Uncategorized

A Commentary About Magic Commentary

I have been loving the enhanced Magic coverage we’ve been getting lately. Full video coverage of Pro Tours and Grand Prix has been awesome to watch, and the production values are getting better every time. There is one problem though that kills me and needs to be addressed, and that is the low quality of in-game commentary. With Cedric Phillips’ recent article about Magic coverage, I think it’s time this is finally addressed.

While watching coverage of pro Magic, I find myself engaged in the action happening on camera, but equally annoyed by the commentary I am hearing. I’ll look over at Twitter, and see a bunch of top pros complaining about the commentary. I’ll notice Matt Sperling has decided to do a live blog, solely about how bad the commentary is. And then I’ll sometimes just mute the sound.

Obviously there is a problem. And I know exactly how to fix it.

The Classic Commentary Team Formula

In sports there’s a classic formula for commentator teams: the play-by-play guy (filler), and the color-commentary guy (analysis). Essentially you need one commentator describing the action and filling the dead air, and you need the other commentator to analyze what is happening and incite meaningful discussion.  You need one commentator to entertain, and one to enlighten. Obviously it’s best if each commentator is entertaining, and each commentator understands decently well what is going on, but you can’t forgo each having their main function (1 filler & 1 analysis).

You can see this commentary dynamic all over, but probably the best illustration of it is in The Global Starcraft League (GSL) for the video game Starcraft 2. (Head over to www.gomtv.net and watch the Code S division, game 1 of every series is free).

The commentators for the GSL Code S are Nick “Tasteless” Plott, and Dan “Artosis” Stemkoski.  Tasteless provides humour and play-by-play, while Artosis is constantly analyzing the players’ strategies, the metagame, and the subtle details behind what is happening.

I am hooked on watching professional Starcraft 2, and have gotten friends hooked on it too. I watch more than I play at this point, and some of my friends who watch don’t even play the game. Yet we all have a high level understanding of the game and find it very entertaining. This is made possible by the accurate technical analysis of the commentary.

Another example of decent commentary is in the UFC, with Joe Rogan (analysis) and Mike Goldberg (filler).  Goldberg fills time and says generic phrases like “punches in bunches”, while Rogan is there to explain the finer points of jiu jitsu and mixed martial arts tactics. With Rogan’s analysis, watching grappling in the UFC is watching a tactical and physical chess match, instead of just watching two sweaty dudes rolling around the floor together.

You can find many more examples of commentary dynamics like this, across many games and sports.

What is Wrong with Magic Coverage

So what is wrong with Magic commentary? It’s easy. None of the current commentators have the skill to be able to be the analysis guy. They aren’t good enough at Magic. They’re nice guys. Entertaining guys. Enthusiastic guys. Perfect skills to be the other commentator, the filler guy. But they’re all Mike Goldbergs. But you need at least one high-level analysis guy, and no matter what combination of the current commentators is in the booth, there won’t be someone to do properly do the job.

Instead of analyzing the games, appreciating amazing plays, and criticizing bad plays, the current commentators just… talk about fluff… talk about how amazing the players are… or say thing that are just plain wrong. Plays aren’t understood. They’ll go on with generic statements about how great players “think on another level most just don’t understand”. They’ll try to describe the tactical points of the current game, but often fall short.

One of the biggest missed opportunities for exciting coverage was Samuele Estratti’s great bluff against Tom Martell at Pro Tour Dark Ascension. One of my favourite Magic plays caught on camera in a long time (http://www.twitch.tv/magicprotour/b/308155546 skip to about 7:35). Not only did the commentators miss the bluff completely, they criticized Samuele Estratti’s play, and commended Martell’s play of getting sucked into the bluff (spouting the usual “great Magic players make plays that most of us wouldn’t think about making”). Minutes later when one commentator realized it might be a bluff, the other just shrugs it off. In the post-match interview with Estratti, they don’t even bring it up! This was highlight reel material, completely glossed over due to lack of understanding by the commentators.

For savvy viewers, this makes the commentary a distraction and just plain annoying. For less experienced viewers it’s is even worse. They aren’t helped along to understand the intricacies of what is going on. They won’t start to develop a deeper appreciation for the events unfolding. All they’re hear is “this is amazing, these players are amazing”, and they won’t know why. Without top-notch Starcraft 2 commentary, I wouldn’t have a clue about many of the finer points of the game that I now appreciate and find exciting. If I wasn’t already a competitive Magic player, the coverage certainly wouldn’t have helped me be interested in the finer points of this game.

There used to be pro level players as commentators for pro tours, until Osyp took it a bit too far being critical (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mvJyCL7Pemo). A happy medium can exist though. The commentary can be properly analytical and not go too far. Look at the GSL. When the players mess up, the commentators say so. When they play amazingly, they help us appreciate the details. It can be both professional and accurate.

Conclusion

So to sum up, it’s easy to fix Magic commentary. You need at least one high-level player in the booth commenting on the games at all times. Someone who understands and can talk about the strategic moves that are happening. Back at the tournament center, at the desk in between rounds, who cares? Have whatever personalities you want. You just need to make sure the in-game play-by-play commentary has at least one analysis guy. It shouldn’t be hard, there are probably plenty of ex-pros or quality players not currently Qualified willing to do it.

As I said earlier, the extended coverage of Pro Tours and Grand Prix has been great. The new tournaments Wizards has put on this year have been great. I’m very pleased with Magic right now, the direction of the game and the competitive scene in general; this is just one area that could use improvement. I’ve always respected how Wizards is a company willing to listen to criticism and improve from it. Hopefully they listen again this time.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments