation and back story commentary to an otherwise much more complicated game that serves as entertainment, but again, hard to do 100% live and takes a bit of editing, but on the fly editing could work.
I would like to point out that Smash Bro's Melee has the potential to become a spectator sport on a level much larger than Dota 2 or Starcraft 2 because of its in game footage being informative and understandable, the game itself is accessible and fun to watch and the players are recognizable, plus the game hasn't and never will be patched meaning that you don't need to relearn the rules every 2 months but despite this it has enough depth to keep going for well over 10 years. If you watch the smash documentary you will know what I mean. I think the reason it isn't as big as it could be is because Nintendo isn't supporting it's groth or even its existance
This video is so outdated. Almost all of his premises for esports not having the things irl sports do are not right...Speaking only from CS:GO, we have: both first person and free moving camera to better spectate players, commentators who have the ability to draw on the map (similar to football commentators yellow pen tool on a football field), hltv.org which collects stats from all professional level matches on each player and team/organization (which allows us to compare one player to another very easily based on performance and unique ability), and stress on the announcers is hardly a thing at all, as updates to the game are fun to explore and give to the game more than take away. And Counter Strike HAS its Tiger Woods! PLENTY of them, in fact! Many up-incoming players with true talent pop up out of nowhere, and the skill ceiling is impossibly high so there is never a single person who is the best. JW has aggressive awping, Kenny has incredible aim and reflexes. ScreaM can shoot bullets like lasers and flusha is so good people say he is cheating! What do you WANT Mike???//
The problemm with the idea of video gaming becoming a major spectator sport is the number of games out there and the fact that there are always more coming out. How do you get enough attention on a single game long enough for it to develop the kind of knowledge base you are talking about and how do you get its popularity large enough for people to care.
we just create a game that only has one version and only gets updates and players can just download a update instead of spending 60 bucks on a new game like world of war craft it just gets updates and expansions
pokebros Wow wouldn't really be a suitable example. You really need to have the game be somewhat stable from year to year. Consider how little baseball and football has changed over the last 10 years and how much wow has changed in that time period.
olstar18 Well EVE Online has been around for over a decade if stock markets in space is your thing. LoL is still huge and isn't going away anytime soon, so it is probably your best bet until SMITE comes along. CoD is the source for modern arena shooting. (Though it wears the guise of a MMS) in order for it to become professional, Activision would need to make an MLG release... which Activision most likely would not do.
Sitchrea Potere With the way cod games go from popular to forgotten it would not be suitable and I don't think eve's focus on economics would suit mlg. League of Legends however would be an excellent option though if the player base moves over the smite it will take it out of the running.
olstar18 I agree about CoD, but i would suggest watching a few of the random Happenings in the EVE sector; some pretty epic player-driven stuff goes on there. But as a MOBA player myself, i love LoL and SMITE and think they would be perfect for MLG professionalism.
Red Sox/Yankees, Giants/Dodgers both great rivals in the baseball world. Just a fantastic observation of the backstories that could help make Competitive Gaming a more popular spectator sport. Just gave me a completely new perspective and something new to watch, so thank you.
As a person who enjoys a specific e-sports culture i can confidently say that gaming has become a sport that people root for like football. The numbers increase significantly each year and it is continuously doing so. It isn't hard for me to think that gaming will become a sport everyone will see on tv and root for or maybe even go in the olympics in the next decade or so.
I think the documentary "The King of Kong: A Fistful of Quarters" is an excellent example of how video games can a spectator sport. You where totally invested in the story behind the players.
I really like the idea that video games could be the next televised sport, I just don't think that the current western society would be able to tear their eyes off the "traditional" sports
This was one of the many riveting debates a friend of mine and I got into. He argued that esports could never attain the level of 'real' sports because there is no physical prowess required, and - historically - it has been physical prowess that has kept us watching and loving sports (all the way back to the early greek olypmics).
