|
On July 14 2011 01:55 Xeris wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2011 07:44 groms wrote:On July 13 2011 03:45 Xeris wrote:On July 13 2011 03:37 aristarchus wrote:On July 13 2011 03:16 Xeris wrote:On July 13 2011 03:13 Bobster wrote:On July 13 2011 03:10 MrNomad wrote:On July 12 2011 15:42 Excalibur_Z wrote:
That, to me, was NASL Season 1. It was like you had a grandiose idea for an awesome league, but the transition between the brainstorming phase and actual planning and delegation hit like a brick wall. Get a paid, qualified staff with experience in the field of editing and post-production. Get experienced department leaders who can manage their teams effectively, report issues to you upfront and provide their suggestions for improvement. Run it like the business it should be -- and needs to be in order to succeed. Volunteers and hopeful dreamers are no substitute for proven, experienced, career-minded professionals. Listen to their feedback and take it to heart.
You can dismiss this post as "hate" all you like, and you can shirk the blame all you like. You, Gretorp, and Inc are the faces of NASL whether you expected to be or not, and you guys are the ones who will be held collectively responsible for the positive or negative results of your league. All I know is that if my name is attached to something, I want to be its harshest critic and demand perfection at every turn.
The good news is that by changing things up, Season 2 can be a lot better. You've already received some constructive criticism in this thread and others, don't just ignore it because you think people are being hateful. What's funny is i have 5 years production experience in broadcasting and even sent NASL my resume yet they ignored it and then put on that attrocity of a broadcast. It speaks to how much they want their product to succeed. They received an email (if not multiple ones) from experienced staff and chose what seemed like some stoner kids from the backlot of a Pizza Hut. Nepotism in action, baby! You think Anna and the blond girl got the interview job because they're great interviewers? Rachel is pretty well known in the community and CSN has provided so much great content from Korea, and Anna is the current Miss Oregon. There's no doubting their interview skills. See, this is stupid. The fact that you're still making posts like this tells me you've completely missed the point. Yes, they've done stuff before. Doing CSN content is meaningful experience. I really don't know how being Miss Oregon is particularly relevant, but Anna has done some interviews before and so forth. I didn't have a problem with them (though Lindsey or whatever was pretty special), but the definition of a good performance is one that the audience likes. If you have a lot of your audience saying they didn't like their interviews, then saying "there's no doubting their interview skills" is just factually wrong. You can make an informed judgement that with time most people will like the interviews, or that they do now and these people are a minority, but you can't just post saying that they're just factually wrong and how dare they question you. It frankly doesn't matter at all what you think of their interviews or what other experience they have that you think is relevant. What matters is what the audience thinks. The audience opinion can't actually be wrong, and these posters are just expressing their opinion as part of the audience. The only reason things like "they've done interviews" before matter is because it's a sign that the audience is likely to actually like them. Anna has over 2 years of experience interviewing Starcraft players (the first time I remember her was at WCG USA 2009 interviewing people). Rachel has done a LOT of interviewing through her time in Korea. I was responding to the fact that people think it's just nepotism, but it isn't. We brought them to the event to do interviews because they've done a lot of it before. I've read that a lot of people would rather have someone like Artosis or Day9 doing interviews rather than Anna/Rachel. This point is being taken into consideration for future events. Again, I was responding to people simply saying "they're only here because of nepotism," they were there because of their experience. GET ARTOSIS TO DO INTERVIEWS!!! simple solution to a simple problem. This guy actually understands the game... Or at least get him to write the questions. I was really frustrated after seeing an amazing game only to have someone who didn't grasp it ask questions about some irrelevant situation in game or "how they prepared for their match?". I don't really get that argument to be honest. DjWheat and JP interview people often, and neither of them are good at the game. Their game knowledge is probably only slightly better than someone like Anna or Rachel (who both have extensive experience being around people who know a lot about the game). Is it because, as women, they seem less likely to know about the game or be qualified to interview someone as opposed to JP, for example? Nobody ever complains about JP's lack of game knowledge when he interviews someone... so why do people suddenly complain with Anna and/or Rachel interviewing someone? Also -- if you read Korean interviews of GSL games, they ask really similar questions.. "how did you prepare," "why did you decide to do X in Game 2," etc. Can you please elaborate?
