>>323110614 This. It shouldn't take you more than that to sum up your experience for any game. It's a review, not some in-depth analysis of every facet of the game. People just want to know if it's worth playing or not.
>>323110818 >turn on review >whatever he says in the first maybe 5 minutes will loop indefinitely until the video is over
Does he script these and just copy and paste a point he wants to emphasize about 40-50 times? Also, seriously, checking the settings menu for 20 minutes every video is ridiculous, and god forbid there isn't his personal resolution setting and 4xAA.
>>323110245 I think movie reviewers get less than that, so...
Plus, TEN FUCKING MINUTES of gameplay? How hard could it be to stick to that? You're there to talk about things like controls, interface, sound, graphics, etc. A short clip to accentuate what your review is covering is fine. >this ui sucks. >here is a 20 second video of me fumbling around with the worst part of the ui.
>>323112272 >agree to embargo >get game early >get more yt monies
>break embargo >get sued
>don't agree to embargo >have to go to gamestop like a neckbeard >get a sweat covered copy >get home and cut self with knife trying to open game >insert game into console or pc >have to install >have a quick snack >come back >play through entire game >play through entire game again while recording >edit footage to exclude times I died >voice review >upload to yt >takes hours to upload
The real question is, why haven't you sold your soul to start reviewing games yet?
>>323110245 Video reviews are outdated, at least the ones that would have some kind of review embargo. It's just a sales pitch with all the highlights from the game without taking into account any of the moment to moment gameplay. Like The Witcher sounds neat but you aren't seeing 40 minutes of someone walking back and forth a mostly empty field while getting hounded by random encounters ever 30 seconds. When a new game comes out and I want to know what it's like I'm going to watch some shitty let's play. Half the time these games are so on rails that that's the end of it. But if the game looks interesting and I think I can play it in a different/better way I'll pick it up.
>Otherwise people could ask for a review copy and narrate their way through the whole fucking game and it would damage their sales
So many things wrong with this. First off, only games that suffer from full LPs are bad games, which also suffer from honest reviews for the same reason: they're fucking bad. Secondly, even if we accepted that that's true, why ten minutes? Ten minutes is a fucking ridiculously short amount of footage. If you have to have a limit on footage, make it two hours. Nobody has made a two hour review on anything so it's clearly not a constraint, yet it would prevent people from doing what you just said (not that there's anything wrong with just making a full LP and calling it a review, in fact that would probably be the best kind of review).
No he's right. A review shouldn't take more than 10 minutes to do. I don't want to waste anymore time than that watching a fucking review. If you can't sum up your opinions on a game in under 10 minutes you are not worth being watched.
A critique of the game however, which is what you are probably all thinking off should be much longer than 10 mins, as they go into way more detail, but they also assume you've already played the game and will contain spoilers. Plinketts style "reviews" are actually critiques. A review is simply "should you buy/watch/play this or not" a critique is critically analyzing the material from an educated perspective.
>>323115394 He's a fanny flustered 8cuck mad because his cancerous Youtube personality isn't worth watching. Face it, if you take longer than 10 minutes to review shit you're a shit reviewer. It's a review embargo, not a critique embargo.
>>323115723 >All of the tools are at your disposal to skip the video, watch a different video, or just not fucking watch it.
And that is exactly what I do when I see a 50 fucking minute review. Skim it or close the tab and find another one. I don't want to waste nearly an hour on a fucking review holy fuck. It's not a game, it's someones opinion on a game. May as well read some guys post on /v/ about it, only takes under a minute to do that and get a similar idea about the game.
>>323110245 Vidya journalist here; he's right from an ethical point of view, but there's also another thing to keep in mind. We aren't actually entitled to get free stuff whenever they want: software houses send their stuff for free and before anyone else to us, so the least we can do is respect our terms. Doesn't sound that much complicated as a concept
>>323116973 How? Most reviews back in the day on TV and the early internet didn't even use 10 minutes of gameplay footage, and were more than enough to judge if a game was worth playing or not. If you need more than 10 minutes of gameplay footage to do a review and pad it out, you're a shit reviewer.
