Yesterday, Apiary launched worldwide on the Stonemaier Games webstore. In the flurry of excitement and activity that followed, an interesting thread appeared on BoardGameGeek about the types of advance copy reviews that are available for the game.
Specifically, all early reviews of Apiary are video reviews:
- One-Stop Co-Op Shop (solo gameplay and review)
- Before You Play (overview and thoughts)
- Rahdo Runs Through (and playthrough)
- Tantrum House (“Love the upgradable worker bees!”)
- TerreDice Games (“Growing worker bees put a fun strategic twist on worker placement, with every game changing up your strategy and the actions you rely on for victory.”)
- BoardGameCo (and gameplay)
- Board Game Buzzz
- Board of It
For any new product, we have access to around 12 advance copies that we send directly to a variety of reviewers. I reach out to some reviewers with a wide reach and others with smaller, passionate audiences. I’m looking for a diversity of people among the reviewers. And sometimes I contact a reviewer because I think they’d be a fun fit for a specific game–Apiary is a game about bees (space bees), so how could I not contact Board Game Buzzz?
I can honestly say that the medium for the reviews (video, podcast, or blog) hasn’t entered my thought process for advance copy reviewer selection for quite some time. It’s about the people, not how they present their content. Plus, after a new game arrives in our fulfillment centers, we send out dozens of copies to reviewers, including a number of text and podcast creators.
However, in the name of variety and diversity, perhaps I should ensure that at least one or two of our advance copies go to reviewers who focus on the written word. That’s the request made in the BGG thread.
The request was both enlightening and encouraging. As you can probably tell from this long-running blog–11 years of 2 posts per week–I love to write, and I process my thoughts best in writing. I’m also an avid reader; I use the RSS service Feedly to scroll through fresh content on hundreds of websites every day.
It’s enlightening because it’s a request I haven’t heard in a while, yet it’s been a couple years since we sent an advance copy of any new game to a written reviewer–this isn’t a new thing for Apiary. And when we did include written reviewers among the advance copies, I didn’t hear anyone mention that they valued having that format among the other reviews. Also, written reviews get less visible engagement than video reviews; as written reviewer Alex (talkingshelfspace) says on the thread, “So if anybody wants to read more written reviews, support those that write them. Leave a thumbs up or comment. The more eyeballs they get, the more interesting it is for publishers to work with them.”
Sidenote: Part of the brilliance of YouTube is that anyone can see the number of viewers even if not a single viewer “liked” the video. Do any text-based websites do this? I’ll poke around to see if there’s a WordPress plugin for it.
But now I know that there are at least some people who value and actively seek out the written format, so I’m happy to be more intentional about reaching out to some content creators in that format about future advance copies. Space-Biff, Board Game Quest, and Polygon came up as frequently sought-out options though there are many others found on our reviewer list too.
How do you consume tabletop game content? Are you like me, enjoying a mix of videos, articles, and podcasts? Or do you focus primarily on a specific format? Do you think there’s a future for written content, and what can content creators and publishers do to strengthen the possibility of that future?
***
If you gain value from the 100 articles Jamey publishes on this blog each year, please consider championing this content! You can also listen to posts like this in the audio version of the blog.
88 Comments on “Is There a Future for Written Reviews?”
Leave a Comment
If you ask a question about a specific card or ability, please type the exact text in your comment to help facilitate a speedy and precise answer.
Your comment may take a few minutes to publish. Antagonistic, rude, or degrading comments will be removed. Thank you.
[…] Stegmaier‘s blog post “Is There a Future for Written Reviews?” inspired Adam Richards of Punchboard to write a little post on his Substack to discuss the […]
I certainly consume a fair amount of tabletop game content both in video and written form. While the video reviews are often entertaining (rahdo and Shut Up, Sit Down), the written word, often found at BGG (I’ve penned many myself), requires that you’ve not only played the game a few times, but that your every word will be forever analyzed.
I’m not sure what content creators can do, because that’s NOT their medium. Jamey Keagey (sp) from The Secret Cabal or Robb Rouse from Blue Peg Pink Peg or Richard Ham from radho are not going to start penning their thoughts on new games. However, there are quite a few excellent writers (of this group, I will humbly not include myself) that have the time and the expertise to craft long form reviews. It isn’t so much what the content creators can do, but what will publishers, like you, do to establish and cultivate those contacts.
