With the announcement of http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/KellyMILKIES as the new GSL code A caster I've read many posts questioning her game knowledge. Setting aside whether or not she truly does possess game knowledge, the question comes to mind, is it even important?
In my view, there's an important distinction between casting and commentating. Our favorite casting archon tastosis is comprised of one caster and one commentator (see below)
Artosis fills his role of commentator by providing game high level game knowledge. While Tasteless does sometimes cross into this role as well, his primary role has been entertainment value. I think that entertainment value is something which is being forgotten in many discussions of casters or casting teams.
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.
To me, entertainment value is a huge part of watching something like the GSL. It would be easy to find a pro player who could sit down and robotically say what each player is probably thinking but nobody would watch that. In the GSL specifically, it comes down to the team (one person for entertainment, one person for game knowledge).
As another example, take the cynnical brit Total Biscuit. He may not always be the most knowledgeable, but his enthusiasm is contagious (at least it for a lot of people).
I really think the most important quality for a caster to have is personality. We are watching things like the GSL for entertainment after all, and if entertaining commentators weren't important I think we'd all just be watching replays instead. Commentaros fill that role and I think skill in commentating is just as important (if not more important) than straight up game knowledge.
I just feel like sometimes people say they want one thing in a caster, but when we look at the most popular casters out there at the moment, I think the conclusion we have to come to is that the average person isn't looking for tip-top game knowledge, they're looking to be entertained.
What do you guys think? Is entertaining commentary with likable personalities necessary to help bring esports the popularity it deserves globally and in the West? Or is game knowledge the #1 consideration for you? Also, since the majority of us would like to see SC2 popular in the west, what kind of caster/commentating team do you think would be best to reach a wider audience?
Edit: I'm definitely not trying to say that a funny guy off the street who has absolutely no game knowledge at all would be good by any stretch. Certainly, they must have at least some.
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.
I thought Idra did an excellent job as an analyst even though he didn't exhibit much "personality". He shared insights on the matches that the layperson wouldn't have which enhanced my enjoyment of the games. I'd take two idras over two clueless "personalities".
I think this draws an interesting parallel to John Madden, insanely popular at football commentating without providing actual analysis. By and large, the majority of people tuning into GOM's foreign steam probably have some understanding of the mechanics of StarCraft 2. Entertainment value is important and it will be interesting to see how the code A commentating shapes up.
Hopefully the casting turns out fine. People sometimes bash at Tasteless for lacking game sense or something along those lines, but I recall that Artosis normally handles the analysis part while Tasteless touches on some of the more basic things.
Of course game knowledge is important. I don't care how entertaining the person is, if they know nothing about what they are talking about then they shouldn't be hired to talk about it. You wouldn't want to listen to a sports game when the casters knew next to nothing about what was going on would you? Starcraft is no different in that aspect.
i agree, but only to a certain degree. although artosis drops the knowledge more often, so does tasteless. Their combined experience in pro gaming and knowledge makes them such a succesful duo that take not of every little thing that happens. A very enthusiastic commentator with little knowledge will not be as able to excite the audience as much purely because he or she will be less capable to explain why it is exciting. To give a football (soccer for US) example: He kicks the ball to the other guy who starts running! and he kicks the ball as well!!! o my goooooood!!! maybe a bit lame example but a more knowledgable caster would be able to explain how the attack is constructed etc.
On February 17 2011 04:26 Theclutch wrote: Of course game knowledge is important. I don't care how entertaining the person is, if they know nothing about what they are talking about then they shouldn't be hired to talk about it. You wouldn't want to listen to a sports game when the casters knew next to nothing about what was going on would you? Starcraft is no different in that aspect.
Yet people enjoyed Khaldor's stream without even speaking German. There's clearly more than just analysis required for a caster, and Khaldor had enough of that for it to outweigh the language barrier.
During Assembly I was watching the German stream (can't remember his name), I don't understand German at all but it was Brilliant, he used English names for the units/players and that is all I could figure out, but he was very entertaining, very emotional as well. A lot of people were watching his stream that could not understand German, and honestly, even though I can't understand him, I consider him to be one of the best casters around. I think that says a lot about casting
Game knowledge is insanely important for me. It just adds so much to the commentary.
And if someone hasn't got game knowledge that person better casts accordingly, like TotalBiscuit. Nothing worse than people without a clue that throw around wrong facts and try to sound clever when they're not.
I think you need at least one caster with 100% knowledgeable information about the game. If they're entertaining then that's just an added bonus. I also think you need a caster who caters more to the casual people or just for entertainment value in general. So not all casters need to know everything going on at all times in a game, that's why you have multiple casters.
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.
"Ummmm he's putting down 4 gateways i think he's going to ummm make a lot of units so he has a big army" is not entertaining and it doesn't put tension on the viewers. "He's getting 4 warpgates so he can damage his opponent severely if not end the game, will his opponent be able to defend this?" is more like it.
I think it's very important I don't understand why we can't have both, an entertaining and knowledgable caster tastosis fits this perfectly
as a high lvl player I find it hard to listen to someone who doesn't know there stuff no matter how entertaining they are in beta I watched husky/HD all the time, but now having the game matured I can't stand to listen to them because it's clear they haven't kept their game knowledge up to par
Yes, it's important if you want casters who know what they're talking about. No offense to popular casters like TB, HD, and Husky, but they never really have anything of substance to say that I can't see with my eyes. Seeing as I'm not blind, I value knowledge quite a bit.
On February 17 2011 04:29 Dommk wrote: Not sure if it actually does.
Case in point:
During Assembly I was watching the German stream (can't remember his name), I don't understand German at all but it was Brilliant, he used English names for the units/players and that is all I could figure out, but he was very entertaining, very emotional as well. A lot of people were watching his stream that could not understand German, and honestly, even though I can't understand him, I consider him to be one of the best casters around. I think that says a lot about casting
Agreed, Vin Diesel was an awesome commentator, even though I don't understand any German. I guess we'll just have to see if Kelly can actually provide any entertainment value even if she lacks game knowledge.
Need a certain amount of game knowledge for every caster imo, but in a team it doesnt't matter if one is less knowledged than the other. The worst thing is when casters frequently make mistakes guessing a player's BO, or even getting other details wrong, I think if they were knowledged enough this wouldn't happen.
On February 17 2011 04:29 Mastermind wrote: In my opinion the only thing more important than game knowledge is having a voice that isnt annoying.
absolutely agree. it's going to take a long time to get used to her pitch, but overall i don't see the big problem as long as torch joins her. understanding is good and she has a passion for sc2.
To me Artosis is clearly the best caster in the world and biggest reason for that is his game knowledge that is unrivalled in other big name english casters. And in my opinion in every caster duo there should be at least one who has nearly Artosis-level of game knowledge.
What kind of question is this? Ofcourse it is important. You can't talk about something if you don't know anything about it. Also tasteless has very good game knowledge.
Game knowledge is far less important to me than entertainment value. They could be the best player in the world but listening to annoying people for hours at a time is excruciating.
For me its extremely important because i dont want to listen to someone who doesnt know what their talking about, because that isn't entertaining.
Hearing them say dumb things and thinking "Wow thats actually wrong and there is probably 5000 people watching who thinks it's right.." Is quite frustrating
Obviously there's a balance, and obviously it's less important if you have another caster with you who has that knowledge, but I think it's pretty important. I suspect Torch has has plenty of game knowledge for this pair, and it's not like she has none, but we'll see. It also depends on the audience. As I've gotten more knowledgeable at the game, casters I liked before (HD, Husky) have gotten less appealing (though still not awful). I've never been entertained by Total Biscuit. I like the emotion, but the emotion has to follow the actual story line of the game, showing a buildup that understands how things are falling into place for those later big battles. What really bothers me is wrong game knowledge. I don't mind too much when a caster fails to point out some nuance that I know is true. It completely ruins it when the actively say something that I know is completely false. I think this would work out fine in a pair if it's openly acknowledged that one caster is much better with the high-level strategy, and the other defers to them on those sorts of judgments (or is ok being contradicted when they're wrong, etc.)
Interesting thread here, did not ever realize the commentator/caster difference. A lot also depends on how the chemistry is between Torch and Kelly. Tasosis could finish each others lines ina very funny awkward way which was the main pull for GOM viewers. I guess we dont like our nerd community to be infiltrated by a girl? GOM aint stupid..but this is a big risk none the less.
I think game knowledge is more important to players, enthusiasm is more important for casual viewers. Right now I think the majority of people who watch GSL are players, but having enthusiastic, entertaining casters is important for attracting non-gamers to the sport.
Kellymilkies definetly doesn't posess enough game knowledge to cast GSL. She is one of the only casters that really makes me turn of the stream even though I would love to watch the event.
She just doesn't know enough about the game her casting often causes awkward silences and pauses in casts.
For me, game knowledge is the most important thing. In second comes personality, and thats why my favorite casters are artosis/tasteless/incontrol/chill
I don't really get why it has to be one or the other and why it's acceptable for 'personality' commentators to get away with being factually wrong so often. There's this weird idea that because people like Husky and TotalBiscuit are popular that's a measure of competency, that there surely isn't enough time in the world to do casts and also learn the game at a high level, like you can't just do less casts if you're really that hard up on time.
Starcraft 2 is not some grand enigma that you can only understand by playing it for years at a super high level, I mean ignoring that it hasn't been out for a year there's enough easily obtainable resources like Day9's dailies, Liquipedia, these forums and even other casts such as the GSL and MLG. It's like there's some prevailing logic around here and especially on YouTube that you can't have accessible commentary that's also intelligent, despite evidence to the contrary in the form of Day9/Artosis/etc.
In my opinion, as worthless as every poster on TL's may be in actually changing anyone else's view on a matter, it's ridiculous that some of the ones profiting the most from commentary are the ones who have refused to improve their knowledge past what they infer from the games they cast, or in the case of TB intentionally remove any meaningful commentary in favour of crowd pleasing gimmickry. I can kind of understand that the internet is a mean place and that after a while it becomes impossible to distinguish constructive criticism from baseless insults, but when you're one of the few awarded the ability to do it as a sole source of income, it's insulting to the depth of the game, the progamers playing it and whatever this nebulous community term means, to ignore it all.
For the TL,DR gang: There really isn't any reason for entertaining commentators to be so lacking in knowledge.
Game knowledge is important for a good caster, yes. Especially opinionated casters like those who did a recent tournament whom simply didn't understand what was going on and "didn't like" what players did when Naama & co. actually (orly?) do stuff for a reason which should be pointed out for the casual viewer so they can appreciate the game.
edit: I removed the tournament in question, don't want to point fingers.
TotalBiscuit is a great example of a caster, who isn't that good himself (I think he once said he was in Silver), but in his case his casting style is still great because he its entertaining and doesn't try to analyse or make decisive assumptions, as he knows he is not that good at it.
If you want to analyse, you have to know what you are saying. Otherwise its just annoying. For example I didn't like the casters of glhf.tv when I watched them some days ago because they tried to analyse situations, but made wrong points and made assumptions which could make sense, but often were simply wrong and never corrected. This also lead to be focusing on aspects which weren't important in the situation. Similiar to the mistakes player of lower leagues tend to make ingame.
Calling preemptive ggs is common for Tastosis, but I think such things are not a problem - because it can actually be close, depending on too many small factors like micro and as such be hard to judge (or even impossible from a subjective point of view). This is what makes such moments so intense to watch. But they (obviously) realise their mistake and can probably tell what actually happened, because they understand the small differences.
I think casters just need to be self-aware on how competent they are, and if they can keep and overview over the whole spectrum of a high-level match. Small adjustments and precise decision-making can turn a game, but can be overlooked easily - and you don't want that to happen in a GSL game.
If you don't have game knowledge you'll be stating the obvious. Commentators comment, if their comments are useless or unfunny then they won't be entertaining.
Ugh... she's seriously casting Code A? If I'm up to watch that I'm definitely going to have to mute. Its really frustrating to listen to her and shes such a moonglade fangirl its absurd!
In nearly all US pro sports broadcasts, there will be a play-by-play and a color commentator. The play-by-play's job is to be the knowledgable one, calling the action and also expounding on some technical/strategic aspects of what is going on. The color commentator is to provide 1) humor and 2) constant dialogue (which is the biggest failing of tastosis imo). The color commentator is not meant to be a guru by any means, however there is expected a certain level of knowledge. You should rarely see a situation where it is obvious that the color commentator isn't up to snuff on their game knowledge. But you also won't be blown away by it either.
I think that as long as the non-play-by-play announcer has the requisite knowledge (and who knows what the requisite amount is) the actual most important factor is their ability to keep dialogue going constantly, thus entertaining the audience.
it depends. I, for example love to listen to Totalbiscuit because of his excellent vocabulary and awesome "accent", even though he's not the most knoledgable caster
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
@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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I hate Goldberg so much for that. He just spouts hyperbole without any logical justification. Exactly what I don't want.
I think this draws an interesting parallel to John Madden, insanely popular at football commentating without providing actual analysis.
If you think Madden never had any actual analysis, you weren't listening carefully enough. He was a head coach once upon a time, he knew what he was talking about.
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.
You know why Jason Lee was good? He didn't pretend to know what he was talking about. He just called the action and then set up his analyst to explain why it was happening.
On February 17 2011 05:13 KevinIX wrote: 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.
Seriously? She seemed stumped for a bit as to why the zerg wasn't taking his backdoor expansion on Delta when it was the closest base to terran meaning it was very vulnerable to any drops. That's elementary stuff and she almost missed it entirely. I'm not a great player, so if I'm picking up these things before the caster, there's a problem.
