EPTOn May 13 2011 08:44 DeepElemBlues wrote:
Actually, in a broadcasting booth for a sports event, the color commentator - the position Idra is filling, I presume - is supposed to be the one providing "technical" commentary. He's the one who is supposed to go deeper in what he says than "out of position" or something that the [b]play-by-play[b] commentator should be saying.
Any good color commentator reveals the game behind the game. That's why color commentators are usually ex-players from whatever sport they're broadcasting.
When a superior team is playing an inferior team in the NFL and is repeatedly just busting through their offensive line to punish the hell outta their QB, and it's pointed out that the former team simply can't stop the latter, is this spoiling the game? Yes, but only in the most limited sense. If a commentator "spoils" the game, you aren't watching closely enough, you should already know who is going to win long before Idra "tells" you.
Sorry this doesn't make sense. Being too good the way you're saying it... you're saying that since Idra is "too good" as a player, he has to to "dumb down" his commentary so we will understand it. Sorry, I'm not that buying that...
There is absolutely no difference in understanding of the game between players like Idra and anyone from diamond league up. The only difference is in execution. Idra has superior talent at taking what is in his head and making it real on the screen. That doesn't mean that people simply cannot understand what he is doing or why; it means they can't do it themselves.
I just don't understand how not being able to play at Idra's level means that you can't understand the game at his level, all it means is you can't play at his level. Not everyone can run an offense at the level of Tom Brady or scheme a defense at the level of Dick LeBeau, that doesn't mean we don't understand how a crossing route or the zone blitz works.
I mean, what do you think Idra could possibly say while commentating a game, about the game, that would fly over your head?
Actually, in a broadcasting booth for a sports event, the color commentator - the position Idra is filling, I presume - is supposed to be the one providing "technical" commentary. He's the one who is supposed to go deeper in what he says than "out of position" or something that the [b]play-by-play[b] commentator should be saying.
Any good color commentator reveals the game behind the game. That's why color commentators are usually ex-players from whatever sport they're broadcasting.
When a superior team is playing an inferior team in the NFL and is repeatedly just busting through their offensive line to punish the hell outta their QB, and it's pointed out that the former team simply can't stop the latter, is this spoiling the game? Yes, but only in the most limited sense. If a commentator "spoils" the game, you aren't watching closely enough, you should already know who is going to win long before Idra "tells" you.
Sorry this doesn't make sense. Being too good the way you're saying it... you're saying that since Idra is "too good" as a player, he has to to "dumb down" his commentary so we will understand it. Sorry, I'm not that buying that...
There is absolutely no difference in understanding of the game between players like Idra and anyone from diamond league up. The only difference is in execution. Idra has superior talent at taking what is in his head and making it real on the screen. That doesn't mean that people simply cannot understand what he is doing or why; it means they can't do it themselves.
I just don't understand how not being able to play at Idra's level means that you can't understand the game at his level, all it means is you can't play at his level. Not everyone can run an offense at the level of Tom Brady or scheme a defense at the level of Dick LeBeau, that doesn't mean we don't understand how a crossing route or the zone blitz works.
I mean, what do you think Idra could possibly say while commentating a game, about the game, that would fly over your head?
Uh... Okay. It feels like you've written way too much to say not as much, so I will be brief.
So, I said that analysis is important and that the problem is that with Idra the commentary gets too technical. You reply that analysis is important. I'm glad you agree.
The comparisson with football (and American football in your case)... StarCraft is a strategy game much more than a mechanics game. In football it is mostly the mechanics that are attractive to the viewers, while the differences between strategies are not as subtle. The commentators can not possibly spoil the game in the way a StarCraft game can be.
And finally, I don't think that viewers have a problem understanding Idra and never said anything like that, so I don't see the point of everything you've written after this claim.
However, I would like to point out that Idra does see much more than most of us. He doesn't just see who is going to win and has the advantage - he sees the precise way the player is going to utilise it and he sees it earlier. In SC:BW the observer would often intentionally keep some player's tech hidden in order to create more excitement. With Idra analysing it is the exact opposite.
P.S. Listening to tonight's NASL I can only assume that Idra and the NASL staff followed the same line of thought I did. :D