I believe as this hobby continues to mature…and it has a long way to go, as we’re only now dealing with paid reviews and previews, struggling with the use of AI, and coming to terms with ethical questions in the industry, we’ll continue to focus on all media platforms. All of which is great by the way, as I’m looking at this with a historian’s eye. Take an industry that is unarguably hundreds of times greater in volume, money, or any other measure than board games…sports. Today, ESPN dominates the airwaves, but Sports Illustrated continues to provide deeper, richer analysis at times on things that diehard fans want to know.
Find your writers, Jamey.
I do like a mix overall, but also actually tend to read the written reviews on BGG before videos. When I’m on TY for reviews, videos are obviously what I’m looking for; but again, on BGG, I mostly like to read written content
I very rarely watch board game review videos. I much prefer the written word. I read much faster than most people talk so videos often annoy me because they take so long to get to the point. The thing about a written review is that people can take the time to think about what they want to say and edit it until it flows. Video content creators rarely do that.
Written reviews all the way…
This! Oh, so this!
Like many others below, I much prefer written reviews too – especially when I don’t have a lot of time to sit and watch a video review. I can read much faster than most reviewers take for a video review. The proliferation of video reviews I suspect is partly due to the younger generation who hardly read anymore!
I am really prefer written reviews because in this era written reviews are important role in this busy life .
I would also like to chime in and say that I much prefer written reviews over video reviews because I can read much faster than video hosts can deliver.
While I refer to both video and written reviews, I greatly prefer written, primarily because I consume them at my own pace and because I find it easier to go back and find a specific reference I’m looking for. Thanks for asking!
I actively seek out written reviews.
Often better thought out content consumable without audio (a huge plus for work break or in between time) and way faster than long review videos.
I strongly prefer written reviews – they work best for my ways of processing information, and I also really appreciate the depth and creativity of my favourite game reviewers (e.g. Charlie Theel from Player Elimination).
[…] to write something to capture my thoughts about the game, particularly in light of the reflection by Jamey Stegmaier about written reviews. Effectively, given how much I enjoy capturing my thoughts in the written space from time to time, I […]
I do most of my board game research in bed while my wife sleeps beside me so I’m still a fan of written content over videos… unless it’s a how to play, because then I might as well have the rulebook!
Then again as someone who writes reviews, I may be biased!
Whoops accidentally sent too soon.
But yeah discoverability is a huge issue in the written space. BGG is pretty awful for anyone who seriously wants to make a go at writing reviews.
They operate on a ‘you make content for us, for free’ basis. And it’s difficult to build an audience on the platform, let alone moving them to your web page where you get to engage them on your own terms.
As such I’ve all but stopped posting my reviews on BGG.
I much prefer written content to video. Many (most?) review videos (while great) are not scripted and result in a LOT of filler to sift through, or things I don’t care about, in order to get to what matters to me a buyer.
For example, often people review the art of the game. While I appreciate their opinions, this is one category that I don’t care what a reviewer thinks as I will form my own opinion based on personal taste.
Video reviewers also tend to “gush” about a game (whether they like or not) because they aren’t scripted. I would much rather read one or two well crafted sentences giving their overall opinion that 2+ minutes of rambling.
Also, in a world where there is an overwhelming amount of content to consume, I am always looking for ways to cut the time I spend consuming. Video, by its nature, takes longer to get through than text. I can skim a review quickly to see if I want to read the whole thing. That is much harder with video.
>> How do you consume tabletop game content? — I prefer to read about board games unless it is a how-to-play type of thing (thanks Rodney Smith). I do watch a couple of channels on board games (i.e., No Pun Included, Board Game Gran). I have tried some podcasts, but my mind tends to wander while I listen. In the end, the written word (for me) is king.
>> Are you like me, enjoying a mix of videos, articles, and podcasts? — Not really.
>> Or do you focus primarily on a specific format? — Focus is the wrong word. I just prefer the one format over the others.
>> Do you think there’s a future for written content — I certainly hope so!
