|
So lately I've been thinking about various casters, and with the inclusion of the new (post BW) casters TSL3, I decided to share my thoughts about casting (albeit procrastination has postponed it 3 weeks time). This is not a hate thread, nor is it a complain thread. It is simply doing my part to improve the SC community, by educating aspiring casters and perhaps explain some frustrations of current casters shared by the community (I hope you don't mind if I speak for you). I am rather confidant in my views; sorry if they seem cocky or arrogant, but I think you will find that their explanations to be very apt and accurate.
Firstly, there seems to be some confusion as to the job of a caster. The fundamental job of a caster is to frame the game into a narrative that is both interesting and understandable. While this is slightly less true of some sports than others, it is especially important in Starcraft, where the narrative of the game is not readily apparent.
The level at which you do this varies from caster to caster; and this is the reason why observers tend to congregate at commentators around or just above their skill level. Casting that deviates too far from an observer's strategic depth is either "too obscure" or "in the clouds" (on the deep end) or "noob" and "obvious" (on the other). For this exact reason, the most successful casting pairings are of a play by play (henceforth "PBP") caster and a strategic caster, such as JP and Day9, and Tasteless and Artosis. For obvious reasons, the PBP caster is usually the more energetic one, and the strategic caster is calm and reserved. They play off eachother, and satisfy everyone. The spectating noobs have an idea of what's going on, and the grandmasters can see subtleties that might be otherwise missed. They both get to watch a narrative that is interesting and understandable, which deepens the spectator's enjoyment.
So when you're casting, make sure that first and foremost, you are putting the game into understandable terms. Explain the game as you understand it. Do not try to make shit up, or try to "do the day9." If you were meant to be a strategic caster, then it would come naturally.
However, if you're serious about, then you want to develop your strategic depth. Theres no set way of doing this, but I can give you a few suggestions. Firstly, you MUST play the game. If all you do is watch, it is very easy to become out of touch with "reality" (something i know from experience). An important step is to watch every replay of your game. Understand why you lost the game or why you won, as this will improve your understanding of other's games. Lastly, watch progamer FPVODs. Get in their heads. Meticulously analyze their decisions; look at the reasons for each. Start with one player, and then move to many. When you understand their overarching game plan, look at each of their decisions. Every click past 13 supply is a reaction to some information that they have; try to identify the information, the decision, and how they link.
The next step as a caster is to develop a style. This isn't done by sitting in a room thinking about witty things to say; instead this is done with practice. When you get a positive response from something, then keep doing it (but don't become repetitive). Try to be as personable as you can. Treat the audience like they were your close friend, and be as open with them as you can (inasfar as personality is concerned).
If you don't have a good personality, then who knows? You should probably become more social before worrying about casting. Come back when you have social skills, and a personality that you're proud of.
+ Show Spoiler [common mistakes] +
However, there are some common behaviors that detract from the narrative, and thus the quality of casting. The first one is to call a player's decision making into question. While you may disagree with a player's in-game responses, he obviously has had some faith in this decision, and more often than not, they are better players than the casters are. If your decision making was truly that precise, then we would be watching you play, instead of listening to you cast.
Another is what I call "intellectual masturbation." This is when a very smart caster tries to impress you with how smart they are. The main way this is achieved is through wild predictions. If a Protoss builds a proxy pylon, it could mean a number of things. Spending a minute talking about exactly what will happen is pretty cool when you're right, but usually, you're wrong, and that minute has been spent talking about a game that is not happening. In the end, what the proxy pylon means is uncertain, and a caster should treat it as such. "Think not about the future, as it happens soon enough."
This is also achieved by pointing out "hallmarks of a good player" or "some players do this, but notice that player xyz is not." When the observation had no effect on the outcome of the game, the caster is simply saying "this is a skill I've developed in my play, which lets me notice it in the play of this player. Lets look at how skilled we are." (It is important to note that not every time a caster points these skills out that he is masturbating. This also might be a completely unjustified pet peeve of mine, but i still think its worth noting.)
