Superplay demonstration format.

[Eaglet]

Hey all!

This Stunfest me and Plasmo demonstrated Garegga on an experimental setup where two players of basically equivalent skill level played the game simultaneously to showcase the nuances there are in strategies and positioning etc.
I'm very curious in knowing how this format was perceived.
If you liked it, disliked it or have any further suggestions - please reply to this thread!

[Bananamatic]

I like how the better player got the better cam on the second run
also I like how the entire demonstration was just one big ad for m2 ports and how pcbs are a waste of time

keep it that way

[M.Knight]

I liked this format a lot. it was pretty nice to see the two runs side by side and pick up on the differences between the routes and strategies.

That said, depending on the game, it can be more or less tricky to synchronize the runs. Garrega's Mad Ball RNG for example always desynced the runs and you had to catch up by killing the boss 3 earlier. While that reduces the amount of boss milking (which in the case of the stage 3 boss isn't fun to watch at all), it does not exactly showcase your ideal route.

Another difficulty this format provides is for the commentators, as they have to comment not one but too runs. That said, it's far from an impossible barrier. Just something to take into account while speaking, to avoid negelecting one of the two runs.

All in all, I would be happy to see other runs with that format, and why not in games with less boss RNG?

[Smraedis]

I liked it, was a fun thing to do, though a bit hard to keep up and see everything that both players were doing.
Also what other games would be considered like this?

[Shepardus]

There have been side-by-side videos in a non-live setting, such as those put together by ARF (like this). Those have the advantage of editing to keep the two replays synchronized.

[Xyga]

For recorded superplays it might be useful yes, direct comparisons on the same screen that we can pause, rewind etc.
Goes without saying it's interesting only if the two players actually play differently.

[Mantrox]

The runs were fun to watch, and thanks for taking the time and effort to put it all together.

Even with one player, sometimes its difficult to convey what is going on, as the action is fast and some of the concepts are complex.
Having that in mind, i don't think the side by side setup was very sucessfull in educating the elements of the audience that knew less about the game (since more stuff was happening at one time), and it wasn't very interesting for the spectators since the players weren't racing each other but rather doing very methodical score runs.

I have a basic grasp on the games mechanics and strats (i don't know anything about the ships used though), and i found myself focusing a lot on just one player rather than jumping around.

This setup maybe makes more sense for people that already have a very good understanding of Garegga, and can quickly spot the nuances of gameplay being employed by each player, and follow the run in a more pleasant way.

One stupid idea i had was, trying to make a shmup live tutorial.
Imagine we were using the M2 port, and we get a slide on the screen explaining a certain mechanic which the commentators explain; then the player loads a save state and executes that mechanic live, while also showing some of the problems you might encounter.
It could be an interesting way of giving more context to the audience.
At the end, the player would do a full run.

It would be hard to pull off, and the language barrier on the venue doesn't help either, but it's just an ideia for the pile.

[Plasmo]

and it wasn't very interesting for the spectators since the players weren't racing each other but rather doing very methodical score runs.

But that's exactly what the idea behind it was. It was essentially a race (or battle) for the highest score, just like a side-by-side speedrun race for the lowest time.

I had great fun participating in it and really like the concept as such. I would like to see other players doing more of these head-to-head score battles in their games. The greatest difficulty would be to find two equally skilled players though. Garegga is a blessing.

[Mantrox]

I didn't phrase that very well.
I can't speak for all the spectators, just myself, of course.

[jepjepjep]

I thought it was cool. I'd take it even further next time and disable continues. That would add another layer of tension and bring the scoreing/survival balance more into play. Do you want to take risks for high score and risk the early game over, or play it safe and try to clear it?

[Eaglet]

In my opinion a superplay demonstration should not cater to beginners or spectators who know nothing.
It's meant to show off the game at as high a level as possible. There are other options for tutorials and beginner's help.
If spectators want to get the full experience they'll have to educate themselves beforehand. Anything else is not realistic.

I thought it was cool. I'd take it even further next time and disable continues. That would add another layer of tension and bring the scoreing/survival balance more into play. Do you want to take risks for high score and risk the early game over, or play it safe and try to clear it?

