When is a review too long? | Red Discussion

[@TheRedGuy]

Hey thanks for watching! If you enjoy long form reviews/analyses/critiques you should check out some of the channels in the description, a lot of good stuff there.

[@aboringknight1177]

At the rate I'm going with my stuff, I'll end up doing only long reviews. But it's personally pretty fun if exhausting to make a longer review, tho I think they would be more accurately called retrospectives, since when I think about "review", it's stuff like IGN videos and you just skip to the score to see if the games good or not. I kinda prefer longer videos, and if I see a 7 hour long video, that's a huge turn on for me to watch it, but it's bad when it's a long review and it's padded with stuff like "HP means health points, and when you run out of health points, it's game over", and channels like you, The Geek Critique, FromHeroToZero (Super underrated dude, btw,) and I finished a video game are some of my favorite long form review/retrospective creators, since the long runtime has a purpose and covers every detail the creator wanted to talk about

[@yeeeeehaaaaaw]

In my opinion, a review can be any length as long as it feels like the reviewer does have that much to say about a game, and it doesn't feel like the review is long for the sake of it. Whenever I think what reviews I want to make eventually, i always think that some of my favorite games could end up being pretty long, but I also wonder if I would truly have that much to say about a game, aside from ttyd and maybe Metroid prime

[@TheRedGuy]

All you should worry about is saying everything you want to say, whatever the length ends up being doesn't matter.

[@IKGProductions]

Thank you so much for the shoutout! I'm extremely happy to hear what you have said regarding my reviews. To discuss this in one of your own videos is simply an honor, so thank you once again! I agree wholeheartedly with your points, and I hope many of those who dismiss or blindly critique longer reviews will understand this perspective.

[@TheRedGuy]

Anytime dude.

[@bendkok]

Completely agree on brevity: To be brief means to not take a long time to explain a thing, but if you have a lot of things to say it can still take a long time to say all of them. Then there's also the question of whether it's actually desirable for a review/critique to be as concise as possible. It's not good if you, for example, are so concise that the viewer isn't able to digest one point before you move on to the next, or if you talk so fast that it's nauseating to listen to. A review/critique should be concise, but not too concise.

[@Etsa]

I'm quite inspired by this and your thoughts on long reviews. It also takes a level of dedication that is really respectable. I've tried to make a few but I have a hard time going as in depth, but maybe I should take a crack at picking a childhood favorite and just really dig in.

[@misternolife2018]

I think Reviews should be as long as they want and/or need to be and there is nothing wrong with making a lengthy one or a short one. As long as the review achieves what it sets out to do (such as a quick recommendation or deep analysis purposes) then its done its job.

[@zoomzike]

Great vid! Long form review content may seem unnecessary to some, but as you said here, a lot of content deserves to be explored in games that just can't be covered within a few minutes!

[@TheRedGuy]

Oh hey what a surprise! Thanks for watching!

[@SQGReviewShow]

Sometimes a twenty minute video can feel like an eternity while an hour and a half long video can feel like a breeze. It REALLY depends on how well you pace the videos, and I think the problem with a lot of aspiring longform youtubers is some of them simply don't know how to trim the fat, writing variations of the same point over and over. Trimming the fat is difficult, but necessary. But yeah, I like how longform videos can highlight smaller things that add to the great collective whole that is a game or movie. But the ideal longform videos, are ones split into chapters that I can watch episodically.

[@FormaThought]

You hit the nail on the head with the concept of growing to respect a game more when you dive deep into it - I'm currently going through a game for a similar style of review and am finding myself in that exact situation with it. I'll always love long-form reviews because of that, and I'm eager to see more from you.

[@crimelorddiscord6532]

This was a great discussion! I never thought that much on the idea of people complaining about long reviews. I've always liked long in depth reviews thanks to channels such as the Act Man, who is able to notice little details that I tend to miss. Really the only time I was bothered by a long critique was on this Batman Arkham City video that took 46 minutes to summarize every single bit of the story, while the rest of the video was more interesting. The video didn't talk about what made the story so good, it just gave so much context but never explained why that context was important. If a video feels like filler that is always a bad sign. Also I kinda liked how you were talking similar to the way Act Man talks, while even including the same music he uses when criticizing a point (10:34). Though kinda as I would prefer it if you did your own thing.

[@TheRedGuy]

I didn't use that music because Act Man does, I just really like Banjo-Tooie as well. But thanks for the comment!