A similar behavior that is even more annoying is to be wrong. Nothing is more frustrating than listening to a caster mouth off about "exactly what happened that game" when they're completely wrong. Of course, no one is infallible, and you cant expect a caster to be perfect. However, this really only happens when a caster "bites off more than they can chew." When a player with low strategic insight pretends to understand completely, and explains his misguided views without a hint of skepticism, it is arrogant and frustrating (hopefully effect created by reading this blog ^^). More casters are muted for this reason than for any other. If you aren't a strategic caster, then don't try to be. Not every caster has to be Day9. Sing with your own voice.
The last error of a caster I've found to be exclusive to Tyler, who is not really a caster, but I find it worth mentioning. When you only point out parts of the game that you don't find very obvious, you alienate the less skilled fanbase. They will say you're "up in the clouds" or "too abstract." Try to cover your bases, by spinning a narrative that people at every level will have at least a basic understanding of the game that you're casting.
I hope you find this illuminating and not too long winded. If you have any comments, please post them, as I would be delighted to discuss them with you.
 
|
This is mostly a list of things that you don't like about casters.
|
On April 05 2011 05:15 gods_basement wrote:
Another is what I call "intellectual masturbation." This is when a very smart caster tries to impress you with how smart they are. The main way this is achieved is through wild predictions. If a Protoss builds a proxy pylon, it could mean a number of things. Spending a minute talking about exactly what will happen is pretty cool when you're right, but usually, you're wrong, and that minute has been spent talking about a game that is not happening. In the end, what the proxy pylon means is uncertain, and a caster should treat it as such. "Think not about the future, as it happens soon enough."
That point is well said but it's a gross misunderstanding. SC2 involves lots of active and passive deception on multiple levels. Possibly the most engaging thing for me personally is all the possible games that are going on simultaneously that don't actually come to pass, during one game, at any given moment. Spectating Starcraft is really hard because your omnipotence of the gamestate hinders watching the play. You have to infer and guess about how the players are perceiving the information they're getting, and what plans are running through their head, and it's basically impossible to say anything with certainty.
I'll agree that casters should scale their predictions according to the proximity and significance of the outcome, but without investigating what might be happening or happening soon, even if it's not even close, a lot of less experienced audience are missing out on the invisible richness of SC. I would even say they are misinformed by watching what appears to be a straightforward and deterministic series of events.
|
On April 05 2011 05:54 Turo wrote:
This is mostly a list of things that you don't like about casters.
I agree. You've framed specifics you dislike as a general guide that can be applied to every caster.
I'm also curious about yoru background - what makes you able to write this guide? For example, I wouldn't write a guide about running MLG because I wouldn't know where to start. Do you have any credentials beyond having watched streams?
|
On April 05 2011 05:54 EatThePath wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2011 05:15 gods_basement wrote:
Another is what I call "intellectual masturbation." This is when a very smart caster tries to impress you with how smart they are. The main way this is achieved is through wild predictions. If a Protoss builds a proxy pylon, it could mean a number of things. Spending a minute talking about exactly what will happen is pretty cool when you're right, but usually, you're wrong, and that minute has been spent talking about a game that is not happening. In the end, what the proxy pylon means is uncertain, and a caster should treat it as such. "Think not about the future, as it happens soon enough." That point is well said but it's a gross misunderstanding. SC2 involves lots of active and passive deception on multiple levels. Possibly the most engaging thing for me personally is all the possible games that are going on simultaneously that don't actually come to pass, during one game, at any given moment. Spectating Starcraft is really hard because your omnipotence of the gamestate hinders watching the play. You have to infer and guess about how the players are perceiving the information they're getting, and what plans are running through their head, and it's basically impossible to say anything with certainty. I'll agree that casters should scale their predictions according to the proximity and significance of the outcome, but without investigating what might be happening or happening soon, even if it's not even close, a lot of less experienced audience are missing out on the invisible richness of SC. I would even say they are misinformed by watching what appears to be a straightforward and deterministic series of events.
deception is one thing, and talking about a range of things that could possibly happen is still fine. However, theres a distinct difference between what you're describing and intellectual masturbation. The discussion you imagine ends in "this has led to a response that is sub optimal..." (which continues the narrative) while the masturbation discussion ends in "and then he will, oh. He's just using it for scouting. Nevermind then."
