EPT[Patch 1.0.0.153: Preseason Balance Update 1] GD - Page 438
| Forum Index > LoL General |
|
Numy
South Africa35471 Posts
| ||
|
WaveofShadow
Canada31494 Posts
On January 16 2013 04:37 zulu_nation8 wrote: Pro level commentary can be extremely simple to understand. Decisions in league are 99% of the time very easily understood once transcribed. I'm trying not to be a jerk here, but can someone provide me an example of this magical pro-level commentary that is easily understood and done by a a specific caster so I can pay attention to it? I don't know but according to you, bly, there is no current commentary that is good enough for you, or am I wrong? | ||
TheYango
United States47024 Posts
On January 16 2013 04:39 Numy wrote: I think the problem is more commentary has to be instantaneous. It's far easier to analyse and make a comment about a play in your own time than it is live on air. Most commentators just don't have that experience yet and I feel you can only gain that experience by actively trying it. That's the irony of this entire argument. Bly is criticizing commentators for passing judgement on players and their decisions despite never having been in their position and having to make an analogous choice--but isn't that exactly what he's doing to the commentators themselves? | ||
|
zulu_nation8
China26351 Posts
On January 16 2013 04:36 sylverfyre wrote: But you can still look at a pro player's decision making and have a good idea of why they made those decisions, even if you don't have the understanding to know to make that decision beforehand. You do have to be able to pick up on the decisions and extrapolate the reasons quickly and with an acceptable degree of accuracy. During at least lane phase, the only role where decision making actually matters a bit is jungler. The ONLY people who understand a good jungler's thought process are the people on his team. From there on the understanding degrades by how well you know the specific player and how good you are. | ||
|
Numy
South Africa35471 Posts
On January 16 2013 04:42 TheYango wrote: That's the irony of this entire argument. Bly is criticizing commentators for passing judgement on players and their decisions despite never having been in their position and having to make an analogous choice--but isn't that exactly what he's doing to the commentators themselves? I don't think he's entirely wrong to criticize though. I do feel like people expect commentators to be the best possible right this moment instead of letting growth happen. Growth only happens when accompanied with mistakes and if you make it so mistakes are such a bad thing that people are too scared to let them happen then you will never get growth. As a side rant this is the same problem schooling has where mistakes are punished more than not trying. | ||
|
TheYango
United States47024 Posts
On January 16 2013 04:45 Numy wrote: I don't think he's entirely wrong to criticize though. I do feel like people expect commentators to be the best possible right this moment instead of letting growth happen. Growth only happens when accompanied with mistakes and if you make it so mistakes are such a bad thing that people are too scared to let them happen then you will never get growth. I agree, but it doesn't make the tone of his criticism any less ironic. | ||
|
sylverfyre
United States8298 Posts
It's easy to get into a trap of criticizing too much without looking at the good things that players are doing, I believe that can create the kind of opinion bly is harboring. Bashing on top players and not recognizing the things they do well will make people feel like you're just an armchair quarterback who always knows what's best when you clearly aren't a top level player yourself (unless you are, which alleviates that negative sentiment). | ||
|
wei2coolman
United States60033 Posts
On January 16 2013 04:45 Numy wrote: I don't think he's entirely wrong to criticize though. I do feel like people expect commentators to be the best possible right this moment instead of letting growth happen. Growth only happens when accompanied with mistakes and if you make it so mistakes are such a bad thing that people are too scared to let them happen then you will never get growth. As a side rant this is the same problem schooling has where mistakes are punished more than not trying. I feel like some of the mistakes are a bit gregarious. Like listening to phreak trying to analyze the game, makes me want to grab a knife and stab myself in the ears. Yeah, it's that bad.... But if he's just doing play-by-play I'm okay w/ it. He's simply casting out of his league sometimes (pun not intended). Dan "da feelz" Dinh, does pretty good analysis mid game (but should work on making it more concise). | ||
|
TheYango
United States47024 Posts
On January 16 2013 04:47 sylverfyre wrote: But just because I don't have the capacity to make pro-level decisions in the heat of the moment, I can still look at a decision made and be like "well that was bad." I think you're understating how often it is that decisions with bad results are made on sound reasoning. A bad result does not always correlate with bad decision making. | ||
onlywonderboy
United States23745 Posts
