Like many of you heroes out there, I spent several hours last Friday watching the French play Soul Calibur 5. As the stream ended, I found myself reflecting on two major issues: first, a suffocating, heady mix of shame and loathing at having lost a beautiful day, and second, the traits that make games compelling for spectators.
In fairness, Friday's exhibition wasn't my first rodeo; I've waved a fond farewell to countless hours of my life as I watched them spiral away down the match video/tourney stream toilet, which makes sense within the context of Soul Calibur matches because I'm personally invested in the game. Then again, I've also found myself watching intently as people I don't know play games I've never touched, and I've loved every second of it. So what gives? How does a game become "good tv?"
It's a question of design. The right combination of aesthetics and mechanics can make a game almost as fun to watch as it is to play.
A recent episode of Extra Credits tackled this very issue, among others, in an attempt to break down the challenges facing competitive gaming as "sport." It's worth a watch, but for those of you without the time and inclination to do so, I'll summarize: one of the central points argued in the video is that game designers must take spectatorship into account if a game is to become competitively popular.
The team behind Soul Calibur 5 is proving itself to be impressively savvy in this regard. The series has always had lush visuals and unique character design, but the addition of cinematic super moves--stolen ever-so-blatantly from Street Fighter 4--takes this visual appeal and gives it a huge injection of drama. The brief pause in the action combines with the violently zooming camera shifting to an exotic angle to let us know that things are about to get nasty. Moreover, that pause also gives us a split second of simply not knowing what will happen. Ivy's started up her CE --did Mitsurugi duck in time or is he about to take an unscheduled flight? All of this creates tension and excitement while providing a road map of sorts, unambiguously indicating to the viewer that he's witnessing a critical moment in the match.
SC5 has other elements which are good for spectators, too. Attacks look like they hurt, armor and clothing can be damaged, certain walls change dynamically by breaking or falling when a combatant is knocked into them, and players' health bars change color as their life approaches zero. These are subtle things, but together they operate along the same lines as the cinematic CEs to create a rich, tension-filled viewing experience that doesn't require expert-level knowledge to appreciate.
Binary Busting
Brace yourselves, kids--we're about to get heavy.
Extra Credits didn't stop at pointing out that designers need to take spectators into account. It goes a step further, outright stating that games should be designed for spectators instead of the hardcore player. There's an implicit argument in that sentiment, namely that system depth is inherently incompatible with spectator-oriented design. The view seems widely enough embraced, but it also strikes me as flawed. As we've seen, spectator-friendly elements can be either visual or part of a game's mechanics. The purely visual should have no real bearing on the depth of the game involved, while changes to a game's mechanics can serve to either increase or decrease depth. SC5's cinematic CEs once again provide an excellent example. They are special, situational tactics to which one gains access through appropriate management of the new meter mechanic. They're clearly styled with viewers in mind, but they just as clearly add extra factors to negotiate, thus deepening the gameplay experience.
Conversely, these design elements can add drama while detracting from a game's competitive balance. Take, for example, the dreaded "comeback mechanic." While not as egregious as Tekken 6's "Rage Mode", SC5's practice of giving a player with meter when he is one round away from losing is certainly problematic. Comeback mechanics absolutely add to a match's dramatic tension, but at the cost of essentially rewarding someone for taking an ass-beating, which undermines a game's consistency.
Even so, both the good and bad examples above affect the game's depth independently of how they affect how enjoyable it is to watch. Design teams have limited resources, so it's possible that time spent polishing a game for viewership might detract from time that could be spent deepening the system, but in that sense there's also a resource conflict between system depth and, say, sound design. At the end of the day it seems entirely possible to design a fighting game that is both rewarding to play and entertaining to watch, and I observe that Namco is attempting to do just that with Soul Calibur 5.
Homework:
Go watch some of the archived videos from France's exhibition tournament (or all of 'em, why the hell not?) and think about what makes a game enjoyable to watch, then come tell me what you think. Also, use the comments to weigh in on whether you think games can be spectator-friendly while also retaining their depth. Was Extra Credits right? If so, who should game companies be designing for?