Tastosis > anyone else, period. It's Artosis passion and his great game understanding and his ability to hype up a game so much that is getting me excited all the time and it's Tasteless ability to keep the discussion running by miming the unaware person often times, which is very, very important in casting. Both of em are great and passionate about what they do and everything about them is just perfect; they're funny, they're nice to listen to (don't have any sort of annoying accent), kinda self ironic and they know everything about this game. Replacing them is the stupidest decision gom could ever make, it would hurt esports outside of korea so much. I would NOT watch all the games I'm able to, just the ones featuring my nerd IdrA and maybe the roundof8/4 and onwards.
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. >_>
On February 17 2011 04:56 Iamyournoob wrote: 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.
Some extremely tense moments in SC2 aren't easily recognized by someone who lacks in game knowledge. There is a lot of time in SC2 where there isn't much going on. Being able to fill that time with strategic analysis is what makes it more fun to watch. Watching two people macro up isn't more exciting when you are screaming at the top of your lungs and making irrelevant jokes.
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. >_>
It definitely helps but isn't required. Especially if you're going to be talking about distinct roles of commentator/caster, if you're the "caster" then you really don't need to have a high level of game knowledge theoretically, given these roles are taken to the extreme.
I don't really like how they call them commentator/caster though. It makes sense but is it important to distinguish them? Why can't they both do a bit of each? (like they are now)
If people admit they don't have the knowledge and don't try to fake it and instead play more of a inquisitive role (alone or with a co-caster) they can do fine with pretty limited knowledge (totalbiscuit e.g.).
As soon as you start talking in absolutes then you better have something to back it up because even very knowledgable people sometimes slip up and/or "mis-elaborate" something causing them to make statements that are not always theorically correct/true and that can make for some cringeworthy moments. It can be very subtle stuff and it happens to every one but to some more so than others and scales distinctly with game knowledge for obvious reasons.
personally i get really annoyed when caster's don't have sufficient enough game knowledge. usually when i realize that i know more than them and that all they're doing is yelling about stuff i just mute the stream and watch the game. that's usually why i get really excited about listening to casters like day9, chill, tastetosis instead of other random shoutcasters. i was really excited for code A this season because of the four foreigner seeds, but now not so much. i'll still give it a chance and hope for the best, who knows, i may be surprised.
On February 17 2011 04:17 MementoMori wrote: With the announcement of http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/KellyMILKIES as the new GSL code A caster I've read many posts questioning her game knowledge. Setting aside whether or not she truly does possess game knowledge, the question comes to mind, is it even important?
In my view, there's an important distinction between casting and commentating. Our favorite casting archon tastosis is comprised of one caster and one commentator (see below)
Artosis fills his role of commentator by providing game high level game knowledge. While Tasteless does sometimes cross into this role as well, his primary role has been entertainment value. I think that entertainment value is something which is being forgotten in many discussions of casters or casting teams.
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.
To me, entertainment value is a huge part of watching something like the GSL. It would be easy to find a pro player who could sit down and robotically say what each player is probably thinking but nobody would watch that. In the GSL specifically, it comes down to the team (one person for entertainment, one person for game knowledge).
As another example, take the cynnical brit Total Biscuit. He may not always be the most knowledgeable, but his enthusiasm is contagious (at least it for a lot of people).
I really think the most important quality for a caster to have is personality. We are watching things like the GSL for entertainment after all, and if entertaining commentators weren't important I think we'd all just be watching replays instead. Commentaros fill that role and I think skill in commentating is just as important (if not more important) than straight up game knowledge.
I just feel like sometimes people say they want one thing in a caster, but when we look at the most popular casters out there at the moment, I think the conclusion we have to come to is that the average person isn't looking for tip-top game knowledge, they're looking to be entertained.
What do you guys think? Is entertaining commentary with likable personalities necessary to help bring esports the popularity it deserves globally and in the West? Or is game knowledge the #1 consideration for you? Also, since the majority of us would like to see SC2 popular in the west, what kind of caster/commentating team do you think would be best to reach a wider audience?
Edit: I'm definitely not trying to say that a funny guy off the street who has absolutely no game knowledge at all would be good by any stretch. Certainly, they must have at least some.
yes game knowledge is required. it was sooo bad when tasteless would ask a question about something he should already know and he still does subtle things along those lines.
I think husky's popularity is proof enough that it isn't necessary. However i personally prefer if the caster knew what was going on. I seem to get really annoyed when a caster spouts something that isn't true or accurate.
On February 17 2011 05:33 IrrasO wrote: personally i get really annoyed when caster's don't have sufficient enough game knowledge. usually when i realize that i know more than them and that all they're doing is yelling about stuff i just mute the stream and watch the game. that's usually why i get really excited about listening to casters like day9, chill, tastetosis instead of other random shoutcasters. i was really excited for code A this season because of the four foreigner seeds, but now not so much. i'll still give it a chance and hope for the best, who knows, i may be surprised.
if the second caster is TorcH like everyone is guessing then I wouldn't worry
The thing is, Torch is the one to be analytical and well versed - her role is to be the color commentator. I don't need a Master league level player to be the color commentator; I need someone who can be entertaining, who can stir emotion in us when action is happening, and who can talk through duller bits where there isn't anything to be analyzed. Can Kelly fit this bill? I personally don't think so, but we will have to see when Code A starts.
With regards to the caster whose role is to be analytical (Artosis, Torch, Day9), they HAVE to have knowledge. They HAVE to be good, or have some way of learning what good players know. If that caster sees a certain number of units and probes, he/she must be able to extrapolate the goal of the player from that because expert players do the same from scouting! I don't want my caster to make mistakes all the time by calling the wrong build orders.
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. >_>
Those graphics are awesome xD
So I actually think there are two distinct day[9] caster personalities. Day[9] on the daily and day[9] casting a tournament or some kind of game only meant to be enjoyed. Day[9] can be more enthusiastic than just about anybody while casting Funday Monday for example, but he doesn't want enthusiasm to be a distraction from learning during a normal daily. Also Tasteless is off the chart for quick wit. I also feel like fake weatherman is a category that some casters can end up doing when they try to be too serious, it's a category that's hard to put on that graph though and it's not good.
I don't think a person needs to be a great player to be a great commentator, but there are things they need to be able to do well to do their job properly. Game knowledge is obviously a big part of that. A commentator should have a good voice, an engaging personality, an entertaining manner, and a strong knowledge of the games and the players. It's not too much to ask.
Edit: there are also some people who are disparaging Tasteless' game knowledge in this thread and I don't understand it. He may be goofy and he makes silly mistakes from time to time but his game sense and build order knowledge is equal to Artosis and Day[9]'s.
On February 17 2011 04:17 MementoMori wrote: With the announcement of http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/KellyMILKIES as the new GSL code A caster I've read many posts questioning her game knowledge. Setting aside whether or not she truly does possess game knowledge, the question comes to mind, is it even important?
In my view, there's an important distinction between casting and commentating. Our favorite casting archon tastosis is comprised of one caster and one commentator (see below)
Artosis fills his role of commentator by providing game high level game knowledge. While Tasteless does sometimes cross into this role as well, his primary role has been entertainment value. I think that entertainment value is something which is being forgotten in many discussions of casters or casting teams.
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.
To me, entertainment value is a huge part of watching something like the GSL. It would be easy to find a pro player who could sit down and robotically say what each player is probably thinking but nobody would watch that. In the GSL specifically, it comes down to the team (one person for entertainment, one person for game knowledge).
As another example, take the cynnical brit Total Biscuit. He may not always be the most knowledgeable, but his enthusiasm is contagious (at least it for a lot of people).
I really think the most important quality for a caster to have is personality. We are watching things like the GSL for entertainment after all, and if entertaining commentators weren't important I think we'd all just be watching replays instead. Commentaros fill that role and I think skill in commentating is just as important (if not more important) than straight up game knowledge.
I just feel like sometimes people say they want one thing in a caster, but when we look at the most popular casters out there at the moment, I think the conclusion we have to come to is that the average person isn't looking for tip-top game knowledge, they're looking to be entertained.
What do you guys think? Is entertaining commentary with likable personalities necessary to help bring esports the popularity it deserves globally and in the West? Or is game knowledge the #1 consideration for you? Also, since the majority of us would like to see SC2 popular in the west, what kind of caster/commentating team do you think would be best to reach a wider audience?
Edit: I'm definitely not trying to say that a funny guy off the street who has absolutely no game knowledge at all would be good by any stretch. Certainly, they must have at least some.
yes game knowledge is required. it was sooo bad when tasteless would ask a question about something he should already know and he still does subtle things along those lines.
edit: oops quoted whole op
You know some of that is an act, right? To make the cast nub friendly. I guess it's hard to make acting friendly for acting nubs.....
Also my two cents: Game knowledge in terms of being a pro is not necessary to be a good caster NOW, but to have a sustained success it will be. There are some casters who have trouble helping the audience learn what's good about the play and their ability to contribute as casters diminishes over time because every match they cast feels the same.
BUT, way more important that game knowledge is player knowledge. I've heard casters embarrass themselves by not knowing who the players are and what some of their accomplishments are and from an eSports perspective that's unacceptable. I'm not talking about not knowing who some random scrub is, but saying things such as (exaggerated) "I haven't heard much about this IMNestea guy so he's probably not a very good zerg". Would basketball fans ever accept a commentator for basketball who had no idea who Tim Duncan was even though he's not as good now? No, and commentators really need to work on it.
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.
I'm just worried about the fact that her ability to speak English will impair her ability to be an effective color commentary. Your color commentary needs to be witty and I'm just not seeing it from watching her video with Totalbiscuit. She seems too ditsy for my taste.
How much do you think multi-sports casters like Al Michaels, Marv Albert, Mike Breen, Gus Johnson truly understand about the games that they are casting? You just need a good voice, some basic knowledge of players, moves, and enough to do the play by play and have your analyst explain all of the nitty gritty. Same thing goes for video game casts
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.
its hard to notice nicks knowledge when artosis is sitting right beside him
Both yes and no. I mean, take khaldor as an example, his casting is wonderful, yet I understand just very little of what he says. His cheer passion and excitement for the game passes the feeling along. BUT, if its an english cast, then you really can't avoid to lissen to what words are spoken, and if you hear something just outright wrong, then you can't but cringe, no matter how excited or passionate the caster is. So yeah, I'd say it is quite important.
This deppends a little bit. It's so annoying when some scrub is commentating and is telling us whats gonna happened and just talking alot of shit and is wrong like 90% of the time, that sucks (GLHF guys at Assembly etc). But if there is a caster with excitement in the voice and just commentating whats happening for the time being and skip the part whats gonna happened and over analyzing stuff they have no clue about, it's perfectly fine (TotalBiscuit etc).
to me, those few games idra commentated were easily the best casted games in the history of sc2, and i watch a lot of starcraft. i'm not looking for some idiot to yell at the top of his lungs about something he doesn't really understand, thats not the point of the game for me. i enjoy knowledgeable casting with a lot of in-depth analysis.
in my opinion to cast any tournament with any meaningful prize money being master league on ladder should be an absolute bare minimum. personally i would prefer a pro level player.
It depends on what audience you're targeting, really. For example myself, i need caster to know at least as much as i know so i don't recognize all the BS he says ^_^ (im platinum so thats not really too hard to be better then me ) but more he knows the better . I get annoyed very fast when watching people like TB (granted, i liked his cast during SCRI, but that was probably because of the amazing games) or Kelly who have no clue about the game. But i'm sure there is a lot of people who will be satisfied with either TB or Kelly for obvious reasons.
I think, thought, and this will probably piss some people off, that Kelly is terrible choice for GSL. I think they should employ people who actually know wtf is going on rather then people who don't.
On February 17 2011 05:45 KOFgokuon wrote: How much do you think multi-sports casters like Al Michaels, Marv Albert, Mike Breen, Gus Johnson truly understand about the games that they are casting? You just need a good voice, some basic knowledge of players, moves, and enough to do the play by play and have your analyst explain all of the nitty gritty. Same thing goes for video game casts
FYI Gus Johnson is terrible at casting MMA. I would say MMA is a very close comparison to SC2 because it's very technical and it's easy to miss the important details.
Depends on the role. Are they color? Or the actual play by play person?
For example, Husky is entertaining and enthusiastic, but MANY times he's completely wrong about the situation or the outcome of the battle. A lack of game knowledge.
On February 17 2011 04:17 MementoMori wrote: With the announcement of http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/KellyMILKIES as the new GSL code A caster I've read many posts questioning her game knowledge. Setting aside whether or not she truly does possess game knowledge, the question comes to mind, is it even important?
In my view, there's an important distinction between casting and commentating. Our favorite casting archon tastosis is comprised of one caster and one commentator (see below)
Artosis fills his role of commentator by providing game high level game knowledge. While Tasteless does sometimes cross into this role as well, his primary role has been entertainment value. I think that entertainment value is something which is being forgotten in many discussions of casters or casting teams.
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.
To me, entertainment value is a huge part of watching something like the GSL. It would be easy to find a pro player who could sit down and robotically say what each player is probably thinking but nobody would watch that. In the GSL specifically, it comes down to the team (one person for entertainment, one person for game knowledge).
As another example, take the cynnical brit Total Biscuit. He may not always be the most knowledgeable, but his enthusiasm is contagious (at least it for a lot of people).
I really think the most important quality for a caster to have is personality. We are watching things like the GSL for entertainment after all, and if entertaining commentators weren't important I think we'd all just be watching replays instead. Commentaros fill that role and I think skill in commentating is just as important (if not more important) than straight up game knowledge.
I just feel like sometimes people say they want one thing in a caster, but when we look at the most popular casters out there at the moment, I think the conclusion we have to come to is that the average person isn't looking for tip-top game knowledge, they're looking to be entertained.
What do you guys think? Is entertaining commentary with likable personalities necessary to help bring esports the popularity it deserves globally and in the West? Or is game knowledge the #1 consideration for you? Also, since the majority of us would like to see SC2 popular in the west, what kind of caster/commentating team do you think would be best to reach a wider audience?
Edit: I'm definitely not trying to say that a funny guy off the street who has absolutely no game knowledge at all would be good by any stretch. Certainly, they must have at least some.
yes game knowledge is required. it was sooo bad when tasteless would ask a question about something he should already know and he still does subtle things along those lines.
edit: oops quoted whole op
You know some of that is an act, right? To make the cast nub friendly. I guess it's hard to make acting friendly for acting nubs.....
Also my two cents: Game knowledge in terms of being a pro is not necessary to be a good caster NOW, but to have a sustained success it will be. There are some casters who have trouble helping the audience learn what's good about the play and their ability to contribute as casters diminishes over time because every match they cast feels the same.
BUT, way more important that game knowledge is player knowledge. I've heard casters embarrass themselves by not knowing who the players are and what some of their accomplishments are and from an eSports perspective that's unacceptable. I'm not talking about not knowing who some random scrub is, but saying things such as (exaggerated) "I haven't heard much about this IMNestea guy so he's probably not a very good zerg". Would basketball fans ever accept a commentator for basketball who had no idea who Tim Duncan was even though he's not as good now? No, and commentators really need to work on it.
"acting" like you dont know fundamental facts about the game is not an act in the first place
"acting" like you dont know hotkeys for important tabs is not an act in the first place
there was a line somewhere around s1 or s2 where he said something along the lines of "Jeez if I said this out loud I would look like such a nub" and he went ahead and said it out loud anyway. it was brought up on a state of the game in the past followed by an audio facepalm
It's much better to have a lot of game knowledge. Honestly, if the caster is really poor than this game can seem to be just two people who are throwing armies at one another without any strategy whatsoever. Doesn't sound like a fun game to watch.
On February 17 2011 05:45 KOFgokuon wrote: How much do you think multi-sports casters like Al Michaels, Marv Albert, Mike Breen, Gus Johnson truly understand about the games that they are casting? You just need a good voice, some basic knowledge of players, moves, and enough to do the play by play and have your analyst explain all of the nitty gritty. Same thing goes for video game casts
I don't think we should go by standards of sports casters. If we look at football, we all know the rules. We can see the action. What the caster wants to give us is a quick explanation of the strategy being used as well as what went right or wrong. So in football, the caster will tell us what play they believe is being used, why that play is being used, and whether it worked or not (as well as why it worked or not).
However, the strategy in physical sports does not match the level of strategy in Starcraft 2. I agree with having two casters; the analytical and the color. However, the analytical must be able to keep up with high level players because the ones playing the game don't tell you what strategies they are using! The caster must be able to figure out what build order is being used, what goals the players are trying to achieve, what could impede the player, and what could be done better. Replay casters have the luxury of studying the replays multiple times to get their knowledge, but a live caster must have the knowledge beforehand.
On February 17 2011 05:45 KOFgokuon wrote: How much do you think multi-sports casters like Al Michaels, Marv Albert, Mike Breen, Gus Johnson truly understand about the games that they are casting? You just need a good voice, some basic knowledge of players, moves, and enough to do the play by play and have your analyst explain all of the nitty gritty. Same thing goes for video game casts
FYI Gus Johnson is terrible at casting MMA. I would say MMA is a very close comparison to SC2 because it's very technical and it's easy to miss the important details.
I loved it when Bas Rutten casted MMA. And he knew his stuff, while being ridiculously over the top with humor sometimes.
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.
Game knowledge is essential, there is no real way to commentate withour real game knowledge. However game knowledge along won't cut it. Artosis really give alot play by play during the GSL. But when I listen to him cast along on youtube, it's a little dry. You will definelly learn a lot from it. But it's not something go well with pizza and coke.
Explained this in the other thread that quickly turned into a bash Kelly thread. The most popular and respected English football commentators are not ex Pro's (John Motson). The most respected Formula 1 Commentator in the world did not race (Murray Walker) Being a professional player does not make you a better commentator / caster. It's not important aslong as you can communicate what is happening on screen and keep the audience engaged. and She'll have Torch backing her up anyway, give her a chance before condemning her.
On February 17 2011 05:45 KOFgokuon wrote: How much do you think multi-sports casters like Al Michaels, Marv Albert, Mike Breen, Gus Johnson truly understand about the games that they are casting? You just need a good voice, some basic knowledge of players, moves, and enough to do the play by play and have your analyst explain all of the nitty gritty. Same thing goes for video game casts
FYI Gus Johnson is terrible at casting MMA. I would say MMA is a very close comparison to SC2 because it's very technical and it's easy to miss the important details.
I loved it when Bas Rutten casted MMA. And he knew his stuff, while being ridiculously over the top with humor sometimes.
Yeah Bas was amazing and the play by play guy for Pride was not bad either. The Pride play by play guy (i can't remember his name) was the third man in the booth for Strikeforce last Saturday and imo they should have just kicked Gus Johnson out and kept him and Shamrock.
Explained this in the other thread that quickly turned into a bash Kelly thread. The most popular and respected English football commentators are not ex Pro's (John Motson). The most respected Formula 1 Commentator in the world did not race (Murray Walker) Being a professional player does not make you a better commentator / caster. It's not important aslong as you can communicate what is happening on screen and keep the audience engaged. and She'll have Torch backing her up anyway, give her a chance before condemning her.
Not a good comparison. F1 is very straightforward to call as the main commentator as long as you have ex-engineer/driver types to give you the gritty mechanical details. Football (soccer) also is not difficult to call from a technical perspective. I would say that being extremely articulate and having a strong command of vibrant language is the most important skill to have as a football announcer as there are many lulls in the game. Besides, we don't know what her role is gonna be yet. From what I can see, she's kind of in a no-man's land. Not a good enough player to be the analyst and not a strong enough personality to be the play by play.
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.
Those depictions are fairly accurate. Game knowledge isn't the be all end all characteristic, especially if you are working on a team (one person does the play-by-play and the other is on color). However, you left out one of the most essential components:
- ability to articulate and project in a clear and concise manner (many commentators have very deep voices, even female casters)
There are many others, but there is no reason to talk at length about them.
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.
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.
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.
The main thing I care about is proper observing. I can always mute the stream if I don't care for what they're saying, but I can't follow the game if they don't show the engagements (deathball vs swarm, drops and whatnot), or if they don't show the economy of the players every so often, or if they jiggle the camera around and focus on the automaton 2000 for no apparent reason.
Since we will have a korean trained observer (right?), I don't really care who's "casting".
Although, I like how Artosis comes up with lots of little tidbits about Korean players, that's always nice. Maybe we can get the same from Torch, especially considering there's like two billion Startale players in code A, and he's officially part of that team (token white guy!)
But yeah, #1 thing: proper observing. Anything else is just gravy.
When I was in college (a long long time ago in a galaxy far away), there was a guy who was getting his teaching credentials in History. While getting his degree, he published a great deal and was getting talked up a lot because of his knowledge of history (basically he had eidetic recall of everything he read), so he was well versed in the subject he was teaching. He graduated and got a job teaching upon graduation. He quit 4 months into teaching, and unfortunately went back to get his PhD in History. He quit because, as he told me when he returned to graduate school, he had trouble getting information across to his students. He was teaching as if he was teaching a graduate course on history as opposed to teaching a bunch of people who didn't know much about history in the first place.
You can know every nook and cranny on one subject, but if you lack good communication skills that information becomes useless. You either bore people to death with minutiae or try and connect with your students. It's one helluva fine line, and only a few can walk that line.
Teaching is an art. While you can learn to be a better teacher, most people burn out doing it and go on to do something else.
Casting is an art. While you can learn to be a better caster, most people burn out doing it and go on to do something else. How many casters have come and gone over the past couple years?
Here's an example of what I'm talking about if we want to talk about casters:
Which night of Day[9] dailies get the most viewers? I would say it's Funday Monday, and the reason for that is that night he doesn't go as deep into analysis, so all of his potential viewers are engaged. Yes he does some analysis, but it's not nearly as deep as Day[9] goes on his usual dailies. I enjoy Funday Monday as much as I enjoy any of Day[9]'s casts, but I like deep analysis, but it might put others to sleep. When Day[9] casts a tournament, it's a different story altogether; he's really good at mixing analysis with enthusiasm, and by the way that's what a good damn teacher does. Mix passion with analysis and know how to connect with an audience.
There are casters I don't mind listening to, but the majority of them I do like for various reasons. Few of them have an equal footing in being able to mix analysis with passion and get their point across to the viewer. But it really does make me irate when there is no passion at all involved in the cast (and hell, if you are showing the commentators on the stream and they look bored, how do you think the viewers are going to react). Look at the reaction to the German stream of Assembly, most people could not understand what he was saying, but the passion was there, and people were responding to it.
So basically casting is not easy, having some deep understanding of the game is excellent, but if you are casting to a large audience (some of them are masters and some are bronze), a good caster can connect with all those folks and not make them feel disconnected from the cast. Once you start going in the wrong direction, you start losing viewers to someone who does cast in the way they want to hear.
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?
I like Day9 and Artosis. They are both funny, enthusiastic and do not annoy me. 3/3
Analysis in sports commentating doesn't annoy me, I just don't have a need for it.
Edit: Saying something that's incorrect etc isn't necessarily annoying, it's about context. Edit2: I don't watch Day9s pure analytical stuff though, that's not for me.
Its a classic broadcasting technique to have one expert, and one guy who doesn't quite know what the fuck is going on. That way the clueless guy can ask the expert all sorts of questions that the less informed viewers at home might have, and it broadens the audience.
There's a little part of me that dies every time the caster is blabbing on about something or other... Instead of talking about the fact that the terran's about to do a gasless FE.
Then, when the CC goes down, it's all "Wow, that's an early expansion, in fact he didn't even get gas!"
Jason + Idra was fantastic, but I'm worried about Kelly + Torch.
Have you ever said to yourself, caster x is an ok caster, but I wish he/she knew less about the game?
Is it possible to be a successful caster without it? Absolutely, there are plenty of them. Would those casters be better if they had better game knowledge? Of course they would.
Game Knowledge is what separates good from great casters. I think that it's the #1 area a caster has to look at if they want to improve.
Game knowledge is important, but it's not the end all and be all. Obviously best case scenario is to have it all- such as Day9 or Tastosis. (I still think people underestimate Tasteless' game knowledge as well as Artosis' entertainment factor. They just happen to be two bright stars, but Artosis tends to outshine Tasteless a bit- but Tasteless is still analytical.)
However, enthusiasm, good commentator voice, good observing, and a decent play-by-play can make 80% of the cast. Pro-level game knowledge covers bumps it up from a B to an A. Some players would not work as casters- Idra casting was a treat, but I wouldn't want him to cast continually. LiquidTyler- probably my favourite Protoss player and a really great guy, but I wouldn't want him to cast on a regular basis- he's fine on SotG, he has interesting insight on his stream, and he can be funny when on an unknown substance, casting his own game. However, he seems too chill to get people super pumped during the game. Nothing against Tyler- we all like how chill he is, it just wouldn't be the most interesting cast.
TB casts in a way that has very little analysis. There is no talk about the future but to make up for this he speaks about what is happening in an extrememly exciting way.
If a caster can blend in with the excitement of the match while showing enthusiasm, then they can be a great caster. It is very important for these casters to make basic analysis and not be incorrect with their statements. Luckily, a player like TorCH will undoubtedly help notice important things Kelly might not notice.
Lets reference the OSL commentating trio: Jeon (guy in the center), Um and Carrier
Both Carrier and Um are the analytical commentators, both of them having a fair bit of enthusiasm to boot. But it's Jeon, who's game knowledge is nowhere near as deep as the other two, who has the iconic voice that gives the commentating a lot of its color and excitement. His voice surpasses the other two so much that its always him leading off the games or announcements.
Game knowledge isn't as important for the caster if he/she's supported by good commentators. However finding a good caster can be difficult, and IMO I would take a male caster over a female caster anyday because male casters just sound better 99% of the time (see the OGN female caster -_- insta-mute if she's casting).
I think game knowledge is very important in casting/commentating. The other important thing is the ability to speak clearly and smoothly. Looking at the example videos, it's hard to see these qualities. But it's hard to tell if Kelly is suitable for the job. She could help new people understand the game I guess, but its better to have expert knowledge rather than misleading a crowd of new people. The caster's job is the most important and requires the best speaking skills to move the audience and present them the situation. English skills is very important and it's clearly lacking if you take out the accents.
For example, Tasteless has less game knowledge than artosis, but I can tell he's good at his english. He knows his literature I think. If you look at Idra, he has a tendency to say 'nullify' a lot and other instances where you can tell he can't exactly say what he wanted. Also, I would think you would need a lot of charisma to get the necessary enthusiasm.
Kelly sounds a lot like the female GSL korean caster. In that, its always talk talk. And because its a little harder to understand, its easy to compare since korean commentary is all gibberish to me. I can see why she is selected in this case.
Whatever the case, I think gom will take public feedback into consideration after the season and make appropriate measures.
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.
Bingo. The proper set up for casting is one exciting play-by-play guy and one analysis guy. The play-by-play guy takes the reins and does most of the commentating, probably 65% of it. They're the ones yelling, "OMG, BANELINGS COMING." And then everyone sits up and goes, "Wow, big explosion imminent!" If players are talking about the fine details of proper baneling timing when a million banelings explode, they've failed as casters in that they didn't convey the inherent excitement of the match. But, they do a nice job of feeding the analysis guy with talking points during lulls in the action to properly address strategy.