Edit: Yango just said the exact opposite of what I did haha, I still think that criticizing a team for a bad result is still valid regardless of intent. The goal of the game is to win and if you do something that hurts that chance there is nothing wrong with someone commenting on that. | ||
|
zulu_nation8
China26351 Posts
On January 16 2013 04:42 TheYango wrote: That's the irony of this entire argument. Bly is criticizing commentators for passing judgement on players and their decisions despite never having been in their position and having to make an analogous choice--but isn't that exactly what he's doing to the commentators themselves? I "commentate" games all the time by analyzing with friends on skype for most NA tourney games. I have no experience doing play by play and hence I've only focused on analytic commentary. I'm essentially criticizing analysis, unless analysis is somehow vastly different when done in real-time. | ||
|
TheYango
United States47024 Posts
On January 16 2013 04:50 zulu_nation8 wrote: I "commentate" games all the time by analyzing with friends on skype for most NA tourney games. I have no experience doing play by play and hence I've only focused on analytic commentary. I'm essentially criticizing analysis, unless analysis is somehow vastly different when done in real-time. I won't presume to know what commentating live is like when compared to informal analysis over voice coms. You'll have to ask Wave. | ||
|
WaveofShadow
Canada31494 Posts
On January 16 2013 04:45 Numy wrote: I don't think he's entirely wrong to criticize though. I do feel like people expect commentators to be the best possible right this moment instead of letting growth happen. Growth only happens when accompanied with mistakes and if you make it so mistakes are such a bad thing that people are too scared to let them happen then you will never get growth. As a side rant this is the same problem schooling has where mistakes are punished more than not trying. I really like this comment. When I cast, I am well aware of mistakes I make after the fact (not during, most of the time) but there are also mistakes I will never even realize I am making (even though I am primarily a PbP caster) unless they are pointed out to me. I guess since I have such support from TL people tend not to rip me apart nearly as much as they would other casters, but I've seen Twitch chat during LCS and TSM invitationals. People HATE those casters sometimes. And yet yesterday we got very little feedback from Twitch at all. There is nothing more I would love to do than improve every facet of my casting, whether play-by-play, analysis, whatever. But when someone comes along and tells me that no matter what I do I will ALWAYS be shit because I'm not a pro player, that's very disheartening to me considering I try to actively do what I can to improve myself. I do my best to learn from my own and others' mistakes, and have paid very close to attention to what people seem to like about other people's casts. I don't want my growth to be hampered by the fact that there is apparently an invisible glass ceiling that I can never breach, and people will always hate what I do because of it. | ||
|
zulu_nation8
China26351 Posts
On January 16 2013 04:42 WaveofShadow wrote: I'm trying not to be a jerk here, but can someone provide me an example of this magical pro-level commentary that is easily understood and done by a a specific caster so I can pay attention to it? I don't know but according to you, bly, there is no current commentary that is good enough for you, or am I wrong? Kobe24 brings up interesting points that I don't usually consider, hence I actually listen to what he's saying. People who repeat very basic points and often wrongly, which is most of the commentators I've heard; I have no interest in. I will reiterate that there is 0 chance someone can correctly analyze, as in actually pointing stuff out that matters, that have like a 10% overlap with what the teams are actually thinking, without having some kind of semi-significant 5s experience. I'm like, really loosening the standard. | ||
|
Numy
South Africa35471 Posts
On January 16 2013 04:50 zulu_nation8 wrote: I "commentate" games all the time by analyzing with friends on skype for most NA tourney games. I have no experience doing play by play and hence I've only focused on analytic commentary. I'm essentially criticizing analysis, unless analysis is somehow vastly different when done in real-time. It is vastly different done in real time because there's no time for you to screen your own bad analysis. Sometimes what happens if your initial reaction to the event and your final conclusion of the event are two different things. Real time analysis means this has to either happen so quickly that you can give input right then or your initial reaction has to be close enough to the mark that it's passable. Obviously you can always have your co-commentator continue talking while you go through this thought process but this doesn't happen a lot due to the nature of the casting setups. I don't really see the 3 man desks with proper dedicated roles in Western casting that allows this to happen. A 2 man team is general both filling both roles while leaning slightly to one side. Also this is where experience comes it. Its far easier for someone who has been in that position to have an initial correct response because they have all the prior experience to call upon. That's where I think the confusion is coming it. It's easier for a pro player to do analysis since they have that experience but that doesn't mean it's not possible for someone that doesn't have the playing experience to gain the tools to deal with the situation. | ||
