Website Feedback
Closed Threads
IRC Web ChatTeamSpeak 3 (72 users)
Active: 9064 users | |
|
| clever_us United States. March 26 2012 01:50. Posts 311 | Profile Blog # |
I've really struggled with how to write this without coming across as a huge, arrogant asshole, but it's something that's bugged me for a long time. This is not a bash on casters — I think they do a great job overall, and I have mad respect for everyone who tries to make their livings that way.
The point of what I'm about to write is that I think every casting duo should have at least one caster who can play the game at a Master's level or higher.
On some levels this is not the most unreasonable request in the world. SC2 is a hard game, and it's arguable to say that only those in Master's or GM are even "competent" at it. Playing two hours a night for a year and a half will put you on the threshold.
On the other hand, of course, casters make their livings CASTING, not playing, so of course it is going to be hard to maintain that level of ability. Nonetheless I think it is important that each casting duo have at least one member who can.
Let me start off by getting one thing straight:
- There are a number of casters like TotalBiscuit and Husky, who probably do not meet the above criteria, but I still fucking love them. They're tremendous badasses who have done a terrific amount for the community. Their casting is colorful and entertaining and the SC2 scene would be worse off without it.
I FUCKING LOVE YOU, TOTALBISCUIT! I VOTED FOR YOUR TOPHAT ALL THE WAY!
Now that that's out of the way: remember the HomeStory Cup? Remember how much fun it was to have players casting the games? I distinctly remember my brother recounting in awe the casting delivered by MC, who always seemed to know exactly what was going on from the smallest clues. Having excellent players casting games of SC2 is an undeniable delight.
This is evident in the casting of Tastosis, which is more or less everyone's favorite duo. Artosis is a boss at this game and it shows - his understanding of the game is at least as important to his success as his hilarious personality. Likewise for Day[9], another fan favorite.
In other words: we LOVE casters who are really good at the game. We LOVE that they always know what they are talking about. We LOVE that they can look at a complicated set of clues and figure out EXACTLY what someone is going for, long before the units begin to be produced. These are the things that we as viewers are not always capable of, and they're why we need casters. I'm in diamond, so I can't really speak for good players, but I know it's always a delight for me when the casters point out something I missed.
On the other hand, when a caster says something that is downright wrong, it can be incredibly jarring. Some very general examples, which I'm sure you'll be familiar with:
- "Oh, this is a HORRIBLE angle for Player X. I don't know why he's attacking here!" (5 seconds later, Player X wins battle)
- "The scout doesn't get in — but there wasn't anything to see anyway!"
- "And it looks like Player X is going to crush through Player Y!" (Player Y's reinforcements arrive) "And Player Y crushes through Player X!"
- After the game: "Yeah, Player X lost because of (small unimportant moment early in the game)."
Another very broad problem is a lack of analysis, for instance by listing off the number of each production structure rather than explaining what this arrangement of production structures implies on a strategic level. Also problematic is not knowing how a build is fated to fare against the opponent's build (i.e. player x is 4gating and player y is getting dts. Who has the advantage? This is something Tastosis always puts time and effort into explaining.)
The problem with some of these mistakes, besides the fact that they piss off people who know better, is that they erode caster credibility. If a caster is consistently incorrect in predicting tech paths or the outcome of a battle, the viewer may begin to be irritated, tune the caster out, or develop a bitter enmity for that caster. He may begin making flamey posts all over the internet that decry the caster and bitch about his or her personal characteristics. In my opinion this is a huge tragedy, and absolutely not the right way to go about fixing the problem. I mean, let's be honest - kellyMilkies, for all her faults, did not deserve all the shit she got.
On the other hand, if a caster consistently gets all the "calls" right — always seems to know what's going on, always knows which side is going to win in a battle, and if he or she is wrong, always explains afterwards exactly why the battle outcome was different than he or she expected — "great storms," "sick micro," "better upgrades," etc. — then that caster receives deep and genuine respect from the community. We LOVE Tastosis. We LOVE Day[9].
The point of all of this is that casting duos should never be without at least one person who's going to know exactly what is going on at any given time, on a very deep, strategic, analytical level. I don't think this is really possible without being able to play the game at a mid-to-high Master's level. That's the only way to get exposure to all the builds and timings that you need to understand this game - and even then you won't necessarily understand the matchups your race doesn't play. We still need and love color commentators. But they have to be counterbalanced by someone who can help decipher the complex web of clues that tell an excellent player like MC exactly what is going on at a glance.
