I hate video battle reports.

[eldargal]

I really hate* video battle reports.

I'm quite a fast reader, in the 5-6 minutes it takes me to watch an average video battle report I could read two or three average written reports. On top of that, I don't see the point. By necessity they have to be so heavily edited you only get a basic blow by blow account anyway. Unless they have an exceptionally good camera and tripod you can hardly get a decent view of the miniatures and its always from the same, dull isometric angle. With a regular camera and a bit of effort you can get some fantastic, atmospheric battle shots.
Then you get the potential issues with slow connections, shaky camera work, background noise etcetera. Its also much harder to slip in little fluffy descriptions of whats going on as you can with a written report. I've seen some beautiful written battle reports on blogs with dozens of well-thought out photographs, in-depth descriptions of whats going on and little snippets of fluff throughout. A real pleasure to read, I've not seen any video reports come close that providing that degree of pleasure.

On the plus side, though, I was able to hear BigReds sexy man-voice.

As a disclaimer, the above is all my opinion, I realise it is subjective and I am in no way advocating that people who enjoying producing/watching video battle reports should stop.


*Also, zombies (http://www.lounge.belloflostsouls.net/showthread.php?t=12854).

[DrLove42]

I agree. Plus them being in text with nice pictures means i can read them at work

[gwensdad]

Some reports are OK, some not so much.
But maybe some ideas to make them all more enjoyable:

1) army lists as part of the article
2) maps of the "battlefield" (like the old White Dwarf ones.) Doesn't have to be pretty or even turn-to-turn
3) give the opinion of best and worst units on each side
4) optional: discuss the banning of the dewey decimal system*

Adding any of these could really help in the enjoyment factor.


*Sorry Eldargal but really, compared to Library of Congress system, it sucks

[Bigred]

The feedback is appreciated. Also take into account that video battle reports are about an order of magnitude faster to produce than full length written ones with pics.

Really they are two different things entirely. Written reports are more akin to academic case samples which allow one to deconstruct a game and see exactly when and where critical things occurred. The video reports are lighter in content, yet do give that true to life feel of what wargaming really is, a interchange between two players with all the back and forth that entails over a tabletop. It's a nice real world tether to a hobby that can often become overly cerebral on the page.

{sexy man-voice}
Thanks for the constructive comments Eldargal. I'll see what we can do to get an occasional oldschool written format piece into the schedule now and then.
{/sexy man-voice}

[eldargal]

Well, thats a very good point about social interchange, Mr Bigred, and don't think my comment was aimed primarily at BolS. Yours are the only ones I bother with anymore, no shaky camera work and annoying background noises.

[JxKxR]

I really love written out battle reports also, and just like eldargal said you can get so much more out of them. You can imagine the battle better as opposed to just seeing a game being played.

@ Gwensdad- Very nice suggestions :D

I have wanted to do a battle report of one of my games for quite a while now, but I just have too many unpainted models and I'm too ashamed. :(

[ArmyC]

I think there is a huge need for documentation of important games.

I would love to see pages and pages of reports from tourny finals.

For me though, they have to have lists, and maps/graphics.

I get no value from youtube stuff.

battle chronicler is beautiful.

[Image]

For me, at least half the appeal of tabletop games is the visual appeal. While I can appreciate well-done photos of nicely-painted models, I like to see the whole of the battle. In fact, I truly enjoy watching other people play games. It's a nice way to get a gaming fix without the stress of watching your plastic dudesmen die and as such I think video battle reports are a solid substitution when I can't make it out to the FLGS. As BigRed pointed out, that social interaction and scope of the game is somewhat lost in written battle reports.

[eagleboy7259]

When they are done correctly video battle reports are 100 times nicer than any written report. With the "I-go-you-go" turn system that is used in 40k, you need at least 9 pictures to correctly show deployment and each players turn phase. That's the bare minimum, without taking into consideration that it's often hard to fit action that is occuring across the entire table into a photograph that shows any of the wonderful detail that goes into some peoples models.