Isn't JP a masters-level player? And people complain about DjWheat's lack of game knowledge all the time. I didn't mind the interviews, but I assume the people asking for the casters to do them are looking for there to be more questions about the strategic decisions they made in the game.
|
On July 14 2011 02:09 aristarchus wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2011 01:55 Xeris wrote:On July 13 2011 07:44 groms wrote:On July 13 2011 03:45 Xeris wrote:On July 13 2011 03:37 aristarchus wrote:On July 13 2011 03:16 Xeris wrote:On July 13 2011 03:13 Bobster wrote:On July 13 2011 03:10 MrNomad wrote:On July 12 2011 15:42 Excalibur_Z wrote:
That, to me, was NASL Season 1. It was like you had a grandiose idea for an awesome league, but the transition between the brainstorming phase and actual planning and delegation hit like a brick wall. Get a paid, qualified staff with experience in the field of editing and post-production. Get experienced department leaders who can manage their teams effectively, report issues to you upfront and provide their suggestions for improvement. Run it like the business it should be -- and needs to be in order to succeed. Volunteers and hopeful dreamers are no substitute for proven, experienced, career-minded professionals. Listen to their feedback and take it to heart.
You can dismiss this post as "hate" all you like, and you can shirk the blame all you like. You, Gretorp, and Inc are the faces of NASL whether you expected to be or not, and you guys are the ones who will be held collectively responsible for the positive or negative results of your league. All I know is that if my name is attached to something, I want to be its harshest critic and demand perfection at every turn.
The good news is that by changing things up, Season 2 can be a lot better. You've already received some constructive criticism in this thread and others, don't just ignore it because you think people are being hateful. What's funny is i have 5 years production experience in broadcasting and even sent NASL my resume yet they ignored it and then put on that attrocity of a broadcast. It speaks to how much they want their product to succeed. They received an email (if not multiple ones) from experienced staff and chose what seemed like some stoner kids from the backlot of a Pizza Hut. Nepotism in action, baby! You think Anna and the blond girl got the interview job because they're great interviewers? Rachel is pretty well known in the community and CSN has provided so much great content from Korea, and Anna is the current Miss Oregon. There's no doubting their interview skills. See, this is stupid. The fact that you're still making posts like this tells me you've completely missed the point. Yes, they've done stuff before. Doing CSN content is meaningful experience. I really don't know how being Miss Oregon is particularly relevant, but Anna has done some interviews before and so forth. I didn't have a problem with them (though Lindsey or whatever was pretty special), but the definition of a good performance is one that the audience likes. If you have a lot of your audience saying they didn't like their interviews, then saying "there's no doubting their interview skills" is just factually wrong. You can make an informed judgement that with time most people will like the interviews, or that they do now and these people are a minority, but you can't just post saying that they're just factually wrong and how dare they question you. It frankly doesn't matter at all what you think of their interviews or what other experience they have that you think is relevant. What matters is what the audience thinks. The audience opinion can't actually be wrong, and these posters are just expressing their opinion as part of the audience. The only reason things like "they've done interviews" before matter is because it's a sign that the audience is likely to actually like them. Anna has over 2 years of experience interviewing Starcraft players (the first time I remember her was at WCG USA 2009 interviewing people). Rachel has done a LOT of interviewing through her time in Korea. I was responding to the fact that people think it's just nepotism, but it isn't. We brought them to the event to do interviews because they've done a lot of it before. I've read that a lot of people would rather have someone like Artosis or Day9 doing interviews rather than Anna/Rachel. This point is being taken into consideration for future events. Again, I was responding to people simply saying "they're only here because of nepotism," they were there because of their experience. GET ARTOSIS TO DO INTERVIEWS!!! simple solution to a simple problem. This guy actually understands the game... Or at least get him to write the questions. I was really frustrated after seeing an amazing game only to have someone who didn't grasp it ask questions about some irrelevant situation in game or "how they prepared for their match?". I don't really get that argument to be honest. DjWheat and JP interview people often, and neither of them are good at the game. Their game knowledge is probably only slightly better than someone like Anna or Rachel (who both have extensive experience being around people who know a lot about the game). Is it because, as women, they seem less likely to know about the game or be qualified to interview someone as opposed to JP, for example? Nobody ever complains about JP's lack of game knowledge when he interviews someone... so why do people suddenly complain with Anna and/or Rachel interviewing someone? Also -- if you read Korean interviews of GSL games, they ask really similar questions.. "how did you prepare," "why did you decide to do X in Game 2," etc. Can you please elaborate? Isn't JP a masters-level player? And people complain about DjWheat's lack of game knowledge all the time. I didn't mind the interviews, but I assume the people asking for the casters to do them are looking for there to be more questions about the strategic decisions they made in the game.
