If you're anything like me, you spent the weekend of Pro
Tour: Dark Ascension ravenously devouring the delicious non-stop coverage that
made you feel almost as if you were two thousand miles away and not on a
beach. And if you were, you might be
wondering, why does this guy think the coverage needs improvement, because it
was actually that awesome.
Almost this awesome.
Well, there might be one thing better than watching
fantastic video of your favorite players making the wrong blocks that you would
never in a million years have made on a twitchy Internet feed. That would be watching on glorious High
Definition delivered straight out of your over-priced 3-D television.
Imagine this, but in your living room. In three dimensions.
Any more dimensions would be too awesome to comprehend/
And that could happen.
But it won't. Not yet. As Patrick Chapin discussed during a recent
SCG Open event, Magic won't make it
back to ESPN until there is a way for Joe Plumber, Joe Six-Pack, and the seven
other people who would have voted for Sarah Palin to quickly get into the game
and devise drinking competitions and side-bets.
With that in mind, here are a few suggestions for how to
make a good thing even better. None of
them involve laser beams, unfortunately.
Because you know you wanted it.
I'm not sure what it is about the beauty of knowing
someone's mathematical odds of narrowly snatching defeat from the jaws of
victory, but it greatly enhances the viewing experience. We can't use actual hole cards because of the
logistics involved, and because it would mean losing out on Craig Jones'
Lightning Helix or Kibler's double Whipflare. But, it is possible, since
we have the competitor's decklists in advance, to know exactly how many outs
they have in some situations.
The director would have to use the feature sparingly, and it
would require that someone familiar with the format and the interactions within
the game who is also adept enough to check off drawn/revealed/sideboarded cards
and update the relevant percentages be on hand watching the feed. The pay-off is high, though, and configuring
the display to list the outs and the odds of drawing into them would not
require a lot of space.
As a bonus, even if the coverage was occasionally wrong,
you'd end up with more dramatic moments, not less. Consider in the Kibler situation if the
person in charge of the odds only calculated the Slagstorms, and forgot about
the second Whipflare. You'd have the 8%
up there with Slagstorm x3 listed, and then Kibler windmill slams the 'flare
out of nowhere. Bam! It's like Emeril in the kitchen before he
sold out.
2) Chess Clock
Ideally, this would be an actual chess clock.
Because adding more physical elements makes it a sport. Just ask curling.
One of my dreams for the Pro Tour is to have the dreaded
MTGO count-down in place for Competitive REL or higher. Not because I enjoy timing my opponents out,
but because of the heightened sense of dread that comes with watching your (or
the player's that you're rooting for) clock run down.
Again, instead of JVL somberly intoning that there is less
than a minute left in the round, you actually see that PVDDR has less than 60
seconds to activate Arid Mesa, find the land, finish shuffling, present, and
swing with his now-4/5 Steppe Lynx. If
he can't do it, if he can't get the shot off?
No overtime, just terrible ESPN headlines that manage to offend half the
people who are watching.
You didn't think I was actually going to post that headline, did you?
From a pure entertainment perspective, this option is
gold. The players might not like it,
initially, and there might need to be some more tweaks (can I suggest
time-outs? It's my article; I'm suggesting three 30-second time outs per game
per player) but in the end, it solves several issues and makes everything more
fun for those of us watching at home (and taking shots every time Todd Anderson
taps, changes his mind, and re-taps his lands).
3) Time Remaining
If you don't like option two, at least flash the Round Clock
every once in a while. If the match goes
to game three, knowing how much time is left at least helps build some
suspense, and, again, as much as I enjoy listening to some of the commentators,
most of them use announcing the time remaining to scold the players or act with
some odd pretention as if they've never taken more than three minutes to
sideboard.
Honestly though, this suggestion is just filler, because the
difference between option two and flashing the Round Clock is the difference
between seeing the object of your heart's desire with someone else, and
catching them stepping into the shower, oblivious to the tiny camera you've
stuck on the tile.*
3b) Statistics
Statistics are the lifeblood of sports commentary. They fill space and present interesting, if not always relevant, information, and they help shape the context of a match. One of the first things that I would do, given the opportunity to supervise coverage, would be to start compiling statistics for my events.
