I'm working on an article that's writing about video game spectatorship from the perspective of usability and understandability. Anecdotally, I often hear people report issues that they encounter following what's going on on the screen. One of the bars go to in Brighton often streams matches from the Overwatch League, and despite various improvements, people still frequently report difficulty understanding what exactly is happening at any one time. Similarly, I've heard people struggle to follow the action in Rainbow Six Siege.
I've always found things like fighting games easy to follow. Particularly games like Street Fighter and Tekken, which don't have a myriad of hidden bars and systems. Although spectators might not appreciate all of the mechanics behind a combo, or special move execution, they can easily get an understanding of what's happening on screen. They can tell who is winning or losing in an instant.
But within other genres, like FPS, where each player has their own perspective, people experience more difficulty keeping track of what's going on, especially those that are new to the game. With this in mind...
Questions to guide discussion
Do you ever find it difficult to follow what's happening when spectating a game, particularly esports?
What difficulties do you encounter?
Are there any specific improvements you'd like to see to improve the readability of esports games?
I play Mobas but I still can't understand what is happening on a team clash when watching the game. I think it is because its hard to focus on 10 characters at once, rather than 2 fighters.
For shooters, it is much easier to understand Splatoon because of the Ink mechanics.
For FPSs it just depends on the game. Something like Counter Strike or TF2 with mostly clean artstyles are easy to follow. Something like Overwatch where everybody is packing sparkle cannons less so.
For FPSs it just depends on the game. Something like Counter Strike or TF2 with mostly clean artstyles are easy to follow. Something like Overwatch where everybody is packing sparkle cannons less so.
I find even CS and similar have their issues. Yes the action is inherently more readable because the maps are quite clear, but in some instances everything happens so quickly that it's inherently difficult to give the spectator a clear perspective of everything that's going down. I've seen rounds before where I've watched the player I'm spectating get shot, then suddenly it's all over. Everyone on one team is dead in a moments notice.
Only game that can be an issue to follow for me is Overwatch. It really needs dota 2 style options, where you can view matches in game and have free control over camera controls.
I find even CS and similar have their issues. Yes the action is inherently more readable because the maps are quite clear, but in some instances everything happens so quickly that it's inherently difficult to give the spectator a clear perspective of everything that's going down. I've seen rounds before where I've watched the player I'm spectating get shot, then suddenly it's all over. Everyone on one team is dead in a moments notice.
CS has a pretty low ttk so that can happen a bit more. Still, there's a reason it's the esport FPS, and it's because it's readable. But games like TF2 (where ttk is higher so plays aren't over in a second) or Quake (where there's usually smaller player counts) are better.
The only time I really have problems with FPSs is when stuff like this happens:
It is interesting that you point out fighting games as an example where it is generally done well.
I found it really difficult to watch Skullgirls and follow what was going on at times, like sure I could follow who was ahead and who was on the attack but otherwise I just couldn't really follow what was going on. I think that was a personal preference thing but I felt like the art style really impacted what you're talking about.
The best way that I'd describe where it is done well is where you don't really need to concentrate to understand what is going on. I think if you need to focus as a spectator then a game is going to suffer.
I think Smash also suffers from this, for outsiders in particular. I'd argue that there's games that you can generally understand without playing it yourself and games where you really need to be a somewhat experienced player to even think about spectating.
Only game that can be an issue to follow for me is Overwatch. It really needs dota 2 style options, where you can view matches in game and have free control over camera controls.
Fightings games are easy to follow, even when I don't know the language. The health bar and the combo system is always a good indicator to follow. FPS, team-based games like Overwatch are simply hard to follow because there is an overload on information and I can't immediately assess when a good play is being made. Considering that plays that could be considered impressive needs to be to the level of team kills or wild plays like a roadhog hooking a DVA bomb to sacrifice himself are few and far between, most of the match is just downtime for strategies that I cannot understand, and an excitement that I can't feel. I can't think of any improvement, because fancy systems like bird's eye view is fun but ultimately pointless as it just detracts from the action and the things that I would consider exciting to watch. It's as if football would focus on the field, I want to see the ball instead, because I want to know what players are doing with it. It's just not that fun to watch unless there is a level of knowledge that is ironically much more complex to learn than fighting games, even though they're much easier games to get into.
