|
To start this off, this was well written and it should be dicussed. Regioin Lock is a complicate aspect and there should be a healthy dicussion like. But I dislike how it was structured and what points you bring up to talke about the issue. And these are the reasons why:
My Issues with the Archetype section:
- Because you begin with this, you are litterally trying to establish this "THEM or US' mentality. You are presenting it as if these two group have no overlap or that these two groups are in direct conflict with each other. The problem with this is that, almost everything you list that defines the two groups are not opposites of each other. Having more of one of them does not prevent having more of the other. That is a big issue with how you present them, which helps dilute the issue.
- I hate how you label the first group as 'The fun-oriented spectator'. Based on how you defined them, I think the better term that would paint the group better would be something like: 'The emotion-oriented spectator'. It's about the show making you feel welcome, the stories created about rivials clashing again, or a champion trying to keep his title, or feeling pumped up and excited to see the next match. This is about emotionally driven show, and calling it 'fun' undercuts it by a lot. And when you label this group as more 'emotion-oriented', it should be more apperent why people shouldn't see these two opposing each other. Emotions and competition are not fighting against each other. They are two different factors that work together to make 1 great thing.
- Using the words 'causual' and 'hardcore'. Why did you even bring them up? I have so many issues with these additional labels since they bring so much more connatation just with those words alone. Additionally, ff your a person who is invested to the personal rarivary, or those who bother to read interviews, and follow stories of SC2, you have long past the threshold that most people would even call causal. You're more closer to what people would call a 'hardcore' fan.
- The entire Archetype section dosen't help contribute into helping exampling the conflict. Meaning, it wasn't helpful and brings a fake demmila that isn't needed. I honestly think it would have been better off if you left out the entire archetype section because what you describle within the Conflict section is far more helpful to paint an accurate picture of what you think is the issue.
My issue with the WCS section
- To attempt to simplifiy Region lock to a debate about 'fun' or 'competition' is misguided, in my humble opinoin. If you're looking at this as 'simply cater to one group', that is so narrow minded. Region lock is not happenign because of those natures, or not specially because of that. And the focus shouldn't be about that, but rather, the short term cost vs the possible long term gains. If anything, I think the questions about region lock should be somewhere around this:
1) Do I (the spectator) believe this will foster better regional players and draw in more viewers for each tournment?
2) Do I believe this is better for the short and/or long term of SC2?
3) Do I believe that this short term cost (Koeran scene + etc) is worth it for Starcraft's longevity?
4) Do I think there is a better way to achive these goals?
5) Do I think I'm willing and other people are willing to only see the best regional players for possible benefits in the long run or rather I just watch the best players in the world with a different long term plan?
...Okay, I think I'm done ranting. Personal thoughts about the casters and what people what.
I would hope that the casters' job are to be informative in why we (the viewers) should be in invested the match. Maybe it's through being excited in themselves because excitement is contagious (when something that is worth that excitment happens). Maybe showing that inner fan themselves, speculating like the viewer and/or making funny comments that a normal person would make when watching. Maybe inform the viewers the history of these players so we can have some invesetment on them. Or maybe it's through the ability to articulate why this strategy is so billiant or why this player is acting in this fanshion. But most important, they need to heighten our emotions for when a big moment happens.
And I say this, the casters should ideally not be bias as a whole, but they should be well informed about the matches and be emotinoally driven like the fans. Many of the most beloved commentaries are those that does both well. It's not a balancing act with them, but rather using both of them to strenghts to make a better boardcast.
Region lock and that Koren scene... I'm indifferent to it. I'm a casual player who watches a few tournments every once in awhile, but I don't follow any personailities or pay attentions to bigger stories. I just come to see interesting new plays.
|
The hardcore people will never agree with the analysis anyway. Plus you're already catering to a small minority of people. You have to to cater to the casuals. Any major sport does this. Just look at the commentating for an NFL game. I'm assuming soccer / euro football games are the same.
|
On February 02 2016 08:25 guitarizt wrote:
The hardcore people will never agree with the analysis anyway. Plus you're already catering to a small minority of people. You have to to cater to the casuals. Any major sport does this. Just look at the commentating for an NFL game. I'm assuming soccer / euro football games are the same.
I don't think any of the major sports is complex enough to require in-depth analysis commentary. It's all about outsmarting/outplaying the opponent in a game with full visibility and no strategy. Just tactics - which often is called "strategy", but in fact is not. Many casual fans of soccer are literally self-entitled experts of the game for example... that's why relatively simple games cater to bigger audiences.
