|
TB is totally correct here. He is not bashing IdrA at all, its just that he isn't as good at building tension and suspense that professional play-by-play commentators are. Good exciting commentary can make anything sound good.
Should IdrA commentate? Yes, absolutely. His game knowledge is on par with the best in the world and his resume itself qualifies him for reliable analysis. He would be much better suited to be crossed to by a play-by-play commentator for analysis and then have the commetary passed back. Those snippets are given in every sport by a sideline commetator and this very much suits what IdrA could supply.
On a personal note I do enjoy commetary by IdrA but I do know that many of my lesser informed friends would find it less appealing. A lot of my friends, as well as myself, like listening to the Korean casters as they really build excitment despite not a single one of us being able to understand korean.
|
On May 13 2011 16:56 GummyZerg wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2011 16:54 Two_DoWn wrote:On May 13 2011 16:51 GummyZerg wrote:
Trying to make something exciting where it's not would be like a baseball caster making a homerun call for a pop fly. "Back...Back...Back... OOHHH AND HE CATCHES IT AT THE WARNING TRACK!!! SO CLOSE TO BEING THE SPARK THE TEAM NEEDED TO START GETTING BACK INTO THIS ONE" Because that never happens...owait. Of course that happens, but I meant more in a situation where it is obviously not a homerun. There are even moments in Starcraft where you don't know who will be the victor in a battle, but this isn't the point I was making. Perhaps I should have stated an infield fly. Oh well. Excitement in close situations should obviously be the moments where it is necessary, not when something is so one sided. Casters shouldn't attempt to make unexciting moments exciting just for the new crowd.
It isnt just for the new crowd. And if you chose to lock yourself off from enjoying someone who makes an effort to keep every game entertaining, well, thats your fault.
There is a little thing called suspension of disbelief. It is where actors and storytellers in movies and television are able to do such a good job of portraying unrealistic situations that the audience is forced to stop limiting their awareness to real world situations and actually buy into the unrealistic scenes being presented. Good sci-fi movies like Star Wars do this: you buy into everything going on, even if you rationally know that light sabers arent realistic at all. Better examples are bad movies where you leave the theatre thinking the entire concept was stupid because you were never involved in the movie in the first place.
Casing and viewing needs to be viewed in this light. Limiting yourself from enjoying someone like TB who keeps games exciting and entertaining because it is meant for "the new crowd" just harms yourself: its a 1 way ticket to burning out on Starcraft. If you cant enjoy excitement, how are you going to enjoy dry analysis after 3 years of viewing?
Hell, I think casters need to show LESS. Stop showing the production tab. Stop flagging upgrades unless you are actually trying to build suspense for a timing push. There was one cast from the gsl, Clide vs someone, where the caster actually turned off the production tab. Clide won a battle and it looked like the zerg was dead. Only 15 ultras hatched and the zerg was right back in it. It was epic because it was so unexpected: limiting information made the game memorable.
If you find a situation in a game to be unentertaining, it is because the caster failed. They let you as the viewer have too much information. The suspense is gone. Boxer flying 3 dropships full of marines isnt very exciting if you know that that is all the army he has. But Boxer flying 3 dropships around can be very exciting if the casters dont tell you what the populations are. Or they raise their voices and inflection to increase suspense as the drop goes in rather than saying "well, this is it, all MC has to do is clean this up and he wins."
|
On May 13 2011 17:07 AKspartan wrote:
You act as though the play-by-play / color commentator paradigm is some immutable law of casting that will always lead to inferior outcomes if deviated from, which is simply laughable.
He expresses a strong opinion on this simply because there is overwhelming evidence, anecdoatal and otherwise, that this really is the case. Sports across a multitude of countries use a mix of colour-commentators and PbP commentators, and some of the best examples of SC2 and BW commentating has been a combination of the two. Correct me if I am wrong here, but I believe even the Korean casting teams have a mix of PbP focus and analytical commenting.
Frankly, I fail to understand how anyone could consider this not to be the best possible setup.
|
Canada1637 Posts
On May 13 2011 17:07 Comogury wrote:.
I think people forget that IdrA isn't the only one there. If you just imagined IdrA sitting there and blabbing on with his analysis for 3 hours straight, would you sit through it all? I think I would sit in for most of it because there is something to be learned. However, most people don't want to sit in for that. That's all that TB is saying, nothing more.
I think IdrA got up to 18k on his own stream when he was doing his own self commentary? :o
|
Why is this douche with a radio voice even commenting one idrA's casting.. oh please go /wrist else where
User was warned for this post
User was temp banned for this post.
|
Well this thread isn't a giant troll magnet.
