|
On July 21 2014 21:50 jdsowa wrote: What makes nearly all casters unlistenable is that they cannot resist lapsing into the mode where they literally and unimaginatively call out every step of the action on the screen:
"He's moving in with his stalkers, tries to snipe a building, oh it downs to 5 health, oh but that's a lot of roaches..and he's gotta blink outta there..meanwhile a drop happening in the back.."
That's appropriate for a radio broadcast, but we can all see the same action on the screen as you. It's like these casters are challenging themselves to cram as many words in as possible just fo the sake of it.
Much better to focus more on the high level, strategic aspect:
1. he likes to be aggressive with this build 2. he knows he can pressure here because of his tech advantage 3. his opponent is known to do [this] 4. he's just looking to distract here 5. we saw him put similar pressure before on [map]/[opponent] etc. Why have commentary at all if you can get all the information visually? (1-5 from watching the player[s] previously or having game knowledge.)
Have you watched a TV broadcast of any other "event"? It's almost always one person doing play-by-play (describing what's happening) and someone else filling in the blanks with as much insight as possible. Now, I'm not saying that because this is the way it's been done it should necessarily continue... However, I hope this continues because I enjoy it. On the rare occasion I really don't like something about the broadcast I just mute.
Further, I like "radio style" broadcasts because it means I can do something else and then focus when things start to get interesting.
Last (and this is a bit off the main topic), solo-casting (especially while doing the observing) makes it very challenging to concentrate on something other than the action. Thus, most solo-casts will be much more play-by-play than analytic (especially when you can't easily bounce ideas off anyone else).
|
1. Korean casters constantly shouting and being hype as fuck "PLAGUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU!!!!!!11!!11" 2. Oldschool Khaldor in his mother tongue screaming as much as the the koreans 3. That italian caster who was so emotional that he started crying during a Grubby vs. Stareagle game
While I really like to play SC2 myself, I think it isn't the best specator sport. It can become a bit boring at times as an observer. I like it when casters try to counter that with their casting like the koreans.
I often ask myself the "ousider" question: Would somebody who was no idea of starcraft be entertained by the the current cast? While Apollo, Artosis and co. are excellent casters and rightfully on top of many lists, I think they would fail said test most of the time. I can see someone getting into the game and being entertained by exessivly passionate casting 'though. Korean casters being korean casters were probably a big reason for the popularity of Broodwar TV-broadcasts in korea reaching a big audiences, many of whom having never played starcraft themselfes.
tl:dr I WANT MORE HYPING AND SCREAMING for the sake of entertainment and the growth of eports.
|
On July 21 2014 10:46 TotalBiscuit wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2014 09:39 pure.Wasted wrote:On July 21 2014 04:39 TotalBiscuit wrote:On July 21 2014 04:06 HN_KrO wrote:On July 21 2014 03:33 TotalBiscuit wrote: Number of these threads posted over the last 5 years - 627
Number of these threads that resulted in a constructive discussion - 0 I do like how the two least constructive posts in this thread have both come from casters. We aren't allowed to be constructive in these threads because it will result in people flaming casters for daring to disgree with community members on the subject of casting. Somehow I didn't take you for the kind of guy who worries that some assholes might flame him if he says the wrong thing... I remember you were very open to feedback, honest, and constructive in RootCatz's power rank thread, so if you really feel that your opinion here couldn't elevate the level of discussion, that's a shame. I think you and Artosis made a fantastic team at SanDisk. I really appreciated how prepared you were with background information for the matches. More play-by-play casters need to follow suit, because too often legitimate SC2 analysts (Artosis, some others depending on MU) end up doing all the work during a cast. I wonder if the current go-to method of cycling through 5 different casting duos at each tournament isn't responsible for all casters saying to themselves "I'm not just a play-by-play, I dabble in everything!" When in reality many don't have the skillset to do "everything" on a professional level, and end up just slacking in play-by-play as a result. What annoys me most about the threads is that you rarely see any actual examples of things casters are doing wrong, rather just vague assertions about "knowledge levels" "bias" and so forth. What I would like to see from threads like this is "Well I think this about Caster X. To support my opinion, here are some examples of recent casts where the faults I've pointed out have occurred". You'll get much better responses that way. I get criticized for my knowledge level but the last time I actually recall someone pointing out something I said that was wrong was like 2 years ago. It does make the experience of taking feedback and improving based on it very frustrating, because it's hard to distinguish between trolls and those with legitimate criticisms. Then of course you have the ever eternal debate of "how to cast", which rages between people that want pure analysis and despise any sort of hype, justified or otherwise and those who prefer the more traditional play-by-play/analyst dichotomy. That'll never end and good luck convincing anyone otherwise. That might very well have got worse lately since the Destiny fake hype thing, which a few too many idiots took literally and thought applied to hyping any fight ever.
