EPTI've been playing StarCraft since the Brood War days but never really “played” the game to any degree of competence. Once StarCraft II arrived I began to play on a casual level, playing the campaign through, messing around with multiplayer and constantly race switching before settling on Zerg (now I'm back to Random to help my casting). Once I learned of the premise of competitive matches, my interest in eSports was spiked and I began to watch all the games I possibly could to acquire as much knowledge as I could possibly comprehend. Sometime in October I began casting with Reddit's rCraftGaming thanks to help from Vogue (aka TJaws). Soon after that I was put into contact with Knack by my friend SchamToo (who now casts for Playhem) and became an integral part of all of the wonderful people at ALT StarCraft. So here I am, nearly 8 months later with a decent handle on casting and a strong understanding of the game.
Enough about me, on to the discussion at hand. ALT StarCraft's AEGIS pointed out that all casters should watch the recent State of the Game episode in which JP, iNcontrol, NonY, and Artosis respond to European player ClouD's vlog about casters and the state of casting. This link directs you to moment in which the discussion begins and I will be linking to specific points that I discuss in this post. This is for easy reference and to parse out the topics so the need for a segue is unnecessary.
The intention of this post is to discuss my personal experiences and opinions as a caster, player, and fan of StarCraft II in general, in response to the State of the Game discussion as well as ClouD's vlog. I will not cover individual people or entities as I believe everyone has their redeeming qualities and any flaws (and I certainly have several) are not beyond fixing. I warn you, this post is going to be long.
"Being Informed"
Single-handedly the most significant point brought up by ClouD and heavily reinforced by SoTG. “Being informed” is a seemingly vague phrase that easily covers a broad range of topics when it comes to StarCraft. However, for the purpose of this post, I'm going to focus on three exclusive points: strategies, the metagame, and the players.
Strategies: Whether it is a build order specifically designed to punish a player who is trying to take a greedy economic lead or a general strategy that is backed with the idea of deflecting strong timing attacks, build orders and strategies are constantly evolving and progressing in unusual ways. Using Terran as a starting point, the common 1/1/1 build has so many variations and functions that is becoming increasingly hard for casters to keep up with professional Terran players who quite possibly have 20+ variations of the 1/1/1, all designed to do something different on different maps. Just this one example reinforces the importance of being informed.
The truth of the matter is that no one, not even professional players, are able to keep up with strategies that are constantly shifting and adapting. Isn't that the purpose of strategy though? To be in constant flux and to be able to disguise your play and gain an advantage from inadequate scouting? Some would say yes: being innovative and complex is a great way to demonstrate yourself as being the better player. Some would say no: there is a counter to everything and competent scouting will always serve you well. I'm not here to discuss the semantics of skill any further than this but rather to point out that casters must be aware of as many strategies as possible. Casters should not only observe these strategies but experience them. The full integration of casters within the game and its infinite strategies will not only result in more informative casts but greatly improve the reputation of eSports as a whole as it shows true professionalism and dedication to the game.
Similar to strategy is the metagame and the thoughts that go through a player's a head when faced with something they did not expect or are unfamiliar with. The metagame is a tricky concept to stay on par with as it exists in paradox. That is to say, it can come into play and can't come into play at the same time. For possibly the simplest example I refer again to the Terran race. In a TvP on Antiga Shipyard places a bunker at his natural ramp in order to disguise his 3-Rax SCV/Marine all-in as a 1-Rax gasless expand. Protoss upon scouting the bunker at the top of the ramp has to make a choice. Does he accept the likely hood that it is a fast expand build based upon the current metagame of the map or does he apply something I like to call the “anti-metagame” where he reads the bunker as a mere ruse. Going deeper, The Protoss player would think to himself “why would a player who is going for a 3-Rax all in dedicate 100 minerals + SCV mining/build time? That seems so inefficient.” The Protoss player finds it easy to convince himself that the obtuse is actually impossible. Confused? So are casters. Akin to strategy, as a caster you need to be integrated to truly understand the pressure and flaws that is the metagame and “anti-metagame” thinking. You can never learn to swim if you never get in the water but if you jump right into the deep end you'll surely drown.
Like JP said: “try casting from only one player's perspective.” The challenge presented here is uniform within the constituents of strategy and the metagame; if you don't understand because you don't experience it, you will fail and you will fail with great evidence.
Players, and by players I mean them as people and their accomplishments, play styles, and general factoids, are an entity entirely separate from the game itself. Knowing information about players only serves to benefit the production as a whole but not necessarily the casting of individual games. Knowing that Player A likes to do Build Q on Map X against Player B is awesome and enhances the production value of the cast. It gives background, insight, and a sense of “something to look out for.” However, what happens when Player A does nothing that you expect and throws that entire 5-10 minutes you spent discussing his usual strategy out the window? Well you've just spent a good portion of time discussing a scenario that never happened and you must pick up a game that you didn't expect. The point I'm trying to make with this example is that while knowing a player's tendencies is beneficial to the overall production of a match, tournament, etc. it does not necessarily improve the quality of the cast. Nor does it demonstrate a caster's ability to infer information from the game at hand.
In short: Knowing information about players is incredibly crucial as it gives something to talk about in between games, it builds drama and tension between players (if a rivalry or history already exists), and informs viewers about facts that may not be aware of. It does not serve to represent the “informed” quality of a caster. Only that they too can read various forums and Liquipedia articles.