Naah, i don't really agree. Play should be balls out all the time. Especially in Garegga. If there's a fuck up (Game Over) then continuing on to show more strats (or as in our case some stupid stuff like NMNB BH2) brings on a better show in my opinion.
I guess it depends on what the purpose is. Plasmo's and mine was to show off the game and hopefully get more people interested in it.

[Xyga]

Your first and last sentence are in total contradiction or there's something I'm missing...

[Mark_MSX]

Hey Eaglet and Plasmo,

I think the side by side format is an excellent idea and demonstrations like this should continue. Having two people competing in a live setting adds a layer of excitement that wouldn t be there otherwise. Not all runs need to be in this format, but including some does add variety to the demonstrations as well.

[Lyv]

I think it's good to have side-by-side runs on video (cf. what Shepardus posted), but not necessarily in a live setting. It's great on video for people who know about the game and want to take their time to appreciate the differences in scoring strategies (with pausing, rewinding, etc.).

In a live setting, I think it only brings an advantage over the usual 1-player demo if :
- the game has different enough scoring strategies so that simultaneous plays exhibit these differences.
- both plays are always synchronized (debatable).
- both players clear the game, or at least end scores can be compared (since it's a race to the highest score), with a post-run discussion on how the various strategies have led to these disparities in the end scores.

And I'm not sure these conditions can be realistically achieved for any STG, so I don't know...
It could be nice, and variety in demonstrations is always cool, but I'm not sure the genre is really suited for this kind of stuff.

[Mantrox]

In my opinion a superplay demonstration should not cater to beginners or spectators who know nothing.
It's meant to show off the game at as high a level as possible. There are other options for tutorials and beginner's help.
If spectators want to get the full experience they'll have to educate themselves beforehand. Anything else is not realistic.

I understand that the demonstrations are catered to the more knowledgeable spectators. As a spectator, i just wish there was just a bit more space to educate people about the game and try to broaden the audience and bring more people in.

The 2 player battle makes total sense when you want to spice things up and bring a new aproach to these demos; i was just trying to point out that it squeezes even thinner, the possibility that the commentators have to explain complex events to the audience and make a coherent presentation.
Well, making an analogy with fighting games, there usually aren't any tutorials on an EVO tournament, so i guess you're right.

The people that know the games will continue to enjoy the content. The ones that don't will glaze over after a while.
Since shmups don't come up that often on international stages, maybe i thought it was a missed oportunity.

I still enjoyed it. My comments were in this context.

[Herr Schatten]

I liked the format, but I agree that it might actually work better in an edited form that synchronizes the plays more, so you can compare different strategies better. I also agree that continuing to show some cool alternative stuff is all cool, but works better in a solo player environment.

[Shepardus]

In my opinion a superplay demonstration should not cater to beginners or spectators who know nothing.
It's meant to show off the game at as high a level as possible. There are other options for tutorials and beginner's help.
If spectators want to get the full experience they'll have to educate themselves beforehand. Anything else is not realistic.

High-level play and good commentary that informs beginners aren't mutually exclusive and has worked in other places (i.e. newbie-oriented streams of Dota 2's annual TI), but is certainly easier in a non-live setting.

[maximo310]

Your first and last sentence are in total contradiction or there's something I'm missing...

I don't see any contradiction, considering other genres can have the same effect onto other people & get then interested into a game or for speedrunning a game.

[agyx-groovy]

I liked it but felt RNG heavy games are not really ideal for it, i think if you have more execution non rng games side by side like raidens or psikyo etc it would be more suitable.

[Xyga]

Your first and last sentence are in total contradiction or there's something I'm missing...

I don't see any contradiction, considering other genres can have the same effect onto other people & get then interested into a game or for speedrunning a game.

So that was meant as "most of the audience wont get shit but they ll want to play it anyway" ?

[Eaglet]

Xyga, perhaps you don't like or understand personal responsibility but let me ask you this question:
Why should STG be the only genre in the world where high level live play gets explained for beginners?
It occurs in no other genre.
If a beginner wishes to learn about a game he should watch tutorials, play the game himself or listen to webcasts such as STGWeekly.
Live performances are for performance only and focus should always be on the intricacies.