This is the approach I take to casting, and it works really well. And I do believe that more game knowledge is always a plus. Even though my personal commentary may never get beyond, "Ooooohhh, 2nd gas before factory," as I'm the play-by-play guy, it still makes you more comfortable with your source material, which always helps.
Personal opinion: game knowledge is relevant but you can opt for doing commentary more focused on play-by-play action or focus more on entertainment factors such as humor. I personally watch VOD's for the match itself and only want the comentary to add some dynamics to what im watching so i'll be pleased with any calm, non-shouting, comentary i can get.
Also the casting duos usually work great aslong as the casters sort of "balance" themselves. What i mean is that i dont like two casters that scream from their lungs on each probe that gets killed but i dont want a casting duo that both of them only mention something when inbetween their naps. I like the concept of the deep insight caster + the play by play caster duo but for me it doesnt need to be like that everytime.
Summary: im not very picky about casters and aslong as they dont go for any obvious errors im more than pleased to have someone keeping chains moving while i watch the game.
Heres my thoughts, if i want entertainment then i also want know whats going on in the game and not just "theres a collosus OMG " for that they can either get someone who is very knowledgable e.g. artosis, day9 etc or they can just give me the damn replay so i can see for myself.
Seeing as they cant give me the replay i would like the knowledgable commentator then they can throw in the personality as long as they play the role of the host. Some of the best commentating duos have this set up, Day[9] and Djwheat , Artosis and Tasteless. Thats my thoughts anyhoo .
You don't have to have high game knowledge if you know how to speak fluidly during a cast and don't draw attention to your lack of knowledge. A lack of understanding or knowledge is easily overcome by not attempting to speculate on the game at hand, and instead focus on more color commentary. Analysis is only bad if it's bad analysis. No analysis is worlds above bad analysis.
We already have a 40 page thread hating on that girl,do we really need another one which is clearly heading in the same direction? As for my opinion, you need to at least know wtf is going on, but most importantly, be able to WORD it in an exciting and approachable manner. IF YOU'RE A CASTER. The commentator has to be a freaking wikipedia. Think Tasteless->Artosis.
On February 17 2011 06:49 Baituri wrote: I rather listen to some robot who knows a lot, then someone with an amazing voice who doesn't know what he/she is talking about.
But we are talking about a sport that is trying to get into the mainstream like BW. If people want to be informed, they go on the internet, watch a documentary, or read a book. If they want to be entertained, they turn on the TV. But as for knowledge vs entertainment, I believe more people would want to see a lot of cool explosions and have a good laugh than to analyze the game and develop in-depth opinions about each player. But of course, I would not want to turn on the TV to a football game and not know what is going on.
I don't care how entertaining a caster is if s/he says things that are blatantly incorrect on a regular basis and doesn't bother to correct it. At the same time, I don't care how much a caster knows about the game if he stutters or speaks in a monotone voice or can't crack a joke.
I value a balance between game knowledge and entertainment value, and I think it's absurd to say that one matters more than the other.
the main thing that stuck out in my mind was that she said he is going for a speedling only defense and that he would not have banelings but he needs them. the attack comes and he has banelings. hearing false assumptions like that is probably the worst thing to hear as a viewer. there was also the words "zergling all-in" used which were completely misplaced and innaccurate as there was no zergling all-in.
On February 17 2011 06:58 SkCom wrote: We already have a 40 page thread hating on that girl,do we really need another one which is clearly heading in the same direction? As for my opinion, you need to at least know wtf is going on, but most importantly, be able to WORD it in an exciting and approachable manner. IF YOU'RE A CASTER. The commentator has to be a freaking wikipedia. Think Tasteless->Artosis.
i'm pretty sure people are posting what theyre thinking. what more do you want
Game knowledge is very important. How can you talk about something you know nothing about? Do you have to be the best to be able to talk about it? No, you just have to know what to say.
This gets split up however, into knowing what is going on, and being able to imagine what that could mean. This might be personal preference but in general a casting technique that I feel is incredibly effective is to report what you are seeing (1), and then expanding on the significance of that (2). Upgrades, metagaming, special tricks, hiding places, decision making, micro, unit comps, recent developments, player achievements or styles etc. There is so much you can talk about, and should. Being able to sort of put your own spin to that, make it into a story and alternating it with the play by play, is in my eyes one of the most fundamental things about knowledge with regards to casting. It creates flow, it keeps it dynamic, you don't get forced to say stuff that you know nobody cares about etc.
Other things that would be among what I would designate as fundaments to professional casting are, how you use your voice, synchronising of your energy level with the game, smooth back and forths if you have a co caster.
You can easily skim by on not being the most knowledge or best player as long as you make casting a study and devote yourself to improving those aspects that make you great at it. In the grand scheme of things, it is even infinitely more significant, but that doesn't make knowledge neglible.
On February 17 2011 06:49 Baituri wrote: I rather listen to some robot who knows a lot, then someone with an amazing voice who doesn't know what he/she is talking about.
But we are talking about a sport that is trying to get into the mainstream like BW. If people want to be informed, they go on the internet, watch a documentary, or read a book. If they want to be entertained, they turn on the TV. But as for knowledge vs entertainment, I believe more people would want to see a lot of cool explosions and have a good laugh than to analyze the game and develop in-depth opinions about each player. But of course, I would not want to turn on the TV to a football game and not know what is going on.
Is it a correct aproach, though? Well, thats different for each one of us. I, for one, want the sc2 tournaments coverage to be fuckin' amazing, rather then being appealing for mainstream audience. But i can understand that some people may have different desires.
The thing is, you're either very knowledgeable about the game, or you're a very good entertainer/caster. I don't think she has any of those two. I'm Brazilian, English is my second language, and I think it's very hard to understand what she's saying. Yes, Tasteless is the 'caster', but he's also extremely knowledgeable about the game. Don't get me wrong, I've watched kelly commentating multiple times but I just couldn't take it, just like with Husky.
The only thing that can replace a lack of knowledge is a powerful caster with a good personality... she really isn't going to be that, from what I've saw.
It' simply a matter of opinion as to which is the most important. Some people just want to watch a stream thats fun and gives a fast play-by-play. Other people may seek high level insight into what is going on inside the players heads. etc..
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.
I'd put NFL up against SC2 in complexity any day.
QFT, i think a thing or two could be learned from how commentary has developed in sports over the years. There's so much more to commentary then knowledge and prediction, you're crafting a narrative around the events as they unfold.
Joe Buck is probably one of the most celebrated commentators in the history of sports, having done both the world series and the super bowl on many occasions. The man's never played a professional sport in his life but he's incredibly good at his job. At this stage in SC2's development, it will certainly appear that a pro/ex pro would be the most ideal choice based on his/her prolonged exposure to the game relative to a layman, but as time goes by, that natural advantage will begin to diminish and you will see more and more talented commentary coming from the layman side of things.
Just because other casters can say wrong things with absolute confidence doesn't mean you should hate on someone who has a healthy dose of self-doubt. Gameknowledge didnt stop you from hating on HDstarcraft even though he was a fairly high diamond zerg, more then i can say for most other casters. All because he didnt claim things he did not know and didnt doubt the pro's.
Game knowledge is THE most important thing for me. I love Idra commentating, he got game knowledge (obviously) and has an excellent way of explaining things, it sounds very, very professional. Artosis is also great, for the same reasons.
I hate casters that don't know what they are talking about, like making predicting the game and it NEVER turns out that way and it probably never would.
The only exception is TotalBiscuit because that guy is a total baller, british accent goes a long, long way. Plus he's a w40k geek which is always a plus!
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.
I'd put NFL up against SC2 in complexity any day.
QFT, i think a thing or two could be learned from how commentary has developed in sports over the years. There's so much more to commentary then knowledge and prediction, you're crafting a narrative around the events as they unfold.
Joe Buck is probably one of the most celebrated commentators in the history of sports, having done both the world series and the super bowl on many occasions. The man's never played a professional sport in his life but he's incredibly good at his job. At this stage in SC2's development, it will certainly appear that a pro/ex pro would be the most ideal choice based on his/her prolonged exposure to the game relative to a layman, but as time goes by, that natural advantage will begin to diminish and you will see more and more talented commentary coming from the layman side of things.
I'm not american so i can't really comment on american football, but i find it hard to believe that its as complex in as fast pace as starcraft. Don't get me wrong, i don't disagree that one does have to be progamer to be good caster. But i think one should still know a lot about the game he casts, about the scene, community, history and so on.
"As another example, take the cynnical brit Total Biscuit. He may not always be the most knowledgeable, but his enthusiasm is contagious (at least it for a lot of people). " Love how it was worded. But as you said yeah most people aren't looking for tip top game knowledge. When I watch a cast of a tournament game or such I want to be entertained, not be in some class.
Lack of game knowledge detracts from insightful game analysis. With that said, Kelly does have a lot of determination and will likely catch up in her general game knowledge... It's tough to say really. Of course you want to give a nice person like Kelly a chance to cast some games but at the same time the organisers of GOM should understand that it could take away from the experience for the viewers if you have a caster who makes errors or who doesn't understand some fundamental SC2 principles.
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.
I'd put NFL up against SC2 in complexity any day.
QFT, i think a thing or two could be learned from how commentary has developed in sports over the years. There's so much more to commentary then knowledge and prediction, you're crafting a narrative around the events as they unfold.
Joe Buck is probably one of the most celebrated commentators in the history of sports, having done both the world series and the super bowl on many occasions. The man's never played a professional sport in his life but he's incredibly good at his job. At this stage in SC2's development, it will certainly appear that a pro/ex pro would be the most ideal choice based on his/her prolonged exposure to the game relative to a layman, but as time goes by, that natural advantage will begin to diminish and you will see more and more talented commentary coming from the layman side of things.
I'm not american so i can't really comment on american football, but i find it hard to believe that its as complex in as fast pace as starcraft. Don't get me wrong, i don't disagree that one does have to be progamer to be good caster. But i think one should still know a lot about the game he casts, about the scene, community, history and so on.
American football is not as fast-paced as SC (because you have 40 sec. waits in between plays) but it's easily as complex if not more so. Correct play calling and execution involves a lot of strategy and huge playbooks, which is why football teams rely on such large coaching staffs.
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.
I'd put NFL up against SC2 in complexity any day.
QFT, i think a thing or two could be learned from how commentary has developed in sports over the years. There's so much more to commentary then knowledge and prediction, you're crafting a narrative around the events as they unfold.
Joe Buck is probably one of the most celebrated commentators in the history of sports, having done both the world series and the super bowl on many occasions. The man's never played a professional sport in his life but he's incredibly good at his job. At this stage in SC2's development, it will certainly appear that a pro/ex pro would be the most ideal choice based on his/her prolonged exposure to the game relative to a layman, but as time goes by, that natural advantage will begin to diminish and you will see more and more talented commentary coming from the layman side of things.
I'm not american so i can't really comment on american football, but i find it hard to believe that its as complex in as fast pace as starcraft. Don't get me wrong, i don't disagree that one does have to be progamer to be good caster. But i think one should still know a lot about the game he casts, about the scene, community, history and so on.
American football is not as fast-paced as SC (because you have 40 sec. waits in between plays) but it's easily as complex if not more so. Correct play calling and execution involves a lot of strategy and huge playbooks, which is why football teams rely on such large coaching staffs.
Yeah, Khaldor was great as assembly, not to mention the korean casters that I have watching for 3 years... I can't understand about 99% of what they are saying, but they're are very good to listen to as the emotion they put into it is great
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.
I'd put NFL up against SC2 in complexity any day.
QFT, i think a thing or two could be learned from how commentary has developed in sports over the years. There's so much more to commentary then knowledge and prediction, you're crafting a narrative around the events as they unfold.
Joe Buck is probably one of the most celebrated commentators in the history of sports, having done both the world series and the super bowl on many occasions. The man's never played a professional sport in his life but he's incredibly good at his job. At this stage in SC2's development, it will certainly appear that a pro/ex pro would be the most ideal choice based on his/her prolonged exposure to the game relative to a layman, but as time goes by, that natural advantage will begin to diminish and you will see more and more talented commentary coming from the layman side of things.
I'm not american so i can't really comment on american football, but i find it hard to believe that its as complex in as fast pace as starcraft. Don't get me wrong, i don't disagree that one does have to be progamer to be good caster. But i think one should still know a lot about the game he casts, about the scene, community, history and so on.
American football is not as fast-paced as SC (because you have 40 sec. waits in between plays) but it's easily as complex if not more so. Correct play calling and execution involves a lot of strategy and huge playbooks, which is why football teams rely on such large coaching staffs.
I don't really agree. Perhaps from a player's perspective, NFL football is as complex as SC2, but from an announcer's perspective, it's pretty straightforward to call the action live. The instant replay analysis in NFL football is admittedly much more complex than the live analysis, but there is no instant replay in SC2 so I don't think it's a very good comparison.
Any time I hear someone commentating, if its obvious they are anything less than like 3k master league, I can't stand it. Nothing is more annoying than someone giving their predictions/opinions when they are straight up wrong.
Is game knowledge important to be a caster?? What the f......Yes. Absolutely. If a caster says something in a "Matter-of-fact" manner, and is flat out dead wrong... they lose alot of credibility.
In the video posted earlier where it was announced that she would be casting code A, she said something to the effect of: "Well, after a fast expansion, he needs some type of quick defense against this 2 rax pressure build. We'll probably see a zergling all in." wtf? I literally shook my head in disbelief, messed up my hair and everything.
