Building a "sport" game
spellman23
NS1 Theorycraft Expert Join Date: 2007-05-17 Member: 60920Members
NS1 Theorycraft Expert Join Date: 2007-05-17 Member: 60920Members
This thought occurred to me while listening to the most recent Three Moves Ahead podcast:
<a href="http://threemovesahead.libsyn.com/episode_77_starcraft_2_and_chris_remo" target="_blank">http://threemovesahead.libsyn.com/episode_..._and_chris_remo</a>
They are discussing StarCraft 2 and how it has made certain choices in mechanics and how it chose to bill itself.
One of the interesting things they mention is how Halo as a FPS and StarCraft as a RTS seem to have a very deep impact, name brand recognition, and cause people to often absorb themselves and grind away and incentive you getting better and becoming absorbed in the game. They mention that part of this is due to how they build a wonderful front end to draw you in and give you feedback for those who want to get better.
Jump to 18:00 and listen for a few minutes (goes until around minute 28, the actual quote is from minute 22).
Other nice highlights some people might be interested in are how StarCraft 2 was built mainly as a "sport" game. i.e. tailored for the competitive e-sport. However, it is also billed as a "game so great that it's for everyone." Starting around minute 13 they get into that topic.
I recommend people listen and discuss some thoughts about these people's observations and how we can fold this into NS2. I highly recommend listening from the beginning to around minute 28 since that part focuses on the multiplayer aspect, which is what NS2 is.
EDIT: I also recommend people listen around 42:50 as they talk about how SC2 matters (or if it doesn't) and eventually veers into how important it is that it was Blizzard making the game and not some other company.
EDIT: since some people seem to think is the competitive vs casual thread (which was not my intention), here are the main points I cared about:
<ul><li> Feedback to the players to encourage them to do better. Provide a way for players to understand how to get better and encourage them to do so (replays fall in this category). Analytical tools.</li><li> Mechanics that encourage proficiency and skill and reward you for learning and mastering them.</li><li> Crisp and transparent mechanics/values so that interested players can look at the numbers and plan exact strats.</li><li> Easy to recognize game mechanics. It should be obvious what something does at a glance. Folds into previous point.</li><li> Integration in the UI to facilitate organization of events/games/clans/etc.</li><li> Diverse skill sets that you can pull together. A kind of palette of abilities to make your final strategy.</li><li> Ability for spectating and a culture of people who can shoutcast and share insights. Build a community to get everyone engaged and excited. When do most people want to play SC? Right after watching an epic match. Same for other sports.</li></ul>
<a href="http://threemovesahead.libsyn.com/episode_77_starcraft_2_and_chris_remo" target="_blank">http://threemovesahead.libsyn.com/episode_..._and_chris_remo</a>
They are discussing StarCraft 2 and how it has made certain choices in mechanics and how it chose to bill itself.
One of the interesting things they mention is how Halo as a FPS and StarCraft as a RTS seem to have a very deep impact, name brand recognition, and cause people to often absorb themselves and grind away and incentive you getting better and becoming absorbed in the game. They mention that part of this is due to how they build a wonderful front end to draw you in and give you feedback for those who want to get better.
Jump to 18:00 and listen for a few minutes (goes until around minute 28, the actual quote is from minute 22).
Other nice highlights some people might be interested in are how StarCraft 2 was built mainly as a "sport" game. i.e. tailored for the competitive e-sport. However, it is also billed as a "game so great that it's for everyone." Starting around minute 13 they get into that topic.
I recommend people listen and discuss some thoughts about these people's observations and how we can fold this into NS2. I highly recommend listening from the beginning to around minute 28 since that part focuses on the multiplayer aspect, which is what NS2 is.
EDIT: I also recommend people listen around 42:50 as they talk about how SC2 matters (or if it doesn't) and eventually veers into how important it is that it was Blizzard making the game and not some other company.
