|
There are nice events in the ESL studio, there is a good GomTV and Nasl production.
For any given match though, the casters declare how exciting they are to see those two guys battling it out. Again and again I am told what a treat awaits me, while in fact only standard games are shown. But often this is expressed in generic statements. Sometimes the casters lack the preparation and don't fill me in regarding the pasts of these two players: When and where did they meet on the battlefield, can we assume a grudge, a need for revenge, or can we assume that both players just want to get out victorious without caring too much who they play against?
And again and again, the EU or NA interviewer has to fight being overwhelmed by emotion out of respect for the player he just interviews.
So a matchday is always the same, save for some unexpected things like a sudden MC camera appearance.
On top of that, many casters do early GG calling. Imo they should comment and not stopping to comment the game when they see it is over. GG calling does not provide the viewer any useful information. The more experienced viewers know it is over anyway, the less experienced viewers are told to stop paying attention because it is already clear that on of the players is checkmated.
It would be okay if the casters are talking about the great advantage of one player, or about their doubts that the other player has a chance. But being directly told who wins before his opponent throws the towel really gets annoying. If I only want to know the result, I look at Liquipedia. I watch a commented match to get commentary, not to get told the result as soon as possible.
The actual GG is the resolution of the struggle of the two players. The admission of defeat is the emotional climax, the moment we are wating for. Casters who call GG early, take that away from the experience.
  
|
we should learn from the korean casters
it also seems the caster seem smart if they dabble on what the person behind can do to come back and the come back happens
rather than "oh shit it's not gg jk they win instead"
|
On October 04 2013 17:42 [F_]aths wrote:
There are nice events in the ESL studio, there is a good GomTV and Nasl production.
For any given match though, the casters declare how exciting they are to see those two guys battling it out. Again and again I am told what a treat awaits me, while in fact only standard games are shown. But often this is expressed in generic statements. Sometimes the casters lack the preparation and don't fill me in regarding the pasts of these two players: When and where did they meet on the battlefield, can we assume a grudge, a need for revenge, or can we assume that both players just want to get out victorious without caring too much who they play against?
And again and again, the EU or NA interviewer has to fight being overwhelmed by emotion out of respect for the player he just interviews.
So a matchday is always the same, save for some unexpected things like a sudden MC camera appearance.
On top of that, many casters do early GG calling. Imo they should comment and not stopping to comment the game when they see it is over. GG calling does not provide the viewer any useful information. The more experienced viewers know it is over anyway, the less experienced viewers are told to stop paying attention because it is already clear that on of the players is checkmated.
It would be okay if the casters are talking about the great advantage of one player, or about their doubts that the other player has a chance. But being directly told who wins before his opponent throws the towel really gets annoying. If I only want to know the result, I look at Liquipedia. I watch a commented match to get commentary, not to get told the result as soon as possible.
The actual GG is the resolution of the struggle of the two players. The admission of defeat is the emotional climax, the moment we are wating for. Casters who call GG early, take that away from the experience.
Huh? Correct me if I'm wrong, but casters don't look at the winner of the VODs before casting them and then can't wait until they can call out the winner before the final gg.
|
Tasteless is a serial offender with this, can't stand when casters say checkmate/gg when only the higher level viewers know it's 'probably' over.
|
On October 04 2013 19:35 Scarecrow wrote:
Tasteless is a serial offender with this, can't stand when casters say checkmate/gg when only the higher level viewers know it's 'probably' over.
Honestly, I've kind of grown to dislike Tasteless' casting. He's still way better than a lot of other play by play casters and he's funny, but he constantly calls gg way early, constantly caters to the "low level" players (which ends up being stuff that even the lowest of bronze level players know by now), and used to just shout and scream random noises.
He's gotten better about it, but calling gg too early is really, really annoying. I know it's hard if there's an all in and the person doesn't quite die and ends up just kind of being ridiculously far behind, but it still kind of kills the excitement instantly.
|
I don't see how calling GG early ruins the excitement. In the majority of cases, it's just as clear to you as a viewer as it is to them. I don't see the problem. Are you some form of sheep who will blindly assume a comeback until the caster mentions defeat, at which point you lose all hope?
This is a problem with SC2, not casters. The game has a snowbally aspect... once you're behind, your chances of winning become tiny. Especially at a higher level where your opponent won't make a mistake and let you back into the game.
|
On October 04 2013 19:53 Tobberoth wrote:
This is a problem with SC2, not casters. The game has a snowbally aspect... once you're behind, your chances of winning become tiny. Especially at a higher level where your opponent won't make a mistake and let you back into the game.