I saw her cast another game with Ipp. TvZ on lost temple, cross positions. Terran - 10 supply, 12 rax, 13 gas, 15 orbital 19gas. 1 rax, 1 fact 1 port. She say's something to the effect of what a strange build the Terran is doing, and how he will not be able to support the 3 buildings on one base. The whole time Ipp is politely saying something like "No.. this is just a 1-1-1... it's completely normal." And she argues with him.
I'm ok with a caster not being able to give me in depth, hard core, piece by piece analysis of a game, but when they try to act like that's what they are doing, and clearly don't know what they are talking about, it drives me bat shit crazy.
There is nothing more annoying than listening to someone who does not know what they are talking about. Based on what I`ve seen from her, she is pretty bad and needs to either stop talking in a 'matter of fact' style or just straight up do play by play and drop any discussion of strategy because she clearly is lacking in that area. Maybe she is not exposed to higher level play?
Hopefully she is co-casting with someone and her role is JUST to analyze what is actually going on(play by play) and not play the role of Artosis (i.e. talking about strats, etc)
I agree with the majority in that I cannot stand when someone talks about something they don't know. Annoys me in general life, and it annoys me on casts.
The CASTER only needs a basic knowledge of how the game works, enough so that they can explain what's happening to the casual viewer. It is NOT the caster's job to provide detailed analysis or accurately predict what will happen in the future. Even in real sports, the caster (and analyst, for that matter) make incorrect assumptions and predictions about the match, players, decision-making, etc.
It is the caster's job, and it is their only job, to relay to the casual viewer the basic information of the game. What's happening (a large tank/marine force is putting pressure on a zerg with only lings and banes), who's 'winning' (or has the advantage currently, or control of the map), and do it in a way that a casual viewer will understand and be entertained by. It does not matter if they are wrong, they are only the caster.
The COMMENTATOR is supposed to be the analyst during the cast. It is the commentator's job to provide detailed analysis of the match, explain popular strategies, strengths of builds/unit compositions/army positioning, predict what will probably happen, analyze and point out unit advantages, tech paths, etc... The commentator MUST have a deep understanding of the game to be successful.
TL;DR - The caster needs nothing more than a basic knowledge of how the game works, and must explain what's happening in simple terms for the casual viewer. The commentator MUST have a deep understanding of the game, because it's their job to provide analysis on the match.
On February 17 2011 08:01 Twistacles wrote: There's a reason the best casters are Day9, Artosis, Incontrol, Gretorp and Chill. Knowledge. (Sry if i forget anyone)
But we have TotalBiscuit who knows little about the game and is yet arguably one of the most entertaining casters to listen to.
You're probably right. A caster doesn't need that much in-depth game knowledge to cast what's going on. Torch will be the commentator and he's pretty much as good as Artosis in terms of gaming skill so he'll do a lot of the analysis. I think they picked the girl because she's a girl and she'll entertain us boys as a caster.
Game knowledge, is in my opinion, the least important thing in commentating. I don't mind watching a caster who doesn't know a lot, as long as he or she doesn't pretend to be very knowledgeable. That's why Totalbiscuit is a great caster. He's not pretending to know much about the game. He just knows he's there to be a great play-by-play caster who brings excitement into every match.
That being said, I'm sure Kelly probably has good knowledge of the game as she's apparently been casting and playing it quite a bit.
It's not that important for players but if we want everyone to be able to understand the game (and its necessary if we want it to grow as an esports) casters need to be able to explain situations and be enthusiastic about it even though it doesnt look like much is going on. Ei: 4 gate means nothing to the non-player so casters need to know that this is a tense moment in the game...They covered the topic pretty will in State of the Game ep 25
But as for the GSL, I guess we should have people like Tasteless and Artosis because from what I can observe, most of the people watching the GSL are hardcore players from TL. But looking at the viewcount of one video, something tells me that statement is way off.
once i watched a german cast with a guest commentator from another game or so, and he said something like
"oh look, the raven shot the dropship down"
when in fact two vikings were behind the raven and he mistook the raven as the source of the fire....
to that extend, yes, a basic insight into the game is very important, but it is not so important to be a semipro as well, because i also get annoyed by too many predictions and assumptions, (this guessing leads nowhere and is only acceptable earlygame imo) so lets simply see if the new codeA casters provide us with good service!
But a lot of guessing seems to simply be fillers while talking. It is really hard to keep on talking and talking even when nothing exciting is going on.
This may be less relevant but many of the crappy commentators probably have great game sense, but not good enough to immediately guess correctly what the opponent is doing when they see a gas up at a specific timing. Most people usually think things out.
I think game knowledge to a certain extend is as important as passion. If you lack one of those, the casting suffers. The example that pops into my head is football commentators: german football commentators are headaching, because they either say things that seem to imply they have never kicked a ball in their life because they don't know anything about the game, or they know very much facts and statistics but sound like a robot. Though I prefer the later when I had to choose. So game knowledge is a crucial requirement for a caster in my oppinion.
I don't think casters need a tremendous amount of game knowledge to be good at their job. Wheat and Jason Lee are perfect examples of this. What they do need, however, is the presence of mind to not act like they do. What I mean by that is that personally, I don't mind simple casters that don't go in depth and only explain the basic things. When they pretend to know a lot more than they do and make inaccurate analyses and baseless predictions, that's when I get irritated and immediately mute them.
It's better to keep it simple and right, than analytic and wrong.
I think game knowledge is important to have as a caster. At least have better knowledge than what totalbiscuit has. I think Kelly is a pretty smart caster, and she will without a doubt improve improve her game knowledge as she will see the games first hand at Korea. Making something sound more exciting than what it is can only go so far so many times...
On February 17 2011 08:01 Twistacles wrote: There's a reason the best casters are Day9, Artosis, Incontrol, Gretorp and Chill. Knowledge. (Sry if i forget anyone)
But we have TotalBiscuit who knows little about the game and is yet arguably one of the most entertaining casters to listen to.
Everyone has their own shtick and there will always be exceptions to the rule. Knowledge can only take you so far. I would agree many of our best commentators at the moment have a shitload of experience when it comes to the game. Still, there are many other skill sets, like voice and articulation, that can make you a great commentator like TB, the Vin Diesel-inator, DJWheat, etc.
- Providing information - Entertaining/hyping the viewer
You need to prosess basic game knowledge for sure. Kinda annoys me when casters don't know unit costs/map specifics, strats, etc. It's even better when one player has in-depth knowledge about the players' playstyle, etc. Entertainment is also very important. It's people like Artosis that make a situation more exciting by the way he uses his voice.
Women are disadvantaged at casting sc2 IMO. Since it's a "men's game", a common thought is that women are not as knowledgable as men, else they would be playing the game as well. But a lot more important, is that low male voices are considered more dominant than high-pitched voices. Being a caster requires putting yourself in that dominant role where you tell the audience what's going on.
So I'm not saying shes unfit, but her gender puts her at a disadvantage. Consider her as the Zerg of casters, if you will..
Here's the fact of the matter: the best of the best of casters will be well rounded and not only be entertaining to the audience but also extremely knowledgeable about the subject that they are casting.
There is a difference between not knowing something, and knowing it wrong. I'd rather have a doctor who doesn't know what I have and forwards me to a specialist, than a doctor who knows it wrong. Same applies to casters, there is absolutely nothing annoying about not commentating on technical details really, casting is just because watching a replay is boring, see Khaldor as an example, people really enjoyed it even though they couldn't understand it.
What's extremely annoying and just gets on my nerves is when people get it wrong, don't remember who but this one caster openly asked himself why this Terran build his command centre at his natural but in a weird spot and lifted it later and he was like 'I don't understand it, why doesn't he just build it right there, it's only a few inches apart' and I was like 'nrrghhh, he's doing that because he knows he has an overlord there and he doesn't want to give away his expansion timing', I mean, just not comment or notice it then and not openly ask why because it's frustrating for those who know what's the reason behind it.
edit:
Women are disadvantaged at casting sc2 IMO. Since it's a "men's game", a common thought is that women are not as knowledgable as men, else they would be playing the game as well. But a lot more important, is that low male voices are considered more dominant than high-pitched voices. Being a caster requires putting yourself in that dominant role where you tell the audience what's going on.
Not sure why, but I always found a female British voice to be ideal for casting, not so much for commentating though.
On February 17 2011 08:01 Twistacles wrote: There's a reason the best casters are Day9, Artosis, Incontrol, Gretorp and Chill. Knowledge. (Sry if i forget anyone)
But we have TotalBiscuit who knows little about the game and is yet arguably one of the most entertaining casters to listen to.
I personally dont understand how anyone can listen to that guy. I cant handle him for more than a few seconds. He is one of the worst in my opinion.
A play by play caster doesn't need a lot of game knowledge, just the basics, as long as they have a co-commentator that does have in depth knowledge they're fine.
On February 17 2011 08:01 Twistacles wrote: There's a reason the best casters are Day9, Artosis, Incontrol, Gretorp and Chill. Knowledge. (Sry if i forget anyone)
But we have TotalBiscuit who knows little about the game and is yet arguably one of the most entertaining casters to listen to.
I personally dont understand how anyone can listen to that guy. I cant handle him for more than a few seconds. He is one of the worst in my opinion.
Welcome to the world of subjective preferences. World would be pretty fuckin boring without em.
Commentator and caster are semantics, really. You need game-knowledge in order to do either, and in both cases the more the better. Plenty of people get off on knowledge-less casters like Husky and TB but their popularity doesn't save them from their shortcomings. With Kelly casting the Code A, it probably will become unwatchable but TorcH might be able to save it, who knows. All I know is that I actually fell ill for a whole week after watching a few minutes of TB and Kelly cast together, and I actually enjoy watching TB if I'm in the mood for it, the combo was just too potent. I think the problem comes when the caster has very little knowledge of the game and also isn't entertaining and borderline outrageous like TB for instance.
On February 17 2011 08:57 Space Invader wrote: Commentator and caster are semantics, really.
No, you're wrong.
The caster and commentator, if done properly and professionally have very different jobs during a cast. The caster provides the BASIC information and play-by-play (Tasteless), while the commentator fills in any downtime with analysis (Artosis).
Is it a benefit if the caster ALSO has the ability and knowledge to be an analyst? Of course, it allows them to identify critical moments so that they can get all excited and emotional at the correct times. But timings, when you're a spectator and privy to all of the information in the match, are easy to pick up, and as such it doesn't require a vast repertoire of in-depth knowledge to be a great caster.
It doesn't really matter if she has game knowledge, but she has to know how to cast, I mean look at Jason Lee, he asked the right questions and made all the right comments while casting and did a great job with pretty much zero game knowledge.
What's bad is that if a caster lacks game knowledge, but still keeps coming with game knowledge comments. Like "!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! JULY IS KILLING TWO DRONES AND GOING 4 POOL THAT IS SUCH A POPULAR BUILD ON THE KR SERVERS RIGHT NOW AND IT'S ALMOST UNBEATABLE!", if you try to pretend like you've got more game knowledge than you really got you're eventually gonna get burned by it. Instead of gambling and saying something like that, talk around it and let the co-caster go into it instead.
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.
Sorry to bump an old thread, but this came up as I was searching for stuff, and this picture was way too sexy to not bring back for people to look at again. I'm also interested in how people think casters have changed over the last 8 months, especially people like Husky, and maybe djWheat, as well as how newer big casters (Mr. Bitter, Rotti, dApollo) stack up. Well, those last guys aren't new per se, but they are maybe recently much more in the public eye.
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.
Sorry to bump an old thread, but this came up as I was searching for stuff, and this picture was way too sexy to not bring back for people to look at again. I'm also interested in how people think casters have changed over the last 8 months, especially people like Husky, and maybe djWheat, as well as how newer big casters (Mr. Bitter, Rotti, dApollo) stack up. Well, those last guys aren't new per se, but they are maybe recently much more in the public eye.
Dude, thank you! This is WAY to sexy to not bring back.
Yeah, Incontrol is a funny guy. But during casting, nothing can beat Tasteless. A bit unfair given that Artosis is a better co-caster than gretorp as far as being funny goes.
Tasteless has some quick wit.
Day9 less enthusiastic than HD???? Whhaaaa?
The casting archon is flat out the best, but the graph hardly represents this. Apparently if Day9 and Incontrol casted it would be better. While awesome indeed, I don't see them being able to know what the other is thinking well enough to compliment each other.
I like graphs, it's a nice idea. But so many people have varying opinions, it's never gonna be "The graph".
Please take into consideration that I did not make the graphs; I simply found them and decided to bump the thread. I agree with the general consensus of the comparisons, plus you have to take into consideration that in Febuary, I think HD was still considered like top 5 casters, especially in his enthusiasm.
I don't completely agree with the guy's ratings but I did really like his display method.
Game knowledge is to a caster as looks are to your potential gf/bf.
Sure, they don't have to be the best, but if it's not up to a certain level, not even the greatest personality will save him/her.
And if it's above a certain threshold, personality becomes irrelevant as well. (IdrA == Supermodel)
But since most are in the middle of the bell curve, we judge them by other means, such as the ability to entertain us and how good they are in bed game.
I think humor is very subjective, there are plenty of different types of humor. I prefer Artosis humor to day9's humor, for example (nerdy jokes > silly jokes), but that is just personal opinion. Furthermore, I'd like to note that some casters contribute more to the community and the scene than other casters, maybe that should also be acknowledged.
People have different opinions. Some people like casters purely for entertainment value, others like game knowledge. Tastosis is typically considered the perfect duo because they have the best of both worlds.
It would be easy to find a pro player who could sit down and robotically say what each player is probably thinking but nobody would watch that.
