Why Written Reviews Are (Usually) Better Than Video Reviews

A professor from the U.K. once joked that, in the future, no one will read in their leisure. And immediately I worried because I wasn't sure if he was joking. (To this day I still don't know if he was joking. I think of his words in my sleep) Then, after he said what he did, I returned to my apartment and watched a Zero Punctuation review and a Gametrailers review.

Fast forward to Today, fifteen minutes ago. I was thinking to myself, "What can I write on the Internet, now that I'm so busy playing the 120-hour Xenoblade Chronicles and thus will have nothing comprehensive to say for a couple weeks?" And I thought of this! A Video Reviews Vs. Written Reviews piece (WOOO!!)! And after a few minutes of analyzing in the bathroom, I concluded that, overall, written reviews are better.

Here's why. Written reviews are less spoilery; they don't reveal as much of a game's graphics and sound. This is non-spoilerific because, in most games, graphics and sound are used, in part, as incentives to keep players playing. "What will the next area look like?" "What songs have I not heard?" "Will there be a naked woman?" "WILL THERE BE A NAKED MAN?!" That kind of stuff. Written reviews CAN very much spoil the visual part, but writers usually decide not to sneak that into their essays (at least not without spoiler alert tags). (And spoiling sounds? Writers can spoil game dialogue and games' writings, but again, they usually decide not to)

Video reviews, however, have a propensity to spoil games' visuals since they show games' visuals (with the exception of Zero Punctuation Reviews). The video editors, if they're smart, can limit the damage by showing the least spoilerific stuff, but they can only limit.

The other reason why written reviews are better is that it is easy to cite things from them. While in a video review you really have to search -- clicking and moving that symbol along the minutes/seconds bar, trial-ing and error-ing, spending many of your finite seconds (minutes if you're unlucky) -- with written reviews you can just scan a page, with your eyes.

Not to say video reviews are Hitler. They have their good qualities. One being that a video maker can depict what a game looks like much quicker than a writer can.

"Faster depictions of characters' psychological disposition?" No. "Depictions of color and scale and pretty much anything else?" Yes.

And another advantage (or the other advantage) is that, if a critic wants to show what he or she's praising or condemning, he or she can edit it into their video. A critic who only writes would need to insert an Internet video link, if there is one.

And....that's it!

If you're wondering, I'll answer now: am I biased against video reviews? Yes. Do I watch them? Yes.