|
Scip
Czech Republic11293 Posts
On January 16 2013 04:50 onlywonderboy wrote: Most of the criticism I hear casters give about pros is really obvious stuff, like a whiffed ult or a missed skill shot or maybe a questionable Dragon. And you can argue that if they were a "pro player" that they might have realized why the dragon was a good call, but at the end of the day if you make a good call to do dragon and get aced it was still a bad call regardless of intentions. No, if taking a dragon was a good call and it didn't work out, it was the right call. I mean you are 100% contradicting yourself there. If it was a good call, it was a good call. It's kinda like when you have a read on a player in poker and he hit's his 2-outer on the river and get sucked out christmas style. Still the right call, even though it didn't work out. About the glass ceiling as a commentator, I honestly hope no one expects a high level analysis from the play-by-play caster of the 2, that's just ridiculous. You "just" have to know your knowledge boundaries, give just the right amount of room to the analytical caster and have a pleasant voice and wide flowery vocabulary. | ||
|
Irave
United States9965 Posts
| ||
|
onlywonderboy
United States23745 Posts
On January 16 2013 04:54 zulu_nation8 wrote: Kobe24 brings up interesting points that I don't usually consider, hence I actually listen to what he's saying. People who repeat very basic points and often wrongly, which is most of the commentators I've heard; I have no interest in. I will reiterate that there is 0 chance someone can correctly analyze, as in actually pointing stuff out that matters, that have like a 10% overlap with what the teams are actually thinking, without having some kind of semi-significant 5s experience. I'm like, really loosening the standard. This goes back to casters being useful to players who skill level is more middle of the road, you've reached the point where you know more than the audience the casters are really casting to. That doesn't mean the casters have to change, it just means you have no reason to listen them because you know it all already. But, most people don't know it already, thus the casters, for the most part, are at an appropriate skill level. On January 16 2013 04:54 Scip wrote: No, if taking a dragon was a good call and it didn't work out, it was the right call. I mean you are 100% contradicting yourself there. If it was a good call, it was a good call. It's kinda like when you have a read on a player in poker and he hit's his 2-outer on the river and get sucked out christmas style. Still the right call, even though it didn't work out. I realized that and reworded it. | ||
|
Alaric
France45622 Posts
On January 16 2013 04:37 zulu_nation8 wrote: Pro level commentary can be extremely simple to understand. Decisions in league are 99% of the time very easily understood once transcribed. As much as I respect and "listen to" Yango or MoonBear analyses, if one of them had stage fright that made him uneasy while casting, and the other one ended up only commentating half the game, and the other one determining what prompted the interesting decision he just saw and finding a proper, concise wording for it so it could fit before the next action started, I wouldn't want any of them as commentators over the current ones, and would restrict them to post game/write-up analysis. Bare knowledge is, certainly necessary to a certain degree (depending on the targeted audience's level, as already pointed out), but not sufficient to make a good caster. It's not your maximum level of knowledge, if the maximum level you are able to recognize and impart in a short timespan, eventually related to the level understandable and desired by your audience. Edit: wow I'm slow. | ||
|
sylverfyre
United States8298 Posts
On January 16 2013 04:45 zulu_nation8 wrote: During at least lane phase, the only role where decision making actually matters a bit is jungler. The ONLY people who understand a good jungler's thought process are the people on his team. From there on the understanding degrades by how well you know the specific player and how good you are. But you can look at the things the jungler is doing, compare them to other things you've seen pro junglers do in previous games, and figure out what they're planning, because you can see what they're doing. Yes, you can't read their mind, but you can understand that if blue-reliant is starting red instead of blue and getting a smiteless leash, his intention is likely to be smiteless red-> smite blue -> level 3 gank top, because we've seen it before. It's not "how good you are" but rather how much homework you've done watching top level play (or participating in it). I contest that good casters who aren't great players can put forth the effort and become just as good at it. | ||
| ||
