Anyone know why SCG's coverage of events is always miles ahead of WotC's? Both were holding events last weekend and I couldn't watch more than a few minutes of WotC's due to the terrible camera quality, audio levels, etc. SCG seems to do everything right (great angles, good card discussion, constant information being provided). Anyone know why SCG can consistently produce a better product than a multi-million dollar corporation?
I'd say SCG is more practiced - in the sense that they have to organize coverage every weekend of the year. Wizards has to organize coverage much less than that, so they are less practiced, even though they have been doing it for longer.
I remember back when the MTG Pro Tour was on ESPN, they mentioned how Magic coverage was pretty poor even back then. SCG raises the bar even further.*
*This is not to suggest that SCG coverage is that great either, because the commentators are often bland, insulting to non-SCG regulars, sometimes not familiar of the cards or decks, make bad jokes, and on Sunday Legacy they are almost ALWAYS hung over and you can tell by their lack of energy.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Old enough to know better, much too young to care.
SCG coverage used to be pretty bad too, go back a couple years and look at it. They've been getting a lot of practice though. They do video content, they do 2 tournaments a week, and they've been hiring good people behind the scenes to make sure everything runs smoothly. They've also tried to incorporate things other sports/esports coverage does. WotC does none of that. Nothing against WotC, I like their coverage team I just think they could do a better job.
Oddly enough the euro GP team does a better job than the US team.
STATISTICS.
All of these "Let's eliminate bad cards" crusades are simply ignorant. And when they start to devolve into "WotC is conspiring to give us crappy cards," they just become embarrassing. MATH is conspiring to give you crappy cards.
This is not to suggest that SCG coverage is that great either, because the commentators are often bland, insulting to non-SCG regulars, sometimes not familiar of the cards or decks, make bad jokes, and on Sunday Legacy they are almost ALWAYS hung over and you can tell by their lack of energy.
Maybe I haven't been watching them long enough, because their commentators always seem very knowledgeable to me. There's just enough banter to keep things interesting, IMO. I love Marshall, LSV, and Rich for WotC coverage, but I'll take great coverage and decent commentators over great commentators and terrible coverage quality.
Wizards has been doing better in recent year, but yeah, as others have mentioned CFB and SCG are really the "teachers" as far as "how to do coverage" is concerned.
It amazes me, because WotC has so much cash and so much riding on this sort of thing and so much access to talent that they end up so often faltering.
i personally think wotc's coverage is fine. i guess i just don't really watch enough of any of it to have an opinion, i mostly only take the time to watch pro tours and a couple hours of a grand prix here or there when i don't have work.
Pro Tour coverage quality is very good. 2nd to none and arguably better than SCGs.
The problem is thier GP coverage--GGsLive (the company handling the broadcast) does a terrible job, but Rashad Miller is in good with the whole WOTC crew.
I feel like the commentary from Wizards lacks a certain depth that SCG has. The commentators don't talk about the mental aspects of the games, so much as they simply observe what's happening. They don't thoroughly discuss decision trees, potential outs to a given situation, matchups, theoretical combat scenarios, sideboard choices, etc. They just say generic, obvious stuff like "Reid Duke casts another copy of Elspeth. Chapin is gonna have trouble getting out of this one!" or "Now that LSV has cast Stormbreath Dragon, Vidianto Wijaya is gonna have to leave his Prognostic Sphinx back to block if he doesn't want to lose his Ashiok!"
In other words, they don't address what is arguably the most important part of Magic - the complex thought processes that separate good players from great players.
The problem with defining this format by what is "fun" is that everyone seems to define fun as what they don't lose to. If you keep losing to easily answered cards, that means you should improve your deck. If you don't want to improve your deck, then you should come to peace with the idea that you are going to lose because you chose to not interact with better strategies.
I feel like the commentary from Wizards lacks a certain depth that SCG has. The commentators don't talk about the mental aspects of the games, so much as they simply observe what's happening. They don't thoroughly discuss decision trees, potential outs to a given situation, matchups, theoretical combat scenarios, sideboard choices, etc. They just say generic, obvious stuff like "Reid Duke casts another copy of Elspeth. Chapin is gonna have trouble getting out of this one!" or "Now that LSV has cast Stormbreath Dragon, Vidianto Wijaya is gonna have to leave his Prognostic Sphinx back to block if he doesn't want to lose his Ashiok!"
In other words, they don't address what is arguably the most important part of Magic - the complex thought processes that separate good players from great players.
This is a very insightful comment. Taste my like!
I actually think the video and camera work on most of the SCG tournaments is better. When I tune in, I can see what round it is, what decks are being played, and get into the stream faster. Judging by their piss poor MTGO offering and 80's quality tournament coverage, I'd say perhaps WOTC struggles with any technology developed after 1930. Then again, their website's pretty good *glares at MTGSal*
The thing is - SCG actually does what any good sportscasters do - they pair commentators up in a Play-by-play/Analyst role.
This way, one commentator gives you the concrete info: "Reid plays Elspeth." while the 'analyst' commentator then walks through possible strategies and scenarios, why the play is made, how the opponent can respond etc...
