|
On October 02 2008 06:23 Nintu wrote:
Everyone underestimates the skill difference between the iccup ranks. The skill difference that gives one a more complete understanding of what they're seeing. I know this because when I was D, I thought I could imagine what D+ and C or B would feel like. I completely underestimated it. When I reached C-, I thought I could more clearly see what the higher ranks of C+ and B- would look like. Once again, I was entirely caught off guard by the tremendous depth of knowledge that was required to obtain those ranks. (As any race besides Protoss... ^^)
You just don't see it until you reach it, and you look down, and you see how far you've come. You think you can see the top, but the cliffs reveal a great distance more to go.
When your SCV is scouting the enemy base, it looks very simple to a lower rank player. But to reach higher ranks, you really have to learn how important that scout is. Sure, you can, by association and experience, explain to me that this SCV scout is very important, but you can't tell me, or any of your viewers, what specifically it is looking for. Counting pylons, probecuts, how many eggs does he use and when? You just don't know from a players perspective, how much this scout has seen, what value the information has, or how the Terran should or might adapt. Too many times have I seen english commentaries totally glaze over the really obvious things. A shuttle dropping DT's.
You're thinking (and commentating,) "How much damage will this drop do?!" Whereas the experienced ladder players clearly see the arb tech and are wondering how many scans he can waste for the Terran.
Or when Muta's are raping a Terran's natural, all the turrets are dead at the natural. The Terran moves his army out into the middle of the map. I was watching the Tasteless cast and even he missed the obvious answer. He thought it was just a bad decision on the Terran's part, but instead he was liberating his natural by proxy, by threatening something of more value to the Zerg. Zerg retreated, Terran replaced turrets in his natural, and though he lost his mnm's in the middle of the map, his natural was back up, and he took out 2 or 3 muts at the same time. Tasteless ended up realizing that and explaining it, whereas I'm certain a D level commentator would not have.
That's why game knowledge and ability are so important. I know that I will miss many important aspects that Artosis or Tasteless will be able to explain and articulate. Whereas, when I'm listening to the lower rank casts... I just have no confidence that any deep level thought is going into it. And though you can hear my examples and say "I woulda picked up on that," in reality, you don't. You're not bad commentators, you just don't have the skill and game knowledge to give any real deep insight.
The thing is. If you listen to Artosis and Chill commentaries, even introductory players can enjoy and understand a lot of what's being said. While at the same time, competitive players enjoy it immensely aswell. To be a truly good commentator, you have to be able to do both. Sure, for people who have never played SC, or people who just want a voice to listen to, those commentaries are fine. But in terms of professional commentating or dreams of making it big.. To give real, insightful commentary, you have to have experience behind that screen, defending that DT or Muta harass, and knowing everything that's going on in their heads.
I'm certain there's tons that goes over my head. That's why I love Artosis and Tasteless. I trust them to give me real insight because they've been there. Whereas, I've already been an ignorant observer who can see all the superficial developments of a pro SC game. I don't need to hear those thoughts again.
You bring up very good points here. I will admit, I would not know these things. I would love to, and I wish there was some way people outside of playing that these things could be brought out and taught to other players who don't have the ability to play at higher levels, but for now there isn't.
I saw one post mention quality over quantity. In essence your telling me you'd rather watch 1 game from the NFL season, even if it isn't the Super Bowl, because it has top notch casting, then watch all 20 games a team might play. Which is ridiculous. If we only released quality casts, you think even Tasteless would be where he is today? He even pointed out a game where he swapped two TvTers names. You make mistakes, you learn from them, and that's where the mettle of someone is tested. Do they pack it in and call it a career after one bad game? Or do they make the decision to push on, not let that one sit in the back of their head and give it another go? I have a quote I got from a high school cross country coach after a really bad race I ran: "Only an idiot leads a perfect life". In essence it's true, because they learn nothing.