Reality probably is a large majority of people wouldn't understand how a cast works let alone be able to properly criticize it. Also by work I mean, exactly how the cast is setup for instance.
Is the caster also the camera man and production? In the case of most online casts with a solo caster not casting for a major company and even in the cases of some major companies that could be the case. I actually could note several times when I was doing some games for MLG someone commented about how good the camera was but that I missed saying something about some odd thing. Little did they probably realize I wasn't just commentating I was also the camera man and doing the production at the same time.
Has the company they are working for asked them to do play by play or analysis, what's being said from production in their ear during the cast. Can a caster actually still cast while hearing themselves and production on a delay in their head. Most people wouldn't even realize during some casts all that type of stuff is even going on.
But all of that stuff aside, yes most criticism isn't very useful, it's just well this guy seems ok at play by play or that guy seems good at analysis. Or it gets worse and becomes that guys voice is nice and that guys isn't.
A power ranking thread is highly unlikely to be useful, but I guess people can have their fun trying to do so.
Side note: to the guy talking about pay that is really not a good gauge of anything. Most casters pay is directly tied to the eyeballs they command which may have everything or nothing to do with how good they are as a commentator.
|
Is the caster also the camera man and production?
For the benefit of those that don't know, for all online casts yes. You can't use dedicated obs for an online event because it lags and the scrolling isn't very smooth. Offline events pull the feed directly from the observing machine which gets around that problem. Observing is difficult to do well and very distracting when you're also trying to cast. I do all the observing for my events simply because there is no other way around it without having someone else physically in my office on a second machine doing the observing for me.
|
0) Rottibot 1) Rotterdam 2) Artosis 3) ToD 4) TB 5) Vasacast 6) Tasteless 7) Apollo 8) Kaelaris 9) Nathanias 10) Wolf 11) Brendan In a galaxy far far away) Incontrol
|
On July 22 2014 01:59 Skynx wrote: 0) Rottibot 1) Rotterdam 2) Artosis 3) ToD 4) TB 5) Vasacast 6) Tasteless 7) Apollo 8) Kaelaris 9) Nathanias 10) Wolf 11) Brendan In a galaxy far far away) Incontrol you go like protoss.
|
1. artosis = he routinely calls out what the players are doing by seeing just the smallest details. Absurd knowledge of all the matchups and can recall specific builds even if they've happened years ago. He's the Bill Bellichick of StarCraft. He also pairs with any co-caster seamlessly
2. rotti = simply put.. pure entertainment. this is entirely an opinion based ranking.. so IMO he's enjoyable to listen to cast. I don't get annoyed by him ever and he doesn't take away from the games
3. ToD = notably the best* actual player of the full time casting group. Having that distinction gives weight to his opinions. He also genuinely sounds shocked when things happen that he didn't expect. Humility is a good trait when casting.
4. wolf = gets the most flak.. but since his days in Code A with Khaldor.. he's made big strides. He injects his own opinions maybe a bit more than I'd like... but I'd still prefer him over any other casters except the above 3
5. nathanias/Apollo/khalaris/tasteless/khaldor/etc... = Sometimes tasteless points out things that only true beginners wouldn't know... which is ok.. but at this point I don't think there's too many beginners tuning into the GSL Code S. The others in the group just seem so....bland. Don't get me wrong.. they do the job.. but if the game they're casting is a dud.. it's unlikely I will continue to watch.. whereas the other casters I mentioned I may actually continue to watch. ______________________
Since this is obviously based on my opinion I do want to point out there's only a select few I simply refuse to listen to. Either for something they've done in the past or the attitude they have which is a complete deterrent.
I don't watch many televised sports.. primarily American football... but from my perspective casters shouldn't be polarizing in anyway.