[@darkseidmcdonald2125]

You hit everything right on the nail ESPECIALLY about the topic of nitpicks, tho my defenition is a little more loose with the term nitpick, I usually find when a reviewer is making something out to be a problem that personally isnt a problem at all in the slightest/ouright SOMETIMES just the reviewer being poor at the game, and making out to be something so irritating or bigger than what it is. Thats what usually bothers me about some reviewers. But your right how if someones argument to a review they didnt like is simply just: "oH yOuR jUsT nItpIcKinG mY fAvoRitE gAmE, yOuR jUsT a coMpLaInEr" then yeah that person really didnt offer any prductive counter points and really all they did was just futher validate that the game has flaws, healthy articulated debate is always refreshing on these type of things.

[@misternolife2018]

Agreed

[@darkseidmcdonald2125]

Usually I also find some audiences get annoyed when a reviewer turns a nitpick into something over amplified then what it actually is, and then says it as a FACTUAL rather then an opinionated stance, to detract the game, not saying said reviewer is wrong in the SLIGHTEST for saying/feeling that way, but then said annoyed audience who disagrees can rarely properly articulate in comments why they dissagree and resorts to the whole "mEh uR jUsT nItPiCking",furthur validating the reviewers point since barley anyone can give proper articulated counter points, and again were not even taking into fact the delicate balance of if the reviewer can even properly play the game, a whole lot of factors here. Btw thx! Didnt expect to be in the vid! Much appreciated my man.

[@gold24k54]

Another well made video my dude!

[@DeathAlchemist]

Well said, Red. You managed to go over the value of going in-depth while debunking some stupid arguments along the way and shouting out some cool creators. In the end, it really comes down to substance. I have seen 5-minute videos that have said more than videos that were twenty minutes and vice versa. It just really depends on the creator and how good they are short-form writing and long-form writing. BTW another good content creator named B-Mask made his videos on the Sly series that got lengthy Another thing is that I thought you were at first talking about snesdrunk in regards to that bad short reviewer, but I was glad to be wrong.

[@Sunny_Haven]

While I don't mind lengthy, more in-depth reviews (I actually love them), I do think it would be good for reviewers to divide up their reviews into different sections - not everyone does this. It'd be good for those who are watching to take a moment to pause and think about what's said, or it can be a good place to leave if you don't have the time to watch the review in one sitting. Anyways, good job with this video, man.

[@MrGameguyC]

In short: Long reviews work if you have a lot to go over. They don't when you start making 3 lefts to make 1 right.

[@titansparrow64]

I don’t know why, but it’s kinda funny how certain people treat Mauler like Voldemort: “don’t dare say the long man’s name, he is the dreaded toxic brood that thinks his opinion is fact” (despite never saying something similar to that compared to the people declaring that people play games or watch movies wrong).

[@TheRedGuy]

Yeah seriously. I was a bit worried mentioning him at all because of how much people seem to hate him. It's actually because of observing him and the people who hate him that was the main inspiration for this video, so I figured I owed it to him to mention him at least once.

[@thefakebanette3483]

My biggest complaint I have with him is how much he brings up how long he works on scripts. We get it you worked hard on this man let it speak for itself. Yeah context and all that but it can make him sound super arrogant sometimes.

[@titansparrow64]

I failed to find the arragence when he mentions how much effort he puts into his videos, but I’m not well known for my keen eye so I could be missing something. One could argue he earned a bit of arrogance because people won’t shut up about him (because apparently they think he’s an evil (long) man trying to ruin discussion with his “objective opinion”). I just wish people could just have a conversation with each other rather than creating strawmen

[@DestinySpider]

It depends, I guess. I think that.. consize and comprehensive argument is one of the biggest factors that dictate my enjoyment. Which is why I can watch a 5 hour Oblivion review and never get bored, since it is well edited, well structured, has some humor to it (which I believe to also make a review more enjoyable to watch and gives it more character compared to IGN ones (which aren't necerssarily bad, but can feel somewhat soulless)), but most importantly an in depth look on the gameplay aspects. In my opinion reviews can often run into the trap of just being a story rundown, with only few amounts of actual constructive input. Those I enjoy less than ones that greatly focus on gameplay aspects. Which I suppose can also be relative to the game though. In something like a Devil May Cry review i really want an in depth look at the mechanics and options given to the player, as well as some enemy design, whereas in Zelda a large focus should be on the puzzles and overall dungeons, with some clear examples of what makes the dungeons either good or bad. Uh... But yeah, I didn't really stress this enough ... If a review is well edited and constantly engaging whilst also providing useful information and possibly ideas of how things could have been handled better, a review can be fucking 10 hours long for all I care. The thing is though when you have unedited reviews or discussion streams that last like 2 hours.. I can't stand those.. To me they feel like an eternity and are rarely ever worth watching. And I suppose that has to do with there being no editing that assures things to stay consistently interesting...