+ Show Spoiler +Full disclosure: this post is inspired by the response to a recent post I made on reddit about Khaldor and MoleTrap. In retrospect I was incredibly negative, and people chewed me out for it — one much-upvoted response to my post was "INTERESTING STORY MY FRIEND. DO TELL ME MORE BECAUSE I TOTALLY CARE ABOUT YOUR WARPED OPINION." What I realized was that I had become one of the people who bitch and moan about casters without ever really trying to help fix the problem. I wanted to try and express my thoughts on the matter in a more constructive and positive way. We have to figure out how, as a community, to tactfully demand a higher level of analysis from our casters without reverting to personal insults and cruelty. |
| | glhf <3 |  |
|
|
| thurst0n United States. March 26 2012 01:54. Posts 582 | Profile Blog # |
This is a great idea in theory. And it's been talked about before maybe not this explicitly. I would like to make another point to counter your point. Just because you're in Masters or GM doesn't mean you can give an accurate depiction of the game at any given point. Only the top top top tier players really understand all the mind games and intricacies of play.
That being said, it all comes down to audience. Who is your audience is the # one thing you must think about. If you want to attract new players a caster like Husky is probably best, if you're trying to appease the high level viewers then sure you want a GM caster. There is a time and a place for in depth analysis, and it's typically post game or in a show like Day9 Daily or Artosis Corner
I don't think you need to be masters or GM at all to make the game interesting for viewers. I love hearing Artosis or day 9 give in depth analysis but its not necessary for MY enjoyment of the cast and I don't think it detracts from the excitement at all..
I do mostly agree with this, casters shouldn't be completely oblivious but I think a basic understanding of the game mixed with some restraint when they do want to call an engagement before it happens or something of that sort is all that's really needed. Last edit: 2012-03-26 01:57:27 |
| | P.S. I'm nub. If you'd like you can follow me @xthurst but its not worth it ill be honest |  |
|
|
| Endure Canada. March 26 2012 01:55. Posts 273 | Profile # |
I have to agree with this, I stopped watching Code-A a while back just due to it was like watching a replay without being able to control the camera because I had to mute the sound. There's nothing wrong with being a colour commentator, the problem comes in when you have 2 people doing the same job leaving out the other important part of casting. This is why I'm super excited if incontrol goes to cast Code-A, it's someone that kind of has both aspects for casting.
Edit: To what the poster said above that's also true, IMO though GSL is for people who are willing to stay up till 4 am just to watch starcraft, generally watch a lot of starcraft or play instead of being casual. I don't know though :/Last edit: 2012-03-26 01:57:09 |
|
|
| sc2pal Poland. March 26 2012 01:56. Posts 528 | Profile # |
| ...yes? what do you want to discuss in this thread, thats all great points but how would it help with those casters that dont know . about the game Last edit: 2012-03-26 01:56:49 |
|
|
| SkaPunk United States. March 26 2012 02:03. Posts 428 | Profile # | |
| | Team Fallacy | |
|
|
| graNite Germany. March 26 2012 02:04. Posts 1950 | Profile Blog # |
On March 26 2012 01:54 thurst0n wrote:
Just because you're in Masters or GM doesn't mean you can give an accurate depiction of the game at any given point. Only the top top top tier players really understand all the mind games and intricacies of play.
That being said, it all comes down to audience. Who is your audience is the # one thing you must think about. If you want to attract new players a caster like Husky is probably best, if you're trying to appease the high level viewers then sure you want a GM caster. There is a time and a place for in depth analysis, and it's typically post game or in a show like Day9 Daily or Artosis Corner.
I think you did not get his point. It is not about giving indepth analysis throughout the game, it is about understanding the game and giving good commentary. Master players and new players can clearly see something is wrong when the cster says X is winning but Y wins. I am very annoyed by this, too, and it happens quite often in GSL Code A. Tastosis simply do not make these mistakes, thats why I think they are way better casters and understand the game better than all Code A casters.
Another thing i want to point out is that it is very hard as a caster to keep track of all the action that is going on, telling the audience what is happening and thinking about what this all means at the same time.
I dont know Husky too much, but even if he is no master level player or gives in depth analysis, saying "true things" about the ongoing game can be done by anybody at any level.
Casters should be trying to comiit themselves less to a statement in my opinion.
I would like to see a caster posting in this thread, requesting Khaldor!  |
| | ~// ᴵᴹᴍᴠᴘ //~ |  |
|
|
| TheUltimate March 26 2012 02:18. Posts 82 | Profile # |
This has been discussed a bunch before. The problem is, the ideal caster simultaneously:
- Enjoys casting
- Is fun/likeable
- Is an expert in SC2
- Is not so good at SC2 that he can make a decent living from playing it instead of talking about it
The first two parts are necessary for a caster to appeal to casual viewers; the second two for expert viewers. The problem is that people who meet all of these criteria are extremely rare.
For instance, Idra is an expert, but he is really competitive, and despite his excellent analytical skills, doesn't inspire enthusiasm from viewers when he casts - he's rather monotone. Most other players would rather be competing than talking, too.
Another problem is that if someone who is high masters/grandmasters decides to take their SC2 to the professional level, it will almost undoubtedly be as a player, rather than a caster. It is more appealing to most people to become a player, for self-evident reasons.
So those individuals lucky enough to possess all these essential qualities are considered the best casters, but they're not exactly easy to find.
The usual tradeoff, due to a natural shortage of "ideal" casters is a combination of the play-by-play and analytical caster. This naturally causes problems when the play-by-play caster misreads a situation and the analytical caster can't contradict him on air. But I don't think this is a problem that can easily be fixed. (Especially not by asking for more analytical casters, at the expense of more fun casters such as Husky/TB.)
The only situation that should be avoided at all costs is two play-by-play casters, but that's usually not the case. |
|
|
| thurst0n United States. March 26 2012 02:24. Posts 582 | Profile Blog # |
On March 26 2012 02:04 graNite wrote:
Show nested quote +On March 26 2012 01:54 thurst0n wrote:
Just because you're in Masters or GM doesn't mean you can give an accurate depiction of the game at any given point. Only the top top top tier players really understand all the mind games and intricacies of play.
That being said, it all comes down to audience. Who is your audience is the # one thing you must think about. If you want to attract new players a caster like Husky is probably best, if you're trying to appease the high level viewers then sure you want a GM caster. There is a time and a place for in depth analysis, and it's typically post game or in a show like Day9 Daily or Artosis Corner.
I think you did not get his point. It is not about giving indepth analysis throughout the game, it is about understanding the game and giving good commentary. Master players and new players can clearly see something is wrong when the cster says X is winning but Y wins. I am very annoyed by this, too, and it happens quite often in GSL Code A. Tastosis simply do not make these mistakes, thats why I think they are way better casters and understand the game better than all Code A casters. Another thing i want to point out is that it is very hard as a caster to keep track of all the action that is going on, telling the audience what is happening and thinking about what this all means at the same time. I dont know Husky too much, but even if he is no master level player or gives in depth analysis, saying "true things" about the ongoing game can be done by anybody at any level. Casters should be trying to comiit themselves less to a statement in my opinion. I would like to see a caster posting in this thread, requesting Khaldor!
Uh no I get the point, maybe I didn't make my point correctly or perhaps you're right I really don't get it..
Player X can be winning and then Y can end up coming back to win, this makes for the most exciting games.
It's also possible that player X should have won an engagement but due to insane micro or insane mismicro Player Y comes out way ahead.
And you sorta made my point too I feel like a platinum level player could give the audience a general understanding of what's going on. Sure it takes away when something is said that is completely wrong, but that goes to my other point casters should think about what they say instead of making emphatic statements that have nothing backing them.
|
| | P.S. I'm nub. If you'd like you can follow me @xthurst but its not worth it ill be honest | |
|
|
| Surth Germany. March 26 2012 02:37. Posts 121 | Profile Blog # |
On March 26 2012 01:50 clever_us wrote:
- "Oh, this is a HORRIBLE angle for Player X. I don't know why he's attacking here!" (5 seconds later, Player X wins battle)
"MARINE KING IS IN A TON OF TROUBLE" - Artosis two minutes ago (MKP vs. Parting). 5 seconds later, MKP won the battle.
What I'm saying is, just about every caster calls these things wrong every now and then. |
|
|
| Nildawenn United States. March 26 2012 02:44. Posts 9 | Profile # |
Live Casters are there to hold attention of the high level players during the boring parts and to explain to everyone else what may seem like the most obvious details to pros. All the while they must make the game seem exciting. Monotone in-depth analysis is great outside of tournaments, but when your goal is to draw crowds the goal is entertainment. Live Casting is an art of projecting enthusiasm.
I'm the commentator for Starcraft Chicago; while I'm a terrible terrible player, I've been complimented for making even boring parts of some games seem exciting (even pre-season6 PvP matches =P).
I'd never do in-depth analysis simply because I'd be nothing but a bullshit artist at best.
The Nilda |
|
|
| mr_tolkien France. March 26 2012 02:45. Posts 3484 | Profile Blog # |
Well on my side of things, I only begun casting after getting in the top 1000 of the EU ladder, because I do 100% agree with you, and this is how I gathered quite a nice following among the French scene.
