Since I'm in no position to be making any reviews of my own... I figured I'd share a few thoughts on TF video reviews in general.

As sort of a disclaimer... I'm NOT knocking video reviewers... they are extremely helpful... and I know not all of us have a bunch of favors owed by Michael Bay ( so he can help shoot the videos) and ARE stuck with a webcam in a crowded dorm/bedroom.

I've gotten a lot of good out of video reviews... but I know there are ways they could easily improve. I've read a few tangents with good criticisms in some pre-existing review threads... but it felt like overdoing it to attach my thoughts to some video about a specific figure.

So here goes:

I usually go for the text and picture reviews over video reviews every time. Unless I'm wanting to see a transformation... then I'll look specifically for a transformation video.

Here's why:

1. I can read faster than most people talk.
2. Many of us (myself included) don't have the most concise and engaging speaking manner when making a presentation. The interest in the subject is still there, so we continue with the video.
3. Tangents
4. Poor video/sound quality. Sometimes a webcam just isn't enough... or some particular webcams just aren't enough.

My suggestion for many TFormers reviewers (and I've watched many of your videos and have gotten useful info from all), is to take a few points from the Zero Punctuation approach.

I'm not saying do a TF-themed ripoff of his style.... but many definitely need to condense the video portion. Get the meat in there... if you transform the thing in the video ... crank up the speed a little bit if your software allows. Then cover all the details and tidbits and asides in a description or some other supplemental text.

Also, when transforming a figure, PLEASE keep it in clear view of the camera... that's usually the whole reason I watch a video instead of just reading... so it makes a big difference when I can see the transformation take place in full frame.

You may rehearse already... but perhaps do some heavier editing/harsher cutting of your material. You want the good parts to stand out... but you don't want people to have to wade through a lot of long pauses in order to get to them.

And pretty much every TF reviewer has good insights and observations to share... I'm just spitballing some ways to bring those contributions to the forefront... b/c they could easily be more accessible.

But overall... my ideal review would have pics/video/AND text. Each one of those mediums is best suited for a different part of any given review... much in the same way that video games are covered.

Also: Giant Robots.

Null vote and here's the reason:

Picture reviews are always the best but that's because I can go right to the parts I'm interested in. Also, they're usually plain and simple, cut to the chase. Video reviews CAN be great but most of the time the reviewers waste my time. They take too long messing around, studdering over words, being nervous or giving history lessons instead of reviewing the figure at hand.

I'll put it like this: When a person types a review the person usually types it, reviews it, revises it, reviews add infinium until product is finished. When a person does a video they never seem to review thier own review or rehears or use a script. That always creates a review that seems hastily prepared and completely unproffessional. With most video reviews I have to put them on mute for thesesvery reasons and usually I end up just jumping around in the video because the presentation sucks and it's too long. I'd prefer a video review if it were actually done and done right but I settle for text/picture based.

i prefer text and picture or at least text. i only use the internet at work and cannot view 95% of videos due to the companies firewall. plus text and picture can be left alone on the screen when actual work comes along and i have to come back to it later. they can even be printed if i feel really fire exit about keeping a review.

video can show more emotion i suppose but to me that usually gets in the way of how a figure really is.

Here's my piece of advice for reviewers, and I don't care what format you're using... REVIEW the toy!!

It sounds simple, but honestly, the majority of so-called toy reviewers DO NOT REVIEW THE TOY!

Most of them are more like "zOMG! I have this toy and I love it and think it's extreme 1337 r0xXORz!!11!1!~"

Here is a page which gives some tips on review writing. I'd like to highlight some parts of it which I think are sorely lacking in most Transformers toy reviews...

"The purpose of a review is to give an account of the subject in question and offer a reasoned opinion about its qualities. Your main task is to report on the content, the approach, and the scope of the work for the benefit of your readers."

"Even short reviews will be more successful if they have a firm structure. Here's a bare-bones plan for a review:

* Brief introduction
* Description of contents
* Assessment of value (sorely lacking in most reviews!!)
* Comparison with others
* Conclusion"

"In general however, you will be doing your readers a favour by putting their interests before your own."

"A typical review might take into account any of the following topics:

* What is the intended audience?

* Is it physically well produced?

* Is it pitched at the right level?

* Does it have any unusual features?

* What distinguishes it from similar publications of its type?"
...for example, I recently saw a video review of Animated Grimlock where the reviewer claims that it's the _best_ Grimlock toy ever, but FAILS to explain why! If you're going to say that this toy is the best or worst in a certain class then you need to explain why you think that!! How is Animated Grimlock better than say G1, Classic Pretender, Action Master, G2 and/or Binaltech/Alternators Grimlock??

Most so-called reviews are just "let me show off to everyone that I have this toy" articles rather than actually giving the appraisal of the actual toy. They fail to examine the toy from a critical-analytical POV and to back up their statements with reasons.

Most so-called reviews are really just toy exhibits rather than reviews.

Dictionary.com defines "review" as:
(noun)
a critical article or report, as in a periodical, on a book, play, recital, or the like; critique; evaluation.

You think a toys is good or bad? Fine. Bloody tell me WHY and freakin' justify your opinions!

I personally prefer pics and words also, only because it take me less time to read and skip through the parts I don't want to read. I'm not sure why some review include a description of the transformation, but imo it should suffice that you mention if the transformation is good, bad, too hard, or too easy and states why will be ok. Personally I prefer a review that talks about features of the alt mode and articulation when applied (like BW figs), then articulation / posability of the bot mode.

Some people want to know about the transformation. The advantage of a text review is that you can break it up into sections. So if you don't care about reading a detailed description of the transformation you can just skip ahead.