|
Braavos36393 Posts
On January 29 2008 00:12 YinYang69 wrote:
Analysis is nice and all and understandably you guys want it to be your focal point. But watching a starcraft match should also be entertaining, you don't want your audience member to fall asleep at their keyboards. Play by play gives the audience the ability to zone out, there's nothing wrong with having someone basically hand holding you and saying what's going on. A great emotional play by play can take a boring crap match like hiya vs much and make it presentable and worth watching. It'll elimate dead zone, cause since you sharing mic time, you'll be ready whenever you have something to say. There's really very little negative at all.
I disagree. There's a huge negative. You're either catering toward a more general audience of people who don't really watch progaming much or you're aiming to provide insight that people who are more knowledgeable about promatches want to hear. Either way, one group will not be fully satisfied -- that's the negative.
A summary of the action is only a positive for those that want that kind of cast. It's perfectly fine to have that opinion. I'm not saying one type of cast is better than the other. I agree that we can inject more excitement, but bear with us, it was our first try. But to say that there's "little negative at all" to making emotional play-by-play is wrong -- it ignores the fact that we have a very different type of goal for our casting than others that summarize what is going on. Both ways are fine, just different.
There were a ton of things we missed or could have stated more eloquently. To fill a lot of that time up with saying what was happening is something that runs counter to our goals.
|
On January 29 2008 00:16 Hot_Bid wrote:
I disagree. There's a huge negative. You're either catering toward a more general audience of people who don't really watch progaming much or you're aiming to provide insight that people who are more knowledgeable about promatches want to hear. Either way, one group will not be fully satisfied -- that's the negative.
A summary of the action is only a positive for those that want that kind of cast. It's perfectly fine to have that opinion. I'm not saying one type of cast is better than the other. I agree that we can inject more excitement, but bear with us, it was our first try. But to say that there's "little negative at all" to making emotional play-by-play is wrong -- it ignores the fact that we have a very different type of goal for our casting than others that summarize what is going on. Both ways are fine, just different.
There were a ton of things we missed or could have stated more eloquently. To fill a lot of that time up with saying what was happening is something that runs counter to our goals.
Plenty of people who don't play starcraft watch progaming and there's an influx of new blood and you know why? Cause of the passionate commentating that a few provide on youtube.
Even if you can give full analysis there were still be a tremedous amount of deadzone, this is assuming you don't take 20 seconds to finish a sentence, say ummm, uhh, ahh after every two words. Your goal of giving analytical match will not be jeopardize at all, and the few things you miss can alway be done at the pregame show or post game report when the Korean's show the replays.
To say both group can't be satisfy is just a faux. I'm sure plenty here wouldn't mind at all if a experience emotional play by play guy was assisting.
|
United States11393 Posts
On January 29 2008 00:33 YinYang69 wrote:
To say both group can't be satisfy is just a faux. I'm sure plenty here wouldn't mind at all if a experience emotional play by play guy was assisting.
Sup Ascension?
|
Listening to the Jaedong vs Iris game atm and its not bad, but honestly I don't see much if any more strategic insight than the other commentators who everyone seems to say have none. Maybe I'm not good enough to realize it but thats what I thought.
|
I just watched Game 1, and it was decent. I hesitate to say if it really added that much to the overall experience though, strategically or otherwise (and definitely not emotionally  )... perhaps you guys just didn't give enough credit to how brilliant Jaedong's play was that game despite his relatively ineffectual use of spire tech.
Really just preventing Iris's army from being able to win battles away from the center by defending perfectly using/abusing nydus mobility and swarms, keeping vessel counts within reason (plague on vessels + spore colony is an ingenious and simple way to stop free irradiates), and steadily and surely building his gas advantage.
Then again, analysis is far easier when you've seen the entire game before figuring out how he won.
|
On January 29 2008 00:33 YinYang69 wrote:
Even if you can give full analysis there were still be a tremedous amount of deadzone, this is assuming you don't take 20 seconds to finish a sentence, say ummm, uhh, ahh after every two words. Your goal of giving analytical match will not be jeopardize at all, and the few things you miss can alway be done at the pregame show or post game report when the Korean's show the replays.
The only dead air I remember from the entire 3+ hours was between games. Having a play-by-play commentator basically guarantees that more important things will be missed.
It'd probably be best if HB and Chill just mention fairly significant things as they happen, instead of having a play-by-play guy or avoiding it altogether. It's a good way to transition to the strategical significance what's going on.
Also they should talk in Aussie accents the whole time.
On January 29 2008 02:14 Zortch wrote:
Listening to the Jaedong vs Iris game atm and its not bad, but honestly I don't see much if any more strategic insight than the other commentators who everyone seems to say have none. Maybe I'm not good enough to realize it but thats what I thought.
Apparently not. =/
|
I enjoyed it.
It definitely catered to a different audience, though I worry that such an audience is impossible to cater to.
The crowd aiming for a higher degree of strategical insight tend to have a strategic mindset to start so its rare that you will be adding anything to their viewer experience. It also seems like the current gap between casual viewer and hardcore player seems to be rather narrow. Its either or and therefore the demand seems to be one direction or the other.
