The game is not fun to watch?

Talk about Battlefleet Gothic: Armada here!
babypha
Posts: 41
Joined: 13 March 2016, 09:56
Contact:

The game is not fun to watch?

Postby babypha » 07 April 2016, 23:33

Sorry for the provocative title, but I thought this was really an important matter to think about.

As you all probably know already, a game's viewership number in twitch is one of the most accurate and reliable source to track the game's popularity. There could be some exceptions, but average viewer count on twitch is usually a huge factor to the game's future success, or to measure one at the moment.

So I was watching someone's streaming today. It was a small streaming. The streamer casually said, "It's fun game to play. Probably not that fun to watch tho," and then I realized this could be actually true. It's heartbreaking to say, but compared to other major RTS games like Starcraft 2, Warcraft 3 and Dawn of War 2 even, I'm not so sure if BFGA is more fun to watch than those.

Yes, popular games get more viewers. However, when the game is not really fun to watch people don't really watch them regardless of its popularity. Let me give you few examples(even though could be bad ones)

Rocket league and Fallout 4 both have similar 24 hours peak/average player count, which is about 30,000. (Rocket league: http://steamcharts.com/app/252950) (Fallout 4: http://steamcharts.com/app/377160) However, Rocket league almost always has more average twitch viewer count than Fallout 4, usually by multiple times. This is obviously because it is more fun to watch Rocket league than Fallout 4.

Same goes to Rust and Civilization V. Despite the almost identical player count(About ~35,000), Rust would almost always get more viewers on twitch. So it is safe to say there are different types of games. A game fun to watch, and a game fun to play. Some of them are probably both, and some of them are probably neither.

Viewer count and being on the front page on twitch itself is an excellent advertising for the game. It will be likely more effective than any other advertising devs could come up with. It must be very important to make a game that is fun to watch. At least I believe so.

Do you guys think the current BFGA is fun enough to watch? If not, what can be improved?

User avatar
Imperator5
(Former) Technical Tester
Posts: 3063
Joined: 22 December 2015, 07:46
Contact:

Re: The game is not fun to watch?

Postby Imperator5 » 07 April 2016, 23:35

What the F is a twitch? Games are not for watching, games are for playing, stop being Cartmanbraaa.
http://forum.battlefleetgothic-armada.com/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=621

Please help me change skirmish to be customisable. Its very important for PVE players.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=515 Mod idea.

Zephyranthes
Posts: 250
Joined: 16 March 2016, 12:56
Contact:

Re: The game is not fun to watch?

Postby Zephyranthes » 07 April 2016, 23:36

It's a niche game. Twitch is not the end all be all of game popularity, it's for entertainment and most of the popular streamers are more entertaining than some amazing pro player that everyone sits in awe watching their skills.

babypha
Posts: 41
Joined: 13 March 2016, 09:56
Contact:

Re: The game is not fun to watch?

Postby babypha » 07 April 2016, 23:37

Imperator5 wrote:What the F is a twitch? Games are not for watching, games are for playing, stop being Cartmanbraaa.


Fun to watch is VERY important. Some people don't even play the game but watch the competitive games of it for fun. Not to mention that the enormous advertising effect twitch can bring... we want BFGA to be more popular, don't we? :roll:

User avatar
HERO
Posts: 888
Joined: 27 October 2015, 04:09

Re: The game is not fun to watch?

Postby HERO » 07 April 2016, 23:43

I will post what I said in another thread because I think a lot of it pertains here:
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1800&start=40#p17911

Titler wrote:
Azrael wrote:People keep using the fact that this is based off a turn based table top game as a reason that TC should remain. I would like to point out that Dawn of War is based on a turn based tabletop game and it doesn't have the ability to slow down your turns on a whim.

*snip*

But don't make me suffer because you feel like you still need to hit off the damned tee.


Which Dawn of War? Because there are two, and they are radically different types of games, in that they focus on different parts of the Real Time Strategy genre.

The first game was much more focused upon the Strategy part; it ran in real time yes, but due to base building, terrain, and open maps someone who knew how to utilize resources correctly, build logistical lines, and use their base as an extra part of their army would find their forces multiplied considerably... Yes, being able to Micro the units efficiently helped, but if you couldn't replace them in the field as quickly as possible and where they were needed, you simply weren't that good at Strategy.