Yea Im pretty sure JP is masters level random player, DJWheat plays alot, but im not sure he's ever told anyone what rank he's in, but i believe they have more game knowledge then they let on (at least wheat) because usually they are paired with someone with more game knowledge, so they do the play by play.
|
It's a common misconception that being a good interviewer and being an expert at the material you're interviewing about must be in lock-step. This is simply untrue as evidenced by nearly every television reporter on the face of the planet. That's not to say it doesn't help to know the person you're interviewing and have at least some background on them if you are doing a Barbara Walters style interview, but the assertion that the interviewer must be an expert on the subject matter simply is not true.
Certainly with sports related interviews if the questions involve detailed and specific questions about tactics, unit composition, or other detailed strategy or tactic analysis, then the interviewer should have a better-than-layman knowledge of the sport or topic. But if the questions are, "How do you feel about winning the match?" or "What did you do to prepare?" or questions like that, the charisma of the interviewer and their ability to put the interviewee at ease is much more important.
Conversely, you can be a great game commentator and analyst and be simply horrible at interviewing players - the two aspects are not completely mutually exclusive, but there is very little connective tissue between them.
This isn't just the viewpoint of the NASL, it's the viewpoint of every major news media outlet on the planet.
Give folks like Seltzer, Anna Prosser and Lindsey time to develop their craft. It's a new sport, a new industry and these are new people learning it all.
|
Are the bold red text in the OP really necessary?
|
On July 14 2011 03:04 zeeschildpad wrote:
Are the bold red text in the OP really necessary?
YES 
|
In my opinion, I think NASL can bounce back from this just fine if they truly wanted to. NASL has the resources. I agree with people saying that the production was bad. To be honest, it kinda was. Please just invest some more money making the event look more "elaborate". The quality of the games is there and NASL has great potential. I just hope that you take the feedback in stride and improve!
|
On July 14 2011 03:04 zeeschildpad wrote:
Are the bold red text in the OP really necessary?
Based on the reading comprehension skills of 99% of people on the internet, including on these forums... absolutely. The red text makes it easier for simpletons to catch the important statements.
Of course, half of the people will still completely ignore 95% of the OP anyway, because that's just how they roll, son.
|
First off I want to say thank you. A huge thank you for bringing the best players in the world into a new top shelf event. I will be short and sweet with my feedback. And yes I am a paying customer and most likely will be for the next season.
The Fundamentals
At its core the league is an online experience. Everything should go through the filter of "what does the average person at their computer see." And what they should see is a crisp website that is informative and most importantly timely. Results, league decisions, and more importantly the actual games need to flow onto the site promptly. You are offering an online gaming experience and made it difficult to find said games online. I will say that again. You are offering an online gaming experience and made it difficult to find said games online.
Polish
Almost everything you are being hammered on boils down to lack of attention to detail. We need a set. Blank black set. We need some booths. Boring small booths. We need some graphics. Basic and boring graphics. We need some cameras for our live event. Shakey cams in the wrong places. The details are so so important. Would four larger and half decorated booths cost that much more? Or was the time not taken to polish them? Would a well decorated studio stage cost that much more or was the time just not taken to polish it up.
It is okay to steal.. err be inspired
What sort of studio sets look good for competition broadcasting. ESPN studio desks, Real Sports on HBO, NFL pregame shows. Watch them and steal.. err be inspired by what looks good and works. The $50,000 touch screen display wall you should pass on. The camera positions and their motion you should use as a base to build from. The back wall and set layouts you should use as a base to build from.
Player profiles, pregame show and highlight reels. Watch some NFL Games, The Olympics. March Madness. Flying to Eastern Europe with a full production crew to get the inside story you can skip. Pacing.. editing.. timing in relation to the broadcast... overall length... steal, steal, steal.
Use of Graphics. Watch any of the above and some of your competition. The TSL used some nice music and hand drawn player sketches to make a perfect VOD intro.. Stea.. err be inspired, be inspired.
You have the best players and the quality of the game play will flow from that. You have a great prize pool and top notch sponsors so the hype and exposure will flow from that. Bring the admin and production to that level and you will be a beast of an organization. I look forward to season 2.
Drew
|
Player profiles, pregame show and highlight reels. Watch some NFL Games, The Olympics. March Madness. Flying to Eastern Europe with a full production crew to get the inside story you can skip. Pacing.. editing.. timing in relation to the broadcast... overall length... steal, steal, steal.
