On February 17 2011 06:01 RoyalCheese wrote: I love how so many people compare Starcraft and football/other sport casting. Don't you realize it's totally different? StarCraft is so much more complex and so much faster then most of these things. If you want to compare the casting of StarCraft to anything, you should compare it probably to chess or some other intellectual sport.
Why would you compare it to chess when you just said Starcraft is so much faster. All sports take a certain level of intelligence. You might want to rephrase yourself. :/
On February 17 2011 05:24 Bobster wrote: All up to personal preference. Some want the insight, some want the pure entertainment, some want the mix (either in a single person, or by combining one and the other - Tastosis!)
There's people who do not care about game knowledge, and can appreciate enthusiastic casters that are purely entertaining without showing deeper insight into the game. Popular casters like Totalbiscuit, Khaldor, itmeJP, Tasteless or Husky are good examples for this, (albeit to varying degrees, obviously).
Then there are the dryer analysts, who drop the game knowledge, know all the timings and BOs inside out and can correctly predict how a game will progress from a certain point on, but are themselves not the most entertaining persons to listen to. Examples for this type of caster would be most pro-gamers without casting experience, like Idra when he stood in during GSL1, Martijn from Assembly, that type.
There's also the very rare breed of the caster that excels in several of these areas, people who are entertaining and funny, yet possess a deep knowledge of the game as well. Artosis, Day9, incontrol are names that come to mind immediately.
I think the relevant caster skills would be (in no particular order) - Game knowledge - Analytic Ability - Quick Wit - Humour - Enthusiasm
I think everyone agrees that a caster needs either a solid stat in every category, or has to truly excel in one or two categories to be worth listening to. Of course, caster duos add these up and in this way can make up for each other's weaknesses.
And what the hell, just for fun, have some whimsical graphs on how I see some of the casters. >_>
I personally think people severly underestimate the game knowledge of Tasteless. I think ( but it's just speculation ofc ) that it's his job to get Artosis to analyze what I mean by that is that Tasteless is the one who has to ask the questions what he thinks every viewer is wondering so Artosis can explain it. I think he just plays kind of a role and he does it perfectly.
On topic I think it's definetly needed that someone entertains while the other does the analysis. A lot of people wont watch if its only analysis while there is the more hardcore group that wouldn't watch as much if it was only entertainment. So they try to combine it to hook up as many viewers to the stream at all times it's just business :p.
Oh yeah, absolutely.
The balanced mix is probably your safest bet to get as many people to watch your cast as possible, from the pure entertainment seeker to the hardcore analyst.
So applying this to the current topic (without actually knowing kellymilkies), I'd wager that Torch will take over the analysis part because he does have a decent amount of game knowledge and kelly will provide more of the play by play part. I guess we'll have to see how their chemistry and balance is to judge them as a casting duo.
And because people seemed to enjoy them, another round of caster stats. All my personal opinion, obviously.
u think djwheat has more game knowledge than tasteless?
On February 17 2011 06:01 RoyalCheese wrote: I love how so many people compare Starcraft and football/other sport casting. Don't you realize it's totally different? StarCraft is so much more complex and so much faster then most of these things. If you want to compare the casting of StarCraft to anything, you should compare it probably to chess or some other intellectual sport.
Why would you compare it to chess when you just said Starcraft is so much faster. All sports take a certain level of intelligence. You might want to rephrase yourself. :/
Well because you need to know alot about chess to be able to cast it properly. Just like you need to do in StarCraft, imho.
I was about to say the same thing. The only one I really don't see eye to eye with you Bob is DjWheat and yeah, I would tone down the enthusiasm on all of them. For a big guy, Incontrol has one of the softest voices. He's like a giant cuddly bear.
Ok Cheese, but there are a lot of important statistics in every sport. In sport, sports the roles are sort of reversed as the color commentators usually fills in the lulls with interesting stats.
On February 17 2011 06:02 Hacktus wrote: Case in Point: Huskystarcraft
As much as many don't want to believe, Husky honestly does not have much game knowledge at all. However, he casts his games with a laid back and hilarious manner thus making him the most popular US commentator. Honestly, its people like Husky who will net this game and e-sports in general a much broader fan base and then it will be up to the knowledgeable commentators to satisfy those who are becoming experienced at the game.
I don' t think the argument is to NOT have a color commentator. I think the argument is that if there is ONLY a color commentator, then we would alienate the people who want to learn or who want to hear technical stuff. And by having TWO commentators, having one be a COLOR commentator and other be the ANALYTICAL commentator would be the best solution.
I don't watch Husky because there is no educational value, and his humor is terrible. If I want both humor and education, I go watch Psy.
On February 17 2011 05:24 Bobster wrote:And because people seemed to enjoy them, another round of caster stats. All my personal opinion, obviously.
