I'm fairly new to Blazblue as a scene (and 2D fighters in general), but I can at least remark on the commentary aspect coming from games like Starcraft 2. Dacid, I'm going to use one of the videos from Evo with your commentary on it as an example; I don't mean any affront to you but I think there are a lot of ways to improve your commentary. Specifically, I'll be using this match: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQWBbSxmsGo
0:00-0:20 -- Not really taking about the upcoming match at all. There's no insight here as to how we can expect the match to play out; all that's said is "We saw a great Noel mirror, let's see how he's going to go in here" which is effectively equivalent to saying "Let's hope this is a good match" and doesn't really add anything.
0:20-0:26 -- The commentators remark that IkeTakeda gets a knockdown in the corner and starts to pressure Orikasa. The viewers see this, so you're only telling the viewers what they already know. Why not talk about the various options Noel has to get out of Hazama's corner pressure? Can she 2D out of any of his common blockstrings? What can she do after Jabaki or a blocked Ressenga?
0:26-0:34 -- Dacid mentions that "he's already trying to condition it". Condition what? It was never mentioned what was being conditioned, but this is the sort of the thing the viewers can't see; they would need insight into a player's mind like commentators should have in order to do that.
0:34-0:44 -- Dacid says that getting hit by counterhit 3C usually loses you the round, which is good. I didn't know that and I couldn't necessarily tell that from watching the match. This is the sort of knowledge I think a commentator should have, providing predictions and insight that viewers can't. However for the rest of the round, the commentary is only saying and reacting to what happens in the match. Again, the viewers can already see that; saying "he dropped his combo" doesn't add anything because it's already plain to see.
0:44-1:05 -- No match commentary for a while, but on something in the background, which I at least enjoyed. It adds a sense of atmosphere when there's not much to say regarding the match itself. Probably the best insight this entire game comes when Dacid says "Orikasa is too willing to mash", and then he once again gets counterhit.
1:05-1:20 -- Again Dacid just says something that everyone watching can already see: "This time he uses 2D to get over it." Then the other commentator says "Hazama's hitconfirms are a big deal; you can't use that Noel mashy stuff." I don't really understand what that's trying to convey, but that may just be a personal failing on my part.
1:20-2:00 -- As before, the commentators are just reacting to what happens. "Good counterhit", "Nice block on the overhead." What does this add? What insight does this give the viewers? They can already see that there was a counterhit and that the overhead was blocked. Later, "this will be relatively low damage" as the combo is two hits from finishing and is only at 2k, which again is obvious to anyone who's even a little bit familiar with Noel's combos. Given the likely audience, I think that was unnecessary. Then there's no commentary for a while. After that, just more commentary telling the viewers what's happening on the screen.
2:00-2:20 -- More telling viewers what they already know, except for Hazama trying to frame trap Noel's 2D.
2:20-2:42 -- This is really, really good. The commentators start talking about how bursts, guard primers, and meter shape the Noel-Hazama matchup. This is real, actual insight. Maybe it's not particularly deep, but if a person hasn't had a reason to think about it (and most wouldn't), then it's valuable information in how to look at the flow of the match.
2:42-3:37 -- Basically the same as before. Some minor insight regarding zoning/meter advantage for hazama, but still a lot of just saying what's happening on the screen. That isn't commentary; it's play-by-play.
The next round is more of the same but with a good bit of Noel 2D analysis in the middle.
From there to the end is the same problem of "telling the viewers what they can already see", but the point where the commentators analyzed Orikasa's mental state was pretty nice.
But yeah, beyond that, the thing I noticed most is the complete lack of predictions in the commentary. The entire commentary was reactive; they saw something and then said something about it. Commentary is supposed to both hype up the viewers and give them a deeper understanding and insight of the match than they would otherwise have on their own. The best way to do the latter is to tell the viewers how the match is going to go before the match even plays out. Using their own extensive experience and insight, commentators should be able to frame a picture of the match for the viewers in terms of what each player's primary goals are and how they're going to work to achieve them.
For instance in Noel vs. Hazama, how does that matchup play out? Does Hazama want to try to zone Noel with chains, or is the threat of optic barrel and her overall speed too much for him to do that? What are their tools for applying pressure and mixups, and how do those interact with the other player's tools to beat them? This works even better if the commentators know one or more players personally, because they'll be able to provide insight into how that specific player plays. Does IkeTakeda rely more on his overheads or lows for pressure? How good is his zoning vs. his close game? (I honestly have no idea whether or not Dacid knows IkeTakeda personally; this is just the kind of bonus insight you'd get if the situation arose)
You can get a lot more time in commentary doing this if you eliminate every instance of telling the viewers what they're seeing. "Great confirm into Jayoku" doesn't give viewers any more information. "This came off of counterhit 3C so it's going to do a hell of a lot of damage" does give information, because until that high damage happens, the viewers can't see it. Now they know to perhaps look for a burst depending on what's going on, among other things. They might already know it from their own experiences, but then you have to figure out what audience you're playing to. This is why the Grand Finals commentary was pretty good, since a lot of the people watching it won't have any idea about how Blazblue's specific mechanics work. If your audience is mostly people who haven't played the game before (e.g., Evo Grand Finals), then stick with more basic things and avoid deeper analysis. If your audience is made up of people who are likely to be fairly knowledgeable about the game (e.g., not grand finals since viewers would have to seek it out over things like SF and MK), then go for deeper insight.
That's the thing though; almost all of the time you shouldn't be talking about what's happening. The viewers can see what's happening, and you talking about it doesn't add anything to their experience. You should be talking about things the viewer can't see, things that require the insight of a smarter player or experienced commentator who knows what to look for. In the match I posted above, when the commentators started talking about bursts, guard primers, and meter as they apply to the matchup, that was good. When they started discussing how Noel's 2D affects the matchup, that was good. In neither situation were either of them saying anything about what was going on in the match itself, and that's not necessary; that information is already passed on to the viewers because they can see it.
I don't mean to say that deep analysis is the -only- kind of commentary you should have, though. If you want to have hype as your gimmick, that's completely valid, but again this can and should be achieved without telling the viewers what they can already see.
tl;dr Dacid says "nice x" and "good x" in reaction to things way too much in between his insightful commentary on matchups and resources, and I wish I'd get to hear more of that insight.