Another SC2 hate post -.- You people are so hyperbolic, the chances are not 'tiny' when behind and high level players still make mistakes if their opponent applies enough pressure/fakes them out.
|
I could write volumes on what casters could fix to make themselves listenable to me, but what's the point, they are not going to listen. They know they do rather good already (judging by viewer numbers, employers and money they earn) and chances are if they change anything they may lose more viewers than they gain. Why would they listen to anybody but their direct employers.
They have no way of knowing if you watch games with sound down, and if you stopped watching games they cast, they would have no way of knowing if casting is the reason. Which makes me to believe no particular caster is going to improve in any serious way ever.
Anyway I agree with OP on those particular issues
The game has a snowbally aspect... once you're behind, your chances of winning become tiny.
No they are not. One good engagement and you suddenly win everything. SC2 is too volatile, too random, not "snowbally" enough, it was criticized for it for years. Back to casters, that's why casters are wrong so often it's not even funny, that's why they say guy X is certainly going to win and then guy Y gets the victory. Do you even watch it?
|
On October 04 2013 18:10 beesinyoface wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 17:42 [F_]aths wrote:
There are nice events in the ESL studio, there is a good GomTV and Nasl production.
For any given match though, the casters declare how exciting they are to see those two guys battling it out. Again and again I am told what a treat awaits me, while in fact only standard games are shown. But often this is expressed in generic statements. Sometimes the casters lack the preparation and don't fill me in regarding the pasts of these two players: When and where did they meet on the battlefield, can we assume a grudge, a need for revenge, or can we assume that both players just want to get out victorious without caring too much who they play against?
And again and again, the EU or NA interviewer has to fight being overwhelmed by emotion out of respect for the player he just interviews.
So a matchday is always the same, save for some unexpected things like a sudden MC camera appearance.
On top of that, many casters do early GG calling. Imo they should comment and not stopping to comment the game when they see it is over. GG calling does not provide the viewer any useful information. The more experienced viewers know it is over anyway, the less experienced viewers are told to stop paying attention because it is already clear that on of the players is checkmated.
It would be okay if the casters are talking about the great advantage of one player, or about their doubts that the other player has a chance. But being directly told who wins before his opponent throws the towel really gets annoying. If I only want to know the result, I look at Liquipedia. I watch a commented match to get commentary, not to get told the result as soon as possible.
The actual GG is the resolution of the struggle of the two players. The admission of defeat is the emotional climax, the moment we are wating for. Casters who call GG early, take that away from the experience. Huh? Correct me if I'm wrong, but casters don't look at the winner of the VODs before casting them and then can't wait until they can call out the winner before the final gg.
They cast live, but tell the audience that the game is over as soon as they see that one of the players cannot win anymore.
On October 04 2013 19:48 MtlGuitarist97 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 19:35 Scarecrow wrote:
Tasteless is a serial offender with this, can't stand when casters say checkmate/gg when only the higher level viewers know it's 'probably' over. Honestly, I've kind of grown to dislike Tasteless' casting. He's still way better than a lot of other play by play casters and he's funny, but he constantly calls gg way early, constantly caters to the "low level" players (which ends up being stuff that even the lowest of bronze level players know by now), and used to just shout and scream random noises. He's gotten better about it, but calling gg too early is really, really annoying. I know it's hard if there's an all in and the person doesn't quite die and ends up just kind of being ridiculously far behind, but it still kind of kills the excitement instantly.
I am fine with telling some very basic stuff. Not every viewer might be a player at all.
Even if I see that one player won clearly, there is still the tension when the other player admits defeat.
|
On October 04 2013 19:53 Tobberoth wrote:
I don't see how calling GG early ruins the excitement. In the majority of cases, it's just as clear to you as a viewer as it is to them. I don't see the problem. Are you some form of sheep who will blindly assume a comeback until the caster mentions defeat, at which point you lose all hope?
This is a problem with SC2, not casters. The game has a snowbally aspect... once you're behind, your chances of winning become tiny. Especially at a higher level where your opponent won't make a mistake and let you back into the game. While we see crazy comebacks even in higher levels, that is not my argument. I am not watching the games to know the match result as soon as possible.
