• 85 results
  • 1
  • 2
#1 Posted by whatisdelicious (1216 posts) -

I've watched the vast majority of Quick Looks since 2008---hard to believe the first was essentially an EX for Legendary of all games---and I've noticed a few trends:

  1. Quick Looks, on average, are much longer than they used to be. The average QL today seems to be ~40 minutes, whereas in the beginning, they were about 10-20 minutes. The Demon's Souls QL was 32:50 in 2009 and was hilarious in how clueless everybody was. The Dark Souls QL was 1:24:44, described every little mechanic of the game, and was hilarious purely incidentally because something hilarious is bound to happen in an hour and a half. The Banjo: Nuts & Bolts QL was 11:58 back in 2008. Imagine if they filmed that now. It'd probably be closer to a full hour.
  2. The guys are a lot more prepared for them now, and are determined to show off everything they can instead of a quick slice. They come in with notes to share about the game, explain each mechanic, give a little synopsis, etc. They've often played the game for hours before filming or even beaten it already.
  3. More and more QLs start at the game's boot and get hung up at the start screen and initial menus as the guys give a preamble information dump, instead of the old style of being dumped right into the game and messing around. It can often take upwards of 5 or 10 minutes just to get into the action of the game, whereas before, a QL might only be 5 or 10 minutes.
  4. They're a lot more serious now. Sure, you get the occasional QL here and there that's absolutely hilarious and silly, like the Sleeping Dogs QL, because the guys are just messing around and having fun, but increasingly, I've noticed the guys trying to present each game as a serious representation of what it's like to play that game in an ideal way. It's great for developers because they don't have two bumbling, clueless duders at the helm, purposefully doing silly stuff and laughing about it the whole way, but it's just not as fun to watch the guys take the game seriously and explain everything seriously and be very serious about it all.
  5. Quick Looks are increasingly qualitative. I'll get to that in a minute.

Jeff talked recently on the Bombcast about the PAX panel on reviews he was a guest on. He said he increasingly feels like the old style of reviews are losing their importance and that things like Quick Looks and the Bombcast are becoming more helpful to readers. He said he didn't really know how to reform reviews because he didn't know what they should become, what's important anymore. That's a very sobering look at the state of reviews today, and I'm glad Jeff has the wisdom to be able to see all that. I mean, I don't usually read most Giant Bomb reviews because I don't read most reviews anymore. I just don't need to. I know enough about the game that I'd rather just watch the guys dick around in it and see if it strikes my fancy that way, or hear them talk about it on the Bombcast.

So Jeff's right in that respect.

But that also means that Quick Looks are steadily being treated more and more like the eventual replacement for traditional reviews that they are rather than "hey, let's check this game out." The guys used to walk in more or less totally blind. The Maw QL was like that, where Jeff would get taken by surprise by everything going on, and how weird, scary, and cute the Maw itself was. If that QL was done today, it'd be 40 minutes and would sit at the menu for 5 minutes as the premise of the game, the mechanics, and how the Maw is a weird mixture of scary and cute get explained to us before we've ever seen the game proper. Not every game back then was a blind look---Brad had played a significant amount of Banjo, for instance (though it makes up for it by being a scant 12 minutes long)---and not every game today is super informed, like Jeff and Vinny playing NBA 2K13 and being blindsided by the initial menus. But as a general rule, it works.

Let's get back to how they're qualitative. Quick Looks often adhere to the traditional structure of reviews now: An interesting intro to snare you in, an explanation of what the game's about and what you do in it, deeper analysis of the mechanics by example, a look at multiplayer if applicable, conclusion. They offer insight into the game and make a judgment of quality, often even a recommendation of whether or not it's worth your time and money. They're barely Quick Looks anymore. They're much closer to a new kind of long-form video review.

