The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
this is a horrible video, all of the visual clues are patronising as hell, the editing really detracts from the interview itself, which has to be said, is a rubbish interview.
And yeah, echo, what does this have to do with the AC?
i'm really not site-whoring guys, I edited the video. I made the motion graphics with the fighting fists, the steamvalve, etc. I'm still learning how to make interesting motion graphics and stuff, so I wondered what you guys would think. The other video i did with Alan Alcorn (the guy that made pong) the graphics are a lot worse, so i'm getting a little better.
WHY DID YOU PUT THE GRAPHICS AND NOISES IN, JESUS CHRIST.
They completely ruin what could be a reasonable interview. To edit an interview, you need an intro an outro and to remove the crap parts. you don't need fucking steam valves shooting out games consoles
WHY DID YOU PUT THE GRAPHICS AND NOISES IN, JESUS CHRIST.
The GameZombie group aesthetic is a kind of ADD editing that we try to do. It's a weird dicotomy because we're trying to make good, entertaining videos, but we're also trying to learn how to use the editing programs. I mean, maybe it's not the greatest, but I'm just learning.
Effects and editing of this type should only be used to enhance an interview, and generally the best way to do so is through subtlety. If you'd done a good job, I wouldn't have noticed that you did anything. I would've been fully immersed in what I was watching.
What you've done instead is create effects that overtake and distract from the interview. I want all that shit to be out of the way (including the music, which should definitely have been toned down when people were speaking).
If you want to practice editing, do so with voice over in documentary-like fashion. Do not do so with an interview.
The music isn't super distracting, but honestly that's about it. Even with the music though, if the sound level was lowered a bit it'd work better. I agree with everyone on the effects (sound and otherwise) being a little over the top though.
It's okay to practice those kind of graphical effects and whatnot on your own time (the more you learn the better), our effects editor does all sorts of random stuff on his own just to better understand special effects. But, I wouldn't publish any of it.
All of the effects are terribly distracting. It's like when people first get their hands on PowerPoint and decide to add all kinds of motion and sound effects and clip art to their presentations. It's possible to do these things in moderation to enhance the presentation but that isn't happening here.
The REASON people watch interviews is because they are interested in whats being said.
Whats is being SAID is the FOCUS of the entire reason people would want to watch this.
Thus anything that detracts from ... overshadows ... obscures ... or in some way maked whats being said difficult to understand, hear, follow etc is something you do not want.
The point being that the sound effects erase some of the dialogue or make it hard to follow or make it irritating as fuck to follow.
The graphics erase the reactions.
People WANT to see the person being interviewed ... 60% of language is communicated through nonverbal methods so watching the person you want to see intervied is HIGHLY important when you are promoting an interview in a visual medium. There is an expectation we will be able to see Jerrys posture and facial expressions because this is a video and not a radio blurb.
You need to understand what your audience expects and wants from you before you start editing. Otherwise you are just fumbling around in the dark with no focus.
What the audience wants to see and hear is important in a case like this NOT what YOU want to see and hear.
Also ... in editing please remember you may know this interview back and forth by heart but you MUST approach it as though EVERYONE else is seeing it for the first time ... so things your editing covers that you know are there are not going to be seen or heard by the first time viewer.
You would have a great career in TV blooper special editing.
Crowleston on
useless but necessary objects of society.
0
RankenphilePassersby were amazedby the unusually large amounts of blood.Registered User, ModeratorMod Emeritus
edited November 2008
there's a certain thing you should remember when doing something like this - what's this for? Do the graphics actually add anything to the production or do they take away from it? Are they visually or audibly important or add anything beyond "I know how to push this button"?
Your additions are distracting, they take away from the interview itself and are generally a nuisance, but they show some basic skills. Be more decisive about why you're doing them and you might have something going for you down the raod.
Stop deluding yourselves and just admit the genius of Tim Allen alright! (no but seriously I liked that show alright back in the day, no need to hate just cause it was super 90s! Also Heidi was hot!)
JohnTWM on
0
MustangArbiter of Unpopular OpinionsRegistered Userregular
edited November 2008
Look, this is the internet and hating things isn't just a privilege it's damn well neccessary.
So get with the program and start hating things, even the shit you used to like because everyone know that liking things is irreversably gay.
Reading through this topic reminded me of something I've been wondering about. If someone's art is really bad enough, or if you've been around long enough, is it okay to totally ignore rule #2?
On-topic, I agree that the added effects are really unnecessary and a tad over the top (though I prefer to save "terrible" for videos I can't even comprehend, and I can follow this) but it was irritating enough for me to not finish watching it. I'm used to seeing stuff like randomly changing the hue (color) of the video to something on TV so that it's not very distracting, but all the little things that pop up at the bottom of the screen detract from what Tycho is saying. If you really want to add little pop-up things at the bottom, why not go with a less flashy (and less noisy) approach and try something like... I dunno, trivia? Things like when P-A was first published online, initial vs. present success, something about PAX, stuff that is relevant to the interview content but not actually said by Tycho himself.
So I finally mustered the courage to look at the video and got pissed off by the noises and zoomed by it after 5 seconds then just stopped and rage quit.
