commentary videos vs written articles

[judey]

i'm starting to hate ben and rob. now and again when i click on an interesting topic on the tom's website, i am taken to a video of them talking about it. and, i hate it. i'd like at least to have the transcript of the video to read as an option instead of watching it.

with an article covering the topic I can take a couple minutes to read through it and i can skip all the extraneous fluff. however, with ben and rob I have to sit through a lot of fluff and there is no fast forward.

video is a visual media and there should be something visual about it that improves the informational content of the piece. if a video is simply two guys sitting at a desk talking, it is a waste. there is nothing offered beyond words, and if words is all there is, why not just write it down so I can read it at my own pace?

so, if you're going to talk, give me an article, not a video.

 

[dzmcm]

I agree with you mostly. In fact--and this is not applicable to everyone--I retain what I read a lot better than what I hear. It is more entertaining to watch what Ben and Rob have to say. But it defeats the purpose of using video and audio when all I'm getting is an impromptu discussion without the extra care and effort taken to communicate and inform with literature. Where's the meat and potatoes. I want to see game footage and product images, and anything else to exploit the medium.

If I'm going to have to pause my music, it needs to be for a better reason than a watered down version of a nonexistent article.

 

[ibender]

I registered on this forum for the sole purpose of agreeing with this post. Dear idiots, no one wants to see you talk. Just write an article and post it.

 

[Maxor127]

I like their videos. They're funny and make good points. Your opinion that a video has to have something visual that improves the informational content is simply wrong. Otherwise, you wouldn't have news shows of people just sitting at a desk. If you're lucky, you may get a video of the topic they're talking about. And since the Second Take videos are basically two guys debating and commenting on certain topics, you can't really capture the essence of that in a written article. It's just not the same. So your entire logic is completely flawed. I think it's easier to click a video and listen to it in the background while I do other things than stop and read an article. They only do like a video a week and they're only like 5 minutes long. Don't watch them if you don't like them and read the 800 forum posts about the things they address instead if you're that big on reading.

 

[hergieburbur]

... Your opinion that a video has to have something visual that improves the informational content is simply wrong...

Gotta love it. How can an opinion be wrong? You know what they say about opinions...