I am not going to add any more on why I commentate or why people should, the ideals have been beaten into the ground at this point. I just know if you love something, it doesn't matter who approves, just do it.
|
While I am appreciative of this conciliatory tone, and I apologize ahead of time for going against what could very well be a gesture of good faith, I have to point out that it's a bit ridiculous for Hot Bid to be claiming that TL isn't malicious towards amateur casters. I mean, look at this thread for instance. A guy posts saying he wants to do commentary. What happens first and foremost? People start telling him he isn't any good and so he shouldn't even try. And don't give me the line about how you can't control what your users say, because there are always TL staff joining in. Seriously, if you don't believe me read back through all the responses in this thread. If you don't believe me, go back to 95% of threads about commentators that have been closed because they turned into flame fests.
Now, I'm not trying to start a fight, here. I just wanted to make the point that I don't think it's fair to be acting like TL loves commentators and where did we all get this crazy idea it doesn't. And hell, TL can hate commentators all it wants; that's its prerogative. But there seems to be some question as to why commentators don't participate in TL, and I am attempting to give a legitimate answer. When the culture on TL is such that random people with 20 posts are making fun of amateur commentators that they have never listened to because that's what they see on the forums.. when someone argues with everything I say simply because of who I am and then they get promoted to staff.. when appreciation threads become flame threads and get closed down... that's why I don't post here any more.
Granted, yes, I come here because of the news and to be completely honest I would be lost without TLPD. But I have learned from experience that participating doesn't do me much good.
That said, I am encouraged that this thread has remained relatively civil. I hope you are sincere about wanting to be more accepting.
Anyway... for people who think that you have to be able to play a game well in order to analyze it, I wanted to point out a couple guys I heard about.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Costas : "failed personally at any type of organized athletics" ... "Bob Costas has won multiple National Sportcaster of the Year awards (from the National Sportcaster and Sportswriter Association) and nearly 20 Emmy Awards for outstanding sports announcing."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Cosell author of "I Never Played the Game" who also happened to revolutionize Football commentary and is probably the guy yelling during any historically famous boxing match you've ever seen.
The first point is... yes, being good at something helps you be a better announcer for it. But even today like 95% of sports casting does not have to do with that upper echelon of understanding. There are many more things that are important for being a successful caster. Because like it or not (and I guess most here clearly don't), a successful caster has to be entertaining to the masses. Being a good player HELPS but is not the basis. "Cosell was openly contemptuous of ex-athletes appointed to prominent sportscasting roles solely on account of their playing fame."
Keep in mind that I am not trying to convince anyone here they should magically start liking amateur commentators. You don't have to listen to it unless it is high level if you don't want to. But you have to admit that that's what MOST people want, and there is no denying that without the masses, any sport is dead. I mean seriously, do you think football, for example, would be one of the most successful spectator sports ever if the only people who watched it were pro football players.
The second point is.... it is preposterous to say that you can't think about something and analyze it without being able to do it. A good example is that the best political analysts are not politicians. The best NARC's don't go out and deal drugs so they can understand the scene better, they study it academically. Doing something well IS ONE WAY to gain an understanding of it, and is, I admit, probably the best way. But don't underestimate the power of study, analysis, consultation, etc. Hot Bid even said he isn't pro but feels comfortable writing articles that analyze pro starcraft. How is talking about it on youtube different?
I have already admitted in this thread that when I first started I sucked at analysis. But I have watched, pondered, and scrutinized several hundred games, read many articles, listened to top level interviews and analysis in the last year. You don't think I know anything more about the game from that? I don't even want to get started in any discussion of my own skill level. I bring up the point on principle.
Please take up any personal disagreements with me in PMs.
|
Braavos36374 Posts
On October 02 2008 10:09 f10esqftw wrote:
While I am appreciative of this conciliatory tone, and I apologize ahead of time for going against what could very well be a gesture of good faith, I have to point out that it's a bit ridiculous for Hot Bid to be claiming that TL isn't malicious towards amateur casters. I mean, look at this thread for instance. A guy posts saying he wants to do commentary. What happens first and foremost? People start telling him he isn't any good and so he shouldn't even try. And don't give me the line about how you can't control what your users say, because there are always TL staff joining in. Seriously, if you don't believe me read back through all the responses in this thread. If you don't believe me, go back to 95% of threads about commentators that have been closed because they turned into flame fests.