EDIT: since some people seem to think is the competitive vs casual thread (which was not my intention), here are the main points I cared about:
<ul><li> Feedback to the players to encourage them to do better. Provide a way for players to understand how to get better and encourage them to do so (replays fall in this category). Analytical tools.</li><li> Mechanics that encourage proficiency and skill and reward you for learning and mastering them.</li><li> Crisp and transparent mechanics/values so that interested players can look at the numbers and plan exact strats.</li><li> Easy to recognize game mechanics. It should be obvious what something does at a glance. Folds into previous point.</li><li> Integration in the UI to facilitate organization of events/games/clans/etc.</li><li> Diverse skill sets that you can pull together. A kind of palette of abilities to make your final strategy.</li><li> Ability for spectating and a culture of people who can shoutcast and share insights. Build a community to get everyone engaged and excited. When do most people want to play SC? Right after watching an epic match. Same for other sports.</li></ul>
Comments
While there is nothing wrong with making a game that appeals to competitive players, I would rather UWE continued their habit of making a new game with rarely-used mechanics in it. NS1 was a rather interesting FPS because in part of how it did things differently, the asymmetric combat of aliens vs marines made the game stand out, SC2 is a game I would have thought outdated five years ago, it's literally a straight reskin of an ancient RTS game.
Personally I want more than that out of a game, I like new games, so catering to 'sport' players at the expense of making a really derivative and uninteresting game, that doesn't sit right with me.
I'd prefer something that caters less to sport players and more to everyone, and everyone other than sport players would probably prefer a game they find appealing because it's different. Of course you also have to make it good, a different bad game is still a bad game, but a different good game is often a very good game.
FPS making an impact when only on consoles, now that would be laughable!
Maybe building a sportgame is not to entertain the players, but entertain the audience indeed <img src="http://members.home.nl/m.borgman/ns-forum/smileys/smile.gif" border="0" class="linked-image" /> I've watched a few matches, it seems entertaining for a while... Maybe t'is not me cuppa tea...
While there is nothing wrong with making a game that appeals to competitive players, I would rather UWE continued their habit of making a new game with rarely-used mechanics in it. NS1 was a rather interesting FPS because in part of how it did things differently, the asymmetric combat of aliens vs marines made the game stand out, SC2 is a game I would have thought outdated five years ago, it's literally a straight reskin of an ancient RTS game.
Personally I want more than that out of a game, I like new games, so catering to 'sport' players at the expense of making a really derivative and uninteresting game, that doesn't sit right with me.
I'd prefer something that caters less to sport players and more to everyone, and everyone other than sport players would probably prefer a game they find appealing because it's different. Of course you also have to make it good, a different bad game is still a bad game, but a different good game is often a very good game.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It sounds like you listened to part of it and missed the point of why I'm posting the topic. Yes one person comments about SC2 keeping it olde and to the original game and such, but there's so much more in the cast that I feel is more important to touch on.
You also have to account for the culture of the target audience (ex; soccer in the rest of the world vs soccer in america) and stereotypes. When people try to lump video games into a sport you then have the added pressure of overcoming the negative "12 year old anti social spends all day gaming / gaming causes violence / gaming is evil" stereotypes while trying to break into a scene with already dominate sport franchises such as the NFL, NBA, or FIFA.
On top of all of that, team based FPS games are inherently difficult to spectate. At any one time a single player out of 10 to 12 could be making a game changing play. If the spectators aren't watching him they miss it. If they bounce between players all the time they cause confusion to people unfamiliar with the game. There's no central "ball" to look at like traditional sports or RTS games (the "ball" being whatever is exciting at the time, like a battle, or the player's bases).
The debate of "should it be balanced for competitive play or public play" is irrelevant. No developer is going to say "well, this will kill the X community but the Y community will love it! Let's do it!" unless the game is already at the end of it's life. Every developer wants to create a game that will invite new players in yet has enough skill and depth to keep them coming back, turning a few into competitive players.
Aside from <i>extreme</i> changes, what's good for one is good for the other.
People lump them together, like they're doing here, because it's easy to do. Example; "Supreme Commander has a huge learning curve and is dominated by competitive players. The developers made that game for competitive people and look at it now!" The rebuttal to that would be that the developers made a game that was too hard to learn but some stuck with it and naturally became better than others.
I didn't listen to any of it, haven't the time at the moment. I was responding to the post.
Making a game that's FUN is always priority number one, video games are NOT a sport, no matter how hard anyone wants to try and argue it, nor should it be.
Making a game that's FUN is always priority number one, video games are NOT a sport, no matter how hard anyone wants to try and argue it, nor should it be.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This suggests to me that you don't understand the Wii's popularity.