I am a big gamer. Not a great gamer, but I find it fun. Which is exactly why video games could be a spectator sport. Just like any other sports fans, video game fans love to play them, but most will never be "professional". It seems that fans live bi-curiously through their favorite athletes. Fans follow the stories and stats of their favorite athletes and compare them with the stats and stories of their friends' favorite athletes. Exactly like that, video gaming can create its own pro fan base.
My hubby and I have always called ESPN "soap opera for men." The hosts on ESPN are characters themselves (I'm looking at you Woody Paige). This isn't even getting into the sports alone: just the "critical analysis" of said sports. That said, right on Idea channel. Right on.
I agree. A big explosion in one game could require just a single click, while another game requires a long chain of combo at a specific time with a specific action.
I plan on majoring in game design with the art-form mindset; but the possibilities are limitless, this will be the next great medium for any next generation entertainment, be it sports, storytelling, or anything! Because virtual reality gives -everyone- a chance to participate like nothing we know today, you don't have to be born able to play a sport now, you can earn it!
First of all, I love this channel because you look like Jason Lee. I like that. Also you ask far out, yet interesting and important questions, the kind of weird questions on Vsauce. Keep it up man. I think a really good episode would be about youtube "Celebrities" if you will, everybody loves them, jump on the bandwagon.
I love how Mike said in an earlier episode that he can't believe there are people who don't have a Facebook account. Now he gives the benefit of the doubt to people not having seen any sports in their life.
Riot games this year released a documentary leading up to the season 4 world championship. It focused on the life's of famous players, creating an incredible amount of hype. So at least for League of Legends, the competitive scene is starting to see some background narrative.
I spent a large portion of my childhood watching over my dad's shoulder as he played video games. I also spent a lot of time in college watching a friend play games. The appeal of being a spectator was because I was personally involved with the people I watched, but most of the allure was being able to talk directly with them and to in some way shape their gameplay. I think that a dialogue between players/audience between groups of viewers could make games the next great spectator sport.
Hi, the work you guys do is sooooo good! new subscriber indeed ;) I am Day[9] daily viewer and my experience as an eSpots expectator it's actually more stimulated by the learning component than the entertainment value (more, not only), thanks to Mr. Sean Plott and his internet show who made me understand gaming as a mean of learning and bettering my relation to stuff that take time to be learnt...so cool. And so stupidly fun! - In other words, entertainment as an active expectator.
1:25 Half of the world's eyeballs = Everyone on the planet simultaneously looking sideways at something with only one eye. 1 out of 2 eyeballs per person.
Speaking as a gamer, we have celebrities in our games. WoW has its Kungen / Swifty, Counter-Strike has its HeatoN / Neo / fisker (many likable players). There are no BIG celebrities just because there are no big competitions like Tiger Woods when he first won the Masters Tournament. Thats is what made him huge.
I watch fighting game tournaments not because I know about the players or want to learn. I just find it entertaining to watch virtual characters fight each other when they have skill. Anyone who's ever had the CPU fight the CPU knows what I'm talking about. I also enjoy it more if I play that fighting game. It's cool to see something I do for fun played on a master level.
It's certainly a super interesting idea. Think about youtube gaming channels for one. It's not necessarily one player against another, but we know about them and enjoy watching and listening to them play the game. I, for one, enjoy watching people play video games more than I enjoy playing them (which makes about 95% of my friends really confused). I enjoy the narrative of the games, and watching my friends react, interact, and interacting with them.
I find this really interesting in relation to Quidditch. It's an extremely widely played sport and we are at the stage where we are trying to "legitimize" it, or bring it to a wider audience while keeping the aspects that make it Quidditch. It's really exciting because we finally had our first professionally broadcast games this year.
I've been watching a video series called The Smash Brothers and it's really helping me understand the stories of Melee's players, which in turn is making competitive Melee more fun to watch.