Yes, in DoW 1, I often would take players with faster Micro reactions out to the woodshed, sometimes even up to 4v1 because despite being outnumbered they didn't grasp the idea of mutual defence or the importance of having their logistic chain broken, or didn't know how to co-ordinate attacks so I didn't have the space to strike on the field where it really counted... When I drifted from that game, I uploaded all of my replays (For Dark Crusade) here.

And then there was DoW 2. Which is largely a MOBA, even down to some of the maps being pure 3 Lane styles. And MOBAs are focused on the Real Time elements. It's all about how fast you can micro your heroes; There's very little Macro strategy, indeed for purists that gets in the way of the twitch style gameplay. Over in DoW 2 gameplay devolves down to everyone blobbing together, rushing the other's power supply, and who ever micros the initial fight better and gives themselves the quick victory wins. And like most MOBAs, DoW2 then spends about 30 minutes whilst that initial fight slowly ticks into that final win, giving people time to bask in their supposed superiority; base attacks virtually never happen except as a Tier 3 "Humiliation".

And whilst it's a personal choice which gameplay style you prefer... there's a reason why MOBAs tend to be so much more popular than older RTS online ever were. It's the same reason every army has only 1 Napoloen and hundreds of thousands of grunts; it takes a lot more types of quality to be a good general. And MOBAs rely upon much less of a skill range than a true RTS. Fast reactions, rote learning of the metagame, and not much else.

So it's actually THOSE type of games that are for "crutch players", because they lower the standard of skills needed to be able to claim to be good. Of course, with the arrogance of youth, those who love them often trash talk and claim that it shows how l33t they are that they can hammer a mouse faster than you can; they claim it's "skill". It's A skill, but hardly the only one, and not one they can really train or perfect beyond the ability their body already gifted them. And one day, they'll hate the youth in turn who show them and their ageing, fading skills up, because there's always going to be someone younger and faster than you just a few years behind...

The question is then, what kind of audience does BFG have? Go on, be honest. It's a niche product isn't it, and mostly made up of older gamers who love the WH40k lore. Now Dawn of War, it had a HUGE community for a while. Because it had an incredible product in DoW1; but what happened with DoW2? The audience collapsed, didn't it? There were other factors involved, true (like how it was nowhere near as easy to mod, it came with the horrendous Games For Windows Live at launch etc) but the community in large part walked away when they saw how it was a twitch MOBA clone.... Likewise, the game Space Marine never had a huge multiplayer community. In fact I'm struggling to think of any GW property that did outside of DoW1. The same will happen here too if you take out the tactical slow down... the fans of the game are just not that into the playstyle of micro mash-mash-mashing things together as fast as possible.

So leave Tactical slowdown in.


I'm going to keep this brief because I don't want to rehash a lot of the same points I've made in the 30 other threads on this forum on TC.

I completely disagree with your assessment on all of the games above. I have played every single one of those games, DoW1, DoW2 and Space Marine on very competitive levels. I was in ESL-P for DoW1, part of their internal balance team, and played against the best in the world frequently, I was the highest TS Eldar player for DoW2 through Chaos Rising, and I played a ton of Space Marine MP.

Out of all of those games, DoW1 was by far the most competitive, with the highest skill ceiling, and with the highest level of micro/macro. There was a reason why it was considered for WCG, and was featured in several professional gaming leagues (ESL being the big one). DoW2, not so much since it was basically a 40K-modded CoH with melee components, and Space Marine, was the most casual of all as it was a hack and slash.

From that, you got your assessment completely backwards. The most casual crowd played Space Marine, but it had the smallest MP presence and concurrency. Then you have DoW2, and then you have DoW1.

So on this point:
The same will happen here too if you take out the tactical slow down... the fans of the game are just not that into the playstyle of micro mash-mash-mashing things together as fast as possible.


This might surprise you, and a lot of players here, but for companies like Relic, EA, Blizzard, or any other company who have made competitive RTS games before, one fact remains true: To keep an online presence, with strong numbers and popular concurrency, the game must have competitive elements. That's why even super casual games like Hearthstone, have a competitive community featuring tons of eSports-related events, tournaments and prize support. This should be no surprise for those who know about LoL and DotA, the two most popular MOBAs out there, with HotS trailing behind some. Likewise, we can argue the same about Counter-Strike and Halo. Out of all of these games I just mentioned, almost all of which have HUGE casual crowds, because their games are pretty accessible and easy to pick up. However, to keep the online community truly engaged, the game must be designed for the competitive player first. These are the players who drive the online scene; both in terms of free marketing and promotions through streams, youtube, twitch and replay support, but also in realm of eSports, which in actuality, is just another form of digital marketing from a business perspective.

