|
On October 15 2011 15:30 nt-rAven wrote:
the most important part of casting is knowing the scene and being able to relate with the viewers otherwise you will always look like an idiot, watch a lot, and i mean every single major event, know all the results and you can cast otherwise no you cant just makeup content, sc2 fans are to knowledgable with all this amazing internet access to vods
Yeah i actually agree with this more than game knowledge. Rant time, i'll spoiler it since its long.
+ Show Spoiler + I'm not really impressed anymore by Artosis and Co. predicting builds. It's a nice gimmick, but it doesn't add to the game for me, if anything it kills suspense a tiny bit. What i do like is when casters drop stats and results. And that's not even something that requires deep game knowledge. It's a matter of Caster Bob going into a tournament he's (i assume) being paid to cast, and doing a minimal amount of research. Read the TLPD, see what this guy's latest results have been. I LOVE the resources on this website, they're fantastic. I check them all the time when filling out my Liquibets (doesn't improve my ranking mcuh mind you). What match ups is he weak at? Has he been using one particular build moreso than any other? Player specific information i find far more useful and relevant to a cast than anything else.
As a player, i don't know shit, because i don't play. Period. But as a fan it bothers me that i know more about certain players game history than the casters seem to. I understand they cast a lot of games but sometimes i feel like i watch 10x as much as them when they say flat out wrong things or just don't know basic truths (like player X being weak at TvP) which isn't even a matter of opinion, its raw data they could regurgitate and look good doing so. Maybe i do watch 10x more than them, that's fine, i have no life. But they could print out or copy pasta the TLPD and scan it before each set of games and they wouldn't make those kind of mistakes and it would add a lot of context to every single match before a single mineral is mined.
Once these guys all get the bare basics right, then i'll start caring about who is dropping the sick analysis.
As of right now i think the best person (that i've seen casting recently) at this is probably Moletrap. He seems to pay attention to player history, and when he doesn't have a clue he drops some Brood War knowledge (which i don't know if its true but at least it sounds good at adds to the cast). Tastosis on the other hand ask eachother questions about food and which life crippling situation would you prefer over another when they could actually be talking about the players. It really feels like they don't give a crap a lot of the time.
I can only imagine what a legitimate Korean SC2 cast is like.
|
Yes, it's like saying arms aren't that important for swimming.
|
If you want to comment on whats actually happening in the game, I'd say its important. It's annoying when the casters make bad calls have no clue what they're talking about. Which happens more than it should.
|
Sure they do need some game knowledge but some people (i.e. viewers) seem to mistake a tournament cast for a coaching session.
|
Well, for people that know better, a caster with considerable knowledge is appreciated, so for those people, game knowledge is really important, but the really important thing for casters that dont have that much game knowledge is to NOT try to act like they have it OR to try to predict things too far ahead. A situation with bad game knowledge can be circumvented with good play by play commentary (Total Biscuit, DJwheat), and they CAN go hand in hand if they have a good analytic caster beside them.
|
I think it depends on the team. I like a good commentary team of an analyst and colour. So one of the pair should have good game knowledge, while the other should have an exciting voice and decent player knowledge.
It's how I worked in wrestling. In the XWA, my co-commentator Lewis is a guy who knows absolutely tonnes about wrestling and the history of the XWA. In return, I bring excitement and a personal friendship with the wrestlers themselves that adds more to the broadcast.
|
I think people are way too hung up on the casting shit.... Kelly as caster no thanks.. She just wants the attention. And while I personally think she has enough game knowledge to cast the game. I feel she is bad at it, and is simply just not right for the job..
The whole stuff about praising a korean cast that you can't even understand is typical euro/us asian fetisch imo, it's bs, and it brings nothing to the table. I'll drop some caster names whom I have heard and like..
Tasteless, Artosis, painuser, hdstarcraft, husky, totalbiscuit,d'apollo, khaldor, day9, djwheat, catzpajamas... Those are by far my favourite casters.. I consider wolf, doa and moletrap to be lesser mortals compared to these... in the end. I don't care all that much, I am just happy that there ARE someone commentating the games, and tbh, the fact that there are some really good casters casting some really good games all around. I have no complaints and really really tire of this obsession that people seem to have with casters...
|
Conf: It's a thing that happens in all sports, not just limited to eSports unfortunately. All I really want from my commentators is a sense of when something awesome is going on, and the ability to give me a reason to care about two people I may not even have heard of before.
|
No love for Mr bitter D: ?
|
Put frankly, absolutely yes. If a caster doesn't know shit about what he's saying, nobody is going to want to listen to him.