Now, I'm not trying to start a fight, here. I just wanted to make the point that I don't think it's fair to be acting like TL loves commentators and where did we all get this crazy idea it doesn't. And hell, TL can hate commentators all it wants; that's its prerogative. But there seems to be some question as to why commentators don't participate in TL, and I am attempting to give a legitimate answer. When the culture on TL is such that random people with 20 posts are making fun of amateur commentators that they have never listened to because that's what they see on the forums.. when someone argues with everything I say simply because of who I am and then they get promoted to staff.. when appreciation threads become flame threads and get closed down... that's why I don't post here any more.
Granted, yes, I come here because of the news and to be completely honest I would be lost without TLPD. But I have learned from experience that participating doesn't do me much good.
That said, I am encouraged that this thread has remained relatively civil. I hope you are sincere about wanting to be more accepting.
Compromise works both ways. I'm not being conciliatory in the sense that I think our users and our mods are completely in the wrong. I think a lot of what turned some of SC2GGs commentators off to TL is that our forum users speak their mind and are honest, and frankly some commentators are overly sensitive to any sort of criticism. I think having thicker skin and being able to not take comments so personally is something that anyone that posts anything on TL should learn.
We don't "hate commentators" because frankly we loved Tasteless, Artosis, and Chill, and some of SC2GG's like Vaul and Cholera received overwhelmingly positive feedback when they posted here. Your post is full of old bias that I was trying to say should be forgotten, but if you can't get over old grudges its your choice not to participate in our community. Too bad then, for both sides.
|
Yes. Look, I started commentating when there was no commentating at all; Tasteless only did certain events and there was nothing else. The age of RWA was over and all of that. When I started commentating and got feedback at Teamliquid I felt very angry and that they were all douchebags. Now, if I look back, I see that I got a lot of very good constructive criticism and that their judgments were justified. I also got a lot of support. Teamliquid is also honest and speaks the truth. As well, they like doing things for the benefit of the community. When some people founded that they didn't like my commentary, they realized that they could get a better commentator who would be as consistent as me to pump out lots of VODs. Thus, yubee's commentary contest was made and the only two participants were me and Klazart. Nowadays I feel I am much more qualified for commentaries than I was as a D+ Zerg, and the comments I've been getting have been much more positive with less criticism. There is definitely a correlation between skill and overall viewer appreciation; they'll have more faith in you as a good player and also learn many interesting aspects of the game. I'm going on a tangent here but that's the basic story. I have no idea where you think that TL.net hates commentators. TL really had tons of positive feedback to all these commentators: Deus, Cholera, Vaul, me, Klazart, you and diggity, and then obviously the TLA/TSL commentators and Artosis/Tasteless. Look, you may think that you were harshly criticized here but if you'd only taken the time to stay a part of the community you could realize that TL.net is not random flaming. It took me half a year to become appreciative of TL.net and I really love it here now. Hot_Bid's analysis is totally correct and the remark about oversensitive commentators is definitely true as well.
|
Calgary25977 Posts
On October 02 2008 10:09 f10esqftw wrote:
What happens first and foremost? People start telling him he isn't any good and so he shouldn't even try. And don't give me the line about how you can't control what your users say, because there are always TL staff joining in.
Actually the first thing that happened was I turned him to SC2GG and suggested you are better for commentaries. But thanks for skipping right over that point. I only "joined in" when he said he doesn't play this game, and has only watched some Tasteless VODs, and I think that's fair. Sorry for not being Mr. Encourager, but it's ridiculous in my eyes.
Picture someone who's watched someone play the guitar, and they want to know how to host Youtube videos of them playing (which they've never actually done themself). Wouldn't you make a comment about how no one wants to see that? How they should practice before putting the videos up?
The second point is.... it is preposterous to say that you can't think about something and analyze it without being able to do it.