I watch the game to watch the game.
The game ends when one player types GG.
|
I like the way Artosis does it. He describes the ways the player could come back, but doesn't conceal the fact that the odds are rather thin.
|
On October 04 2013 21:16 [F_]aths wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 19:53 Tobberoth wrote:
I don't see how calling GG early ruins the excitement. In the majority of cases, it's just as clear to you as a viewer as it is to them. I don't see the problem. Are you some form of sheep who will blindly assume a comeback until the caster mentions defeat, at which point you lose all hope?
This is a problem with SC2, not casters. The game has a snowbally aspect... once you're behind, your chances of winning become tiny. Especially at a higher level where your opponent won't make a mistake and let you back into the game. While we see crazy comebacks even in higher levels, that is not my argument. I am not watching the games to know the match result as soon as possible. I watch the game to watch the game. The game ends when one player types GG.
Which is true whether the caster claims the game is over or not. The caster saying "gg" before the player doesn't change the match at all.
|
On October 04 2013 20:07 Sejanus wrote:
No they are not. One good engagement and you suddenly win everything. SC2 is too volatile, too random, not "snowbally" enough, it was criticized for it for years. Back to casters, that's why casters are wrong so often it's not even funny, that's why they say guy X is certainly going to win and then guy Y gets the victory. Do you even watch it?
So if they are wrong all the time, what does it matter if a caster lets us know that he thinks it's over, he's probably going to be wrong anyway right? No, he won't. Because they usually are right.
|
In terms of snowballyness, I feel the problem with SC2 is that's it's kind of in the middle. It's not snowbally enough that when you're ahead you can always just crush your opponent and end the game, but it also doesn't really allow a player who's seriously behind to come back even if completely left alone. So what you often see is a situation where one player is winning but can't immediately break his opponent without taking risks, so instead he macros up and gets more and more ahead, then 5-10 minutes later he maxes out and takes an easy win.
It's kind of a checkmate scenario, but you can't speed it up and it often looks pretty much the same. I think this could have been designed better in a way that a player who is considerably ahead needs to keep attacking or loses his advantage, so either you get a shorter game or you get a more even game. This would also amplify skill differences between players.
That being said, I feel that casters in general focus too much on results and not enough on the intrinsic value of games. If Barca is winning 5-0 and Iniesta scores from 35 yards out then that's still exciting, but if Tasteless were casting that game he'd be like "ok now it's 6-0, gg, so what did you have for breakfast today Artosis?"
|
i remember when idra called early GG.. that was an interesting tournament
|
On October 04 2013 21:40 Tobberoth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 21:16 [F_]aths wrote:On October 04 2013 19:53 Tobberoth wrote:
I don't see how calling GG early ruins the excitement. In the majority of cases, it's just as clear to you as a viewer as it is to them. I don't see the problem. Are you some form of sheep who will blindly assume a comeback until the caster mentions defeat, at which point you lose all hope?
This is a problem with SC2, not casters. The game has a snowbally aspect... once you're behind, your chances of winning become tiny. Especially at a higher level where your opponent won't make a mistake and let you back into the game. While we see crazy comebacks even in higher levels, that is not my argument. I am not watching the games to know the match result as soon as possible. I watch the game to watch the game. The game ends when one player types GG. Which is true whether the caster claims the game is over or not. The caster saying "gg" before the player doesn't change the match at all.
The casters are telling me that I don't need to watch this match anymore because the victor is already known. The casters also telling me that they are not doing their job anymore because they stop following this match since the result is already clear.
|
On October 04 2013 22:27 [F_]aths wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 21:40 Tobberoth wrote:On October 04 2013 21:16 [F_]aths wrote:On October 04 2013 19:53 Tobberoth wrote:
I don't see how calling GG early ruins the excitement. In the majority of cases, it's just as clear to you as a viewer as it is to them. I don't see the problem. Are you some form of sheep who will blindly assume a comeback until the caster mentions defeat, at which point you lose all hope?
This is a problem with SC2, not casters. The game has a snowbally aspect... once you're behind, your chances of winning become tiny. Especially at a higher level where your opponent won't make a mistake and let you back into the game. While we see crazy comebacks even in higher levels, that is not my argument. I am not watching the games to know the match result as soon as possible. I watch the game to watch the game. The game ends when one player types GG. Which is true whether the caster claims the game is over or not. The caster saying "gg" before the player doesn't change the match at all. The casters are telling me that I don't need to watch this match anymore because the victor is already known. The casters also telling me that they are not doing their job anymore because they stop caring about this match since the result is already clear.
