learnings from Action Button reviews: how to review a thing (2 of 2)
(cont'd) for normal reasons, I rewatched every single one of Tim Rogers's reviews for Action Button to study how to structure a review
Continuing on from last time (you should read that first imo): This is part 2 of a different ReadOnly than usual, in which, in (debatable) preparation for a new side gig as a reviews editor of poetry books for an online journal, I decided to rewatch all of Tim Rogers’s video game reviews for Action Button. These are, basically, the outlines for how each of Tim Rogers’s reviews are structured. The goal of this exercise is to rephrase these for universality and as learnings for applicability elsewhere (for me specifically, here).
Tokimeki Memorial
Introduction
translation of title
context of release of text (when it was released, on what, etc, remakes, sequels, how the franchise expands from there)
“begin with the bottom line” (an almost teaser thesis: extremely straightforward and simple, but the rest of the video is going to wildly expand upon this as it builds up to it)
overview of what the game is, what’s good about it
why this game was picked for review (and how it fits in thematically with recent reviews)
Discussion of the genre & why the game was never localized
development of the game
history of the genre
cultural context/why was the game never translated
meaning of the genre (video games not as escapism but as “I could do this – drive a car, learn karate, talk to girls – in real life someday” or as “I could have done this at a past stage of life”)
Analysis of design, structure, presentation, game design, game loop, flow
Focus on user interface
How the theme/setting lends itself to all this
Commentary on an abridged first playthrough
Analysis of characters and themes by means of commentary on multiple abridged playthroughs
Thesis (of the review)
personality quiz vs min-max approach – at what cost do you “win” the hardest challenge of the game, what does this suggest about the thesis of the text (and what does the thesis say about the medium, society, etc)
relationship between the player and the protagonist
personal anecdotes drawing parallels to the story/themes of the text, by way of discussing emotional response to the text
The bottom line
discusses preconceived notions about game and potential angles for the review
how the text/genre fits into a surprising other genre (ie, the dating sim is post-cyberpunk) and what this says about the medium (and the perception of the medium and state of the medium) in wider culture
advice to the viewer for how best to enjoy the game, who it might be most for
I love this wacky masterpiece and I have re-watched this video so many times I thought I could write the outline from memory alone. I could not. I did have to rewatch stretches of it to unpack the magic.
Insofar as the magic of the structure works, this is the first one of these games where Rogers includes something like a standard Let’s Play – partly due to the necessity of knowing that the vast majority of the audience has never and will never play this game that was never translated from Japanese – and it adds so much to the magic of this review to see Rogers experience the highs and lows and existential crises that go on to inform his analysis of a game that has so much to say about failure.
Although also some magic certainly lies in Rogers’ choice of texts to review. I’ve written a bit on ReadOnly about this game because of how interested this review got me.
Cyberpunk 2077
Introduction
A little short film kinda thing!
Context of release of text
The bottom line
Personal anecdote for why review this text
Brief overview of the text and of the structure of this review
Context
Text’s relationship with public conversation and discourse, and why this matters
Notable aspect of text as lens for wider discussion of medium
eg, graphics, crunch, both in industry and personal anecdotes
What the reviewer liked
Discussion of the structure of the game
Summary of the narrative
How the above stand out
What the reviewer did not like
Close reading of issues and effect on experience
Discussion of hierarchy of issues (eg, bugs that can be patched eventually vs flawed concepts) and how these matter
Reflection on how to review text
Starts as a fakeout text as lens for broader critique before turning into discussion of the process of reviewing
Outline the intended idea for segment, the research done, how it ultimately didn’t fit as a lens for reviewing the text, and how it does lay the groundwork for a future review of something else
The text as a lens for broader cultural applicability
eg, what is cyberpunk? how cyberpunk is cyberpunk? does this matter? what is authenticity? how does the text “miss” in execution of its ambitions? what does this say about how to understand other contemporary texts?
The bottom line
Text as lens for:
General state of contemporary texts
The direction the reviewer would like to see in the future, and as indicator of the likelihood of this
Reviewer’s personal relationship with the medium
HOO BOY.
