Anyone else here still literate?

[VeloZer0]

Is it just me or is it harder and harder to find non video coverage of gaming related news/events? I just decided to take a look at the new PS Vita and it seems like all the* major gaming sites have abandoned doing write ups of things and are just posting videos about them. I hate watching damn videos. They take so long to load, I have to sit through adds, and offer 1/2 the actual information of written text in three times the time.

*I only checked two, but it really pissed me off

[Slothy]

I always prefer to digest my gaming announcements in text form. I can read faster than a person in a video can talk, I can skim over the parts I don't care about, and I can quickly read a bit of news at work when I need a break. A video offers me none of these. Frankly, unless the video is showing actual gameplay, I don't give a and never will. I've actually skipped stories I was interested in because they were in video form and I didn't want to sit at the computer for 5-10 minutes to get through the whole thing when I could simply skim an article and move on to something else.

[Loony BoB]

Absolutely agree. I spent a large amount of time looking for a text summary of the events of yesterday and was unable to find anything that wasn't specifically about one thing or another. I just want a summary of what's going on, minute by minute, with key facts rather than endless commentary about a single game.

If you do find anything that summarises effectively, let me know.

[ljkkjlcm9]

Kotaku always has their "live blog." It's still on their site even after the conference, and they just type out what they're seeing during the conference.

While yes, I do enjoy reading a number of things, I think it's the common view that no matter what you read, watching actual gameplay gives you a much better idea of what it is.

THE JACKEL

[Yeargdribble]

I guess I'll be the dissenter. I like the video wrap-ups. One nice thing about it is that I can do other things while listening/watching. Lately I've found that even when something like E3 isn't going on, there's a fairly constant deluge of gaming information coming out. I get about 150 stories across my gaming RSS feeds every day.

From a logistical point of view, it's understandable why gaming journalists do this. There's just too much info coming out and if they want to be breaking, they have to plug it in NOW. They don't have time to do thorough write-ups during the show because there's something else happening instantly. Most of these sites do pretty detailed stuff after the show is over and several have done good articles during the show.

From a business standpoint, more and more people are tl;dring everything. People want videos and videos get more hits. So it's just good business to have videos from that perspective. Sadly, most people can't read two consecutive paragraphs these days.


So between those who are too lazy to read and those like myself who want quick, ancillary background info while doing other more important things, combined with the relative easy of uploading video vs writing an article... yeah, I see why it is as it is.

[Slothy]

From a logistical point of view, it's understandable why gaming journalists do this. There's just too much info coming out and if they want to be breaking, they have to plug it in NOW. They don't have time to do thorough write-ups during the show because there's something else happening instantly. Most of these sites do pretty detailed stuff after the show is over and several have done good articles during the show.

I disagree with this point simply because in previous years I've used the live blog IGN did which is similar to what the Jackel mentioned to keep up with what's happening at the conference. It doesn't take a massive writeup during the show. A quick sentence about what's happening as it happens every few minutes is enough, and a much easier way to digest the major reveals of the day. Especially when you consider I can read text updates throughout the conference quickly every so often while at work, whereas I don't have the luxury of playing a video, even in the background for me to listen to.

And really, why would I want to just listen to a video? For me, the only benefit a video really carries for me is to actually see the games in action. Otherwise, I can literally read through the important parts of several articles in half as much time and actually spend less time on the computer than if I try to multitask. In fact, trying to listen to a video in the background while doing something else generally leaves me too distracted to really pay much attention to either and I always have to either rewind the video, re-read something I just read or wrote, etc.

[Yeargdribble]

I watch the visual bits that most interest me closely. I suppose I've just gotten into the habit of audiobooks and podcasts while doing mundane tasks. I mean, I spend hours practicing repetitive exercises every day on piano and trumpet. With trumpet I can usually read as I'm facing my monitor, but daily piano exercises, I like things in the background and can pay fairly close attention.

[Pike]

I spend a good portion of every day on /v/, which, between all the gets, rage, non-vidya and other assorted buffoonery and trolling*, is probably the best place on the internet for video game related news.


* implying I don't add to the buffoonery and trolling

[Rase]

But that would take all this time, and effort...

[Del Murder]

I have found this to be true for many news products, not just games. A lot of the fantasy sports sites I look at do their player projections via video. Similarly with sports news in general. It's really annoying as I am often browsing from a computer at work or my laptop at home while watching a TV show and I don't want to have the sound on. Just because the technology exists to cheaply make and embed videos in the website doesn't mean you should use it at every opportunity. Especially since many of these analysts have a 'face for writing', if you know what I mean.

[Carl the Llama]

[VeloZer0]

This isn't specifically abut E3, it was just an example. My main beef is that I can generally read a 5 minute video's worth of content in less than 60 seconds. And I have to stop whatever music I am playing to listen to the video.

Don't get me wrong, I think videos have their place. It just isn't to convey raw information.

[Pete for President]

I disagree. Pictures say a thousand words. One way or another you'll want to experience the vibe of a product, and to me that's a lot more interesting than just some specs or features in words.

[Polnareff]

I agree with you, VeloZer0, although I'm a person who still buys magazines.

Like you, I'm an insanely fast reader and can read through a whole article in less time than it takes for a video commentary to wrap up.

And let's face it-- a lot of videos have extraneous fluff that you can't really skip depending on the video (like if it's a stream) and they usually get off to some wild tangents as opposed to articles in typed form (case in point, some of Capcom's panel at E3 yesterday was just them shooting the ). At least in the typed articles you can skim them if you want to.

[Del Murder]

Yes, the ability to skim and easily re-read certain points is a very good reason why I prefer print media. You are allowed to go at your own pace.