Knowing that Gerry Thompson is 9-0 life-time against UW Control when he sits down across from Shaheen might not actually matter, but it builds a foundation for a story to emerge within the 50 minutes they have to play.
Generating topical statistics would take time, but even within the 8 to 10 rounds of an Open, you could notice some fascinating minutiae. For example, if the commentators have access to the fact that Adam Prosak lost his first round and has battled back to X-1 going into the final, they can craft a narrative around that fact. Add in that he beat four other Delver decks before sitting across from Edgar Flores, and suddenly the drama escalates.
Again, it would be difficult to pull this off, but it isn't something that needs to be done instantly, we can do it at sorcery speed and launch a twenty storm Grapeshot at the traditionally blase dead air that often occurs with these live broadcasts.
3b) Statistics
Statistics are the lifeblood of sports commentary. They fill space and present interesting, if not always relevant, information, and they help shape the context of a match. One of the first things that I would do, given the opportunity to supervise coverage, would be to start compiling statistics for my events.
Knowing that Gerry Thompson is 9-0 life-time against UW Control when he sits down across from Shaheen might not actually matter, but it builds a foundation for a story to emerge within the 50 minutes they have to play.
Generating topical statistics would take time, but even within the 8 to 10 rounds of an Open, you could notice some fascinating minutiae. For example, if the commentators have access to the fact that Adam Prosak lost his first round and has battled back to X-1 going into the final, they can craft a narrative around that fact. Add in that he beat four other Delver decks before sitting across from Edgar Flores, and suddenly the drama escalates.
Again, it would be difficult to pull this off, but it isn't something that needs to be done instantly, we can do it at sorcery speed and launch a twenty storm Grapeshot at the traditionally blase dead air that often occurs with these live broadcasts.
4) The 60-Second
Explanation
This has come up before, but it bears repeating here. I've been trying to write less than a
hundred words to simplify Magic to
the point that my grandmother can understand it ever since Patrick Chapin
mentioned the necessity of being able to do so.
I don't think that I've succeeded, but here's my
attempt. We'll talk more after you
finish reading it (use Morgan Freeman's voice, unless you are Morgan Freeman,
in which case, would you please narrate just one hour of my life? Please? I can
pay in contributor's copies**).
Using mana, the
resource that pays for the other cards, players have but two options, win, or
fall. The goal is easy, but the path to
victory has many twists. Reduce your opponent's life total to 0 or leave them
unable to draw a card. These are the
most common routes to success. Creatures
enter the battlefield and fight, spells are slung and countered, and the player
with the best strategy usually wins.
That's your basic explanation. You'll see in a minute why this is the
second-to-last suggestion, but quickly, I need to point out that you would want
other explanations depending on the format.
Fortunately, explaining Limited and Constructed isn't nearly as hard as
trying to sum up the game itself. Here's
what I came up with as an example for Constructed:
In this tournament,
players bring pre-built decks, assembled from their own collections, using cards
available in the [insert expansion names] sets.
Each deck must have at least 60 cards, and no more than 4 of any one
card is permitted. Along with their main
deck, players are allowed fifteen extra cards, known as a sideboard to bring in
between games.
Do these paragraphs describe every corner case or issue that
could come up during a match? Obviously,
and of course, not. But, they do clock
in under 150 words for both sections, which could be read in less than 90
seconds with accompanying video. I said
60 seconds, I'm aware, and I'll keep working on it, but these are
suggestions. If I was one hundred
percent ready to revolutionize the coverage game I'd be selling my ideas to
SCG, not posting them for free.
Along with the basic explanations, we'd need short pre-produced
segments on the slang (not difficult if done correctly), and brand-developing
mechanisms that explore the "grind" and the world of tournament Magic (Nathan Holt has already done
this, and would be my first choice to help produce these segments).
To summarize, the format explanation would come first, then
the basic wording, and then we'd jump into the booth for the run-down of other
exciting news.
5) Better Commentary
I'm fairly certain this is a cost issue, and not just
blatant good ol' boy clubbing, but the fact remains that the majority of
coverage pairs just don't have chemistry, and they aren't professional color
announcers.