If you want to fully critique the entire game in every single detail, feel free to do so after the game has launched, because you're basically doing a let's play by that point.
If you're agreeing to cooperate with a publisher for marketing purposes, then from a marketing point of view 10 minutes of footage is more than enough, regardless of what you do with those minutes and even if you end up saying the game is shit.
>>323110818 Pointless. Using the preview to skip to where he leaves the menu then watching the next 5-10 minutes is all you need. I'll sometimes watch further, but I've never outright changed my mind after about 5 minutes of gameplay content.
All a review needs to do is say: this game is shit and not worth playing and this is why/this game is worth playing and this is why/this game is in the middle and you should decide if you play it based on these points.
You don't need more than 10 minutes of fucking gameplay footage to explain that in a review. It's a fucking review, if you want to use more footage then label it as an in depth analysis or a critique and fuck off, but don't expect a REVIEW embargo to carry over to it.
>>323117763 Sorry, do you have reading comprehension problems? Or you think the "terms" we agree with the PR are just "you have to say it's wonderful or we stop sending you copies" instead of "don't spoil shit or post your reviews before release"?
I don't think reviews need to be longer than 15 mins but I want all my reviews to be just the direct feed. I don't need to see stupid meme images or the reviewers face. The review should be reviewer's voice over the game footage which highlights the points he or she is hitting on. Capping that at 10 minutes is dumb.
>>323110972 >incorrect use of memes I love when people use memes wrong because it pisses off people who like internet memes. I want to see all memes used wrong as much as possible until they're murdered savagely in this fashion.
>>323118325 how much of a long winded rambler do you have to be that you can't condense your opinion whether something is shit or not to under 10 minutes? though honestly is there anything stopping them doing a quick 10 minute "preview" saying maybe get this then later on do a full in depth critique?
>>323110245 I feel that 10 minutes is more than enough for a concise review. If that's not enough you could pad it with infographics and silly reaction image comics I guess. Interested in hearing the other side, but with actual arguments instead of a lazy appeal to authority like in OP's image.
>>323116617 >vidya journalist >ethical The practice of selecting the people who get to review your products yourself is on its own in contradiction to journalistic standards. Just because it's common practice in the vidya industry doesn't mean it's ethical. Please don't ever call yourself a journalist again.
>>323118613 What's the point of owning an Xbox One over a PS4 if it doesn't have exclusives? It's bad for competition because everyone is just going to buy whichever one is more powerful/cheaper/all their friends have one.
Embargoes are fine because it evens the playing field for the big and little guys. Time limits on footage and embargoes that go up the night/day of are bullshit since usually they let streamers show footage of it anyway.
>>323114946 >I don't like 10 minutes because... >...I don't like 10 minutes You haven't given a single reason, asswipe. You just say "10 minutes" like it's some magical amount of time that God decided was right. Provide some evidence for your beliefs if you want anyone to not consider you a cucked turd.
>>323118740 >The practice of selecting the people who get to review your products yourself is on its own in contradiction to journalistic standards
It literally happens to the most followed (read: there's decent amounts of money circulating in the industry) field-oriented journalisms. Ferrari don't let every fucker ever try their cars to write a crappy review on their website -that would be impossible, other than fucking stupid-, they only stay in touch with professional reviewers/car expert critics. Same happens in the movie industry, they send private copies to reviewers despite the fact they could (and often do) destroy them in their articles. It also happen in the music industry in various country, dunno if murrica is one of them. In fact, it happens in pretty much in any decent sized media-related journalism (read: if the subject/product is enough valuable/if the readers are enough)
>>323111983 whats wrong with jontron and extra credits, extra credits has some quality incite to game design, and i think jontron is pretty entertaining I'm starting to think /v/ just hates things without reason
What production value do you want beyond watching the game and hearing his opinion? Everything on top of that is useless bullshit that usually takes away from the video. see: everyone affiliated with Channel Awesome
>>323119269 It happened on console launch with crossgen/next gen titles because they needed money since installed userbase was too small and they needed more money, but we both know they'll release countless exclusives in the next 4 years and only a few will get a pc port.
