The rough guide to being an internet video reviewer

Due to the recent hoo-ha over a certain internet review (go look at it in the main topic) I've decided that I'll do my own interesting take on things...

...however as the only audio options I have are a headset and windows recorder, I doubt it'd make for great listening, instead I present it to you in text form. Unlike the poster of said topic, I welcome feedback, however I will admit the following faults before they're brought up.

1) Run on sentances.
I ramble, a lot, in real life so it tends to come out in the way I type.

2) Grammatical errors and spelling mistakes.
Infact I'm guessing I've probably spelt Grammatical wrong there but yes a few typos will creep in here and there. Puncuation was also never my strong point.

3) Sleep deprivation!
Yay for lack of sleep, forgive me for this but in an actual audio dialogue I would wait until I was fresh faced and all prepped before speaking, so expect tangents.

So sit back, read and imagine this being spoken to you in a South East English accent (...no..not cockney...not toff English either...think short, sharp clipped words rattled off at a fairly speedy pace).

The rough guide to being an internet video reviewer:
Opinions are much like a certain part of your anatomy, in that everyone has one. With the rise of the internet and youtube we have seen a new form of opinionated person rise to internet fame with it...that of the video reviewer.

Little aside here, I'll explain internet fame compared to regular fame at the end of the review. It'll be obvious to most of you but explanations are best to clear things up.

Now many of you will have heard of the Angry Video Game Nerd, Nostalgia Critic, Spoony and possibly Lord Kat, for most of us they're funny, entertaining and sometimes even informative.

With the rise of these big names has come hundreds, possibly even thousands of hopefuls trying to weasel their way into the annuls of internet history. However, most of them forget quite a few key things when they make their break for stardom.

I'll be running down a few of those points with you now, yes you probably know them, no I don't think you're idiotic but just play along with me for a while, you may find it informative.

Point the first: Who are you?
This is pretty much the key point, the corner stone if you will, who on earth are you and why the hell should I listen to you for a good length of time?

Now I can already hear the calls of "why the hell should I listen to you then, you subterranean dwelling troglodyte?" and you would be correct, well apart from the subterranean part...the rest is true.

Just because you have an opinion doesn't mean people will want to listen to you, you may think you're funny, amusing or somebody worth listening to. The truth is, much like myself, you're probably not. So what makes you more worthwhile to listen to than me?

This leads nicely on to my second point.

Point the second: The hook!
A very, very common failing is seeing the popular guys and imitating them. The only people who get famous for copying other people are Impersonators and they have to be GOOD at what they do to get famous.

You decide that like the Angry Nerd you are going to turn the air blue as you rant about how rubbish a game is. This would be your first mistake. The Nerd is already famous for this and will probably do it damn well better than you can. It is the easiest thing to do (everyone can get angry and ranty) but it is one of the hardest things to do in a manner that is entertaining.

Let us take a look at two very similar internet reviewers, the Nostalgia Critic and the Cinema Snob. They both do very similar things, review terrible or interesting movies. However while the Critic rants and raves the Snob will often resort to mere biting sarcasm. They also tend to review very different types of films. While the Critic focuses on things from his childhood the Snob focuses on the more oddball classic films such as Caligula or 30 days of Sodom.

They are similar and yet different enough that the two can co-exist.

Work on something from a unique angle, don't try to copy anyone else, imitation is the path to ruin.

Point the...ah you get the idea...point three: erm err dead air erm err dead air
Reherse! You may feel you nailed it first time but the chances are you probably didn't and left a lot of dead air pauses, erms and errs. All the best video reviewers will have a script and run through it time and time again until they've gotten it perfect, just like any actor. So should you!

Point four: Why is this fat man talking to the camera when he could be showing me the thing he is talking about?!
A picture is worth a thousand words, if you're talking about a game, show some footage, if you can't get the footage then atleast show SOMETHING. Nobody wants to watch you talk to the camera for twenty minutes solid (atleast not yet anyway).

Point five: Luck
You're going to need a lot of it.

Now I'm not saying if you follow the first four points that you'll become insta-interweb famous. Much like releasing a webcomic, you will face a LOT of competition. It will come from already established faces (why should I listen to this guy review Dungeons and Dragons 4th Edition when Spoony does an equally entertaining job of it) and other people flooding the field. Everyone believes they can do what the many big names do and that they will ascend to awesomosity through sheer talent.

Truth be told, just like any regular actor, you have to be in the right place at the right time in order to get famous and that requires a little energon and a lot of luck.

I could actually make a vastly bigger list and I may come back to it one day. Lets just say if you're either very monotone or a squeaky voiced preteen that you'll just bore or annoy people, sorry folks but that is the truth. I can barely stand five minutes of a shrilled voiced sprogling when I'm working, let alone twenty minutes of him pretending to be angry about why the latest game their playing is either awesome or awful.

