Random Gaming Thoughts II ~News Items Beware~

The only esport I can stand to watch is League of Legends - I've played a bit of it, so I understand at some level what's going on, and the action is slow paced enough for a viewer to comprehend all the plays. I don't watch it anymore, but my housemate plays often with her boyfriend so I used to watch the odd video with her. Overwatch on the other hand is just a mess of colour, with nauseating cuts between various first person viewpoints, which, being from the perspective of pro-players using mice and keyboards, often rapidly jerk all over the place. This makes the viewing experience unpleasant and disorientating. Compounding the problem is that the game isn't built for third person, so whenever there's a bird's-eye view shot, everything looks off, an uncanny valley of sorts - albeit at the benefit of a much more watchable presentation. I just don't like the viewing experience for Overwatch at all. Plus, whereas League of Legends has a huge meta, hero bans and what have you, Overwatch doesn't. This means that you typically just watch the same match every time, the casters regurgitate the same strategy talk ad nauseam, the only difference being relative team skill levels.

I'd sooner watch an individual streamer on Twitch, giving me a fixed perspective and, crucially, an actual human to connect the experience with. In sports, I think it means something to have a face and name attached to a struggling Striker, Batsman, Tennis player or whatever. I just personally find it quite difficult to connect with any esports player when they have some l33t speech name, and their human form is only apparent for snapshots of time in between rounds. And even when they're given more time, it's invariably a guy in a headset with a generic team tee. They don't feel like people. It's one thing for them not to be household names, but, particularly in Overwatch where the strategies are almost always identical between teams, the only personalities anyone ever seem to have are the ones imposed upon them by the casting team who, lets face it, are often quite annoying.

esports will inevitably grow, but I think Overwatch is a poor choice for this sort of thing. At least it'll be interesting to see if the structure of the thing could work for other games in the future, but I don't think it'll ever be more successful than Counter Strike, DOTA or League. Hell, I'd go as far to say that even Fifa will continue to be more successful overall since it's much easier to watch, and at least you're dealing with individual players.

IGN have a good 5 minute'ish video on it and why it might work, It address some of things you guys bring up.

Muss is once again absolutely on point yet again.

Muss wrote:

I'd sooner watch an individual streamer on Twitch, giving me a fixed perspective and, crucially, an actual human to connect the experience with.

Also this.

I actually watch a pro R6 Siege player who streams & not only do you see great plays from him he is actually quite funny on top of that as well.

Yeah I don't use Twitch very often, but it's nice watching something that you can both appreciate the streamer for their skill as well as their personality, and if you learn something along the way too then that's a nice bonus.

masofdas wrote:

IGN have a good 5 minute'ish video on it and why it might work, It address some of things you guys bring up.

The biggest problem is that they don't address just how stale the Overwatch esports meta is. I'm not sure there will be many people particularly interested in watching the same strategy repeat itself on a limited selection of maps. Grand finals might be popular, but a daily/weekly league is a hell of a stretch. It's funny because they also make an assumption that, because it's well produced, people will get into it - and there's a further assumption that the personalities are already there and will be self-evident to viewers and immediately garner support. When I watched Hearthstone, individuals came across because each game was 1v1, so I could kind of root for someone, but that's not going to happen in Overwatch due to its 5v5 nature. I'm sure there will be some vocal support for the whole endeavour amongst some people but other than making changing some of the HUDS, I don't think it really covers my major problems.

I'm not sure are you meant to be supporting the team / city and not the individual. Would Hearthstone be more like Tennis where I like Djokovic as an individual and Overwatch in this case is I cheer on London like I do Man City no matter the players.

Sure I have fav players like KDB and even other teams have players I like which I guess is the difference.

I've only watched highlights so far and I do think you're right about the grand finals, and does seem overall that eSports has some way before it's at the Olympics for instance.