For the former play by play and talking about how players could potentially get back in the game is important (even though the likelihood of a comeback is narrow). I cant remember which game it was but Xeris and I were like .... yea he would need to expand like crazy or tech like mad to get back into this and both would either be lucky or suicidal.
Ultimate I worry about the <----insightful energetic----> scale as they seem to be mutually exclusive. I personally feel like klaz balances both in a way that other cant.
Different strokes for different folks I guess but the more that is out there the more likely someone will find something they enjoy which is the point (after all this is a game).
Thus I encourage anyone who feels like they can contribute to contribute. (posted how to video in the general forum)
On Klaz's behavior and the prior mess please confine comments to PMs. I think he responded in the same way that any other person would have responded in the same situation, so I hope that is kept in mind.
I'm not going to get into who is right and who is wrong because that doesn't solve anything. I would hope that all parties involved would resolve their issues now and make up so we can move forward together instead of dividing into camps, though I cant force anyone to do anything.
|
Analytical commentary is, I think, better suited for post mortem casts where the commentators have all seen the game before and just want to explore it more in depth. For live commentary, people want to become emotionally involved in the action...that's the essence of spectator sports, and it's critical that this component be there. Play-by-play adds to this by creating a sort of rhythm, and connects the commentary to the game. Just doing analysis creates a detached air, which I think detracts from the overall experience.
I guess what I'm saying is that it's better to watch the game first with energetic commentary that balances play by play and some level of analysis and then watch it again later with a more in depth, but laid back, analytical commentary.
|
On January 29 2008 00:16 Hot_Bid wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2008 00:12 YinYang69 wrote:
Analysis is nice and all and understandably you guys want it to be your focal point. But watching a starcraft match should also be entertaining, you don't want your audience member to fall asleep at their keyboards. Play by play gives the audience the ability to zone out, there's nothing wrong with having someone basically hand holding you and saying what's going on. A great emotional play by play can take a boring crap match like hiya vs much and make it presentable and worth watching. It'll elimate dead zone, cause since you sharing mic time, you'll be ready whenever you have something to say. There's really very little negative at all. I disagree. There's a huge negative. You're either catering toward a more general audience of people who don't really watch progaming much or you're aiming to provide insight that people who are more knowledgeable about promatches want to hear. Either way, one group will not be fully satisfied -- that's the negative. A summary of the action is only a positive for those that want that kind of cast. It's perfectly fine to have that opinion. I'm not saying one type of cast is better than the other. I agree that we can inject more excitement, but bear with us, it was our first try. But to say that there's "little negative at all" to making emotional play-by-play is wrong -- it ignores the fact that we have a very different type of goal for our casting than others that summarize what is going on. Both ways are fine, just different. There were a ton of things we missed or could have stated more eloquently. To fill a lot of that time up with saying what was happening is something that runs counter to our goals.
You need to learn to talk faster (high WPM) if you think you'll run out of time while doing both play-by-plays and analysis. Just watch Ascension, and there you'll find a perfect blend of commentary/analysis IMO, so it can evidently be done. Also, unless it's a ridiculously action packed game, there should always be some downtime when both players are just macroing/expanding where you can do plenty of analysis. Even if you decide not to do general play-by-plays throughout, I think when something potentially game changing happens you should always try to add emotion + play-by-plays, which would further emphasize the importance of what's happening to the viewer.
|
|
|
I liked it, it will also get better i know! Being abit more enthusiastic won't hurt heh;)
keep it up!
|
lol, yeah, I've found that since I've done more of it, I've found more to say, so I end up talking faster to get it all out..
I was actually impressed things went so smoothly between you guys, not talking over each other much at all. To answer your question, we've been experimenting with systems for when there's three of us. We tried having one "main" person (we'd switch every game) who would ask questions to pass things off to the other two and who had "interrupting rights" to call play by play if something happened. This kept things pretty organized, but some people said the questions interrupted the flow (which may not be as much of a problem for you guys). So lately we've been doing a 'round robin' style which has worked pretty well. I.e... commentator #1 talks, then commentator #2 talks, then #3, then 1, 2, etc... trying to keep the thoughts short and move on, only interrupting if the person talking has missed something major.
With two it's a lot easier because then, yeah, you can just start talking when the other guy stops. Piece of cake.
Anyways... I don't think you need to do dramatic play by play, but I you can still sound emotionally invested in your analysis. Just as a rhetorical example.... Instead of saying "OMG OMG the hydras get stormed!!!1" you can still be excited and say "OMG if he loses this battle he doesn't have enough hatcheries to rebuild his army fast enough!" Or instead of "Wow that was amazing micro!" you could say "Wow, if he hadn't D matrixed his vessels he'd be way too low on vessels right now".. or something. Then you're not reading the screen, as you say, and you're giving game analysis, but in an exciting manner. Analyzing the urgency of the situation, I guess... I think that's the way to satisfy "both groups."