Oh and you will suffer a lot of the brown stuff thrown your way, try to look through it and find stuff that is constructive, you may think everyone is just trolling you but some offer advice which would greatly improve your act.

(oh and I full expect a tl:dr comment to be the first one I see...)

Last of all before I let you good folks go off and do whatever it is you plan to do with your day.

There is a very clear and obvious difference between regular famous and internet famous. Show any member of the public a picture of George Clooney and Brad Pitt, ask them to identify which is which and a good 90% will be able to.

Show that same person a picture of the Angry Video Game Nerd and the Nostalgia Critic and ask them to identify which is which, a good 95% of them won't be able to do it without a lucky guess.

If you do make it big remember that, you may think you're a big shot but out there, you're just another guy on the internet.

Alright folks, God speed, Cthulu's blessings be upon you and thanks for reading.
__________________________________________________ __________________________

So any suggestions for software to record my voice, any suggestions or feedback you'd like to give the article, please respond and yes...I do expect some trolling, it would only be fair.

BTW what thread exactly prompted this? You made a reference but I'm not sure which thread you're talking about.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr_Mechano Truth be told, just like any regular actor, you have to be in the right place at the right time in order to get famous and that requires a little energon and a lot of luck.

This is very true. Even the Nostalgia Critic basicly admitted he got famous by reviewing things that had a high google search rate.

Quote:

So any suggestions for software to record my voice, any suggestions or feedback you'd like to give the article, please respond and yes...I do expect some trolling, it would only be fair.

Software? Audacity. It's good and it's free. Also make sure to get a pop filter for your microphone if you don't already have one.

A piece of advice you could have included in your list. Be careful if you're reviewing anything that's already been done by a big name. I suggest actually watching their review if you're going to do something they did already, not to get ideas but to make sure you can avoid covering too much of the same ground they did. Since well... no one wants to be accused of being the Irate Gamer.

I'd add one cogent point:


KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT


The main failing of the target of your ire was a near total lack of understanding regarding the topic of his "review".

Actually had an interesting idea a while ago called 'reviewing the reviewers' which is where a lot of this stems from, that particular topic just encouraged me to post a tarted up version of my notes.

It stems from the fact that myself and friends were watching someone doing a video review, the guy was terrible and was trying to be Yahtzee but he kept tripping over his words and leaving long pauses.

So we hit upon the idea of actually doing a review on these kinds of people.

Now whether that idea is original or not...I doubt it..there are probably a lot of people who thought the same idea...

If I might throw my own two cents in. I've started doing reviews and there's a few things from my unique perspective you should bring to mind.

I personally don't know a whole lot about the stuff I'm reviewing (seeing as I'm a geek initiate and that is my premise) but I do tend to try to think critically and when necessary I will do research. However I make up for this by trying to bring energy and that sense of wonder someone gets from seeing something great for the first time.

Secondly, and this is important. Do it because you like to and want to have fun, or don't do it at all. I have seen many people who do these reviews purely because they want the fame or they are clamoring for attention. I really shows in the performance. Personally, when I do my stuff, I get in front of the camera and what I make, I make. granted I put passion and effort into it, but I do it because I like to. I'm not prodded buy some wish for fame (though it would be nice), I just like doing it and hope people get a kick out of it.

also, not related to the other guy, but instead the guy who was in the scott pilgrim review, STAND STILL. its a thing a lot of us take for granted, most professional camera operators keep a nice,stead and pleasingly framed shot of actors and tv personalities, it draws our attention, keeps the picture focused, its easy to pay attention to. waddling around and rocking back and forth (i do this all the time, that is one reason i dont do these) will drive the audience duck-strangling crazy. the scott pilgrim guy was someone who,on points, i agreed with, but he was physically painful to watch because he looked like he had to pee.

Take the Magic: The Gathering 'What Color Are You?' Quiz.

Personally, I find that James Rolfe, (the Angry Video Game Nerd) is among the very best internet reviewers. People look at his success and think "oh, it's all about the swearing," but they could not be more wrong.

1) He has superb presentation. He has well editied videos with clear audio. He looks the part, with a simple but memorable apperance, he clearly rehearses and he never mumbles. He also understands comedic timing.

2) He has an excellent knowledge of his subject matter, and he covers it comprehensively. You can tell by watching his reviews that he's played the games - even the really bad ones - a LOT, and looked up information about them.

3) He strikes a balance between crowd-pleasers and obscure games, and also covers games he actually likes. I have to mention the Swordquest review here, which I do not think any other reviewer would have ever touched, but which is one of my favorite Nerd reviews. Way too many reviewers only cover bad things because ranting and complaining is easy and gets more hits, somehow. The Nerd is able to convey that a game is great, as well as terrible.