>> , and what can content creators and publishers do to strengthen the possibility of that future? — I think you have written a couple of things on this. We need something that better measures the engagement (like a view count for a written review). We need people (like me) to better at supporting this format; so the way forward is on both sides of the review.
I’ve stopped treating video reviews as unbiased. Which can be hard for kickstarters, but I try to stick to group buys for those now. Most of the video I watch now are how to plays, vlogs for entertainment, or watch live (unedited) game plays to see if I will like a game.
I regularly read Meeple Mountain, subscribe to various writers on BGG, and occasionally check out Polygon.
Is there a list of board game blogs and review sites?
We’re humans; it’s nearly impossible for us to be 100% unbiased about anything, but we can try our best. In this post I describe how we contribute to removing as much bias as possible, and a list of reviewers is included on the post: https://stonemaiergames.com/our-current-approach-to-board-game-reviewers-and-content-creators-2023/
Definitely, but personally I’ve found video review format less reliable. I prefer the gameplay format – like Heavy Cardboard or Before You Play. Even then there is still a marketing component on the capture of your attention via the youtube algorithms and the approach creators use to increase their audience.
Written word reviews are different – you aren’t being distracted by bling-roll.
Now we are post-lockdown it is also easier to play with other people and find out their opinions. So that is another channel.
For me, I generally prefer written reviews for the situations where I am actually interested in a review. It’s easier to cut through nonsense in the written form, in my opinion. Many video reviews get distracted by their medium and loss focus on the game itself.
However, I typically don’t look for reviews for the reviewer’s opinion. I’m more interested in seeing how something works so will look for either pictures or videos that give a nice look at the subject in question. For video games, this will be gameplay. For board games, this will a game setup with its components. For other items, a general presentation of that item setup. I’ll usually just have the video muted and scrub through it as needed.
This is because I can often determine if something will interest me just by looking at it set up; I don’t need someone else’s opinion. I understand this isn’t typical as most people try to find reviewers that match their taste and use it as a form of entertainment.
Like other physical content has gone over the last 20+ years due to the increased digitalization of the world, the written format has had to adapt. Yet it is still out there, both small and large, reaching all kinds of fans on a variety of platforms, in a variety of ways. The evolution of video and audio content from support of the written to eclipse it is not surprising given our nature and technology but I believe that all are necessary and well-provided for in this industry as they have their uses along with pros and cons.
Though it comes down to what you find the most valuable in promoting your product (as any shrewd business would), branching out every once in awhile can prove that profitable too.
For me, if I was trying to promote a project, I would certainly want a mix of mediums for different reasons (play through, review, unboxing, how to play, teaser/trailer, etc.) and engage different content contributors based upon what they specialize in.
Thanks Jamey for responding, I saw that request on BGG too and was glad to see others brought it up, I thought I was the only one who cared about this when trying to find reviews for Apiary. As always great to see you care about what your customers want and are willing to take suggestions on board. A variety of mediums seems like a good idea, as we all learn and absorb information differently. Cheers.
It’s something I’ve thought about getting into more. Everything (including my own content) is in a video medium which makes it harder to find information. In a written medium I could just search through the content to find what I am looking for. In addition, I can’t always watch a video so reading comments would be great!
I’d say I’m like 60/40. I still prefer video, but written is high up there.
As an editor of a thriving board game magazine (printed quarterly) along with our sister website that has more unique visitors in a month than many video reviewers, the value of written reviews (as well as articles, interviews, etc.) is strong. And we’ve been doing it for over a decade.
But I don’t begrudge a publisher for favoring one medium over another. That said, I think more publishers are starting to value written/print materials again.
I know you all are inundated with requests but it would be awesome to see you reach out to more blogs & magazines. If that’s us, awesome. If it’s others, awesome. I am a champion & bought a copy of Apairy that I plan to review. I’m happy you’re entertaining it. I am a visual person, but a good writer can capture imaginations & photography is a great pair with thoughtful words
Thanks Justin! I appreciate you getting a copy of Apiary and being a Champion.
