As someone who enjoys watching several Gwent streamers, I'd like to share my point of view. I'll be replying to the OP exclusively, in hope of explaining another point of view.
SHALLAHJUSTICE;n10521972 said:
This is something that bugs me about the modern video game industry in general.
Almost every game has a cult like following of "streamers" and no matter how much i try i cant stand them.
Not liking something is perfectly fine. It's not like you have to watch streamers to enjoy a game.
On the other hand, I don't quite understand why would the popularity of streamers bug you? Does the popularity of streamers somehow detract from your enjoyment of the game?
Firstly just because they are "famous" does not make them the best of the best, i'm sure there are lots of good players who don't stream.
If these indivduals are genuinely leagues above everyone, how is that? what is is the ingrediant that makes them superior?
I don't think there is anyone who would dispute the claim that there are many good players who do not stream. As far as I know, most of the best ranked players (in pro, and in ranked) are not streamers. What you're doing here is attacking a
strawman, i.e., you're arguing against an extreme position that is an unfair representation of the position of people who watch streamers.
Their videos usually involve a heavy amount of annoying, cliche youtube presentation skills and their personalities really do not draw me in.
This is a matter of personal preference. What's annoying to one person does not have to be annoying to another. I don't think that anyone watches streamers they find annoying.
If you want to get better at the game arent you supposed to experiment yourself? learn through experience?
Don't you think learning tips and tricks from other people takes away from your own personal experience of trial and error?
Not necessarily. Consider, for example, how chess players improve their game. A good chess player will analyze games played by many different players, as well as read/listen to analyses done by others. This is done in order to learn from the styles of play of other players and to be able adapt to different stiles of play. It would be ludicrous to suggest that analyzing chess games that are not your own somehow detracts from your success as a chess player, because you are not "experimenting yourself" and "learning through experience".
Now, my claim is that this does not apply only to chess, but to any competitive game. (Actually this applies to any human endeavor.) We do not learn only from personal experience. We also learn by looking at what others do - what kind of mistakes they make, what kind of assumptions they have, how do they react to common situations, do they do something we have not thing of ourselves, etc.
In summary, no, if the only thing you do while trying to get better at a game is experimenting yourself, you will always be trailing behind people who are experimenting themselves, while also learning from others.
Say you religiously watch this streamer and take his advice, you get good and finish in the top tiers for ranked.
Wouldent you consider that a hollow victory? that the very reason you made it was because of someone elses input, dosent that make it a joint victory rather then your own personal triumph?
Whether one watches a streamer religiously or not is not at all relevant here. What matters is that the person invested time and effort to learn how to play Gwent well. Part of that skill comes from personal experience, and part of it (perhaps a dominant part) comes from taking advice from others. With the skills thus acquired, the player then proceeds to finish in the top tiers of the ranked season.
Now you claim that this is a hollow achievement? Why would it be so? Because the player took time to listen to advice? Because the player took time to learn from others? The ability to learn from others, and the ability to take advice are usually considered to be admirable qualities of a person, but you're somehow trying to present is as something shameful and hollow.
What is the magnetism these indiviudals have to the layman? I just dont understand.
Do you understand why people go to stadiums to watch football games? Even if you're not one of those people, I would be surprised if you don't have at least a basic understanding of the social phenomenon of people watching football. Gwent, football, or any other game, it doesn't really matter - a lot of people like watching people playing a game they find interesting.
I don't think you can compare streamers to sports people
Note that in the paragraph above I'm not comparing streamers to athletes, but comparing the psychology of enjoyment of watching one kind of a game (sports) to the psychology of enjoyment of watching another kind of a game (video games).
athletes train their whole life to be the best, its back breaking work, clicking a mouse is not.
This is taking us a bit off-topic, but just a quick response to this comment.
I'd say that reducing playing strategic video games (e.g., Gwent, Starcraft) down to "clicking a mouse" is very much unfair. It would be as if you dismissed professional chess players by saying they are just moving pieces around the board. Sure, Gwent is nowhere near the complexity of chess (or even Starcraft), but my point still stands in principle - pro players (be it in football, chess, Starcraft, darts, snooker, Gwent, or whatever other game) have invested a lot of time and effort in honing their skills, and it is unfair to dismiss that effort by saying they are merely clicking a mouse, moving pieces around the board, chasing a ball around a lawn, or whatever other simplification one chooses to employ.
The whole point of this thread is for understanding, i want to understand why people support these "proffessional gamers"
I hope that what I written in this post helps you understand the opposing point of view.