Hey, guys, just put down the top hat and monocle. Not everyone wants to be bored with in-depth analysis and be shown the "great intellect" needed to show how great this game is. Some of theses replies are oozing with pretentiousness, oh god. Lay off the caviar. It's a video game about aliens.
And not everyone is looking to improve their own game by watching VODs. You really should be looking at actual replays. There is a sticky thread in the strategy forum on how to analyze replays.
On May 13 2011 16:53 Dubpace wrote:
I read the whole thing and it comes off as TotalBiscuit trying to say in a very masked way that casting at an analytical level much lower than IdrA's is an okay thing or maybe even in some cases a better thing.
Personally, I think TotalBiscuit is wrong and this just reinforces how much he really has no clue about Starcraft commentary. People love IdrA's casting, LOVE it, because you get this feeling of knowledge like being around a really smart and wise professor. I will take that any day over the TA with a British accent that talks fast.
He gives real world examples. It's clear you have no clue about sports broadcasting. He's actually interested in growing SC2 eSports, but I am aware not everyone wants that. So I guess Korea has been doing it wrong for the past 10 years or so.
|
On May 13 2011 17:06 Swineflew wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2011 16:56 Vorlik wrote:
I don't understand why the OP made this thread here, it just stirs up more unnecessary drama. I would've rather you vented on the reddit thread then come here. what TB said was accurate and not as demeaning as you might think towards Idra. On a side note, that video was awesome =D Because I enjoy the IdrA/Day[9]/Artosis style casting and I guess it just seemed to me that this was a cheap shot by the TB/Husky style casting. I just felt like he was saying that IdrA is a bad caster and should only throw tidbits of information in when there is a gap in the action. It came off to me as a shot at IdrA like "You can't cast by yourself, you need someone to be the main caster and you can only back him up, although I don't even follow the format that I've described to be good".
You completely didn't understand anything TB said whatsoever.
|
On May 13 2011 17:07 hmunkey wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2011 17:03 Phenny wrote:On May 13 2011 16:59 hmunkey wrote:
I think someone should run a series of surveys to find out which style of casting the community wants as a whole. It would be interesting to see a TL poll on the topic, seeing as the vast majority of stream viewers are TL users too. I think the ideal would be a colour commentator + a play by play commentator together. I disagree. Yeah, I'd like another commentator who's more charismatic, but I don't know if I'd want them to be a purely play-by-play commentator. TB and to a lesser extent Wheat are known for just saying what's happening and nothing else, but I find that to be completely boring and pointless. I'm not blind. This is a video broadcast, not a radio one. It's completely useless for them to tell me what I'm seeing when I'm looking directly at it. At the end of the day, IdrA knows exactly what's going on and gives us amazing analysis, but he's not charismatic or particularly good at talking. If he had a co-caster who was, they would be perfect. That said, that co-caster shouldn't be some play-by-play idiot but someone who also knows the game.
Yeh I probably should have detailed play by play to be a more thoughtful kind of play by player who had some insight and mildly profound stuff to contribute as well.
But yeh I do agree, mindless play by play would be horrendous.
|
On May 13 2011 17:07 Mojar wrote:
Granted i only read the first few pages of this thread, but i get the feeling most of you didn't actually read what TB said. He does not criticize Idra at all really, he is merely describing the two different casting jobs and that Idra suits the analytical part perfectly (aka Artosis) and should not be discussed or considered when talking about a play by play commentator (aka Tasteless) as they are 2 completely different roles.
He is completely correct in what he said by the way. Idra is an amazing analytical commentator and should be praised for it. However when it comes to casting the actual game going and creating excitement and tension that is left to the play-by-play caster as it should be.
Yesyeyes! Makes me happy to see that others actually read the article and TB post. Feels like alot of people read the thread title and assumed TB was beeing BM at IdrA. My personal opinion; I like both styles of casting, a mix with one of each just like TB described in his post. And I would tune in to a event if it was IdrA casting or TB casting.
|
The problem I see it is that TB thinks that if you are the play-by-play guy, all you need to have a good cast is a color guy.
However if the play-by-play guy doesn't know what he is talking about when it comes to anything other than observing what is going on on-screen, that doesn't make for any good synergy with the color guy, since he is either going to have to correct him, or let the wrong information stand.