[@SuperGamer61499]

I think the problem I have with certain long reviews is that sometimes pacing for certain videos can be pretty bad. Length isn't really the issue with those videos. It's them feeling padded out and not using their time properly. That said tho, it's a case by case basis. Those examples you gave were great examples. And as much as I don't like Mauler personally, he does give things a thorough look.

[@TheRedGuy]

Yeah it absolutely is a case by case basis. It all comes down to the script, a 10 minute review can feel padded out, while an hour long one can breeze by.

[@tabreezsiddique]

So if you know guys like IKG Productions and Retropolis Zone, does that mean you know their other fellow reviewers like J's Reviews or TGX?

[@TheRedGuy]

I only know IKG, I've technically been in a couple calls with J but we didn't really talk to each other.

[@tabreezsiddique]

@@TheRedGuy Ah, well if you haven't already, I highly recommend checking their reviews out if you enjoyed what IKG has to offer. 👍

[@IUndercoverTroll]

"One hour reviews" Is he gonna show that video? "Two hour long reviews" I think he's gonna say it. "Three hours" *Say it already you fuck* "Hell even 7 hour reviews" -Shows the omega ruby video Nice

[@IUndercoverTroll]

Okay yes but why is the video 20 minutes?

[@TheRedGuy]

21:17

[@IUndercoverTroll]

@@TheRedGuy Alright, 21 minutes and 17 seconds but it still doesn't explain the video being that long.

[@TheRedGuy]

@@IUndercoverTroll The video is actually 23 minutes and 5 seconds, you were supposed to click on the 21:17 to get your answer.

[@ajflink]

The only reviews that I find annoying are ones that are only negative for the sack of being negative to get people to click on the video and react or form "criticism" and "arguments" based upon his or her own experience and makes the assumption that his or her experience or thoughts are the same as everyone else. To me, the latter is the worse of the two. Why? It intentionally or unintentionally indicates to me several things. One, my taste and someone else's in entertainment and enjoyment are invalid. Two, it tells me that you may be narcissistic, which is a grievous sin in my opinion. Three, it shows that you may not really care or have accurate information about what you are talking about. Four, you come across as seeming to think that games should be tailored to you and you alone. This is why I avoid reviewers like hbomberguy, Malaur, and videogamedunkey. Whenever I hear a reviewer references those guys or go hard on games that I love such as Mega Man X6, Kingdom Hearts 3, Final Fantasy XV, Fallout 3, The Sinking City, or The Order: 1886, I try to give them a chance. The problem is that the following always happens: they'll state something is bad about the game without elaborating, compare and criticize the game with games that came after it (with Fallout 3 being negatively compared with Fallout New Vegas being an infamous one), go on tangents, or abundance of logical fallacies. I love Nitro Rad's reviews as well and find he along with only a few other reviewers give valid insight and criticism for games. In fact, he was the one who convinced me to finally give OMORI a try and I have not regretted it.

[@thefakebanette3483]

I was going to bring up mauler if you didn't. Say what you will but his reviews are great they go in to every aspect that they can. The one thing that people do say about longer reviews I do kind of agree with isnt so much fluff but its when it tries to make sure that what they are saying is completely understood so they stay on the point for way too long. I get why they do it they dont want to be misunderstood etc. That being said I know you said controversial but if you dont mind saying, feel free to no comment it, but what are your thoughts on the whole objective and subjective "debate"? One other thing to bring up is a long review of a bad game can help you appreciate it more if you understand that it is bad and why it is but with how things online tend to go people tend to forget you are allowed to like something even if it is bad. One of my favorite games is ratchet and clank 3. I know it is bad, at least compared to the other 2, so when I see reviews talk about the bad parts it helps me understand the good that is in it. I dont feel personally attacked or anything. Keep up the good work dude love seeing you videos pop up and glad act man sent me here.

[@TheRedGuy]

The whole objectivity vs subjectivity "debate" is just dumb. Being objective just means putting aside your bias to judge something fairly, I don't know why that's such a difficult thing to accept, and why people are super hostile towards the idea. So yeah I more or less agree with MauLer on that one.

[@thefakebanette3483]

@@TheRedGuy I think it comes down to people holding onto the idea of if I like then its good to me therefore it cannot be called objectively bad. On top of the fact that the idea of saying something you like is bad can feel like a personal attack on your taste gets people upset. Also really off topic, kind of, and not trying to take your time but. I wanted to make a review series about the Splinter Cell series. I just have an issue in that I am not that great at analyzing video game stories, for several reasons, mostly because I usually dont care. Any way should I still make it even if I dont really bring it up or just forget about it and do an overview?

