|
On May 21 2020 00:40 EspKaiser wrote:
I don't know much about that.I think if a caster want to understand the match, make some prediction or analyze why something happened,he must be a great player first.What do you think about?If you think the strength of caster is very important and necessary,how many mmr a caster must have you think?
additional question,does a caster just need to tell what happened now and light up the atmosphere or he must tell many details about the tactics that the player of the match is using?
If you watch HSC you'll have pros on the couch. Most of their casting are terrible (but that's the point of HSC) but the other way around TB was never a great player (max plat i think) but he was a great caster.
|
On May 21 2020 06:16 GreasedUpDeafGuy wrote:
Casting quality has decreased GREATLY over the past few years
Really? I've loved listening to GSL, TSL, and ESL this year. Guess it's a matter of opinion.
|
|
|
Not necessary but I would imagine it would help more than hurt
|
With the way most events are handled, I think the most important quality a caster must have is being a good observer. It just has become ridiculous what goes through unnoticed. I mostly watch the minimap, since there basically are rotti, pig and maynarde that can follow the action and then there are the rest, who are more focused on entertaining their community and granted, not every sc2 game is great, but way more are than get recognized because of how little focus casters these days use on the game that should be the centerpiece...and then there are casters that don't even pay attention to the game when they have a dedicated observer spelling it out for them. There are also many brilliant little things pro-players do, that either get misunderstood or go unnoticed as well, I wish there was more attention being paid to what is happening.
|
If a caster want to make some prediction or analyze why something happened, he must be a good player otherwise the prediction or analysis is flat out wrong. Too many "hype" casters try and fail in that respect. But it seems many in SC2 audience are all too happy if a caster has too little knowledge to talk strategy or even to analyse who is ahead in the game, but does so anyways. And ultimately the job of a caster is to make that audience happy.
In any case most events have settled on one "hype" caster and one "analytical" caster. The problem comes when there is 2 "hype" casters (probably because there is more of them because its easier) and 1 analytical and the analytical caster's voice is drowned out or joins the hype casters style to get a word in.
HSC is the best. It's always interesting to hear pros discuss different approaches and responses to all sorts of strats, and their observer skils are topnotch.
|
In TSL, I found ZG and Wardi irritating. Think it was mostly due to their dynamic not working well together as I generally like Wardi. Haven't watched much with ZG casting (the odd qualifier mainly). Rotti + Day9 was some amazing casting. Rotti is a good player, but Day9 blew my mind. He used to be both a good player and a good caster, and I thought his leaving SC2 would have made him bad at both. But his casting was still exceptional.
|
Seeker
Where dat snitch at?37071 Posts
|
Great casters don't need to be amazing players first, and not every amazing player can be a great caster. That being said, having strong game knowledge and analyzing a ton of games are certainly ways to improve one's commentary.
For me, I really like pairs of casters who have great chemistry and can keep both the excitement and the analysis at high levels throughout the entire game. I think the epitome of this is Tasteless + Artosis. Tasteless isn't bad at BW/SC2, but I think his greatest strength lies with the ability to explain the basics of what's going on in a very easy-to-understand, informative way; Artosis, on the other hand, is the color commentator, who brings a more advanced depth of knowledge and analysis. They perfectly complement each other, both with summarizing what's going on in the game and with developing real-time assessments and predictions of the strategies and their outcomes. Plus, they arguably have the best synergy, bromance, and back-and-forth dialogue out of any pair of casters in the scene.
My top three favorite casters have historically been Artosis, iNcontroL, and Apollo; they could be paired with *anyone* and just... simply elevate the commentary to extreme levels of fun and thoughtfulness.
|
I'd say casters mainly need a high charisma, intelligence and - for some tournaments - constitution. Dex and strength seem like dumpstats to me, but a little bit of wisdom could be nice - although low wisdom can probably generate a lot of funny moments.