Just in case it isn’t clear, we do reach out to many, many blogs and magazines. Over 300 reviewers on our private list use some the written word as their primary form of delivering content. I don’t think it’s a case of us not reaching out to enough blogs and magazines–the content is either out already out there, or blogs and magazines aren’t choosing to review our games (or they haven’t signed up in the first place: https://stonemaiergames.com/our-current-approach-to-board-game-reviewers-and-content-creators-2023/).
I’m probably old school but my go to is always written reviews over video ones. It’s faster, more concise and convenient.
My prime time for reading about board games is first thing in the morning, before I leave for work and my wife is still asleep. For that reason, I only read text reviews. Right now, Apiary on BGG says 0 text reviews, 11 video reviews. My brain immediately interprets that as “no reviews available”.
I’m very curious about this game, but I’ll be waiting until I can read some player reviews at this point.
I look forward to sharing dozens of written reviews over the next few months! In the meantime, if you’re looking to read more about Apiary, check out the design diaries here: https://stonemaiergames.com/games/apiary/design-diary/
I basically never watch review videos not done by suasd or rtfm. I would much rather read a review of the game, primarily because the read is so much quicker than a 15 plus minute video.
That being said, I will watch how to play videos. I have a good sense of what I enjoy in games so I tend to watch the playthrough and then I can get a feeling of whether I will enjoy it or not.
I second the notion that space biff has the best written reviews!
Space Biff is the absolute GOAT of written board game reviews. And he doesn’t hold back on whether he likes it or not. One of the first reviewers I always check.
Space Biff rocks, but there are others.
His reviews are top notch. Well written and engaging
While I’m forced to consume the vast majority of review content via video (as that’s how it’s most frequently presented), I much prefer a written review. I’ve found that written reviews tend to be more in-depth and thoughtful (YMMV), whereas video reviews can tend towards the more shallow end of the spectrum, focusing on the more sensational aspects of a a game (gotta get those views ). The YouTube algorithm doesn’t help in this. But written reviews don’t have to contend with others in a similar algorithm (one could argue Google’s search algorithm is just as biased).
I do still enjoy reading written content and sometimes certain ideas, concepts, or emotions can be conveyed in writing in a way that resonates with me better than video content can. Plus it’s easier to read a written review at work than to watch a video review.
As someone who writes reviews – Punchboard.co.uk & Tabletop Gaming Magazine – and has been supported by Stonemaier with review copies, this post is very welcome. In fact, my first ever publisher-supplied game came via Jamie.
Personally, I don’t want a video review that lasts half an hour. I want the gist, I want to know what works, what doesn’t, and I want it in 5 minutes.
As such, that’s what dictates to me the way I write. Concentrate on how it feels, and get it done in 1500 words max.
I’m also delighted to see so many good names in these comments supporting written reviews too. Keep it up, folks.
I’m loving the support for the written word in the comments here–hopefully this is encouraging for other writers too! I’ve seen quite a few people talk about how they prefer to seek out written reviews, and I wanted to mention that if you’re ever looking for a written review of one of our games, the review pages on this website are broken down by videos and written/podcast reviews. Here’s an example: https://stonemaiergames.com/games/expeditions/media-reviews/
I seek out text reviews, when I look at reviews at all.
I focus on written reviews because I struggle with anxiety and it gives me the time and space to articulate how I feel about a game and share my experience on a platform that is most comfortable to me. Being diagnosed late in life with autism, a lot of my daily life is a performance to a degree – it helps me “fit in” – so writing enables me to be myself and feel comfortable. I read a lot of written reviews too as I feel people have more opportunity to do a deep dive. The pace of video reviews sometimes feels like detail is sacrificed for the benefit of brevity. In contrast, however, I enjoy how to play videos. I have poor spatial skills and so seeing a game laid out and watching somebody move around the game space and the components is hugely helpful.
Tora,
Your comment prompted me to check out your fun website, which added much pleasure to my day❣️
Video would be quite far down the list for me. Generally I’ll be looking for articles about the game on my phone. Though, admittedly, the comment section on a text article is going to possibly be self-selecting.
gosh thank you Dorothy! That is so kind of you. I’m glad it made you smile :)
I can’t manage video reviews, too distracting ( to me and to anyone around me), nearly always too long and hard to skip back and forth if you might miss something referred to later. Written review everything time for me.
