Reviewing reviews
As mentioned in an earlier note, Fanmode is keen on honest, thorough and insightful reviews of interesting toys for our review roundups published on Tuesdays and Fridays. We’ve stated why we’ve flat-out rejected some reviews; here’s where we state what we consider when appraising a review.
Although it might come across as such, this is not meant to dictate how you should write your reviews. This is merely what Fanmode is looking for when we scour the web looking for suitable reviews for our roundups. You may have different criteria, your site may have a different slant and your readers may expect different things from your reviews. We’re deeply sympathetic to the fact most toy reviewers are doing this in their free time with no compensation other than the satisfaction of sharing their passion for their hobby.
Still, you gotta have standards.
“But it’s a toy …”
So why bother reviewing a toy?
Well, there are precious few well-written reviews of action figures. You can get dozens of movie or game reviews but you’d be lucky to find one comprehensive review of a hundred dollar figure.
But even a review of a ten-dollar figure matters. That ten-dollar figure may cost thrice that (or more!) for someone who has to import it, pay dealer mark-ups as well as customs fees on top of the shipping costs.
Bear in mind a lot of toy fans buy their figures online these days and don’t get the opportunity to study the figure closely before clicking Buy It Now. The information you provide in your review will be invaluable to someone making a purchasing decision.
However, the main reason Fanmode does these toy review roundups is because it falls under the purview of toy appreciation. A good review can help you appreciate the artistry and the clever engineering of a great figure. A good review can explain precisely why a mediocre figure deserves criticism and how it could have been better. A good reviewer can make you look at your toys in a whole new light.
Details, details
If a review falls short of Fanmode’s expectations, it’s usually in one of these areas.
To start with, get the basics down. If your reader still can’t figure out the basic details of a figure after reading your review, your review is inadequate. These details may not matter now; they will matter years from now when the figure is no longer widely available and information is scarce. Don’t make the mistake of assuming your reader is familiar with the figure or the line it’s from.
Get the name right — this includes the manufacturer, series, subline, figure and if applicable, the particular variant — so your reader can narrow down Google or eBay (or equivalent) searches to get that specific figure. If it’s a store- or site-exclusive figure, state that in the review. Not every country has a Target or a Wal-Mart.
Let the reader know how tall the figure is. It can be hard to tell whether it’s a 1/6-scale figure or a 15cm tall figure from a poor photograph. A figure in a 6-inch scale might be taller or shorter, intentionally or otherwise. Moreover, some companies produce multiple versions of the same design at different sizes.
Articulation is one area the reviewer really needs to expound on because the figure’s posability (or lack thereof) may not be easy to discern from the packaging or photos. This is especially true these days since designers are becoming increasingly adept at hiding joints. The reader shouldn’t need to make educated guesses from photos; the onus should be on the reviewer to provide that information in the review.
A simple count (e.g. “the figure has 15 points of articulation”) is insufficient. A figure with a mere 14 points of articulation can be more posable than figures with twice that amount of joints if the joint design is clever. Make the effort to list the joints so your readers will get a clearer idea of the figure’s posability.
A cursory “it has the standard DC Universe Classics articulation” doesn’t help when the reader is not familiar with that particular line. If you’ve elaborated on the articulation in a previous review, link to it or better yet, cut-‘n’-paste so the reader doesn’t need to load another file. Let your reader know if the range of motion is limited by the sculpt or if the joints don’t work as they should because that isn’t going to be apparent from photos.
Quality control is another key area that reviewers need to cover well. As the costs of producing figures increase and consumers become reluctant to pay higher prices, it’s not uncommon for manufacturers and factories to cut corners to remain profitable. Quality control is often one corner cut. Some toy fans are stuck with broken figures since not every country, manufacturer or retailer has liberal return or replacement policies. If the figure feels fragile, if the paintwork is sloppy, if the joints are stuck, let the reader know.
Go retro
Don’t be afraid to forego reviewing the latest and greatest for something old from the toybox. Retro reviews matter. Buying a figure that’s no longer on the shelves will be a whole lot more costly and as mentioned earlier, the more information a toy fan has before making a purchasing decision the better. More importantly, to look back is to refresh the eye and better appreciate how far toys have come. The flipside of that is there are some things the older toys do better than the toys of today.
(As to what Fanmode considers a retro review, well, it’s a little arbitrary. As a rule of thumb, if it’s been over a year since the figure was released, it’s considered a retro review since the figure is no longer likely to be on store shelves and thus significantly harder to locate at retail prices.)
When evaluating
Consider how clever or ambitious the figure is. Is it a formulaic attempt or one that tries something new? Consider its origins. Is it one by a major company which has the resources to produce something spectacular or is it a figure by a smaller company which did outstandingly well despite considerable limitations? Adjust expectations — both yours and your readers’ — accordingly.
Consider the price. A 150-dollar Hot Toys Movie Masterpiece figure and a 10-dollar Hasbro Star Wars figure ought to be evaluated differently. How does it compare to other figures in the same price range? Does it provide value for money? Was it fun?
Consider the target market. The lowest common denominator for a Hasbro figure will always be a kid with compromises made for safety so you have to make allowances for that.
Tone down the hyperbole. Credibility is hard to gain and so easy to lose. Sure, you’re excited about the figure and you’re a big fan of the character, but maintain some perspective. Calling a decent figure the “the greatest figure ever” may only be naïveté rather than flat-out duplicity but it doesn’t make it any more palatable. Enthusiasm is acceptable; wild exaggeration is not.
If you want to assign a numeric value for your reviews, go ahead. If handing a figure 3.234 stars or 4.135 mangoes is something you feel is absolutely imperative, go wild. But justify it with reasons stated in the review. Let there be no doubt in the reader’s mind why this figure deserved 2¾ stars while that figure deserved 2½ stars.
Your reader will be reading your review on the web so don’t stint on hyperlinks. Instead of regurgitating the contents of Wikipedia, simply link to the relevant entry.
Reviewing the review
Readers can do their part, too. Criticise the review if it has shortcomings. The reviewer may not be aware of the mistakes made. Do it diplomatically, though. Criticism is a lot easier to take when it’s “here’s how the review could be better …” or “I wish you would …” instead of a dismissive “the review sucks.”
But more importantly, praise the reviewer for a good review. Reviewing something is easy; reviewing something well is not. Encourage your favourite reviewers by dropping them a line to let them know their efforts are appreciated.
And remember, if you see a great review, one that’s honest, thorough and insightful, contact us. That’s exactly the kind of review Fanmode is eager to link to.