Therefore, it is a proven formula that online concurrency is kept intact by competitively-driven game design. When you design the game from the top-down, very rarely do casual players object. In fact, they hardly notice. Why? Because there's more important game elements that matter for them: The art direction, the graphics, VFX, sounds, you know, the same things that attract the hobbyist vs. the tournament table-top player. Casual game design attracts the masses, but competitive game design keeps them there. This is the same mentality that causes millions of people to watch sports, even though they don't play it, or play it on a high level. If like what they see, because they play the same game, they will keep watching. The more people that watch, the more attention that it will draw, and this is a form of marketing that is needed to drive the online community forward.

So back to what I said before, if you want this game to continue online, there's going to be two key things that the developers in this game have to realize. What I said above about designing the game from the top-down, and mod support. Mods are one of the reasons why a 10+ year old game like DoW1 is still being played today, over other games of the same genre, despite them being more newb-friendly.

I don't want this to go too long, but you gotta trust me when I say I know what I'm talking about. Let's just say that this field is important to me, professionally.

Psykmoe
Posts: 161
Joined: 13 March 2016, 14:58
Contact:

Re: The game is not fun to watch?

Postby Psykmoe » 07 April 2016, 23:45

babypha wrote:
Same goes to Rust and Civilization V.

Do you guys think the current BFGA is fun enough to watch? If not, what can be improved?



Well, since we're comparing Rust and Civ V, I guess one obvious solution would be to completely change the genre to something more attractive for the viewer. If only Civ V had been a first person....4X game?

Edit:

Oh my god, suddenly a 3 page post, half of which is quoting a TacCog argument. TC threads are leaking.

babypha
Posts: 41
Joined: 13 March 2016, 09:56
Contact:

Re: The game is not fun to watch?

Postby babypha » 07 April 2016, 23:52

Psykmoe wrote:Well, since we're comparing Rust and Civ V, I guess one obvious solution would be to completely change the genre to something more attractive for the viewer.


Not my point. Try again.

Psykmoe
Posts: 161
Joined: 13 March 2016, 14:58
Contact:

Re: The game is not fun to watch?

Postby Psykmoe » 07 April 2016, 23:54

babypha wrote:
Psykmoe wrote:Well, since we're comparing Rust and Civ V, I guess one obvious solution would be to completely change the genre to something more attractive for the viewer.


Not my point. Try again.


Could you amend your original essay with sources cited? I'm very interested to see the research regarding the relevance of twitch viewership.

I know you expected readers to already know all about this, but I don't.

Soulequilibrium
Posts: 29
Joined: 29 March 2016, 23:50
Contact:

Re: The game is not fun to watch?

Postby Soulequilibrium » 07 April 2016, 23:58

Whilst more popularity is good for sales and exposure via streaming can help in that I'm going to say that a game should be fun to play first and foremost. Whether or not it's fun to watch is never as important as how good the game itself is. Not for the quality of the game itself at least. It does certainly help for longevity, especially in multiplayer, however.

Anyway I don't actually have the game as I'm lacking income and can't justify buying it so I've been watching a lot of footage online. From that experience I can say that Armada is plenty of fun to watch frankly. It's mostly made not fun by let's play players being clueless about what they are doing because they can't be bothered to properly set aside half an hour and read all the tool tips so they actually understand how the game works. Aside from that it can be quite exciting. Especially if the person playing makes an effort to set up some nice rams or crossfires and shows them off with fancy camera work. This game is utterly beautiful after all and there are quite a bit of tactics involved so there's room to experiment and keep it fresh. My biggest gripe is not the game itself, but the people showcasing it. So yea, fun to watch in my book.

babypha
Posts: 41
Joined: 13 March 2016, 09:56
Contact:

Re: The game is not fun to watch?

Postby babypha » 08 April 2016, 00:03

Psykmoe wrote:I know you expected readers to already know all about this, but I don't.


You don't? You haven't done reading then, here is your F.


Return to “General Gameplay Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: MSN [Bot] and 3 guests

cron