survey Picture versus Video Reviews

[Bonaparte]

I would like to find out how you are feeling about picture versus video reviews.

Here on EB we have the reviewers academy with a mission to bring the best possible picture reviews to the LEGO community. On the other hand I recently saw a really nice video review of the 6251 Pirate Minifigures set by our member Romance14.

What's your view on pictorial versus video reviews?

[Mike S]

I really dislike video reviews because I only use reviews to view new parts. If I was interested in the built model and functionality such as technic sets, video may actually be better.

Edited August 14, 2014 by Mike S

[Gremer]

I prefer picture reviews. Most of the time with video reviews, it goes on longer than it should, and gets repetitive after 10 or 15 minutes.

[Jan_sh]

I dislike video reviews and never watches them.

[Lancethecat]

I don't watch video reviews because they use up too much internet data. Picture reviews are better because you can easily switch back and forth between different parts of the review.

[just2good]

Picture reviews. I guess I'm spoiled as there's so many video reviews out there, it's hard to find picture reviews nowadays. I've been noticing a decrease of picture reviews here this year, which makes me sad. Picture reviews require much more effort so usually the pictures a clear, and you don't have to skip around the video to see the thing you want to.

The video review you posted as an example was excellent. I haven't seen that before! You could see they put effort into that.

I know I do video reviews, but I always try putting pictures here if I post them here. It's really a dying art, and I wish people who made video reviews would provide pictures to please both sides of the spectrum.

Edited August 14, 2014 by just2good

[TheRedViper]

Picture reviews are my definite preference, as videos always become tedious and repetitive.

[Steph 104th]

There are some decent video reviews that use pictures but those are few and far between. I personally prefer pictoral reviews.

[AwesomeBantha]

I personally like pictorial reviews because I can easily "skip ahead"; I don't want to spend 15 minutes looking at various minifigs and 2 minutes looking at the set.

[Borador]

Picture reviews for sure. I don't like Video Reviews at all. When I go into a review, I like to be able to see everything clearly and look at carefully to decide if it's any good. I like to zoom in and such. Can't do that with videos. Plus, I can't view them in quiet places without headphones.

[Kettchy]

Pictures! A thousand times pictures!

"Hello YouTube Viewers, it's [boring internet name] here with another [whatever]!"

I DON'T CARE LEAVE ME ALONE. I want to see the Lego, not your fumbling hands.

That pirate set video review was pretty good, because it was about the bricks, not someone monologuing and taking twenty minutes to open the box with one hand. The sound was good, with clear audio and subtle music, the execution was slick, and above all it was short. Unfortunately reviews like that are the exception rather than the rule.

[Zzz]

I'm not saying that video reviews are bad, I frequently watch them and they are pretty watchable from some people, not too many, though. But they're never on par with a quality review from the RA here. Having said that, I think there should be a couple more picture reviews, especially from older sets. (I know it's a lot of time spent on a good review - and I'll look for a set that has no review and will do that one day, promise.)

[Xcod119]

I vastly prefer picture reviews to video reviews however the one showcased there was good due to it being short and getting straight to the point. I only sometimes watch video reviews and the ones that I do watch are for large sets that I think of purchasing. This is to show scale and just detail. But like I said I prefer pictorial reviews. Not to diss video reviews too much as some are good.

[tkatt]

I like picture reviews better.

Most video reviews have too much of the reviewer in them. I only want to see the Lego parts, not hands.

I don't really want to see the build process, it can sometimes spoil surprises.

Bonaparte, I did enjoy the video you've posted. The reviewer is concise, and I appreciate that he stays off camera. I'd like this style of video review to be the standard.

[eurotrash]

Pictures! Pictures! Pictures!

I think there has been a very high, consistent standard of image-based Eurobricks reviews of sets - they provide the right level of information, are easily skipped through to the relevant (to me) parts and translation services are available for those where the reader's English is not fluent. On the other hand the video reviews I've seen have been very variable in quality from good to appallingly bad with muffled sound and cheesy music.

Pictures please...

Edited August 14, 2014 by eurotrash

[-obelix-]

If done correctly, video reviews can be nice; but I still prefer the picture reviews much more.

[autorazr]

I wouldnt watch a video review of anything other than a video camera, in which the video would show me a picture of the cameras quality.

[dr_spock]

Pictures as they can show more details and you don't have to hit pause to stare at it as long as you want.

Videos are good if there are actions involved.

[Adolfo]

Despite of all advantages of videos nowadays, in this LEGO question I think pictures are better because of many reasons listed by AFOLs here..

[Pizzareno]

I like both but as has been pointed out it is easier to skip ahead or go back to a certain picture more easily with a pictorial review than using a video. However I also agree that having a video as part of a reivew to show a function would be beneficial.

However I really like that video review of the pirate set as it essentially covers everything you could want to know without going over things and blabbing about a minifig or box for 10 minutes like I have seen some videos do. So videos could be beneficial for small sets rather than pics.

In short, benefits and drawbacks to both I feel.

[montgocloud]

LEGO video reviews are usually long and drawn out and focus way too much on the minifigures.

Video reviews have clear advantages though and, if done right, could be great. They need to be more concise, have a good script (preferably a voice over), and focus on pictures like this particular review did with little bits of video thrown in to showcase the model's features. And hands should always be out of the shot. It's unprofessional and clunky.

So basically what I'm saying is it should be a fast paced pictorial review with a scripted voice over instead of text. That way a viewer could pause if he wanted a closer look but isn't subjected to a 20 minute fumbling mess.

[Krize]

I do like video reviews. Especially for technical models, videos are necessary to show functionality. Our member Sariel does a great job with reviewing technic models and Mocs, e.g. check his review for the massive 42030 Lego Technic Front Loader.

[TheLegGodt]

Picture reviews for me. I can speed read them and if I find them interesting slow down to take in more details of the photos. Video just take too long to get through, doesn't work for me in general but I appreciate that they are there as well in case I find a set very interesting and worth investing more time

[jantjeuh]

Picture reviews are much more convenient for me.

[Blakstone]

Picture reviews for sure. There is so much more detail in them. I want to get a little studio so I can try my hand at them as well.