This thread continues what started in the last 4 or 5 posts of this thread: http://www.staredit.net/topic/12846/1/.

So, what qualities do you think a good Caster requires? Should they be a highly ranked pro Starcraft 2 player? Should they know 'the scene' like the back of their hand? Should every build order be imprinted in the back of their minds like some sort of neolithic tattoo? Is a sense of humour required, or is it just an added bonus?

Obvious things such as clarity of voice, knowledge of Starcraft 2 tactics and ability to follow the game come as standard. But what other things (in your opinion) make a good shoutcaster really stand out?

To get the ball rolling:


I have played about 500 games of Starcraft 2 league matches. It doesn't really matter that I am not good at Starcraft - I still have the knowledge and 'insight into the game' as you call it. If I really had the time (and money) to sit down and religiously practice playing Starcraft 2 with the goal of becoming pro I could (without trying to sound arrogant) most likely end up in Diamond after a few months.

I'd imagine that anyone could. But ultimately, I play Starcraft 2 for fun, I live in the United Kingdom so the SC2 scene here is pretty non-existent.


Of course they wouldn't. As far as I am aware, there is no voice recording of myself anywhere on the internet. But I'm sure, again, (if I had the time and the enthusiasm) to convert replays into YouTube videos and buy a proper headset - I could shoutcast my own games and start getting a following. After that, people might 'use me as a caster'. I do not know.

A good caster should be able to keep the viewers watching the entire video without skipping.

For instance, I enjoy watching GrethSC's "vidreps" because he takes games of every skill level and makes it funny.



Others enjoy people enjoy listening to people who know every build order in the book, such as HuskyStarcraft

You cannot be a good caster if you do not have insight into top players' decision making process. Period. Playing a lot of games is not an alternative, nor is theorycrafting a lot, nor is listening to better players than yourself explain their insights. You need to be able to state on the fly why one player went Collossi instead of High Templars to counter an M&M ball, and you need to be right. Insert dozens of similar scenarios.

Commentating video games is not like radio, despite bad casters wanting it to be. I don't need you to tell me what's happening, I can see what's happening on the video (unless you're a shitty cameraman, which is another story). I need you to explain WHY things are happening, and you simply can't do that if you can't play at a level somewhat relative to those players.

After a point, the game becomes largely execution and less theory, but that point definitely isn't anywhere near Platinum league. I'm Diamond and I've played about 40 1v1 games- I wouldn't call myself a half-capable caster except for a few different TvX builds. If you haven't been able to get there after 500, I simply have to conclude that you don't have the knowledge and insight that you claim to. This is not meant to be offensive or to discourage you from casting if it something you want to do, but I really hate listening to people who are bad trying to give rationale for things the complexity of which they haven't even scraped the surface of. There are numerous SC2 casters that fit this mold, and virtually every HoN caster I've listened to as well.

I enjoy the Tasteless and Day9 brothers the absolute most as casters. Both of them could be pro foreign players, and both are extremely insightful.

If you are a diamond league player, you have at least decent knowledge of how to play the game, and play it well. You only need like 60 apm to get into the diamond league, so what getting into the diamond league depends on is decision making within the game. This decision making will win you or lose you the game, and if you can't make the necessary decisions to get into the diamond league then that goes to show that you really just don't know much about competitive 1v1.

Any caster within the diamond league can from this point emulate analyses as if he were a high level player, because it's honestly much easier to watch pros play and commentate on the play, rather than to engage in the play yourself. However, if you don't need to emulate your analysis simply because you are yourself a highish level player, then you won't be lacking in your commentating; you'll truly understand why certain things happen, and you can point those things out during the game.

I define a good casting as something I learn from and something non-redundant. I hate it when casters say things like "And then he moves his probe here! Hey look, he's attacking this location with n number of units!" Yes, I can fucking watch the video myself, tell me something I might not know -we're not listening to the radio here.

Okay - one 'caster' I really hate is Crota. He shoutcasts a game like its a football match or a dog-race.
[quote:name=Crota] "there goes the probe, the probe is going, wow is he gonna see it? i think he is!?! omg he didnt see iT!"[/quote]

I think I should have mentioned in the OP that casters who 'commentate' are bad. I agree, you want to watch a replay with a shoutcast that informs and educates you.