I think that's why i love Starcraft 2 eSports. I don't even have the game, when i was a kid i loved Starcraft:BW, i know the lore, i had tons of fun on it... And of course, i grew fond of a Race. That's great about SC, the 3 races are very different, not only on looks, but also mechanics, and also very distinct in their lore. So i got attached to Zerg, love the mechanics on which the race tries to win battles... So i still have so much fun on SC2 eSports... and the Teams have quite a history now
I would have never expected that I would LOVE watching competitive Starcraft. I am terrible at the game itself, but with great commentary, its very engaging.
I truly believe gaming would be a great spectator sport. It allows us who are not as good at the game to get a greater understanding of it. It's for the same reason we watch sports. Those players are able to do what we. An only dream if and we play the game through them.
I love competitive gaming and have been watching the League of Legends NA LCS champions myself. I believe that there is a possible future in esports and look forward to it. For some reason though, when i bring up esports it seems to offend some who get very defensive and tell me, "ESPORTS WILL NEVER BE A SPORT! VIDEO GAMES ARE NOT SPORTS!" I dont know why anyone would be so scared of some fun!
Thank you for the attack. To expand on my comment, I think the bigger factor is the physical toll of most sports. I am more inclined to believe that I could be a pro gamer over a pro football/basketball/soccer player because my physical body is past the point of probability for becoming so skilled at that level. I am using "I" as in people in general. Perhaps not absolutely true, but certainly not absolutely false.
I think that the popularity of videos of people playing video games is evidence of the potential video games have in becoming a popular and engaging spectator sport.
Interesting note, pilots never think about dying. They are told in boot camp, you died you very first flight, statistically they are dead from day 1 and every day after is a gift they earn through success. True that the risks are only pixels and lights but the rewards are legit, money, valuables, sponsorships, deals etc. The risk is more of a social and personal, in that they risk their reputation.
I don't care about the players' backstories when I watch competitive fighting games. I watch them because the fight happening on screen is entertaining. I watch because I know that game and how to play on some level. Speaking of which 1 v 1 fighting games don't need a separate fan camera angle, the default one works fine.
The FGC (fighting game community), especially in the road to EVO and at EVO, actually has a lot of what you're talking about as far as the commentators talking about who the people are, who the underdogs are, ect ect. It's a lot of fun to get into and watch.
I watch Counter-Strike and SC2 matches. CS and SC are about the closest you can get to a persistent e-sport game that doesn't change much; especially CS. So that problem is mostly solved there. Valve also made spectating a CS match easier with the x-ray vision and overtop map which can be drawn upon by a commentator. An expert commentator can detail out the state of the game for us. SC2 is by its nature top down. War Owl does a good job with replays with his "Owl Vision" replays. I think live competitive matches maybe should account for some replay time. They can do this between rounds in CS. A little harder to do in SC2, but there is some "build up" time or "dead time" where there isn't much going on and the commentators try to force out commentary. Your video is great though. It really does outline what e-sports needs for WIDER appeal, but I don't think it will reach the heights of mainstream sports. Watching War Owl's commentary, it is missing the STORY in the matches. I don't follow the scene that closely and to me these could be random silver level players for all I care. Even for casual fans, the commentators outline what the story is for the super bowl or NBA finals. Another thing they could do is explain the game a bit more of those who haven't played it. SC2 seems to have this effect for newer viewers where they love watching without ever playing the game. War Owl does a great job outlining the economic status of a team.
There are some amazing "Story tellers" in Starcraft II espots. Game casters like Artosis, Tasteless, Day9 and Totalbiscuit do an amazing job weaving the story and talking about the backgrounds of the players. Now access to records is more available so when a match starts we can see how they play PvZ or ZvZ.