Another good example of a solid pair is Day9 and DJ Wheat. Day9 serves the role of analyst (as well as entertainer), and Wheat provides the play-by-play. The big thing is that Wheat know about what he is talking about just not on a professional level.
|
On October 15 2011 22:26 Goibon wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2011 15:30 nt-rAven wrote:
the most important part of casting is knowing the scene and being able to relate with the viewers otherwise you will always look like an idiot, watch a lot, and i mean every single major event, know all the results and you can cast otherwise no you cant just makeup content, sc2 fans are to knowledgable with all this amazing internet access to vods Yeah i actually agree with this more than game knowledge. Rant time, i'll spoiler it since its long. + Show Spoiler + I'm not really impressed anymore by Artosis and Co. predicting builds. It's a nice gimmick, but it doesn't add to the game for me, if anything it kills suspense a tiny bit. What i do like is when casters drop stats and results. And that's not even something that requires deep game knowledge. It's a matter of Caster Bob going into a tournament he's (i assume) being paid to cast, and doing a minimal amount of research. Read the TLPD, see what this guy's latest results have been. I LOVE the resources on this website, they're fantastic. I check them all the time when filling out my Liquibets (doesn't improve my ranking mcuh mind you). What match ups is he weak at? Has he been using one particular build moreso than any other? Player specific information i find far more useful and relevant to a cast than anything else.
As a player, i don't know shit, because i don't play. Period. But as a fan it bothers me that i know more about certain players game history than the casters seem to. I understand they cast a lot of games but sometimes i feel like i watch 10x as much as them when they say flat out wrong things or just don't know basic truths (like player X being weak at TvP) which isn't even a matter of opinion, its raw data they could regurgitate and look good doing so. Maybe i do watch 10x more than them, that's fine, i have no life. But they could print out or copy pasta the TLPD and scan it before each set of games and they wouldn't make those kind of mistakes and it would add a lot of context to every single match before a single mineral is mined.
Once these guys all get the bare basics right, then i'll start caring about who is dropping the sick analysis.
As of right now i think the best person (that i've seen casting recently) at this is probably Moletrap. He seems to pay attention to player history, and when he doesn't have a clue he drops some Brood War knowledge (which i don't know if its true but at least it sounds good at adds to the cast). Tastosis on the other hand ask eachother questions about food and which life crippling situation would you prefer over another when they could actually be talking about the players. It really feels like they don't give a crap a lot of the time.
I can only imagine what a legitimate Korean SC2 cast is like.
lol, this is like the exact opposite of what most people want.
Anyone can type in a player's name into a database and list off stats one by one, but only a few casters (and hell, not even all players) can analyze the game at such a high level that they can predict builds before the build even occurs, based on the timing of seconds in the early game. It's really impressive to see that type of casting because it can show you how deep the game is being played at the highest level, how optimized builds are, and how vital scouting is. I don't see how it's a gimmick when this is what Starcraft is all about, not some results that anyone can look up if they really wanted to. That's why Apollo and Artosis are considered some of the best casters around. They take the time to learn the maps, builds, timings, styles, etc. of each player and can talk articulately about them on a very high level.
|
The love for Tastosis on this site is immense and rightfully so. But there are so many times Artosis has been dead wrong and his bias is contagious.
Imo, the most exciting casters are biased casters where the casters actually disagree with each other. Of course, not practically possible in all situations. But it annoys me so much, for example, when Nestea plays that they keep on going about how Nestea is just so sick. And Tasteless is always in complete agreement with Artosis.
Anyway, game knowledge is not that important for a caster if he can keep the commentary exciting, ala TotalBiscuit with sheer expression, and as long as they recognise their weakness and say terribly wrong things.
|
i think game knowledge is the most important factor for commentating because when you get clueless people talking about absolute ballz it really kills it for me. also being able to predict peoples bo's is a big part of watching these things for me. remember when mc and totalbiscuit casted at dreamhack. mc's english is quite limited i would say but he made up for it by having INSANE game sense predicted dt builds just by building positioning and scout timing.
|
Wow
I thought it was a joke but no it isn't, hope she's not paired with Khaldor ,because he is an amazing caster.
