Pictures or no pictures?

[Olaus Petrus]

I was thinking what majority of the people think about screenshots and historical pictures in AARs.

Personally I like to see plenty of them. They break up the text into passages nicely and give additional information about the game situation or just add some flavour. Personally I rarely follow AAR which doesn't have pictures, because I found it tiresome to read long texts if there aren't any pictures. I have to read a lot because of my university studies, so reading long texts is not actually a problem, but I don't like to read long texts on screen.

 

[Sir Humphrey]

If there are to many pictures, which make the loading of the page or post very slow, I tend not to bother at all then. This is probably why I tend to shy away from gameplay orientated AARs because some of the excruitiating loading times of massive pictures.

That being said however, having two massive blocks of text in a post is just as bad, when it should be properly divided into paragraphs and other such formatting.

 

[Olaus Petrus]

If there are to many pictures, which make the loading of the page or post very slow, I tend not to bother at all then. This is probably why I tend to shy away from gameplay orientated AARs because some of the excruitiating loading times of massive pictures.

That being said however, having two massive blocks of text in a post is just as bad, when it should be properly divided into paragraphs and other such formatting.

Well, it's true that pictures should be properly re-sized so that they won't take too long to load. That can be problematic especially with slower connections.

Good storytelling works even without pictures, if it's, as you said, properly formatted. Also I think that update shouldn't be too long. Massive blocks of text easily scare away potential readers of otherwise great story.

 

[Rotten Venetic]

Using 1-3 colours is always a good idea, but when looking back at my AAR, it seems more is just less.

I like graphics heavy AAR's myself, but I don't like them loading times... as always a balance has to be found.

But a good solution is to trim away all unnecessary content from the image.

 

[unmerged(51967)]

It can take quite a while to read long posts of text, likewise a lot of pictures can be annoying.
However i stack mine with pictures, so i can't bitch . At the highest jpg quality i can lol.
It's not so much pictures or no pictures but how you end up writing it.
I find it extruciatingly tedious sometimes when there's aars that are just text based because you have to go into reading it properly and visualising it in your head, whereas if it's just picture based with barely any words it can also be lacking. It's the style really, if you want to have a heavy story that takes a lot to read by all means go ahead, but if you're aiming for the main have pictures and about a paragraph of description or plotline.

 

[unmerged(62343)]

Well, if anyone has read my AAR you notice no pics. That really isn't a choice, it is just a matter of time constraints on my part. I dont have time for it.

I have found that pictures and screenies can add to the flavor of the AAR if they are done well and are germaine to the story. Sometimes it gets way overblown. Just try to strike a good balance and then try and look at it from the readers perspective and ask yourself, "Was this needed".

 

[unmerged(63836)]

Well, In my AAR there are lot of pictures. Reason of this, is my poor english, I don`t have skills to write long narrative AAR. However, pics are small, and compressed - not long time to load page, I think.

 

[CatKnight]

As a reader I like a balance. I like to have something moderately chunky to read, but pictures can serve as good overviews.

As a writer, I tend to write more than make pics. I figure any time I spend modifying screenies or seeing if I can find a decent picture (or making a battle map) is time I'm not spending writing or posting, and that my readers would rather I get it out there then mess around with Paint.

 

[Gul Brown]

If there are to many pictures, which make the loading of the page or post very slow, I tend not to bother at all then. This is probably why I tend to shy away from gameplay orientated AARs because some of the excruitiating loading times of massive pictures.

That being said however, having two massive blocks of text in a post is just as bad, when it should be properly divided into paragraphs and other such formatting.

I think Pictures are a good thing in an AAR, they break up waves of text and add a little variation and colour to an AAR along with Information.


While my current AAR is gameplay orientated i try and have plenty of screenshots- although i also like to put in a fair bit of writing whenever i can. Interesting point from Sir Humphrey though, some people may be put off some AAR`s due to excessive images if they feel it takes too long to load them. Its a pity though.

 

[EvilSanta]

I like to read AARs with atleast reasonable amount of pictures. Pure text bores me so I usually keep away from those.