“Ok, but, surely this doesn’t help you read poetry, right?” I mean, writing up this outline – going through my notes about what each section was about and summarizing what it was doing, structurally, in a review – did help me figure out an angle for the conclusion paragraph for a review I was working on. Granted, it’s hard to argue there’s any particular Tim Rogers magic in “reviews can use the text as a lens for broader applicability” but, hey, the ways of inspiration and how she strikes are mysterious. All writing is stealing until you’ve learned how a thing works and have put a spin on it. I sure hope at least one person out there has plagiarized Bad Books Good Times for a book report. They’d probably learn more from stealing from that than from actually reading Pamela.
It’s worth noting that although this one is presented as a “branching path” type of review, in which the viewer is encouraged, after watching the intro, to pick 2 of the 6 sections, and then go to the conclusion… it isn’t really structured like that. It does work like a long mini-series (as Rogers intends for basically every other video) without tons of overlap, and this does flow like a pretty standardly structured review. Interesting as a study in how a persona (ie, YouTuber?) negotiates expectations with their audience, but, hey, I finally found the line for “ok, this definitely has nothing to do with poetry”.
Boku No Natsuyasumi
Introduction
voiceover-less reflection (on sunflowers, a motif in the game)
context (release, information on the game and the series)
the theme/why review this game
outline of the review
Cultural context
why never localized and implications (what is universal vs cultural?)
study of the essentiality of cultural context
Text as wider study on jank vs innovation in older titles in the medium, how this serves the text’s abilities to capture its ambitions
eg, tank controls working well for this title
includes explanation of the number of verbs in the game (eg, 2: run & interact)
Breakdown of one playthrough/analysis of narrative and pacing
Analysis of game’s themes, how they stand out against other common themes in the medium, and how the text achieves them
Game’s critique on games – min-maxing and the lie of video games
Semi-experimental section: author describes going on a vacation inspired by the title, relaying feelings felt on vacation to the game’s themes of what is a vacation
And then also on childhood
And on memory, places, the relationship between the two (ie, places don’t remember us, but do we deserve to be remembered)
Surreal commercial break with similar-ish tehmes from end of previous section
The bottom line
how the text fits into the bigger picture of the evolution of the cultural framing and industry of video games
What the text leaves the reader with
The last one to date and the kickoff of season 2, which was promised in the previous review to take a different tone. This mostly seemed to just be in the lengthy personal anecdote vacation section, which was basically a short film about memory inspired by the game. The kind of wild postmodern review I love to see, the sort of wild move that had to be earned by the author fully realizing what they’re capable of doing in service of a review (as one top-rated YouTube comment put it, Tim Rogers has to reflect on his whole life before he can review a video game. Love to see it).
It is really cool how this serves as a good example of the older, consumer report–esque style of video game reviews that boil down to gameplay, graphics, sound, replayability, talking about how the controls serve the narrative and its themes.
So did I actually learn anything from all of this?
Gosh, barely.
BUT after I did all this, something interesting happened: a new Zelda came out. And with that, a bunch of absolute dogshit 10/10 reviews that don’t actually have anything to say about the game, and a whole bunch of (although probably not that much since, well, I have firmly established myself as in the minority of people who care about what a reivew does) people began asking what is even the point of reviews. Consumer and monetizing pressure have basically eroded any “normal” reviews from a major publisher saying anything of note about a big release video game in its review. This is all talked about more thoughtfully on my favorite video game podcast Bad End, and conversely reminded me of the flip side of this - a response from No Escape to IGN’s piece about why it gives so many 7/10s or higher and what purpose does a review serve somewhere between the consumer report and the “take two or more ideas about a cultural object and smash them together”.
This was the headspace I was in when talking with Kissing Dynamite about what reviews do, although poetry is not video games [citation needed]. But poetry is not a dissimilar medium from video games in that: 1) it is stereotypically a Thing for Nerds, and 2) who reads reviews of that? So I thought, well, if I read and watch more video game criticism than I spend time playing video games, there’s something in there that might be useful for me.
At least in the structure and flow of the review, what kind of information needs to be in there to launch into the weird shit, how do we go from question to question without losing the reader, I dunno, this did help me literally finish writing at least one (1) review.
As mentioned, this is all (obliquely) towards something; I’ve joined the team at Kissing Dynamite as a Book Reviews Editor! I’ll be writing reviews of small press/self-published poetry books, but I’ll also be editing other writers’ reviews of small press poetry books. So: hit me up if 1) you’re a poet with a book coming out, or 2) you’ve got a review of a poetry book you want to write!