the use of youtube videos in your reviews

[Icepick]

while it definatley adds to the comedic value of reviews and such, youtube is not a permanent hosting site, and a quick look through older reviews shows many videos as "unavailable" as they have been removed from the site

are you guys aware of such an issue? or do you simply not care and intend to flood your reviews with more youtube vids

 

[TheNesMan]

I suppose if they wanted to they could download the videos off of youtube using a program rightfully called "youtube downloader" and then they could just upload it using their youtube accounts to ensure no one takes it down.

 

[used44]

On a slightly similar note, your YouTube punchlines completely suck. Select newer reviewers, certainly including Nick Tan, seem to use the Youtube videos as their only means of showing wit. Take a page out of Duke's book and write a funny joke and then cap it off with a video or image.

I've been wanting to post this for a while, but didn't want to appear to be a complete asshole... buuuuuuuuuut, oh well.

 

[dUKE]

icepick: i have noticed that. especially with copyrighted material, which we are now trying to avoid linking to.

thenesman: re-hosting everything else is a good idea.

 

[Hawk_one]

I must admit I agree with used44 here. As a matter of fact, I almost never click on a link I see is for a Youtube video unless the comment is so confusing I realise there's no way I can get it without clicking. A good text is supposed to stand as much on its own as possible (unless it's a caption text, which this site doesn't use). And this isn't just about the videos, but also the pictures used.

Or to put it another way: I believe the reviews should work just as well when f.ex. printed out and read in the oooooold school-manner. That doesn't mean I would annihilate the practice altogether, but instead give the following advice: Only use a pic/video if you've already made the joke, then somehow found that picture X would complement said joke.

Of course, nobody's ever bound to pay heed to this advice. And there's probably a reason I'm not a paid reviewer, so I guess there's a certain amount of glass house here...

 

[dUKE]

hawk_one - we use links to take advantage of the medium that we operate in. whats the point of the internet if you use it like a book, rather than realize its full potential?

anyway, that said, the firefox extention 'videodownloader' seems to have broken for youtube videos. anyone else notice this? anyone know a fix?

d

 

[Hawk_one]

Duke: I am fully aware of how the internet is so much more than text.

But on the other hand, one cannot forget the simple fact that any tool that can be used can also be abused. When .gif animations arrived on the scene, what happened then? Or to put it another way, who is not thinking that This Strong Bad email didn't describe just about every single home-made webpage for several years?

And to add in Youtube videos that are more or less irrelevant except to make a punchline is, in my opinion, equally useless as putting in a .gif flame. You're technically taking advantage of the tools of the internet, but there is no actual benefit coming out of it. It breaks the flow of the review when I have to stop reading the review and click a link just to see what the hell is going on in the head of the reviewer. Once or twice I've ended up forgetting about the rest of the review, and then popped over to another webpage before eventually coming back here and realising I never finished reading that review. Is that really what you want?

I would of course welcome relevant videos, such as those showing some actual gameplay, but they seem to be in a distinct minority here.

So, make it flow. First and foremost, make it flow. Text might be an old medium, but it's still fricking damn powerful, so be careful about how to supplement it with other tools.

 

[used44]

That is a really good point.

 

[joeblow]

It breaks the flow of the review when I have to stop reading the review and click a link just to see what the hell is going on in the head of the reviewer.

I think most of the reviews are written without links. The links are often added later.

So you shouldn't have to click on the links to know what's going on in the head of the reviewer.

 

[Icepick]

the new sega rally review shows ultimatley how pointless these links are becoming

 

[Nick_Tan]

The purpose of links in GR reviews is to add comic relief. Some may not find the videos or links funny or interesting, but some do. Ultimately, it's your choice whether to click on the link or not. So if you find them useless, then don't bother, and let other readers decide whether they find them useless or not.

As procedure, reviews are first written without links. I am also in the camp that believes the text should stand without graphics and video, though they can be effective enhancers. Besides, writers think primarily in words, so unless there's a particular video or image that can prove a point more clearly than words - no worries about that.

 

[Icepick]

yeah ok, but tell me which video in the sega rally review was comical....

 

[Nick_Tan]

Poor... poor pony...

 

[Longo_2_guns]

All the new reviewers fail.

 

[Icepick]

Poor... poor pony...

not exactly funny, nor releavent given how far off the original starting line you went just to deliver a half baked joke

i'm sorry, just bring me back to the days of brian and johnny's wit making GR a stand alone product

 

[Nick_Tan]

Point taken. If you're going to give GR advice, though, I suggest handing it in a way that makes us want to listen. We both want GR and its reviews to succeed and dominate the world. Remember that we're on the same side, just on different sides of the issue. I will, however, defend the new reviewers - Windy, Jesse, Geoff, Joe, and myself - even more so because Ben and Johnny are no longer part of the staff. Bluntly saying that we suck or have things that are pointless serves us little good.

 

[Longo_2_guns]

Well all of the points made have already been made.

And keep in mind that you fail by GR standards, which means that you are above average on every other reviewing website. Cause this is the AP class of the reviewing world.

 

[Hawk_one]

Nick: I hope that I did make my point come across without simply sounding like "you suck", but instead having something at least resembling reasons. And rest assured that I wrote what I did precicely because I do care, or else I wouldn't have bothered writing that long post. So I'm not interested in becoming an enemy either.

 

[AcidTrip]

I've never personally bothered all that much with the links. During my first year or so reading reviews here, I did. By then they were mostly short sound clips or they were funny pictures that you instantly got the point of. The videos I'm "meh" about, because I honestly don't see the point of them outside of pop-culture references.

I'm not distracted by them. I don't see how they can be distracting. If I'm wondering what the writer is talking about, I hover over the link and if it reads YouTube, I just don't bother. Hawk brings up good points; namely, I'm here to read.

I much more preferred the funny pictures and short sound clips than the videos. Videos on YouTube tend to be too long to watch and then hop back into a review. Photoshop isn't that hard to create parodies with. Joystiq does a great job there.

 

[used44]

Bluntly saying that we suck or have things that are pointless serves us little good.

I would hope that being aware that knowing that some readers find some of your features lacking or pointless would serve some purpose to you if you have any aspirations of tailoring your product to please the consumer.