In Tekken the feedback is there. You hear the hit, it's crunchy, it's loud, it's satisfying. In overwatch, there is no clear indicator that is visually satisfying and an anchor to my visual entertainment. Rainbow Six is a tad easier to understand because good plays are much easier to understand, and the pace/depth of a game goes much further than team strategies. Someone shoots an enemy through a wall ? Very good, I get that. It's a 1v3 and the editor is focusing on crafting a storyline about him potentially making a comeback ? I can get that.
All I want to say is that I think Overwatch is not exciting for me, lol. I hardly watch Rainbow Six but I can assess what's good and readable even if the snail pace is off-putting to some. It's just visual information making a difference, and the time needed for editors/commentators to craft a story out of what's happening. Overwatch doesn't seem to offer that space, for me.
Specifically with FPS games, I have huge issues following things when spectators switch between players (or in case of Overwatch, when they switch between first and third person, or sometimes even switch to a free flowing camera or fixed camera angle). I very much prefer when the camera stays fixed on a single player, even if that means losing some information since you can't see everything that's happening.
That's one of the biggest reasons why I think Quake duels are the best spectator FPS esport, since you can generally focus on just one player and not loose too much info. It also helps that most spectators and players will use high contrast models, as well as a mode that reduces visual clutter, making things even easier to see.
I don't really watch too much FPS games though, particularly since Blizzard is trying their hardest to make it impossible for Europeans to do it. So maybe its just a lack of experience.
For DotA-likes, I generally think the games are just inherently confusing. That is to say, I fond them just as confusing when playing as I do when watching. There's just too much flashy visual effects going on at the same time. One thing that most tournaments have caught on by now is that having an experienced "cameraman" that just moves the camera and does nothing else is essential. Otherwise even experienced casters can easily miss things happening off screen.
Fighting games work fine, really. Even here though, there are some games that do it better. In particular, I appreciate how Arcsys games will show special symbols for unblocked overheads, failed throw techs, unblockables, dropped combos and stuff like that. I makes things much more readable, and in case of overhead indicators also shows in what way a player screwed up.
Fighters are the only one I can really follow just because of the single screen nature of the game, everyone is seeing the same thing. It's just easy to see who's on the attack even I don't understand how the player can pull of that sequence. One on one fighters are especially easy to follow, VS games can be tougher with more going on.
I always found Halo 2 to be a very good spectating experience due to the pacing of the game, the on screen indicators and the clean art style. I cannot for the life of me tell what is going on in Overwatch and when big cluster**** team fights happen in LOL despite putting lots of time into both.
I think that currently most people watching esports also play the games (at least occasionally) so it's easier for them to follow the action.
Fighting games are OK for everyone because they're usually very simple to read, you may not know why player 2 got hit and lost, but you can tell what's happening. They can get confusing when visuals are very busy, like in Marvel 3, but most fighting games are very clean looking (they also need to be readable for gameplay reasons).
MOBAs have a good overhead camera, but you MUST be a player to understand what's going on. The casters can't really explain all the abilities and items being used at the same time, it's just too much stuff. MOBAs also have gigantic audiences, so it's not a big deal, for now.
FPS is a genre I never watch because I find hard to spectate in first person. I never feel like I have a good view of the action, and when they switch to a 3rd person camera it's just for a few seconds because everyone is moving so fast (at least in CSGO). I suppose it would be much easier if I played the game, though. Maybe it would be easier if they were shown like Formula 1 races: fixed cameras on the track side for most of the time and first person view only when it's appropriate.
Most of this stuff is obvious but here's my 5 cents...
I'd argue that announcers/casters are extremely important to making almost any game watchable. A bad one will ruin the experience for everyone including newbies and people who know all about the game, a good one can lift the experience for veteran viewers while also making it easier to follow for new people.
Other than that you just have to put some time into watching the games. You can't start watching a completely new game (or sport) and expect to understand everything quickly, it simply takes time to learn the ins and outs (and this is also where a good caster will help tremendously) of any game. While you learn the game you also start to learn the players and that's also something you can't just pick up instantly, it takes time but when you start to see those familiar names it also makes it easier to follow the game. When you know player X is always guarding bomb site B in map Y, it makes it easier to see the big picture as well as makes it instantly interesting when you notice that the player is NOT at bomb site B this round.
The games I follow (CS, Starcraft 2) are clean and visually easy to follow with nice overlays for watching, that's pretty much something the developers have to work on. It's also a chicken and an egg situation, why put in the effort to work on features like that before you know your game becomes an esports hit, but it will have harder time to become one if the UI isn't good and the game is visually messy.