No one is saying it's impossible; we're saying 99.99999999% of commentators have not spent enough time with the game, watching or analyzing it, to understand any of the mindgames or deeper thought behind the strategy.
|
intrigue
Washington, D.C9933 Posts
nintu's post above is excellent, please read it if you just skipped over it
what are you trying to accomplish, moletrap? your post is reeks of self-righteousness and bitterness. yes there are assholes on every forum, but do you really think our posters leave negative comments simply because we're just shitty, mean-spirited people? it's insulting to us to just assume the worst, and a failing for yourselves to take it so personally because fuck, mitch hedberg once faced silent crowds and daft punk was once written off as a failure of a band. you can't expect XOXOs after everything that's posted.
here's where i think the difference is in how you view your commentaries, and how many posters here view them. i believe that when you put out a commentary, it doesn't automatically mean you're doing a favor for the community; there's no reason to hold grudges or feel betrayed if people don't enjoy it. you're putting yourself up as the representative of the game, and tl members who are notorious for being avid starcraft fans are incredibly dismayed when it's not being portrayed correctly. we see it as your duty if you respect the game and this forum (i can't imagine anyone not at least understanding why this site holds such prestige) to make your commentaries as knowledgeable as possible.
i don't mean to sound condescending here, i really don't - many of you take criticism as direct attacks and just disappear to cater to people not versed in the game. this is fine, they obviously really enjoy it and it's quite a feat that you manage to bring new fans to this dying game. you celebrate your success and just never feel the need to return, and it's a pity because your commentaries still have the same errors and our communities stay split.
to be fair i know that there are very many blunt and harsh responses in these threads. it also sucks and seems unbelievable that you need years and years of playing to be able to reach solid understanding, but god that's just the nature of the game. i just don't understand how so many people can just blow off what so many tl members say about the importance of skill for a commentator - what motive do we have in discouraging others? we are definitely a quality forum known to have many good players and walking databases, and it's a slap in the face when the things we say are just blindly ignored. do you realize how humbling it was for me to finally reach a very respectable rank on iccup, just so that i could fully realize how little of the game i understood? and yet the things that i find wrong in your commentaries are just so basic and elementary!
acting victimized to prove an inane point like 'participating doesn't do [anyone] any good' only hurts everybody. at this point in starcraft we can all agree it's best if the fanbase is organized and close, and how we'll achieve that, whether through joint commentating practice or increased interaction/feedback, will require a much better attitude than you one you are exhibiting.
|
I'll stray from the vein everyone's been on and just give you some straight up suggestions.
If you're gonna do commentaries, commentate replays that are of players who are at your level, or maybe even your own games. FP commentaries are kind of interesting at any level, and you'll learn a lot more about StarCraft that way than by guessing constantly about players who are much, much better than you.
Bascially: If on your best day and most focused moments you couldn't replicate what you're claiming the players are thinking... Don't commentate those games.
TL has a huge focus on pro-gaming, but it doesn't mean you can't commentate amateur/hobbiest games instead. Be humble, know yourself, and don't get angry at people who don't like your work. It's up to you and friends to motivate you when you're still learning. Not the general audience.
|
Austin10831 Posts
moletrap i think your comparisons to cosell and costas are incorrect. the situations are too disparate.
instead, can you imagine a person who isn't good at chess providing a worthwhile commentary on a chess game? outside of novelty, comedy or the like i really can't.
|
On October 02 2008 15:38 BroOd wrote:
moletrap i think your comparisons to cosell and costas are incorrect. the situations are too disparate.
instead, can you imagine a person who isn't good at chess providing a worthwhile commentary on a chess game? outside of novelty, comedy or the like i really can't.
I _INSTANTLY_ thought the exact same thing. I thought of some random chess newb to say "Choosing to move 1. e4 was probably very calculated by our player here. He probably spent hours thinking of all the ways this game can develop from 1. e4. I'm certain that the opponent will probably respond with a pawn movement himself, and wait to see what the white player has in mind"
To be honest, that's what a lot of those english SC commentaries sound like. Really vague and entirely ignorant of what the game is actually like for the players. Not all commentaries of course, but many.
|
First, thanks all for keeping this thread, amazingly, flame- and stupidity-free so far!
