EPTBW General Discussion - Page 175
| Forum Index > BW General |
tofucake
Hyrule19001 Posts
| ||
|
Chef
10810 Posts
On March 09 2017 07:19 tofucake wrote: I don't run flash on my computer, tell Afreeca to get its HTML5 game on point :\ It's been every game for over a year now... IMO it had calmed down near the end of ASL with the tasteosis combo and was actually listenable, but Rapid brought it right back to the stone age and I had to stop after 5 minutes and haven't checked it out since. I don't mind at all that there be some commentary geared toward people who are new, but I do think it sucks that the assumption is not 'I've barely touched RTS / I'm from a different RTS' but 'I'm from SC2 please explain everything in terms of SC2." Because news flash, people who haven't played SC2 don't understand what they're talking about. I completely miss the WCG days of Tasteless explaining that the things on the screen with big elephant trucks pointed up are tanks. It is cheating to use SC2 as a crutch. Also Rapid is from the worst of gaming commentary imo, where every statement is this overly vague fill-the-air dribble that doesn't mean anything. Seriously you can have never played an RTS before, that doesn't make you incapable of understanding abstract strategy. Good commentary is about helping people watching understand what's the critical next step, building tension that might otherwise be lost focusing on something less important. Rapid style is like the opposite, it is focusing on stuff that doesn't matter and isn't the pivot of tension in the match. New players and old players alike benefit from expert analysis. The new player gets the general idea, the old player might catch an insight they didn't normally think about as finer points are elaborated on. It takes a commentator to help the audience understand the point of something is delay, not damage. I remember years ago it really impressing me that shuttle reaver's point wasn't necessarily to kill a lot of scvs, but to buy time for carriers in some strategies, and here's why he went for this strategy based on his opponent and the start locations and the map. These days it's like 'oh he only killed 1 scv, that's not enough' and that's the commentary. 'Oh, losing a shuttle and reaver for nothing, that's bad.' without any build up to what the purpose of that shuttle and reaver might have been. It's like a description of a death scene in a book about a character you've never learned or cared about. That's my misplaced rant full of exaggerations but maybe you can glean some fraction of truth about what annoys me in some commentary styles. I guess tldr is I think it's really boring to just say what happened on the screen for 20 minutes, and translating it into sc2 speak is even more inane. | ||
Kau
Canada3500 Posts
| ||
|
Jae Zedong
407 Posts
The percentage of viewers watching BW casts today who both a) are completely new to BW and b) have extensive knowledge of SC2 is probably way smaller than these casters think. They're imagining scores of exclusive SC2 fans tuning in to check out what this old game is about, when that % is probably in the low single digits. And even for those people, I legitimately don't think they learn that much from hearing SC2 analogies all the time. What are they really going to learn from shoe-horned analogies? They're RTS players, they should be able to get a feel for the game regardless. It's like casting a Formula 1 race to Nascar fans and going "this is like Nascar except you can turn right". No shit sherlock? | ||
Peeano
Netherlands4735 Posts
If you're looking for a decent English cast, BD/FlashFTW are definitely the way to go. Not Tastosis/Rapid/Wolf, imo even if you're a SC2 player. | ||
|
Cryoc
Germany909 Posts
On March 10 2017 02:17 Chef wrote: IMO it had calmed down near the end of ASL with the tasteosis combo and was actually listenable, but Rapid brought it right back to the stone age and I had to stop after 5 minutes and haven't checked it out since. I don't mind at all that there be some commentary geared toward people who are new, but I do think it sucks that the assumption is not 'I've barely touched RTS / I'm from a different RTS' but 'I'm from SC2 please explain everything in terms of SC2." Because news flash, people who haven't played SC2 don't understand what they're talking about. I completely miss the WCG days of Tasteless explaining that the things on the screen with big elephant trucks pointed up are tanks. It is cheating to use SC2 as a crutch. Also Rapid is from the worst of gaming commentary imo, where every statement is this overly vague fill-the-air dribble that doesn't mean anything. Seriously you can have never played an RTS before, that doesn't make you incapable of understanding abstract strategy. Good commentary is about helping people watching understand what's the critical next step, building tension that might otherwise be lost focusing on something less important. Rapid style is like the opposite, it is focusing on stuff that doesn't matter and isn't the pivot of tension in the match. New players and old players alike benefit from expert analysis. The new player gets the general idea, the old player might catch an insight they didn't normally think about as finer points are elaborated on. It takes a commentator to help the audience understand the point of something is delay, not damage. I remember years ago it really impressing me that shuttle reaver's point wasn't necessarily to kill a lot of scvs, but to buy time for carriers in some strategies, and here's why he went for this strategy based on his opponent and the start locations and the map. These days it's like 'oh he only killed 1 scv, that's not enough' and that's the commentary. 