[Xyga]

I don't know what's your deal with 'personal responsibility' or whatever, nor why you would take offense, I'm not the one who said it should be explained during the live performance, and no need to state the obvious about learning. I just don't really get the point of having made a public demonstration of high level play to a mostly uneducated audience and then afterwards state that sort of stuff is not for them anyways, the action and statement are conflicting, hence why I legitimately ask what then was the purpose.

EDIT: I think I'll self-answer that one even if it's derailing the thread: lets be honest we all know there's no way 99% of the people watching these runs and maybe later launching a rom on MAME or their console port will get into DOJWL or Garegga or whatever Cave, Psikyo, Raizing really seriously. But they're classy, cool af games and watching a proper run is a treat for anyone even not knowing wft is really going on onscreen. Like the 'hardest video game boss ever' witnessing impressive stuff like that attracts people who might get into the genre. But they're not really sane choices for beginners, obviously.
Not saying these top-of-the-top shmups shouldn't be shown off, but they're practically all that's pushed forward these days no matter where. Maybe it would be considered a shame or a waste of time to direct the attention of the public towards games that are less involved, easier and more 'just fun', I don't know.

[Shepardus]

Why should STG be the only genre in the world where high level live play gets explained for beginners?
It occurs in no other genre.

Except it does?

[Eaglet]

I don't know what's your deal with 'personal responsibility' or whatever, nor why you would take offense, I'm not the one who said it should be explained during the live performance, and no need to state the obvious about learning. I just don't really get the point of having made a public demonstration of high level play to a mostly uneducated audience and then afterwards state that sort of stuff is not for them anyways, the action and statement are conflicting, hence why I legitimately ask what then was the purpose.

EDIT: I think I'll self-answer that one even if it's derailing the thread: lets be honest we all know there's no way 99% of the people watching these runs and maybe later launching a rom on MAME or their console port will get into DOJWL or Garegga or whatever Cave, Psikyo, Raizing really seriously. But they're classy, cool af games and watching a proper run is a treat for anyone even not knowing wft is really going on onscreen. Like the 'hardest video game boss ever' witnessing impressive stuff like that attracts people who might get into the genre. But they're not really sane choices for beginners, obviously.
Not saying these top-of-the-top shmups shouldn't be shown off, but they're practically all that's pushed forward these days no matter where. Maybe it would be considered a shame or a waste of time to direct the attention of the public towards games that are less involved, easier and more 'just fun', I don't know.

My point is that it's not the performers responsibility to educate.
That was not what i stated though? I said it should not cater to the new or uneducated. Of course it's meant to be viewed by anyone but the purpose should always be show off in the most impressive and spectacular manner as possible. Not downgrade in-depth discussion or showcase on the chance that spectators have no previous knowledge. That was my point.

Yeah, i think you answered your question by yourself there. Superplays are a spectacle and should be treated as such.
I don't get the final point of your post. To us who play these games they are the most "just fun". Which is the reason why we chose to play them.
I also think one of the big appeals with demonstrations such as these is to show off stuff that is not easily done. There will always be people in a crowd saying they could've done something just as impressive or better but the more ridiculous level you have on display the rarer those instances get.

Why should STG be the only genre in the world where high level live play gets explained for beginners?
It occurs in no other genre.

Except it does?

Please show me where Starcraft tournaments, fighting game tournaments or live speedruns get explained to the point of:
"This here is a supply depot. They enable you to build more troops. | If you hold back on the stick you will block your opponents attacks. | In these so called Mario games you jump on stuff by pressing a button."

I liked it, was a fun thing to do, though a bit hard to keep up and see everything that both players were doing.
Also what other games would be considered like this?

Thank you Sm!
This is just my own opinion but i would personally like to see games where there is a lot of RNG (like YGW style) or perhaps something like a live Ketsui play where one goes for Ura and the other for Omote loop to show off the differences.
Strict "pattern games" would not be as interesting in my opinion.

[Shepardus]

Why should STG be the only genre in the world where high level live play gets explained for beginners?
It occurs in no other genre.

Except it does?