One thing that I have NEVER seen in a shoutcast... is the caster actually rewinding the footage, and playing it back at a lower speed - to showcase a players Micro or strategy or whatever... Sure - I know Starcraft 2 is a fast-paced strategy game, and you might say 'the one thing worse than a Caster who is commentating, is a Caster who replays the footage'... But I mean for truly impressive stuff. I saw a game once, can't remember who the Caster was, but I THINK it was IdrA against a relatively unknown Protoss player. IdrA was zerg obviously. And I saw the most impressive blink-stalker micro ever. About 6 stalkers killed 9 roaches with no losses, on creep.

Now I understand how to do blink-stalker micro, it is relatively simply. Look what stalker is getting hit, when his shields are down or his HP gets low, blink him behind the other stalkers. What was really impressive about the example I gave above was the speed at which he did this, while keeping the bulk of his forces focus firing on single roaches.

As for all the 'non-offensive criticism' coming my way. I mentioned before that I play Starcraft 2 for fun. If I lose, I lose. If I win, I win. Simple as that. In some games I really think I dominate against an opponent of an equal or better skill-level. Whether this is me just paying more attention in game or getting lucky - I don't know. The point I'm making is that my skill-level is inconsistent. My strongest matchup is Protoss Vs Terran. I would say my weakest race is Terran, simply because I do not enjoy playing them. But I recently dominated in a Terran Vs Protoss game (which would have been my weakest matchup usually).

That replay is available: here if you are interested. I admit, he did make a big mistake at 15m20s... and in my initial marine rush, I did go a bit Stim-happy... I was also quite happy with my Observer spotting. But then again, he had them following my MM ball, and my Medivacs on a seperate occasion so they did stand out.

http://media.mlgpro.com/brackets/10/procircuit/dallas/sc2/open/matches/6342.html

IdrA versus Nazgul; in all three games he tries Blink Stalkers. It's most impressive in the first, and probably what you're referring to. You can get the replays there.


Some casters will occasionally rewind video after the match is over to highlight certain things, but stopping it in the middle is just poor form and irritates people. In a cast purely for educational purposes, such as some of Day[9]'s, he does this a lot.

Casters don't have to be the best at something, they just have to prove they know what they're talking about. They should understand multiple facets on whatever they're casting about, and they should be enjoyable to listen to. Unfortunately, casters for most games usually bore the hell out of me because they're not engaging or interesting, and if nothing is happening on the screen worth casting about, they fall silent. No interesting tidbits, nothing, so they have dead air. *yawn*

A good caster should be, in order of increasing importance.

A) Good at the game, or at least passable. A good game sense will help them prioritize on what to comment on. They should know a wide variety of BOs for every race, and have executed them during actual play. "This is the most normal thing in the world." Husky and HD, and a few others fail on this.

B) Knowledgeable about the game. What counters what, what properties units have, names of upgrades and tech and how much things cost. When a cast is going on they should be able to point out little things like "Hellions do splash in a line away from them, so against large balls of melee units it is more important to minimize distance, rather than attempt to kite", "Ghosts are actually not considered light for gameplay purposes, so the only unit that does bonus damage to them are Archons", "The Corruptor's bonus damage is only applied to massive units like the Broodlord, Carrier, Battlecruiser, or Mothership, and not armored units, so you're much better off going heavy Mutalisk against Viking harassment vs. Terran.", or "When upgrades Roaches and upgraded Marines engage, the regenerative properties of a burrowed Roach more or less nullifies the stim DPS bonus; so it's completely viable to wait until a stim, burrow and retreat, and then come back when the stim ends rather than just retreating above ground. You take less damage even though you move slower, and it leads to the T way overstiming." Husky and HD have a 0 in this. Artosis fails on this hard, Psy isn't great on it, and a few others need to learn a lot more.

C) Be entertaining, quick witted, and insightful. Tasteless isn't very good at this, and a few of the Youtube casters are awful on this.

D) Be aware of the goddamn action. I don't care how good of a caster you are... If the camera isn't on an engagement, you've failed. (There's someone who's really bad for this, but I forget who.)

In conclusion, Day[9] is the best caster by far, Tasteless is the second best, Idra is up there, and if he actually started doing it, InControl would beat them all.

Well they should at least have a basic understanding of the map, game builds, builds that work on the map... as to be expected.
Many professional starcraft commentators actually have played starcraft enough to know these things as most commentators should have a balance between starcraft map knowledge, and idle chatter. But it all depends, oh and you know whats happening with the game as its going on... e.g. what the hell are those things that pops up from dead zerg buildings.