In fairness, Friday's exhibition wasn't my first rodeo; I've waved a fond farewell to countless hours of my life as I watched them spiral away down the match video/tourney stream toilet, which makes sense within the context of Soul Calibur matches because I'm personally invested in the game. Then again, I've also found myself watching intently as people I don't know play games I've never touched, and I've loved every second of it. So what gives? How does a game become "good tv?"
It's a question of design. The right combination of aesthetics and mechanics can make a game almost as fun to watch as it is to play.
A recent episode of Extra Credits tackled this very issue, among others, in an attempt to break down the challenges facing competitive gaming as "sport." It's worth a watch, but for those of you without the time and inclination to do so, I'll summarize: one of the central points argued in the video is that game designers must take spectatorship into account if a game is to become competitively popular.
Curling has finally found the secret to good spectatorship, it seems.
The team behind Soul Calibur 5 is proving itself to be impressively savvy in this regard. The series has always had lush visuals and unique character design, but the addition of cinematic super moves--stolen ever-so-blatantly from Street Fighter 4--takes this visual appeal and gives it a huge injection of drama. The brief pause in the action combines with the violently zooming camera shifting to an exotic angle to let us know that things are about to get nasty. Moreover, that pause also gives us a split second of simply not knowing what will happen. Ivy's started up her CE --did Mitsurugi duck in time or is he about to take an unscheduled flight? All of this creates tension and excitement while providing a road map of sorts, unambiguously indicating to the viewer that he's witnessing a critical moment in the match.
SC5 has other elements which are good for spectators, too. Attacks look like they hurt, armor and clothing can be damaged, certain walls change dynamically by breaking or falling when a combatant is knocked into them, and players' health bars change color as their life approaches zero. These are subtle things, but together they operate along the same lines as the cinematic CEs to create a rich, tension-filled viewing experience that doesn't require expert-level knowledge to appreciate.
Binary Busting
Brace yourselves, kids--we're about to get heavy.
Does this picture really require explanation?
Extra Credits didn't stop at pointing out that designers need to take spectators into account. It goes a step further, outright stating that games should be designed for spectators instead of the hardcore player. There's an implicit argument in that sentiment, namely that system depth is inherently incompatible with spectator-oriented design. The view seems widely enough embraced, but it also strikes me as flawed. As we've seen, spectator-friendly elements can be either visual or part of a game's mechanics. The purely visual should have no real bearing on the depth of the game involved, while changes to a game's mechanics can serve to either increase or decrease depth. SC5's cinematic CEs once again provide an excellent example. They are special, situational tactics to which one gains access through appropriate management of the new meter mechanic. They're clearly styled with viewers in mind, but they just as clearly add extra factors to negotiate, thus deepening the gameplay experience.
Conversely, these design elements can add drama while detracting from a game's competitive balance. Take, for example, the dreaded "comeback mechanic." While not as egregious as Tekken 6's "Rage Mode", SC5's practice of giving a player with meter when he is one round away from losing is certainly problematic. Comeback mechanics absolutely add to a match's dramatic tension, but at the cost of essentially rewarding someone for taking an ass-beating, which undermines a game's consistency.
Even so, both the good and bad examples above affect the game's depth independently of how they affect how enjoyable it is to watch. Design teams have limited resources, so it's possible that time spent polishing a game for viewership might detract from time that could be spent deepening the system, but in that sense there's also a resource conflict between system depth and, say, sound design. At the end of the day it seems entirely possible to design a fighting game that is both rewarding to play and entertaining to watch, and I observe that Namco is attempting to do just that with Soul Calibur 5.
Another of life's most important design decisions; a classic one.
Homework:
Go watch some of the archived videos from France's exhibition tournament (or all of 'em, why the hell not?) and think about what makes a game enjoyable to watch, then come tell me what you think. Also, use the comments to weigh in on whether you think games can be spectator-friendly while also retaining their depth. Was Extra Credits right? If so, who should game companies be designing for?