One more note is that just playing the same game is not enough to know everything unless you are playing at the highest level already. I've played WoW since it's release but my arena experience is limited at best. The few times I've tried to follow arena matches I really have no idea what is going on. I'm sure I'd pick it up if I kept watching for a while. Also seemingly similar games are usually not all that similar when you get to the highest level.
A lot of it comes down to familiarity with the game and understanding what options are available at any given moment. Fighting games for example, I have less interest in seeing someone get collected and comboed from 50 to 0 but the footsies before hand can sometimes be interesting. However I imagine to those who don't know the range, speed and options of the characters on screen it will look quite boring.
MOBA has this problem for me in spades. I no longer really keep up with any, new heroes constantly, new tactics and such.
I guess, understanding a game's "meta" will help a lot. However seeing a good play can be very enjoyable even without understanding a lot of the mechanics.
RTS games are a nightmare to follow unless you know what's happening. Them switching screens every tenth of a second doing a lot of button inputs and not understanding he just, say, queued 4 assault units because it happened in the blink of an eye. Shooters are, to me, much easier to follow overall, because their gameplay complexity is relatively low, and while you may not understand why the player is moving in a certain direction or doing a certain attack, you can still kinda guess what's the endgame.
An eSport that is handled and presented well, despite it being barely an eSport (it's officially considered as such) is the Drone Racing League. There the commentary gives a good picture of how everything works including the drones from a technical point of view, so after a few events you really get who does what and why. Of course it isn't a videogame, so there's that. But it's also true that other racing game eSports work out well, and the recent finals for F1 eSports and MotoGP eSports showed this nicely, but that is probably because you are basically simulating reality, so following a virtual race is about as difficult as following a real one.
Yesterday I watched for the first time an es ports channel, I was watching a CS:Go match and was surprised how much of a mess it was.
Most of the sports I watch are visualized in a way you can follow the action and what's happening. In football you have a cam on a proper distance following the ball, so you have a sense of the strategy and the actions of most of the players, even when the plays gets a bit confusing you can see what's going on.
Same with basketball, tennis, etc...
In CS:Go by mostly focusing in the POV of the players you barely have an understanding of what's going on and where, the map with the position of the players is barely helpful and those players with those spastic mouse movements makes from something you can barely appreciate as an spectator, unless you spent significant time with the game.
It doesn't help that the matches are basically a minute or two of nothing happening and then it was resolved in a mere seconds with the editing team barely being able to cover what was going on (that maybe was just a particular thing of that map and teams)
In the end, I didn't enjoyed, I coiñuld appreciate the skill involved, sure, because I played the game and I know about it. But as a "this was fun", something I could watch with people that don't play the game? Nah.
I think these games, specifically FPS, needs a way to present the esport way better in a way that you can see clearly was going on and the action is happening.
My esports watching experience is more with starcraft 2 and dota 2 but since I played both I never had a super big problem especially with commentators breaking stuff down.
But if I had to point on the thing that I find most distracting when watching is the frequent perspective shift. I feel it's not really the complexity that is so much a problem but how it's presented. After all people watch American Football which I think is a pretty complex game. But the thing is you can present that with the focus mostly being on line formation and then zoom in on specific players/plays after.
In dota 2 and starcraft 2 you just have frequent location jumps in the viewer presentation to tell the story I would assume to especially the laymen that is incredibly disorienting. I'm not sure maybe having a more zoomed out view that puts more emphasis on map movement would make it easier to appreciate to laymen but you lose out on having it look dynamic given if you zoom out the way those games are set up everything just kinda becomes pretty icons moving at best instead of actual units.
Only game that can be an issue to follow for me is Overwatch. It really needs dota 2 style options, where you can view matches in game and have free control over camera controls.
Yeah this can be a good option for some games, though less accessible for a lot of people as you have to actually run the game to spectate. Not good for group spectatorship either.
Yesterday I watched for the first time an es ports channel, I was watching a CS:Go match and was surprised how much of a mess it was.
Most of the sports I watch are visualized in a way you can follow the action and what's happening. In football you have a cam on a proper distance following the ball, so you have a sense of the strategy and the actions of most of the players, even when the plays gets a bit confusing you can see what's going on.
Same with basketball, tennis, etc...
In CS:Go by mostly focusing in the POV of the players you barely have an understanding of what's going on and where, the map with the position of the players is barely helpful and those players with those spastic mouse movements makes from something you can barely appreciate as an spectator, unless you spent significant time with the game.