'Oh, losing a shuttle and reaver for nothing, that's bad.' without any build up to what the purpose of that shuttle and reaver might have been. It's like a description of a death scene in a book about a character you've never learned or cared about. That's my misplaced rant full of exaggerations but maybe you can glean some fraction of truth about what annoys me in some commentary styles. I guess tldr is I think it's really boring to just say what happened on the screen for 20 minutes, and translating it into sc2 speak is even more inane. I am pretty sure the main problem is, none of the casters actually have any idea themselves of what the point of the displayed strategies or plays might be, so they can only talk about what they see or what some spellcasters do. Korean commentators are sadly the only way to go, if you played BW to some extent. | ||
BigFan
TLADT24920 Posts
On March 10 2017 02:28 Kau wrote: My dream is for English commentary to be like these translations: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/brood-war/65727-return-of-the-subtitle-latest-boxer-vs-hiya amazing, thanks for the link! I've seen the boxer vs hiya and the mind vs flash bit but never realized there were other subtitled videos. Agree, this stuff would be extremely beneficial for the community. | ||
|
RAPiDCasting
Korea (South)594 Posts
On March 09 2017 05:40 tofucake wrote: why do so many commentators treat every game like it's the first time the audience is watching? Every game I hear "spider mines, which are like widow mines but don't shoot", or hearing Rapid define manner pylon in the team battle Ro4. Every game with a Terran "marines lose to everything, SCVs beat everything" blah blah wtb the good commentary from 2008 I wanted to shed some light tofucake's questions and hopefully offer some understanding and solutions. Every game offers something new so it's usually a good idea to point things like that out when they occur. In your example of the manner pylon it was the first instance where that has happened in ASL:TB so while it's an older concept, new viewers to such a new show might not have experienced it before. My thought was "I'll just quickly explain what this is and why it's significant and move on." That seems pretty logical to me so even for the hardcore diehard broodwar fans watching it's just a short explanation and hopefully not that disruptive. Digging deeper into the strategy is great and there are plenty of examples of more complicated discussions, but I want to make sure to include something for everyone since there's a wide variety of people watching. I'm always looking for feedback so if anyone has any suggestions feel free to let me know on Twitter. | ||
|
darktreb
United States3016 Posts
On March 10 2017 02:31 Jae Zedong wrote: Agree with Chef. The percentage of viewers watching BW casts today who both a) are completely new to BW and b) have extensive knowledge of SC2 is probably way smaller than these casters think. They're imagining scores of exclusive SC2 fans tuning in to check out what this old game is about, when that % is probably in the low single digits. And even for those people, I legitimately don't think they learn that much from hearing SC2 analogies all the time. What are they really going to learn from shoe-horned analogies? They're RTS players, they should be able to get a feel for the game regardless. It's like casting a Formula 1 race to Nascar fans and going "this is like Nascar except you can turn right". No shit sherlock? Not disagreeing with your overall sentiment, but what's the evidence for this assertion? | ||
|
RAPiDCasting
Korea (South)594 Posts
On March 10 2017 02:17 Chef wrote: That's my misplaced rant full of exaggerations but maybe you can glean some fraction of truth about what annoys me in some commentary styles. I guess tldr is I think it's really boring to just say what happened on the screen for 20 minutes, and translating it into sc2 speak is even more inane. Thanks for the suggestions and for articulating your thoughts on what you're looking for from commentary. I'm totally in agreement with you for the most part about explaining the meaning behind what's going on and explaining what's going to happen next based on analysis. If you have any more thoughts or feedback please feel free to pm me here or send me a message on Twitter. | ||
|
SchAmToo
United States1141 Posts
I see a very difficult struggle as a commentator myself, you'd want to make it easy for new comers to get into the action, and still want to appeal to the older crowd. When i casted Heroes I got praise because i would explain some of the more basic things every once in a while to bridge the gap to new viewers. It's not an easy thing to do. | ||
GTR
51386 Posts
for that reason, i feel like i thrived when i worked with someone like artosis who'd be able to do colour for me and i could just focus on play-by-play, which for sc2 i felt more comfortable in. with brood war though, i am more confident in my colour so that wouldn't be the case. tl:dr - it's hard to figure out what's best for yourself and your audience. give commentators a fucking break. | ||
|
SchAmToo
United States1141 Posts
