What kind of review structure do you personally prefer?
Hey folks, I’m currently getting ready for my first proper review-style video for the channel, and I’ve been thinking quite a lot about the overall structure/approach I want to take with it. Curious to hear your thoughts!
At the moment, I see two possible directions:
Option A:
A more “traditional” review structure: first giving a general overview of the game and how it plays, and then moving into what I personally like and dislike about it afterwards. I think this is how most creators do their reviews.
Option B:
A more integrated/deeper approach: going through the major mechanics/systems one by one and discussing both how they work and what I think about them as I go. So less “overview first, opinions later” and more “here’s the mechanic, here’s why I think this part works / doesn’t work / creates interesting decisions,” etc.
I’m personally leaning more towards Option B, partly because I feel it potentially provides more value, and also because “going deeper” is just naturally how my brain likes to analyse games 😄
But ultimately, I want the videos to be genuinely useful and enjoyable to watch, so I’d really love to hear what kind of review structure resonates more with you guys!
Comments (7)
Definitely Option B. That style of reviews are missing on Youtube right now. For most games that I look for reviews on, I already know the "overview" part, so I end up skipping to pros and cons. I think a deeper mechanical (and thematic) breakdown of all the systems and commentary on how it feels when engaging with those systems + thoughts on the potential of exploring the strategic depth that comes from these systems working together will be amazing! Curious, what are some of the games you have on your list that you'd like to review?
Good call, and I agree! The games I’m definitely planning to review are The Elder Scrolls and Grimcoven, and then I’m also considering Slay the Spire afterwards. I have pretty high internal standards for when I feel I know a game well enough to properly review it (probably way beyond the 100+ gameplay hours mark), so we’ll see :-)
I prefer option B. I think a lot of content has shifted toward the short attention span of the internet age, but I do prefer a more in depth, deeper and slower approach. I tend to be selective with my games and I want to know it’s going to fit my taste, available time, and preference for mechanics. I’ve seen you say that too many reviewers don’t even tell you how much time they spent on the game. Not only will the option B approach create interesting mechanic decisions, but also create more interesting discussions from us around it. At the end of the day I’m also here for the interactions amongst all of us and I think option B provides more of that as well.
Good to know we think alike! I'm surprised there aren't many reviews with structure out there
B
I agree. I like option B. Yes i think its more interesting and suits your style which is important, but also with the classic option A, you as the viewer generally know the thoughts of the reviewer based on tone and comments during the review portion. Sometimes I'll skip to just review to just opinions. B seems refreshing!
Thanks for the +1 on this!