On April 05 2011 05:54 Turo wrote:
This is mostly a list of things that you don't like about casters.
You're probably right, but its framed in the sense of the narrative. Some casters think its their job to give strategic analysis to the game when they have no place doing it. I tried to create a framework for what is good casting, and then not common habits that detract from this framework.
On April 05 2011 06:02 ModerateTemperature wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2011 05:54 Turo wrote:
This is mostly a list of things that you don't like about casters.
I agree. You've framed specifics you dislike as a general guide that can be applied to every caster. I'm also curious about yoru background - what makes you able to write this guide? For example, I wouldn't write a guide about running MLG because I wouldn't know where to start. Do you have any credentials beyond having watched streams?
Not sure why it matters? No I don't, but I guess i watch a lot of starcraft. If it makes you feel better, i stole the "narrative" idea from day9, and only posted how some habits are suboptimal in this framework.
|
A guide should consist of a list of things to follow to improve or become an excellent caster. A build order for casting if you will.
You wrote a list of things you don't like, then said "don't do these".
That's like saying, when you 4gate, don't attack too late, don't make too many probes, don't lose. Which just doesn't make sense. =P
|
On April 05 2011 06:21 Turo wrote:
A guide should consist of a list of things to follow to improve or become an excellent caster. A build order for casting if you will.
You wrote a list of things you don't like, then said "don't do these".
That's like saying, when you 4gate, don't attack too late, don't make too many probes, don't lose. Which just doesn't make sense. =P
fantastic idea. i'll spoiler the common mistakes too, for brevity
|
I agree that the majority of casters suck. I started only watching korean commentators a year ago.
But I think what you should add is that a caster should have a strong reason that an audience should prefer to listen to them. Like what excellent feature they have that other casters lack... something that makes it worth my while to listen to their yelling as I watch the game.
I feel a lot of casters just sorta randomly post their videos without thought into what they should be doing to make their casts special and worth watching.
EDIT: Getting excited and yelling as a caster is not hard. Everyone can do it.
|
On April 05 2011 06:46 puppykiller wrote:
I agree that the majority of casters suck. I started only watching korean commentators a year ago.
But I think what you should add is that a caster should have a strong reason that an audience should prefer to listen to them. Like what excellent feature they have that other casters lack... something that makes it worth my while to listen to their yelling as I watch the game.
I feel a lot of casters just sorta randomly post their videos without thought into what they should be doing to make their casts special and worth watching.
EDIT: Getting excited and yelling as a caster is not hard. Everyone can do it.
i dont think that i would go as far as to say "majority of casters suck." As far as having a "Strong reason... to prefer listening to them," I think that its easily done with personality, insight, and accessibility. Its my belief that most casters only attempt to have two of the three.
|
I really like your changes.
agree with almost all your points as well.
|
Most of these are good points. Some I disagree with. Saying a commentator is just trying to prove how smart they are by making predictions in a game is silly. If you aren't thinking ahead in a game and discussing the options on the table, you're only going to be doing play-by-play. Also, you don't have to be a social person to start commentating. I'm very introverted, and was when I started commentating, too. Commentating actually helped me build speech skills.