It seems WOTC just puts two people in the "play-by-play" role and it makes the coverage a little bland.
On the segments between rounds, you have to understand the motivations behind them. SCG is trying to sell their brand, while Wizards is trying to sell the Magic brand. While the two are related, they are still different things.
Essentially, Rich Hagon is one of the only Wizards coverage people that are entertaining (his mannerisms can be hilarious). Zac Hill is kind of annoying. Rashad is a robot just repeating what others say, etc.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Old enough to know better, much too young to care.
It seems WOTC just puts two people in the "play-by-play" role and it makes the coverage a little bland.
I agree with this.
Honestly, I just don't think wizards puts enough money into coverage. SCG has hired people who have experience in covering sports and events just to cover their events, and it shows. WotC probably doesn't have the same caliber coverage people running their coverage...they almost always just hire people out to do it.
The only thing WotC has over SCG is Nathan Holt doing walking the planes. They need to spend more money on people like him to do coverage.
Yeah, WotC really needs to get a color commentator and use him or her effectively. LSV does a pretty good job when they have him, but he isn't always there, and even when he is, I feel like they restrict him by asking him dumb questions and talking at times when he should be giving the commentary.
I think some of it might be different target audiences.
WotC feels much more geared towards "player who plays a little FNM but not a tournament player". They often talk about what you could bring to an FNM/play with your friends. They have advertisements about things like sleeves and often describe what cards do (with advice like Stormbreath Dragon is good against control). In contrast, SCG feels much more geared towards "tournament-level player" with complicated discussion about various lines and combinations of cards.
Long story short, I think WotC is aiming at a more casual audience, which is why it might feel inferior to deeply-enfranchised players.
Also these commentators are annoying because they feel biased towards certain players. I've heard about 100 things about reid duke in this match and 0 about his opponent.
I don't think there's anything wrong with saying "Stormbreath Dragon is good against control." But typically their discussion starts and ends with "This is good for Finkel" or "This is bad for Kai". I'm pretty sure even people who play casually would appreciate some basic strategy discussion:
Announcer 1: "Finkel draws Stormbreath Dragon. That's really good against a control deck like Kai's."
Announcer 2: "Yeah, and that may set the tone for the rest of the game. Finkel knows Kai could easily have Dissolve in hand here, and Finkel has got to be aware that Stormbreath Dragon is very hard for Kai to beat without countering it, so I suspect Finkel will now try to bait Kai into using his counter on something else."
Announcer 1: "Of course, we know that Kai doesn't have a counter."
And so on. I don't think this would alienate casual players.
Also these commentators are annoying because they feel biased towards certain players. I've heard about 100 things about reid duke in this match and 0 about his opponent.
They somewhat are, but SCG is too. Reid Duke just happens to be a very popular player so lots of viewers want to hear about him.
Reid Duke is American, like the commentators. Reid Duke writes articles and talks about Magic in English, the commentators' native language, and travels to the same events as the commentators, and they run into each other all the time. The same is not at all true for his Japanese opponent. I understand the point and would agree in theory, but that's not just how it can possibly work out in practice.
There was an alternative Japanese stream which I can only assume was biased slightly in favor of the Japanese player.
The thing is, people who watch these Pro Tours online are the kind who'd appreciate more in-depth thought as to why these players take certain lines of play. "Card X is great against aggro!" or "This is bad for Player A, he can't attack so he can block Player B and not let his Planeswalker die!" isn't in-depth, it's more basic (especially with the audience having access to more information - both players' hands).
Which is why they should always try to get LSV when he's not playing to do this. I did like Matt Sperling when he did commentary awhile back, as well as some of the European pros like Zatlkaj.
The CFB Pantheon team were playing a BUG deck with Prognostic Sphinx and throughout Friday and Saturday, Zac Hill kept repeatedly mentioning how "Prognostic Sphinx is the BUG deck's answer to Elspeth." He said this nearly every time the card was played, with no explanation behind it.
It wasn't until late Saturday (last ~2 rounds) that someone, maybe LSV, actually asked Zac to explain what it was about Prognostic Sphinx that made it the card to beat Elspeth - and they had to ask Reid Duke in his deck tech to get the answer (It dodges Elspeth's -2, it flies over the soldier tokens, and you can't spot-remove it due to potential hexproof).
This is just an example of how, players who are unfamiliar with the format or the game, would not understand why some 3/5 flying rare sphinx is the one-card to beat Elspeth.
That, coupled along with Zac Hill's horrid abuse of the english language, makes the Pro Tour coverage very hard to watch.
p.s. I agree the transitions were painful too - delayed screen change, no sound, blank stares by commentators etc.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Old enough to know better, much too young to care.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I remember back when the MTG Pro Tour was on ESPN, they mentioned how Magic coverage was pretty poor even back then. SCG raises the bar even further.*
*This is not to suggest that SCG coverage is that great either, because the commentators are often bland, insulting to non-SCG regulars, sometimes not familiar of the cards or decks, make bad jokes, and on Sunday Legacy they are almost ALWAYS hung over and you can tell by their lack of energy.