Correct me if I'm wrong but I think tactics =/= strategy
|
StarCraft is like classical music, when compared to the pop music that is League of Legends, and should be marketed as such. That's its niche, and losing what makes it distinct just for the purposes of "bring in new viewers" is equivalent to suicide. With that said, the way to foster the scene isn't so much to bring in more viewers (though that is definitely important), but to have its viewers spend more money. That's how classical music survive. Flavour of the month and local heroes only do so much to help the scene, just like how movie soundtracks alone can't sustain an orchestra.
Funnily enough, I have actually been offered ads with the Berlin Philharmonic Orchestra on this website, something that doesn't happen in most other places.
|
On February 02 2016 08:30 aQuaSC wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2016 08:25 guitarizt wrote:
The hardcore people will never agree with the analysis anyway. Plus you're already catering to a small minority of people. You have to to cater to the casuals. Any major sport does this. Just look at the commentating for an NFL game. I'm assuming soccer / euro football games are the same. I don't think any of the major sports is complex enough to require in-depth analysis commentary. It's all about outsmarting/outplaying the opponent in a game with full visibility and no strategy. Just tactics - which often is called "strategy", but in fact is not. Many casual fans of soccer are literally self-entitled experts of the game for example... that's why relatively simple games cater to bigger audiences. Correct me if I'm wrong but I think tactics =/= strategy
this is WAAAAAY off topic but...
One of the reasons I love American football so much is the strategy. Many find the 30 seconds between plays (excluding the longer breaks for commercials in pro matches) boring but they're there because coaches can change players and call intricate plays - as well captains making adjustments based on what the other side is showing. Some of this stuff gets lightly mentioned by the commentators but so much more could be... And is during the half-time shows and post-game analysis all week.
Back on topic...
I think a lot of the scene could/would enjoy this "hardcore" and "casual" content OUTSIDE of events. Player interviews, trash talk and other things that let the personalities shine before events as well as in depth breakdowns of strategies and tactics after the tournament has ended.
|
Awesome post, very constructive. Although the OP is simplifying things, that's a good way to start with, and very common for example in modern science: You build a simple model and you try to see if it can reproduce your observations and to which extent. Well understood (in its moderate version), his model explains to some extent part of the recent struggles within the community. Not too bad, social models are the hardest as we humans are all crazy...
Correct the model or not, self-awareness is essential for the progress of any human group. If people know what the interests of other members of the group are, and are able to value them as legit and see merit in them, they (we) can reach a compromise that benefits the group/community as a whole.
From my point of view, Blizzard has always tried to please the whole spectrum, intending to reach the largest audience for his product (and passion). As doing it with every single feature is impossible, sometimes the results please more people in one sub-group than in the other. The community has failed to recognize that both interests are legit, and part of the group less pleased by a change feels attacked every time something changes. From here on, the action seems to depend on the group: The more casual members loose interest and leave the community, therefore it shrinks. The more "hardcore" members stay in it, as they have invested more of his life into it, but still feel negative. The result is an increasingly smaller, more "hardcore", and more negative community.
Now, how do we address this? I think, as others in this thread do, that Blizzard only sees one way out: Attracting new members. And it is clear that out there everybody is a casual. Therefore, recently many Bilzzard decisions tend towards benefiting the "casual" group. This leads to more negativity in the existing community, which is clearly bad for attracting new members. If this is the only action taken, there is a good chance it will fail. Blizzard realizes it, and starts actions to please the existing community: Community Feedback. This initially works, hardcore members are somewhat pleased, constructive ideas arise, negativity decreases, and we all get the best iteration of the game: LOTV.
BUT after the release the improvements in the game are not so fast, Blizzard/DK thinks the best for the game is to have some stability and promote casuals to join the community. Again the community fails to recognize merit in Blizzard's position, and Negativity strikes back. Community Feedback does not resolve the problem anymore, because it fails in the most important point: To show the community that Blizzard's decision is legit and has a clear goal, even when it might be wrong.
So, what do we do now? Can we live together? I think self-awareness inside the community is again the key point:
(1) ALL Blizzard, teams, casual members, hardcore members, kespa, etc. want SC2 to succeed in the long term.
