Seeking opinions: What type of gameplay WOULD make SC2 fun to watch.

[Nicol Bolas]

I think Archer has it backwards with what makes something interesting. It isn't whether you know it's mechanically difficult or not. It's rarity that makes something interesting and unique.

When you've watched 200+ StarCraft matches, you start to get a feel for the flow of them. You know what to expect when player X does Y. Etc.

Boxer is Boxer because what is does is specifically different from what other people do. He's a micro player in a macro game, so his playstyle is fundamentally different from everyone else. What he does is interesting because you haven't seen it before.

Now yes, the reason why most of these things aren't standard is because they're too difficult for most players to pull off or simply too risky. But risky play is just as interesting as difficult play, if for no other reason than that you know if everything doesn't go just right, it'll all fall apart.

The issue in SC2 is that we haven't seen enough of it. We don't know what "standard" play is. Indeed, "standard" play probably hasn't even developed internally at Blizzard. So deviations from the standard simply look normal.

Is the Ghost massacre in BR4 normal for TvP? Is that generally how Terrans bring down a Protoss player? Or was this something novel that David Kim invented on the spur of the moment?

[Santrega]

Wow, I guess I disagree that sc2 isnt fun to watch. I've watched all of the battle reports at least 10 times each, and the fourth was pretty damn enjoyable in my opinion. I liked br4 better than the others, but I enjoyed all of them.

I think there are a few major reasons why I enjoy every battle report of sc2 more than most any game i've seen in sc, with a few exceptions (I'll list the exceptions after):

1) Fast Start - The first major reason would be the down time in the beginning has been decreased significantly by giving each player 6 workers instead of 4, allowing them to get started with the action sooner

2) More Action, Less boredom - Less downtime after a big battle as we don't have to watch for minutes with no action while each race builds up again, as the reason it takes that long in sc1 is because of the difficulty of macro (Single building selection, manual mine, etc). In sc2, players are able to actually make use of the resources they get and quickly replenish an army to go after the opponent again.

3) Leaderboards(Units/Researching/Resources panels) - The actual replay leader board additions make it much more fun to watch the game because you can actually see what the players are doing.

4) Player Selection/Movement Indicators - You can see where each player is clicking, or what they have selected, giving you a better idea of what each player is doing at any particular moment. Basically it allows you to feel more a part of the game, because you are sort of getting into the minds of the players, rather than just watching units move around.

These four reasons are the major reasons I enjoy sc2 more than almost any sc1 game.

Sc1 Exceptions

I have seen a game where 2 protoss players were constantly going at it, and they killed eachothers base, and built nexus's in eachothers main, effectively switching spots. This was one of the games I just went "holy crap, I can't believe that just happened". For both players to go all in, destroy eachother, and replace their main in eachothers starting locations, was both exciting to watch, and probably one of the most amazing games I've seen.

I've seen a few other pro games where the action was pretty non-stop, and they showcased amazing microing ability, however, it was mostly the commentator who caught all the great action which made the game most enjoyable to watch. In sc1, you are really unable to get a good idea of how each player plays the game, outside of build orders and unit movements. In my opinion, that makes it hard to feel a part of the action.

[Gifted]

Good points brought up Nicol, thanks for keeping it constructive/positive. (At this point, I'll apologize to Archer for kinda shutting him down, if good constructive points on what MAKES a game fun come from it, not bad)

While I think rarity shows a good example.. my thought is that it's more complex than than, maybe a combination of the two. A support for the other angle is Jaedong's and July's Muta Micro. While it's been emulated many many times, it can also be seen to be very entertaining against a good terran opponent.

... BUT... further supporting your point... any variance form a standard strategy really turns a good game into a great game. I don't have a link, but I remember one time when July went mutas... it got to the point that Terran had critical mass, normally where the zerg changes tech, and he instead kept going at it with Mutas.

The game got CRAZY fast as you suddenly had a critical mass of marines versus a critical mass of mutas... Ya know, I can see your point.

Maybe variance of play is a better semantic, but the "intent" of rarity is definately something I agree with.

[Pandonetho]

Hm, well first things first, let's just be clear that I DO find SC2 fun to watch. Nicol's point I also agree with, rarity is fun to watch, but you have to be skilled at what you're doing. Watching someone go valks just to lose isn't fun, watching someone do something rare and unorthodox, but successfully, IS fun.

@bothI know it defeats the purpose of your "don't know yet" theory, but can you think of an example that you would thoroughly enjoy, such as dropping mules to block a ramp? (Pulled that one out of my arse)

For example, maybe this would be considered unorthodox or inefficient, but what if a Protoss player made a ring of forcefields trapping in a bunch of its own units in the middle of an enemy base, like a Colossus or a bunch of stalkers, this could perhaps lead to considerable damage to the base while granting immunity to melee units. (Also pulled out of my arse).

[ArcherofAiur]

I think Archer has it backwards with what makes something interesting. It isn't whether you know it's mechanically difficult or not. It's rarity that makes something interesting and unique.

When you've watched 200+ StarCraft matches, you start to get a feel for the flow of them. You know what to expect when player X does Y. Etc.

Boxer is Boxer because what is does is specifically different from what other people do. He's a micro player in a macro game, so his playstyle is fundamentally different from everyone else. What he does is interesting because you haven't seen it before.

Now yes, the reason why most of these things aren't standard is because they're too difficult for most players to pull off or simply too risky. But risky play is just as interesting as difficult play, if for no other reason than that you know if everything doesn't go just right, it'll all fall apart.

The issue in SC2 is that we haven't seen enough of it. We don't know what "standard" play is. Indeed, "standard" play probably hasn't even developed internally at Blizzard. So deviations from the standard simply look normal.