[@TheRedGuy]

@@thefakebanette3483 Sure go for it, you might want to mention that you don't care as much about the story, but don't let that stop you from talking about the stuff you do care about.

[@reversalmushroom]

I think a review is only too long if it's longer than the time it takes to say all you want to say. I don't think it's too long just because you have a lot of things to say. For example, I watched a reviewer where most of their reviews of episodes would be just them summarizing the events that transpired. Most of the review was a slog of dead space because it was simply a recap, however, I've watched longer reviews of those same episodes that I liked because that time was the person giving you their thoughts on it. A 10 minute review is too long if all your points could've been said in 5, but a 20 minute review of deep analysis would not be.

[@WaddleDee105]

"Long" reviews are for those that appreciate the medium enough that they want to have discussions and hear other people's opinions on various games, not just "famous youtubers" or review sites, but the opinions of others that value games as much as they do. It's why short reviews will sadly always be more popular. Most people, even those that spend hundreds of hours playing games, don't have a deep respect for video games and don't care beyond the surface level. Also, somehow, without ever seeing their review of Mischief Makers, I knew it was CGRundertow that you were talking about. Edit: MauLer is clickbait garbage though. His videos are essentially rant videos where he's trying to push largely hateful views but come off as unbiased as possible. I don't see why you'd feel the need to bring him up when there are plenty of other long-form reviewers that have more devoted fan bases, like Joseph Anderson (who I'm not always a fan of, but his work never feels like it's meant to bring others down).

[@titansparrow64]

You seriously need to back up your claims before making such accusations against Mauler. "Mauler is clickbait garbage though" How is Mauler clickbaiting his audience? His titles or thumbnails aren't meant for deceiving anyone, they are what they say they are: critique or unbridled videos (his April Fools videos don't count because they are god damn April Fools videos). "His videos are essentially rant videos where he's trying to push largely hateful views but come off as unbiased as possible." I'm pretty sure you're mistaking his unbridled videos for his critique videos, whether by mistake or on purpose. His unbridled videos don't go as in-depth compared to his critique videos, the videos in which he puts much time and effort into to carefully critique a video objectively (they're indeed objective flaws a piece of media can have, hiding behind subjectivity won't save garbage products such as Birdemic, The Room, and The Last Jedi to name a few). Also, how is critiquing a piece of media pushing hateful views? When he has ever done something even remotely to what you are claiming!? Does he make mistakes, of course he can, he didn't know that the jester robes in Dark Souls 2 are immune to backstabs. He openly accepts criticism, what he doesn't accept are people such as Jack Saint and Quinton Reviews that take him out of context or make strawman arguments to make Mauler look worse than he actually is. " I don't see why you'd feel the need to bring him up when there are plenty of other long-form reviewers that have more devoted fan bases" So people don't complain why The Red Guy didn't mentioned Mauler at all when he was listing examples. Also, because they're people with more subscribers then Mauler that do similar content, he shouldn't have been mentioned? So, by that logic, The Red Guy shouldn't mention KZbinrs with fewer subscribers then Mauler? "like Joseph Anderson (who I'm not always a fan of, but his work never feels like it's meant to bring others down)." Ah yes, the same guy that declared that SOMA is not a horror game because it didn't scare HIM. Do you have any more examples then the guy who made a video smugly telling his audience that subjectivity is implied and there's no such thing as objectivity in media review? You can either look up Mauler's EFAP podcast (kzbin.info/www/bejne/epDHeJuPrNF5ecU) or Joseph's own video in the comment section for more reasons why to not listen to this man's "critiques". Here's some examples that, while not having videos as long as Mauler's, still make good videos criticizing media without Joseph's smug: TheGamingBritShow: kzbin.info/door/Lmzk98n_v2doN2Y20S-Zog Thorgi's Arcade: kzbin.info/door/seFR2MQsf6oS4CLCYSceTA TomatoGhost: kzbin.info/door/m3CnY6XF1JlVVB1P7ml9-w Nerrel: kzbin.info/door/ZKyj7wDE51SMbkrRBT6SdA RadicalSoda: kzbin.info/door/K045mDx8Pf9DpPG-kX8YUg Raycevick: kzbin.info/door/1JTQBa5QxZCpXrFSkMxmPw KingK: kzbin.info/door/18YhnNvyrU2kTwCyj9p5ag Classy Reviews: kzbin.info/door/yijPvFlXh-5LV7NI6f-gjg Clemps: kzbin.info/door/JQfl8QxjNen736AVO3ecFg E;R: kzbin.info/door/4BZtFgtCuHUt0p8J-XENiA