On March 10 2017 09:41 GTR wrote:tl:dr - it's hard to figure out what's best for yourself and your audience. give commentators a fucking break. ^^^ THIS ^^^ If you're someone who doesn't like the commentators, mute the stream if it's not for you, give constructive feedback, but just realize you may not always be the target audience. There are a lot of audiences for any given broadcast, and commentators won't always say things pertaining to you. A commentator who uses "Fill-in dribble" realize that not every moment in a cast is meant for the 9999 IQ Zerg Player who used to be a pro. They realize "not much I could say here that I'm comfortable saying, so I'll give maybe some information for people who don't realize xyz." Providing any analysis in any game scenario has to be 100% correct, or the commentator will get a thread about it (Oh wow look) . That fear has caused me in the past to just not try to analyze a game at all, and instead say 100% certain things, rather than guesstimate weird strategies, even if those guesses were 80-90% correct. Hell, I remember Playhem SC2 days where i'd call a build, i'd see someone in chat be like "wow, what is this commentator, a silver league" and then the person went the build I said. Anyway, rant of a long-time commentator. I applaud having english commentators for a game that doesn't have the biggest english audience. They're trying their hardest and I'm pretty sure these people cast 3 different games at any given moment, which is a lot more impressive than I could do so cheers to that. | ||
|
tofucake
Hyrule19001 Posts
On March 10 2017 08:29 rapidtransit247 wrote: I wanted to shed some light tofucake's questions and hopefully offer some understanding and solutions. Every game offers something new so it's usually a good idea to point things like that out when they occur. In your example of the manner pylon it was the first instance where that has happened in ASL:TB so while it's an older concept, new viewers to such a new show might not have experienced it before. My thought was "I'll just quickly explain what this is and why it's significant and move on." That seems pretty logical to me so even for the hardcore diehard broodwar fans watching it's just a short explanation and hopefully not that disruptive. Digging deeper into the strategy is great and there are plenty of examples of more complicated discussions, but I want to make sure to include something for everyone since there's a wide variety of people watching. I'm always looking for feedback so if anyone has any suggestions feel free to let me know on Twitter. yeah but his explanation was literally "That's a manner Pylon. I don't know why it's called a manner Pylon when it's really actually a bad manner Pylon. Anyway, it's preventing mining from 4 patches." In actuality, it was just blocking 1 probe between the Pylon and minerals, not blocking mining from 4 patches. Also, it's called a manner Pylon because they drop the "bad" from the front. Like...even idiot viewers can figure out from "manner Pylon" that it's "[bad] manner Pylon", and they can see on the screen that 1 Probe is trapped, while all the patches are being mined from. If you're going to give a terrible definition of a thing, at least get the definition right, especially when what's happening on screen is directly refuting the words coming out of your mouth. | ||
Ty2
United States1434 Posts
On March 10 2017 10:50 tofucake wrote: yeah but his explanation was literally "That's a manner Pylon. I don't know why it's called a manner Pylon when it's really actually a bad manner Pylon. Anyway, it's preventing mining from 4 patches." In actuality, it was just blocking 1 probe between the Pylon and minerals, not blocking mining from 4 patches. Also, it's called a manner Pylon because they drop the "bad" from the front. Like...even idiot viewers can figure out from "manner Pylon" that it's "[bad] manner Pylon", and they can see on the screen that 1 Probe is trapped, while all the patches are being mined from. If you're going to give a terrible definition of a thing, at least get the definition right, especially when what's happening on screen is directly refuting the words coming out of your mouth. I don't really think you need to be so critical, he was just making a lighthearted joke. Yah, that small detail could be worked out with the economic damage, but no need to have less than tactful delivery. I do think he needs some work like when a probe got some gas from the assimilator they made at the terran base and rapid wrongly said it was gonna have a huge impact on the game (5000 to 4992 gas) and slow down siege tanks when the gas mining rate wasn't actually going to be affected. Edit: edited words | ||
|
tofucake
Hyrule19001 Posts
At least Wolf+Rapid are talking about the games :\ | ||
|
SBL_HOST
18 Posts
| ||
|
tofucake
Hyrule19001 Posts
| ||
BisuDagger
Bisutopia19190 Posts
On March 10 2017 11:15 tofucake wrote: turned on flash for a minute to check out BD and FFTW. Talking about Beastmaster and USD/Euro parity. At least Wolf+Rapid are talking about the games :\ Im sure that sample size was all that was needed. | ||
|
FlaShFTW
United States10089 Posts
On March 10 2017 11:15 tofucake wrote: turned on flash for a minute to check out BD and FFTW. Talking about Beastmaster and USD/Euro parity. At least Wolf+Rapid are talking about the games :\ LOL we were joking around at the beginning of a match. give us a listen for more than that and then give a real opinion. | ||
| ||