(2) Everybody thinks it has good reasons to act as they do. They may be proved wrong in the future, but that's ok because of point (1).
(3) Nobody in the community will get exactly what he wants, because there are several legit interests. Learn to live with it, enjoy what you like from the game and try to convince others to join your view over time. If you cannot live with it, you are hurting yourself.
(4) Negativity in the community is acting against the growth of it. It discourages new members to join. If you are being constantly negative, you're acting against (1) and against yourself.
|
1) Do I (the spectator) believe this will foster better regional players and draw in more viewers for each tournment?
2) Do I believe this is better for the short and/or long term of SC2?
3) Do I believe that this short term cost (Koeran scene + etc) is worth it for Starcraft's longevity?
4) Do I think there is a better way to achive these goals?
5) Do I think I'm willing and other people are willing to only see the best regional players for possible benefits in the long run or rather I just watch the best players in the world with a different long term plan?
1) No
2) No
3) No
4) There certainly couldn't be anything worse
5) No
|
On February 02 2016 08:54 y0su wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2016 08:30 aQuaSC wrote:On February 02 2016 08:25 guitarizt wrote:
The hardcore people will never agree with the analysis anyway. Plus you're already catering to a small minority of people. You have to to cater to the casuals. Any major sport does this. Just look at the commentating for an NFL game. I'm assuming soccer / euro football games are the same. I don't think any of the major sports is complex enough to require in-depth analysis commentary. It's all about outsmarting/outplaying the opponent in a game with full visibility and no strategy. Just tactics - which often is called "strategy", but in fact is not. Many casual fans of soccer are literally self-entitled experts of the game for example... that's why relatively simple games cater to bigger audiences. Correct me if I'm wrong but I think tactics =/= strategy One of the reasons I love American football so much is the strategy. Many find the 30 seconds between plays (excluding the longer breaks for commercials in pro matches) boring but they're there because coaches can change players and call intricate plays - as well captains making adjustments based on what the other side is showing. Some of this stuff gets lightly mentioned by the commentators but so much more could be... And is during the half-time shows and post-game analysis all week.
Maybe I overstated what I meant. I'm not saying that major sports are simple or anything, but they don't require that many strategic calls depending on only one person during the match...
|
On February 02 2016 08:57 showstealer1829 wrote:Show nested quote +1) Do I (the spectator) believe this will foster better regional players and draw in more viewers for each tournment?
2) Do I believe this is better for the short and/or long term of SC2?
3) Do I believe that this short term cost (Koeran scene + etc) is worth it for Starcraft's longevity?
4) Do I think there is a better way to achive these goals?
5) Do I think I'm willing and other people are willing to only see the best regional players for possible benefits in the long run or rather I just watch the best players in the world with a different long term plan? 1) No 2) No 3) No 4) There certainly couldn't be anything worse 5) No
Damn that was constructive
|
On February 02 2016 08:25 guitarizt wrote:
The hardcore people will never agree with the analysis anyway. Plus you're already catering to a small minority of people. You have to to cater to the casuals. Any major sport does this. Just look at the commentating for an NFL game. I'm assuming soccer / euro football games are the same.
Sports commentaries are awesome.
They say something along the lines of "He took the small thingy to the score thingy" and then they make lines on the screen/map as if it matters. Then trace how random guys run back and forth.
Totally intellectual and not for noobs 
-------
Back on topic--the issue is not that there is an us vs them mentality. The issue is that 99% of the population thinks they are the hardcore part of the population, but they're really in the casual part of the population, but pretend to be in the hardcore part of the population.
So you have companies using actual data metrics to make decisions, find out they need to cater to casuals, and the casuals spending more time telling people they are hardcore than the spend working on mechanics. So you end up with a bunch of try hards yelling that the game is not hard enough because a pro on some stream they watched was able to do a maneuver one time.
|
On February 02 2016 09:00 aQuaSC wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2016 08:57 showstealer1829 wrote:1) Do I (the spectator) believe this will foster better regional players and draw in more viewers for each tournment?
2) Do I believe this is better for the short and/or long term of SC2?
3) Do I believe that this short term cost (Koeran scene + etc) is worth it for Starcraft's longevity?
4) Do I think there is a better way to achive these goals?