Great point! Structuring it more professionally can go a long way!
|
On July 14 2011 01:55 Xeris wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2011 07:44 groms wrote:On July 13 2011 03:45 Xeris wrote:On July 13 2011 03:37 aristarchus wrote:On July 13 2011 03:16 Xeris wrote:On July 13 2011 03:13 Bobster wrote:On July 13 2011 03:10 MrNomad wrote:On July 12 2011 15:42 Excalibur_Z wrote:
That, to me, was NASL Season 1. It was like you had a grandiose idea for an awesome league, but the transition between the brainstorming phase and actual planning and delegation hit like a brick wall. Get a paid, qualified staff with experience in the field of editing and post-production. Get experienced department leaders who can manage their teams effectively, report issues to you upfront and provide their suggestions for improvement. Run it like the business it should be -- and needs to be in order to succeed. Volunteers and hopeful dreamers are no substitute for proven, experienced, career-minded professionals. Listen to their feedback and take it to heart.
You can dismiss this post as "hate" all you like, and you can shirk the blame all you like. You, Gretorp, and Inc are the faces of NASL whether you expected to be or not, and you guys are the ones who will be held collectively responsible for the positive or negative results of your league. All I know is that if my name is attached to something, I want to be its harshest critic and demand perfection at every turn.
The good news is that by changing things up, Season 2 can be a lot better. You've already received some constructive criticism in this thread and others, don't just ignore it because you think people are being hateful. What's funny is i have 5 years production experience in broadcasting and even sent NASL my resume yet they ignored it and then put on that attrocity of a broadcast. It speaks to how much they want their product to succeed. They received an email (if not multiple ones) from experienced staff and chose what seemed like some stoner kids from the backlot of a Pizza Hut. Nepotism in action, baby! You think Anna and the blond girl got the interview job because they're great interviewers? Rachel is pretty well known in the community and CSN has provided so much great content from Korea, and Anna is the current Miss Oregon. There's no doubting their interview skills. See, this is stupid. The fact that you're still making posts like this tells me you've completely missed the point. Yes, they've done stuff before. Doing CSN content is meaningful experience. I really don't know how being Miss Oregon is particularly relevant, but Anna has done some interviews before and so forth. I didn't have a problem with them (though Lindsey or whatever was pretty special), but the definition of a good performance is one that the audience likes. If you have a lot of your audience saying they didn't like their interviews, then saying "there's no doubting their interview skills" is just factually wrong. You can make an informed judgement that with time most people will like the interviews, or that they do now and these people are a minority, but you can't just post saying that they're just factually wrong and how dare they question you. It frankly doesn't matter at all what you think of their interviews or what other experience they have that you think is relevant. What matters is what the audience thinks. The audience opinion can't actually be wrong, and these posters are just expressing their opinion as part of the audience. The only reason things like "they've done interviews" before matter is because it's a sign that the audience is likely to actually like them. Anna has over 2 years of experience interviewing Starcraft players (the first time I remember her was at WCG USA 2009 interviewing people). Rachel has done a LOT of interviewing through her time in Korea. I was responding to the fact that people think it's just nepotism, but it isn't. We brought them to the event to do interviews because they've done a lot of it before. I've read that a lot of people would rather have someone like Artosis or Day9 doing interviews rather than Anna/Rachel. This point is being taken into consideration for future events. Again, I was responding to people simply saying "they're only here because of nepotism," they were there because of their experience. GET ARTOSIS TO DO INTERVIEWS!!! simple solution to a simple problem. This guy actually understands the game... Or at least get him to write the questions. I was really frustrated after seeing an amazing game only to have someone who didn't grasp it ask questions about some irrelevant situation in game or "how they prepared for their match?". I don't really get that argument to be honest. DjWheat and JP interview people often, and neither of them are good at the game. Their game knowledge is probably only slightly better than someone like Anna or Rachel (who both have extensive experience being around people who know a lot about the game). Is it because, as women, they seem less likely to know about the game or be qualified to interview someone as opposed to JP, for example? Nobody ever complains about JP's lack of game knowledge when he interviews someone... so why do people suddenly complain with Anna and/or Rachel interviewing someone? Also -- if you read Korean interviews of GSL games, they ask really similar questions.. "how did you prepare," "why did you decide to do X in Game 2," etc. Can you please elaborate?