I think one of Moletrap's best points was that few of the critics here have actually watched some of our games as of late. Instead, they are basing their views on the commentary on what they think a player without competitive gaming skill would be like in their imagination. They do this without considering that there are many other factors that go into a pro Korean commentary: background about the player' s styles and patterns; analysis of how they've done recently; what else may be affecting their game play; and of course the play-by-play, which does take most of the attention (and which, contrary to what you think, it takes not much "technical skills" to achieve and we do very well in).
Watch this Korean-commentated game I got translated by a fluent Korean fan. It was July v Best in the OSL Finals, so certainly they would be pitching their best broadcast team in it:
+ Show Spoiler +
Now watch one of my recent commentaries that I pulled off my list. It's not my most exciting, but I try to stay on very much on the ball in it (Fantasy v Flash, KTF v SKT1 Rival Battle):
+ Show Spoiler +
My point is, I'll take the Pepsi Challenge against the Korean commentators, or Tasteless' GomTV videos, in terms of quality of commentary and analysis. It's a bold claim, but if you don't know our respective gaming backgrounds, I don't think you would find mine to be any worse.
Cholera, "Pepsi is better", SC.
|
On October 02 2008 15:26 PsycHOTemplar wrote:
I'll stray from the vein everyone's been on and just give you some straight up suggestions.
If you're gonna do commentaries, commentate replays that are of players who are at your level, or maybe even your own games. FP commentaries are kind of interesting at any level, and you'll learn a lot more about StarCraft that way than by guessing constantly about players who are much, much better than you.
Bascially: If on your best day and most focused moments you couldn't replicate what you're claiming the players are thinking... Don't commentate those games.
TL has a huge focus on pro-gaming, but it doesn't mean you can't commentate amateur/hobbiest games instead. Be humble, know yourself, and don't get angry at people who don't like your work. It's up to you and friends to motivate you when you're still learning. Not the general audience.
I think either this or having a skilled color commentator for pro games would be really beneficial to folks like the OP.
|
Braavos36374 Posts
On October 02 2008 23:14 CholeraSC wrote:First, thanks all for keeping this thread, amazingly, flame- and stupidity-free so far! I think one of Moletrap's best points was that few of the critics here have actually watched some of our games as of late. Instead, they are basing their views on the commentary on what they think a player without competitive gaming skill would be like in their imagination. They do this without considering that there are many other factors that go into a pro Korean commentary: background about the player' s styles and patterns; analysis of how they've done recently; what else may be affecting their game play; and of course the play-by-play, which does take most of the attention (and which, contrary to what you think, it takes not much "technical skills" to achieve and we do very well in). Watch this Korean-commentated game I got translated by a fluent Korean fan. It was July v Best in the OSL Finals, so certainly they would be pitching their best broadcast team in it: + Show Spoiler +http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1bPv8JI6zY Now watch one of my recent commentaries that I pulled off my list. It's not my most exciting, but I try to stay on very much on the ball in it (Fantasy v Flash, KTF v SKT1 Rival Battle): + Show Spoiler +My point is, I'll take the Pepsi Challenge against the Korean commentators, or Tasteless' GomTV videos, in terms of quality of commentary and analysis. It's a bold claim, but if you don't know our respective gaming backgrounds, I don't think you would find mine to be any worse. Cholera, "Pepsi is better", SC.
If you to show your new commentaries that you want to share or think are particularly good, please go ahead and make a thread or bump your old one. I'll moderate to make sure the non-positive comments are constructive criticism and not flames, but judging by the threads you've posted in the past theres few if any people just BM'ing you.
Cheers!
|
United States42486 Posts
I've always been very frustrated by commentary that just doesn't understand the metagame. I can see why in something like football they just call out what's going on because in a game where the execution is more important that's all a commentator needs to do. But if you do that in Starcraft then you're really just catering for the blind audience. People can see what's going on for themselves. You need to be able to explain why they do things and for that you need to be able to get inside their heads, to talk about what each player knows about the other player, why their strategy is designed to beat what they think the opponent is doing, how they are second guessing each other, the number of levels they're thinking on.
Ignoring that makes a commentary boring and pointless.