In order to implement strategy four, it is imperative that
the people behind the microphones are absolutely amazing at discussing the
game. Not just describing the on-board action,
but explaining it, and in an
entertaining manner.
For example (paraphrased slightly):
"He drew, I
didn't see it. Needs to be a sweeper. He
taps his lands, [gets excited] he drew the Whipflare!"
[cheering in
background, laughing, and stunned silence in the booth]
Or:
"Kibler draws for
the turn, too fast, he's nervous, rocking back and forth,[rising volume] the
lands are tapped, he's got something, could be Huntmaster, that wouldn't do it!
[half-second pause as the cards are flipping on the table] [Jaw-dropped enthusiasm] Double Whipflare! Bombs
away. Kibler clears the board with 4
damage to each of Jon's creatures, there's nothing left. Un-be-liev-able, the
momentum has shifted back to the Dragonmaster."
You might be skeptical, obviously with a week to process
what happened, I come up with something a lot more complex than BDM had in real
time? Way to go, Monday Morning
Quarterback.
And I admit
that. Unfortunately, without someone
giving me a shot in an actual booth, I can't exactly demonstrate my own ability
in this case. In any case, though, even
if you don't think I can do it, there are thousands of broadcasting majors in
this country who can.
More important is that you see the difference from the
perspective of somebody that isn't familiar with the game. Stronger verbs, explanation that isn't
pedantic, but describes what exactly just happened and to whom it happened.
This shouldn't be a pipe dream, it should be exactly what
happens in every match, and it is possible.
Ideally, you'd have one hyperactive commentator and one
person to sell the jokes and contribute the details. It's basic and practiced by almost every
broadcast booth in the country, and for some reason, we don't have that yet.
Rich Hagon and BDM have been doing this a long time, and I
enjoy their commentary, but it doesn't engage me. If I was sitting in a bar, drinking PBR and
gnawing on bone-stale nachos, I wouldn't look up to catch the hot Magic action. With some effort though, I'm pretty certain
it wouldn't be difficult to tear my eyes away from golf highlights or two NBA
teams playing for the third time in three nights and struggling to break 70.
Frickin' 74 to frickin' 71. Note: depiction is of NBA players, not your high school JV squad.
Wrapping it Up
When we talk about the great moments in Magic, we remember the tiniest portions of occasionally drawn-out
games. We tell stories to our friends
and we'd love to get more people involved if only to be able to share that time
that what's-his-name bluffed the other guy so hard his appendix burst.
The easiest way to share those iconic moments is not only
through embracing the emerging streaming media, but being willing to try and
get back to the mainstream (there are something like 450 different channels available
where I live, which I assume is a small number compared to most places, and you
don't think that at least one of them would jump on board for 20-30 hours of
pre-packaged programming for them almost every week?)
Even if the goal isn't to appear nationally again, what with
New Media having lucrative open space for generating revenue and exposure, the
higher quality product, the better the viewership. PT:DKA had at least 15,000 viewers live at
one point, compared to the 2500-3000 range I usually see during SCG
events. MLG generates numbers almost
ten times that, and while some of that has to do with the games they feature,
not a small portion is built off the quality of their product.
It's possible, it can happen, and if anyone is interested, I
work cheap.
Ben Snyder has been
playing Magic long enough that if his
playing career was a person, that person would now have to sign up for the
draft and learn how to kick an annoying smoking habit. He once wrote over 10,000 words on a deck
that was banned in less than a month from its creation. His debut ebook is available now, and while
it doesn't feature any collectible card games, it does include a menagerie of
ancient wizards who wouldn't be out of place chilling with Urza and the
Oldwalkers.
*In case it wasn't clear, seeing them with someone else is
flashing LEDs, seeing them naked is the chess clock.
**Freelance writing joke, mostly for my own benefit. Cough. Sorry.
No chess clocks. Ever.
ReplyDeletePaper magic doesn't work in the same way as MTGO. It's full of shortcuts and backups which can't be removed without turning the game into an unplayable mess and requiring judges to stand watch continuously over almost every game. Passing priority works on MTGO because each player can set stops as they require and it's much easier to keep track of board state, life totals etc.
Ideally all paper matches would be untimed, it's just a question of tournament logistics that they aren't.