Then you also have to take into account the amount of effort that is going into writing the report. Are we getting some narrative? a slideshow? missspeeleings? Heck even the format of a written report is enough to turn many people off from it. Then theres the issue of clearity - can you tell which unit he's talking about, can you tell what action the unit is performing?

[The Girl]

Some reports are OK, some not so much.
But maybe some ideas to make them all more enjoyable:

1) army lists as part of the article
2) maps of the "battlefield" (like the old White Dwarf ones.) Doesn't have to be pretty or even turn-to-turn
3) give the opinion of best and worst units on each side
4) optional: discuss the banning of the dewey decimal system*

Adding any of these could really help in the enjoyment factor.

I think the first two would be good, easy additions. Taking a photo of the table before deployment and copy/pasting army lists are quick tasks.

[L192837465]

I think the first two would be good, easy additions. Taking a photo of the table before deployment and copy/pasting army lists are quick tasks.

Especially since the armies are copy/pastes of themselves.

[Emerald Rose Widow]

I am a fan of both to be honest, I love the visual level of a video battle report, you get to see the social exchange, and the silliness. Its not quite but almost like you are right there next to them watching.

On the other hand I like written ones because you get closer details and info on the lists and the breakdown, more of the details of the battle. You can see their deployments, thoughts on why they did it the way they did, also details of the map, and all that good stuff.

So basically I am a fan of doing both types of reports for one battle, then you get all your bases covered. So when i make battle reports ill be sure to send you written ones eldargal.

Me I want to get a lense for my nikon d50 and take more close up shots, get a lens that optimizes this. I am not very good with knowledge in the photography field so I do not know what kind of lens to get for my cam. Sadly before I can do that I have to get my camera fixed, my cats knocked it over about a year ago and broke it, it still turns on but it doesnt take pictures, so i want to get it looked at.

[Lockark]

They give me something to watch when painting my army, drawing commissions, ect. I stopped paying for TV because I just watch videos on the internet now.

Battle reports are one of the things I like to watch, when content on other sights are not as high.

[scadugenga]

I'm a fan of both--when done correctly.

There are horrible video reports, and horrible written reports.

Fortunately, there's more quality to the average BoLS video reports than elsewhere.

And if you think a BoLS report is long...whew, watch one of SouthernCygnar's Dystopian Wars video reports--they're more narrative after the fact w/photos and movement representations. He does a great job explaining the game as he goes, but one of his reports went over 40 minutes.

Gah.

Buffo also does an excellent job w/video and written reports. Following his 45 games of DE stuff was entertaining.

[isotope99]

I agree with BigRed on the effort needed to properly write up battle reports.

I tried doing battle reports on my last tournament (admittedly one sided from my perspective) but you really need a third party to take notes/pictures. Otherwise, it's easy to get distracted by the game and have to try and piece it all together at the end.

One thing I've found works is to have a copy of the army list to hand to note down significant achievements/failings as you go for your units and to have a spare page that you can put arrows on for signifcant movement actions and assault sites.

I'm going to have another go at this April's UK Throne of Skulls with my KSons (counting as grey knights).

[GrenAcid]

I agree with Eldargal...I hate it too.

So far best batle reports was made by Buffo....with nothing more but text and simple map in vassal.
I appreciate effort of ppl who put video battle reports but mose of time quality is C* and you end with nothing but waste of time.

My 0.02$

[Lerra]

I prefer the video battle reports. For tactics, a well-done video is easier to follow than a written report. It's hard to capture a 4'x6' table in one picture, but it's easy to see what's going on in a video.

If you want a story, the written battle reports are probably better, though. You have more room to fluff it up.

[Porty1119]

How's my VBR? ;) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYwVThKSlqk

Overall, I have to agree. Written battle reports are much faster to get through, much less intrusive to people around you, and if the writer takes a bit of time, really give you the impression of an AAR.