No, they aren't. You already know that the game is over unless you're a newbie, but that's not what they are saying regardless. They just commentate on the situation of the game, which is their job. An engagement just went badly, this dude lost all of his troops and he's about to be mined out, chances are that engagement just lost him the game. Of course, the caster could lie and act as if nothing happened... but again, anyone but the most noobish people can see what happened and know the caster is just spouting BS. The last statement makes no sense anyway. The caster is saying the game is probably over for the guy on the losing end, they never say "It's over, now I'm tapping out, see ya guys". They always keep commentating til the end, and they usually bring it up if there are any chances for comebacks etc.
If you personally feel it's not over, the caster letting you know what they think should have zero impact.
|
Tobberoth,
I think there is no need to use the word "noobish" for people with little experience.
And again, you don't reply to the actual argument I make. You create a strawman with "lying" casters. My argument is that it is the job of the caster to comment the game, not to tell the result of the match as soon as possible.
|
On October 04 2013 22:45 [F_]aths wrote:
Tobberoth,
this is again not the argument I make. The argment is that it is the job of the caster to comment the game, not to tell the result of the match as soon as possible. I also think there is no need to use "noobish" for people with little experience.
Which they don't. They don't say "Lol, Guy A will stomp Guy B so hard" when the game starts. They comment that the game swinged really hard in someones favor. Nothing wrong with that. It's one thing when they call gg when it's far from over, but that's super rare, even with Tasteless.
|
United States5162 Posts
Stating the likelihood of one player winning is commenting on the game. When one player is at such a disadvantage that a comeback is near impossible, there is nothing wrong with letting viewers know that.
|
On October 04 2013 22:52 Myles wrote:
Stating the likelihood of one player winning is commenting on the game. When one player is at such a disadvantage that a comeback is near impossible, there is nothing wrong with letting viewers know that.
This is what I was thinking. I feel like you guys are literally whining over nothing.
|
On October 04 2013 22:52 Myles wrote:
Stating the likelihood of one player winning is commenting on the game. When one player is at such a disadvantage that a comeback is near impossible, there is nothing wrong with letting viewers know that.
I agree with this phrasing ("letting viewers know that"). But commenting "the game is over", "it's GG" still kills the fun for me.
"I doubt that he can come back", "he is clearly out of options", "even a lucky series of baneling hits would not help at this point" are better ways to indicate the state of the game imo.
|
It is not smart for the caster to say gg unless there is literally no chance of a comeback.
In American Football they wait until it is very close to over to call the winning team.
It just makes the caster look stupid if they say gg and the game is not over. On national television a commentator would get lambasted for making this mistake.
|
On October 04 2013 23:31 docvoc wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 22:52 Myles wrote:
Stating the likelihood of one player winning is commenting on the game. When one player is at such a disadvantage that a comeback is near impossible, there is nothing wrong with letting viewers know that. This is what I was thinking. I feel like you guys are literally whining over nothing.
The problem is that that's not what the commentators do.
They tend to dismiss players that are at some disadvantage and anyone who watches GSL will know that comebacks have happened and the casters are like oh yeah jk the other guy wins now cuz he did something magical
|
On October 08 2013 05:29 mizU wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2013 23:31 docvoc wrote:On October 04 2013 22:52 Myles wrote:
Stating the likelihood of one player winning is commenting on the game. When one player is at such a disadvantage that a comeback is near impossible, there is nothing wrong with letting viewers know that. This is what I was thinking. I feel like you guys are literally whining over nothing. The problem is that that's not what the commentators do. They tend to dismiss players that are at some disadvantage and anyone who watches GSL will know that comebacks have happened and the casters are like oh yeah jk the other guy wins now cuz he did something magical
That is another annoying thing: The declaration that a player did the impossible.
No, he didn't. He did something improbable, not impossible. A bit hyperbole every now and then would be okay, but I hear it too often.
My issue with early GG calling is not that we had games were the other player did come back. It is the message that one does not need to watch this game. This also happens in the GSTL, when a player is very likely to get the final win necessary to for his team. Some casters announce that team so-and-so won this round.
But please, keep the excitement for the actual GG, don't spoil it! It is the GG moment I am waiting for.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