Is the Ghost massacre in BR4 normal for TvP? Is that generally how Terrans bring down a Protoss player? Or was this something novel that David Kim invented on the spur of the moment?

Rarity can make a play interesting. And in some ways that is connected to what were talking about. But the mechanical difficulty adds its own enjoyment simply from the fact that you cannot do what they are doing. "OMG how was he able to make all those guys while still doing that drop!" "WOW he was able to destroy the probe scouting him while keeping his probe alive and making all those buildings" "Cool while he was defending that contain he also expanded. I could never do that!"

These kind of things happen in every game and they are no less deminished by that.

[Gifted]

Hm, well first things first, let's just be clear that I DO find SC2 fun to watch. Nicol's point I also agree with, rarity is fun to watch, but you have to be skilled at what you're doing. Watching someone go valks just to lose isn't fun, watching someone do something rare and unorthodox, but successfully, IS fun.



For example, maybe this would be considered unorthodox or inefficient, but what if a Protoss player made a ring of forcefields trapping in a bunch of its own units in the middle of an enemy base, like a Colossus or a bunch of stalkers, this could perhaps lead to considerable damage to the base while granting immunity to melee units. (Also pulled out of my arse).

I agree, that would be fantastic to watch. Thanks for thinking of one.

Rarity can make a play interesting. And in some ways that is connected to what were talking about. But the mechanical difficulty adds its own enjoyment simply from the fact that you cannot do what they are doing. "OMG how was he able to make all those guys while still doing that drop!" "WOW he was able to destroy the probe scouting him while keeping his probe alive and making all those buildings" "Cool while he was defending that contain he also expanded. I could never do that!"

These kind of things happen in every game and they are no less deminished by that.

A good example that supports both would be the previously mentioned muta micro. While it's not neccessarily rare itself now, rare things can come out of it. The micro and mechanic ability required to perform such actions is commendable too.

Also, the initial 4 on 4 units, or 3 on 6 zergling micro can be rather exciting as well. This is nowhere near rare, but is highly mechanical. (Where the death of a single marine in early game could cause the entire crowd to gasp) This should probably conclude that at least 2 of the facets that make a game interesting are both rarity (or variance from standard play) and mechanical ability (a high show of skill). I wonder what other facets would fit into the mix.

[Santrega]

Rarity can make a play interesting. And in some ways that is connected to what were talking about. But the mechanical difficulty adds its own enjoyment simply from the fact that you cannot do what they are doing. "OMG how was he able to make all those guys while still doing that drop!" "WOW he was able to destroy the probe scouting him while keeping his probe alive and making all those buildings" "Cool while he was defending that contain he also expanded. I could never do that!"

These kind of things happen in every game and they are no less deminished by that.

I think watching something that is impossible for you to do at all is more frustrating than enjoyable. I agree that I want to see professionals pull off things in a way thats close to impossible to do, but I'd expect that to come because they execute an action perfectly, when the rest of us cannot, rather than because they can do something thats impossible for us.

For example, watching american football and seeing a linebacker perfectly diagnose a play, follows the QB's eyes, and perfectly times an interception. This isn't impossible for people to do, but its difficult to do without the preparation, instinct, and experience that the pro linebacker has.

I prefer difficult to do for all over impossible for most.

[ArcherofAiur]

I think watching something that is impossible for you to do at all is more frustrating than enjoyable. I agree that I want to see professionals pull off things in a way thats close to impossible to do, but I'd expect that to come because they execute an action perfectly, when the rest of us cannot, rather than because they can do something thats impossible for us.

I remember the first time I saw muta micro. I was blown away. So I went online and researched it. The I tried to do it. Failed. Kept trying. Kept failing. Got alittle better. Got alittle better. And so forth.

Then the first time I beat an opponent using it. Amazing. Now by that point I had seen muta micro a thousand times. It was in no way a rarety. But that did not at all take away from the incredible feeling of having mastered a mechanicaly demanding skill. If Mutamicro had just been slightly hard I doubt that I would have had such an experience.

[Santrega]

I remember the first time I saw muta micro. I was blown away. So I went online and researched it. The I tried to do it. Failed. Kept trying. Kept failing. Got alittle better. Got alittle better. And so forth.

Then the first time I beat an opponent using it. Amazing. Now by that point I had seen muta micro a thousand times. It was in no way a rarety. But that did not at all take away from the incredible feeling of having mastered a mechanicaly demanding skill. If Mutamicro had just been slightly hard I doubt that I would have had such an experience.

I get that adversity makes it more rewarding to play, but I dont think that has anything to do with making it more enjoyable to watch.

Edit - The kind of adversity you want to see in a game is one side take a big advantage, and then the other side is able to come back and win, or for both sides to be evenly matched and then all of a sudden theres this amazing shift of momentum. The changes in momentum are the adversity that bring enjoyment watching a game, not just respect for the difficulty to play it.

Most of what you said there shows the reward for doing something you felt was impossible, however, I still believe even if it was easier you'd feel the same reward, because i'm not sure a mind is capable of having satisfaction from achievement, and then greater satisfaction from greater achievement. I think you just get satisfaction from any achievement. You can claim one is bigger, but i dont think you feel one is bigger. Most people just remember the latest feeling as the biggest feeling, or put logic into it and say, obviously this was bigger, so I must have felt more satisfaction there.

[ArcherofAiur]

I get that adversity makes it more rewarding to play, but I dont think that has anything to do with making it more enjoyable to watch.

Oh i should have mentioned that part. While I was learning to muta micro I was watching muta micro games. And knowing what it was like for me to do it made watching them do it so perfectly that much more exciting. Its hard to describe but it really was amazing. I knew what to look for and I could imagine where and just how fast they were clicking and how hard it was to get split second timing like they had. It added a whole new dimension.