5) Do I think I'm willing and other people are willing to only see the best regional players for possible benefits in the long run or rather I just watch the best players in the world with a different long term plan? 1) No 2) No 3) No 4) There certainly couldn't be anything worse 5) No Damn that was constructive
Like I said earlier. I have no desire to be temp banned again. My thoughts on people who support WCS 2016 should be known by now
|
On February 02 2016 08:57 showstealer1829 wrote:
1) Do I (the spectator) believe this will foster better regional players and draw in more viewers for each tournment?
2) Do I believe this is better for the short and/or long term of SC2?
3) Do I believe that this short term cost (Koeran scene + etc) is worth it for Starcraft's longevity?
4) Do I think there is a better way to achive these goals?
5) Do I think I'm willing and other people are willing to only see the best regional players for possible benefits in the long run or rather I just watch the best players in the world with a different long term plan?
1) No
2) No
3) No
4) There certainly couldn't be anything worse
5) No
1) Yes, but not short-term
2) Yes, for the long term
3) Not to the extent Korea is hurt right now.
4) Yes, region lock + 3/4 seasons in Korea
5) Why only see one of them? You can watch WCS + GSL + SPL
EDIT: Bad english...
|
On February 02 2016 08:59 aQuaSC wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2016 08:54 y0su wrote:On February 02 2016 08:30 aQuaSC wrote:On February 02 2016 08:25 guitarizt wrote:
The hardcore people will never agree with the analysis anyway. Plus you're already catering to a small minority of people. You have to to cater to the casuals. Any major sport does this. Just look at the commentating for an NFL game. I'm assuming soccer / euro football games are the same. I don't think any of the major sports is complex enough to require in-depth analysis commentary. It's all about outsmarting/outplaying the opponent in a game with full visibility and no strategy. Just tactics - which often is called "strategy", but in fact is not. Many casual fans of soccer are literally self-entitled experts of the game for example... that's why relatively simple games cater to bigger audiences. Correct me if I'm wrong but I think tactics =/= strategy One of the reasons I love American football so much is the strategy. Many find the 30 seconds between plays (excluding the longer breaks for commercials in pro matches) boring but they're there because coaches can change players and call intricate plays - as well captains making adjustments based on what the other side is showing. Some of this stuff gets lightly mentioned by the commentators but so much more could be... And is during the half-time shows and post-game analysis all week. Maybe I overstated what I meant. I'm not saying that major sports are simple or anything, but they don't require that many strategic calls depending on only one person during the match...
If you actually play a sport you will know 100% that you don't have full information. Spectators have full information, the coach *might* have 90% of the information. But visibility, personal responsibility, and team dynamics is not something that any one person can see when on the field. When the offensive line in football is busy watching their guy, and they don't see the second guy behind his target slip through a running play--that is because vision is limited. When the quarterback throws a hundred yard toss to his target--not everyone sees it until the deed is already done. There is a LOT of actual strategy in controlling player information, player accessibility, player visibility, and terrain mobility. On top of that--there's the actual strategy discussions on the coach level where formation efficiency, threat assessment, player redundancy (you do need to let players rest even during the game), etc... all come into play. There's as much strategy to cycling when your top players get on the field as there is getting them off the field to sit and drink water. ALL the players need to be aware of it. The captains, the coach, etc....
The difference between sports and chess is not the amount of strategy involved--nor even the amount of strategic responsibility involved. The difference is real life decisions versus real life problems. Making the right strategic play when the other guy is faster, stronger, quicker, more destrous, etc... Will produce the opposite results. In sports its not just making the right strategic play, but the correct resource manipulation play. If they are faster than you--don't try to outrun them. If they are stronger than you, don't try to muscle them. Etc... Knowing what resources you have in a sports match is as important as knowing when to take your 3rd base.
The reason sports commentaries are shit is because the casual viewers DO NOT CARE how many minutes the third stringer has been resting before getting on the court for the 5 minutes of rest he is supposed to give the first stringer. The casual viewers don't care what the weight differences are between specific offensive linemen and the different postures, grips, and knee shifts each has to do depending on who they are facing off against. The don't care what field positions are only there to restrict player vision. And they don't care about different baseball stances there are to maximize hand reaction speed. They just don't. They care about home runs, touchdowns, and goals. They care about star players being injured, or not injured. They care about how many injuries, more so than what the proper rotation options have to be used to compensate for omnipresent injuries.
Viewers are casual at heart. They are only hardcore in mind.
|
Great article, great read, TL rocking as usual.
|
Awesome article!