Oddly enough the euro GP team does a better job than the US team.
They have better filler segments too.
If you've heard him in the booth, you'll understand the difference.
What, like how he criticizes the plays of non-SCG players in the feature matches? Chapin is one of the most annoying ones to listen to.
He probably should have have just stuck to being a drug dealer.
Maybe I haven't been watching them long enough, because their commentators always seem very knowledgeable to me. There's just enough banter to keep things interesting, IMO. I love Marshall, LSV, and Rich for WotC coverage, but I'll take great coverage and decent commentators over great commentators and terrible coverage quality.
It amazes me, because WotC has so much cash and so much riding on this sort of thing and so much access to talent that they end up so often faltering.
How To Keep Your FOIL Cards From Curling: http://youtu.be/QTmubrS8VnI
The Best Deck Boxes: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uEwgLph_Pjk
The Best Binders: http://youtu.be/H5IauASYWjk
The problem is thier GP coverage--GGsLive (the company handling the broadcast) does a terrible job, but Rashad Miller is in good with the whole WOTC crew.
In other words, they don't address what is arguably the most important part of Magic - the complex thought processes that separate good players from great players.
This is a very insightful comment. Taste my like!
I actually think the video and camera work on most of the SCG tournaments is better. When I tune in, I can see what round it is, what decks are being played, and get into the stream faster. Judging by their piss poor MTGO offering and 80's quality tournament coverage, I'd say perhaps WOTC struggles with any technology developed after 1930. Then again, their website's pretty good *glares at MTGSal*
This way, one commentator gives you the concrete info: "Reid plays Elspeth." while the 'analyst' commentator then walks through possible strategies and scenarios, why the play is made, how the opponent can respond etc...
It seems WOTC just puts two people in the "play-by-play" role and it makes the coverage a little bland.
On the segments between rounds, you have to understand the motivations behind them. SCG is trying to sell their brand, while Wizards is trying to sell the Magic brand. While the two are related, they are still different things.
Essentially, Rich Hagon is one of the only Wizards coverage people that are entertaining (his mannerisms can be hilarious). Zac Hill is kind of annoying. Rashad is a robot just repeating what others say, etc.
I agree with this.
Honestly, I just don't think wizards puts enough money into coverage. SCG has hired people who have experience in covering sports and events just to cover their events, and it shows. WotC probably doesn't have the same caliber coverage people running their coverage...they almost always just hire people out to do it.
The only thing WotC has over SCG is Nathan Holt doing walking the planes. They need to spend more money on people like him to do coverage.
Modern Junk Primer
Legacy ANT Primer
L1 Judge
WotC feels much more geared towards "player who plays a little FNM but not a tournament player". They often talk about what you could bring to an FNM/play with your friends. They have advertisements about things like sleeves and often describe what cards do (with advice like Stormbreath Dragon is good against control). In contrast, SCG feels much more geared towards "tournament-level player" with complicated discussion about various lines and combinations of cards.
Long story short, I think WotC is aiming at a more casual audience, which is why it might feel inferior to deeply-enfranchised players.
Announcer 1: "Finkel draws Stormbreath Dragon. That's really good against a control deck like Kai's."
Announcer 2: "Yeah, and that may set the tone for the rest of the game. Finkel knows Kai could easily have Dissolve in hand here, and Finkel has got to be aware that Stormbreath Dragon is very hard for Kai to beat without countering it, so I suspect Finkel will now try to bait Kai into using his counter on something else."
Announcer 1: "Of course, we know that Kai doesn't have a counter."
And so on. I don't think this would alienate casual players.
They somewhat are, but SCG is too. Reid Duke just happens to be a very popular player so lots of viewers want to hear about him.
There was an alternative Japanese stream which I can only assume was biased slightly in favor of the Japanese player.
Which is why they should always try to get LSV when he's not playing to do this. I did like Matt Sperling when he did commentary awhile back, as well as some of the European pros like Zatlkaj.
The CFB Pantheon team were playing a BUG deck with Prognostic Sphinx and throughout Friday and Saturday, Zac Hill kept repeatedly mentioning how "Prognostic Sphinx is the BUG deck's answer to Elspeth." He said this nearly every time the card was played, with no explanation behind it.
It wasn't until late Saturday (last ~2 rounds) that someone, maybe LSV, actually asked Zac to explain what it was about Prognostic Sphinx that made it the card to beat Elspeth - and they had to ask Reid Duke in his deck tech to get the answer (It dodges Elspeth's -2, it flies over the soldier tokens, and you can't spot-remove it due to potential hexproof).
This is just an example of how, players who are unfamiliar with the format or the game, would not understand why some 3/5 flying rare sphinx is the one-card to beat Elspeth.
That, coupled along with Zac Hill's horrid abuse of the english language, makes the Pro Tour coverage very hard to watch.
p.s. I agree the transitions were painful too - delayed screen change, no sound, blank stares by commentators etc.