Well competitive Hearthstone can be either team based but structured as a series of 1v1 matches, or team based but with one player nominated to be in the driving seat for a given matchup, with others able to advise them. Or it can be completely 1v1 without any teams involved. In any format there is a constant emphasis on the people making the decisions, who therefore develop beyond guys behind a desk. Because matches are structured around playing several different classes, although many decks are similar we see varied matchups. Most importantly in the post-game players are afforded time to actually talk about their decision making in a way that's informative and coherent with the match just viewed. Because of this, subtle variations in decks and decision making can be highlighted and discussed. There are often pivotal plays in Hearthstone that rely on chance as much as skill, and playing against chance is the same mechanic that makes poker exciting for some people. Conversely, in Overwatch, there's always going to be at least 5 or so skirmishes per match, but they all tend to look similar and are always a case of Ultimate use efficiency. There are clutch plays, but because the same sort of plays keep happening over and over the effect is limited, even more so when each team employs basically the same overall strategy and uses the same classes because hero's don't get banned. All of that means that teams mush into the same identity, a problem compounded by individuals not really standing out because the nature of the game doesn't really lend itself to interesting interviews or highlights. I suppose the main thing is, seeing player reactions, reading their faces, it adds a lot to the tension and the drama of Hearthstone, whereas Overwatch reactions exist on a binary plane between - yes, we have won, and, boo, we have lost.

See in football you support the team, sure, but the team is comprised of highly notable, differentiated, individuals with unique characteristics. Teams also play with varied playing styles and they are often firmly embedded in the culture of their local area. Defenders might not be as notable as attackers, they might not be as popular, but each player's impact - or lack of an impact - on the match is self-evident. Keepers and the defense play as both a cohesive unit and individuals, and with a combination of prescient replays and the fact that the spectator is otherwise always focused on the ball, it's very easy to see these struggles play out over the course of an entire match and moment to moment. This is the same human dynamic you get in tennis, or cricket, and even in something like formula 1, you might not get to see people beyond the pit wall, but you sure as hell get to hear Alonso or Hamilton moan about things. These emotional elements make things matter.

In Overwatch each team plays the same game (at least, western do, and a lack of hero bans means that whatever the metta is, is what you will see throughout the tournament), there's no cultural history, and the frantic nature of the skirmishes makes it difficult to focus on individuals within the team structure. The fact that matches revolve almost entirely around ultimate efficiency makes each skirmish feel a bit like a set-piece rather than a flowing game to me. Yeah, you get a sense of game flow from the ultimate percentage build ups and whose in control of the objective, but its not really like at any moment there's a sudden bit of flair. It's always the same sort of strategy, and even when there is some flair its diluted by the fact that the skirmishes last a very short period of time as players quickly retreat after it becomes clear who has the upper hand, forcing viewers to watch time tick away.

Its that frantic nature of conflicts that makes it difficult to track defense/offense interactions beyond very basic, well player X killed player Y. Because of that, and because each team uses the same characters, and each team defends the same choke points, everything feels formulaic. Because the matches are formulaic, the lack of individual personalities hurts the game even more, because unlike football, tennis or even Hearthstone, there's no emotion, other than the casters, added to the proceedings. It's that lack which makes it very difficult for me to care about any team because they don't feel like people, they're just colour variants of Overwatch characters.

Obviously you get boring, formulaic matches of football, they happen. But even within that, there's some obvious nuances to each game - some players getting in each other's face, some community pride, some raw emotion evident on the pitch. Even if every football team used the same formation, and the same tactical approach, you'd still be viewing a range clear emotional interactions tied to real people, and with clear player-to-player interactions. That just isn't there in Overwatch matches.

So yeah, both football and Overwatch are about "supporting the team", but, at least to me, football teams feel fleshed out with individuals that I can identify with (or distinctly disassociate with), whereas Overwatch consists of teams comprised of non-identity who may or may not happen to exist in a part of the world closer to me than another part of the world.

I liked watching my housemate play Starcraft 2.  I guess that's like DotA?

Otherwise, the latest Smash game remains my only interest in watching, rather than playing, games.

eSports will not be my thing until there's something in there that I'm really interested in playing. Now I've typed that it sounds selfish... but, to be honest, it's not a direction I want gaming to go in at all.

From what I've read about the Overwatch League, I think they've done as best as they can to create a different sort of viewing experience and try to make it as popular as it can be. Bringing in team uniforms and having each team coupled with a city is a clever idea - it brings out that real world sports team mentality. It's easier to root for a London team squaring off against an LA team than "Team Liquid vs Team Solo Mid". The team colours make the often confusing visuals of competitive Overwatch a little easier to follow too. I think by highlighting the importance of the team rather than the player (which is often not the case in other eSports) will pay off well too.