It's not "fun" that sells it so much as "ease of entry". Most videogames are fun. Certainly those with any popularity are, regardless of what platform they're on. What differentiates the Wii, and has made it such a huge mass-market success is largely based on how the games for the Wii are relatively easy to get into. Everybody already knows how to bowl, for instance, and the Wii simply makes use of that knowledge so that no additional learning is required. Other platforms? Not so much, you have to learn the conventions of their UI schemes, etc. This is why motion control has become such a huge thing that Microsoft and Sony are trying to emulate it, and why so much of the Wii software is crap. The Wii's motion controls are most useful when they allow people to play the game using paradigms they're already familiar with. Fun? Fun's a side bonus. That's what may keep a player playing.. but what gets them to play is if they find it easy to jump into -- if the mechanisms and UI are easy to understand.
I am a in gold for 1s and 2s in SC2 at the moment--scrim with a few diamond friends--and by no means am I anything special, but if you just apply a bit of effort and have average intelligence you will become competent. I have no doubt I'll hit platinum eventually but I also have a lot of fun, realizing my time constraints will never allow be to be exceptional. And guess what? That's fine by me because if someone plays 12 hours a day whips me in a game, that's order and consequence working as they should be.
You don't integrate more people by lowering standards, all that does is create a sub-society that seems to only reward positives and never punish negatives. It will be a sad day if NS2 turns into that parent who always justifies their child's mistakes. Promoting a pattern of excuses and making people happy with being blameless.
You guys have to accept reality, NS will probably never become popular in e-sports, but that doesn't mean we have to forgo competitive play, high skill caps and leave an environment people of multiple skills can enjoy. Effort = reward; something games like WoW forgot about.
Fixed <img src="http://members.home.nl/m.borgman/ns-forum/smileys/biggrin.gif" border="0" class="linked-image" />
The whole 'easy to learn, hard to master' is one of the major tenets of NS2's design. With mobile sieges and Onos, I'm pretty certain there will be some interesting focal points to lend NS2 to spectator viewing.
There's absolutely no harm in NS2 have some sort of team-friendly, or competitive-friendly, element within it's GUI. Why not make it the first FPS game that lets you create and manage a clan within the game? Hold details of competitions and cups, allow clan leaders to arrange friendlies or fixtures, etc etc, all within the interface of the game, and not being forced to organising everything outside the game on websites or in IRC? I'm not saying it should replace these online-league websites, but if done well it'll aid them. Maybe an e-sports website can create it's competition within the game, and allow clans within the game to then sign up to it, thereby allowing a host of benefits (maybe including some HLTV facility)?
There's alot UWE could implement to help NS2's esports community (of which I'm not part of it, and have no interest in participating btw - I just remember all the hassle from my CS and MW days of doing things outside the game, telling players who put on your clan tag to FO, etc etc).
That's why I hoped UWE would be more like Valve in being open and friendly to different types of play within their games. I don't like Mutation in L4D or Survival mode, but it's there because others do, and it ensures the game is catered for more people than just me. Similarly, StarCraft 2 doesn't just have the class 1on1 or 2v2 modes only, it has others that are tailored for people who want to play the same game but with different rules that they enjoy more. Company of Heroes is another great RTS that has a number of multiplayer modes that are different.
If UWE could implement a number of different game modes, including facilitating e-sports management within the game, it would just be a big help towards ensuring NS2 is a real long term success.
I am a in gold for 1s and 2s in SC2 at the moment--scrim with a few diamond friends--and by no means am I anything special, but if you just apply a bit of effort and have average intelligence you will become competent. I have no doubt I'll hit platinum eventually but I also have a lot of fun, realizing my time constraints will never allow be to be exceptional. And guess what? That's fine by me because if someone plays 12 hours a day whips me in a game, that's order and consequence working as they should be.
You don't integrate more people by lowering standards, all that does is create a sub-society that seems to only reward positives and never punish negatives. It will be a sad day if NS2 turns into that parent who always justifies their child's mistakes. Promoting a pattern of excuses and making people happy with being blameless.
You guys have to accept reality, NS will probably never become popular in e-sports, but that doesn't mean we have to forgo competitive play, high skill caps and leave an environment people of multiple skills can enjoy. Effort = reward; something games like WoW forgot about.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Me likey this post.
We're talking about video games here, not something extreme like professional sports where there is and should be consequences for getting out of hand when you've got a salary that's 6 or 7 figures big. People who play these games have jobs that has them away from the house 12 hours of the day and all they want to do is come home for some R&R. They should not have to extend their work day just so the game says "good job" instead of feeling punished because they're not in the same league as others who either have too much free time on their hands or are Korean. I've got nothing against the competitive scene as i was high in ladders myself in various games, but the community is micro compared to casuals/weekend warriors. Let the athletes splinter away from the crowd, but don't splinter the crowd.
