So, loaded question...

[BanzaiCat]

...but I'll ask your opinions anyway.

If you're reading a review or, more importantly, watching a video review/overview of a board game, what points/categories do you want to see covered?

If you had to quantify the points that a reviewer hits into certain categories, and I know that this is difficult, pigeonholing things into categories...but think about it. What do you like about certain such video reviews? Length? Humor/silliness without too much distraction from either? Specific categories/questions? The same structure with different games? Being chaotic and having little structure? Sample playthroughs, even if they lengthen the video?

I know some video reviewers are liked more than others, for personal reasons, but I'm wondering if there's a certain pattern or structure that works better than others. I feel this is very different than from doing a written review or written AAR, and if I try my hand at it eventually, I'd like to be prepared and give it some forethought.

[mirth]

I like some humor mixed with an honest review. Some actual play through is nice too.

Extremely long reviews in a flat, robot voice are not a favorite.

[Gusington]

I like to know the reviewer's history with the series if there is one, or of games of a similar type.

[Barthheart]

Short and to the point. Some short play examples. Nice shots of game components/quality.
Humour is fine as long as it has a point and not continuous.
Longer than about 15 minutes and tl:dw...  :P

[GJK]

It really depends on where I'm at with that particular game, meaning am I thinking of purchasing it and know very little about it or do I already own it (perhaps having recently purchased it) and I want to explore what the game is like.  Examples:

Marco is very good at give a brief yet detailed overview of a game though he typically doesn't cover games that I would play.  Has he ever influenced my purchasing decision?  Honestly, no, but for the reviews that he's done of games that I've been looking at, they did help to confirm or deny what I thought they might be like so I suppose in that way he was an influence.

Calendale is like watching a long Monty Python movie to me.  For many, it's an acquired taste and it's all very much "off the cuff".  I typically only watch him play games that I already own or games from a series that I already own.  When I do watch - I actually mostly just listen.  It's great background noise and what I get from his videos are typically someone struggling through the rules (as I very likely am) and him resolving the questions that he has (or making up a rule to overcome the issue) and then his thoughts or opinions on said rule(s).  I'll often have his videos playing in the background while I'm doing something else game related (clipping counters to his videos seem to work well together).


Derek Case plays more of what I would typically play (not always but usually more frequently) and I would put him on par with Marco.  His reviews cover in just the right amount of detail the basic mechanics of a game and the components of that game.  He's easy to listen to (Marco can test my nerves a bit at times) and really comes off as someone that would be a good gaming buddy were he to live nearby.


Joe Stuka is someone that I haven't watched much of but what I have has been very polished; almost of professional quality.  I need to start looking up more of his videos.  An example of a wonderful "production" was the series that he did for B-17 Qots....he almost made me want to break that game out and give it another try (for the 100th time as if though it may suddenly be something like what is in his animated videos).


I like the HAMTAG "lists".  They do cover many of the games that I like to play and Judd is a solid wargamer from what I can gather (as is the ASL player of the group who's name escapes me at the moment).


Joe Steadman is a tough one for me to rate (and sorry if this has turned into a "rate the reviewers" response but hopefully this all helps).  Joe plays the games that I play (ASL, Up Front, For The People, etc) but his reviews and instructional videos lack a lot of details and are just too terse I guess I would say.  I like Joe personally and would love to play some ASL with him but I've never really gained anything from his videos unfortunately.


Tom Vasel seems to give some high quality reviews and he's very easy to listen to but I don't think he plays anything that interests me.


Guess that would about sum it up for me.

[Nefaro]

A little humor is good. 

Otherwise, it depends on which type of video it is..



REVIEW:

Gotta hit key points regarding how the mechanics work.  Content pros & cons (need more?  not enough in one area?).  Production quality.  Etc.

Final thoughts on how the gameplay all came together, in the reviewer's experience. 

Stay on topic.  Mention how it may be like other similar titles, but don't ramble on about those others.

Keep it trim & to the point.  Extra shots of the actual game material is always a plus, jam it in there.




PLAYTHROUGH:

I discovered, after watching many of these, that the pace of a playthrough is a pretty big deal to me. 

It's certainly an issue of what pace is best for you, but when someone can keep a steady pace while playing, yet still narrating the rules & details as they do so, is really appreciated.  Part of that is achieved with cuts during editing of the video, but that is only a small part.  Too many long pauses interspersed with short bursts of activity will make my thoughts start wandering regularly.


As an example, I think the guy who does the Ant Lab Games YT playthroughs sets a great pace while still being quite detailed & staying on target.  There are some good playthrough people on YT, but not all can keep it rolling for stretches without a bunch of editing.


I suppose AARs would fall into this category, although they're shorter and don't go into fine detail.  So the pacing isn't quite an issue since they're often just recounting what generally happened from memory.

[bbmike]

I like DasTactic. His tends to talk a bit too long sometimes but he's really good at explaining while playing the game.

[Nefaro]

I like DasTactic. His tends to talk a bit too long sometimes but he's really good at explaining while playing the game.

I thought this regarded tabletop gaming, not digital gaming.  Rather different in some ways.


And, yes, Das definitely rambles on too much.  Primarily at the beginning when he reads every little option aloud, including those in the actual Game Options screen.   




I'm yelling:



... for the first 30-60 minutes.

[bbmike]

I like DasTactic. His tends to talk a bit too long sometimes but he's really good at explaining while playing the game.

I thought this regarded tabletop gaming, not digital gaming.  Rather different in some ways.


And, yes, Das definitely rambles on too much.  Primarily at the beginning when he reads every little option aloud, including those in the actual Game Options screen.   




I'm yelling:



... for the first 30-60 minutes.

Probably. But scotch aside, the idea is the same. He does a really good job at describing the mechanics of how to play. I think that's important.