This is why Tasteless and Artosis are so good. They both have excellent game knowledge, but Tasteless is good at the play-by-play and rarely makes mistakes when he talks about the strategy stuff too. While Artosis had plenty of time to think about the deeper builds and strategy going into the game. The fact that they both can fill each roll is what makes them good, and that neither of them is deficient in an area.
Having two commentators from each side of the spectrum is not good enough in SC... you can't be an idiot when it comes to the game and get by on your speaking ability. You also can't not having commentating experience but be a genius because people won't connect.
|
he slams other casters for not knowing 'what true casting' really is and then derives some bullshit argument from watching a game as a 'high masters hell even diamond player' that will NOT LEARN ANYTHING EVER AT ALL if the caster doesn't hype the game like a monkey until one player ggs.
Well, guess what TB, you're a shit player (oh fuck i'm analyzing the situation), so you really shouldn't speak for the rest of us.
User was warned for this post
|
So really the point of this article is to say that Idra just needs a colorful commentator alongside him? And to do that, he starts off by saying "drA is not a good caster." ?? WTF - so he flames Idra, but then the problem isn't Idra, it's the fact he isn't supported by a color caster - or in other words, he hates Gretorp?
TB is either trolling and being inflammatory, or making a very thinly guised attack against Gretorp...
and if a player can come back from a "yea he should gg now" that makes it much more interesting - however Idra is simply too good to do that. I am pretty sure that a player of Idra's calibre would never call an early gg and be wrong.
|
I agree with TB's post mostly. That said, i would much rather listen to Idra cast alone then TB, and im only a casual player.
|
I made a post on that reddit as well...
I cant listen to TB's cookie cutter casting either.
Getty worded it perfectly... basically after you get past silver that simple style of entertainment casting becomes torture to your ears. I can kind of understand where people like TB are coming from when thinking of the super casual and new fans, I guess that is all good. But then criticizing Idra for casting how the majority of this community wants someone to cast is kind of funny. Especially considering how this community has shown you several times already how they feel about you TB.
If this community were the type to enjoy that simple kind of entertainment you put out, they wouldnt be playing Starcraft. At least that is how I see it. They would be playing LoL, WoW, or watching Pokemon or something.
This is not sportscenter.
|
TB is 100% correct. And face it, IdrA would be a terrible solo caster for any event. TB is in the Silver league, but he's a great caster because of his voice and his energy. He continues to pump out content, even though it's not the most popular on the channel, despite how the community has treated him. We just need 2 words - one for the guy with excitement and one for the guy with brains.
Caster and analyst? Hmm.
|
On May 13 2011 16:31 jalstar wrote:
I don't think you can compare e-sports to traditional sports in terms of casting, and I really wish TB and others would stop doing it. In every sport out there, it's just as easy to score points when you're down by 20 as when the game's tied. In SC, leads build on leads and incredibly subtle things can change the flow of the game. Good commentary, like Idra, points out those subtleties and gives the viewer insight into the complexities of the game.
I also don't think there's any room for play-by-play. In traditional sports PBP adds something, whether it's the speed and type of pitches in baseball or formations in football. In chess or SC2 you're just re-stating things that are incredibly obvious to the viewer if you do PBP, so you need people who can analyze the game or you quickly run out of meaningful things to talk about.
Just my 2 cents.
I really agree with this post.
My opinion is that what makes starcraft II "exciting" for its viewers is not what's happening but the deep meaning behind moves that the masses can not understand. In physical sports like basketball, american football, etc, play by play is welcome because the excitement lies primarily in shots, catches, and other types of physically amazing feats. However, in starcraft, none of the physical stuff is all that amazing. Instead, what impresses the viewers is deep strategical moves and genius (similar to chess), whether or not they are fleshed out or not. Having a commentator to reveal these 'exciting' things that one can not see on their own is what a starcraft commentator should shoot for.
Play by play does have a place though. For example, key exciting moments that decide the game would be one situation where play by play is essential. It's natural to become excited over one thing that can make or break a game; therefore, play by play to amplify that excitement is good. However, play by play on mundane things really is just filler and should be last resort when lacking analytical comments.
This applies even to noobs. Even noobs can understand that the game is not based on what's physically happening on the screen. After all, it's labeled a "real time STRATEGY game". Even if newer players can not completely understand some deep strategical insight, they can appreciate other things like build order explanations and basic tactical maneuver explanations. However, even they should be able to tell when say a 200/200 army crashes into 10 scvs. It's just obvious from either playing or watching the game for even a short period of time. I don't think casting needs to have a lot of play by play to encompass newer players at all. Instead, it should have comments that provoke awe from newer players who never thought of that or strive to be able to understand strategy of that magnitude.
