Slashdot Mirror
Is America Ready For Competitive Gaming On TV?
Thanks to GameSpy for its editorial discussing whether America is ready for more TV coverage of competitive gaming, following on from last week's QuakeCon, of which it's claimed: "Television coverage of the event was almost non-existent... although many media outlets did a story on QuakeCon, and taped a few interviews with competitors at the event, none covered the finals in a play-by-play fashion." One editor suggests gaming just isn't appealing enough: ("Deathmatch as we know it just isn't it yet. Visually it isn't too sexy if you're not, yourself, a hardcore player"), whereas a contrasting view is presented by another editor ("The competitive FPS scene in America is also ripe for television. All we'd need to do to get that up and running in the US is copy what the Starleague has done [using StarCraft] in Korea.")
is so far off and incompatible. The contrasts between pop and traditional culture in Korea and America are so drastic.. it really doesn't behoove any game-TV advocates to make that analogy, as it is very doubtful that an American TV producers would be convinced by this argument.
Although I belive that since it's gotten far enough this ready (QuakeCon, CPL championships, etc.) game coverage TV certainly isn't a far fetched idea - nor far away from becoming a reality. In the next decade, at least, I assure everyone that you'll be hearing about and following champion game players and teams in the same manner we do today with football, baseball etc.
I haven't seen any of the QuakeCon setup, but any deathmatch style clips I've seen broadcast on G4 have always been from the first person point of view. That's so boring. You need several camera's that a director can control to watch the action from above or a 3rd person point of view. That way the audience could see where the snipers are camping, and when two people are going to run into each other as they come around a corner. Just like any other sport, where there's a hundred cameras running to get the best shot.
...Scrabble on ESPN.
There's a station available in Winamp that I believe is called "FragTV" that plays peoples recorded kills to music. I've spent more than a few hours watching it, though I'll admit, there probably aren't a lot of people like me out there that would enjoy this as much as me... but there is surely an audience.
WANNAWIKI Wannawiki WannaWiki WANNAWIKI!
...are advertisers ready for competitive gaming on TV? If they are, it'll be shown.
I get queasy watching my friend play FarCry, so I hardly think it will catch on until the camera/POV system is fixed. Last thing we want is a system where the camera is as bad as that tethered monster they used for the XFL.
>> "What would the robut do? Frame someone!"
I am a rabid gamer for almost 30 years (yes, Pong on up!). I still play games a lot. Do I like to watch competitions on TV? No. They're uninteresting. Even more, the commentary is not needed. Commentary detracts from the overall experience.
Watching games played on TV is exactly like watching bowling or golf on TV. To me, these three things (video games, bowling, golf) are fun to play, but not to watch. It kind of reminds me that I'm not doing anything but vegetating in front of the boob tube.
One night on ESPN we saw a Magic: The Gathering. With stats, whiteboard and two commentators
"Sometimes a woman is a kind of religion, she can save your soul & set you free from all your sins" - Bad Examples
...if only they had more than one screen onscreen at the same time, but limited to 4 screens at most. Yes, that would be confusing, but it adds to the watcher's experience to yell "Watch out behind you!" when you KNOW its not going to be any good.
Of course, sound would become bad... really bad. So, 1 screen it is... but whose? The winners, or one of the losers?
The only time I ever saw a deathmatch on tv was when flipping around a while ago on g4 maybe. It was boring as hell. It was either tribes or unreal ctf game. I never got into either of those games too much, so I didn't know the map or the weapons. Which means I didn't know what the hell was going on. They would cut to a 3rd person view of some guy fraggin another, then running on. Then would cut to someone running with the flag. The only thing I saw was a random string of fragging clips that made no sense.
This would be really boring on tv to people who don't even know what these games look like, or what the point of th em are.
There are some ways to help that though. The first thing is to slow the game down to maybe half life speed running speed. Quake and unreal are maybe a bit too fast. It's hard to get an eye for where someone is when they cover ground so quickly, and hard to soak up changes when the field moves around so much.
There needs to be an overhead map showing all the teams on at all time. The map has to color code the teams, show who is carrying the flag, and highlight who we are watching. This would be hard to accomplish on maps with multiple floors.
