If I want an analysis of a game, I watch day9 or some other random VOD. And if I am watching a game live, I can analyse stuff on my own.

I think the most important thing for a caster is to create atmosphere. I want a caster to make the game exciting, to speed up my pulse when a battle is going on and make an event out of a match.

Sure, a caster needs to have a good game sense and but I don't think that being in master's league is a necessity.

Tenks

United States3104 Posts

February 16 2011 19:56 GMT

#42

To a point. I cannot stand listening to Biscuit or Husky simply because a player does something unorthodox and they have literally no clue what is going on. They make wild and often times wrong assumptions, start claiming its a bad build and saying the player screwed up. I've never listened to this girl's commentary so I cannot speak to her knowledge or lack of knowledge. I don't think you actually need to be a great player to be a great caster but you do need to have a deep pool of knowledge for all the match-ups. I think given that knowledge it would be really hard to stay out of Diamond at least.

wxlancer

United States14 Posts

February 16 2011 19:57 GMT

#43

Tastosis works together well, even when they have to randomly banter to fill huge voids, they still do a good job.

Their game knowledge is difficult to replace in one sense - rather than simply being good players who can break down a situation on the fly, they know the competitors personally, their quirks and eccentricities, their rivalries, their history, their recent games, and can instantly bring that context to bear, and I think that's a huge part of bringing these matches to life.

PartyBiscuit

Canada4525 Posts

February 16 2011 19:59 GMT

#44

On February 17 2011 04:17 MementoMori wrote:
It seems very likely that Kelly will not be casting alone and with rumors going around that she will be joined by http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/TorcH, what does it matter if she does not have as much game knowledge as Artosis for example? She will likely fill the role that Tasteless has been filling.

Based on her casting both live and in her vods, she does not strive to be "the funny one". It will likely be two commentators, instead of a commentator + caster, and it will be very likely an awkward position they'll be in.

ThaZenith

Canada3116 Posts

February 16 2011 19:59 GMT

#45

What exactly has she casted before? I can only remember hearing a female caster once before, for something like "The V" i think, and i turned it off too fast to catch any names.

Casters need at least one person with deep knowledge, and the other person has to have at least enough knowledge not to make retarded comments. If the "not knowledgeable" caster can only make the most obvious of observations, I think they don't know enough to be casting.

Sea.3PO

Canada77 Posts

February 16 2011 20:02 GMT

#46

To an experienced player such as myself, game knowledge is 100% the most important factor.

Imagine watching a game, and the caster makes a comment like "oh, hes adding gateways now with his 2 gas, I think this is going to be a gas heavy 4 gate rush attack" while watching a player do a standard 3 gate expand build in pvz. So many times do I hear bad commentators say things similar to this. When it is quite obvious from a players point of view, what is going on, but because the commentator barely has any real experience in game, he isn't able to accurately read a simple build order and expand on things like what his opponent should be doing to scout it and react to it.

When that happens, as it often does, what point do I have to listen to their commentary at that point? To simply listen to their voice? I might as well mute the stream because I can already understand what is going on in the game better than the caster can.

The point I am trying to make, is that a casters skill level should be higher than the vast majority of their viewers to keep things interesting and actually be able to inform people of things they may not have thought about. If you cannot obtain a ladder rank of high diamond, or masters, you shouldn't be casting. Simple as that. The reason being is that to any player above your skill level or knowledge level, the cast will provide no information past what the viewer already knows. And at that point, the viewer has no real reason to listen to the cast, aside from maybe hearing some funny anecdotes to help pass through the boring stages of the game.

Gorguts

Canada254 Posts

February 16 2011 20:03 GMT

#47

On February 17 2011 04:30 DrBoo wrote:

Take for example the UFC you have Mike Goldberg who has lets admit it not a freaking clue what's going on in the matchup.
Then you have Joe Rogan who is very, very knowledgeable about what is happening and it works together well.

Omfg I hate that guy soo much.

"IT'S ALLLL OVER!!!!"

Jayrod

1820 Posts

February 16 2011 20:03 GMT

#48

You're probably thinking of VTPeanut from the VT Open streams. Kellymilkies is a slight step above her and being a step above terrible is not a good thing.

brentsen

1252 Posts

February 16 2011 20:05 GMT

#49

I think game knowledge is very important especially on the long run. A caster with little knowledge can be enjoyable for a few days but in the end it's getting on my nerves when I know things better than the caster for most of the time (and I'm not even close to a top player).
On the other hand game knowledge isn't everything, if the caster excels in the other areas (like enjoyability, voice etc.) it's okay.
The best thing to have is 2 casters that work well together, that's why Tastosis are my favorites.