Personally, tha one time that Wolf and QXC casted some GSL matches was the best casting I've ever see. The two of them had really good chemistry and humor together but really the thing that tied it all together was that QXC had an almost omniscient look into the players' minds and thought process. Does anyone remember when that was?
I don't agree for tasteless and artosis, for me they are the funniest casters and have both probably the best game knowledge and analysis of all other casters.
It is important if they are casting alone. If they aren't casting alone then I believe it is eessential for one of them to have good game knowledge.. HD and Painuser is painful enough.
Also, they shouldn't pretend they have good game knowledge
Yeah it does...nothing more annoying than a caster who doesn't know what they're talking about, and I don't really like the "I don't really know the game so I'm just going to state what's happening on screen and make jokes" style.
On October 15 2011 07:31 svefnleysi wrote: At least give her a chance to prove herself and then whine if she doesn't deliver.
Are you talking about Kelly? If so, then please look at the date of the post and see that this thread is months old, Kelly has already had her run at casting Code A.
On October 15 2011 07:31 svefnleysi wrote: At least give her a chance to prove herself and then whine if she doesn't deliver.
Are you talking about Kelly? If so, then please look at the date of the post and see that this thread is months old, Kelly has already had her run at casting Code A.
Tastosis is by far the best caster duo. You watch GSL games and they can explain the histories behind each player, the matchup regarding each players' strength/weakness and the map, the current metagame / new upcoming strategies, metagaming in series play, etc. (also, artosis is a cutie )
There's so much to learn but sadly most casters offer nothing but loud voices :T
I think that even knowledge about whats happening outside the game, why are these two playing is important. I would atleast wanna learn just why these two guys are playing, than have whats going on screen shouted at me. Even if its a boring story, it makes the game more real, rather than something that just "happened" (Like the artosis cast of IdrA vs MVP on youtube. The explation of why he was doing it and why idra never releases reps and stuff gave a nice backstory.)
artosis having that much game knowledge? im sorry but thats rubbish. personally i think every caster says things at times that are just plain wrong when it comes to stratergy/unit compositions or something, but i can barely take artosis seriously when i listen to him
the fact that incontrol and idra actually play this game at a high level, having artosis that close to them is quite insulting
apart from that its a good idea, and i agree with alot of it
On October 15 2011 11:04 ThatGuy89 wrote: artosis having that much game knowledge? im sorry but thats rubbish. personally i think every caster says things at times that are just plain wrong when it comes to stratergy/unit compositions or something, but i can barely take artosis seriously when i listen to him
the fact that incontrol and idra actually play this game at a high level, having artosis that close to them is quite insulting
apart from that its a good idea, and i agree with alot of it
Could you give me a clear example of Artosis being completly wrong? Name us a game, please.
IdrA and InControl are playing at high level, sure... but do you know how many games Artosis watch each day? You don't have to play at super high level to have super great game knowledge, that's a ridiculous statement. Knowledge =/= skills. That's exactly why players need coach in sports and e-sports.
On October 15 2011 10:16 bustanut wrote: Artosis , honestly, should be touching every tip of the pentagon you got there
Agleed. Except in close call situations in certain matchups.. He always makes the wrong call, that I somehow feel, even a Diamond level player would be able to tell 9/10 times correctly the outcome.
... you have DJWheat as having more game knowledge than Tasteless ... I have no words to describe how wrong that is to me.
Interesting idea, but ... the information it gives is just plain wrong imho.
I agree with this guy. Also, doesn't the Analytic Ability come directly from game knowledge? Why 2 separate sections. (I guess a square would look silly.) Even according to the graph, they're almost exactly the same for everyone except HD.
... you have DJWheat as having more game knowledge than Tasteless ... I have no words to describe how wrong that is to me.
Interesting idea, but ... the information it gives is just plain wrong imho.
I agree,this chart was a pretty good idea but a failed execution... Also,it looks like you think the best caster overall is... Incontrol???
I, for one, could not care less about charts or graph. How could you even mesure something like game knowledge and humour on a scale? What is 5, what is 2, what is 4?
And InControl is actually a great caster.
But casters are not liked because of game knowledge but because of the entertaining value that they bring to the table. And that can't be calculated on a scale and is all about personnals preferences. Artosis just happens to know a shit ton about this game and being entertaining at the same time. A nice, calm voice. Same about Day9 and Tasteless.
I personnaly dislike DoA or Wolf, for example, but wolf does know a lot about starcraft. It's just that I don't like their voices that much and that's all, but I do understand that a lot of people like them.
TL;DR It's all about personnals preferences, no need for graphs and fancy shits like that,
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.
Sorry to bump an old thread, but this came up as I was searching for stuff, and this picture was way too sexy to not bring back for people to look at again. I'm also interested in how people think casters have changed over the last 8 months, especially people like Husky, and maybe djWheat, as well as how newer big casters (Mr. Bitter, Rotti, dApollo) stack up. Well, those last guys aren't new per se, but they are maybe recently much more in the public eye.
This chart is terrible. Tasteless has no quick wit? By this chart the best casting team would be day and incontrol? That sounds like shit
this is the most stupid thing ever...wheat and hd more analytical than tasteless.... geez.....i mean nice effort, but its still totally wrong.... lol this picture makes me really angry.....
I'd personally rather listen to someone with immense game sense and with great knowledge of the game than listen to someone with a "personality" but with little to no game sense. However, if you have a proper combination of people (Tastostis, dApollo/TotalBiscuit, Cats/PainUser,JP/Artosis, Day9/Husky) you can get both decent game knowledge as well as a certain value of entertainment, and this, imho, is the best thing.
Personally I could just listen to Day9 talk all the time, he has such a great personality and he is not scared to show it while still displaying immaculate game sense.
As for the graphs, it could use some adjustments, but it is mostly true
On October 15 2011 06:30 Emporio wrote: Please take into consideration that I did not make the graphs; I simply found them and decided to bump the thread. I agree with the general consensus of the comparisons, plus you have to take into consideration that in Febuary, I think HD was still considered like top 5 casters, especially in his enthusiasm.
I don't completely agree with the guy's ratings but I did really like his display method.
sorry didnt see that...dont feel offended, i meant the creator of this graph :D
Game knowledge, at least how much game knowledge a caster shows, should be a reflection of the knowledge of its viewer. Technically a caster should reveal just enough to make the viewer understand but not make him get confused. If a viewer can't analyze the game beyond what the caster says, then the caster is good enough in the knowledge department.
The problem comes when the caster describes intricacies that viewers can't appreciate(knowledge gap too wide) or when the viewer can see that the caster is just blatantly wrong.
No, not really. You don't need to be a Grandmaster to be entertaining. The best thing is a casterduo with 1 like Artosis/Day9 and 1 Entertainer like Husky/Tasteless.
Game knowledge is important to a certain extent but not everyone can analyze on the level of a Day9, Apollo, or an Artosis. If it's just basic things that the caster talks about, it's fine. I'd like it a little bit more if the backgrounds of the players get some mention since I think it adds another dynamic to the casting (something I'm trying to do). I understand that it is not on that level yet though
Yes Game knowledge is extremely important, it's what makes Tastosis so good. They literally have it all, they know the game extremely well, they can keep up with the pace of the game, they also are funny as hell.
Casters like Husky & HD while they can commentate quick and enthusiastically on the action, they have no understanding of the game and can't make accurate predictions. Good examples of that are the MLG right now with Idra V Boxer, Husky just literally asks Artosis questions the whole time about what Artosis thinks is going to do because Husky frankly just doesn't know, and Artosis has been spot on with his predictions the whole time.
Personally, analysis is my favourite part of the commentary.. when Idra does commentary for tourneys (EGMC) or for his stream I ALWAYS watch it; it's just exciting for me to feel all that knowledge getting spewed upon my lowly self.
But in general, yeah, game knowledge is really important. If there's only one caster, I think he should have a lot of in-game knowledge, but when there's 2 casters one of them can control (more so) battles/harass and the other (more so) BO/strategy.
I think Artosis by himself is a really really good caster, and has a great mix of knowledge/hype. Orb is really good too, in the ESV tourneys and NASL.
Artosis example: - Not only an epic game, but epic commentary.
Is game knowledge really important? Absolutely it is. But what exactly do you mean by "game knowledge"? Are we talking Artosis/Idra level of knowledge, where they can tell at 18 probes that HuK will be choosing blink into DT harass at the 20 minute mark? (Exaggeration, I know.) Or do you mean Marauder > Stalker?
I think the former is a bit extreme, but necessary for the top leagues (MLG, GSL, so on). That's why we have pairs, however. However, the latter is best for excitement as well, but perhaps not for the reason people think. Some may associate that "Analysis =/= Exciting," but Artosis can still bring some gasps and cheers. So why have casters/commentators that are not fully aware on the grand master level? Because the non-GMs, what I would say is the majority of the player base, can relate to those that aren't so immersed in the sheer details and most intricate strategies.
By having the Tasteless, Husky, etc the fans still have the knowledge to dip in from the major analysts, but don't feel alienated. The big reason to have 2 is of course that you have the extra pair of eyes and another voice to share the load. But as far as knowledge required? I think people who are sufficiently capable of knowing basic strategies, balances and counters, should be fine. Identifying "Oh look, he's getting blink and +2, I bet it's a timing push" isn't too hard, at any rate.
Tasteless certainly does possess a good amount of knowledge. However, his role is not to do the in-depth analysis so he comes off as the entertaining one who doesn't know too much while Artosis is the in-depth analyzer.
game knowledge is extremely important if the caster wants to be any good. rank does not matter, because i know soo much about starcraft, yet cannot achieve a- rank, i can however explain the complexity in a cast. rank dont matter, game experience/knowledge/understanding does matter very much.
ive seen some casters literally just say I wonder why that probe is going out so soon. Someone with proper knowledge would not say that, instead would suggest a possible proxy, or a scout for a proxy, that would then make more hype during those moments of that probes life. as appose to "i donno" and just leaving the thing be.
The one's that are described as "entertainers" aren't even more entertaining than analytical casters. They're just causing feelings of vicarious embarrassment. There's simply no justification that someone who wants to do something professionally has poor knowledge about it.
I don't want to have to work when I'm watching these matches--it's difficult enough to understand Kelly when she's just talking normally. Game knowledge is important, because I can figure out the play-by-play on my own. I enjoy listening to Artosis because he introduces me to concepts and ideas that I would otherwise not understand. At the end of the day, I'm watching the GSL to be entertained, and to hopefully learn something new. I can't imagine myself entertained, or exposed to new ideas, with Kelly casting.
On October 15 2011 12:15 FatAss wrote: No, not really. You don't need to be a Grandmaster to be entertaining. The best thing is a casterduo with 1 like Artosis/Day9 and 1 Entertainer like Husky/Tasteless.
Yeah, but even the entertainer needs to know when he is just spewing shit. It kind of irritates me when they say stuff that is wrong. You don't really need a ton of knowledge just some if you are being a shout caster. The analytical caster needs to be knowledgeable though.
This being said I don't have a problem with any of the current big casters, so no I am not trying to make a jab at any caster.
I think the most important thing is that the caster realize what his knowledge level is. If you can't provide expert analysis, that's fine, but please don't say things that are blatantly wrong. The MLG Black streamer was talking about how much trouble Ret was in one game because he has just lost a 50-ish food army, when Ret was on like 7 bases. Ret re-maxed 20 seconds later and ran over his opponent for the win.
If all you can do is shoutcast what's being shown on screen, that's fine. Just know your limits.
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
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.
Sorry to bump an old thread, but this came up as I was searching for stuff, and this picture was way too sexy to not bring back for people to look at again. I'm also interested in how people think casters have changed over the last 8 months, especially people like Husky, and maybe djWheat, as well as how newer big casters (Mr. Bitter, Rotti, dApollo) stack up. Well, those last guys aren't new per se, but they are maybe recently much more in the public eye.
TB doesn't deserve that low of a game knowledge ranking. Especially compared to DJWheat. Isn't DJWheat like gold/platinum? Last time I checked he didn't even play 1v1. Also, remember HD is still masters. How HD and DJWheat has almost the same game knowledge baffles me.
1 who knows a ton about the game 1 who will get the information they seem the audience will be interested in out of the expert. Create excitement and interest and dictate the directions of what is being said (keep it on course on topic and interesting).
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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 23:42 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.
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.
You don't have any specific examples because it never actually happened.
Hostile towards co-casters, you have got to be kidding me. Usually those comments come from oversensitive Americans/Canadians that don't understand how British people talk to each other.
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.
You don't have any specific examples because it never actually happened.
Hostile towards co-casters, you have got to be kidding me. Usually those comments come from oversensitive Americans/Canadians that don't understand how British people talk to each other.
There is nothing called "oversensitive". He simply expressed his opinions of the cast, and this was how he perceived your social skills.
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.
You don't have any specific examples because it never actually happened.
Hostile towards co-casters, you have got to be kidding me. Usually those comments come from oversensitive Americans/Canadians that don't understand how British people talk to each other.
There is nothing called "oversensitive". He simply expressed his opinions of the cast, and this was how he perceived your social skills.
There's no such thing as being excessively sensitive? there's a thing called a dictionary that might disagree with you ....
I am quite a big fan of TB, and I've never seen him be hostile towards a co caster, but maybe that's because I'm British and not oversensitive .....
On October 16 2011 00:52 Hider wrote: There is nothing called "oversensitive". He simply expressed his opinions of the cast, and this was how he perceived your social skills.
And he's wrong. Yes, there without question is something called "oversensitive". Woe betide we ever have a scottish casting pair, you guys would freak the hell out and call the police at how they interact with each other.