Another thing they could do, is break down the game for us. Let's say that one guy is running back with the flag, some defenders hot on his heels. Ahead of him in a room, defenders have set up an ambush. Just as he gets in the room, the ambush is sprung, and they start firing on the flag carrier.
But out of the corner, some defenders pop out and frag the ambushers, drop down, and stop the other defenders.
On tv coverage, I'd like to see them pause before the flag guy gets into the room, set up the scene by paning around and showing me the situation, the flag guy is running into an ambush. Show the guy run in, tell me it's lights out for the flag guy, showing me an angle where I am behind the ambushers and can see the flag carrier. Then, as the attacker's friends run in, pan up to show them emerge and start shooting and scoring the frags. Let the announcer show me this blow by blow, explaining it the whole way.
This way, I know where they were on the map, watched them set up the play, and can see how well executed it was.
Basically they just need to break it down and explain it, and pause the action to show us split screens from a 3rd person view, and show someone's uncanny aiming ability from first person view, and also show me health and armor values as the fight progresses.
Either way, the game still isn't going to be fun to watch by someone who has never played the game being shown, as you'll only be watching graphics and animation, and won't appreciate the skill of the players.
In athletics, everyone can relate to someone running fast or jumpping high, you can't relate to a great ability to rail someone after seeing them on the screen across the map through a little tiny window for half a second.
America's not ready and probably never will be ready.
One problem is the low barrier of entry. You plop down cash for the game, you take it home and play it. In time, you'll probably be about as good as almost everybody else that you play. That's not the case with games like chess, where there's a very good chance that you'll never be at the top.
You don't have to be an athlete to play a video game, which is why so many people play! People watch athletics because not many people can become great athletes.
Poker seems to be an exception to the rule as of late. Who knows how long that will last but there are things that separate that from video games. One, big money is involved. Two, the big money creates drama. Three, and most important, they end up getting people who are considered cool, like on Celebrity Poker. Have you ever heard of a video gamer be called cool outside of the community?
No matter how much money is in the pot for this stuff, a gamer has a long way to go from becoming cool. And remember, the televised poker craze just started this year. Athletics have been a television mainstay.
But, in America, people like to be active participants in something when they can be. Most can't play in sports professionally, but they can play video games and end up becoming good at them. So, there's no way in hell this will have widespread appeal. Perhaps it could be expanded on at G4TechTV, but even then I don't see it successful.
Gotta be honest here, it's just too damn geeky.
Until Slashdot fixes the funny modifier, use insightful or interesting. The poster knows your intentions.
I can't imagine a host being picked out for gaming television that isn't annoying. Hell, there are even several announcers in NFL and the NBA that I find increasingly annoying. Imagine what a gaming show would get? I think I'm having flashbacks of Battle Bots.
As long as G4 stays far the fuck away, then yes. Yes it is.
"Why Subscribe?" Good question...
Heck, you could put it on TV and find out. They even have some sort of ratings system, I hear, that can tell you how many people were interested enough in your show to watch it.
My hunch is, however, that most people couldn't care less about this, which is why it hasn't been done. It certainly would be a cheap and easy show to produce.
Then again, have you ever watched someone else play a first person shooter? Two minutes of that is enough to make you vomit from dizzyness.
If moderation could change anything, it would be illegal.
There are several steps pointed out in the Gamespy article that need to happen before competitive gaming becomes a reality. One of the major ones is the need for a game that looks great, is TV friendly, doesn't require hacked up config files to allow you to be good, and is fun to watch. Ladies and gentlemen: that game is Halo.
Halo is already tremendously popular on college campuses, and you'll get many guys who don't normally enjoy video games excited about 8 on 8 capture the flag games. It's almost as fun to watch as it is to play. It definately requires a good amount of skill. The capture the flag games require immense teamwork and cooperation if you're going to suceed, while the 1 on 1 deathmatches can be very exciting. Everything I've heard about Halo 2 sounds like an improvement over the original, and most of these improvements would lend themselves great to the game being a spectator sport. Dual weilding looks really cool and adds layers of tactics. The covanent energy sword looks awesome and surely could be entertaining to watch. The new vehical destruction physics will make entertaining and exciting flag runs possible - Will his vehicle hold out just long enough for him to make it back to the base? The fact that the game runs on an Xbox means that it looks great and costs very little to play, while ensuring there aren't going to be many cheaters and making config files nonexistant.
