Criticism on the state of SC2 coverage - Page 4

First of all, let me preface that this isn't a bash of the persons involved in the examples. It's something prevalent in SC2 content and I could have easily chosen many others that fall into the same kind of trap. I am grateful that we have all the content producers in the scene. But I feel some things need to improve to move content quality forward.

In order to get hyped up for the WCS Season 1 Finals, I thought "hey, Blizzard has a team in San Francisco now, might check out what they are doing". After having somewhat problems even finding that channel, this is what I found.

It's the transcript of the first part of the show and is characteristic for the rest of it and also the sequel of the video. Look at the following problems:

Problem 1: Telling me about stats and results instead of telling me about the games
Problem 2: Buzzwords, meaningless compliments and cliches about players
Problem 3: Confuse giving information with creating hype, resulting in having none of both

Problem 1

It could have been easily written by someone that didn't watch the games at all. Check the live report thread for a minute, then think of something, write it down and then present it. I am not saying that this is the case, I am saying that it appears like this outputwise. If I cared about the result, I wouldn't be watching the video, I would have looked the results up on Liquipedia, the live report thread, on Reddit, on the WCS page, on my local esports website, ... What I want to know when I watch a video about it is a summary of what happened in the games.

And talking about race winrates of a player still doesn't mean you are talking about the game. Stats are nice accompanying information to games, but not more. You are still talking about stats. You know who is the best about giving meaningful information purely with statistical information without knowing one bit about the game? Monsieur Aligulac.

It is not only boring for the viewers, it is also damaging for the players. To a lot of people, "faceless Koreans" are just some numbers, their race winrates, because nobody bothers to talk about their play. The SC2 talk is superficial most of the time compared to the talk in other games while it is (in my opinion) a more complex game. Unfortunately, so complex that many just opt to drop the intracacies of strategies completely. Don't forget that the best way to have people watch the next tournament, the tournament after that etc. is to have them hooked on the game and players, not numbers.

Problem 2

What have we learned about JangBi? He is good, he plays well - nay, his place is fantastic. The set he plays in is impressive and he is the reason why I overcame my dislike for PvPs. His matches were incredible!

Yes, it does happen in normal sports coverage that the commentator says: "Robben plays well today...". But he doesn't say it again and again with the same breath. And more importantly: He says why he thinks he plays well today. "...he is very visible, running up and down the pitch. He helps in the defense which isn't very typical of him"-

Saying it like in the video makes you really wonder if JangBi played well after all. Did he play that well or are you just hyping the game because Blizzard pays you for it? A sports commentator doing the same in normal sports would make a parody out of his job.

I think the origin of Problem 2 is that casters, commentators and presenters are very afraid to say something substantial with the risk of being bashed because of it. Instead they fallback to meaningless compliments. I show how well I know the players by complimenting those that are hyped up right now. And conversely, we dislike PvP normally because this is the mainstream consensus.

Then, there are buzzwords. The video says YugiOh is showing solid play. Somewhere else in the video you will find that Soulkey plays aggressively. Buzzwords always somehow hit the mark. They sound like the speaker knows his stuff. But on closer inspection, they leave you unsatisfied. Someone that knows SC2 will want to know: What exactly did YugiOh do to classify him as solid in the series? And it will take some time to realize that aggressive is the codeword for roach baneling all-ins. Someone that doesn't know SC2 too well will think "What does solid play mean? And why is that good? It sounds boring and uneventful" whereas aggressive signalizes high-paced and action packed play. Again, explain what is happening instead of hiding behind words.

In the same category fall cliches about players. Best example, how often have you heard TLO being labeled as creative or Ret being labeled as greedy? Sometimes casters hold on so much to their preconceived opinions that they completely ignore what is happening on the map. For example in the WCS EU Challenger match between KrasS and Harstem, Harstem was seen as the overwhelming favorite against KrasS despite losing to KrasS only very recently on two separate occasions. Later the caster admitted he didn't know much about the EU scene at all and just assumed Harstem was the favorite because he just won a tournament and was on top of Reddit.

Problem 3
Watch this video:



Which video hypes you up more? Which one should you show a friend to convince him to watch the event? The video produced by the former IPL staff or this fanmade video. For me, it is the low-end fanmade and somewhat cheesy trailer and the conservative formula: Players' faces, ingame clips and dramatic music. "But you said you wanted more information about game" - Yes, I want both. But more importantly, mixing these things up isn't fun. Either the information is hyping things up by itself - or it doesn't. The weather forecast isn't going to get more interesting by speaking it with a dramatic voice.

In fact, most sports coverage you get on TV is hype. You rarely find the tactics table taken out. There needs to be separate hype videos for WCS. Hype leads to more live viewers, more than "high level of play" (how do you even know you get high level of play until the games are over?).

Yes, talking about the games alone creates hype - but don't expect it to do it as well as a hype video. And don't mix these things up. Who exactly is attracted by results spoken out in a dramatic voice? Tell me why I should watch the next games, not why I should have watched the past ones! If you make a recap, give me a summary of the games rather than trying to sell them to me.

Solving the problems

An example how good a informational show around the games can be, I would like to give NASL's The Pulse as an example. They talk about the games themselves, the players and the teams, not only report stats and results. The recaps (often) summarize the games well and yet are still brief. And the recaps are actually only a small part of the content! After the show, you feel you got more value than skimming over Liquipedia.

How to get more expertise into esports talk? In sports in TV, there are pundits. We have such a diverse and big pool of players that this shouldn't be a problem. Why do casters and commentators make predictions who make it out of the group. Ask players who they think will advance and put it on screen. What do they think about the games, who do they cheer for etc, etc.

Hype videos: It should be a priority for tournament organizers to make them. I regularly find hype videos for Dreamhack on Reddit. There is even a hype video for the Homestory Cup (one guy in an apartment and capable helpers) on top of Reddit on the weekend of the WCS Season 1 Finals (Blizzard)! And yes, Blizzard, you are a tournament organizer now as well!

Of course, one could always say, it doesn't fit the show's format. And I wouldn't blame for example LiveOnThree for how they do things. But those that focus on SC2, why should your show exist in the first place if you get more information in five minutes on Liquipedia?