This is an incredibly common attitude amongst those who are not British who do not understand that banter is a standard part of our everyday conversations.
Edit : Hey look, to demonstrate my point, here's Canada's national boardgame! :D
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.
You don't have any specific examples because it never actually happened.
Hostile towards co-casters, you have got to be kidding me. Usually those comments come from oversensitive Americans/Canadians that don't understand how British people talk to each other.
There is nothing called "oversensitive". He simply expressed his opinions of the cast, and this was how he perceived your social skills.
There's no such thing as being excessively sensitive? there's a thing called a dictionary that might disagree with you ....
I am quite a big fan of TB, and I've never seen him be hostile towards a co caster, but maybe that's because I'm British and not oversensitive .....
I think your taking what I said to literally. If your the producer of a company you should design your product so it fits your target group. TB cast is a product, and its his customers who decides whether the product is good or bad. If the customers perceive that the product isn't very good, its not the customer who is wrong or having a bad opinion, but its the company (read: TB) who doesn't deliever the product that fits the target group.
To commentate for the community to have a good time then no its not needed......... BUT for the top teir watchers someone who understand more than the basics then yes to keep that audience you need to understand how what and when something happens not to explain it but to make sure the audience catches it
On October 16 2011 01:01 Hider wrote: I think your taking what I said to literally. If your the producer of a company you should design your product so it fits your target group. TB cast is a product, and its his customers who decides whether the product is good or bad. If the customers perceive that the product isn't very good, its not the customer who is wrong or having a bad opinion, but its the company (read: TB) who doesn't deliever the product that fits the target group.
Except you don't get to speak for "the customers". Haters gonna hate. Every caster has their critics, vocal ones, if organisers listened to those critics they wouldn't be able to hire any caster at all. Just because some random guy on the forums has the misguided belief that I am hostile to my co-casters (find one co-caster that agrees with you), does not mean the product is unsuitable, just that the customer bought a toaster to iron his clothes rather than a goddamn iron.
Watch this for an explanation of how British people talk to each other -
I haven't watched TB much, but from what I've seen he's far from hostile to co-casters. He throws jokes perhaps, but so does JP and Tasteless. I don't really like TB's casting style, but it isn't for any particular thing, for some reason or another I just prefer other casters over him.
On the other hand, I fully expect him to keep casting the same way, because many other people enjoy his casting style quite a lot, The amount of casters means you don't have to try to make yourself fit the mold, TB can have his way of doing it and be just fine, as he evidently is. You can't say his product doesn't fit the target group just because it doesn't fit your group; hundreds of thousands of people watch this game, and quite a large part of that group loves him!
On October 16 2011 01:01 Hider wrote: I think your taking what I said to literally. If your the producer of a company you should design your product so it fits your target group. TB cast is a product, and its his customers who decides whether the product is good or bad. If the customers perceive that the product isn't very good, its not the customer who is wrong or having a bad opinion, but its the company (read: TB) who doesn't deliever the product that fits the target group.
Except you don't get to speak for "the customers". Haters gonna hate. Every caster has their critics, vocal ones, if organisers listened to those critics they wouldn't be able to hire any caster at all. Just because some random guy on the forums has the misguided belief that I am hostile to my co-casters (find one co-caster that agrees with you), does not mean the product is unsuitable, just that the customer bought a toaster to iron his clothes rather than a goddamn iron.
I dont disagree with you. Everybody is different, and you cant make everybody happy. There is also no correct opinion or wrong opinion. But when you use the word "over", you make it sound like his opinion is incorrect, and personally, I dont like the attitude "If you dont like my cast your stupid", compared to the "If you dont like my cast its fine, but most europeans do" approach.
I dont disagree with you. Everybody is different, and you cant make everybody happy. There is also no correct opinion or wrong opinion. But when you use the word "over", you make it sound like his opinion is incorrect, and I just dont like the attitude "If you dont like my cast your stupid", compared to the "If you dont like my cast its fine, but most europeans do" approach.
But it is incorrect. Saying I am hostile to my co-casters is not an opinion. An opinion would be 'I don't like this cast'. That's cool, you are entitled to that opinion, but saying I am hostile towards Apollo for instance is the same as saying I punched Apollo in the mouth last summer. It's factually wrong. It's a completely misinterpretation. That's not an opinion anymore than saying water isn't wet is an opinion.
I dont care how britains talk to each other. THis isn't the point here. I have no doubt that you dont intend on being hostile to your cocaster, and he probably doesn't feel that way either. However I am just taking the view of the customer (or viewer). Its his perception that matters. Sure you could decide that your target group is only going to be other britains who understand the way they talk to each other, but I dont think this is the way your casts work. I think you see your target group is people from all countries who likes play-by-play commentary.
I dont disagree with you. Everybody is different, and you cant make everybody happy. There is also no correct opinion or wrong opinion. But when you use the word "over", you make it sound like his opinion is incorrect, and I just dont like the attitude "If you dont like my cast your stupid", compared to the "If you dont like my cast its fine, but most europeans do" approach.
But it is incorrect. Saying I am hostile to my co-casters is not an opinion. An opinion would be 'I don't like this cast'. That's cool, you are entitled to that opinion, but saying I am hostile towards Apollo for instance is the same as saying I punched Apollo in the mouth last summer. It's factually wrong. It's a completely misinterpretation. That's not an opinion anymore than saying water isn't wet is an opinion.
Actually, it is an opinion. Just like Michelle Bachman giving her opinion on masturbating being wrong 0_o
It might be wrong according to our logic, but it is still technically an opinion. But yes, I agree with you, he is being very sensitive and misinterpreting your way of speaking.
By the way, I'm Scottish. And yes, I would love to do some casting
I dont disagree with you. Everybody is different, and you cant make everybody happy. There is also no correct opinion or wrong opinion. But when you use the word "over", you make it sound like his opinion is incorrect, and I just dont like the attitude "If you dont like my cast your stupid", compared to the "If you dont like my cast its fine, but most europeans do" approach.
But it is incorrect. Saying I am hostile to my co-casters is not an opinion. An opinion would be 'I don't like this cast'. That's cool, you are entitled to that opinion, but saying I am hostile towards Apollo for instance is the same as saying I punched Apollo in the mouth last summer. It's factually wrong. It's a completely misinterpretation. That's not an opinion anymore than saying water isn't wet is an opinion.
Actually, it is an opinion. Just like Michelle Bachman giving her opinion on masturbating being wrong 0_o
It might be wrong according to our logic, but it is still technically an opinion. But yes, I agree with you, he is being very sensitive and misinterpreting your way of speaking.
By the way, I'm Scottish. And yes, I would love to do some casting
Do it, I'd love to see the reactions when you call your co-caster a stupid cunt then both laugh like nothing ever happened :D
I dont care how britains talk to each other. THis isn't the point here. I have no doubt that you dont intend on being hostile to your cocaster, and he probably doesn't feel that way either. However I am just taking the view of the customer (or viewer). Its his perception that matters. Sure you could decide that your target group is only going to be other britains who understand the way they talk to each other, but I dont think this is the way your casts work. I think you see your target group is people from all countries who likes play-by-play commentary.
Minority opinion isn't relevant. There will ALWAYS be people who have problems with a caster, always. We are dealing with a medium where viewercounts for individual livestreamed events stretch up to 100,000 concurrent and vods up to 500,000, a game with 3 million active players, do you honestly think a couple of guys on a forum posting actually matter in this business?
If I've learned one thing in doing this for a living, it's that the value of individual opinions is as close to zero as can possibly be measured and the internet acts as an echo-chamber for minority views. Ok I guess that's two things.
I dont disagree with you. Everybody is different, and you cant make everybody happy. There is also no correct opinion or wrong opinion. But when you use the word "over", you make it sound like his opinion is incorrect, and I just dont like the attitude "If you dont like my cast your stupid", compared to the "If you dont like my cast its fine, but most europeans do" approach.
But it is incorrect. Saying I am hostile to my co-casters is not an opinion. An opinion would be 'I don't like this cast'. That's cool, you are entitled to that opinion, but saying I am hostile towards Apollo for instance is the same as saying I punched Apollo in the mouth last summer. It's factually wrong. It's a completely misinterpretation. That's not an opinion anymore than saying water isn't wet is an opinion.
Actually, it is an opinion. Just like Michelle Bachman giving her opinion on masturbating being wrong 0_o
It might be wrong according to our logic, but it is still technically an opinion. But yes, I agree with you, he is being very sensitive and misinterpreting your way of speaking.
By the way, I'm Scottish. And yes, I would love to do some casting
Do it, I'd love to see the reactions when you call your co-caster a stupid cunt then both laugh like nothing ever happened :D
Thing is, finding a co-caster would be hard. Most people in Scotland don't like to sit down to watch sports - that way it's harder to beat the shit out of the other person when your team loses
I dont disagree with you. Everybody is different, and you cant make everybody happy. There is also no correct opinion or wrong opinion. But when you use the word "over", you make it sound like his opinion is incorrect, and I just dont like the attitude "If you dont like my cast your stupid", compared to the "If you dont like my cast its fine, but most europeans do" approach.
But it is incorrect. Saying I am hostile to my co-casters is not an opinion. An opinion would be 'I don't like this cast'. That's cool, you are entitled to that opinion, but saying I am hostile towards Apollo for instance is the same as saying I punched Apollo in the mouth last summer. It's factually wrong. It's a completely misinterpretation. That's not an opinion anymore than saying water isn't wet is an opinion.
Again... If you take the point of view of the customer. He perceives as being hostile, and he doesn't like it. Sure you could blame it on him not understanding the culture etc., but thats not really the point here. He is definitely wrong however if he stated that your intentionally being hostile to your cohost. But he is not wrong if he feels that your being hostile.
You are being over defensive and it makes u come off as a dick TB. Just ignore useless criticism without examples, don't attack their persona and tell us u don't care about our opinions.
Game knowledge is immensely important to me, if a caster makes stupid mistakes or starts repeating the obvious you've lost me as a viewer. (for example I can't watch TB cast, I just start getting annoyed)
I dont disagree with you. Everybody is different, and you cant make everybody happy. There is also no correct opinion or wrong opinion. But when you use the word "over", you make it sound like his opinion is incorrect, and I just dont like the attitude "If you dont like my cast your stupid", compared to the "If you dont like my cast its fine, but most europeans do" approach.
But it is incorrect. Saying I am hostile to my co-casters is not an opinion. An opinion would be 'I don't like this cast'. That's cool, you are entitled to that opinion, but saying I am hostile towards Apollo for instance is the same as saying I punched Apollo in the mouth last summer. It's factually wrong. It's a completely misinterpretation. That's not an opinion anymore than saying water isn't wet is an opinion.
Actually, it is an opinion. Just like Michelle Bachman giving her opinion on masturbating being wrong 0_o
It might be wrong according to our logic, but it is still technically an opinion. But yes, I agree with you, he is being very sensitive and misinterpreting your way of speaking.
By the way, I'm Scottish. And yes, I would love to do some casting
Do it, I'd love to see the reactions when you call your co-caster a stupid cunt then both laugh like nothing ever happened :D
I dont care how britains talk to each other. THis isn't the point here. I have no doubt that you dont intend on being hostile to your cocaster, and he probably doesn't feel that way either. However I am just taking the view of the customer (or viewer). Its his perception that matters. Sure you could decide that your target group is only going to be other britains who understand the way they talk to each other, but I dont think this is the way your casts work. I think you see your target group is people from all countries who likes play-by-play commentary.
Minority opinion isn't relevant. There will ALWAYS be people who have problems with a caster, always. We are dealing with a medium where viewercounts for individual livestreamed events stretch up to 100,000 concurrent and vods up to 500,000, a game with 3 million active players, do you honestly think a couple of guys on a forum posting actually matter in this business?
If I've learned one thing in doing this for a living, it's that the value of individual opinions is as close to zero as can possibly be measured and the internet acts as an echo-chamber for minority views. Ok I guess that's two things.
Again I dont disagree with you, but I just dont think you understand my point.
...Which (again) is that you think people are wrong if their perception of your casting differs from your intentions of the cast.
And you probably know this, but in business your intentions matter shit, everything depends on how the customer perceives you, which is why I used denied the existience of the word "oversensitive".
Does this means you should change your cast? No, I dont think so, and as you said you cant make everybody happen. But (hypothetical situation) if 9/10 of your potential viewers disliked the way you talked to your cocaster, it would probably be a good idea to change the way you talk to the cocaster, instead of accusing the viewers of being "wrong".
On October 16 2011 01:39 Valashu wrote: Game knowledge is immensely important to me, if a caster makes stupid mistakes or starts repeating the obvious you've lost me as a viewer. (for example I can't watch TB cast, I just start getting annoyed)
I remember there was a BW casting contest and the hardest part was making the right predictions and explaining what each player has in mind / is trying to do.. what happened to that?
There's sort of a minimum level of casting knowledge I like to see, otherwise they're going to struggle to say anything interesting about the game and make me cringe whenever they say something really wrong. Same as any other sports commentator really. Even if one is the shouty excited one and the other is the calm analysis one, they both still have to know the basics for it to work. And I'd go with dry knowledgeable delivery over excited ignorant delivery anyday. Which is why I tend not to enjoy Totalbiscuit's casts, though I've also heard worse. Anyone remember the guy who filled in on one of the first SC2 GSLs and thought a Terran player misclicked and destroyed his own bunker?
I honestly think she understands the game better than wolf or moletrap ever did. I find that it bothers me quite a bit when the caster is saying something that is completely wrong, or making wild conjecture with bad justification.
On October 16 2011 01:49 hipsterHobbit wrote: Other people's perception is your reality.
There's a fallacy if I've ever heard one.
