EPTCommentary Catchphrase Rant - Page 6
| Blogs > Chill |
|
mOnion
United States5657 Posts
| ||
|
condoriano
United States826 Posts
Timing Attack Chances are it's not a timing attack, it's just an attack. There aren't 20 minute ZvT timing attacks, for example. Proterg disagrees. | ||
Chill
Calgary25991 Posts
| ||
|
zulu_nation8
China26351 Posts
| ||
|
EchOne
United States2906 Posts
| ||
|
ketomai
United States2789 Posts
On April 27 2010 06:11 Chill wrote: I know - he's wrong. Pretty sure he's joking when he talks about the 24 min. timing push or w/e. He just says that's approximately when Zerg runs out of gas in his nat/main and they can not be content on 4 base. | ||
|
jalstar
United States8198 Posts
I see this more in forum posts than from commentators, but it's a popular yet untrue myth. Bisu went Sair/Reaver on Reverse Temple. | ||
|
Zapdos_Smithh
Canada2620 Posts
| ||
|
rbkl
772 Posts
| ||
|
Xeris
Iran17695 Posts
On April 27 2010 07:10 ketomai wrote: Pretty sure he's joking when he talks about the 24 min. timing push or w/e. He just says that's approximately when Zerg runs out of gas in his nat/main and they can not be content on 4 base. he's actually not joking at all. he measures the game to that degree of specificity.  | ||
|
tYsopz
Norway215 Posts
This doesn't apply to chill, artosis, day9 & tasteless. They usually know what is going on and certainly do not pretend to when they aren't sure. EDIT: Also as Chill wrote, a LOT of commentators like to throw around technical terms without knowing how to use them. (Push, rush, cheese does come to mind, or when I think about it, just about ANY technical term in SC.) | ||
|
FlopTurnReaver
Switzerland1980 Posts
That's not cute!! It's baller!! | ||
|
Nytefish
United Kingdom4282 Posts
Or they're responding to what they just saw, which is even less of a "timing" but more of a counter-attack. | ||
|
TheAntZ
Israel6248 Posts
+100 | ||
|
Babel
30 Posts
On March 14 2009 12:54 Grobyc wrote: Also Supply Depot It's not fucking pronounced [Dee-pot] -_- that's how it was pronounced in sc1 by the terran advisor when you needed more depots. | ||
|
[UoN]Sentinel
United States11320 Posts
Jay Dong vs. Jaedong I think someone already mentioned this, but Jay Dong is a pornstar. Jaedong is a progamer. Jaedong is not pronounced Jay Dong. Stating the fucking obvious Also, quit stating the fucking obvious. I hate it when someone gets a stargate and it starts flickering and the commentator says, "I think he's gonna build air units now." Actually, I did make fun of that once by seeing my friend go 8 pylon and predicting "That Protoss will get 2 control groups of Zealots and Dragoons and hit him up here in the midgame, after which the Zerg will simulaneously go lurkerling, and the game should be won by the Zerg via ultralisks under dark swarm." | ||
|
jon arbuckle
Canada443 Posts
On April 27 2010 03:14 Chill wrote: Do (verb); Is (verb)ing I'm not sure why people do this, but it's so annoying. Instead of saying the perfect sentence "We see that he is making many units", commentators recently are saying "We do see that he is making many units." I suppose this would make sense if the preceding thought was "Is he making a lot of units?" but it never is, that "do" just comes out of nowhere as if to confirm some imaginary suspicion. Similarly, instead of "We see Nony is making quite a few phoenixes" we have "We are seeing that Nony is making quite a few phoenixes." This may be grammatically correct, but changing everything into the is/are ___ing form makes it sound really awkward. "Do" and all conjugates is a complicated auxiliary because it doesn't necessarily specify a mode (i.e. "We saw Nony play SC2" implies that something took place in the past, whereas "We have seen Nony play SC2" implies the past-progressive tense, meaning as of this time of utterance "we have seen" Nony play, giving the statement greater connectivity to the present). Instead, "do" and all conjugates, in the construction you outline - "NP1 do V1 that NP2 V2" (where V2 is in in the present progressive) - acts as affirmative statement, encompassing imperative statements and emphasizing in varyinf degrees the subject of the sentence. So, for example, in "Mondragon is 6 pooling, and we do see Nony warping in an early gateway," "do" affirms that Nony suspects something aggressive and is responding to it. But I agree it sounds really wordy; I don't think anyone who says that is seeing their words on paper. For the latter, both statements are technically correct, but it's a matter of how much you want to emphasize the observer. Naturally, the former is a lot less wordy and awkward, making it the optimal statement for an observer to make (IMO IMO). | ||
|
iCCup.Nove
United States260 Posts
The question is whether! I actually only caught onto this because I used to watch diggity's youtube channel religiously and he caught himself saying it a lot but i've noticed many many commentators also use the phrase quite often. It doesn't bother me because I'd be SO much worse I think it's entertaining more than anything. It's funny how I HATED commentary done by husky in sc1 but the HDH invitational totally reversed my opinion of him. I think they have a great synergy and rotate in and out smoothly. I digress. | ||
|
Raydog
United States632 Posts
"The Field" - A common term instead of using the map... this isn't football it's starcraft "Throwing Down" - Instead of saying constructing or building, why say throwing down? Mistaking probes, scvs, drones, CCs, Nexus, and Hatcheries all too often In my opinion a good commentator is someone who keeps a solid flow while they talk (sorry attero), have a soft voice on the ears, and don't use this "commentary slang". | ||
|
maga33
United States247 Posts
reminds me of my brother watching yugioh IMA THROW DOWN A FACE DOWN!! Stop please. | ||
| ||