Thanks for the shout out Jamie! For WordPress plugins, I use WP statistics, works great.
I mostly consume text reviews, then youtube video. I don’t listen to podcast and am not on social media.
Actually you bring up another good point that is tangentially related! I listen to two podcasts while I am driving, both of which have the option to watch on YouTube instead. (One of which pushes *hard* with their suggestion to watch on YouTube). But watching on my computer or phone or tv vs listening while in the car simply doesn’t interest me and I never find the time.
I occasionally read a text-based board game review (usually on Polygon) when it pops up in my Google news feed on my phone, but I don’t seek these out or find these the most engaging or useful ways of getting information on board games to help me make purchasing decisions. I do think it would be a good idea to cater for different people’s preference for text, video and audio reviews if possible though.
I think most people will have a certain set of reviewers that they trust because their tastes align with them or they present reviews/information in certain ways that help them make decisions. My personal go to reviewers tend to be The Dice Tower, BoardGameCo and Rahdo. Ones like The Dice Tower are probably more valuable because they have a panel of reviewers with different opinions and preferences. Being familiar with the preferences of those reviewers and considering their comments about games I am considering can help me make decisions about whether a game is going to be enjoyable for me and my group/family.
Most of my information gathering around board game purchases is done through video. I like the fact that the video reviews can show video or images related to how specific actions in games are taken and these give me a much better feel for how the game will play out and whether I will enjoy those turn sequences. Watch It Played style tutorials don’t usually help me make a purchasing decision, but are invaluable when learning or teaching a game. I especially like the fact that I can watch the reviews from a variety of reviewers so that I can hear about as wide a range of things that people liked and disliked about the games as possible.
I only watch videos when I want to see an example of play – for actual reviews and analysis I exclusively consume written reviews. I can absorb information from a text review much faster than a video (even without taking into account the amount of fluff and filler in many video reviews)
Video is super. It’s awesome. As AN ADDITION to TEXT. Not even getting into accessibility issues, text is just a baseline experience it’s best to avoid leaving out.
This blog shines best as a written format because you can stay on a paragraph a little longer or jump back up to a previous point. But that’s the nature of a well written blog. But this blog also doesn’t cover reviewing the art, mechanics, and graphic design of a predominantly visual medium.
I haven’t found any well written board game reviews yet. Or at least, any that make the adage “a picture is worth a thousand words” untrue. A “meh” quality video that pushes some pawns around on the table is better than a “pretty ok” written review, because I can fill in the gaps with experience and guesswork.
Now, when you have the absurdly good quality from a Watch It Played or 3 Minute Board Games video, I struggle to see how a blogger can contend.
If anyone has suggestions for well done written reviews outside of BGG forums, I’m open for suggestions and reconsideration. Maybe I just haven’t found the gold mine yet.
I’d recommend checking out Dan Thurot’s reviews, which I consistently read, on Space-Biff! (https://spacebiff.com/) He does such a great job insighting into what he finds enjoyable and not about a game’s offered experiences.
I find video reviews to contain as much fluff to entertain their viewers as information about the games they’re reviewing. I prefer the written word for the major context of the review, perhaps with videos sprinkled in to better show unique mechanics that would otherwise be hard to describe.
Written reviews also allow me to consume the material much faster.
I’m glad to hear I’m not the only one. I haven’t watched a single board game video review for 10+ years now. I consistently read reviews, though. And I’ll continue to. In fact, often the reviews I read introduce me to games I would never have heard of otherwise.
I also probably will not watch a video review. Most of my media is consumed through reading written text. If a reviewer wants to reach the most people then it is up to them to perhaps at the very least provide a transcription of their review. Particularly if the ‘video’ component isn’t adding anything special.
There are exceptions though, depending on what I am looking for. For example, it is very rare that I will read through a rulebook if there is a Rodney Watch It Played video (or similar) available.
I sometimes look for videos for rules explanations. I occasionally watch very short reviews, but even at 2X speed they are a terrible waste of time compared to reading a written review. I am one of those who deeply regret that there are less and less written reviews.