Are your ears burning, TB?
I'm glad you're reading this thread, because I wanted to say, it doesn't bother me if a caster does not have the absolute best analysis (although I much prefer analystical casters). What really makes me mute a stream is if a caster thinks they know way more than they do. HD, CatsPajamas, Moletrap are examples of casters who constantly make bad predictions and try to analyze above their ability, whereas someone like TotalBiscuit at least understands his level and doesn't try to sound like he's a pro SC2 player. It's way better to state the obvious than to state things that are downright wrong.
On October 16 2011 01:49 hipsterHobbit wrote: Other people's perception is your reality.
There's a fallacy if I've ever heard one.
Are your ears burning, TB?
I'm glad you're reading this thread, because I wanted to say, it doesn't bother me if a caster does not have the absolute best analysis (although I much prefer analystical casters). What really makes me mute a stream is if a caster thinks they know way more than they do. HD, CatsPajamas, Moletrap are examples of casters who constantly make bad predictions and try to analyze above their ability, whereas someone like TotalBiscuit at least understands his level and doesn't try to sound like he's a pro SC2 player. It's way better to state the obvious than to state things that are downright wrong.
Tasteless has some pretty darn good game knowledge, and he's pretty darn good at providing analysis as well.
If, in a casting duo, only one of the casters is doing analysis, they'll tend to miss things, or over-think a situation, if you have a second intelligent caster there to pick-up the slack and provide alternative opinions, the analysis is much more interesting.
Someone with no game knowledge tends to be quite boring to listen to, with the exception being James "2GD" Harding, the most awesome of the awesome people in the world. TLO + 2GD = best casting duo ever to grace the face of this wonderful blue planet we call Earth.
One reason the "entertainment" caster needs some starting game knowledge is that they need to ask the "analysis" caster questions about what's going on, for the benefit of the audience. If the knowledge isn't there, they'll ask a really stupid question that tells the audience nothing and which will then throw the other caster off. Same thing if they made a big deal over some fairly meaningless engagement or harassment kills. And finally its nice to have a *bit* of back and forth analytical debate during the quiet periods of a match, which doesn't work if only half the casting duo can keep up.
Edit : Just to give some examples from this cast.
1:40 TB doesn't seem to know about the mineral trick, so the other caster has to correct him. Though he doesn't really explain it himself either. 2:40 On the plus side he makes a gas steal sound much more exciting than it really is 4:30 TB's comment "he really needs to split up his lings" when its chasing the surviving hellion. But...he doesn't split them, nothing bad seems to come of it, and I'm not sure if it was an accurate thing to say. 7:05 TB says "<the zerg> will be able to go in and kill a number of SCVs" when all he's got is like half a dozen nearly dead lings and the Terran has an MMM force and some hellions parked right beside the mineral line. Its hard to tell but I doubt he managed to kill a single worker.
The problem is that once I spot a few mistakes like these from a caster, I start doubting all the other things they say. When I'm kinda relying on them to explain stuff for me. Atleast in this case TB has a co-caster to bail him out when he says something incorrect.
On October 16 2011 04:51 Monkeyballs25 wrote: One reason the "entertainment" caster needs some starting game knowledge is that they need to ask the "analysis" caster questions about what's going on, for the benefit of the audience. If the knowledge isn't there, they'll ask a really stupid question that tells the audience nothing and which will then throw the other caster off. Same thing if they made a big deal over some fairly meaningless engagement or harassment kills. And finally its nice to have a *bit* of back and forth analytical debate during the quiet periods of a match, which doesn't work if only half the casting duo can keep up.
Edit : Just to give some examples from this cast. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkiVJHmknhU 1:40 TB doesn't seem to know about the mineral trick, so the other caster has to correct him. Though he doesn't really explain it himself either. 2:40 On the plus side he makes a gas steal sound much more exciting than it really is 4:30 TB's comment "he really needs to split up his lings" when its chasing the surviving hellion. But...he doesn't split them, nothing bad seems to come of it, and I'm not sure if it was an accurate thing to say. 7:05 TB says "<the zerg> will be able to go in and kill a number of SCVs" when all he's got is like half a dozen nearly dead lings and the Terran has an MMM force and some hellions parked right beside the mineral line. Its hard to tell but I doubt he managed to kill a single worker.
The problem is that once I spot a few mistakes like these from a caster, I start doubting all the other things they say. When I'm kinda relying on them to explain stuff for me. Atleast in this case TB has a co-caster to bail him out when he says something incorrect.
Again It comes down perrsonal preferences. Imo those are not the biggest deal in the world. Yeh the mineral line thing was a bit stupid, but besides I feel that those comments are somewhat standard for most play-by-play casters.
Still the most important thing is that the caster isn't trying to do things that he or she does not have the abilities to do, aka trying to analyze the game you dont understand (which I claimed Doa is doing).
After having heard Djwheat and JP cast Marineking vs Goswser, I think game knowledge is absolutely THE most important thing to have for at least 1 caster. JP assumed the game was won for Goswser when he was about to baneling bust marineking, when I was convinced marineking had enough. 20 seconds after Zerg decided not to bust, marineking stimmed down his ramp and took out the army + 8 baneligns which was supposedly gonna give Goswser the free win. They just don't realise that 4 marauders and 7 marines defeats 8 roaches with stim and medivacs.
They also thought Goswser had a huge lead after the natural was lifted when Zerg was on a hatch tech roach baneling whilst Terran had full tech, and lost very few scvs.
I think if your job is casting a game you have to know the game at least at master level.It is disappointing to see some casters are totally clueless about game and say wrong stuff all the time.
Bitterdam is definitely one of the best, simply through raw chemistry, game knowledge and beautiful voices. They are also very honest, and won't say random stuff like 'i think he might be ok here', and are happy to admit their mistakes. They bring a hint of racial bias which is good because it keeps the interaction going, and have very nice 'excited' voices.
On October 16 2011 20:14 Silentenigma wrote: I think if your job is casting a game you have to know the game at least at master level.It is disappointing to see some casters are totally clueless about game and say wrong stuff all the time.
There needs to be at least one person in the caster duo who knows the game at a master level. If the play-by-play guy brings a lot of ENV and is good at asking the right questions to the analytical caster, he is imo fine.
Casters definitely have to at least have a decent amount of game knowledge when it comes to them explaining the state of the matchup to us which they are casting. It really separates the best from the rest, because I for one, do not enjoy listening to a caster who seems clueless as to what is going on. But I have to say, some casters just have that air to them, that no matter what their level of understanding, one always enjoys watching them cast. This is where the personality factor comes into play.
Something that really bothers me though is when I happen upon a rather popular caster's battle.net profile and see that they are gold level or sometimes even lower. I mean, how can we trust their views when they cannot even play the game at higher levels than gold (which is pretty low already in my opinion). So yes, I do believe that casters really have to better their game when explaining the analytical doodads to us.
Game knowledge is pretty important. It really sucks when people are predicting wrong. Or when the casters think someone is WAYYY Ahead. I guess if sc2 was more mainstream and were getting random viewers then you would need to be entertained. But I feel like most of the people watching sc2 streams are sc2 players so they know whats up.Entertaining people like djwheat are fine casters as long as they have someone with good game knowledge there with them.
On October 16 2011 01:39 Valashu wrote: Game knowledge is immensely important to me, if a caster makes stupid mistakes or starts repeating the obvious you've lost me as a viewer. (for example I can't watch TB cast, I just start getting annoyed)
As much as I dislike TB, I'm going to have to disagree with you about caster knowledge being important. Sure, they have to know some of the game (what the units do, what's strong, etc.), but a shoutcaster does not have to give an in-depth analysis to make an exciting cast.
Too much knowledge and technical mumbo jumbo can ruin a cast of SC2. Jokes and knowledge should be used very sparringly, the most important factor is: excitement. The ability to put "over" what is happening in the game.
To be honest, I don't care what the heck is going on on the screen. I have eyes. Please inform me about something I don't know, or something more in depth I might not have thought about.
Furthermore, it's a stupid idea to think that having no "game knowledge" is actually a good thing. It's never a bad thing to have game knowledge, and people who believe otherwise are either kidding themselves, or don't really know what it's like to have somebody who has never played the game before cast a game >.< A person with game knowledge can fulfill multiple roles in a dual-cast, and that's best because there are times when even the best casters drop something small or forget to mention a detail.
Basically Knowledge is the key factor that will insure that your casting will at least be listened to. But if you don't have a lot of game knowledge, you have to have a lot of hype factor to make up for the fact that you're basically yelling out loud what everyone else can already see (husky)
It all depends on the audience you are trying to entertain. I personally am distracted and frustrated by casters with little game knowledge. I often check up on casters ladder rankings and it is a consistent trend that diamond level casters infuriate me. But they do have a place for people who can't absorb the depth of the game and want to simply enjoy the excitement.
I take a good analyst/commentator ANYTIME over a caster with little game knowledge. IdrA for example shares a lot of great info when he's invited as a co-caster and i enjoy these casts a LOT more than a guy that maybe has a great sense of humor but little understanding....
Its okay if a caster doesn't have game knowledge, I just REALLY annoys me when the casters don't watch the minimap and miss drops and such. Also, I want to yell at my screen whenever casters miss some little trick that the players are doing, such as canceling a research. For example, look at this: http://www.gomtv.net/2011gslsponsors6/vod/66389 at around the 15 min mark, mma starts seige because happy is scanning him, and then cancels it right afterwards to mess with happy. However, the casters miss it and proceed to talk about how mma could put on a lot of pressure with such an early seige mode FOR 2 WHOLE MINUTES. Seriously, are they blind or something? The observer even moved their cursor OVER the techlab, SELECTED it, and obviously showed that the research was cancelled. I don't understand why casters don't pay attention to what their selecting, and its really annoying me.
On October 16 2011 01:49 hipsterHobbit wrote: Other people's perception is your reality.
There's a fallacy if I've ever heard one.
You need to work on your logic TB.... If other people perceive you in a certain way, you can do nothing to change that, and denial doesn't help, because it is your reality.
I personally found your banter with dApollo quite normal, if you were good at starcraft you might even be up there with Tastosis on my casters list.
No, Take, Pomf & Thud for exemple, they are the 2 most famous french casters. According to some GM i talked to, P&T do a lot of technical mistake when casting the games (althought they are between platinium and masters). BUT, they do a lot of joke, they are really vocal and that's what people like i guess. That's why the have 20 millions views.
I got some comments from my own viewers on my casting, a lot of time i got "you're too technical and analytical, you're not fun enough"...
So i won't go up to say that p&t have no knowledge about the game because they do but because of the fat humour they manage to overcome their wickness into technical and analytical.
I don't think it's particularly important, if you can sell it otherwise.
A nice example might be TotalBiscuit.
He admits to not knowing that much about the game, he doesn't cast SC2 "full time", he's not a great player, but he is such a charming chubster, has an awesome voice, is funny as hell and brings something unique to the table.
Let him cast alongside another, maybe more knowledgable caster and the cast can be as exciting as Tastosis' (or very very close to). The sky's the limit
I think it depend on the target audience. If the audience is at higher level, game knowledge makes the commentary worthwhile. If the audience comes only for entertainment, game knowledge is not a priority. That's why there are so many favorite casters. My favorite is, of course, Day9. He is both knowledgeable and highly entertaining
Having great game knowledge is not important at all. I could listen to TB solo casting for days and not really have any objections.
What's important is not being wrong.
If they want to bring high level analysis into it, they need to be confident that what they say is actually correct. Or in other words, only state things you're certain of.
I honestly can't listen to casters who don't know anything about the game. I just mute the stream when people like Moletrap, Djwheat, TotalBiscuit, or catspajamas are casting. It's not so much the fact that they don't know anything about the game that bothers me, but it's when they try to say things like "Player1 is doing X because of Y" or "this build is great because of X", or more simply put, when they say things that are blatantly wrong while likely full knowing that they have no idea what they are talking about. All of the above casters do this nearly every game they cast.
The best casts I have listened to were the ones at the Home Story Cups where progamers actually casted or co-casted the games. So I would say YES the more knowledge the more interesting. This doesn't mean a rather unknowledgeable cast has to be bad though.
On October 17 2011 06:24 Thebbeuttiffulland wrote: if game knowledge would be important husky wouldnt be so popular
To be fair, he has improved an insane amount compared to how he was 6 months ago ... or just 3 months ago. He used to make me cringe, now he just miss some stuff, but most of what he says make sense - my opinion.
On October 17 2011 06:20 Leviance wrote: The best casts I have listened to were the ones at the Home Story Cups where progamers actually casted or co-casted the games. So I would say YES the more knowledge the more interesting. This doesn't mean a rather unknowledgeable cast has to be bad though.
Could not say it better myself. Knowledge gives so much more to a cast then someone being good at talking fast and screaming when the banes hit. Ok, that is fun but without the knowledge behind it it's just not worth it.
On October 17 2011 06:24 Thebbeuttiffulland wrote: if game knowledge would be important husky wouldnt be so popular
If popularity was all that mattered, Boxer would be a GSL champion.
theres no competition for casters popularity the only value if 100k people likes husky and listens to casts that means for 100k people game knowledge isnt important
I think SC2 has developed to a state where game knowledge is necessary to be able to cast well. At the times of KellyMilkies casting, strategies and unit compositions were still being explored even at the basic levels. Anyone then would be able to cast without much game knowledge. Nowadays people will just move on to those who actually knows what they're talking about.
EPT![[image loading]](http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/images2/1/15/KellyMILKIES.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://oi52.tinypic.com/9ropqh.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/GCn6L.png)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/YhOSt.png)
Still fun to look at, though!
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/ZnOKP.jpg)
