We’ve reached an era of the internet where there’s a lot of reflection on old web reviwers. Channel Awesome and their ilk. I spend a week watching a shit ton of them. I was doing a no Youtube challenge and ended up watching CA shit on Archive.org, obeying the letter but not the spirit of the challenge.

These reviewers certainly have their shortcomings. Sometimes, the takes are bad. They often use slurs, which were wrong to use at the time. The angry review format is far more about righteous anger than empathy, meeting a work halfway, and understanding why media is how it is. You could call EA games fucking idiots and it feels good they deserve it, but it could be more constructive to direct rigorous anger to bigger issues than individual game devs. Granting empathy and meeting a work of media halfway can improve even the angry review. I think the more thoughtful video essay is a natural evolution, but this evolutionary shift also occurred over a decade ago – feminist media critique was in its heyday by the late 00s – but it took a little extra time to Pivot To Video. The first article I read about Super Mario 1-1 teaching you how to play it was written by feminist media critic.

Other people can handle the follies better than I can. I want to take a different critical lens: Things in old media reviews that I like.

I liked the swearing. A lot of old reviewers used swearing and slurs, the slurs fucking suck but the swearing ruled. It just wouldn’t be funny if reviewers called a game from 1989 a poo load of seggs, they need to call it a shitload of fuck. Word choice matters, and swearing is a good choice. The algorithm superstition that causes cOnTeNt CrEaToRs to hold their tongue is embarrassing. Note that I said algorithm superstition, these cowards of content creators don’t even act based on things that can be proven, if they even think the algorithm wants something they nod and obey. Its so embarrassing. Its embarrassing that I need to defend bad words on line as a concept, what is wrong on-line.

Nothing pisses my ears off like a swearing bleep, they’re always just grating and awful.

I liked how they’d use copyrighted music. It is a profound misunderstanding of fair use that any music is fair game if used as an aesthetic component of a review, even if the review has nothing to do with song choices. It’s an excellent one. I loved to learn about reviewers music choices, it said a lot about them and their interests. Just letting a song play for the fucking vibes. As with everyone else, reviewers were richer for breaking copyright law, and should continue to break copyright law whenever possible.

I liked the lack of pussy footing, and ways they treated their audience like adults. No “this is just an opinion guys” “its okawy is u think differently” padding: subjectivity was understood to be known to already be implied. These statements are added to reviews by media critics who are cowards. Or as algospeak, a form of speech to pad out cOnTeNt in order to earn algorithm points. Reviewers who make statements like these are embarrassing, and I prefer the certainty of older reviewers who didn’t bother with that trash.

I also like how older reviewers would just be mean to their viewers in some regards. Rack ’em (13 year olds sending weak flames supposedly on your behalf) instead of a weak “Pwease don’t harass anyone”. Call your comment box full of idiots, if they’re being fucking idiots. If some flamer comes at you like “thats just your opinion man”, fucking duh subjectivity was implied, get rude.

Channel Awesome itself was flawed and deserved to die, but its even slight human curation was amazing. Imagine an entire blog site telling you where the decent reviews were, instead of a machine learning algorithm slinging you slop essays. A lot of the bad reputation of video essays is due to algorithm slinging, dogshit essays with catchy titles make everyone roll their eyes at that bullshit. I do lurk forum threads which recommend videos – and that is absolutely the only way to do it.

I spoke of angry reviewers not granting empathy, so let me grant that empathy to the 10s. Most video media still believed it had to adhere to a schedule, and usually a weekly one. This encouraged the production of what can only be described as filler, to fit a schedule they convinced themselves they needed. Low effort, formulaic reviews. This would delay or outright prevent the production of more thoughtful media. I also need to point out that people working for Channel Awesome were working for Channel Awesome, which was shit.

Little Mermaid 2 (Obscurus Lupa Presents)

It’s a review thats tedious nitpicking, and knows its insincere and adhering to formula. The end section is pretty much dedicated to showing that fact off. I don’t think its a very good review, it comes off as annoying and nitpicky, even if it knows itself as such the self-awareness doesn’t make it good. What I like about it is the skits, the parodies of reviewers taking soft drink sponsorships. It seems prescient in the current day.

Trespasser: Jurassic Park’s Biggest Failure? – A History | Monotonal Lizard

Ok so this is the video that made me write this article. I had these thoughts since the No Youtube challenge mentioned up top. This video contains a section talking about angry bloggers, who predate angry video reviews. Everything I’ve said here has nothing to do with the critics mentioned in this video – It’s a non-sequitur. But you need to shout out your inspirations. And this video made me want to say things.

Maybe one day i’ll write my “Old Man Murray’s popular take on the death of Adventure Games was always really bad, but it also aged like milk” post, but actually I think that sums it up.

Credit:

• Doodie.com for art used as a divider.
• Visit phelous.com for more Obscurus Lupa!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!