On the whole, the idea “being informed” is not only a vital part about being a good caster, but casters are, in my eyes, obligated to play the game that they love. There will always be exceptions to this but they are few and far between and those who fit that mold are, more often than not, criticized for it. StarCraft II, as a strategy game, is young and constantly evolving. Casters need to evolve with it or be left behind.
“The Responsibility of Being a Caster: Criticism and Representation”
iNcontrol brings up a valid point in that “casters have a huge responsibility in this game.” All monetary assets aside, casters are the people you see on stream 90% of the time. The other 10% are players, coaches, fans, hosts, etc. They are the faces of StarCraft and should represent the game in the most professional manner possible. This is for not only the benefit of a new audience but for sponsors. The “power” that caster wields is not a child's play-thing. You are, in turn, representing each of the players and, aside from someone doing their own research, are the only link the viewer has with that player. If a caster is hyper critical and focuses on the negative aspects of a player's game it can create a fictitious image of that player. The same can be said about focusing too intently on painting players in a light that is falsely positive. Truths should reign supreme when it comes to casting.
The problem here is that we're not dealing with teams playing teams on a regular basis (like professional physical sports) but players playing players. The individualism created from the game's 1v1 inert nature produces a very important but volatile relationship with players. People care about the fact that Artosis had a child recently. People care that Destiny is no longer with Quanitic. People care players on an individual level. And while this is an amazing aspect of eSports it also takes a lot of power away from the players in the player-caster relationship. Casters are the conduit for players to channel through.
I am now going to make what is going to be a relatively controversial comparison between physical sports casting (NFL, MLB, NHL, etc.) and eSports casting. Stay with me, there is a valid point to be made:
The concept of focusing on positive and negative actions of players in game is familiar to everyone. It is no question that nothing is simply positive or simply negative. What a caster chooses to focus on, as I stated earlier, represents the player in some way. Now ask yourself, how often do you hear NFL casters describe how good a quarterback once was and is now failing miserably at anything he attempts to do? Sure, the casters may mention that he's played better years prior, but they will not, to use iNcontrol's words, “deconstruct” him. Why is this? It is an ambivalent answer: speaking strictly to professional sports organizations such as the NHL, production value and viewer response. No one wants to hear how good a player once was and how terrible they are playing now. Negativity does not attract viewers; it deters them. No one wants to watch a hockey game and be depressed because their favorite player is making mistakes all games long and the commentators are “deconstructing” him.
So with this in mind, can this concept of “positivity” be applied to eSports? No, it can't. Why? Because unlike football or hockey, StarCraft is a game of seemingly minor insignificant actions and events that can potentially amount to monumental actions and events. The small and big events alike can be positive and negative. As such, this facilitates a need for casters to point out the negative aspect of the player and the game they are currently playing. However, there is no need to say that had it been a year ago, Player A never would have made that mistake. It does not enhance the cast and it does not represent the player they are now.
Casters are granted an omniscient view of the battlefield. They know what each player is doing at all times. This privilege gives casters the false sense of entitlement to judge each player's actions. As NonY explained “point out the strengths of what somebody's doing […] if his [army] is out of position why was it there in the first place? What was he trying to do by putting it in that position?"
It is in this quote that my point is verified. Players will mess up. Players will blunder their plans. Rather than explaining that they messed everything, casters need to be explaining how it got messed up, how the other player countered it, and the significance of that attack. The best part is that casters who are “informed” tend to understand this concept better than most simply because they have been in that Protoss player's position where his Colossi got picked off by Vikings. They can answer why the Colossi were in that position in the first place and likewise they can answer why the Vikings succeeded.
At the very bottom of it, StarCraft will always be a game about who wins and how they win and who lost and how they lost. The beauty of having to draw out negative aspects of a game is that there is always something to be learned from it. To quote White-Ra, in a time I've never felt more appropriate to do so: “more gg, more skill.”
“Scripts and Statistics”
My thoughts on this are relatively short and sweet. It's something that ClouD really didn't address in his vlog but State of the Game did discuss it quite a bit. I thought it tied in nicely to the idea of casters representing players and the power casters wield.
Artosis made quite a passionate point about the Korean commentators having scripts and statistics premeditated for the match which in turn enhances the production value of the cast. He goes on to say that it's not the English style of commentating and prefers the English way. I'll have to say most of us probably do as well for the simple fact that you cannot predict how a game will go in any shape or form. Some of the best and most genuine moments in StarCraft (Day9 and djWheat post MMA vs Idra at MLG for example) happen because there is no script. The banter is simply a matter of preference and works for some casting duos and doesn't for others.
The use of statistics, as seen on the GSL, are amazing in my opinion and should be used as much as possible. While difficult to calculate and gather, the information presented through statistics offers vitals resources for the commentators to expand upon and add to their casting. More than just using stats as filler and more than just simply stating that “Player A did this 55% of the time on Map X;” casters need to be able to interweave this information into their analysis for the purpose of creating a grander point. At times, there is no other use for statistics other than they are a truth can be reinforced or defied by a game. Like rivalries, it can add drama and tension to the game.
At the end of the day, I feel casters, myself included, need to step it up. If players are dedicating 50+ hours a week to the game, why aren't casters in some way? While there are no hard numbers, it was implied on State of the Game that casters are compensated more so than players yet they do less work. I can't be the only one that doesn't think this business model doesn't make sense. Casters have an obligation to the community, to eSports, to the players, to themselves, and to the virtue of integrity to be dedicated and involved with the game. Thank you to anyone who took the time to read this.