There are already some video games that are fun to watch. the Grand Theft Auto series is one of them - the reason is because you can see all sorts of entertaining things and there is generally nonstop action. The same is going to be true of Halo 2. If bungie plays things right by adding a pure spectator mode and the ability to host tournaments, we could see the start of something really big.
My blog
What makes games interesting to watch on tv isn't just the usual *hard-hitting* action (in this case comparable to frags), but its the understanding of strategy and to see how competitors are able to mentally and physically counter their opponents. This is especially applicable to the novelty events mentioned already: Scrabble, Poker, Magic(?!?!). As mentioned, this requires the ability to record the game from any perspective (3rd person especially), and definitely requires the ability to use instant replays with a teleprompter. Nothing will make understanding strategy more accessible than someone circling a guy hiding behind a bunch of crates and then drawing a line to indicate the path he uses to ambush the incoming force. While that may seem like a simple enough attack concept to grasp, slowing it down and showing it to the viewer will make them understand better that these games do involve thought, and aren't just about who can press the button the fastest.
And anyone who tries this is advised to use that G4 show that I think is called Arena as a manual on how not to go about this...
The only thing I hate more than hypocrites are people who hate hypocrites.
But on the other hand, people watch baseball.
Spectator video gaming has a big problem. Any spectator, using precisely the same equipment, is fully equipped to compete. The sole differentiator is experience/skill level at the particular game.
A major appeal of physical sports spectatorship is reminiscence; it allows older or otherwise unfit guys to re-live their glory days (or fantasy days, as the case may be) of youth. People who never played sports, or never had the desire to, aren't usually spectators.
Would a stadium full of young, fit, able athletes would be more interested in watching a football/baseball game than playing it? I seriously doubt it.
The barriers of entry for competitive sports are age, gender and fitness. Furthermore, the skills required require relatively enormous amounts of practice time to hone.
The barriers of entry for competitive video games are primarily financial. That's pretty much it. Even a rank novice could score points. There's a skill level difference between pros and amateurs, but so is there in chess (and that isn't a popular spectator sport, either).
So... what's the motivation for any potential spectators to watch a video game competition, when they're able to play in the same environment with the same controls and game mechanics, themselves? Kids can't go out and play football in an actual pro football stadium with actual uniforms, but they can exactly duplicate the experience from a spectated game, sans the skill of the particular competitors.
Pro gamers view this as a political issue, as if acceptance of spectating as entertainment validates their status as athletes. As far as that goes, I support spectating qua entertainment. I just don't personally find it entertaining.
What I mean by a "TV Server" mode is a way of being able to select a certain player's perspective, or even third person, and a "view from the sky" perspective so you can see a couple of guys hunting down eachother. That way a spectator can get a view of the stratagy without having to be psychic. People watch football and can see the plays unfold, if all they had was a helmet cam it wouldn't be nearly as interesting.
As far as "boring" goes, compare videogames to golf, baseball, and curling.
If you think education is expensive, you should try ignorance -- Derek Bok, president of Harvard
You're assuming that TV is the end-all be-all for this format. Why not a television-like production streamed online instead, where your audience is more likely to exist and be more easily advertargeted.
I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate.
roll on Counter Strike source tournaments on ESPN
Business Voyeur
The recent success of World Series of Poker championships on ESPN (and, yes, the word is 'success,' as the stuff has been driving up ESPN's ratings in surprising fashion) proves that what you're saying isn't so much of a joke.
People will watch any competition on television if it's crafted correctly. Forget the other stuff people have said about making televised competitions look like movies. G4 does that sometimes and the result is boring.
No, the real kicker is personalities. The success of WSOP programs is found in the combo of competition and the humans involved in that competition. Dads, young novices, old mainstays, families, "crew"s, and all their backstories and quirks and so on. Otherwise, the actual poker is some pretty boring stuff.
If a program can edit together competition highlights that pay as much attention to the gamers as to the game, then there's a serious shot at mainstream success. Could that be done? Perhaps not as easily as poker, as the participants aren't as "all over the board" in the gaming world (this is the same reason bowling competitions generally suck ass on TV), but the possibility is still worth noting.