A huge reason why video games can become the next great spectator sport is because of how easy it is to play them. Sports can be expensive and hard to play, many you need to play on specific fields that may not be available, and equipement and leagues are expensive. Most households already have computers, and many of the big esports (LoL DoTA 2) are free to play and they can be played wherever there is a computer, whenever you want. When more ppl play, more ppl will watch.
oh my gosh extra credits is my favorite thing about video games thank you for referencing it they always analyze things so precisely i always learn so muchhhh
Part of what makes professional athletes impressive is how skilled they are. Athletes often spend their lives training and focusing on bettering themselves for the sake of their sport. Partially because they are newer and partially because they are not as physically demanding, video games may not have as much of an "awe factor" in considering how skilled someone is. The thought that I could pick up a controller and be as skilled as a pro makes it appear more attainable and less impressive.
If the NA and EU Summer Split has taught me anything, it's that the LoL fans would love for their pro teams to go global. The All Stars proved that. The current LCS is proving that. Hell watch any game with Gambit! Their home crowd is the loudest I have ever heard!
I think that the reason the stories for each of the players isn't well known is due to how new it is. Being a StarCraft player, I've seen tons of videos detailing different people and personalities. I think the story is building, but it takes some time to get to the vast epics known in many other sports. Similarly, if you look at the NFL, the Titans and Panthers don't have any real rivals or big stories because they're still very new teams compared to others. This story has to build.
Barcraft is another thing which can really help promote Esports. It's like going to the pub to watch a game of football, but instead of football and football fans, you get Starcraft 2 or League of Legends with their fans. People who don't know what Esports is would only have to ask and they would have enthusiastic fans telling them about why Esports is awesome, who they think is good and just generally showing their passion for the Esports scene. Which could help the stigma attached to us.
Reminder how a few years ago, hands of poker were played on ESPN. None of the players were known at the beginning but developed much more apparent personalities and with money counts it was easy to cheer for underdogs with each round of elimination.
Video gaming is looking to be the next spectator sport. As it grows it will find its audience and know best ways to give all the story and details the people would want. As newer consoles will probably include easy access to watching these events it will also encourage younger games to maybe go down the competitive gaming path further increasing the potential to make it a spectator sport.
You're definitely correct about how game's are not designed for spectating, However I have been to a few Team Fortress 2 torments that have server plugin's available that massively help the commentators show the game from different camera angles whilst the game is being played. Thanks to this plugin and different view of the match I find that the TF2 matches are much more accessible than other game tournaments that I've spectated at.
I love the TF2 comp scene. I got a 6s team with some buddies and sometimes I tune into a match when I'm bored to just watch some plays. Pretty relaxing.
The other thing about sports is that commentators of sports have replays at different angles, enabling them to explain the plays to the audience during the lull between the action-packed moments. E-sports only needs to develop the software to capture every moment of the game at every angle & an editor to select the best possible view for commentators to paint a narrative for the audience.
I am a very avid watcher of the Dota 2 Pro Scene, and I'd just like to say that it seems to me that casters/commentators currently do a great job of keeping stats on players, teams, and the game itself. Currently the state of Dota 2 is being changed and worked with constantly but usually only bits and pieces at a time, so even as a caster you can keep up with the game and the players themselves to create everything that is needed to make the game interesting to watch. Cont.
If video games become the next spectator sport, it would have to be something like an RTS or TowerDefence. Most, if not all, other game types tend to be single player view. RTS and TDG would allow for a spectator camera to show the entire field or zoom in to specific details the commentators choose.
I just have to mention the GD Studios cast for Dota2. At DHS they had almost everything u demanded. They had stats, live chat based community polls regarding winner or mvp, instant replay, 2 seperate analysists apart from the casters to do some pre and after game talking and cool live interaction with pro players.
Great episode. I think the e-sports community is seen as crafty and at ease with "the internets", that may explain why the stats and physical support are not as readily accessible as in, say, football. However, websites like Liquidpedia track player progress, win / lose and favored maps for Starcraft players, seperated by given events. We also get to know "the villains" and underdogs through the community, i.e. Idra and Naniwa have quite a reputation. It's all about ease of access, it seems.