Nobody ever complains about JP or DjWheat? Is that a joke? LOL. I've read plenty of complaints about JP being boring, uncharismatic, uninsightful and asking silly questions. Lack of game knowledge and self confidence when it comes to said knowledge certainly is a factor there. I think the point however is that FREAKING ARTOSIS WAS THERE (!!!) and he could've done the job a million times better than anyone else in the world! In fact, most of the posts (after complaining about audio issues ofc) in the LR threads were asking 'where's Tastosis' and 'why fly them over if you're not going to use them' and it didn't always just refer to the casting.
|
I hate that the free stream quality is really low, it went from 480 to 360 half way thru the season and stayed 360. if it wasn't $25 maybe $10 I would have payed early on, and by the time the finals were here it wasn't worth $10 for 3 days and hard to find vods. ( imo)
I guess what i'm suggesting is make it a little cheaper for the high quality stream, give the freeloaders back a reasonable quality ( true 360p or 420-480p) not that washed out garble , Give access to replays, and make low Quality Vods free ( or one free Vod Per day like GSL) then half of those 80k ppl will be paying subscribers nest season.
|
Even if JP and WHEAT played at a bronze level, there is absolutely no basis to rip on them. They have (with the shows they created and host) made themselves the go-to points for the current affairs of the scene. As a result, they are both spectacularly well-informed and well-connected, the perfect template for a host or interviewer.
Until Anna or Rachel is involved at even a fraction of that depth, the comparison is silly. [Don't read this as a dig at them, Anna is a wonderful ambassador of both her pageant scene and sc and Rachel's connection with the Korean scene is invaluable.]
On July 14 2011 02:59 OCsurfeR wrote:
Certainly with sports related interviews if the questions involve detailed and specific questions about tactics, unit composition, or other detailed strategy or tactic analysis, then the interviewer should have a better-than-layman knowledge of the sport or topic. But if the questions are, "How do you feel about winning the match?" or "What did you do to prepare?" or questions like that, the charisma of the interviewer and their ability to put the interviewee at ease is much more important.
Why must the questions be that basic? Why can't we have an interesting, probing post-game interview? We get it: "the game was really close." "thanks to my fans, i will show good games for them in the future." Why must all questions of tactics, units, strategy, or anything be avoided?
On July 14 2011 02:59 OCsurfeR wrote:
Give folks like Seltzer, Anna Prosser and Lindsey time to develop their craft. It's a new sport, a new industry and these are new people learning it all.
Why is the hugely expensive Finals event anyone's first exposure to SC2? How can you give Lindsey absolutely no information about what she's doing after hiring her?
|
the one thing i am glad about is that you are taking great feedback and you hopefully learn from the NASL season one.
|
Philadelphia, PA10406 Posts
I can't really figure out a single thread of conversation here, so I'll just continue with the 'provide feedback' formula that Xeris suggested.
I guess my feeling for much of Season 1 was that NASL had some new and exciting concepts that you guys were really excited about and focused on, only to let the fundamentals lapse. The production suffered frequently, and the walkovers were unfortunate. The NASL seemed perpetually understaffed; there was always some small mistake that a larger group of people would've caught. Some of the decision making as well (player choices, league format) seems like it was made with an insular group and not fully vetted by a crowd. At the finals, all of the mistakes that NASL seems to have corrected over the course of the season came back again. Again, NASL seemed understaffed. Again there were some really questionable tournament format decisions.
If I could stress one thing, though Xeris, that would be communication. This was an issue from the first day to the last. When things went wrong, NASL either never acknowledged it, or did so only after a community reaction. When announcements were made, they were often made in only one or two settings. This absolutely has to change, and I think this had more of a corrosive effect on NASL's standing than anything else. It made NASL an easy punching bag because you guys were always too slow to set the record state, defend yourselves, or apologize. And it gave a strong impression that the NASL was shooting for 'good enough' instead of 'the best'. That's damming. Throughout the season, as little mistake after little mistake piled up, myself and others got the idea that the NASL was too concerned with the big picture to focus on the nuts and bolts, and too ignorant of the community to recognize that the source of the negative responses was disappointment, not unsubstantiated hate.
Take a lesson from MLG Dallas, where the most prominent critic of the event was... the CEO of MLG. Despite the troubles MLG Dallas had, Sundance let everybody know that he personally was embarrassed and was going to fix the problems. NASL never had the balls or the personnel to say that. That needs to change.