Love the pentagon stat thingies. Just curious, did you make those yourself, or is there some site that can do it for me if I needed? (I know it'd be easy, but I guess I'm lazy)
Also wanted to add, that the way people cast when live or casting with others can be very different. Compare Artosis' solo casts on his channel (like Idra vs IMMvp) with the great games he casts in the GSL, it's like night and day. The former I find to be extremely boring, as he's just laid back and mostly just analyzing, while for the latter his enthusiasm ramps to max (see Jinro's mech vs MC, for example).
So, I guess I'm just pointing out that a casting team can be more than the, uh, sum of its parts? Hard to know how Kelly & Torch will play out until they start casting games together.
On February 17 2011 05:24 Bobster wrote: All up to personal preference. Some want the insight, some want the pure entertainment, some want the mix (either in a single person, or by combining one and the other - Tastosis!)
There's people who do not care about game knowledge, and can appreciate enthusiastic casters that are purely entertaining without showing deeper insight into the game. Popular casters like Totalbiscuit, Khaldor, itmeJP, Tasteless or Husky are good examples for this, (albeit to varying degrees, obviously).
Then there are the dryer analysts, who drop the game knowledge, know all the timings and BOs inside out and can correctly predict how a game will progress from a certain point on, but are themselves not the most entertaining persons to listen to. Examples for this type of caster would be most pro-gamers without casting experience, like Idra when he stood in during GSL1, Martijn from Assembly, that type.
There's also the very rare breed of the caster that excels in several of these areas, people who are entertaining and funny, yet possess a deep knowledge of the game as well. Artosis, Day9, incontrol are names that come to mind immediately.
I think the relevant caster skills would be (in no particular order) - Game knowledge - Analytic Ability - Quick Wit - Humour - Enthusiasm
I think everyone agrees that a caster needs either a solid stat in every category, or has to truly excel in one or two categories to be worth listening to. Of course, caster duos add these up and in this way can make up for each other's weaknesses.
And what the hell, just for fun, have some whimsical graphs on how I see some of the casters. >_>
I personally think people severly underestimate the game knowledge of Tasteless. I think ( but it's just speculation ofc ) that it's his job to get Artosis to analyze what I mean by that is that Tasteless is the one who has to ask the questions what he thinks every viewer is wondering so Artosis can explain it. I think he just plays kind of a role and he does it perfectly.
On topic I think it's definetly needed that someone entertains while the other does the analysis. A lot of people wont watch if its only analysis while there is the more hardcore group that wouldn't watch as much if it was only entertainment. So they try to combine it to hook up as many viewers to the stream at all times it's just business :p.
Oh yeah, absolutely.
The balanced mix is probably your safest bet to get as many people to watch your cast as possible, from the pure entertainment seeker to the hardcore analyst.
So applying this to the current topic (without actually knowing kellymilkies), I'd wager that Torch will take over the analysis part because he does have a decent amount of game knowledge and kelly will provide more of the play by play part. I guess we'll have to see how their chemistry and balance is to judge them as a casting duo.
And because people seemed to enjoy them, another round of caster stats. All my personal opinion, obviously.
u think djwheat has more game knowledge than tasteless?
Hm, it shows both as a "5" in my data set (which is probably still underselling Tasteless, in all honesty), but I can see how it comes up differently in the graph. Strange.
On February 17 2011 06:02 Hacktus wrote: Case in Point: Huskystarcraft
As much as many don't want to believe, Husky honestly does not have much game knowledge at all. However, he casts his games with a laid back and hilarious manner thus making him the most popular US commentator. Honestly, its people like Husky who will net this game and e-sports in general a much broader fan base and then it will be up to the knowledgeable commentators to satisfy those who are becoming experienced at the game.
I don' t think the argument is to NOT have a color commentator. I think the argument is that if there is ONLY a color commentator, then we would alienate the people who want to learn or who want to hear technical stuff. And by having TWO commentators, having one be a COLOR commentator and other be the ANALYTICAL commentator would be the best solution.
I don't watch Husky because there is no educational value, and his humor is terrible. If I want both humor and education, I go watch Psy.
If you are casting solo, then yeah its a challenge because you have to make sure you do it all. That is why I would never recommend trying to cast solo because you will miss a ton of shit and it would bring the production value down.
Bob, I have yet to find a caster who has as much enthusiasm as Mr. Kim Carrier. With that said, I find all of the guys you listed to be at least one grade lower on those charts. o;
On February 17 2011 04:23 Backpack wrote: Game knowledge is the most important, but spitting it out all the time is not.
The point of understanding the game is so that you are never wrong when you do get analytical. Tastosis joke around a lot but when it does get serious, Artosis' game sense is almost always flawless.
Lesser commentators sometimes predict wrong outcomes of strategies or don't make any predictions at all.