I really can't name a console exclusive that will also get a pc release in the future other than Tomb Raider.
>>323119936 >comparing luxury cars to digital media And on movies, that happens because they have to. They can't make the selection as stringent as the vidya industry, because they have some(though very, very low) standards.
>>323120428 You can say the same about vidya industry. They send a review copy to IGN because they have very, very low standards. But these very low standards exist, and that's why they don't send it to "EPICminecruftXxXBro" channel on YouTube.
>>323120325 To /v/ maybe like 6 months but 4chan like 2 years His videos are interesting and if you can point out one video other than "games out might not have tried" that's cancerous then I might understand but so far no one has pointed out what he does wrong other than saying he's a sellout which he might be
>>323121083 But apparently you're the one lacking reading comprehension. If not, then why didn't you point out a better system than "giving free copies to trusted critics" that can actually work in this economy? I'm curious.
>>323120903 >stole money from donators >WE ARE RUNNING OUT OF INTERNETZ >Omg, you kill 25 black people for a trophy, that's racist :/ >We support Anita sarkeesian >ANIMAL SPIRIT SCIENCES AND SPACE JEWS(not even kidding you) >kanji is gay and Naoto is trans
>>323121505 That's cool. But I shouldn't have to spell it out twice. They give access for people who'll go on to saw the shit out of it because they have to. Because the industry has some journalistic standards, and they can't just pick and choose however they want who's allowed to cover the piece.
I believe his point was that if you're such a NEET loser with time enough to waste watching literal trash entertainment your opinion on how long and of what quality entertainment should be is of no use to anyone.
>>323121992 I just can't see the difference with the videogame journalism industry. Because they are doing the same thing the movie industry is doing, on paper. Sure, the situation got worse and worse with the time and now we have a majority of people who just aren't qualified to properly review a videogame in this field. Too bad they sit on the chair of those who worked before, with a bit of decency. In fact, American vidya journalism was one of the most respected in the world around 10-15 years ago; now they're a joke to the rest of the world.
But I'm still curious, how are they (devs/gaming companies) supposed to manage reviews in an ethical way?
I don't think journalists who worked at XBOX MAGAZINE or NINTENDO POWER were ever anything but shills. Maybe the poor bastards who ended up there used to have actual qualifications, though, unlike the current crop of professional bloggers.
Gaming websites popped up run by gamers for gamers and authentic critical reviews, but those sites became corrupted by industry bribes (hasn't the Neofag admin and moderation literally been on the Sony marketing dole for a long time?) and are also entirely untrustworthy now.
>>323123289 Paying for reviews is unethical, and you see why right?
Picking and choosing who gets to cover it guarantees positive coverage. The difference between mediums is in the choice. Then, them being reliant on getting the copies for revenue adds another whole batch of issues, as do the ads. It's a goddamn clusterfuck.
I do remember PC gamer being pretty damn good around that time. Other than all of the ads, the translated articles for other languages and stuff they were really solid. Ruthless as fuck but fair, and the demo discs were great.
>>323123289 >But I'm still curious, how are they (devs/gaming companies) supposed to manage reviews in an ethical way?
All they can do is release their 'review copies' a reasonable time (based on their games play length) to as many outlets as they can and try not to pick and choose who gets review copies based on who gave them the most positive reviews. Because that's basically how it works now.
Not making shit games is probably the only thing the actual game developers can do to help reviews, because then the reviews don't have to lie about shit games being good.
>>323123289 >>323124080 Oh, sorry I kind of dodged the last question there. It's actually pretty complicated and you can't just copy what they do for movies since games take so much damn time. You can't just have an early showing or something, especially for a longer game like an RPG. I really don't know a good way around it. It'd be nice if we went back to actually having demos, but that's just a pipedream and has little to do with reviews.
Its his channel, if he doesnt want to cover a game because of its embargo terms thats his right, and he also has the right to call the practice out as shitty and he has the right to say it shouldnt be done.
Thats not being entitled, thats stating your fucking opinion you halfwit.