I don't remember which even it was when kelly was doing interview but i felt like dying when she was speaking, if it's regular casting then ... omg 
People should know what they can do and what others do better than them sorry for being rough .
|
Here is my approach on how to rate casters.
Lets assume that 3 factors impact the overall quality of the caster:
1) Quality of analysis.
2) Entertainment value.
3) Social skills.
A caster with who has a high "quality of analysis"-rating has an ability to predict and understand the players action and the choices and dilemmas that the players are confronted with. He is able to explain his throughts of the game to the viewers in an understandable way as well, and makes the viewers of every league from bronze-master feel like he is learning some thing from listening to the caster. To score a top rating in this category it is often not enough in it self to be a grand master player, but you need a good understanding of the metagame in all match ups and be a very logical person. The caster also has the ability to put aside personal opinions of the player or the strategies aside when making the analysis, which means that the analysis has to be objective.
A caster with who has a high "entertainment"-rating is good at making viewers enjoying the cast throgh an entertaining voice and efficient play-by-play commentary. Humour as well adds to this rating, however good analysis of the game that some viewers might find entertaining does not add to this rating.
A caster with a high rating of social skills is good to make the cast between him and his cocaster feel natural. When there is dead air the caster is very good at filling out the time and finding interesting topics to discuss.
When deciding the overall rating each factor should be weighted differently depending on whether the caster is:
A) Play-by-play caster
B) Analytical caster.
C) In between.
Here is my approach to weighting the aboce 3 casters to the different caster types. I guess however the specific weights are really subjective.
For the play-by-play caster:
Quality of analysis: 10 %
Entertainment value: 70 %.
Social skills: 20%.
For the analytical caster:
Quality of analysis: 70%.
Entertainment value: 25%
Social skills: 5%
For the inbetween caster
Quality of analysis: 40%
Entertainment value: 40%.
Social skills: 20%.
Ratings of casters
I will give notes from 1-5 (5 is the highest) to some wellknown casters.
Day9 (analytical caster):
QuA = 4.5
ENV = 5.
SS = 5.
Overall rating of Day9: 4.65
Reasoning behind ratings: Though Day9 doesn't play the game as actively as other casters, and his understanding of the game isn't the best, he is an extremely logical person. He understands all 3 races at mid/high master level and is able to efficiently communicate to people of all skills levels the weakness and strenghts of the builds. I personally dislikes his dailies as I feel he uses to much time discussing somewhat simple stuff, but when casting a game live and when he is forced to explain this stuff through just a few sentences, his analysis just seems much better.
I find him really entertaining as well, as he is good at hyping up certain plays and he doesn't have a monotone voice.
And obv. he is a very good at talking, and there are really never any ackward moments when he casts.
DOA (inbetween)
QuA = 1.5
ENV = 4.
SS = 2.
Overall rating: 2.6
Reasoning behind ratings: I think Doa has the problem that many inbetween casters has: That he doesn't accept that his game understanding isn't very high, but he still wants to sound like another Artosis or Day9. Too often Doa will just say meaningsless stuff, or use the phase: "i like build xx, and then he names one advantage of the build (e.g. i like building a banshee or a reaper, because you can scout and kill a few scvs). The problem with this way of analysing is that he doesn't count for the potentital weakness of the build.
At another situation I remember him commentating Thestc play a tvp game at Antiga. And as Doa have seen Artosis and Day9 talk about map and how it affects the players gameplan, he felt the need to describe antiga as well and how it affected Thestc gameplan. He talked about how you can take the gold bases on this map and get a very good economy, and Wolf correctly stated that it can be very difficult to defend the gold base as the opponents units from the high ground can shoot down at your expansion. Then Doa answered: "This is where Thestc strenghts come in, he is very good at setting up strong defensive postitions." IMo such a comment just showed a complete lack of game understanding, because you cant really set up a strong defensive position at antiga with bio play (or at least you cant have a game plan where you depend on having a strong defensive position with bio).