I agree with Bruno that if you want to learn someone’s opinion, written word is often more concise than video. If I’m strictly interested in a review, I also prefer writing. Personally, when a new game comes out, I’m usually more interested in seeing gameplay and trying to formulate my own thoughts first, instead of reading someone else’s opinion. And for that, I’d rather watch a gameplay video (at 2x speed). Either way, I certainly appreciate this blog, and all the work that goes into it (and other work like it)!
If there isn’t a text review I’m not interested. I can scan a text review quickly. I don’t have time to listen to or watch a video review. It is though about diversity and different styles suit different people – same as using a mix of visuals and text in presentations targeting audiences that absorb information differently. I also don’t watch how to play videos. Much preferring to read rule books and google clarification of key points. I don’t mind being taught a game by someone but don’t have the patience for a video
I won’t watch a video review until I’m trying to convince myself to buy a game. I have to be 95% sure I’m going to buy it already.
I find that the linear nature of audio and video discourages me from stopping to reflect on previous points, and discourages me from going back to revisit earlier points. Especially with game play mechanics, it’s common for me to have an “oh! That means…” moment when I need to go back and re-read something in the setup or beginning of turn steps.
Written reviews have unfortunately gone the way of the dodo and the Tasmanian devil (although it may be making a comeback soon). I always enjoy a well written review.
Any game info I look for is written. I have completely passed on many games without enough written gameplay description/reviews.
I will say I typically only consume video content for board games. This blog is the main piece of written content I consume. Almost all other written content besides say ESPN for sports news are 1 off random google searches leading to an article, not a place I continually come back to for more content.
When I look up a review for a game, I open youtube, type game name + review. I never do it from the regular google search bar, so I unfortunately miss what I am sure are dozens of well written format reviews.
As a publisher I still send review copies out to people regardless of the format of their content, because people consume content in many different ways, so I want people to be able to find content on our games in their preferred format. I will say though if I only had 1 copy to send out I would be biased towards a video creator because I can like you mentioned see subscriber and view counts more readily. I have seen some written content sites where it shows reader counts before, but its not super confidence inspiring on some of the sites I’ve seen where I am 1 of 5 people that have read the article…
I get that. It makes sense, you need as much reach as possible for your review copy.
If my niche blog gets 60 views in a day and over 30 visitors I’m having a good day. If I ever was to do a review and approach a publisher for a review copy I’d provide them with whatever stats I could or they wanted (WordPress permitting). I don’t see that as an unreasonable request from a publisher for that info. And content providers should happily provide you with the info you need to base your decisions on.
Yeah and I will add that at least personally I am willing to send a review copy to someone that gets 0 views on their content. Just when I ping reviewers for interest and I get 30 replies but I only have 10 copies at the time, I will prioritize people with better numbers, unless it ends up being that all of those reviewers are cishet white males. Then I will tend to drop a couple of them and take on more diverse creators even if they have less reach. Can always come back around to the other reviewers when I have more copies available
I’m so glad my blog avoids all this reviews and did I get a review copy stuff. I’ll stick to being niche and doing my own thing and using it as a personal diary, which some may find interesting from time to time.
I do find it interesting watching from the outside all this competition for views/clicks from boardgame content creators.
I don’t care about the format if it gives me the info I want then I’ll consume it.
Although I do tend to avoid YouTube reviewers that try and be funny with skits etc. I want info not comedy. Plus I also avoid the big commercial channels like dice breakers, polygon etc
I do like your policy for sending review copies out as it does introduce me to new reviewers.
I almost exclusively use text reviews. I’ll often skip buying a game if I can’t READ a review or play it myself first. I find video reviews bloated with unnecessary babble and information that isn’t relevant to my decision process or time availability. In particular, the actual “review” involved in a video review always feels superficial (and questionable) to me. I applaud Stonemaier Games broaching this topic and look forward to text reviews of your future products.
I think I’ve done the same with games I’m unsure about – Headed over to BGG to find a text review, not found any and just decided not to buy as a result – The designer diaries have had plenty of content for me with Apiary, but I could easily have missed that for a smaller publisher (I’m more inclined to check out the non-review forums for publisher’s I know).