Muss's point about the gameplay being a bit dull to watch overall is a good one though. Overwatch is pretty bad for having a set meta with very few attempts made to overcome a strategy. There's either what's called a "dive comp" where a team will essentially rush a point as quickly as they can or a more defensive tank heavy approach. You'll see the same heroes time after time and that's somewhat sad in a game with as many diverse and fun characters as Overwatch. I hope Blizzard will try and be as quick as they can with the balance patches - they'll need to be to avoid the competitive game stagnating.

I've only ever really gotten into watching competitive Smash, both Melee and Sm4sh. I think fighting games lend themselves better to a viewing experience overall - easier to follow, easier to root for your favourite player and the storyline of watching somebody make an incredible run through loser's bracket or watching somebody upset an established talent is a treat. This is a prime example of what I'm on about.

Context for the set I linked for those that care:

Fighting games always seemed the easiest sell for eShops and I know is big but it's tiny compared to LoL and even Overwatch already thin summons of $90m being banded around.

Both LoL and Overwatch have a big scene in South Korea, do you think that's the reason why as it's just thought as normal.

I didn't know where to put this nice picture I found.

A few days ago I caused a light Twitter storm around the forum account when I posted this.

Now, I've probably not expressed myself there as well as I could have (not least because, as one of the first replies says, the character is actually holding a slice of pizza ). However, a few people responded basically saying that I'm not executing the developer's vision by playing the game on easier difficulty levels: most games are designed with 'Normal' in mind. I do feel slightly insulted that there these images to accompany the difficulty settings, particularly when you consider that gamers have very differing levels of skill and ability and just want to experience the game that they've paid for.

I'm tempted to just think "Hardcore gamers gonna game hardcore" but is there more to it than that? I would welcome your thoughts, fellow GNamer forumites.

Wasn't this brought up elsewhere recently and Dark Souls was used as the perfect example of why a game shouldn't have difficulty settings.

I do remember FPS such as Wolfenstein taking the piss if you played on easy, BJ would have a dummy in his mouth on the menu screen.

I'm insulted by Zero using the Twitter account to post his views and imply they're all of ours.

I think Mas is right: this did come up recently in 'If...', did it not? Or something like it. My take is, Easy Modes are great so long as they're kept somewhere where they don't bother or affect things for people who want to play it 'as the developer intended'. When done so, doing them without condescension is the only way they should really be done. Nobody should feel bad for not wanting to 'git gud' at a videogame.

I have Thoughts about Derekimi, but it's late and it's Monday tomorrow and I suspect they're affected by that. So I shan't say anything.

I think it depends on the game honestly.  Including super easy modes in games is a modern thing (and an inevitability in the modern age if one wants to make a game with difficulty while not alienating the mass market), but from my experience there are games that lose a great deal of their point on easier modes.  Fire Emblem and its modern use of "no death" modes is a good example of this, being that they're gameplay centric games the point of the game is said gameplay.  

The gameplay in question is designed around the concept that mistakes from the player get units killed or otherwise rendered unusable for the rest of the game.  That's the point, the game throws its challenges at the player and asks "can you beat this with a finite amount of resources?"  You give the player unlimited resources and the entire thing is thrown out the window, levels that were once potentially challenging become just another set of harmless enemies to mow down.  Essentially you remove the strategy part of the strategy-rpg.  

The TLDR of that is that, yes, I feel that some games are experienced in a lesser form on certain difficulties depending on what the point of the game was. If it's a story focusses affair then the challenge of gameplay is less important, and the reverse is also true.  As for how the game treats the player for selecting a lower difficulty, well, that depends on how the game goes about it.  A wry joke from a game that is already making plenty of them at itself is, in my eyes, an entirely appropriate response that can add to the character of the game.  That said it needs to be done with a certain amount of wit or humour, otherwise it's just the devs being a pack of d******s.  There's a fine line between comedic mockery and plain regular mockery, and if one lacks the wit to pull the former off then they really shouldn't be attempting it in the first place (not aimed at Wo101, saw the image and got a chuckle out of it myself, really need to play that game some day).  

As for gamers themselves, whether someone's being a bit of a tosser about it or not depends on how they make their case. There are ways of saying things without insulting other people in the process.