>>323110614 This. I don't want to spend 20 minutes watching a fuckig review, tell me your opinion, why you thought it was good, and response then fuck off. Nice, short, to the point I don't care to hear you drone on about the industry and how you're so special and le intellectual
>>323125091 He thinks these companies should have to bend over for him because he's special or something , considering the amount of people who watch these types of videos before they buy a game 10minutes is acceptable and more than enough. He is definitely an entitled bitch.
>>323125832 >WE won't accept this! >speaking on behalf of everyone because he thinks he's this important >don't do this >trying to le control us!!
By the way he most certainly can do a review in 30 minutes with just 10 minutes of gameplay footage. I don't know what idiot needs to watch a video game review over 15 minutes anyways. Its funny to think this man would lose everything if these companies didn't let him shill for them in the first place anyways though
>a company gives you a game that they worked on to you for free to review >They set some guidelines >get upset over something you're getting free of charge and early Youtubers are the most entitled and worthless bunch of people I've ever seen. The only thing as despicable are the clickbait sites with 50 seperate pages for a single list for maximum Jew money.
>>323124080 >Paying for reviews is unethical, and you see why right?
But we don't get paid. I'm sure some huge American and British (maybe even German, not sure) websites are actually getting paid to write what publishers want, but that's a really fucking minority if we consider how many companies are getting review copies.
>guarantees positive coverage That's why to this day I (alone) shitted on Ubisoft, Square, Capcom, EA (man how many insults) and a couple of high budget scammy indie studios, and yet they still keep giving us free copies.
I thought the same as you before entering this field, anon; I thought they were going to pay me to write good stuff or just censor me. It never happened and we're among the top 10 most visited websites in Europe (regarding videogame journalism): turns out most of the people working in this field just have shit taste. > Other than that, it's their job. I know in a perfect world people would do this for passion, but in reality, you need money if you (as a journal) want to do full coverage on everything and put all the needed hours into each game you have to talk about. It just can't work with the same results and efficiency if it's just people doing it in their free time. You can't go crazy because someone is getting paid to do their job and therefore they're unethical.
Also the ADS are then again another matter; actual reviewers can't control shit about ads, they don't even know which ads will be added to the site or who's paying for them, because the process is mostly automated and managed by another part of the company (it's usually a guy hired by the one who owns the website). It happened various times that we shitted hard on a game and then the website started showing ads of that very game (last one I remember is Destiny on launch, but I'm sure we had another case with a Battlefield or a CoD, can't remember which one).
Obviously I'm only talking about what I see on MY job, can't be sure about how things are in America
Why do people watch reviews again? You can pirate almost any PC game and try it out, which is a much much better thing to do than watch someone with different tastes say what they did and didn't like. The Xbox one and PS4 don't even have anything worth it to buy on there, so you can't waste your money buying games for them.
>>323126893 >But we don't get paid I know. It's the why that's important. >It never happened and we're among the top 10 most visited websites in Europe That's probably why. Any smaller, and you're fucked.
Hosting their ads and being reliant on them benevolently sending you review copies so that you can actually sustain a reader-base makes the vidya press very partial.
>>323128092 Not so sure anon. Sure we're the second most important magazine in my country, but there are at least 5 other websites here that don't even reach 5-10.000 facebook likes (which is saying a lot) and still get review copies and ads. They don't even have a physical workplace, the few working there do that from their home.
>>323130657 Oh boy here we go again lads. In our current year of our Lord yet another Chan dweller has posted the bait or retardation meme. I mean come on its fucking this year and you're still doing that? You should honestly feel bad for posting such an idiotic statement.
>>323114142 Are you saying you're one of those retards that has so little going on in his life he needs to feel like he cares about something so he gets all autistic and gets angry about these minute, idiotic things?
>>323136206 Nah, I don't believe a word he says. Me and my friends just get a ton of laughs out of their videos.Their latest one basically said that the moon was created by aliens or some "higher species" that was trying to save the earth. Still not as good as the classic JEWS ARE ALIENS FROM THE FUTURE moment though. Or the Shit sandwich from the Sacred Geometry film.
I'm somewhat scared by how large of a following they have and get the feeling they might achieve Waco-tier cult status sooner or later.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at email@example.com with the post's information.