Holy cow not three minutes before watching this vid, I was watching an old Justin Wong Vs. Daigo Street Fighter IV vid. Video games are totally a spectator sport with rivalries like JWong and Daigo, villains like Chris G with his UMvC Morridoom, and heroes like anyone winning with a low tier character. The ease of getting involved in pro gaming communities has definitely increased with youtube and livestreaming events.
I think what makes sports and video games different is that to watch a video games, is the way the Camera works. In most sports they have a wide view of the court that shows every thing and you are able to pick and choose what you are looking at. when watching video games what you look at is from one view then it switches to another and you don't get to choose what is important to look at. then there is what i think makes it unfriendly to beginners...
I feel that spectator sports are easier to watch the more you can relate to them. As a soccer, baseball, basketball playing hippie, I can easily relate myself to those who are playing the sport that I am watching. The commentators that comment on the sport try and breach the gap of people who can't swim long distances by getting them "intrigued" in long distance swimming. With something so easy to relate to, being video games, and just about everybody plays some sort, the environment of gaming
that makes a lot of sense. I think a large part of the appeal of traditional sport is that anyone can go out and play. All you need to play soccer is some open space and something vaguely ball shaped. Most sports things we all learn just as a consequence of growing up. Esports are going to be streets behind until they have that same kind of intergenerational ubiquity. Which is unlikely, given the profit model involved.
what about smash bros it is easy to spectate because the game is entirely in third person view and it has a competitive play style and the characters in the game are recognizable and have stories
One thing you didn't mention is sports as social catalyst. Few years ago my father-in-law met my father for the first time. They didn't know anything about each other, yet my father asked him about his favorite team and from there on, they kept talking about soccer until they became friends. I never noticed that before . Now when I meet a fellow geek we talk about LOL, fav teams, rivalry, stats, the whole thing. We treat LOL in the same way our parents treat soccer, even the bad things.
Docs like King of Kongs are a great step in the direction of narrative building and a very good blueprint for how to. I think more competative games though are going to have more theater modes (ala Halo) and hopefully with all this cloud streaming stuff, we will have the proccessing freedom to have live theater modes with free flowing live camera control. The way these things are shot will open things up to more general audiences.
I tell ya' what Mike, League of Legends is halfway there. Pro players have a slew of livestream play, tutorials they offer for their favorite champions, interviews with Riot Games employees, and a myriad of other interactive things they use to get you rooting them on in finals. Team Solomid even has a reality web show about their lives as professional video game players. Riot games also helps the process along by hosting interviews about their lives at home and away from the game.
The biggest hurdle for a game trying to work as a spectator sport is the vantage point and HUD of the spectator Of all the games played competitively as a spectator sport I find fighting games the most watchable because they already look good from a spectator perspective where as first person shooters such as TF2 which I find very fun to play competitively aren't so much fun to watch. IMO LoL does a good job in this regard giving spectators the info they need and angles that are fun to watch
Ye, you're right there. This also ties in with another comment about 1 game lasting generations rather than moving onto sequels or same genre but more modern games.
You have a strong point that centralized all inclusive stats are making it very hard to keep track of most e sports. At the same time streaming makes the cult of personality even stronger for some pros. For many you can tune in at a regular time each day to watch their attempts at improving themselves and even learn something you could use in the game yourself.
This might be why I enjoy watching competitive Team Fortress 2 - the players in each game are easily distinguishable by their combination of hats and effects, allowing the audience to quickly associate the skill of the individual players and teams with a unique top hat! Some infrastructure is already in place too, with hats and weapons digitally "signed" by players as merchandise, detailed in/after game stats, "helmetcam" or a flying camera, and commentators that play competitively themselves.
Video games are commercial products directed to a larger audience that doesn't need to be involved in the competitive element. Traditional sports aren't passing iterations of genres that need to be updated and cycled every few years in order to make way for a new source of money. There isn't a timeless game that would maintain its value both technically and as a sport. As such, I think the classic e-sport that can permanently rise to the ranks of its physical peers isn't around the corner yet.