There is in fact a lot of people who like that, more technical-oriented casts. And now that I have a good viewerbase from my technical casting, I'm searching for a co-caster to add more «fun» to my vods 
I definitely think getting a good level at the game definitely adds depth to your casting, as long as you don't go overboard with it.Last edit: 2012-03-26 02:46:24 |
| | French Caster - http://www.youtube.com/user/mrtolkien |  |
|
|
| Nemireck Canada. March 26 2012 02:51. Posts 807 | Profile # |
On March 26 2012 02:37 Surth wrote:
Show nested quote +On March 26 2012 01:50 clever_us wrote:
- "Oh, this is a HORRIBLE angle for Player X. I don't know why he's attacking here!" (5 seconds later, Player X wins battle)
"MARINE KING IS IN A TON OF TROUBLE" - Artosis two minutes ago (MKP vs. Parting). 5 seconds later, MKP won the battle. What I'm saying is, just about every caster calls these things wrong every now and then.
Then, as stated in the OP, he explained why he was wrong with "With 2/2 upgrades and 1 or 2 great EMPs." |
| | Teamwork is awesome... As long as your team is doing all the work! |  |
|
|
| []Phase[] Belgium. March 26 2012 02:53. Posts 627 | Profile # |
agree, there should always be a caster that has a good understanding of the game, like artosis or day9.
Seriously I hate listening to casters who just repeat what's happening, but don't explain why it is good / bad etc. I mean WTF ARE YOU DOING??? ANYONE can just repeat what is happening. And even if you don't know as much about the game as your partner (for example tasteless doesn't seem as good with his analysis as artosis, but still has a good understanding of the game) atleast make sure you say stuff that makes sence, and make it as entertaining as possible.
For example things I like that tasteless does : he sets up the conversation in such a way that artosis can explain things. He asks questions like 'why is this map good for x' etc.
Last edit: 2012-03-26 02:57:59 |
| |
|
| CluEleSs_UK United Kingdom. March 26 2012 03:38. Posts 580 | Profile Blog # |
I understand the role of play-by-play commentators for sure, but it's REALLY annoying when you put 2 guys together with no knowledge; there is definitely a place for casters like TB and Husky, and I love them when they're with a good co-caster, but some of the off-stage MLG streams were terrible, and I will highlight one example:
ThorZain v MKP: Thorzain fakes cloak for banshees by researching caduceus reactor, the casters start going "LOL, THIS IS SO RIDICULOUS, WHO EVER USES THAT UPGRADE? WHY DID HE DO THIS? THORZAIN MUST HAVE SOME SECRET MEDIVAC BUILD PLANNED". To be frank, anybody who has ever watched pro-starcraft KNOWS what ThorZain was doing, it was easily apparent. When somebody from MLG told them what thorzain was doing, one caster replied "well why didn't he just get cloak and cancel it?" it was then explained that cloak was more expensive, the caster didn't quite see the point and started calling ThorZain the "thrifty Terran".
I'm not hating on individual casters, but that level of incompetence is super annoying to watch, especially on a professional stream like MLG. |
| | "If it turns out he is leaving the ESL to focus on cooking crystal meth I'll agree that it is somewhat disgraceful, but I'll hold off judgement until then." |  |
|
|
| garbodor March 26 2012 03:44. Posts 253 | Profile # |
On March 26 2012 03:38 CluEleSs_UK wrote:
I understand the role of play-by-play commentators for sure, but it's REALLY annoying when you put 2 guys together with no knowledge; there is definitely a place for casters like TB and Husky, and I love them when they're with a good co-caster, but some of the off-stage MLG streams were terrible, and I will highlight one example:
ThorZain v MKP: Thorzain fakes cloak for banshees by researching caduceus reactor, the casters start going "LOL, THIS IS SO RIDICULOUS, WHO EVER USES THAT UPGRADE? WHY DID HE DO THIS? THORZAIN MUST HAVE SOME SECRET MEDIVAC BUILD PLANNED". To be frank, anybody who has ever watched pro-starcraft KNOWS what ThorZain was doing, it was easily apparent. When somebody from MLG told them what thorzain was doing, one caster replied "well why didn't he just get cloak and cancel it?" it was then explained that cloak was more expensive, the caster didn't quite see the point and started calling ThorZain the "thrifty Terran".
I'm not hating on individual casters, but that level of incompetence is super annoying to watch, especially on a professional stream like MLG.
Stuff like that really shouldn't happen at this point in a major event.