For my "AARs", pictures are really important. That is because my updates are simple relyriced songs that usually dont have any links to each other so it is important to have pictures to tell readers (or singers in my case) what the song is all about. Some of my lyrics would be near impossible to understand without correct pictures filling them.

 

[Razor]

The answer, I guess, also depends on the type of AAR. But in general I agree with Olaus Petrus that it may be tiring to read long texts, especially on screen with a multitude of small images, colors and other somewhat disturbing things (such as: avatars, signatures, smileys etc). For me text is best presentet on an empty area so I often print the text on paper before being able to read with appropriate concentration.

... And with this post I believe Paradox will appoint me Major...

 

[El Pip]

I started with a fairly high picture:text ratio which has fallen away dramatically as the AAR went on. Why? Well I've got more confident in my writing so the updates are getting chunkier and I realised quite a few of my pictures were unnecessary filler.

As I'm aiming for a bookish sort of style that's OK; a few maps to illustrate things, the odd picture of a new technology/leader/minister and the occasional picture just to break the text up here and there. I figure a couple of pictures per update is about right. On the other hand if I was doing gameplay I'd want a lot less words and a load more pictures.

The level of pictures should match the style, which in turn will attract a certain readership. Some people don't like all piccies, some refuse to read an AAR without lots of graphics. Some people refuse to read lots of text, others want a chunky worthwhile sized update.

There is no perfect balance that everyone will like and read, just make sure the amount of graphics suits the style your writing and you wont go far wrong.

 

[Sir Humphrey]

I find that having pictures of people in a story helps alot (if they are sized correctly so as to not distort the look or feel of the post). Gives a face to the name, as it were.

 

[lionhead]

i knew i did well by adding pics to my AAR. They give proof you actually played the game like that. :rofl:

 

[Thistletooth]

For Freedom, I based my whole narrative around pictures. I basically keep writing until I have ten pictures' worth of material. Then I stop.

Resurrection's a lot tougher. Most of the time, I can't even find appropriate images to complement the mountains of text. But that's what I get for writing about dead and/or fictitious people.

 

[ComradeOm]

I usually try to have at least one or two small pictures simply to break up the block of text and to reinforce any structure in my posts. Usually these are simple CK portraits or resized historical pics.

One thing that I did find extremely useful during my de Lusignan AAR was the use of maps and pictures to represent military campaigns. I rapidly discovered that a decent such map, complete with arrows and dates, can display more information, with both detail and clarity, than a thousand words. Of course these maps usually take a bit of effort to whip together.

 

[Myth]

in my Bayonets and Ambitions AARs, I've gone with lots of pictures, but they're all cropped to show only the relevant parts of the screenshot, thus reducing their size while losing none of their information. for my next AAR, I'm experimenting with something slightly different.

 

[stnylan]

It greatly depends on what sort of AAR you are writing. In a more gameplay AAR, pictures provide additional information that is not always easily conveyed in text. However, in a more purely narrative AAR, where the game is fairly background, I find pictures to actually get in the way. After all, the story these is in the text, everything else is secondary.

Of course, regardless of format, proper use of paragraphs is essential.

 

[phargle]

I have great difficulty getting into AARs that lack screenshots from the game. It has to be very well-written and indicating how things are tied into what occured in the game otherwise. . . mostly, if an AAR has no screenies, I skim it at best.

That said. . . the queenimperiale's AAR I read word-for-word because it's concise. And it only has one screenshot - the head of the king. That's enough for me, and enough to make it one of the best AARs around.

So I guess, for me, screenies are important, although fantastic & concise writing can be substituted.

 

[Drake Rlugia]

A few pictures is okay, in my opinion. I don't like AARs with a lot of pictures, because they take long to load, and I actually like to read the story. However, all text with no pictures is a little wary for me as well.

For my Burgundy AAR, I just used a medieval picture of sorts at the beginning of each 'scene.' As time progressed I would've adopted pictures from other eras like the Baroque. I sadly however, lost interest.