Frobbles for Apex commentary data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/1c4fb/1c4fb4a004ac374ae735c210f8560be0dce354ac" alt="Bee :bee: :bee:"
Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!
You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RF3Pzb3Luk4You shut your mouf.
Mango is one of the most entertaining commentators and can be relatively informative, although brief and occasionally difficult to comprehend.
I would agree to this. Lovage in particular manages to grasp all the nuances of what's happening, while still sounding extremely excited and hype, phil/waffles style.IMO Adam and Lovage are the best commentator duo. Without a doubt.
Adam and Lovage both see the game in great detail, both get excited, and understand player mentality very well.
link to pp and mango commentary please please. pleaseI would agree to this. Lovage in particular manages to grasp all the nuances of what's happening, while still sounding extremely excited and hype, phil/waffles style.
Mango's commentary is insightful, when he wants it to be. Watch his match against shroomed that he commentates as he's playing, or some of his stuff against SFAT in their stream archive. He's one of the smartest players around, but would rather be a funny commentator than an informative one... and I'm perfectly fine with that. Him and PP were a great team.
edit: KK's commentary is amazing gtfo
Except that he's not funny; he just *****es about every aspect of life conceivable, talks about how he could be the best player and easily beat armada, and talks about how he plans to bum off people for the rest of his life. In short, mango's just an arrogant bum who is unfortunately really good at smash. Yes mango pisses me off.He's one of the smartest players around, but would rather be a funny commentator than an informative one... and I'm perfectly fine with that.
Zenith 2012 Hbox vs M2K, I think. It's not on youtube yet, but it's in the twitch archive over in the Impulse video thread.link to pp and mango commentary please please. please
Yes, because finding someone funny is completely objective and the dozens of people that have commented on how funny he is are entirely wrong. Thank you for your insight, Smash Debater.Except that he's not funny; he just *****es about every aspect of life conceivable, talks about how he could be the best player and easily beat armada, and talks about how he plans to bum off people for the rest of his life. In short, mango's just an arrogant bum who is unfortunately really good at smash. Yes mango pisses me off.
Who said I was making objective truth claims? If all of discussion was restricted to only objective topics, far too many areas of human conversation would be restricted. Rather I was just offering reasons for why I believe his commentary not to be entertaining, you are entitled to believe that those things that I listed are funny.Yes, because finding someone funny is completely objective and the dozens of people that have commented on how funny he is are entirely wrong. Thank you for your insight, Smash Debater.
The video shows mango on a commentary set up for an extended period of time talking over video of people playing the game. I think that satisfies any reasonable set of necessary and sufficient conditions for "commentary". Besides, mango himself references what he's doing as commentary. See 1:40 "I don't know what to commentate..." Or see what the uploader refers to them as:edit: It just occured to me that you're talking about the "Mango Talks" series of videos which never claim to be commentary, they claim to be nothing more than Mango talking. Brilliant.
You don't typically give voice to an opinion by presenting it as a statement of fact along the lines of "Except that he's not funny; he just *****es...(etc)". If you made clear that you were merely offering reasons as to why you personally didn't enjoy his commentary, that would be another thing entirely. Instead, you are just arbitrarily asserting an objective truth.Who said I was making objective truth claims? If all of discussion was restricted to only objective topics, far too many areas of human conversation would be restricted. Rather I was just offering reasons for why I believe his commentary not to be entertaining, you are entitled to believe that those things that I listed are funny.
The point of this wasn't to argue semantics; I was saying that you picked an inappropriate example. Mango is making no attempt to give a play by play, an analysis, a whatever of the match at hand in a way that would constitute commentary. Rather, he was just talking about other stuff. His speech was tangentially related to the gameplay at best, the only reason he was at the commentary station was so that he could interact with the stream viewers (which he does for the full hour and a half or however long it is). Your example ofThe video shows mango on a commentary set up for an extended period of time talking over video of people playing the game. I think that satisfies any reasonable set of necessary and sufficient conditions for "commentary". Besides, mango himself references what he's doing as commentary. See 1:40 "I don't know what to commentate..." Or see what the uploader refers to them as:
http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=323044
"Bonus Mango Commentary"
And I'm not sure why you seem to think that the videos being claimed as Mango talking somehow counts against the view of them being vids of mango commentating. Since "Mango commentating" clearly entails "Mango talking" (as talking is a necessary condition of commentating), that mango is talking cannot possibly count as evidence against him commentating. Rather, what would be bad for my view is if the vids were not claimed as mango talking, since evidence against an entailment of a proposition counts as evidence against the proposition itself.
I apolgize for the excessive condescension... I was salty about something irl, shouldn't have put it on you. Nevertheless, I feel you phrased your post inappropriately, as stated in the wall of text above.I can do "Smash Debater" if you want, but I probably won't respond to future posts if they drip condescension.
Just happened to see this question, and yes, wobbles and I had just met the moment we started commentary.These guys are pretty damn good. Did they just meet each other for the first time at this tourney?
Either of them with D1 would be pretty cool too. Atleast in my head.
Thanks for actually following up. You're a good man Construct.Zenith 2012 Hbox vs M2K, I think. It's not on youtube yet, but it's in the twitch archive over in the Impulse video thread.
Yes, because finding someone funny is completely objective and the dozens of people that have commented on how funny he is are entirely wrong. Thank you for your insight, Smash Debater.
edit: It just occured to me that you're talking about the "Mango Talks" series of videos which never claim to be commentary, they claim to be nothing more than Mango talking. Brilliant.
The stream barely had 700 viewers at prime time, IIRC. That's not a lot of views, and reeeally doubt there was anyone watching that didn't already know about Melee.which is why I was so surprised that such a big European tournament had such an unprofessional commentator like Mike Hagger.
I think it would rather out of the norm and odd to qualify every subjective statement with a note that you are making objective truth claims. Consider what it would be like if people took your advice in everyday conversation. We say things like, "this restaurant is the best", "that girl is the hottest", "it smells terrible in here", "that movie was overrated", "Seinfeld is a great comedian". It would be detrimental to the flow of conversation to qualify every subjective statement as such. I think its just uncharitable to interpret a statement saying that something is not funny as an objective truth claim.You don't typically give voice to an opinion by presenting it as a statement of fact along the lines of "Except that he's not funny; he just *****es...(etc)". If you made clear that you were merely offering reasons as to why you personally didn't enjoy his commentary, that would be another thing entirely. Instead, you are just arbitrarily asserting an objective truth.
Isn't that the point? Commentary that only "tangentially relates" to gameplay can be good, but not for two straight hours. IMO (guess I have to use that qualification now), if you aren't going to talk about the match, don't hop on the commentary set up for two hours, and those who think you talking about how your life got "brawled" is funny can listen to that at some other juncture.The point of this wasn't to argue semantics; I was saying that you picked an inappropriate example. Mango is making no attempt to give a play by play, an analysis, a whatever of the match at hand in a way that would constitute commentary. Rather, he was just talking about other stuff. His speech was tangentially related to the gameplay at best, the only reason he was at the commentary station was so that he could interact with the stream viewers (which he does for the full hour and a half or however long it is). Your example of him saying "I don't know what to commentate..." just leads into the fact that he has no interest in doing commentary, and as a result doesn't.
We had 5000 for FC.... Melee is not going anywhere.700 viewers not a lot for just melee?
Not too bad for a game on its death bed imo