Please show me where Starcraft tournaments, fighting game tournaments or live speedruns get explained to the point of:
"This here is a supply depot. They enable you to build more troops. | If you hold back on the stick you will block your opponents attacks. | In these so called Mario games you jump on stuff by pressing a button."

As I stated above, Valve's done this for Dota 2. Examples here: https://www.twitch.tv/dota2ti_newcomer/videos/all

[Eaglet]

As I stated above, Valve's done this for Dota 2. Examples here: https://www.twitch.tv/dota2ti_newcomer/videos/all

Sure, but this is treated as a separate thing for newcomers and not as the main (and only) attraction.

[Shepardus]

As I stated above, Valve's done this for Dota 2. Examples here: https://www.twitch.tv/dota2ti_newcomer/videos/all

Sure, but this is treated as a separate thing for newcomers and not as the main (and only) attraction.

That is true, it is a separate stream from the "main" cast. But the games being casted are the same and the skill level being demonstrated is just as high, it's just the commentary that's geared towards a less experienced audience. Of course there's a balance to be struck (I wouldn't expect anyone to explain "this is the shot button, move this stick around to move your plane..."), but surely there's some room for that in a superplay demonstration, considering that most of the audience isn't intimately familiar with all the nuances of the game. After all, people who already understand everything wouldn't need commentary in the first place.

[Eaglet]

As I stated above, Valve's done this for Dota 2. Examples here: https://www.twitch.tv/dota2ti_newcomer/videos/all

Sure, but this is treated as a separate thing for newcomers and not as the main (and only) attraction.

That is true, it is a separate stream from the "main" cast. But the games being casted are the same and the skill level being demonstrated is just as high, it's just the commentary that's geared towards a less experienced audience. Of course there's a balance to be struck (I wouldn't expect anyone to explain "this is the shot button, move this stick around to move your plane..."), but surely there's some room for that in a superplay demonstration, considering that most of the audience isn't intimately familiar with all the nuances of the game. After all, people who already understand everything wouldn't need commentary in the first place.

I would say that having two separate commentaries for experienced people and newcomers would be the desirable setup but as it is right now i simply don't see it as being realistic unfortunately.
The second part i don't agree with!
Just to give an example; when helping Plasmo getting from F to G level route with Bornnam there where loads of intricacies that needed explaining and that were well suited for high level commentary. If i were to watch the WR replay for Bornnam there is a lot more than that that would be needed to be explained to me.
The fascinating thing about high level play in complex games to me is that the level of understanding required increases exponentially the higher you go.
I read an old blog post from SDD-Kaede (Miyamoto WR) where he wrote that in Garegga you'd need to have a score that was at most 500k from the play being showcased to understand what was going on and it's true.

[Xyga]

Well what I meant is, making a spectacle of something that's beyond most of the viewer's reach (and they'll realize the hard way if they try) is mostly good for spectacle but isn't necessarily helping for the popularity of the genre, which has been for so many years unjustly criticized for being an elitist niche.
In the end only the handful of players with enough experience to get most what's going on in the run are really enjoying it, so you see what I mean? there's a conflict between the purpose of these spectacular superplays aimed at the broader audience for which the real interst is lost, and what they achieve for the two demographics.
Not saying you guys should do 'noobplays' either, but I think it could be beneficial to mix /give room to more accessible games (or less advanced plays) and their players along with the usual pinnacle material.
Well maybe I'm just dreaming and people are so vain that most are only interested in watching and maybe trying a few credits themselves then dropping it because it's too balls hard anyway, and the popularity of the genre wouldn't increase anew even if they were shown off stuff they could actually play and enjoy without experiencing crushing despair too early.

[Eaglet]

This is the eternal conundrum with stuff like this to be honest but i see no better solution than what we have arrived at currently.
Fighting games have the exact same problem as the level of play of most top-8 matches in any given game is impossible to understand for a newcomer.
And so i think most people that are "casually" enjoying it mostly do so from a spectacular point of view (i.e watching two skillful players going up against each other) and so i feel that in terms of shooting games doing the same like we did this time is the best sort of compromise.
Two players at the same time, competing both against the machine and each other in a spectacular manner while displaying stuff that the experienced can get intrigued by. At least that was the hope behind the experimentation.