All that I mentioned above is still applicable to korean BW commentators. For example, they get excited by plagues and reavers because they are game changing situations. Of course they would get excited because a player turned around a game completely into his favor. If you watch normal plagues and scarabs when games are over, they don't really get excited. If you've ever viewed a translation of a BW game (for example, Hiya vs Boxer is one of the more well known ones), you can see that the korean commentators are filled with strategical comments, while being exciting. That's the base of their commentary, IMO, not their excitement. The excitement is like a supplement to go with that and has developed as BW gained live audiences and the like. There's actually very little raw play by play in korean casting except when filling time.
It's kind of late so what I said is a bit muddled, but this is basically my viewpoint and also what dictates my taste in commentators.
|
On May 13 2011 17:04 getty wrote:
Totalbiscuit's entire argument is flawed because it presumes that the skills which make someone a good sports commentator are also the skills which make someone a good SC2 commentator.
There is a reason why people who actually understand the game like Artosis, Tasteless, and Day9 are the commentators most beloved by the community. Once you dedicate even just a small mote of time to trying to understand SC2, play by play commentary suddenly becomes both stagnant and dull.
You totally missed the point, also I find it hilarious that your comment was addressed in the initial post.
"Hardcore players will not learn anything from this. Casual players more often than not, don't WANT to learn anything from this. Different kinds of people watch SC2 for different reasons. SC2 has a substantial viewerbase that doesn't even own the game for god's sake, what do you think they tune in for? It certainly isn't to learn how to play better, they don't play at all. No, they tune in to watch one of the most, if not the most exciting eSport in the world and they expect it to be presented as such. It is impossible to get excited about a game that ended 10 minutes ago"
I wish everyone would read the OP and stop saying who they like better, or which commentator the community prefers when in fact it was never the point of his comments.
|
Methinks that Diggity gave a great opinion about the issue in a comment from the Reddit thread:
[–]diggitySC 34 points 7 hours ago
TB beat me to it
I think the core issue is the target viewer. There are two camps: the player who watches a game to get better, and the viewer who watches the game to be entertained.
I would assume that the writer of the article hails from camp 1. Idra is a hardline commentator for this audience. As TB pointed out his commentating mechanics are not there, though its generally not something that the audience at large notices consciously.
The core issue is camp 1 style of commentary often times sacrifices camp 2.
I would argue that we need both camps for Sc2 to be a successful spectator "e-sport". Additionally I personally do not believe that the standard style of color and play by play is a suitable solution for sc2 casts.
In theory an ideal commentator would be capable of molding a commentary into something that is extremely appealing to both crowds.
I feel that I strike middle to low in both sides of the equation at the moment. However I constantly strive to improve my method and delivery in pursuit of "the perfect cast". I have done my best to hone my art within strict time constraints. I believe I am a better caster now than I was last year and I believe I will be a better caster in 3 months than I am now.
I am certain the Total Biscuit seeks to improve his casting ability in the same manner. He has actually inspired me to improve my baseline mechanics and excitement level.
In the meantime I would ask that the SC2 community not treat casters as though they exist in an isolated box. We are dynamic people who constantly improve and change in response to the feedback we are given.
As a result we desperately need continuous and focused feedback in order to take it to the next level. However we need this feedback to be intelligent and enlightened. Asking that every caster be capable of winning the GSL is unrealistic. Asking that every cast end when the match is notably decided is unwise.
More great comments from him in subsequent replies:
http://www.reddit.com/r/starcraft/comments/ha33c/some_advice_to_sc_casters_via_idras_nasl_guest/c1ts5e0
|
On May 13 2011 17:07 AKspartan wrote:
You act as though the play-by-play / color commentator paradigm is some immutable law of casting that will always lead to inferior outcomes if deviated from, which is simply laughable. And if you're so interested at analyzing the flaws of casters, why not talk about Gretorp and Incontrol, who can both struggle greatly at times with just forming basic sentences and can't establish basic chemistry.
IdrA is an excellent caster. And frankly I prefer him to totalbiscuit.
And those of you who don't see the ways in which this article bashes IdrA, albeit in a veiled, indirect manner... I can do nothing to help you.
Inferior? 100% opinion based,
But its the most basic set up,
every major casting team for pretty much every major sport uses the same basic casting set up,
|
He left out the part where some people have certain likes and dislike about people's voices. IdrA's voice may be on the dull side but at least it isn't completely grating on the ears. Just because you have a whacky voice doesn't mean you can commentate and the masses will like it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