This season, NASL was rescued by three people. PuMa, MC, and Sen. If they didn't play the games they played (Oh, why not make those games free on your website so non-subscribers can be convinced to watch? Don't be petty.) then NASL would've sunk. NASL was derailed mid-season by a tournament with a vastly inferior competitor pool, vastly inferior prize pool, and had its results completely spoiled before it even began. Keep that in mind. You guys need to recognize how close NASL came to the brink. The same errors won't be tolerated for a second season. So please, talk to the community a little more. Hire more people. Be vocal, helpful, and humble. And don't take second best as good enough.
|
On July 14 2011 01:55 Xeris wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2011 07:44 groms wrote:On July 13 2011 03:45 Xeris wrote:On July 13 2011 03:37 aristarchus wrote:On July 13 2011 03:16 Xeris wrote:On July 13 2011 03:13 Bobster wrote:On July 13 2011 03:10 MrNomad wrote:On July 12 2011 15:42 Excalibur_Z wrote:
That, to me, was NASL Season 1. It was like you had a grandiose idea for an awesome league, but the transition between the brainstorming phase and actual planning and delegation hit like a brick wall. Get a paid, qualified staff with experience in the field of editing and post-production. Get experienced department leaders who can manage their teams effectively, report issues to you upfront and provide their suggestions for improvement. Run it like the business it should be -- and needs to be in order to succeed. Volunteers and hopeful dreamers are no substitute for proven, experienced, career-minded professionals. Listen to their feedback and take it to heart.
You can dismiss this post as "hate" all you like, and you can shirk the blame all you like. You, Gretorp, and Inc are the faces of NASL whether you expected to be or not, and you guys are the ones who will be held collectively responsible for the positive or negative results of your league. All I know is that if my name is attached to something, I want to be its harshest critic and demand perfection at every turn.
The good news is that by changing things up, Season 2 can be a lot better. You've already received some constructive criticism in this thread and others, don't just ignore it because you think people are being hateful. What's funny is i have 5 years production experience in broadcasting and even sent NASL my resume yet they ignored it and then put on that attrocity of a broadcast. It speaks to how much they want their product to succeed. They received an email (if not multiple ones) from experienced staff and chose what seemed like some stoner kids from the backlot of a Pizza Hut. Nepotism in action, baby! You think Anna and the blond girl got the interview job because they're great interviewers? Rachel is pretty well known in the community and CSN has provided so much great content from Korea, and Anna is the current Miss Oregon. There's no doubting their interview skills. See, this is stupid. The fact that you're still making posts like this tells me you've completely missed the point. Yes, they've done stuff before. Doing CSN content is meaningful experience. I really don't know how being Miss Oregon is particularly relevant, but Anna has done some interviews before and so forth. I didn't have a problem with them (though Lindsey or whatever was pretty special), but the definition of a good performance is one that the audience likes. If you have a lot of your audience saying they didn't like their interviews, then saying "there's no doubting their interview skills" is just factually wrong. You can make an informed judgement that with time most people will like the interviews, or that they do now and these people are a minority, but you can't just post saying that they're just factually wrong and how dare they question you. It frankly doesn't matter at all what you think of their interviews or what other experience they have that you think is relevant. What matters is what the audience thinks. The audience opinion can't actually be wrong, and these posters are just expressing their opinion as part of the audience. The only reason things like "they've done interviews" before matter is because it's a sign that the audience is likely to actually like them. Anna has over 2 years of experience interviewing Starcraft players (the first time I remember her was at WCG USA 2009 interviewing people). Rachel has done a LOT of interviewing through her time in Korea. I was responding to the fact that people think it's just nepotism, but it isn't. We brought them to the event to do interviews because they've done a lot of it before. I've read that a lot of people would rather have someone like Artosis or Day9 doing interviews rather than Anna/Rachel. This point is being taken into consideration for future events. Again, I was responding to people simply saying "they're only here because of nepotism," they were there because of their experience. GET ARTOSIS TO DO INTERVIEWS!!! simple solution to a simple problem. This guy actually understands the game... Or at least get him to write the questions. I was really frustrated after seeing an amazing game only to have someone who didn't grasp it ask questions about some irrelevant situation in game or "how they prepared for their match?". I don't really get that argument to be honest. DjWheat and JP interview people often, and neither of them are good at the game. Their game knowledge is probably only slightly better than someone like Anna or Rachel (who both have extensive experience being around people who know a lot about the game). Is it because, as women, they seem less likely to know about the game or be qualified to interview someone as opposed to JP, for example? Nobody ever complains about JP's lack of game knowledge when he interviews someone... so why do people suddenly complain with Anna and/or Rachel interviewing someone? Also -- if you read Korean interviews of GSL games, they ask really similar questions.. "how did you prepare," "why did you decide to do X in Game 2," etc. Can you please elaborate?