There are other televised competitions that cater to niche crowds that, unless you are a hardcore fan (of *watching*, not just participating) would be boring as hell. Two that spring to mind immediately: Golf and Bowling. How either of these two sports survived (or in Golf's case, thrived) on television is beyond me. Neither have *any* action to speak of, both move at a snail's pace, neither involve any significant strategy, and neither are really "in your face" competitive. I'm not saying that makes them bad sports, but it does make for bad television. But somehow, there are enough fans to keep televising them viable. I think that with the past two generations having grown up on video games, ESPN can afford to risk an hour a week to televising video game tournaments. The fan base is definitely there.
Xenon, where's my money? -Borno
I am not sure if I found it fun to watch because I like Street Fighter, or if I just enjoyed how serious those players got.
If anything, from watching competitions you can see moves that you never knew before.
So, basically I think they need a breakthrough in how you can observe games (which probably includes designing levels for easier viewing like Lava Giant in UT).
Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
Game network (a European channelw hich shows on satalite in the UK) covered one of the large TFC leagues.
I watched a couple of games on it but I found it boring, not because of how it was done. I just played TFC for several years and watching these guys just conc, bunny hop and repeat (tricks which makea really fast paced game but I totally hate) seemed no fun to me. I'd rather have a slower more tactical game.
It used to air every day 2-3 times a day and from what I know didn't do too baddly.
I like muppets.
I will make a prediction that the online console gaming networks of Sony and Microsoft will eventually morph and they will look more like media networks with daily programming schedules and that a large portion of the revenues will be derived from advertising. First they will start out with ESPN like interactive coverage of things like Halo3 tournaments, but then the programming will become more varied covering everything from machinama to interactive game-show hybrids (think Doom4 meets Jeopardy or Everquest3 meets Survivor). Remember when MTV was just music videos?
What's interesting is that all the main pieces are there to pull this off. Its just that no one has tried to tie everything together. Good quality video is expensive to broadcast over IP networks currently. The people trying to pull off interactive TV in the mid to late 90's found that out. BUT a spectator stream from online games is very light weight with good image quality that improves with each generation of graphics hardware. So the media/gaming networks will initially be broadcasting spectator streams as opposed to video. Long term though as the pipes get fatter in the last mile, there will be a mix of video and rendered grapics.
Judging by the lousy ARENA show on G4, no it doesn't have a place. Part of that of course being that the people participating in these shows SUCK at the games.
It's really sad to be flipping through TV with some buddies, come across two teams playing a PS2 FPS none of us have ever played before, and the firsty comment out of someone's mouth within 30 seconds is "We've never played this game before and we'd mop the floor with both teams".
Having watched several different "competitive" gaming events on TV, streaming video, and in real life, I think I'm safe in saying that in many cases the best gamers aren't even participating. It's just that sad...
-- Primis.
to see things they wish they could do. It's incredibly cool to see someone pull a 30+ hit combo in a game like Virtua Fighter or Street Fighter III. Anyone remember that video posted on /. a few weeks back where the guy parried a super from Chun-Li?. I can't do that, but it's cool seeing it done..
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Now that I think about it, that's a hell of a lot of restrictions. But third-party omniscient, professional commentary on "what they did, what they should've done, and what really happened" would very much interest me, especially if we're talking about times and places of major battles in the past.
-Rob
Marriage doesn't have to suck!
It's funny....using one of the sponsors of the ESPN poker (partypoker.com) is still illegal in all 50 states.
How's that for irony.
Steven V>
I patented screwing your mom. But it got revoked for "prior art."
As for as "video game sports" go, I think it would be far more interesting to watch a team based scenario like capture the flag. Multiple perspectives, good use of the spectator cam (keep one camera on each flag at all times), good commentary, good production, etc... For a more movie like clip, deathmatch would work, as long as it was first person from the best player's perspective owning everyone ... set to a good musical background... and no longer than 5 minutes.
I'm sure watching deathmatches in Doom3 or any FPS would be far more interesting if there were properly setup cameras, most of the demos are watched from the eyes of one of the players.
:)
A nice set of panning views giving a good tactical overview like a football game would probably be far more entertaining
who the fuck wants to see some 15 year old kid playing a game that needs no skill? This is not like running the 100 meters in Athens, this is a fucking video-game. I can play Counter-Strike all day, so why the fuck would I need to watch someone play?