For many reading the above it probably will seem like I am too hard on him, but the problem is that every cast he will just say extremely obivious things while trying to present it as he is explaining high level stuff. I kinda expect that many lower level players probably dont mind Doa's cast but as a mid/high master leaguer I get annoyed by it.
At IPL I gotta admit though, that I saw how he has improved as an entertainment caster over the last few months. He was actually really good infront of a crowd, and if I could ignore his stupid comments I would almost feel like his casts were epic.
Totai Biscuit (play-by-play)
QuA = 2
ENV = 4.
SS = 3
Overall rating: 3.6
Reasoning behind ratings: I guess my QuA ratings is probably a bit controversial compared to the rating of DoA's. And no, I dont think that Total biscuit knows more about the game than Doa or that he understands the metagame better, however he isn't trying to act like he does, unlike Doa. This means that he doesn't make incorrect analysis (which is IMO the worst thing a caster can do).
Artosis (analytical)
QuA = 3.5
ENV = 3.5
SS = 5
Overall rating: 3.6
Reasoning behind ratings: 1 year ago I might have given Artosis top grades in all categories, however his cast isn't as good anymore, and my preferences of a good caster has changed.
I realize that his low QuA-rating is highly controversial. Its not that I think his game understanding is bad, because it definitely isn't (I would probably rate him around 4.5 if game understanding had its own category), but the problem I have with Artosis is that he cant make an objective analysis. Examples: "The mech guy is the smartest and best player". "Nestea is so smart, everything he does is so smart". "Tanks and ravens are good and underused. Too often he is mixing up his own prefered way of playing sc2, with his analysis, and it annoys the crap out of me.
Regarding his Env-rating I have just got tied of the constant jokes at the GSL. I loved to listen to him and Tasteless having fun 1 year ago, but now it just got boring. I feel like he has lost a bit of his passion as well. I remember him 1 year ago being so enthuasitic every other game because he saw something smart. Now its like he thinks most games are boring, and that its very seldom he enjoys watching the games.
|
|
|
On October 15 2011 23:42 Hider wrote:
Here is my approach on how to rate casters.
Lets assume that 3 factors impact the overall quality of the caster:
1) Quality of analysis.
2) Entertainment value.
3) Social skills.
A caster with who has a high "quality of analysis"-rating has an ability to predict and understand the players action and the choices and dilemmas that the players are confronted with. He is able to explain his throughts of the game to the viewers in an understandable way as well, and makes the viewers of every league from bronze-master feel like he is learning some thing from listening to the caster. To score a top rating in this category it is often not enough in it self to be a grand master player, but you need a good understanding of the metagame in all match ups and be a very logical person. The caster also has the ability to put aside personal opinions of the player or the strategies aside when making the analysis, which means that the analysis has to be objective.
A caster with who has a high "entertainment"-rating is good at making viewers enjoying the cast throgh an entertaining voice and efficient play-by-play commentary. Humour as well adds to this rating, however good analysis of the game that some viewers might find entertaining does not add to this rating.
A caster with a high rating of social skills is good to make the cast between him and his cocaster feel natural. When there is dead air the caster is very good at filling out the time and finding interesting topics to discuss.
When deciding the overall rating each factor should be weighted differently depending on whether the caster is:
A) Play-by-play caster
B) Analytical caster.
C) In between.
Here is my approach to weighting the aboce 3 casters to the different caster types. I guess however the specific weights are really subjective.
For the play-by-play caster:
Quality of analysis: 10 %
Entertainment value: 70 %.
Social skills: 20%.
For the analytical caster:
Quality of analysis: 70%.
Entertainment value: 25%
Social skills: 5%
For the inbetween caster
Quality of analysis: 40%
Entertainment value: 40%.
Social skills: 20%.
Ratings of casters
I will give notes from 1-5 (5 is the highest) to some wellknown casters.
Day9 (analytical caster):
QuA = 4.5
ENV = 5.
SS = 5.
Overall rating of Day9: 4.65
Reasoning behind ratings: Though Day9 doesn't play the game as actively as other casters, and his understanding of the game isn't the best, he is an extremely logical person. He understands all 3 races at mid/high master level and is able to efficiently communicate to people of all skills levels the weakness and strenghts of the builds. I personally dislikes his dailies as I feel he uses to much time discussing somewhat simple stuff, but when casting a game live and when he is forced to explain this stuff through just a few sentences, his analysis just seems much better.