It's interesting for sure and really shakes things up in the reviews space in a meaningful way, but I can't help but miss the old style of "all right, let's pop this game in and see what it's all about." I load up a Quick Look of a game I'm half-interested in and see that it's 40 minutes to an hour, and I just click out of it. That's WAY too long for a game I'm only half-interested in. I understand that a lot of people want Quick Looks to be as long as possible because they can't get enough of it, but I just don't have the time or patience for it that I used to. That's why I loved the Quick Looks of Derrick the Deathfin and Fractured Soul. Both were 10 minutes or less. So refreshing.

So it seems to me like Giant Bomb has a real opportunity here to establish a new brand of video reviews. Not just "hey, let's read the text of the review and show a couple relevant clips of the game in the background," but something that really takes advantage of the video format. I think there's room for long-form video reviews and Quick Looks, which could just go back to initial reactions for a game. It'd be cool to watch one of the guys play a game when they first pop it in, then again after they've beaten it.

What do you guys think? Am I off-base?

#2 Edited by Captain_Felafel (1573 posts) -

If the only thing that constitutes as a review is a piece of text or a video that informs the public about the quality of a product, then Quick Looks have, in a lot of ways, filled that role since their inception. Sure the general length of Quick Looks has gone up over time, but they've basically been the same thing since Jeff's first look at Burnout Bikes. I think it's great that you can basically have this piece of content that both serves as a look at what the game actually is and that also facilitates the needs of a more traditional written review.

#3 Posted by Mcfart (1626 posts) -

1. Qualitative QL's are better. First of all, the first ~15 minutes of a game usually don't show anything (look at Dishonored, you don't even have magic at that point, they could have just dismissed it as your average stealth game)

2. Qualitative QL's can still be funny. Just look at Rogue Warrior's Quick Look. Jeff had already played it for hours before the QL, and knew what to show, and it was hilarious. I would prefer that rather then them bumbling around in Shadow of the Colossus not even knowing key mechanics (watch that QL for a painful experience).

3. I already said it, but this deserves repetition :the first 20 minutes of a game will not show all the mechanics. Just look at the Persona 4 Quick Look. The first half hour was just a cinematic. Hell, they didn't even get to combat until like episode 4 of the ER.

No, if the staff just jumped into a game I really liked without playing it beforehand, I would almost feel insulted as their uneducated opinion after 20 minutes of gameplay is "meh".

#4 Edited by Daiphyer (1337 posts) -

You're kind of right. The Dishonored quick look was basically a very long video review as Patrick explained every mechanic and gave his feelings about them. It's good if you're not into reading reviews (I've never read reviews fully) and want to see if the game is for you, but if you're like me (And majority of people here, I presume), and already know what games you will like regardless of review scores, you want to watch these videos to be entertained.

Edit: I highly disliked the quick looks that, they just got the game, popped it in and started a quick look, or it's a quick look of a demo.

#5 Posted by JacDG (2126 posts) -

Kind of, maybe, I don't know. I think quick looks have changed a bit since they first started doing them, both for the better and the worse. I think they sometimes spend too much time on a quick look, and them explaining everything, staying in menus, running around in circles whatever they might do can be enough for me to turn a quick look off, but at the same time, I generally want the dudes to (somewhat) know what they are doing,  which is why I don't really like the sports quick looks, they are silly yes, but something in me can't watch someone play a game they suck at. I think them going in cold has it charm, it has more potential to be hilarious, but at the same time it can ruin a quick look. So, in short, you can't please me (:

#6 Edited by Mcfart (1626 posts) -

@Daiphyer said:

You're kind of right. The Dishonored quick look was basically a very long video review as Patrick explained every mechanic and gave his feelings about them. It's good if you're not into reading reviews (I've never read reviews fully) and want to see if the game is for you, but if you're like me (And majority of people here, I presume), and already know what games you will like regardless of review scores, you want to watch these videos to be entertained.