These qualities carry over to his reviews of movies and board games too. Moreso, as he's not limited to the Angry Nerd character and can talk more about things he finds awesome.

The only criticism of him I have is his use of skits, which can take over reviews, but he's far from the worst offender here.

This is a personal bugbear, but internet reviewer skits are pretty much the worst things 99% of the time. Everyone wants the next Dr Insano, but the majority of things they produce are just boring and detract from the review. Nobody cares about Mechalinkara, or your ongoing plot, or the five other reviewers you got to cameo for the last 30 seconds, or wants to watch amateur dramatics for 10 minutes at the end of a review. (exception: Nostalgia Chick's extended cast are pretty much all awesome)

don't actually review anything. just scream and cuss alot and hope it can pass for humor

There are three basic types of reviews. They have radically different requirements.

1. Humorous.

The most important thing to be is funny. Funny itself has a lot of requirements: if your jokes don't have a significant kernel of truth to them, you'll come off as an idiot on open mic night. But you don't have to be balanced. Far from it: no one wants comedians to be balanced. But they do have to be fair, in the comedic sense of fair. There are things you can take pot shots at, and things you can't (and still be funny). If you're Yahtzee, you can pretty much make fun of anything. If you're not, not.

Tip: if you're not sure if you're funny, you're not funny. If you are absolutely certain you're funny, you're not funny. If you're pretty sure you're occasionally funny, you might be funny. Good luck.


2. Educational.

Some reviews are intended to be guides to the game. These are the fun parts, these are the boring parts, these are the parts you might want to watch out for. They are the Fodors of the video game world, and they too do not need to be balanced, nor do they need to be funny. They should know their audience. Some people want to know where all the Mickey-Ds are within a hundred miles of the north rim of the grand canyon and which bathrooms have running water. Some want to know which hiking trails have the longest list of "and they never heard from them again" so they can hike them. Same with game reviews. If you're going after a particular audience, your job is to be the representative of their tastes, at least to some high level of degree. The problem here is that a lot of people think they represent a lot more people than they really do. If you aren't sufficiently self-aware and self-critical to be able to figure out what your actual taste niche is, and how many people might be in it (possibly barely enough to fill a Greyhound bus) then you'll come off as, well, an idiot on open mic night.

If you know your audience, and can target them, and can target them consistently, you have a shot. Assuming your audience can actually find you. Angry Video Game Nerd and AngryJoe figured that out: I don't watch their reviews from my happy place.


3. Authoritative

These are the game reviews that are most like (most) professional movie reviews. The reviewer takes a position that they have sufficient insight and understanding of the material to make a professional judgment of the medium. To do this, particularly with an intricate medium like game design, you absolutely *must* have command both of the subject matter and the specific work you're reviewing. Otherwise, mic, idiot, you get the idea.

I had several people ask me to view the video review in question and comment on it, but by the time I got around to it the thread had been closed. It was *painful* to watch. I'm sitting there saying "well, he has a point about boss fights being simple and having lots of room for AI improvement and ... did he just say that combat jumping was a required power pool power? On a Willpower scrapper?!?"

Yeah, its like that. If you think I'm being harsh saying I thought that was so crazy suggesting trepanation is a reasonable response, you shouldn't do authoritative voice reviews. That's the response floor. The ceiling involves pasting your face on the Star Wars kid and putting you in a Caramelldansen video.

If you're going to comment with an authoritative voice, credibility is key. It takes a lot of effort to build it, and only one really inexplicable mistake to damage it beyond repair. And there are no excuses for making a "simple mistake." Until you have the sort of reputation that allows you to make "simple mistakes" making them in an authoritative voice review is basically a write off.


For all of the above, the most important thing is to know your limits. Most people do not, and most people attempt to do what they can't do and be who they are not. If you know, say you know. If you're only guessing, say you're only guessing. Distinguish between personal preference and objective fact - heck even Yahtzee does that every once in a while when he's on his meds.

Above all else, be entertaining. Either humorously entertaining, or engrossingly entertaining, or educationally entertaining. But give me a reason to spend ten minutes or an hour or whatever watching your stuff.


And jeez, this isn't a live performance. I wonder sometimes how many amateur vloggers actually *watch* their own performances before they release them, just to see what they look like. I mean literally sit back and watch them for flavor, not just in tiny snippets during editing. I have a feeling this number is very low.

Any advice on which software to use? I keep looking at Microsoft Movie Maker as a cheap way to start out.

I use Pinnacle VideoSpin. It was really cheap, and is a step up from Movie maker in terms of actual editing software. It actually gives you the ability to adjust sound levels and overlay two levels of sound (effects/music) and titles. The layout is also very similar to professional editing so that will make it easier to transition. It's not fancy but it gets the job done better than Movie maker.

I hate it when people reffer to other threads and dont link to them. I have no clue what "main" topic your reffering to with your rant here. Anyone have the link?