I find him really entertaining as well, as he is good at hyping up certain plays and he doesn't have a monotone voice.
And obv. he is a very good at talking, and there are really never any ackward moments when he casts.
DOA (inbetween)
QuA = 1.5
ENV = 4.
SS = 2.
Overall rating: 2.6
Reasoning behind ratings: I think Doa has the problem that many inbetween casters has: That he doesn't accept that his game understanding isn't very high, but he still wants to sound like another Artosis or Day9. Too often Doa will just say meaningsless stuff, or use the phase: "i like build xx, and then he names one advantage of the build (e.g. i like building a banshee or a reaper, because you can scout and kill a few scvs). The problem with this way of analysing is that he doesn't count for the potentital weakness of the build.
At another situation I remember him commentating Thestc play a tvp game at Antiga. And as Doa have seen Artosis and Day9 talk about map and how it affects the players gameplan, he felt the need to describe antiga as well and how it affected Thestc gameplan. He talked about how you can take the gold bases on this map and get a very good economy, and Wolf correctly stated that it can be very difficult to defend the gold base as the opponents units from the high ground can shoot down at your expansion. Then Doa answered: "This is where Thestc strenghts come in, he is very good at setting up strong defensive postitions." IMo such a comment just showed a complete lack of game understanding, because you cant really set up a strong defensive position at antiga with bio play (or at least you cant have a game plan where you depend on having a strong defensive position with bio).
For many reading the above it probably will seem like I am too hard on him, but the problem is that every cast he will just say extremely obivious things while trying to present it as he is explaining high level stuff. I kinda expect that many lower level players probably dont mind Doa's cast but as a mid/high master leaguer I get annoyed by it.
At IPL I gotta admit though, that I saw how he has improved as an entertainment caster over the last few months. He was actually really good infront of a crowd, and if I could ignore his stupid comments I would almost feel like his casts were epic.
Totai Biscuit (play-by-play)
QuA = 2
ENV = 4.
SS = 3
Overall rating: 3.6
Reasoning behind ratings: I guess my QuA ratings is probably a bit controversial compared to the rating of DoA's. And no, I dont think that Total biscuit knows more about the game than Doa or that he understands the metagame better, however he isn't trying to act like he does, unlike Doa. This means that he doesn't make incorrect analysis (which is IMO the worst thing a caster can do).
Artosis (analytical)
QuA = 3.5
ENV = 3.5
SS = 5
Overall rating: 3.6
Reasoning behind ratings: 1 year ago I might have given Artosis top grades in all categories, however his cast isn't as good anymore, and my preferences of a good caster has changed.
I realize that his low QuA-rating is highly controversial. Its not that I think his game understanding is bad, because it definitely isn't (I would probably rate him around 4.5 if game understanding had its own category), but the problem I have with Artosis is that he cant make an objective analysis. Examples: "The mech guy is the smartest and best player". "Nestea is so smart, everything he does is so smart". "Tanks and ravens are good and underused. Too often he is mixing up his own prefered way of playing sc2, with his analysis, and it annoys the crap out of me.
Regarding his Env-rating I have just got tied of the constant jokes at the GSL. I loved to listen to him and Tasteless having fun 1 year ago, but now it just got boring. I feel like he has lost a bit of his passion as well. I remember him 1 year ago being so enthuasitic every other game because he saw something smart. Now its like he thinks most games are boring, and that its very seldom he enjoys watching the games.
I find Artosis's analysis more insightful than Day9, and even though his biased commentary can get in the way of things, he still helps you understand what's going on. You gotta love his love for Nestea though, banelings killing Thors is not as exciting without Artosis screaming.
As for your thoughts on game knowledge, I agree entirely. Too many commentators try and imitate Artosis and Day 9 and simply cannot do so. Casters also have to be all over the production tab and minimap. A caster with gold level skill is unlikely to have good minimap awareness, and spotting everything that goes down is incredibly important.
|
On October 15 2011 23:57 Micket wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2011 23:42 Hider wrote:
Here is my approach on how to rate casters.
Lets assume that 3 factors impact the overall quality of the caster:
1) Quality of analysis.
2) Entertainment value.
3) Social skills.
A caster with who has a high "quality of analysis"-rating has an ability to predict and understand the players action and the choices and dilemmas that the players are confronted with. He is able to explain his throughts of the game to the viewers in an understandable way as well, and makes the viewers of every league from bronze-master feel like he is learning some thing from listening to the caster. To score a top rating in this category it is often not enough in it self to be a grand master player, but you need a good understanding of the metagame in all match ups and be a very logical person. The caster also has the ability to put aside personal opinions of the player or the strategies aside when making the analysis, which means that the analysis has to be objective.
A caster with who has a high "entertainment"-rating is good at making viewers enjoying the cast throgh an entertaining voice and efficient play-by-play commentary. Humour as well adds to this rating, however good analysis of the game that some viewers might find entertaining does not add to this rating.
A caster with a high rating of social skills is good to make the cast between him and his cocaster feel natural. When there is dead air the caster is very good at filling out the time and finding interesting topics to discuss.
When deciding the overall rating each factor should be weighted differently depending on whether the caster is:
A) Play-by-play caster
B) Analytical caster.
C) In between.
Here is my approach to weighting the aboce 3 casters to the different caster types. I guess however the specific weights are really subjective.
For the play-by-play caster:
Quality of analysis: 10 %
Entertainment value: 70 %.
Social skills: 20%.
For the analytical caster:
Quality of analysis: 70%.
Entertainment value: 25%
Social skills: 5%
For the inbetween caster
Quality of analysis: 40%
Entertainment value: 40%.
Social skills: 20%.
Ratings of casters
I will give notes from 1-5 (5 is the highest) to some wellknown casters.
Day9 (analytical caster):
QuA = 4.5
ENV = 5.
SS = 5.
Overall rating of Day9: 4.65
Reasoning behind ratings: Though Day9 doesn't play the game as actively as other casters, and his understanding of the game isn't the best, he is an extremely logical person. He understands all 3 races at mid/high master level and is able to efficiently communicate to people of all skills levels the weakness and strenghts of the builds. I personally dislikes his dailies as I feel he uses to much time discussing somewhat simple stuff, but when casting a game live and when he is forced to explain this stuff through just a few sentences, his analysis just seems much better.
I find him really entertaining as well, as he is good at hyping up certain plays and he doesn't have a monotone voice.
And obv. he is a very good at talking, and there are really never any ackward moments when he casts.
DOA (inbetween)
QuA = 1.5
ENV = 4.
SS = 2.
Overall rating: 2.6
Reasoning behind ratings: I think Doa has the problem that many inbetween casters has: That he doesn't accept that his game understanding isn't very high, but he still wants to sound like another Artosis or Day9. Too often Doa will just say meaningsless stuff, or use the phase: "i like build xx, and then he names one advantage of the build (e.g. i like building a banshee or a reaper, because you can scout and kill a few scvs). The problem with this way of analysing is that he doesn't count for the potentital weakness of the build.
At another situation I remember him commentating Thestc play a tvp game at Antiga. And as Doa have seen Artosis and Day9 talk about map and how it affects the players gameplan, he felt the need to describe antiga as well and how it affected Thestc gameplan. He talked about how you can take the gold bases on this map and get a very good economy, and Wolf correctly stated that it can be very difficult to defend the gold base as the opponents units from the high ground can shoot down at your expansion. Then Doa answered: "This is where Thestc strenghts come in, he is very good at setting up strong defensive postitions." IMo such a comment just showed a complete lack of game understanding, because you cant really set up a strong defensive position at antiga with bio play (or at least you cant have a game plan where you depend on having a strong defensive position with bio).
For many reading the above it probably will seem like I am too hard on him, but the problem is that every cast he will just say extremely obivious things while trying to present it as he is explaining high level stuff. I kinda expect that many lower level players probably dont mind Doa's cast but as a mid/high master leaguer I get annoyed by it.
At IPL I gotta admit though, that I saw how he has improved as an entertainment caster over the last few months. He was actually really good infront of a crowd, and if I could ignore his stupid comments I would almost feel like his casts were epic.
Totai Biscuit (play-by-play)
QuA = 2
ENV = 4.
SS = 3
Overall rating: 3.6
Reasoning behind ratings: I guess my QuA ratings is probably a bit controversial compared to the rating of DoA's. And no, I dont think that Total biscuit knows more about the game than Doa or that he understands the metagame better, however he isn't trying to act like he does, unlike Doa. This means that he doesn't make incorrect analysis (which is IMO the worst thing a caster can do).
