Posted October 08, 2018
So, I'm still not over Bain's disappearance and his lack in the field of videogame reviewing, curation, etc.
He seemed to be the only one doing review videos that ticked all the boxes for me. He wasn't playing a character, making entertainment videos about himself ("look how loud I shout, lol, fun drama"), he was not accepting the little manipulative marketing strategies of today's industry (pre-orders, microtransactions, etc), he was knowledgeable enough to put new games in historical perspective (not being impressed by reinvented wheels), he was very transparent about relationships with publishers (mentionning when a game was provided free, etc), and, most importantly, he was a reliable, thorough reviewer : he didn't give his own opinion as much as explaining it, and explaining where people could disagree. If a game didn't appeal to him, he'd explain -with no jusfement but with encouragement- who it would appeal to, under what conditions. "If you don't mind this, you'll enjoy that". It made for very usefully de-centered, objective and honest reviews. Plus, he reviewed -and thus gave their chance to- rather obscure games.
So, the question is : Does anyone come close ?
Are there videogame reviewers that
1) don't "play an act", don't make it about their oh-so-cool-awesome-character (à la angry ones or 'quisition),
2) who care about information ethics more than clicks,
3) who go analytically deeper than yay boo reaction videos, and
4) who review other games than the latest trendy clicksafe AAA bestselling talk of the town ?
Or did the genre itself disappear with TB ?
He seemed to be the only one doing review videos that ticked all the boxes for me. He wasn't playing a character, making entertainment videos about himself ("look how loud I shout, lol, fun drama"), he was not accepting the little manipulative marketing strategies of today's industry (pre-orders, microtransactions, etc), he was knowledgeable enough to put new games in historical perspective (not being impressed by reinvented wheels), he was very transparent about relationships with publishers (mentionning when a game was provided free, etc), and, most importantly, he was a reliable, thorough reviewer : he didn't give his own opinion as much as explaining it, and explaining where people could disagree. If a game didn't appeal to him, he'd explain -with no jusfement but with encouragement- who it would appeal to, under what conditions. "If you don't mind this, you'll enjoy that". It made for very usefully de-centered, objective and honest reviews. Plus, he reviewed -and thus gave their chance to- rather obscure games.
So, the question is : Does anyone come close ?
Are there videogame reviewers that
1) don't "play an act", don't make it about their oh-so-cool-awesome-character (à la angry ones or 'quisition),
2) who care about information ethics more than clicks,
3) who go analytically deeper than yay boo reaction videos, and
4) who review other games than the latest trendy clicksafe AAA bestselling talk of the town ?
Or did the genre itself disappear with TB ?