There are a lot of people saying that this won't work because it's boring to watch other people play games because it's more fun to play than to watch, etc.
To them, I ask, Why do people watch other people play chess?
Maybe this is a culturally relitivistic thing, but there's an appreciation for watching others play computer games in Korea that goes beyond mere passing interest. Finals for Starcraft tournaments can pack small stadiums. Granted, it's Darwinistic -- since I've come here, I've seen computer game spectator shows for Starcraft, Warcraft 3, Counter-Strike, Unreal Tournament, C&C Generals, WWE, several racing titles, Golf, etc. -- as the only one that really has proven staying power at this point is Starcraft, with Warcraft3 so far having the second-longest tenure.
But I don't think you can sum the viability of the idea as to whether or not it's more fun to play than to watch, because some of the Starcraft players are just so good at what they do, and the game has so permeated the youth's mindset over here, that one can appreciate a lot of the strategy at work just by watching the games.
In short, it's like other people watching chess. How silly would it be to see that it's stupid to watch Kasparov play chess because you can always hang out with your buddies and play chess yourself? Another poster had legitimate views that FPS play would do better if it were edited after the fact -- in short, the presentation of the game needs to be spiced up -- but it is possible to do and do it entertainingly.
Plus, and this is something I'm surprised the game companies don't catch on to, television shows like these are excellent tech demos to a potential buying audience. It's almost better than an ad.
--------
Bleah! Heh heh heh... BLEAH BLEAH!!! Ha ha ha ha...
Videogames ARE convergence (broadcast, Internet, Personal Computing), and maybe I'm speculating here, but I believe they will bring this convergence to the living room.
IMO The game franchise needs to be built with broadcast in mind, and not just for the recreational (i.e. non-pro) gamer with broadcast as an afterthought. That includes all the necessary enhancements. Consider the following:
- game based on an experience that the broadcasters have experience packaging, e.g. motor racing (think Gran Turismo BROADCAST), Madden TV, etc.
- bring the experience home with a travelling, live series (sort of like Formula1's multi-track format), hosted in real cities. The superstars are real professionals, who go to these locations to bring the action home. Think WWE.
- fixed/ mobile camera mounts, fed back into an existing broadcast pipeline (director's table, overlays, commentary) with experienced people behing the cams/ direction. This is for the broadcast audience and the broadcast viewers - just a TV experience.
- motion control rigs with the obligatory 3D stereo head mounted rigs for the broadcast players - the broadcast experience must be special. Don't broadcast nobodys. Create your own set of superstars.
- I think it may be cool to let the Director say 'cue rain', as in that Jim Carrey movie.
- multi-tier rendering engine, one very high quality one based on high-end machines for broadcast and the broadcast-tier players (they're hand-picked superstars, afterall), the other lower-spec one for home rendering via a PS(x)/ whatever to support the interactive channels. Both should use the same telemetry data, but render with separate model sets.
- internet/ multicast extensions for *100%* interactive TV. Stream out the data feed from the broadcast channel. If you're not happy with the camera angle, *change it*, or fly your own camera rig by powering up your PS(x)/whatever over the internet, in real-time with the actual event being carried out live. Talk about in-race footage.
- supporting online properties - download your superstar's practice sessions, so you can practice/ hone your skillz at home while waiting for the sponsorship call. Build your creds racing against each other via XBOX Live or PS-Net in the online bunny leagues.
- sponsorship and advertising programs for supporting cash. This should become a viable professional sport (see Korea).
- a multi-platform home version of the software for your PS(x)/ XBOX/ PC/ NGC, whatever. You can have annual updates (not patches), and force original copies to participate in the bunny leagues.
Think of it: because videogames are easy to get into, you'll always have a fresh set of new talent. Yes, they probably need some grooming and de-pizza-sauce-ing. But these will become the Tiger Woods and Michael Schumachers of the medium. No superstars = no audience.
Oh, you'll also need a big-a$$ bit of cash during early stages.
I SO want to see this implemented, or better yet, to participate in its implementation. I think it's not a question of if, but rather a question of WHEN.... and its rather unique to videogames. MS/ Sony/ Nintendo, are you listening?