- I thought JP was a masters random player which is pretty damn good. Not sure what DJWheat is but based on ITG he seems competent enough. Plus they're both known to be long-time gamers in other communities. I guess the community perception is that Anna/Rachel are just beginners at the game as they've never really talked about playing it.
- Even given above, if JP/DJWheat were interviewing, you would still get some people telling you to get Artosis to interview, and rightfully so. He's got the best game knowledge and also proven to have good interview skills from his personal youtube videos and GSL. If you put up a poll for example I can't imagine Artosis not beating JP/DJW/Anna/Rachel by a wide margin.
- If you are going to develop certain interviewers knowing they are not the best then you will get flak for that. What's so hard to understand? If you still think it's worth it to go with Anna/Rachel to develop them, fine, but don't complain about the complaining.
- LOL at bringing the women aspect up
|
On July 14 2011 05:45 tree.hugger wrote:
And it gave a strong impression that the NASL was shooting for 'good enough' instead of 'the best'.
I got this impression too, enforced by this thread. The public word is always that of a qualitatively positive trend, rather than some quantitative or more universal state.
Seeing as how that last sentence confuses even me, I'll give an example. It's like they're saying they're getting better grades now than they did earlier, without telling us what they think their current grades are. Do they think the finals were an A or a D?
While it is certainly unusual for anyone to be so honest in public, Sundance set the bar really high when it comes to transparency in feedback and expectations and there's no chance it will be lowered again.
|
On July 14 2011 05:34 Wren wrote:Even if JP and WHEAT played at a bronze level, there is absolutely no basis to rip on them. They have (with the shows they created and host) made themselves the go-to points for the current affairs of the scene. As a result, they are both spectacularly well-informed and well-connected, the perfect template for a host or interviewer. Until Anna or Rachel is involved at even a fraction of that depth, the comparison is silly. [Don't read this as a dig at them, Anna is a wonderful ambassador of both her pageant scene and sc and Rachel's connection with the Korean scene is invaluable.] Show nested quote +On July 14 2011 02:59 OCsurfeR wrote:
Certainly with sports related interviews if the questions involve detailed and specific questions about tactics, unit composition, or other detailed strategy or tactic analysis, then the interviewer should have a better-than-layman knowledge of the sport or topic. But if the questions are, "How do you feel about winning the match?" or "What did you do to prepare?" or questions like that, the charisma of the interviewer and their ability to put the interviewee at ease is much more important. Why must the questions be that basic? Why can't we have an interesting, probing post-game interview? We get it: "the game was really close." "thanks to my fans, i will show good games for them in the future." Why must all questions of tactics, units, strategy, or anything be avoided? Show nested quote +On July 14 2011 02:59 OCsurfeR wrote:
Give folks like Seltzer, Anna Prosser and Lindsey time to develop their craft. It's a new sport, a new industry and these are new people learning it all. Why is the hugely expensive Finals event anyone's first exposure to SC2? How can you give Lindsey absolutely no information about what she's doing after hiring her?
Your assumptions are incorrect. We didn't launch Lindsey with "no information" as you suggest, but she was hired a relatively short time prior to the Finals. Perhaps the Finals weren't the best place to debut her. It's a learning experience.
|
On July 14 2011 06:07 OCsurfeR wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2011 05:34 Wren wrote:Even if JP and WHEAT played at a bronze level, there is absolutely no basis to rip on them. They have (with the shows they created and host) made themselves the go-to points for the current affairs of the scene. As a result, they are both spectacularly well-informed and well-connected, the perfect template for a host or interviewer. Until Anna or Rachel is involved at even a fraction of that depth, the comparison is silly. [Don't read this as a dig at them, Anna is a wonderful ambassador of both her pageant scene and sc and Rachel's connection with the Korean scene is invaluable.] On July 14 2011 02:59 OCsurfeR wrote:
Certainly with sports related interviews if the questions involve detailed and specific questions about tactics, unit composition, or other detailed strategy or tactic analysis, then the interviewer should have a better-than-layman knowledge of the sport or topic. But if the questions are, "How do you feel about winning the match?" or "What did you do to prepare?" or questions like that, the charisma of the interviewer and their ability to put the interviewee at ease is much more important. Why must the questions be that basic? Why can't we have an interesting, probing post-game interview? We get it: "the game was really close." "thanks to my fans, i will show good games for them in the future." Why must all questions of tactics, units, strategy, or anything be avoided? On July 14 2011 02:59 OCsurfeR wrote:
Give folks like Seltzer, Anna Prosser and Lindsey time to develop their craft. It's a new sport, a new industry and these are new people learning it all. Why is the hugely expensive Finals event anyone's first exposure to SC2? How can you give Lindsey absolutely no information about what she's doing after hiring her? Your assumptions are incorrect. We didn't launch Lindsey with "no information" as you suggest, but she was hired a relatively short time prior to the Finals. Perhaps the Finals weren't the best place to debut her. It's a learning experience.