While i probably bend more towards the "competition oriented" archetype i do enjoy fun 
I think casters and tournament formats can do better than this. As mentioned HSC is more about fun and hype and sillyness and its a clear premise, the fact it also had high level competition and informative casting made it absolutely great.
I wish WCS, a tournament series to decide the very best, could take itself a bit more seriously.
I always love Rotterdam casts because he is hyped and fun, but more important, he always takes the games seriously and knows when its time to stop goofing and go back to the game (and of course, his analysis is good). Sometimes im paying attention to the screen, sometimes im not. When i have my attention on screen the caster can help me catch as much information as i can while watching, when im not audio should be enough to have an idea of what is going on.
High standards, but we have great, experienced casters that are fully capable of doing it (if they are not dead after 10 hours of casting).
Of course, if i am a minority, f*ck me.
edit: actually, i know i am a minority, but i also know there is a reasonable public interested in analytical casts and enjoys top level competition more than anything else. Its not such a small minority that can be ignored, we are here on TL and you cannot count us with your fingers.
|
The more I watch the more I don't care for WCS korean-lock.
I watch vods with Korean players and don't watch vods without Korean players.
So nothing changed except I watch much more smaller Korean events like Olimo.
|
On February 02 2016 09:18 Superbanana wrote:Awesome article! While i probably bend more towards the "competition oriented" archetype i do enjoy fun I think casters and tournament formats can do better than this. As mentioned HSC is more about fun and hype and sillyness and its a clear premise, the fact it also had high level competition and informative casting made it absolutely great. I wish WCS, a tournament series to decide the very best, could take itself a bit more seriously. I always love Rotterdam casts because he is hyped and fun, but more important, he always takes the games seriously and knows when its time to stop goofing and go back to the game (and of course, his analysis is good). Sometimes im paying attention to the screen, sometimes im not. When i have my attention on screen the caster can help me catch as much information as i can while watching, when im not audio should be enough to have an idea of what is going on. High standards, but we have great, experienced casters that are fully capable of doing it (if they are not dead after 10 hours of casting). Of course, if i am a minority, f*ck me. edit: actually, i know i am a minority, but i also know there is a reasonable public interested in analytical casts and enjoys top level competition more than anything else. Its not such a small minority that can be ignored, we are here on TL and you cannot count us with your fingers.
I wish that it got split. There's always about 15-30 minutes of dead time between matches, and sometimes even between games. Why not codify it? Why not have hype commentary (with light analysis) for the game itself, and then deep level analysis for breaks in between.
So instead of waiting 20 minutes looking at a countdown timer, you have 2-3 five minute long analysis (maybe longer) sessions that just uses 2-3 screenshots. Have one person do an analysis of an important moment for one player, and then a second analysis on the other player. They could even streamline it more.
Opening Build Analysis.
Interesting Midgame Moment.
Final Fight Analysis.
If nothing interesting happened in the midgame, skip it and just do an in depth build analysis. Player A chose Build X because Player B is known for Y and hence when in Map C Player A wants to be ready for Z--BUT here is the tiny change he made to the build either by accident or intentionally.
Then you have them do an analysis of the final fight (or maybe the last 2 fights) and talk about why one side won over the other. If the game was long/back and forth enough then you go deep on 1-2 midgame moments.
By doing this you essentially do a recap of the game that gives a general narrative of a player's mind set. You tell the viewers "This is how he started, this cool thing happened in the middle, and this is where he won/lost" you do it for both players at the end of each match. And as the match progresses there is time for the viewers to pause, think about what just happened, and then be told the narrative of what's going on behind the screen.