Edit: now with the rename title, this joke doesn't work anymore. 
|
Tastosis' knowledge of BW is much better than of SC2 and consequently their casting of it is much better as well
|
always personally found it hard to understand people who mainly watch casting for deep strategic/tactical insight and then proceed to bash on tastosis. I think they take themselves too seriously or something like that but that's just my feeling.
|
No, but if the caster is also observing, then they do need to have decent mini-map awareness not to miss the action. That's a bigger pet peeve of mine than bad commentary: When you see the minimap flashing, and supplies dropping, and the damn caster is missing all the action
|
For me the best players are almost always the best casters. Sure you don't have to be great at the game to be a "hype caster" or whatever, but other than that I always prefer listening to someone who is a pro cast. Otherwise the casters are just spewing basic information that everyone knows, When a pro casts you hear about the tiny details (small details but make a big difference ingame).
This is one of the reasons I like home story cup so much. Asus ROG also had some Pro players casting and it was great!
|
Considering the question as an absolute, if I had to pick between high-level players offering complex strategic analysis and tastosis laughing at each other's mispronunciations of unit names, I'd go with tastosis. It's nice to have a healthy mix though.
|
On May 21 2020 02:50 bulya wrote:
There are different sort of casters.
If you are a hype caster like Maynarde or Tasteless, then you don't really need to be that good at the game. You must know the units, and the very basics, but your job is hype the moment, so you don't really need any knowledge apart for the basics.
On the other hand, if you are a caster on the more analytical specter, then you must know a lot about the game. Examples for such casters are PiG, Artosis, Rotti, etc.
Wardii is a caster that is quite the whole package by means of casting, does it all, observing, hyping and analyzing, and I don't think he is that good. I ran into him on the ladder one time and he was below 5K MMR, I think even below 4.8K, which is an MMR doable for those who just go for a strong all-in build in every match-up and climb the ladder this way up till they get to the cap where enough people recognize well enough what they do so they win some and lose some with those. How high they get depends on the execution.
But I think its enough for him by means of MMR, as he wasn't doing an all-in, and he gets to experience all the match-up through casting so he is quite familiar with the metas and the way each player plays, and he can hype when he can't really analyze and give his 10 cents of analysis when he can.
I used to be higher MMR.
I don't think you need to be high MMR to be a strong caster, but playing regularly and being at a higher level is always going to improve your casting.
You can sit back and watch a bunch of replays and it's always going to help you understand the game better, but sometimes even just cracking out the build you are watching in Diamond league can give you an even better understanding, for all the very small things that can easily slip through the cracks. I don't think it's impossible to get that understanding while not playing, I just think it's easier to get it while playing.
I don't play a lot myself anymore, but I do try and watch a lot of educational content, Harstems stream/YouTube for example is really good for learning intricacies of the game, you're basically getting high level gameplay AND the insight that you don't pick up on by watching games regularly.
|
A player needs to understand what's going on in the game, what would be a good action and also be able to actually perform it in the game.
A caster needs to understand what's going on in the game, see why some action is good or bad and be able to explain what they think about it in real time.
Of course the first part (understanding the game) is similar, but the latter parts (doing it vs talking about it) are clearly different.
|
I would say a caster needs to be a decently good player - I found that in football (soccer), many of the top managers were reasonable players (like tier 2 players). I don't think you need to be a great player to be successful as one (manager or caster).
|
On May 21 2020 23:43 catplanetcatplanet wrote:
Considering the question as an absolute, if I had to pick between high-level players offering complex strategic analysis and tastosis laughing at each other's mispronunciations of unit names, I'd go with tastosis. It's nice to have a healthy mix though.
But Tastosis were very good players in the past - not great, but very decent.
|
On May 22 2020 22:26 Azzur wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2020 23:43 catplanetcatplanet wrote:
Considering the question as an absolute, if I had to pick between high-level players offering complex strategic analysis and tastosis laughing at each other's mispronunciations of unit names, I'd go with tastosis. It's nice to have a healthy mix though. But Tastosis were very good players in the past - not great, but very decent.
They still play much better than average Brood War.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