I like that your TLDR was longer than the previous bit

I'm not going to get involved in this debate, as I just can't bring myself to empathise with the issue. I'm too amazeballs at videogames.

Athrun is swiftly challenging Muss for his place of 'long thoughtful poster of goodness'.

Balladeer wrote:

I have Thoughts about Derekimi, but it's late and it's Monday tomorrow and I suspect they're affected by that.  So I shan't say anything.

In the bright light of... er, a winter evening , my Thoughts are... maybe he has a point? A badly expressed point, better reflected in your words than than his, but still - a point. The point being, the developer had a difficulty in mind, at which they thought the gameplay would be best served. Without having played that, are you getting the proper experience at all? (Or what Athrun said, but put worse.)

That, of course, depends on the personal view of what constitutes 'proper', and nobody should be mocked for having a different one.

Balladeer wrote:

In the bright light of... er, a winter evening , my Thoughts are... maybe he has a point?  A badly expressed point, better reflected in your words than than his, but still - a point.  The point being, the developer had a difficulty in mind, at which they thought the gameplay would be best served.  Without having played that, are you getting the proper experience at all?  (Or what Athrun said, but put worse.)

That, of course, depends on the personal view of what constitutes 'proper', and nobody should be mocked for having a different one.

This is what I wanted to talk about: I have no doubt that there's a set difficulty tier that main development is conducted on. If my dyspraxia and lack of time is preventing me from playing through their vision or getting the proper experience, that's something to think about.

I went on a double date to a video games bar in Nottingham yesterday. It was real nice, decent food (albeit small portions) and the drinks weren't too expensive, although I avoided the cocktails and just had beer. They had all the consoles and a bunch of board games.

The lass from the other couple kept stroking waluigi whenever he was on screen

Muss wrote:

They had all the consoles

Even one of these

Nottingham is a pretty good place for gamers. Who can forget the National Videogame Arcade? Sounds like you had a good time, which is brilliant. And someone's got to like Waluigi, I suppose...

Jealous! I'd love to go to a place like that! And who wouldn't want to stroke Waluigi?

...why are you all looking at me like that?

masofdas wrote:

Muss wrote:

They had all the consoles

Even one of these

I've read enough Amstrad Action issues to know about that piece of crap! It was interesting, finally getting to see what the games were like via an Amstrad emulator (the Plus machines had the GX4000 guts in with the main keyboard); they were basically the same Amstrad games, and already looked well out of place.

I know where I can but one Jim for your museum.

Anyhow I had a thought yesterday and I've had it for awhile, I may have talked about it in passing but after Balla's review of Xenoblade 2 and knowing Andy's and my thoughts on the game.

I've always wondered if being on one system not even in a fanboy way with Mario is better then Sonic or whatever but it clouds your judgement on a game or genre as the benchmark is always only whatever is on that system.

Clearly, Balla enjoyed Xenoblade 2 and gave it a 9, where Andy from what he has said seems to think it's a bit pants and myself sure I'm only 8hrs in but it's never really grabbed me and if I had to put a score on it right now, it is a 7.

And this even goes for Zero, as you can go see in the LA Noire thread I said that it will be one of his favourite games of the year and maybe on Switch, just based of his thoughts on Batman on Wii U (it is a banger) as it's different to the norm on Nintendo that is it better than it should be?

I think Drunka might be the best to answer this as he wrote that article years ago on Gintendo after picking up a PS3 and Xbox One, also I just have to look at his Top whatever games list with things like Dark Souls, Titanfall, Mass Effect.

That if I asked him I don't know 5 years ago what his fav FPS shooter is would it have been something good but not great.

I don't know if I'm making any sense but to me, it's sort of like rose-tinted glasses.

Andy's comparing XC2 to XC1, that's not a single-platform issue... that's him being unable to do basic combat.

It's a no-brainer that if you have less to compare certain games against, you'll think things are better. In a hypothetical world where every genre has one game, every game's the best game in its genre, and that applies to lesser extents even without reductio ad absurdum.

That said, it depends on what kind of games, dunnit. Ninty machines have been alright on JRPGs for me, and I reckon the best platformer for a multiplatter and a Nintendonly gamer will likely be similar. Open-world games (in a pre-BotW universe), or shooters, less so.