|
On February 02 2016 09:40 Naracs_Duc wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2016 09:18 Superbanana wrote:Awesome article! While i probably bend more towards the "competition oriented" archetype i do enjoy fun I think casters and tournament formats can do better than this. As mentioned HSC is more about fun and hype and sillyness and its a clear premise, the fact it also had high level competition and informative casting made it absolutely great. I wish WCS, a tournament series to decide the very best, could take itself a bit more seriously. I always love Rotterdam casts because he is hyped and fun, but more important, he always takes the games seriously and knows when its time to stop goofing and go back to the game (and of course, his analysis is good). Sometimes im paying attention to the screen, sometimes im not. When i have my attention on screen the caster can help me catch as much information as i can while watching, when im not audio should be enough to have an idea of what is going on. High standards, but we have great, experienced casters that are fully capable of doing it (if they are not dead after 10 hours of casting). Of course, if i am a minority, f*ck me. edit: actually, i know i am a minority, but i also know there is a reasonable public interested in analytical casts and enjoys top level competition more than anything else. Its not such a small minority that can be ignored, we are here on TL and you cannot count us with your fingers. I wish that it got split. There's always about 15-30 minutes of dead time between matches, and sometimes even between games. Why not codify it? Why not have hype commentary (with light analysis) for the game itself, and then deep level analysis for breaks in between. So instead of waiting 20 minutes looking at a countdown timer, you have 2-3 five minute long analysis (maybe longer) sessions that just uses 2-3 screenshots. Have one person do an analysis of an important moment for one player, and then a second analysis on the other player. They could even streamline it more. Opening Build Analysis. Interesting Midgame Moment. Final Fight Analysis. If nothing interesting happened in the midgame, skip it and just do an in depth build analysis. Player A chose Build X because Player B is known for Y and hence when in Map C Player A wants to be ready for Z--BUT here is the tiny change he made to the build either by accident or intentionally. Then you have them do an analysis of the final fight (or maybe the last 2 fights) and talk about why one side won over the other. If the game was long/back and forth enough then you go deep on 1-2 midgame moments. By doing this you essentially do a recap of the game that gives a general narrative of a player's mind set. You tell the viewers "This is how he started, this cool thing happened in the middle, and this is where he won/lost" you do it for both players at the end of each match. And as the match progresses there is time for the viewers to pause, think about what just happened, and then be told the narrative of what's going on behind the screen.
That could work.
But i think it all could be better balanced in one cast/tournament. I just share OP frustration that all the effort to appeal to the fun-oriented audience made it less appealing to the ones that loved true global play.
unrelated, but something i forgot to mention before, i think the casual and hardcore tags are bad. There might be a tendency that competition oriented public watch more SC2 but its certainly not a rule. Hardcore fans may enjoy hype cast, local heroes, personalities and fluff the most. Casual fans may tune in just to figure out "how is the meta in korea" or see some nice builds in action.
|
On February 02 2016 09:54 Superbanana wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2016 09:40 Naracs_Duc wrote:On February 02 2016 09:18 Superbanana wrote:Awesome article! While i probably bend more towards the "competition oriented" archetype i do enjoy fun I think casters and tournament formats can do better than this. As mentioned HSC is more about fun and hype and sillyness and its a clear premise, the fact it also had high level competition and informative casting made it absolutely great. I wish WCS, a tournament series to decide the very best, could take itself a bit more seriously. I always love Rotterdam casts because he is hyped and fun, but more important, he always takes the games seriously and knows when its time to stop goofing and go back to the game (and of course, his analysis is good). Sometimes im paying attention to the screen, sometimes im not. When i have my attention on screen the caster can help me catch as much information as i can while watching, when im not audio should be enough to have an idea of what is going on. High standards, but we have great, experienced casters that are fully capable of doing it (if they are not dead after 10 hours of casting). Of course, if i am a minority, f*ck me. edit: actually, i know i am a minority, but i also know there is a reasonable public interested in analytical casts and enjoys top level competition more than anything else. Its not such a small minority that can be ignored, we are here on TL and you cannot count us with your fingers. I wish that it got split. There's always about 15-30 minutes of dead time between matches, and sometimes even between games. Why not codify it? Why not have hype commentary (with light analysis) for the game itself, and then deep level analysis for breaks in between. So instead of waiting 20 minutes looking at a countdown timer, you have 2-3 five minute long analysis (maybe longer) sessions that just uses 2-3 screenshots. Have one person do an analysis of an important moment for one player, and then a second analysis on the other player. They could even streamline it more. Opening Build Analysis. Interesting Midgame Moment. Final Fight Analysis. If nothing interesting happened in the midgame, skip it and just do an in depth build analysis. Player A chose Build X because Player B is known for Y and hence when in Map C Player A wants to be ready for Z--BUT here is the tiny change he made to the build either by accident or intentionally. Then you have them do an analysis of the final fight (or maybe the last 2 fights) and talk about why one side won over the other. If the game was long/back and forth enough then you go deep on 1-2 midgame moments. By doing this you essentially do a recap of the game that gives a general narrative of a player's mind set. You tell the viewers "This is how he started, this cool thing happened in the middle, and this is where he won/lost" you do it for both players at the end of each match. And as the match progresses there is time for the viewers to pause, think about what just happened, and then be told the narrative of what's going on behind the screen. That could work. But i think it all could be better balanced in one cast/tournament. I just share OP frustration that all the effort to appeal to the fun-oriented audience made it less appealing to the ones that loved true global play.