The point about video games only being from one person's point of view at a time is a very VERY good point, but only in certain situations. If you look at a game like League of Legends, or Starcraft, these games are spectated from a 3rd-Person Omniscient point of view making them much easier to brodcast multiple player's actions at once, rather than a game like Call of Duty, or Halo.
I think one thing that gives video games an edge is, if done correctly, they are a producers wet dream. You can literally have any number of 'cameras' anywhere they can imagine. Even in strategy games. Once you go into spectator mode you can see the game from any angle anywhere on the map. Sure if we are just looking at the game from their screen it could be boring for the people who don't know the game initmately but with video games were are not limited to that.
Hm. One challenge unique to video games on the way to becoming a major spectator sport is how quickly the industry changes, whereas other sports change small bits at a time. If you look at football in the 70's, it's essentially the same today (throw in some better cameras and equipment, and you've got it). But for video games in the '70s, we had Pong. Since video games are a business built around updating and change, maintaining a large audience of passive spectators would be difficult.
I can vouch for this: I got a comment featured on the Philip DeFranco show two days in a row, and it felt amazing. (Maybe I was happier about it than I had any right to be, but it was still cool.)
Video games are already popular spectator sports. With Twitch.tv hosting video game tournaments from all around the world live, we have a constant stream of games to watch. League of legends Tournaments regularly have 100k+ viewers. TSM has a reality show and CLG has a documentary show about them. The characters and rivalries are being made. Hell, melee a 12 year old game managed to raise $95k for charity in order to make it into EVO this year.
Competitive games can be a spectator sport, but there's no reason for it to end there: The entire 'Let's Play' genre is based on video game spectating. Thousands of people, myself included, will spend just as long watching NON-competitive gameplay as others do watching Street Fighter and CoD tournaments. The immersiveness, interactivity, and the players' personalities create an intimacy that other media can't imitate. If handled properly, I think Let's Play could become just as big as MLG.
Ok so I have actually had some interesting discussions about this. One of the things that I thing is extremely relevant that you somewhat glossed over and underplay is the sense of appreciation of the inherent activity. Briefly you mention that watching physical sports are at least at some level an enjoyment of physical prowess. So we can infer easily that watching e-sports or video games is enjoying another person's 'video game prowess'. But what is that? Well, let me take a stab and say it's reflex, timing, input precision/accuracy, decision making, problem solving, spatial awareness, visual acuity and data/information retention(think game mechanics, mathcrafting, etc). OK so setting that whole 'narrative' thing aside that you mentioned why don't we appreciate all those amazing skills as much as we appreciate the ability to run really fast? I think it's because we know how hard it is to run really fast. A few other comments suggested that it's a prerequisite to have played a game at moderate levels to even understand/appreciate the game. So as gaming becomes more prevalent game watching will also? Right. But here's something a little more intriguing as an IDEA. As our lives become more technically centric and facilitating our lifestyles using the above mentioned skills becomes more important so must appreciation of e-sports. TL;DR The more society/life moves towards being more like a video game... the more we'll watch video games for jollies... narratives will emerge organically Examples of life turning into games: www.ted.com/talks/jane_mcgonigal_the_game_that_can_give_you_10_extra_years_of_life.html fold.it/portal/ P.S. Dota2 Commentators do have stats, global perspective and in game narrative inducing graphs and icons.... just had to mention that
EVE Online. A game that functions a lot like real life (In my opinion*) Has real potential for being a spectators sport. Centered on a game that is both first person in that you have your character but has a third person outlook for all actual game play, I can assure you I have spectated on many occasions from a cloaky T3. I have seen all the Alliance tournaments for the last ten years and really enjoy watching them, live. A person that plays could also fill out profiles for all the contestants.