Most of these recommendations are totally unrealistic. I agree that commentation could be improved in general. I've watched some starcraft and if magic had the equivalent of Tastosis, things would be much improved. Outs calculations and chess clocks are totally out of the realm of possibility.
ReplyDeleteCommentary is the biggest issue, hence the reason it's the largest section and the last subject I covered.
DeleteBut, it is not "out of the realm of possibility" to calculate outs in specific situations, which is what I was addressing in order to build drama. If a player has to draw an Oblivion Ring to remove a Wurmcoil Engine with one natural draw phase, and they have 3 Oblivion Rings left, you know the odds of topdecking it.
The percentages don't even have to be perfect, as long as they are clearly labeled (in the O-Ring example, there might also be Ponder and Alchemy representing possible "outs", even if you can't rapidly determine the odds of drawing O-Ring if Ponder is the draw--which you still could, to be honest--you still have an addition to the flow of the game that doesn't take anything away and adds value. See Vapor Snag versus Unsummon).
As for the clocks, opposition to this issue comes entirely from the player's perspective, not from the question of what it adds to a broadcast. It isn't a perfect solution, but it would be fun.
There definitely needs to be something done about the coverage. Of all the things mentioned I feel only the commentary seriously needs to be addressed to make the game enjoyable when watching it. There are inherent problems in the game, there is an inordinate amount of shuffling and a lot of games can be decided before they have begun on mulligans, luck as well as time, which leads to less interesting coverage. There is not much we can do to affect this, adding more elements, a chess clock will only create more problems; at this time we need to fix the core problems before we pollute the issue further.
ReplyDeleteThe way I see it, statistics and percentages come under the umbrella of commentary. I will address those aspects of it from an English perspective, where the commentary is markedly different to the American style. While English commentary features statistics and in poker the percentages, where it is completely essential, from my experience it is too much of a mainstay in the American coverage and doesn't really aid our understanding of the game or a player. This leads to long discussions about irrelevant statistics whereas they should be seamlessly fed into the coverage to support and inform the commentary. At this point I don't think adding more statistical analysis will improve the commentary.
Percentage i could see working, but we should fix the things that are broken before implementing this.
Commentary: The commentary is appalling and the lack of professionalism astounding (hyperbole is absolutely necessary). The presenters this weekend once again demonstrated these very problems: they were childish; they knew nothing about the metagame or what was important in matchups and Hagon in particular is a terrible ambassador for the game, and England I might add. Contrary to your view that the reason that the commentary is so bad is because of a lack of funding, I think it is instead because of an incestuous conservatism that makes it unthinkable to change the main commentators. Without changing the commentators to more informed and better role models for the game the coverage will continue to be stale. Commentator's knowledge and theory should be at the forefront of the metagame, they should know or be able to work out exactly what is happening in matchups. Menery, Hagon and BDM are dinosaurs, the game has changed so much in recent memory from the days they competed. We desperately need some new blood to take over the challenge, or at least assist them in commentating the top 8.
Seriously though, not to undermine this but I can't stress how toxic Hagon is to the game. He is an embodiment of everything that is wrong with it. He is a fat, ugly, bespectacled middle-aged man who knows nothing about the metagame. He provides useless statistics on occasion; he makes terrible jokes; he is not exciting, even when enthused; he is far too casual and because of this doesn't appeal in anyway to the competitive scene.
Re: the 100 word summary, you use far too many filler sentences. I understand you're making it more exciting (which is good), but, for example, you use a clause which implies there's lots of other ways to win, when there is only one more.
ReplyDelete'To play Magic, you and your opponent each start with a deck and seven cards in hand. Each turn players draw a card from their deck, then can play a land from their hand, use the 'mana' the lands create to summons creatures or planeswalkers, and cast spells. To win, you reduce the opponent's life to 0, empty their deck, or give them 10 poison counters.'
You can add to this visually with one and a half turn cycles: mountain R one drop, opponent plays blocker, bolt the blocker and swing, letting you illustrate all of these components easily. Bam. This summary covers all the basic components and would easily allow someone, if you handed them a deck, to start sussing out 'how to play'.
-Mecha (@mechalink on twitter)