On a side note I kind of enjoyed Jason Lee even though his SC2 knowledge was quite poor.

cordlc

United States360 Posts

February 16 2011 20:09 GMT

#50

It certainly helps to have more game knowledge, but depending on the style it may not matter.

The non-German speakers that enjoyed Khaldor's stream know this, as do the fans of people like HD / Husky. The way I see it, I know enough about the game that someone like Artosis will rarely say something I don't already know anyway, so it isn't a big deal (though info about player backgrounds, history and stuff is interesting).

People may trash on some of the lesser knowledgable casters, but the fact is they're skilled at keeping the audience excited. As long as they don't try to analyze too much (making it clear they don't know much about the game), and they know enough to follow the important parts of the game (good with the observer camera and tabs), it's all good.

tealc

109 Posts

February 16 2011 20:10 GMT

#51

What's the point of casting if there is no knowledge, It's not like I'm not watching the match.

ihavetofartosis

1277 Posts

February 16 2011 20:11 GMT

#52

Kelly is a fine caster for the job, I was worried they would pick someone bad. Her casting is definitely code A material, I look forward to the matches

haka

United States1414 Posts

February 16 2011 20:13 GMT

#53

You definitely need a duo - one thats very analytical and one that takes care of everything else (usually entertainment, play by play). Whenever I watch football/soccer its the same way. There's one guy that points out the obvious and when something happens the other guy quips with very precise analysis. Commentary/casting in SC2 needs both just like any other spectator event. We're spoiled because we have both Artosis AND Tasteless. Artosis provides consistent and accurate analysis and he is very funny while Tasteless is hilarious and provides play by play commentary.

Zidane

United States1692 Posts

February 16 2011 20:13 GMT

#54

Her voice annoys me, and that is more of an issue than game knowledge personally.

KevinIX

United States2472 Posts

February 16 2011 20:13 GMT

#55

Really? I thought Kelly Milkis had a very solid understanding of the game when I watched her cast the SEA tourny with TotalBiscuit. I really enjoyed that series. I think she will be a great caster.

butter

United States785 Posts

February 16 2011 20:16 GMT

#56

Even if you don't employ an expository mode as Artosis sometimes does, it's still important to be able to read the dynamic of the game so that you can communicate your feelings of tension or anticipation, etc. appropriately through your commentary and your voice. This sense will develop naturally as commentators become more experienced spectators, especially if they work together with a knowledgeable co-commentator.

Of course there should be moments of surprise when a player does something unpredicted, or the game takes an unexpected turn, but if a commentator appears perpetually lost then it becomes hard for the audience to share in the experience of the game.

Anchen

United States31 Posts

February 16 2011 20:18 GMT

#57

@JamesSwift: I actually think you sort of have this backwards for pro sports. The play-by-play guy is NOT the "knowledgable" one. Of course they need a decent knowledge of the basics of the game, calling balls and strikes properly, or referring to downs and yards, etc. But it is actually the color guy who is typically the ex-pro who is there to provide more insightful in depth knowledge, stories from when they were pros, and yes, to inject dialog. For instance in football common pairings are:

Joe Buck -play by play/Troy Aikman, color
Kenny Albert/Daryl Johnston
Greg Gumble/Dan Dierdorf
John Miller/Joe Morgan

Which also technically is how Tastosis is broken down. Tasteless is actually technically the play by play guy and Artosis is the color commentator. It's just Artosis tends to come in anyway which is fine.

Of course I have no idea how they plan to break down the roles for her and presumably torch and if it would work...Her accent makes play by play potentially tough and she's not really a guru for color commentary.

Fa1nT

United States3423 Posts

February 16 2011 20:19 GMT

#58

Yes, yes it is.

Tasteless could not comment SC2 alone, he needs Artosis

Just like Husky cannot comment a GSL

There is a difference between "shout"crafting and casting.

The difference is that this is Code A, and Tasteosis don't really commentate it anyway besides the "oh this guy is running his army into siege tanks......"

It's a good stepping stone for kelly and it might work out fine.

Sein

United States1811 Posts

February 16 2011 20:23 GMT

#59

On February 17 2011 05:05 brentsen wrote:
On a side note I kind of enjoyed Jason Lee even though his SC2 knowledge was quite poor.

That's because he has qualities of a good general caster (easy-to-listen voice and good enunciation), which almost made up for his lack of knowledge (almost, not quite) when supported by someone who does have a decent understanding of the game.

GameTime

United States222 Posts

February 16 2011 20:23 GMT

#60

Casting style and voice comes first and foremost when it comes to casting along with decent game knowledge. They don't have to be a top player to cast well, but it certainly does add to the experience. The problem with Kelly is that it doesn't seem like English is her first language so her speech isn't very fluid at all which just creates an awkward experience.