|
On July 16 2010 02:39 SichuanPanda wrote: how can saying 'it looks like X player is getting Y unit' be said too often? Unless the player is actually making that unit it can only possibly LOOK like they are getting it (building a Dark Shrine for example and then not getting DTs it looks like they are going DTs).
That's not the problem really. The problem is calling something that's about to happen before you actually know that it is. For example Lets say an SCV is moving to build something. Caster says "Looks like X is going to build an Armory here". There are two outcomes to this:
a) He builds a Barracks instead and the caster has to say "oh, nope it's actually a barracks". So the caster looks like an idiot and doesn't help the quality of the cast.
b) He builds the Armory. Then the caster says something like "yup, there it is". There's nothing to say because you knew already what he would be doing before he did it. The follow up is useless filler.
What should be done is say something like "X has an SCV moving to position lets see what goes, down...oh a Y!!" And then the color commentator can talk about how that may affect the game later.
If a Dark Shrine is down, it's fine to say that they have the option of going DT if they want. But in so many casts I hear commentators act as if they *know* what will happen and then it doesn't or they then have nothing useful to say after it does, instead of just reacting to what is actually happening in the game.
|
Keeping their language fresh is probably lower on the list of things casters need to worry about.
1. Knowing the game
2. Being excited about the match
3. Phrasing things clearly
4. Keeping the commentary fresh
|
On July 16 2010 02:45 jamesr12 wrote:
so basicaly you dont want the commenators to talk at all?
I know this was a sarcastic post but it hits on an interesting point. SC2 video broadcasts are, of course, more analogous to televised sports broadcasts than radio sports broadcasts.
In radio broadcasting you need a commentator to touch on everything that is happening because the audience has no other way of knowing what's going on, but in televised sports broadcasting the broadcasters often discuss outside-the-game stuff as much as they touch on the action unless some in-depth explanation is required.
The problem SC2 broadcasters are generally running into is that they focus entirely on what's happening in the game. As much as we all love SC/SC2, there simply aren't twenty solid minutes of interesting things to say about most twenty minute games, so we end up with a lot of the unsatisfying redundancy that this thread is about.
Commentators need to free up their commentary and work on their banter. It's a difficult balance to strike and one that will only be perfected with time, so we'll all need to be patient 
|
On July 15 2010 18:10 Tachion wrote:
"He really should have...."
"He really should be getting..."
That stuff is cool for post game analysis but I don't like it when strategies are critiqued during the cast. There's more subtle ways to go about it like.
"This fast expand is going to be in trouble if he moves those zerglings out."
instead of "oh no he really shouldn't be fast expanding, those zerglings are going to do a ton of damage."
maybe it makes no difference, just a little pet peeve
This over and over! Commentators aren't there to tell you how bad the other guy is gonna lose, they need to work to keep up the suspense. "He's going CC before barracks, this is an incredible risk early but could really pay off if he can hold off this rush!" Instead of "Oh well he's gonna lose now." And then he loses. Much less intense and exciting that way.
|
On July 16 2010 02:52 vesicular wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2010 02:39 SichuanPanda wrote: how can saying 'it looks like X player is getting Y unit' be said too often? Unless the player is actually making that unit it can only possibly LOOK like they are getting it (building a Dark Shrine for example and then not getting DTs it looks like they are going DTs). That's not the problem really. The problem is calling something that's about to happen before you actually know that it is. For example Lets say an SCV is moving to build something. Caster says "Looks like X is going to build an Armory here". There are two outcomes to this: a) He builds a Barracks instead and the caster has to say "oh, nope it's actually a barracks". So the caster looks like an idiot and doesn't help the quality of the cast. b) He builds the Armory. Then the caster says something like "yup, there it is". There's nothing to say because you knew already what he would be doing before he did it. The follow up is useless filler. What should be done is say something like "X has an SCV moving to position lets see what goes, down...oh a Y!!" And then the color commentator can talk about how that may affect the game later. If a Dark Shrine is down, it's fine to say that they have the option of going DT if they want. But in so many casts I hear commentators act as if they *know* what will happen and then it doesn't or they then have nothing useful to say after it does, instead of just reacting to what is actually happening in the game.