It's kind of embrassing :c |
|
|
| Grampz United States. March 26 2012 03:46. Posts 2069 | Profile # |
On March 26 2012 03:38 CluEleSs_UK wrote:
"thrifty Terran"
THRIFTY? TERRAN? THORZAIN? |
| |
|
| Zennith United States. March 26 2012 03:49. Posts 792 | Profile Blog # |
| This just makes me want to cast - I'm high masters, does that count as expert? Too bad my computer is too slow to run x-split. |
| | Sentinel Gaming Competitive Team Manager | 1500+ points Masters Zerg | twitch.tv/zennith6 | |
|
|
| sAsImre March 26 2012 04:28. Posts 3015 | Profile Blog # |
On March 26 2012 03:38 CluEleSs_UK wrote:
I understand the role of play-by-play commentators for sure, but it's REALLY annoying when you put 2 guys together with no knowledge; there is definitely a place for casters like TB and Husky, and I love them when they're with a good co-caster, but some of the off-stage MLG streams were terrible, and I will highlight one example:
ThorZain v MKP: Thorzain fakes cloak for banshees by researching caduceus reactor, the casters start going "LOL, THIS IS SO RIDICULOUS, WHO EVER USES THAT UPGRADE? WHY DID HE DO THIS? THORZAIN MUST HAVE SOME SECRET MEDIVAC BUILD PLANNED". To be frank, anybody who has ever watched pro-starcraft KNOWS what ThorZain was doing, it was easily apparent. When somebody from MLG told them what thorzain was doing, one caster replied "well why didn't he just get cloak and cancel it?" it was then explained that cloak was more expensive, the caster didn't quite see the point and started calling ThorZain the "thrifty Terran".
I'm not hating on individual casters, but that level of incompetence is super annoying to watch, especially on a professional stream like MLG.
seriously?
This guy should be fired... (or the guy who tought it was cool to hire him)Last edit: 2012-03-26 04:28:59 |
| |
|
| DawN883 Sweden. March 26 2012 04:48. Posts 553 | Profile # |
On March 26 2012 01:54 thurst0n wrote:
That being said, it all comes down to audience. Who is your audience is the # one thing you must think about. If you want to attract new players a caster like Husky is probably best, if you're trying to appease the high level viewers then sure you want a GM caster. There is a time and a place for in depth analysis, and it's typically post game or in a show like Day9 Daily or Artosis Corner
This is so true. Couldn't have said it better myself. People are different and have different tastes |
| | If the dead are not raised, Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die |  |
|
|
| Dubag Australia. April 14 2012 23:13. Posts 40 | Profile # |
I am slowly starting to dislike tasteosis. Especially after watching day 1 and 2 of season 2 2012 GSL with wolf and khaldor. Being new to watching esports and obviously not of a masters or GM level in sc2 I actually enjoy when they talk about openings and available options and scouting information. Rather than hear them talk about pokemon for the first 12 minutes of the game. (Yes, MMA v Squirtle game 1).
Quote at 12:00 in game:
"Allright well these guys each have have 3 bases now so I guess we can start talking about the game..."
Guess there was no action for the 1st 12 minutes at all?
Are you kidding me? Have they ever though about expanding the future of esports beyond their own little niche in the community? Have they listened to professional commentators from different sports? Do they even consider that people might be interested in watching that aren't able to tell at a glance what is going on early/mid/late game?
I actually think it's disrespectful that they talk about growing esports and then cast like they are talking to a small minority of hardcore gamers.
If you listen to professional commentators from other sports (Which is what tasteosis is) you will hear them talking statistics, tactics, overall style or gameplay, ground features (in sc2 this would be maps), weaknesses, coaches, players, mind games...
For the generally new viewer (And esports is a growing community) getting good casting about a game is much more involving than learning about which pokemon game sucked, and if I would enjoy playing it. If i wanted to know about pokemon I would look it up outside of GSL season 2 thank you Tasteosis.
EDIT:
I meant to include this when I was originally thinking about my post but got my rage on abit and forgot about it.
When artosis analyses a situation on the fly in game in real time I actually message my mates over IM (We watch together) "Jesus, I wouldn't of thought of those reasons to why player X did that". He is a gun when he is on point. I just think he is bored of the standard styles or openings and only gets excited (When he shows full potential) when battles take place or very intuitive strategy evolves and rears it's head.
Tasteosis is also a gun when it comes to hyping a situation and building excitement.
I think, if the duo could take their highlight moments and evolve it over the course of a full game it would be awesome to watch.
Also, I focus on these two because due to my limited esports exposure they are the ones I see the most.
Last edit: 2012-04-14 23:20:36 |
| | DRG | MC | Gumiho | Soulkey | Effort |  |
|
|
| 1 2 3 Next All |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Sidebar Settings...
|
Store
WCS