Flat out getting it wrong makes a commentary misleading to those who don't know any better and irritating to those who do.
I can't watch most commentated vods without cringing as they criticise what they don't understand. Even some early Tasteless vods got under my skin when he'd criticise a player for moving out early and I'd be like "no... he's moving out without any real army while taking an expo he can't defend because his opponent knows it'd be suicide so his opponent assumes that he's not taking the expo and by the time he works it out it'll be safe". But Tasteless has grown hugely as a player and as a commentator in Korea to the point that I find him universally informative. I'm sure he still makes some mistakes that annoy top level players but he's beyond my level of understanding.
In short, I think you need to be better at Starcraft (or at least the metagame which you learn through playing Starcraft) than your audience. You can only get away with shoddy analysis when you're catering for idiots. It is my belief that this is why so many of the sc2gg favourites get such a rough time here. The skill level of tl members is just generally higher so the "wtf are you talking about" response to their commentary is more frequent.
If you want to commentate for people who have never played bw before then by all means go for it. If you want to commentate for me then come back when you can tell me something I can't see for myself.
|
I want to be the very best [commentator]
That garimto never was
To speak, is my real test
The gameplay is my cause
*do do do*
I want to travel across the maps
obsing far and wide
so spectators can understand
that power goes with pride
*di do dii*
COMMENTATE
gotta commentateeeeee
i know its my destinity
COMMMENTATE ohhhhhh
its for you and me
and the streamers chance to seeeee
COMMENTATE
is so trueeee
klazart will pull us through
you spec me and i spec you
commenttateeeeeeee
every time a player cheeses
ill predict the flow of the play
so that when!!! the loser leaves
it will be as if i made your dayyy
so spec with me, when the steam is up
ill try to commentate well
on IRC, dont go spamming the OP
cause he'll send you to helllll
COMMENTATE
gotta commentateeeeee
i know its my destinity
COMMMENTATE ohhhhhh
its for you and me
and the streamers chance to seeeee
COMMENTATE
is so trueeee
klazart will pull us through
you spec me and i spec you
commenttateeeeeeee
gotta commentateeeeeeee
gotta commentateeeeeee..
|
I like the point that was made above, by the way, that there shouldn't be such a divide being the commentators and the top players. I thought my recent casts with Louder were some of my best work, because we split roles between me being the play-by-play caster with knowledge of the players, and Louder predicting and analyzing their builds and tactics. I agree that it's too bad we expect commentators to be the "complete package" of both enthusiasm / color commentary and in-depth knowledge of the game.
I'd be very open to working with any of the top players here on a dual commentary of a Korean or amateur game. It's not a problem if they haven't done casting before, since I can set up all the equipment and process the videos. They'll be able try out shoutcasting and gain instant access to 3,000 subscribers/viewers and their comments. I'll be able to pick their brain about tactics and predictions in game, and hopefully raise the level of my work.
I came to the scene after some of the previous spats between the sites, and I really don't care for them, so maybe if we can work out a dual commentary like I suggest here we can go forward in burying the hatchet and working together.
|
On October 03 2008 01:09 Kwark wrote:
I've always been very frustrated by commentary that just doesn't understand the metagame. I can see why in something like football they just call out what's going on because in a game where the execution is more important that's all a commentator needs to do. But if you do that in Starcraft then you're really just catering for the blind audience. People can see what's going on for themselves. You need to be able to explain why they do things and for that you need to be able to get inside their heads, to talk about what each player knows about the other player, why their strategy is designed to beat what they think the opponent is doing, how they are second guessing each other, the number of levels they're thinking on.
Ignoring that makes a commentary boring and pointless.
Flat out getting it wrong makes a commentary misleading to those who don't know any better and irritating to those who do.
I can't watch most commentated vods without cringing as they criticise what they don't understand. Even some early Tasteless vods got under my skin when he'd criticise a player for moving out early and I'd be like "no... he's moving out without any real army while taking an expo he can't defend because his opponent knows it'd be suicide so his opponent assumes that he's not taking the expo and by the time he works it out it'll be safe". But Tasteless has grown hugely as a player and as a commentator in Korea to the point that I find him universally informative. I'm sure he still makes some mistakes that annoy top level players but he's beyond my level of understanding.