Once again, if they just showed the first level, then viewers would have walked away with nothing. Yes, some QL's in the past were funny, but more often then not, GB just didn't give some niche game a fair shake after 20 minutes of playing it. Really pissed off fans of that game since we expect reviewers to have educated opinions.

edit: Though Patrick should have actually just shown the mechanics in action rather then go on a preamble about them. They are kind of self explanatory :)

#7 Posted by Daiphyer (1337 posts) -

@Mcfart: I edited my post a few seconds before you replied. I do agree with you. I do not like the quick looks that are just the beginning of the game and the staff has had no prior experience with the game before. There is a sweet spot, and very few quick looks nowadays seem to hit that.

#8 Posted by Mcfart (1626 posts) -

@Daiphyer said:

@Mcfart: I edited my post a few seconds before you replied. I do agree with you. I do not like the quick looks that are just the beginning of the game and the staff has had no prior experience with the game before. There is a sweet spot, and very few quick looks nowadays seem to hit that.

Haha, I jumped on it so quickly because I wanted to make my point clear :P. People have rose-tinted glasses about the past, but GB really were dismissive about games they shoulden't have been for the wrong reasons. They really just need to adopt a "show the mechanics" rather then "talk about them first". Would shorten quick looks while keeping them moving. Win for everyone!

#9 Posted by Genkkaku (735 posts) -

I think it is purely to do with how long they've had the game / when the embargo is up / when they record the QL.. In the case of Dishonored Patrick was playing it for review so he had a better understanding of the game at that point, and by the time the embargo was lifted he was already deep in the game, also as stated jumping in blind would have not been a very good look at that game..

I don't think they are/ or should ever become alternative's to video reviews, I think that the QL's a video of pure gameplay and the guys talking about the game they are playing, have evolved from where they started to now..

#10 Posted by whatisdelicious (1216 posts) -

@Mcfart: On Dishonored, I totally agree, but I'm also not advocating for Quick Looks starting at the game's boot. I think that's one of the problems of recent QLs. I'm tired of the guys getting hung up at the start screen for five minutes. A lot of those early QLs I mentioned just jumped in right after the game takes off past the intro and set-up. A QL of Dishonored just as easily could've been Patrick jumping in after about an hour.

On Rogue Warrior, yep, I totally remember that one being super funny. Like I said in my post, there are plenty of exceptions to the criticisms I brought up, and I mentioned a couple myself, but I think as a general rule, it works. Three or four QLs that prove me wrong because they're long, funny, and qualitative are still ultimately nothing. They've done almost 1200 QLs. (Jesus.)

#11 Edited by zudthespud (3281 posts) -

I don't think Quick Looks end up being satisfactory replacements for reviews unless they come out at the same time as/after a review because of an embargo, like Forza Horizon this week. Usually the verdict is "This looks cool, I want to play more" or "This is bad, I don't want to play more", which I think gives a first impression/knee jerk reaction which is exactly the point of a Quick Look. There have been several games that had Quick Looks before Reviews and the opinion of each is rather different, because the game gets worse/better later on. That's probably the problem with them, and why you shouldn't use them as a review.

I think most of it comes down to how people determine their opinions, I always use Quick Looks as my go to reference for games when they are on sale or something, because I like to make my own mind up by seeing a game before listening to a verdict. Other people would rather just have a review and they will always be there, but if the audience moves more to longer video content then that's where the resources should go, it's just logical.

I don't understand what your point is, I mean, it's fine for you to not like Quick Looks but are they causing any problems? Do you think that they are reviewing fewer games because they are doing more Quick Looks? Is it just that you feel like you used to enjoy them more?

#12 Edited by ChosenOne (204 posts) -

I'm actually kind of disappointed if a QL is not at least 30 minutes, and I'm absolutely ecstatic when they are 40min +. I watch them to be entertained and being informed is secondary.

#13 Posted by M_Shini (551 posts) -

Theres still plenty of QL's that are just totally silly and not representative like the PES QL that happened this week, and i still find a large portion of the games they QL they still have spent like an hour or less with the games just to give a quick show and overview of them.