Day [9] was a fairly good caster becuase he has knowledge and experience, yet is still entertaining, like many others, personally Husky, HD, or InControl...

InControl is so fucking funny. He's just genuinely his own person, I really wish he would cast more. If he fails at the next GSL too, I have a feeling he might.

Watch this, lol: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzJN5HgRn0k&feature=channel

Day[9] is good because he genuinely cares about improving the community, he's not doing it because he'll be able to get paid later or because he wants to be famous. That and his talent makes him the most worthy of being paid to do it, to me.

My personal favourite three are HuskyStarcraft, HDstarcraft and Psystarcraft. I love watching HuskyStarcraft because he says ridiculous stuff and he's very laid back. He's probably not the most insightful, but sometimes I just enjoy fun commentaries and his hilarious comments. HD is a little more serious but he makes enjoyable casts so I continue going with him. I think Psy is probably the most serious person I listen to, and he's probably not the best player, but I still think he's very skilled and gives good advice. I use to listen to Day9 alot but I've been stressed for time, but he's probably the most professional and insightful out of all the casters I watch. Honestly, if you make the casts awesome and funny and you're not looking to be super insightful, that's fine, but either be very insightful or be very funny for it to be entertaining. Day9 strikes probably the best balance here.

Husky, while not actually being very good (I hear he's Gold 1v1?) pulls it off with his laid back and absolutely hilarious comments he'll make (only inhibited by how he censors himself a bit). Psy I find very boring to listen to, and his self-commentaries are borderline arrogant in my eyes. Day9 however, draws his games out far too long by pausing and spewing his infinite pool of knowledge in SCII.

So, someone who knows what they're doing when they play as any race, but still can have some fun.

***Thought I'd mention my current favorite is Husky. I'd watch Day9 if he didn't pause the game every 10 seconds. My only real complaint with Husky though is he fails to watch for interesting things happening a lot of the time.
LOL I HATE HUSKY NOW. After i started watching Day9 and actually learning proper game analysis I realize just how shallow and ridiculously bad Husky is.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Jan 12 2011, 2:08 am by Fisty.

Day9 goes into deep analysis, that's basically his style. He analyzes every move and build order and the players movements and actions, that's why his casts are so long. If you want to learn while watching a cast, then Day9 is the right choice, but I usually watch now because I want to see a good game with casting.

I actually only listen to Day9 casts, as I can just watch a replay if I want to see the game. If I want to learn something that I can't learn on my own, I listen to Day9. Other casters just annoy me and waste my time.

When I see a cast on SC2casts.com that I want to watch, it's usually a game that isn't in the replays section of sc2-replays.net -otherwise I'd much prefer to watch the replay on my own.

Just watched HunterStarcraft cast one... worst caster ever award goes to him... but only just... CrotA is god awful also.

While maybe Husky isn't the best commentator, who can say he's a bad singer?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fzMhh8zhTiY&feature=sub

I have next to no interest in SC2 competitive gaming, so I'll just use "caster" under the definition of "someone who commentates enjoyably."

That said, I have watched some of Day9's stuff while I was interested in playing SC2 competitively; I think he's a good caster because he was able to point out lots of important information that I wouldn't have caught. It's also clear that he knows SC2 very well.
All that jazz.

However, under the base definition for caster, I would say anybody who can appeal to his audience is a good caster. Speaking from a more objective point of view, as OlimarandLouie has stated, a good caster can keep the viewer from skipping (unless you're someone like Cecil who is looking specifically for one part of the video, etc.).
Under this, I would say IskatuMesk is my personal favourite, just with http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WDnlxBPwZfI . Most intense low-level cast ever.

Can't say I like HD or Husky (just not at all funny to me) but Day9, Artosis, and Tasteless are pretty much my top three.

I don't watch many casts though because if I'm not busy I'm usually casting myself, and I find sc2 too boring to watch without just ranting about bullshit in the process to keep my mind in one place.

It's very hard to find good replays though. I don't mean your cookie cutter diamond bullshit that no one cares about because it's all the same, I mean genuinely entertaining replays like those two Harry sent me.

Now back in sc1 it was all about finding the really good macro games, especially Flash and Jaedong. But good macro games in sc2 just aren't diverse enough, and the maps aren't designed well enough, to facilitate the same kind of psychological tension as the first game.

And no I couldn't give less of a shit about casting like everyone else does.

Change in stance in the last few days. I'm starting to watch Psy a lot more to learn some basic playtips. I'd watch Day9 but I really don't have time.