In short, I think you need to be better at Starcraft (or at least the metagame which you learn through playing Starcraft) than your audience. You can only get away with shoddy analysis when you're catering for idiots. It is my belief that this is why so many of the sc2gg favourites get such a rough time here. The skill level of tl members is just generally higher so the "wtf are you talking about" response to their commentary is more frequent.
If you want to commentate for people who have never played bw before then by all means go for it. If you want to commentate for me then come back when you can tell me something I can't see for
myself.
I highly doubt that most TL members are better than SC2GG members. The difference is that there are VERY high skilled people on TL.net, and as far as I know, not many on SC2GG. So what happens is some of the real skilled regulars (like you) make some comments like "OMG these casters don't know what they're talking about" and the TL masses chime in too even though they are probably just as shitty as an SC2GG member and don't know or understand themselves what's going on in these games. Let's face it, the average TL member is probably D level, just like the average SC2GG member (TL has a lot of good players, but they also have many more members than SC2GG so it probably averages out to about the same skill).
Personally, I think that it IS possible to be a really good caster or have a really great amount of game knowledge without having been a good player. However, this is VERY rare and there are probably only a handful of exceptions to this rule.
Two examples off the top of my head from Basketball...
1) EJ (white guy) from Inside the NBA. Ok, I know he isn't a commentator but if you listen to him on the show, the amount of basketball knowledge he has is ridiculous, he probably knows more about the game than Charles and Kenny.
2) Mike Breen . To my knowledge he wasn't a high level basketball player, but he knows sooooo much about the game, and he is one of the best commentators.
The difference between a commentator who has been a great player and one who hasn't is their ability to personalize their commentary. A great player can commentate about his own experiences (think Jeff Van Gundy always bringing up situations he'd faced, etc), while a commentator who was not a great player doesn't have that ability and must rely more on his personality and superior game knowledge to tell the story.
Again, it is extremeley rare imo for a non-player to become a great commentator/announcer BUT it can and has happened in various sports, so there's no reason it can't happen in BW either. I personally don't believe it has happened yet, but there are a lot of commentators at SC2GG that are really good and enjoyable.
Also think of it this way, a lot of the SC2GG commentators are sort of new to the game, or at least new (comparatively) to following it competitively than the "better" casters like Chill, Artosis, Tasteless. These guys have been competitive with the game probably since it came out, so not only do they have playing experience, but have watched 304583409809x more games over the years. So comparatively you need to look at the knowledge of the SC2GG casters and say "how deeply can they understand the game if they've only been following it for about 1-2 years max?" So, cut em' a little slack because there are some gems over there, and with time they will only get better (and a lot of them have noticeably improved over the past months, etc).
<3 shoutcasting.
|
Braavos36374 Posts
Xeris, i completely agree with the idea that we should cut a lot of the SC2GG casters some slack. They are trying, and they are working hard to get better, and they do appeal to an audience that we don't have here at TL. If we get more people that are newbies and turn them into knowledgeable pro-gaming followers, it'd be great for our website.
That said, I don't think using the idea that "we cater to different audiences" is a no-holes shield for not understanding the game as fully as you can. If people criticize your commentary for lack of insight, you can still present the ideas you lack without alienating your "more common audience. " I think Van Gundy in basketball is a great example of someone who can explain things in a thoughtful manner to someone who doesn't know that much about basketball. That's why this whole "separate audiences" thing is not really accurate, because you can provide high level, insightful commentary that still appeals just as much to D- players.
Not acknowledging this and just passing it off as "oh i cater to a different audiences so i don't have to really go that deep into analysis" is selling yourself short and not working as hard as you can to improve. There's a vast difference between having the strategical knowledge and purposely omitting it or wording it differently to appeal to a broader audience and not having the strategical knowledge at all and saying I don't have to have it because I am trying to appeal to a different audience.