Well that's aways an issue.
For example: I don't really watch German Football (not Futbol/Soccer) because I'd rather watch American Football. I don't watch Canadian Football either--for much the same reasons. If you're a casual viewer why would you watch someone who lives from a completely different continent than you.
Fifa, Tennis, and Golf are really the only publicly loved sports that crosses international borders from what I can tell; and they're the exceptions, not the rule. Most other sports are fairly locally loved even if there is a lot of leagues for it. The same is to be expected of SC2.
Even BW was pretty much a Korea only phenomenon.
|
On February 02 2016 10:00 Naracs_Duc wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2016 09:54 Superbanana wrote:On February 02 2016 09:40 Naracs_Duc wrote:On February 02 2016 09:18 Superbanana wrote:Awesome article! While i probably bend more towards the "competition oriented" archetype i do enjoy fun I think casters and tournament formats can do better than this. As mentioned HSC is more about fun and hype and sillyness and its a clear premise, the fact it also had high level competition and informative casting made it absolutely great. I wish WCS, a tournament series to decide the very best, could take itself a bit more seriously. I always love Rotterdam casts because he is hyped and fun, but more important, he always takes the games seriously and knows when its time to stop goofing and go back to the game (and of course, his analysis is good). Sometimes im paying attention to the screen, sometimes im not. When i have my attention on screen the caster can help me catch as much information as i can while watching, when im not audio should be enough to have an idea of what is going on. High standards, but we have great, experienced casters that are fully capable of doing it (if they are not dead after 10 hours of casting). Of course, if i am a minority, f*ck me. edit: actually, i know i am a minority, but i also know there is a reasonable public interested in analytical casts and enjoys top level competition more than anything else. Its not such a small minority that can be ignored, we are here on TL and you cannot count us with your fingers. I wish that it got split. There's always about 15-30 minutes of dead time between matches, and sometimes even between games. Why not codify it? Why not have hype commentary (with light analysis) for the game itself, and then deep level analysis for breaks in between. So instead of waiting 20 minutes looking at a countdown timer, you have 2-3 five minute long analysis (maybe longer) sessions that just uses 2-3 screenshots. Have one person do an analysis of an important moment for one player, and then a second analysis on the other player. They could even streamline it more. Opening Build Analysis. Interesting Midgame Moment. Final Fight Analysis. If nothing interesting happened in the midgame, skip it and just do an in depth build analysis. Player A chose Build X because Player B is known for Y and hence when in Map C Player A wants to be ready for Z--BUT here is the tiny change he made to the build either by accident or intentionally. Then you have them do an analysis of the final fight (or maybe the last 2 fights) and talk about why one side won over the other. If the game was long/back and forth enough then you go deep on 1-2 midgame moments. By doing this you essentially do a recap of the game that gives a general narrative of a player's mind set. You tell the viewers "This is how he started, this cool thing happened in the middle, and this is where he won/lost" you do it for both players at the end of each match. And as the match progresses there is time for the viewers to pause, think about what just happened, and then be told the narrative of what's going on behind the screen. That could work. But i think it all could be better balanced in one cast/tournament. I just share OP frustration that all the effort to appeal to the fun-oriented audience made it less appealing to the ones that loved true global play. Well that's aways an issue. For example: I don't really watch German Football (not Futbol/Soccer) because I'd rather watch American Football. I don't watch Canadian Football either--for much the same reasons. If you're a casual viewer why would you watch someone who lives from a completely different continent than you. Fifa, Tennis, and Golf are really the only publicly loved sports that crosses international borders from what I can tell; and they're the exceptions, not the rule. Most other sports are fairly locally loved even if there is a lot of leagues for it. The same is to be expected of SC2. Even BW was pretty much a Korea only phenomenon.
I mostly agree, but why SC2 is expected to be the same? Throughout HotS SC2 was crossing international borders. If you meant its what blizzard expects, or part of the public, then i agree. But there is no intrinsical factor that forces SC2 to be only mostly locally loved and not cross international borders.
edited: misunderstood a bit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