Yes! We’ve been hearing this more and more at GamingTrend. The biggest barrier to written reviews is, ironically, BGG itself. The platform is almost openly hostile to content creators who post written content, requiring wholesale copy/paste into their forum thus cannibalizing our site’s traffic. On top of that, moderation takes forever and unless we paste our content just so it gets rejected. Meanwhile a video reviewer can post their videos with zero moderation and they still get the hits and views in an embed. It’s infuriating
This. Totally this. I am only able to showcase my (extensive library of) game content in the “News & Links, Web links” section of a page. That’s it. To post in the community section, I have to waive copyrights to my content. That’s even worse than the cannibalism of traffic.
Definitely a barrier for ⛔
i’m so glad to see this blog post. I also need to go read the BGG comment and leave a comment there as well. I’m like you and that I consume written, video, and podcast board game content.
However, when it comes to reviews, my preference is generally written reviews because my time is limited, and I am able to scan them quickly and get a sense of whether I have further interest in the game, and want to spend the time watching a video. Also, to be honest, when I watch a video about a board game it is less to see a review of it and more to see what the play is like.
I find written reviews very useful. Videos tend to be too ostentatious – I want to know about the product NOT reviewer and they can be overly long. They need to get on-point.
It’s so valuable, I think, that there is high level board game critique out there. It presents “the hobby” as something that’s worthy of near-academic discourse. Critics like Charlie Theel and especially Dan Thurot mean an awful lot to the community, I think, regardless of the amount of views or clicks or whatever metric! And don’t forget about Senet, the fantastic paper magazine.
Just leaving my vote as a person who hates the shift to video content on the web. I much prefer text content and would love more written board game reviews. I’m always sad when I go to BGG and all the reviews for a game are video.
Thanks for the insights Jamey. I think written reviews aren’t dead (but I write those, so take this with a grain of salt). I don’t think a new medium necessarily obsoletes those that came before it. Television didn’t kill radio; it changed it. I think video reviews might change the written reviews in a similar way. It’s about adapting. And like others said, I can’t consume video content when I’m in a loud (or quiet) environment with no head phones around. Heck, did video games kill board games? No, because each has its own perks and (dis)advantages. Written reviews can be consumed anywhere; that’s their biggest strength.
Video reviews are subject to the wiles of YouTube. They’re more likely to be seen if they are longer and their monetization is often tied to how much of the video gets watched, or whatever levers YouTube has activated this month with their algorithms. I’ve been a huge fan of Dani Standring’s TikTok content because she boils the reviews of games down to 30-60 seconds instead of 30 minutes. In a day and age where we’re drinking content from the firehose, having it actually be consumable is a huge plus.
I don’t need the 20 minutes of unpracticed banter, the awkard tearing of shrink-wrap, or the beffudled staring at unpunched components or the other un-framed content that most Board Game Media provides.
As a written reviewer myself, our outlet for covering games has always been primarily in written form. We have moved more into the TikTok and social posts as they get quite a bit of engagement that we can see and track.
That being said we will continue to put a focus on written content as we have seen it fits in an area where a lot of other content creators are neglecting. But with less time tends to come less written work. So for our website I expect it will continue to be a focus for years to come.
TL;DR version: I think written reviews would be far more popular if there were more people doing them right. I dont really like video reviews (of anything, generally), so Im not going to comment on that.
Not to sound arrogant, but I feel like 90% of the people making written reviews dont understand what makes a written review desirable – like theyre trying to recreate a video in text form instead of understanding its a different medium. The main problem is length – waaaay too many written reviews are just a wall of text.
Maybe its just me, but 99% of my reading reviews happens at the store – I see a game on the shelf Ive never heard of, I’ll look up reviews to get a sense of things before buying. I dont have time to sit there and read a novel about it. The majority of written reviews out there go into minute detail of every component, every rule, every action, play time, interactivity etc, etc.. Give me: general impression of the components and art, what kind of game it is, games that play similar, overall opinion. Boom. No reason that cant be done in 500 words.
I know there are publications doing just that, but unfortunately they frequently get lost amongst self-indulgent, poorly written reviews.
In 2009 we started out doing video reviews. But I would supplement with short written elements on our site as well. We’ve periodically polled our audience of their preference and it has mostly been evenly split between video and written. Those that like written are mostly because they can skim and see photos of the game much more quickly than watching a whole video. So they can more quickly gauge their interest in the game.