It doesn't help that the matches are basically a minute or two of nothing happening and then it was resolved in a mere seconds with the editing team barely being able to cover what was going on (that maybe was just a particular thing of that map and teams)
In the end, I didn't enjoyed, I coiñuld appreciate the skill involved, sure, because I played the game and I know about it. But as a "this was fun", something I could watch with people that don't play the game? Nah.
I think these games, specifically FPS, needs a way to present the esport way better in a way that you can see clearly was going on and the action is happening.
Beat me to most of this. FPS esports games need a wide "broadcast" view with easily readable visuals (this might mean toning down the environment/effects a bit in this view). You don't watch football or baseball or anything in first person, and close-ups to demonstrate the skill involved are reserved for replays. You could switch to first-person or a cinematic view in replays.
Beat me to most of this. FPS esports games need a wide "broadcast" view with easily readable visuals (this might mean toning down the environment/effects a bit in this view). You don't watch football or baseball or anything in first person, and close-ups to demonstrate the skill involved are reserved for replays. You could switch to first-person or a cinematic view in replays.
Interesting, yes that's my thinking too personally.
I think part of the problem with some of these games as esports aren't tied to the games themselves, but developing an effective broadcasting structure for how casters should be handling the streams.
I really miss Street Fighter IV, because it felt like it was optimized for (mainstream) spectating. SFV tends to hide all the technical moves a lot more which means you require an understanding of how each move works to appreciate it. The versus games are the same, but the spectacle and intelligible comeback moments make up for that to a large extent. Sometimes, it feels like devs try to make their game as obscure as possible to give it more credibility.
Generally, a lot of games just aren't optimized for spectating and look like player games with a mediocre spectator mode slapped on. Spectator modes with separate effects and overlays obviously aren't an option for fighting games—unless they get an observer mode—but I don't see why you couldn't do it for other games.
(Having Seth Killian do commentary on SF4 obviously improved the hype significantly, too.)
And then there are the games that don't even take video compression (ie Twitch and YouTube) into account.
Outside of fighting games the only eSport I was able to easily follow was Starcraft. The action was always easy for streamers to follow and present visually so I never felt like I was missing action or setups. But I already had an understanding of the game. I think someone who doesnt know anything about the RTS concept would probably have difficulty understanding what they're seeing.
As far as everything else I've tried to watch and bounced off of, visibility is always the biggest issue. Most of these games require a significant understanding to truly be a fulfilling watch. But what's the point when you're presented with chaos that ends in a few seconds, on top of the limited or abstract view of a lot of the active play space.
Like pretty much everyone here says fighting games are simple to follow and understand when watching. The only game I struggled with was Marvel, as so much stuff is on screen at one time.
FPS wise I always found CS to be fairly easy to watch, it seems well paced to watch a tournament game. On the other side I am shocked at how well Overwatch league has done, as I found that unwatchable, just everything is too crazy, and everything seems to be a zerg. Even when I was playing Overwatch loads I never enjoyed watching it.
The funny one for FPS is PUBG, that is a game I can watch streamers and enjoy it. However the tournaments I have seen so far have not been a bit meh. I will be probably try and catch some of the tournament at the end of the month to see if they have improved on anything, but I am doubtful. The game is so large that too much can happen at the same time so if you watch one firefight, you may miss 3 others. Then on the other side of the coin, nothing happens for long extended periods
I think the commentators play a huge role in helping the viewer to understand what's going on. They make or break the broadcast. With good commentary the broadcast becomes exciting. With bad ones the broadcast becomes boring.
I think FPS and RTS games are definitely the hardest to follow.
Despite having played the game enough to understand the heroes/abilities/maps etc (besides some of the newer ones anyway), I still don't really like the way Overwatch does it's spectator camera. With it's kind of camera panning all the time trying to show everything, but in the end I feel like that makes it even harder for me to keep up with what's happening, especially with all the flashy animations. In fact, the funny thing is, despite never playing CS Go ever (though I've played previous CS games so I do understand some of it), I actually find that easier to watch than Overwatch. I guess it's probably because CS Go has less background systems going on since it's more of a pure shooter. I think Splatoon was easier to watch than both, less complex maps, smaller teams.
RTS' on the other hand, I feel like if you don't play the game it can be very difficult to watch since everything happens at such a fast pace at high levels. That said the commentators do explain some stuff.