I am a huge fan of this as well. Take this to heart, casters!!! It is so painful hearing "And now obviously he will... oh, I guess I have no idea what i'm talking about..." *Glares at Day9 >
|
"going for a fast (insert building/unit here)"
|
|
|
One Day[9] frequently use is "let us divine" as he picks questions, probably the most overused thing he does with the exception of him going "hmm" and rubs his chin as someone suggested something worth exploring or him switching to a view of him drinking water.
Don't mind it to much but after 100+ episodes of "let us divine" it's getting a lil dull still love his casts though.
|
i don't really mind those lines that much at all. They seem pretty normal for casting and wouldn't be noticed by me when used in every video.
|
Here is unit X being a hero.
Oh this hero [unit].
Man this guy is really being a hero all by himself.
HERO HERO HERO HERO HERO HERO HERO HERO HERO HERO HERO.
Two things: 1) Every unit that survives 5 seconds longer than the rest isn't a hero 2) Heroes usually survive the battle (aka, don't die 5 SECONDS LATER).
hero hero hero hero hero hero.
|
"He's just going to macro up here" ----> AWFUL PLEASE STOP SAYING THIS
"Let us divine..." ----> I love day[9] but this one drives me crazy ^^
|
I just don't like when casters say "everything is going standard" or "not much is going on." It comes off like you either don't know what to talk about or don't care what's going on. There's always something to talk about and the caster should always make it sound like it's interesting.
Also, you have to talk about the game, but I can't stand just getting a report of what's happening, like "he's putting his cybernetics core down now," or "playerX's zerglings are headed across the map." It's not like you're casting for blind people; Talk about why stuff is happening, what impact it might have, what the player is hoping to accomplish.
|
|
|
not a specific phrase but i hate how most commentators just tell me exactly what im seeing without any real analysis or anything. im not blind i can see what's going on. this isnt the radio. dont just say what's happening on screen, it makes me want to kill myself.
also it's so funny becuase most sc2 casters just love to say unit names and list all their abilities and stats. I ALREADY KNOW THIS STFU
although i havent really watched any SC2 commentary since i stopped watching day9 a few months ago and i only watched a few HDH games, so maybe the masses of commentators have gotten better but for some reason i doubt it (i mean most BW commentators never got better so...)
|
On July 16 2010 02:57 koppik wrote:
Keeping their language fresh is probably lower on the list of things casters need to worry about.
1. Knowing the game
2. Being excited about the match
3. Phrasing things clearly
4. Keeping the commentary fresh
I agree with this ranking of priorities. To some extent, I don't even care if people say "blunder" a lot. It's not even a cliche; it's a Starcraft-ism.
So who cares, really? Seems like a big to-do about nothing when we have HD and Husky saying things that are flat-out wrong in the middle of every cast. We just need casters who both love the game AND understand it!
Show nested quote +On July 15 2010 17:38 itmeJP wrote:THE LIST OF [SHOULD BE] UNMENTIONABLES:- It'll be interesting to see...
- On the field...
- Standard...
- Deviation
- Opting to...
- What a blunder (thanks to Day[9] for making me do this, jerk!)
- We are here on...
- One thing to note...
- It's the most normal thing in the world
- Nothing out of the ordinary
- This is awesome !
- He really should have....
- He really should be getting...
- He'll know exaaactly what's coming/what's going on/what his opponent is up to
- That was a cute/creative play...
- terrible, terrible damage!
I think in one cast I said 'opt' about twenty times. Terrible!
So many of these are just completely trivial. Deviation? Seriously, who cares? A deviation is a deviation; it's not "overused". "He really should have..." is also not a cliche. There is nothing annoying about that. "We are here on..." is a way of introducing a map. Also not a big deal.
It's also silly how many people are just dropping random things that Day[9] specifically does, because he's Day[9]. These aren't cliches and they're not annoying; it's just who he is.
|
"In the grand scheme of things..." > djWHEAT
|
Panda bear guy, although it never gets old ;]
|
"Actually" I think is used a bit much
|
On July 16 2010 04:01 Rikerr wrote:
"Actually" I think is used a bit much
Only by HD, man... Only by HD.
|
I think a distinctaion should be drawn between casting and educational shows. The Day9 Daily is about keeping you in suspense. Sean is suppose to be saying, well normally x doesn't work here because of y. He is suppose to know what is going on everywhere to educate us, we don't need to know how WhiteRa and IdrA had tea with the Queen last week. It's not the point.
Casting showmatches are different.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