+1
Also, please make tips regarding specific keys display the actual bound key and not just the default. Some games (like Mass Effect 2) write tips like "Press [F] to do a melee attack" regardless if the player rebound the key or not, quite annoying if you ask me.
But this is not the problem of a game being competitive, it's just that you need to play ANY game against equally skilled players. Whether it's football, chess, card games or any multiplayer computer game. If you hate playing on pubs in NS because you are getting destroyed by some high skilled players - it's simply a matchmaking issue, not the fault of the game.
And a game must be suitable for competitive gaming, since this only means:
- the game is fairly balanced
- deviation, learning and effort leads to sucess
- using the better tactics (outskilling your opponent) should lead to victory
Otherwise it's a luck game like poker where every "noob" can win against you with only the statistically average of games evening that out. And I would really hate to see a walker fade rape my nice aiming hmg/jetpack just because the damage output is determined by random and NS just rolled a bunch of zeros plus telling my jetpack to arbitrary lose energy.
Maybe I missed the point, but I felt some replies didn't really understand the thread starter. I fully agree that any support for competitive gaming can only help its sucess. How ###### would football be without live TV, commentators and some analytics. Same goes for games I find fun to spectate other people playing. Streams, in-game spectator modes, statistics etc. never can do harm to it, only help.
And I would really love to see NS2 being nice for competitive gaming. And by that I don't just mean a good balanced game with enough tactical depth you can explore, but also nice program features to make it easy to watch, stream and show to other people who are interested in watching games.
In short, +1 for the OP.
- the game is fairly balanced<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually, while I don't have a problem with the rest of your post, I'd just point out that this point is wrong. What it means is that the game is fairly balanced at a competitive level. The balance may be completely out of whack at lower levels. After all, which is stronger, a marine with shotgun, or a fade? It kind of depends on the fade. Against a good fade, a single shotgun marine is probably much out of luck, whether he's good or not. Against a bad fade, however, even a bad marine with a shotgun has a reasonable chance.
Fury is my favorite example for this kind of thing. High level play was reasonably balanced. Low level play saw tanks dominate.
But you might be right that some tactics could prove OP between two low skilled players. Best example is in SC2 either slow tank push or an early marauder push against toss - it doesn't require much skill to execute, but is hard to repell for newer players. You might say it is imbalanced, or terran are OP, but on the other side you know why you lost and can try out a different tactic against it. Or watch how other people defend it. It's a challenge and not really frustrating since you always know what to work on - perfect example for transparency.
Ultimately, you HAVE to balance at the highest level, meaning balance the game at the point of what is POSSIBLE. If you balance a game at a point what is easy to execute, you could end up with difficult tactics who are clearly overpowered, since you only balanced at a low skill level.
- the game is fairly balanced
- deviation, learning and effort leads to sucess
- using the better tactics (outskilling your opponent) should lead to victory<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Problem with those is that the best way to do them is to make a game that has been made many times before so that you know how to do it.
Which is sort of exactly the problem with starcraft 2, it isn't a new game, it's the same RTS that blizzard has made for the past decade with a reskin. And it really feels like it as well.
I'd rather play a game that I don't already own a copy of than a perfecly balanced game, balance makes an enjoyable game more enjoyable, it does not make a game enjoyable by itself. The game has to be interesting and that usually comes from doing new things, total war is interesting because there isn't really any other game like it, call of duty is (or was) interesting because it was a new style of FPS when it came out. Interestingly quake 4 and doom 3 are fun because they are an old style of FPS which has become less common nowadays, and so playing them is now different and interesting.
NS1 is fun because it's asymmetry is different, but that same asymmetry causes problems for balance which NS1 only gets away with because everything is so high-damage and that makes it more about who gets the first hit than DPS or anything like that. I would rather NS2 focussed on more new, if not exactly balanced mechanics than balancing existing ones, because then you just end up with NS1 again.
a lot apparently. take that joke of a game MW2 for example. nothing like a single ac-130 to win the round for your team. it's no doubt an interesting game feature and fun to use, but it kills the flow of game play when anyone with double A batteries for brains can have a chance to win the game from a 4 kill streak care package.
accursed kill streaks. Fun for the lol winnar, not fun for the poor schmucks getting sniped from above without a stinger missile.