I think SC2GG casters can appeal to everyone, even those "haters" must admit they've gotten better over the months. I think interacting more with TL can only speed up the improvement process. Segregating themselves from any negative comments hurts everyone: SC2GG, TL, and the audience.
|
I would like to clarify a bit the myth of Korean MC's. They rapidly got "ex" pro gamers to the MC job because they were getting severly critisized. Especially the OGN Mcs.
That's a bit off topic, but you wouldn't imagine the power that holds the fat OGN mc over the leagues, map choices and channels.
For having met him, several times, and Grrrr... translating me what he use to say about the game and the players around the meeting tables, the guy was pretty clueless.
As for MBC MCs, unlike OGN ones, they were hardcore starcraft gamers and big big fans. MBC mcs are quite famous on Bnet and basically use to spend their entire fucking free time matching up pros against each others until late night online, obsing them.
As for the English commentary thing, I'm not a huge fan of it, as, eventho I highly respect what Tasteless and Artosis do / are trying to do, I think it's still very unpolished and rookie. (I do however appreciate tasteless much more as he isn't basically saying every second how "godly" "brilliant" "smart" "inventive" "skilled" the player he is obsing is at the very moment he is actually making mistakes -_-)
I never thought SC commentating made much sense for a non newbie audience.
As for the english audios I often check out, it beeing gom, scforall or youtube - they sound most of the time pretty immature. So far, only TL.net attack sounded somewhat grown up mode and not too nerdy.
Alas I think people wanting to commentate starcraft, or any game actually, should rather learn from non live TV random show casts (not sports).
Learn how to properly articualte, talk, breath and just not sound like you never done that before.
I know Poker casts might not be the best exemples as poker is a much easier thing to watch, but MC's there often derive from the event course much, and it's totally fine.
What I mean there is that, TL dudes are right in this way :
If you don't know jack shit about SC, aka didn't play it for 10 years or not beeing able to get top spots of iccup / pgt / gamei whatever, don't go on trying to explain what godlike pros are doing with their units. Rather try to make the cast interesting somehow and get some help from a good player at your side. Or you can just know the game quite a bit and by the way you talk about it, make people enjoy it the way you actually enjoy it.
But again, as it stands right now, English commentating has to go a fucking long way (it beeing in or outside korea) to reach other regular show's casting standards. That's imo what ppl should aim for, I mean, you don't have any English model of prof. SC commentating (as a mainstream thing). Only thing you have is something done in Korean you can't really appreciate (and that is imo not that "pro" at all). So you should rather try to copy and get to your regular tv show cast's standards, backed up with solid SC practice.
|
Yeah I started with SC2GG casts about 6 months ago, and now I just watch the games live/jon747 or I watch Diggity or Cholera sometimes. Many of the other members miss a lot of stuff, and it is frustrating when you understand what is going on better than the commentator lol.
I do really appreciate SC2GG, I would likely not have discovered starcraft without them.
|
referring to the needed skill level of commentators thats been a prevalent argument. i might add that the need for commentators in starcraft is a very small demand. probably 10-20 foreigners required to do this would be more than sufficient. obviously not every game will be covered but sometimes its not important to watch every game.
commentators without skill or indepth knowledge of the game have very limited potential in that they don't have the appeal to more experiences players. commentators with skill can reach out to the higher level of player and the lower just by adjusting how indepth they want to go(a luxury not held by the lower level of knowledge)
Koreans and Pro-sports casters have the luxury of money to hire many different people to do various jobs but for foreigners casting starcraft, koreans don't want to dish out all that much money to pay english commentators. It is quite apparent that GOMtv wants the job done with as few commentators as possible. Tasteless is perfect for this job. If he wanted to go indepth, he could cater to the audience that way. However, he doesn't because there is such a broad audience. Yeah he has Susie but she is just there to translate for him(he'll learn korean eventually, it's a pretty easy language, i speak it and understand it fluently as being half korean myself).
The thing is that yes, everyone that has a good voice and can shoutcast well could be a commentator but with such low demand and high supply...the only real need is for those that have the knowledge/experience as well as the social aspects(Tasteless, Artosis, a few others). They might be rare but are common enough to fulfill the demand.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