It also helps that artosis plays against most of the GSL players on ladder and gets to see all the latest strats before we do... he had an advantage in predicting the strat from this coupled with his game knowledge.
On February 17 2011 05:24 Bobster wrote:And because people seemed to enjoy them, another round of caster stats. All my personal opinion, obviously.
Also wanted to add, that the way people cast when live or casting with others can be very different. Compare Artosis' solo casts on his channel (like Idra vs IMMvp) with the great games he casts in the GSL, it's like night and day. The former I find to be extremely boring, as he's just laid back and mostly just analyzing, while for the latter his enthusiasm ramps to max (see Jinro's mech vs MC, for example).
So, I guess I'm just pointing out that a casting team can be more than the, uh, sum of its parts? Hard to know how Kelly & Torch will play out until they start casting games together.
Oh, absolutely agreed. Chemistry between casting teams can be a huge game changer. There's a reason that Tastosis is so beloved among fans.
Heck, even two great solo casters can make for a dull and boring team cast if there's no chemistry, interaction, no back and forth, no spark between them.
Love the pentagon stat thingies. Just curious, did you make those yourself, or is there some site that can do it for me if I needed? (I know it'd be easy, but I guess I'm lazy)
Nah, just a couple clicks in Excel. As you said, they're real easy to do.
I thought that Jason Lee showed right the opposite of it. About KellyMILKIES, i hope that she won't be observing the game. She misses so many things in game that even i can see in her cam.
On February 17 2011 04:23 Backpack wrote: Game knowledge is the most important, but spitting it out all the time is not.
The point of understanding the game is so that you are never wrong when you do get analytical. Tastosis joke around a lot but when it does get serious, Artosis' game sense is almost always flawless.
Lesser commentators sometimes predict wrong outcomes of strategies or don't make any predictions at all.
It also helps that artosis plays against most of the GSL players on ladder and gets to see all the latest strats before we do... he had an advantage in predicting the strat from this coupled with his game knowledge.
But that is so critical in showing us what we need to see. For example, if the toss went twilight after one gate, we're expecting DTs and will be looking out for that structure to be built (in a hidden location). So if an obscure korean strat is known by Artosis and not by us, then his role is to make us aware of it and then to point out the key parts (and he does so in the previous GSLs). If he didn't do this, then we might not understand why these players are so good.
I hate analytical commentating in any sport, that's not at all what I want from the commentator. I want the commentator to have contagious enthusiasm and to be funny.
Another important thing is that they don't annoy me by missing stuff, pretending to know stuff they don't or saying things that are blatantly false. Like missing important drops or telling me that tanks counter void rays.
If these 3 things are put together I'm a happy camper. Analysis is for coaches and players, not spectators.
about tasteless, you guys are kinda......forgetting that tasteless was in casting actually LONGER than artosis.
...also see day9's 100th episode of when tasteless got knocked out by day9 in WCG and then went to the WCG organizers to cast their games (since they were severely lacking in that area.)
as well as note that just because one knows _ a lot _ about the game, doesn't mean he needs to share it at that time (i.e. during the GSL), because either artosis is even more analytical than tasteless... OR they have an agreement between each other (pre-show/whatever) that artosis takes the more analytical+advanced stance, while tasteless takes care of the more basic things (+ comedy value sometimes)
On February 17 2011 06:20 zhurai wrote: about tasteless, you guys are kinda......forgetting that tasteless was in casting actually LONGER than artosis.
BW casting, sure.
I don't think anyone denies that Tasteless is a super knowledgeable guy in Brood War and very experienced in casting Brood War games.
On February 17 2011 06:19 TheBanana wrote:
I hate analytical commentating in any sport, that's not at all what I want from the commentator. I want the commentator to have contagious enthusiasm and to be funny.
Another important thing is that they don't annoy me by missing stuff, pretending to know stuff they don't or saying things that are blatantly false. Like missing important drops or telling me that tanks counter void rays.
If these 3 things are put together I'm a happy camper. Analysis is for coaches and players, not spectators.
That is a strange set of priorities, because I think that someone who is not able to do analytic commentating will probably miss a lot of stuff or is more likely to say things that are incorrect (because he lacks the game knowledge to back his arguments up).
Just out of interest, what are some of the current SC2 casters you consider as great? I assume you'd hate someone like Day9 or Artosis?
On February 17 2011 06:01 RoyalCheese wrote: I love how so many people compare Starcraft and football/other sport casting. Don't you realize it's totally different? StarCraft is so much more complex and so much faster then most of these things. If you want to compare the casting of StarCraft to anything, you should compare it probably to chess or some other intellectual sport.
Set Tasteless game knowledge and analytic ability equal to Artosis and you have a more accurate graph. Maybe he gets 0.5 pt. less than artosis but only because Artosis is so good at figuring out and seeing through weird player strats on the fly.
EPT![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/GCn6L.png)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/YhOSt.png)