As a career, I’m in marketing and even though Google search loves to show video results, the written word is still very strong for SEO. So I wouldn’t recommend just looking at the easy way to spot “views” as you can do on videos. And interacting with the written word from social posts doesn’t scratch the surface on how many people read a review and let it be at that.
Jamey, thanks for your contributions to the BGG thread, and for these further thoughts. And thanks for reminding me about feedly, which I’ve been meaning to try for a while.
I only watch videos from a few trusted reviewers, as they are time consuming. I much prefer text, where I can go through the content faster or skip ahead more easily, etc.
When there is little written content, I even leverage the Transcript feature in Youtube to attempt to go through the content as if it was written. However, unless the reviewer took the time to write it first, it’s much worse than a well thought-out and edited article/review.
I am of course biased, but I strongly prefer the craft of writing to other mediums.
One nuance to that Alex quote – it seems odd to judge written reviews based on BGG thumbs when video reviews are not judged on that metric. I understand YouTube’s numbers are visible, but there’s also the consideration of bot accounts and people boosting subscriber numbers. YouTube numbers are also inflated because embedded views are added to the video’s totals. This would be the equivalent of adding whatever traffic was generated on BGG to the traffic the article picks up at its original site.
I have reviews which have performed much better or on equal footing to the same coverage of the larger video reviewers. I also have had reviews which have done so poorly I question why I’m still doing this. It’s a difficult thing and the written review certainly seems to be a lesser valued work in the industry (not necessarily by you, Jamey).
It’s funny though, that sites like Polygon and IGN pull in much more traffic than even the largest board game reviewers. In greater culture, there is obviously a desire and appreciation for written content.
I appreciate your thoughts, Charlie, and I agree. I’m sorry if I’ve even subconsciously devalued written reviews as a publisher, especially given how much I value them as a gamer/reader. You came up in the thread too, and we’d love to send more review copies to you!
I always look for written reviews as a first step. I can consume a written review more quickly and also scan rapidly over the content to find bits that interest me and skip or speed read those parts that I find less relevant. This isn’t easily achieved with a video review. A well written review will usually be sufficient for me to decide whether I am interested in the game or not. I will then seek out further content which will probably include video reviews at some point.
I prefer written reviews for sure. Way easier for me to consume at my leisure..
Frankly, I’m unlikely to watch a video review unless a written review or summary has attracted my interest. I usually don’t even watch the videos in most crowdfunding campaigns I look at. I accept that video reviews are a priority for many people, but the written word is still critical for me.
Please keep written reviews! I prefer those by a large large large large margin. They should have images though haha.
I do watch videos if I want to check a rule explained but not for reviews.
I agree with Ben Hamilton. I don’t typically have the time or interest to watch reviews (and sometimes I find the presenter’s style grating or seemingly biased for/against things arbitrarily). I also rarely have headphones/ear buds handy to be able to get sound — and yes, that does mean that I’ve encroached into my 40s.
I always appreciate a well-written review. Well-written is the key part, there. Though all my degrees are in engineering, I need to see coherent and grammatically correct writing. As soon as I see anything along the lines of “you’re going to love this” I abandon ship as fast as possible. Well-written also means considering pros and cons and taking a reasoned approach to them.
To make a long story short (too late), I’d be happy for a ten-to-one ratio of text reviews to video reviews rather than the current opposite ratio I’m seeing.
I saw the BGG thread and was fascinated as well. I’ve noticed the trend towards more and video reviews. They have their pros and cons, but the biggest con for me as a parent is I don’t have much time in a day when I can watch a video with sound, but I do have a few moments here and there (like.. on the toilet!) when I can read an article.
I’m personally very pro text reviews. I suspect it’s exactly what you noticed—YouTube makes it easy to see video view counts, but it’s rare for text media (like BGG threads!) to include read counts.
I have to say the small room or the small wee hours of the night are when I do a lot of board game news catchup. Written reviews are so good for that! I always click on the “all text reviews” option on BGG. Videos feel more like an event that I actually have to make time for, but a text review is natural news browsing for me.