And at the end of the day, with a few exceptions, commentating is a hobby, not a "job." I say just do it the way you think is most enjoyable for you. If people like it, they'll watch. If people don't like it, they won't. What matters is how the caster feels.
|
On April 05 2011 07:49 NukeTheStars wrote:
Most of these are good points. Some I disagree with. Saying a commentator is just trying to prove how smart they are by making predictions in a game is silly. If you aren't thinking ahead in a game and discussing the options on the table, you're only going to be doing play-by-play. Also, you don't have to be a social person to start commentating. I'm very introverted, and was when I started commentating, too. Commentating actually helped me build speech skills.
And at the end of the day, with a few exceptions, commentating is a hobby, not a "job." I say just do it the way you think is most enjoyable for you. If people like it, they'll watch. If people don't like it, they won't. What matters is how the caster feels.
Its mostly meant to be constructive. Everyone likes their hard work to be appreciated. Also, many people are doing this for a pay, and i feel that they should know what is being asked of them.
The part about being social is just how to develop a personality. when writing the part about openness, i thought to myself "what if you're just a shitty person?" and gave the next paragraph as advice to those people hahaha
|
I'm a little disappointed in this 'guide' because it gives me the vibe of "if you're not going to be the best caster, don't bother." I watch a lot of starcraft too, and I have often thought of doing intro-level English commentary for all the people I know who don't like Korean commentary. This guide would seem to discourage people from even trying, which I disagree with.
There is always a place for feedback, but in the end, casters and other people who DID or MADE something deserve respect for what they DID or MADE. "Everyone's a critic," but very few people DO or MAKE anything. If you don't like someone's commentary, don't watch it - but if you're not going to do it better, then don't complain and please respect what they actually did, which you did not. If it weren't for their efforts, there wouldn't even be anything for you to critique (or enjoy).
I suppose I'm mainly irritated by the demand for perfection - "hey, person who entertains me for free - stop doing things that annoy me!" There's this misguided notion that you can post words on the Internet and people will do what you tell them, because you're so important, and people can achieve perfection if they just listen to you. Casting is hard! I don't see you doing it!
I don't want to bash feedback altogether, since feedback loops are what make the modern interactive state of media so compelling. But since we're talking about framing, I think the frame is important. "Sometimes, when you say things that sound like you're showing off, I don't like it." VS "quit intellectually masturbating"
|
On April 06 2011 01:25 Delerium wrote:
I'm a little disappointed in this 'guide' because it gives me the vibe of "if you're not going to be the best caster, don't bother." I watch a lot of starcraft too, and I have often thought of doing intro-level English commentary for all the people I know who don't like Korean commentary. This guide would seem to discourage people from even trying, which I disagree with.
There is always a place for feedback, but in the end, casters and other people who DID or MADE something deserve respect for what they DID or MADE. "Everyone's a critic," but very few people DO or MAKE anything. If you don't like someone's commentary, don't watch it - but if you're not going to do it better, then don't complain and please respect what they actually did, which you did not. If it weren't for their efforts, there wouldn't even be anything for you to critique (or enjoy).
I suppose I'm mainly irritated by the demand for perfection - "hey, person who entertains me for free - stop doing things that annoy me!" There's this misguided notion that you can post words on the Internet and people will do what you tell them, because you're so important, and people can achieve perfection if they just listen to you. Casting is hard! I don't see you doing it!
I don't want to bash feedback altogether, since feedback loops are what make the modern interactive state of media so compelling. But since we're talking about framing, I think the frame is important. "Sometimes, when you say things that sound like you're showing off, I don't like it." VS "quit intellectually masturbating"
this is mostly in reference to professional casting, but i wanted to make it applicable to non-casters too. I'm going to watch the TSL, GSL, and NASL and any tournament with good players, no matter who is casting. I think a lot of people will too. However, sometimes the casting of tournaments is so bad that i watch on mute. Otherwise i grit my teeth in white fury. When theres bad casting, i also complain about it loudly in irc. I thought to myself, "Hey, lets do something constructive with that negative energy," and out came this thread.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