If you want a true way to rank the casters/casting duo's... Then a couple judges have to be chosen... they will come to an agreement on the attributes which make a caster good vs. not good.. and only they will know what the attributes have been chosen. then pick a high level replay of a small series.. maybe a group stage that none of them have seen. - it should be a series because knowing players habits and seeing small differences in builds to trick opponents is important to game knowledge. have them all blindly cast it.. obviously none of them seeing each others casts until completed. then have the judges make notes against the criteria they have chosen
you can never have public voting because bias is too strong.
catsers will never do it because they frankly don't give a rats.. and they also have too much pride to come out on the bottom.
|
|
how is anyone even trying to compete against LeMongo, ElGehlo and R3Z?
|
Quality of a caster is very subjective but i'm quite happy that Adebisi is not the observer of every events.
|
On July 21 2014 04:39 TotalBiscuit wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2014 04:06 HN_KrO wrote:On July 21 2014 03:33 TotalBiscuit wrote: Number of these threads posted over the last 5 years - 627
Number of these threads that resulted in a constructive discussion - 0 I do like how the two least constructive posts in this thread have both come from casters. We aren't allowed to be constructive in these threads because it will result in people flaming casters for daring to disgree with community members on the subject of casting.
I don't see you cast enough but Shoutcraft with Artosis remains one of my all time favorite tournaments which your casting certainly had a part in. Well done.
|
On July 21 2014 23:57 shin ken wrote: 1. Korean casters constantly shouting and being hype as fuck "PLAGUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU!!!!!!11!!11" 2. Oldschool Khaldor in his mother tongue screaming as much as the the koreans 3. That italian caster who was so emotional that he started crying during a Grubby vs. Stareagle game
While I really like to play SC2 myself, I think it isn't the best specator sport. It can become a bit boring at times as an observer. I like it when casters try to counter that with their casting like the koreans.
I often ask myself the "ousider" question: Would somebody who was no idea of starcraft be entertained by the the current cast? While Apollo, Artosis and co. are excellent casters and rightfully on top of many lists, I think they would fail said test most of the time. I can see someone getting into the game and being entertained by exessivly passionate casting 'though. Korean casters being korean casters were probably a big reason for the popularity of Broodwar TV-broadcasts in korea reaching a big audiences, many of whom having never played starcraft themselfes.
tl:dr I WANT MORE HYPING AND SCREAMING for the sake of entertainment and the growth of eports.
My girlfriend makes fun of sc2 casters (or I should say my viewing of said casters) constantly just from hearing games I watch in the mornings before work. She recognizes Day9, Tastosis and Apollo only from their intense "Ahhhhs and oh my gods" without ever having seen a game.
|
There can only be one......tastosis........Prolly just biased because of broodwar though :-p
|
Northern Ireland24315 Posts
To be honest I find most of the notable casters pretty tolerable, there aren't any that particularly spoil my enjoyment of any games and many who enhance it. Feel Wolf gets far too much flak for one, although I did prefer him with Khaldor.
|
Sadly only german people will understand.
Best casting duo: NarutO and TaKe. I dont even care about anyone else anymore. Everyone seems kind of bland compared to these two.
|
|
JunYoung Joon, TheMarine, GoRush, Canata, nO.1
Oh and Yooi at times.
|
|
On July 20 2014 06:47 Kaizen[7] wrote: Pretty much sums up my sentiments. I'm starting to doubt the existence of objective, unbiased criteria that can be utilized to rank a caster. For instance, anyone who is going to cast absolutely must have "game knowledge" but how on earth can this be measured objectively? I mean, there is pretty much only one attribute that comes to mind and it isn't really a requisite for being a caster: game skill. Sure being good at the game helps and lends credence to your casting but it isn't the end all be all and in fact, some people are bound to be better at playing the game than discussing it with passion
Still, perhaps some kind of interaction between fans and casters that results in an improved experience can be gleaned from this thread. In fact, I'm going to make it my personal mission for the time being. Heres what I'm thinking:
Instead of the usual ranking casters numerically and listing generic reasons for why you like a caster we could give the whole thing some specificity and direction by presenting a series of agreed upon attributes that you rank a caster on from 1 to 10 (or maybe 1 to 5). Those numbers could be compiled and rankings generated periodically from those numbers. It won't be a true "ranking" system in that sense that its objective and unbiased but we can simply acknowledge right off the bat that objective and unbiased ranking for casters just isn't possible and that said ranks simply reflect the ever-changing opinions of the fans.