MOBAs are easier to follow because of the top down camera, though I do feel the animations in HotS in particular make team fights kind of chaotic to keep track of, even when you know everything. I think DotA does a better job in that respect. I don't play LoL, and haven't watched it much, so I can't really comment as much.
I feel fighters might honestly be the easiest of the bunch to watch. There's only two characters on screen at a time (ignoring assist moves, but they're usually only for a few seconds unless they're actually swapping in). Plus, while obviously it's more enjoyable when you know the game yourself, I think you can even watch fighters you haven't played much and get quite a lot of enjoyment out of it. After all, you have simple health bars to watch and people punching and kicking each other, that's fairly easy to understand either way.
FPS games are nearly impossible to watch - Overwatch is too chaotic, and any attempt to switch cameras just compounds it..its like OK, I'm figuring out whats happening AND BAM, camera switch and I have to find my bearings again.
CSGO and R6 are a little better, since the teams are small, and the goal is to plant a bomb or wipe the other team - any respawning just kills the flow for viewers. The action needs to come to a conclusion, not just keep going chaotically forever.
There is a reason that on twitch single streamers pull bigger numbers than the league broadcast, one camera is better than any attempt to cast them. There is also a reason BR games are huge viewership games, they're easy to watch. Every a fortnite friday type tourney is pretty easy to watch, since the action is spread out, you can switch from one team to the other.
I don't play MOBAs etc, and find them purely chaotic to watch - They'll never have a fan base beyond hardcore players.
Fighting games are great to watch.
Rocket League is the second best to watch - they haven't figured out the camera use perfectly yet, but the game itself is very understandable - a good play is obvious etc. People who never played a minute of basketball can watch and be fans of basketball, I feel the same it possible with RL.
Beat me to most of this. FPS esports games need a wide "broadcast" view with easily readable visuals (this might mean toning down the environment/effects a bit in this view). You don't watch football or baseball or anything in first person, and close-ups to demonstrate the skill involved are reserved for replays. You could switch to first-person or a cinematic view in replays.
You can't properly present most FPS games in a wide broadcast view because there are maps typically have various rooms and elevations, that would inevitably cutoff much of the crucial action. Not only that, people watch FPS to see the aim skill, which is hard for viewers to appreciate if they can't see people aiming.
It's very different from football, where a birds-eye-view of a wide open field allows you to see all the skill on display at once. You can see a QB shake the pass rush, then knit a pass through multiple defenders into the arms of a diving receiver. They also tend to have short breaks in action between each play, which allows time for replays.
I think Halo is structurally good for team FPS spectating going forward. Maps are open-ish,They mostly use first-person perspective, but they occasionally switch to 3rd person when certain areas of the map are under contention by multiple players.
Its hard to follow because most people aren't on that level in terms of map knowledge & skill.
I don't know if you play Siege yourself but the difference in 0815 Ranked Gameplay in between the Ranks itself is insanely huge.
You have Copper,Bronze,Silver,Gold,Platinum and Diamond Rankings.
Copper,Bronze,Silver and Gold range from 4 to 1 before you rank up to the next Rank with Copper 4 being the lowest.Platinum has 3 Rankings before you are able to hit Diamond.
There are per region mostly just around 50 Legit Diamond Players and these ProPlayers when playing at an actual ProLeague Game with their teams&with their individual/secret strategies are way above that level.
Siege isn't a shooter just about Aim - The mainfactor is Mapknowledge and how to surprise the enemy.
Even people as godly at aiming as Shroud,a former CS Proplayer,got at the beginning destroyed by random people he didn't even see simply because he doesn't know where to look at and got thrown through his friends in far too high Elo for his knowledge about the game.
Unlike most FPS Siege isn't just played Horiziontal - Vertical Gameplay making use of all the destructible environment is key which needs you to know the maps,angles people will hold including all the sound hints.
Sound is soooo important in Siege - Locating Footsteps through Sound,people breaking windows on another part of the map and all these things are damn important because you then know where to look at.
Even hearing people pull out their drones,switching over to a grenade and all that stuff can win the round.
Yesterday they streamed a Qualifier Game for the Paris Major.
The objective that round was on the top floor as an example - 2:30 from the 3 Minute Rounds were played everywhere but there.
Back to the Rankings
From Copper to High Silver you won't see people roam,hold angles,communicate etc if they aren't smurfs trying to troll - Everyone is closing everything down and hide inside the objective rooms waiting for the attackers.Some people stand infront of Windows showing their full bodies and all that stuff because they want to see instead of hearing.