Artosis (analytical)
QuA = 3.5
ENV = 3.5
SS = 5
Overall rating: 3.6
Reasoning behind ratings: 1 year ago I might have given Artosis top grades in all categories, however his cast isn't as good anymore, and my preferences of a good caster has changed.
I realize that his low QuA-rating is highly controversial. Its not that I think his game understanding is bad, because it definitely isn't (I would probably rate him around 4.5 if game understanding had its own category), but the problem I have with Artosis is that he cant make an objective analysis. Examples: "The mech guy is the smartest and best player". "Nestea is so smart, everything he does is so smart". "Tanks and ravens are good and underused. Too often he is mixing up his own prefered way of playing sc2, with his analysis, and it annoys the crap out of me.
Regarding his Env-rating I have just got tied of the constant jokes at the GSL. I loved to listen to him and Tasteless having fun 1 year ago, but now it just got boring. I feel like he has lost a bit of his passion as well. I remember him 1 year ago being so enthuasitic every other game because he saw something smart. Now its like he thinks most games are boring, and that its very seldom he enjoys watching the games.
I find Artosis's analysis more insightful than Day9, and even though his biased commentary can get in the way of things, he still helps you understand what's going on. You gotta love his love for Nestea though, banelings killing Thors is not as exciting without Artosis screaming. As for your thoughts on game knowledge, I agree entirely. Too many commentators try and imitate Artosis and Day 9 and simply cannot do so. Casters also have to be all over the production tab and minimap. A caster with gold level skill is unlikely to have good minimap awareness, and spotting everything that goes down is incredibly important.
I realized that not viewer has the same preferences for the hate of the artosis-bias as I does. And there is no right or wrong in this. For me the quality of casters that I admire the most is the ability to make correct logical analysis of the decisions of the players, and I think Day9 is pretty good at that. I think Artosis is very logical as well, but as I have said, too often he lets his personal preferences influence the analysis. You know when someone loses with bio heavy to a another terran player who goes mech, he will almost always reason it with the fact that mech is a better strategy. However IMO there is almost alywas something different the bio heavy player could have done, and Artosis probably knows that. However its like he has an agenda when he casts: He wants to convince the viewers that mech is better, and hence misuses the casting of the games to prove why he is correct. Dont get me wrong, I actually has the same philsophy of the game as Artosis. I love solid macro style, hate bio, love tanks and so on. But these subjective analysis are just something i get extremely annoyed by, but as you said, some people have the ability to see through it and learn from his game knowledge.
|
You know your ratings system is inaccurately weighted when
A) Totalbiscuit and Artosis recieve the same cumulative total
Nah really though, I like the effort and the rationale but I would have, using your system, have awarded TB a lower SS score; since we are separating this category from ENV, I have noticed that TB can get a little awkward and even hostile with co-casters (he is fine solo on Youtube or w.e.). It actually made Valencia kinda weird for me to watch, especially with dApollo generally seeming like a pretty nice, jovial guy. I don't have specific examples because like I say, I didn't really tune in attentively, but watch for it next time a co-caster corrects TB live.
|
On October 16 2011 00:15 AGsc wrote:You know your ratings system is inaccurately weighted when A) Totalbiscuit and Artosis recieve the same cumulative total Nah really though, I like the effort and the rationale but I would have, using your system, have awarded TB a lower SS score; since we are separating this category from ENV, I have noticed that TB can get a little awkward and even hostile with co-casters (he is fine solo on Youtube or w.e.). It actually made Valencia kinda weird for me to watch, especially with dApollo generally seeming like a pretty nice, jovial guy. I don't have specific examples because like I say, I didn't really tune in attentively, but watch for it next time a co-caster corrects TB live.
Well the weight system could still be correct (it probably could be changed a bit) but I am just really harsh on Artosis subjective bias. Most people would through my system rate Artosis alot higher.
You could very well be correct about TB SS score. I have probably just heard about 30-40 cast of TB and only a few when he has been cocasting. But i just wanted to give an example of a play-by-play, and tbh I dont listen to a lot of play-by-play casters, so TB was probably the play-by-play I knew the best.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