Additionally, I also think that it might be interesting to include ones personal 1v1 rank in the game. That way, we can see in a general sense how ones own skill level in the game impacts their perception of quality casting. For example, Tasteless or TotalBiscuit are likely to be the favorites for the more casual players and people new to the game whereas people who play at a higher level (Masters) might perceive another caster to be number one in their opinion.
This isn't a good or bad thing and in fact, I believe both Tasteless and TotalBiscuit have explicitly stated that they strive to deliver a professional experience that is easy to digest for those with less experience with the game. Having people include their own 1v1 rank is just another way to add some dimension to the numbers and help casters take a look at their performances and see where they might improve their games the most.
In the end, its all about creating tangible interaction between casters and fans that results in a better experience for everyone involved with the game. Casters should not take the numbers too seriously and remember they simply reflect fan consensus at any given time. Its nothing personal and in fact will be implemented with the intention of helping them gauge their skills and improve them.
Another thing I think we should do is have casters rank other casters using the system. It should be quite interesting to compare the differences in numbers. Heck, casters can even rank themselves and then compare those numbers to the ones being generated by the fans.
So then, what should we rank when looking at casters? The following things come to mind
1) Voice: I think of Tasteless and TotalBiscuit when I think about the best voices in the game right now. I'm pretty sure both of these guys have actually trained to speak "from the belly" or with proper utilization of the diaphragm. An obvious quality to rank for casters
2) Game Knowledge: Another obvious one for obvious reasons. Sure a caster might have proficient knowledge of the game in a general sense, but are they up to date on the current meta and popular builds? Might be worthwhile to have a separate category for "meta knowledge" and "game knowledge" but obviously we want to avoid having too many categories.
3) Humor Not a requisite skill but certainly those who can deliver with impromptu humor are well liked. Again, Tasteless scores pretty well here or at least has in the past
4) Passion Almost a joking reference to how people used to complain about Tasteless "losing his passion" but honestly this is a very dynamic and important quality for a caster to have. When I think passion I think about the Korean casters from Gom. When a caster has TEH PASSIONZ they have an obvious love for the game. Hard to maintain over a 4 hour period but when it is maintained its glorious to behold.
5) Play-By-Play Difficult to execute without stepping all over a partners toes but awesome when executed well and critical to high quality casting that sounds professional.
6) Co-cast Ability Does the caster do well with others? No stepping on toes, cutting off their partner, etc? In contemplating this category I began to wonder about ranking individuals vs ranking established duos. I suppose with the relevant casters they can be ranked both ways. Still, now I'm starting to wonder if anyone will care enough to rank according to these categories in the first place, let alone do it twice!
7) Professionalism Basically a balance between the various categories with the inclusion of some other aspects like quality of dress, fan interaction at events (Day 9 and Tasteless score off the chart in this aspect, seriously they are GREAT to their fans and extremely professional). Also just a general gauge of how they handle themselves on camera, while conducting interviews etc
8) Clairvoyance Ability to accurately predict game outcomes. Difficult to rank in my opinion and is kind of cutesy. I actually think this aspect of ones casting might be better encapsulated in a different category
9) Analysis Pretty self explanatory here. The accuracy of ones analysis in addition to their ability to convey said analysis
10) Overall Self explanatory. Might include this might not as overall score will be determined by numbers associated with the various categories
So basically it would work something like this. A dedicated thread will be created (or perhaps this one suitably reworked) with guidelines for ranking casters included in addition to some basic presentation criteria. I'm thinking about asking for all rankings to be based off a certain minimum number of casts. Essentially, ranking a caster or duo after you've watched them one time is silly and doesn't help. Ranks for established teams and the individuals that comprise them might also be included as separate entries.
Then, in addition to the guidelines and minimum requirements on the first post, the current overall scores for the casters will be listed. Obviously, its possible that a caster only be ranked once or twice and as a result have numbers that are higher than they would be had they received a higher number of votes. Considering this, a certain minimum number of votes will be required to be included in the rankings. By that I mean the list that results from compiling the vote numbers. Profiles for each caster might also be included as hidden tabs that one can reveal as they so desire to check out the latest numbers for a caster.