You don't need to see if someone is infront of a window - You hear their movement on the wall with either their footsteps or their rope making sounds when they move.
Once in Gold you start to see people roam,spawnpeak,communicate including callouts where they've seen people and where they died.
A Gold player that is legitimate there has usually a basic level of knowledge aquired where he starts to understand the things and tries to learn instead of constantly complaining about "unfair tactics".
I just recently used an angle I've seen in a ProLeague Match in a Casual Game when i warmed up for rank.
Killed 4 people in like 5 seconds through a hole i made through 2 walls+floor+opened hatch while hanging outside of a window far away from these people 1 1/2 floors above their level > They were clearly low skilled players and camped cuddled up down at the objective.
And guess what?They called me hacker and reported me etc
At my Platinum Ranking someone would've contested me there and made a callout to his teammates if he didn't succeed so they move away from the spot i tried to shoot at.
So
TLDR - Siege isn't confusing.
As Ubisoft says most people playing the game are at best at Gold or lower Rankings.
They aren't used to these kind of possibilites because they don't make use of the whole map and don't think about all the destroyable environment like floors,Walls,Hatches,windows etc.
Every map in the game is about horizontal AND Vertical Gameplay
Not knowing the maps,not communicating and more than likely not having at least Earbuds to locate sound are huge factors why these things may look confusing to THEM or how the players they watch know someone is coming from that direction.
The Game itself though isn't confusing at all once you figure it out and understand the mentality behind it.
Adding to that
People say Siege is a Tactical and slower Shooter compared to others.
This isn't true - On High Elo or Pro Player Level the game can get extremly fast and hectic.
The thing that is true though is the difference in this game between rankings and how players play the game there is watching different worlds existing in the same space.
With the possibility to watch other players once you are dead you see how slow some play and even on PC some lower ranked players look like they play with a controller.
These people aren't used to the speed they might see and can't make out what is happening because of that.
The only solution to fix that would be to tell ProPlayers to play in slow motion so those that don't know Siege that well have an easier time to keep up.
Btw a Video i just watched to see how high Elo Gameplay and the hot phase of a round in General looks.(New) Players need a long long time to adapt to these kind of things and as a beginner it takes time.But once you get a grip this game gets extremely addicting.
ProLeague Games are another few levels above that.
I really struggle with keeping up with what's happening on screen with competitive Overwatch. I've played Overwatch for two years and am very well versed with ins and outs and comps and play styles, but watching it on a stream going back and forth between players is a nightmare to keep up with. I know Blizzard has sunk a ton of money into Overwatch League, but goodness I can't tune in for long without totally losing focus of what I'm watching.
Of the games I play or have played, the only two that are hard for me to watch are Overwatch and Smash.
OW is hardot watch because there's not a way to focus on a single character or camera, so the constant hopping between players to see what's going on is incredibly jarring. The only way this is ever alleviated is if there's a setup splitting output to an external screen for all characters and you can watch that, but that's pretty much never a thing, if it even is.
Smash is part lack of real familiarity of what's going on and part how much things are obscured by the hit effects. Unless it's a slower paced match in some ways and things are more deliberate, seeing people go flying in for a ton of quick exchanges is really hard ot figure out what actually is happening because it ends up looking like "dash in, smack a ton of buttons/hits, dude goes flying, hold ledge, repeat". I know that's oversimplifying it, but that's what it ends up feeling like. Conversely even though I had barely ever played Marvel post 2 or new KI, I was still able to understand what was happening on a basic level because they still played mostly like "traditional" fighting games.
There has not been a single esport where I couldn't pick up on what was happening after watching a game or two. I would say however, spectating FPS games is more difficult because we don't get every viewpoint.
I love watching e-sports when it comes to EVO and fighting games. I can watch that all day long and follow along and root for a player in a given match... it's easy to read what's going on. There's only 2 players, one view, and life bars to let you know who is ahead.
But despite trying several times to watch the Overwatch League, I have no idea what's going on, and I have 120+ hours invested into playing the game.
I think the problem is: there's too many people to follow on each team at any given moment, and without control to view each feed myself to determine what's important, I have to rely on the commentators and who they feel like following in a given moment in time. I don't always find that gives me the best vantage to read what's going on.
But EVO?
That clears my weekend of all other things.