As for forcing excitement, yeah, you don't want to sound forced... but I think that sometimes forcing yourself a little can at least help you open up a little bit so you will be more natural in the future. Honestly I think it just has to do with practicing enough to become comfortable talking and letting yourself go a little while doing so... I used to have to force it a lot more and that's the only reason I can see that I've gotten better at being natural. Over the course of Ascension, for instance, Artosis has opened up a little more every week and now he's pretty exciting to listen to.
Also... jokes are good. You could phrase your analysis comically... just an idea.
Game 3 is online, btw.
|
CA10830 Posts
i really think that some more play-by-play should have been added. of course, the entire thing shouldn't be "ok now he's doing this... and then this... now this..."
but even when you watch the korean commentators there is one of them in charge of stating the things on the screen (usually the one who gets all excited)
|
Hey, I found these commentaries very entertaining and enjoyable. For different reasons than the other commentaries by klaz, moletrap, etc. Their commentaries are more social and enthusiastic but yours is more technical.
I do have some suggestions for you though, and its not be more enthusiastic, I'm not even sure if that could work combined with technical analysis. As experts you guys give us alot of information, such as. "On this map, there is very little divergence. The players will go straight for muta and goliath with drop." (from http://youtube.com/watch?v=RLSni3iR7hA) This is very interesting, but people such as myself want to know more. I would like you to tell me why. Why is this strategy the best? What happens if the team had chosen a protoss instead? Did the pros always use this strategy, or what were some strategies that are now obsolete? This might be commonsense to you guys, but to I think alot of us are wondering those things. I don't mean for you to answer those questions now. Just try to keep an open mind to what those less knowledgeable than you are wondering and do more explanation of "why" when you do future commentaries - of which I hope to hear many more of.
Good luck,
flag
PS I originally meant to post this on youtube, but limit of 500 characters, then I found this topic with a ton of post, I hope you guys see it, and I apologize if this stuff has already been said in the first 10+ pages of comments.
|
On January 29 2008 00:16 Hot_Bid wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2008 00:12 YinYang69 wrote:
Analysis is nice and all and understandably you guys want it to be your focal point. But watching a starcraft match should also be entertaining, you don't want your audience member to fall asleep at their keyboards. Play by play gives the audience the ability to zone out, there's nothing wrong with having someone basically hand holding you and saying what's going on. A great emotional play by play can take a boring crap match like hiya vs much and make it presentable and worth watching. It'll elimate dead zone, cause since you sharing mic time, you'll be ready whenever you have something to say. There's really very little negative at all. I disagree. There's a huge negative. You're either catering toward a more general audience of people who don't really watch progaming much or you're aiming to provide insight that people who are more knowledgeable about promatches want to hear. Either way, one group will not be fully satisfied -- that's the negative. A summary of the action is only a positive for those that want that kind of cast. It's perfectly fine to have that opinion. I'm not saying one type of cast is better than the other. I agree that we can inject more excitement, but bear with us, it was our first try. But to say that there's "little negative at all" to making emotional play-by-play is wrong -- it ignores the fact that we have a very different type of goal for our casting than others that summarize what is going on. Both ways are fine, just different. There were a ton of things we missed or could have stated more eloquently. To fill a lot of that time up with saying what was happening is something that runs counter to our goals.
Good post. For a first effort I think it was great. I'm way more interested in solid strategic analysis than the poor speculations and overly enthusiastic style that seems to be rampant in all of the other English language commentaries except for Artosis on Ascension.
I sincerely hope ya'll will do more of these in the future, and am confident that a good number (if not a majority) of TL members prefer the knowledgeable and thoughtful style that you're going for.
|
I watched it last night but completely forgot to post. It was really nice hearing your collective insight. It was also kinda interesting because I downloaded the mbc vods, so the differences in what the cameras showed on the different channels became pretty apparent. There were some major things that you guys talked about that I didn't see, or things that I saw that you guys didn't comment on.
|
Netherlands4520 Posts
I really enjoyed listening to the shoutcast, too bad rekrul was too embrassed for his girly voice to show up.
|
Calgary25997 Posts
Hi. Just wanted to bump this to let people know we will be casting the Proleague Grand Finals on Saturday the 16th Korean time (Friday the 15th night North American time).
I've already gone through and read all the comments left in this thread, in PMs and on Youtube; however, if you have any further suggestions please post them here.
All the players from the past cast will be back: Hot_Bid, GTR-2-Go, Kennigit and myself. R1CH will be broadcasting the feed with a 1000 user limit this time (Hoho so get on early before those fill up quickly). We may be bringing on other casters to fill in the gaps in our commentary, and to help with their expertise during down time between games - It's something we're still looking into.
We'll be putting forth some more effort into improving and preparing, so again, if you have any suggestions, technical or personal, please post them here.
Thanks, and hope you tune in.
|
hey guys can i be a third? I HAVE SO MUCH SPIRIT
ba dum tshhhh
|
Kennigit
Canada19447 Posts
WTF You have a tank? Congrats...i guess
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