Tycho is saying. If you really want to add little pop-up things at the bottom, why not go with a less flashy (and less noisy) approach and try something like... I dunno, trivia? Things like when P-A was first published online, initial vs. present success, something about PAX, stuff that is relevant to the interview content but not actually said by Tycho himself.
Woh, cool. This is some really constructive criticism. This is the kind of thing I can and will think about doing in future videos.
@Bomb Haha, i wondered how long till someone brought up lens flare.
Some problems I encountered while editing: Jerry is VERY long winded. The reason that the sepia comes in during that graphic segment is that the audio is very heavily edited, but you wouldn't know that unless you saw the original video footage juxtaposed. If this had been a game interview, I would have used Gameplay footage to cover the sound edits, but the lack thereof left me wondering how to cover my tracks. One of the goals of the video was to make it short enough to keep it engaging, and I didn't want to insult Jerry by making him look like he was unprepared for the interview.
Some problems I encountered while editing: Jerry is VERY long winded.
You did a decent job in that respect - while I noticed it didn't sync, I didn't realise it was chopped together. However, if it's Jerry Holkins I think you're fine with letting him be a bit sesquipedalian - anyone who's watching the video will be familiar with what he's like. Know your audience.
Willeth on
@vgreminders - Don't miss out on timed events in gaming! @gamefacts - Totally and utterly true gaming facts on the regular!
Posts
And yeah, echo, what does this have to do with the AC?
WHY DID YOU PUT THE GRAPHICS AND NOISES IN, JESUS CHRIST.
They completely ruin what could be a reasonable interview. To edit an interview, you need an intro an outro and to remove the crap parts. you don't need fucking steam valves shooting out games consoles
That was the most irritating shit I have seen in quite some time.
Just because you can do something, doesnt mean that you should do it.
The GameZombie group aesthetic is a kind of ADD editing that we try to do. It's a weird dicotomy because we're trying to make good, entertaining videos, but we're also trying to learn how to use the editing programs. I mean, maybe it's not the greatest, but I'm just learning.
It's why they are even there in the first place.
XBL
What you've done instead is create effects that overtake and distract from the interview. I want all that shit to be out of the way (including the music, which should definitely have been toned down when people were speaking).
If you want to practice editing, do so with voice over in documentary-like fashion. Do not do so with an interview.
Our first game is now available for free on Google Play: Frontier: Isle of the Seven Gods
Flickr | Facebook | Classifieds | GigPosters | Twitter | Blog
It's okay to practice those kind of graphical effects and whatnot on your own time (the more you learn the better), our effects editor does all sorts of random stuff on his own just to better understand special effects. But, I wouldn't publish any of it.
My Portfolio Site
At all.
Whats is being SAID is the FOCUS of the entire reason people would want to watch this.
Thus anything that detracts from ... overshadows ... obscures ... or in some way maked whats being said difficult to understand, hear, follow etc is something you do not want.
The point being that the sound effects erase some of the dialogue or make it hard to follow or make it irritating as fuck to follow.
The graphics erase the reactions.
People WANT to see the person being interviewed ... 60% of language is communicated through nonverbal methods so watching the person you want to see intervied is HIGHLY important when you are promoting an interview in a visual medium. There is an expectation we will be able to see Jerrys posture and facial expressions because this is a video and not a radio blurb.
You need to understand what your audience expects and wants from you before you start editing. Otherwise you are just fumbling around in the dark with no focus.
What the audience wants to see and hear is important in a case like this NOT what YOU want to see and hear.
Also ... in editing please remember you may know this interview back and forth by heart but you MUST approach it as though EVERYONE else is seeing it for the first time ... so things your editing covers that you know are there are not going to be seen or heard by the first time viewer.
Your additions are distracting, they take away from the interview itself and are generally a nuisance, but they show some basic skills. Be more decisive about why you're doing them and you might have something going for you down the raod.
*swoosh!*
You take that back.
My Portfolio Site
So get with the program and start hating things, even the shit you used to like because everyone know that liking things is irreversably gay.
On-topic, I agree that the added effects are really unnecessary and a tad over the top (though I prefer to save "terrible" for videos I can't even comprehend, and I can follow this) but it was irritating enough for me to not finish watching it. I'm used to seeing stuff like randomly changing the hue (color) of the video to something on TV so that it's not very distracting, but all the little things that pop up at the bottom of the screen detract from what Tycho is saying. If you really want to add little pop-up things at the bottom, why not go with a less flashy (and less noisy) approach and try something like... I dunno, trivia? Things like when P-A was first published online, initial vs. present success, something about PAX, stuff that is relevant to the interview content but not actually said by Tycho himself.
is this a gameGRRRL alt?
Woh, cool. This is some really constructive criticism. This is the kind of thing I can and will think about doing in future videos.
@Bomb Haha, i wondered how long till someone brought up lens flare.
Some problems I encountered while editing: Jerry is VERY long winded. The reason that the sepia comes in during that graphic segment is that the audio is very heavily edited, but you wouldn't know that unless you saw the original video footage juxtaposed. If this had been a game interview, I would have used Gameplay footage to cover the sound edits, but the lack thereof left me wondering how to cover my tracks. One of the goals of the video was to make it short enough to keep it engaging, and I didn't want to insult Jerry by making him look like he was unprepared for the interview.
@gamefacts - Totally and utterly true gaming facts on the regular!
You win. I that word.