It's not an assumption, it's what Lindsey posted herself:
Just got home from my first ever StarCraft experience. I know nothing about the game yet (obviously), but I'm having fun learning. My agent told me they'd train me before I started interviewing, but ...well, I suppose jumping right into on-camera interviewing is one way to learn Sorry for all the mistakes, but thanks for watching.
Source: http://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=190417611012288&id=120453541342029
|
On July 14 2011 06:07 OCsurfeR wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2011 05:34 Wren wrote:Even if JP and WHEAT played at a bronze level, there is absolutely no basis to rip on them. They have (with the shows they created and host) made themselves the go-to points for the current affairs of the scene. As a result, they are both spectacularly well-informed and well-connected, the perfect template for a host or interviewer. Until Anna or Rachel is involved at even a fraction of that depth, the comparison is silly. [Don't read this as a dig at them, Anna is a wonderful ambassador of both her pageant scene and sc and Rachel's connection with the Korean scene is invaluable.] On July 14 2011 02:59 OCsurfeR wrote:
Certainly with sports related interviews if the questions involve detailed and specific questions about tactics, unit composition, or other detailed strategy or tactic analysis, then the interviewer should have a better-than-layman knowledge of the sport or topic. But if the questions are, "How do you feel about winning the match?" or "What did you do to prepare?" or questions like that, the charisma of the interviewer and their ability to put the interviewee at ease is much more important. Why must the questions be that basic? Why can't we have an interesting, probing post-game interview? We get it: "the game was really close." "thanks to my fans, i will show good games for them in the future." Why must all questions of tactics, units, strategy, or anything be avoided? On July 14 2011 02:59 OCsurfeR wrote:
Give folks like Seltzer, Anna Prosser and Lindsey time to develop their craft. It's a new sport, a new industry and these are new people learning it all. Why is the hugely expensive Finals event anyone's first exposure to SC2? How can you give Lindsey absolutely no information about what she's doing after hiring her? Your assumptions are incorrect. We didn't launch Lindsey with "no information" as you suggest, but she was hired a relatively short time prior to the Finals. Perhaps the Finals weren't the best place to debut her. It's a learning experience.
Didn't she say in an interview the first game of Starcraft she had ever seen was at the finals? That's about as close to "no information" as you can get...
|
On July 14 2011 05:23 vrok wrote:
Nobody ever complains about JP or DjWheat? Is that a joke? LOL. I've read plenty of complaints about JP being boring, uncharismatic, uninsightful and asking silly questions. Lack of game knowledge and self confidence when it comes to said knowledge certainly is a factor there. I think the point however is that FREAKING ARTOSIS WAS THERE (!!!) and he could've done the job a million times better than anyone else in the world! In fact, most of the posts (after complaining about audio issues ofc) in the LR threads were asking 'where's Tastosis' and 'why fly them over if you're not going to use them' and it didn't always just refer to the casting.
I'm going to address this and put this to bed right now, and after this, I'm not responding to more questions about it.
Tasteless and Artosis didn't cast the Championship match because they are not NASL's casting team. Gretorp and InControL were our casting duo for Season One, and thus they were our casting duo for the Finals. That was always the decision, and we stand firmly behind it. You may like Tastosis better, you may not, but regardless, we remained loyal to our casting duo for the Championship match.
We were very VERY pleased to have Tastosis and Day9 with us for the Finals, and together with Gretorp and iNcontroL made for a very exciting Finals weekend and allowed us to rotate through several casting combinations thoughout the weekend. The casters themselves even complimented NASL organizers several times about how we set up the casting schedule so that they could have breaks, as well as give fans exposure to different casting combinations.
While the community's opinions regarding who NASL's casters are and were for the Finals is absolutely relevant, we firmly stand behind our team, and believe Gretorp and iNcontroL did an OUTSTANDING job for the Championship match between Puma and MC.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