In the end the power of these ranks will be derived from the effort the community manages to muster in generating the individual "votes" for a particular caster or duo. Basically each post will count as a vote for a certain caster with the individual scores for each category including ones personal best 1v1 ranking and whether or not you consider yourself a caster. When and if the votes reach a sufficient number we can take a look at the numbers and see if lower level players rank casters differently than higher ones, how casters rank each other, etc.
So then...thoughts and feedback on the presentation of the numbers, the categories to include, whether the scores for each category should be 1-10 or 1-5, and anything else relevant would be greatly appreciated. In the end the goal is to foster interaction between fans and content producers in a way that ultimately improves the Starcraft experience for everyone. Also, to create a thread where casters can be analyzed and analyze others with some specificity in a friendly environment while also providing and/or receiving constructive criticism
Oh wow, you spared me from writing the exact same thing! Thank you for that! So yes, breaking down casters performance to various categories is possible, unlike actually objectively ranking people within most of these categories or deciding which categories are more important. Also, you have to decide the perspective of the measurement - is it a newbie player, someone who hasn't played sc, an experienced player, the employer - tournament organizer or sponsor(s), or a mixture of any of these (or provide various score totals for the various parties - a non-player might be more interested in the hype, voice and play-by-play, while the players might need higher analytical abilities and the employers would put a higher emphasis on professionalism).
Regardless, this could be an interesting experiment, so i will tag along.
A couple of notes regarding the categories:
4) Passion Almost a joking reference to how people used to complain about Tasteless "losing his passion" but honestly this is a very dynamic and important quality for a caster to have. When I think passion I think about the Korean casters from Gom. When a caster has TEH PASSIONZ they have an obvious love for the game. Hard to maintain over a 4 hour period but when it is maintained its glorious to behold.
I think this should be broken down to 3 categories: Hype The ability to punctuate and stress the various key events in the game. Stamina Self explanatory - the ability to cast for prolonged amounts of time while maintaining the same level of quality (can be measured by looking at their longest cast without referencing how tired they are lol) Energy How expressive they are while hyping, play-by-play-ing or introducing the players
Overall Self explanatory. Might include this might not as overall score will be determined by numbers associated with the various categories I don't really think this is necessary, as as i wrote before, various perspectives would change the importance of different categories, a global total would not only be nearly impossible to calculate, but also useless as a metric.
7) Professionalism Basically a balance between the various categories with the inclusion of some other aspects like quality of dress, fan interaction at events (Day 9 and Tasteless score off the chart in this aspect, seriously they are GREAT to their fans and extremely professional). Also just a general gauge of how they handle themselves on camera, while conducting interviews etc Mixed categories are bad, it should also be broken down into something more quantifiable: Visual presentation - Personal grooming, how appropriately they're dressed for a particular event, etc Filler-ability - How well do the casters do and engage the viewers and hosts between the matches/during downtime. Approachability - How active he is at engaging the fans and visitors while not casting (particularly during live events). Market-ability - How good is the caster at representing the event and it's sponsors
Yes, i know it's a lot, but it's more precise and can help to derive more appropriate scores.
Also, i would like to see: Pronunciation - An absolutely vital parameter for any caster in any sport or event. Non-native-English-speaking casters would take a hit here when casting in English (but you also have to take non-english casters into the account, since they can be measured by these criteria as well). I, for example, have a hard time listening to Rotterdam or Khaldor, since i often have to think back on what they said or meant to say, as i do have trouble picking up heavy accents in english (despite being a non-native-english speaker myself), which clearly impacts the viewing experience.
Player knowledge - How much pre-game research does the caster do into the players and how well does he know his history, strategy and personality.
From the technical standpoint, this can be implemented into a google spreadsheet with a live form with comment fields and scoring menus, after the criteria and methodology has been established. Just to see how it turns out.
Just my 2 eurocents
|
On July 21 2014 04:39 TotalBiscuit wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2014 04:06 HN_KrO wrote:On July 21 2014 03:33 TotalBiscuit wrote: Number of these threads posted over the last 5 years - 627
Number of these threads that resulted in a constructive discussion - 0 I do like how the two least constructive posts in this thread have both come from casters. We aren't allowed to be constructive in these threads because it will result in people flaming casters for daring to disgree with community members on the subject of casting.
This is a good rule for casters. Casters should lurk if they choose and comment if they have something they wish to say. But this shouldn't be a forum for casters to engage with trolls.
|
|
|
|