I almost wonder if people need a disclaimer at the front of every QL just to make the point clear that allot of QL aren't always a informed and thought out process for showing a game in its true light, with a game that's good or bad. In some ways some of the QL's do feel like a review of some kind, like Resident Evil 6 but others not so, either way the QL's feel loose which is good that they aren't showing games with a bullet point list in mind of what to do and just show stuff.

They don't need to be spun out as reviews since from what we already see from QL people already are smart enough to make a informed decision from it so they already do they're job, although there are some games that people do occasionally get vocal about them showing in a bad light due to they're lack of knowledge or experience with a game, which some do say have put them off from games they could have possibly enjoyed. Its up to us allot of the time to translate that information in a way that is grounded knowing that these dudes sitting in a room are sometimes showing a long informed look for a game to which they know and have experienced allot of, to them showing a look of a game they sat with for an hour or less and may or may not know if what they are saying is representative or not.

#14 Edited by whatisdelicious (1216 posts) -

@zudthespud said:

I don't understand what your point is, I mean, it's fine for you to not like Quick Looks but are they causing any problems? Do you think that they are reviewing fewer games because they are doing more Quick Looks? Is it just that you feel like you used to enjoy them more?

I think what it comes down to, for me, is that I feel like they aren't as approachable anymore. A lot of that is just due to the sheer length of them, which is often what discourages me from checking out games I'm only half-interested in (which used to be the appeal of a QL for me), but it's also content, too. I'm really interested in Dishonored, but I thought that QL was pretty boring. Somebody in the comments on it suggested taking a drink every time Patrick said "these types of games" and the reason is because, for the entirety of the video, they were analyzing "those types of games" and how Dishonored stacks up in excruciating detail.

A friend of mine told me that his friends back home hate Patrick and "what he's done to the site." They say he's been steadily making Giant Bomb more serious, and they liked when it was just silly and dumb all the time. Now, I really like Patrick a lot and love the features he writes and what he brings to the podcast, but I think I can see why some people don't like him. I just saw a topic asking if there can be a search option to filter Patrick out, so I'm guessing that my friend's buddies aren't alone in this sentiment. Again, I really like how Patrick takes games more seriously sometimes and analyzes them on a deeper level (like Spec Ops) but... again, that Dishonored QL was pretty boring and serious.

Basically, I just don't want Giant Bomb to lose the charm that brought us all here in the first place. I don't think they're there yet, but I also don't want to see a slow decline either.

Also, I just feel like they have an opportunity to do something innovative in the video space and it'd be cool if they explored that.

#15 Posted by Hizang (8532 posts) -

I watch Quick looks not for the game, but for the people.

#16 Posted by SomeJerk (3252 posts) -

Are Quick Looks becoming too much like reviews?
 
Yes, for stupid people.

#17 Posted by doobie (605 posts) -

maybe the GB team should make 3 or 4 edits of each QL to try and satisfy everybody.

they could do a shortened edit that would satisfy those with less time on their hands and are just look for a Quicker Quick look. they could do a longer edit for those that like the QuickLook around an average of 30 mins and a longer edit for those that like a longer QuickLook.

They could also do various edits that have varying degree's if informativeness so for instance those looking for a QucikLook this has less information and more of a 'going in blind' framework are happy and an edit with more information and less of a 'going in blink' perspective are satisfied as well.

also different edits for the amount of humor you like in your QuickLook. a 'dry' version with a very serious and sober tone, a 'mid' edit with a 'half-half (50/50)' mix of humor and no humor moments. and a 'maxed out' humor edit with lots of hilarious moment for those that are looking for a more humorous QuickLook can enjoy.

i guess what im trying to say is that the GB team should make more of an effort to try and please everybody.

#18 Edited by whatisdelicious (1216 posts) -

@SomeJerk said:

Are Quick Looks becoming too much like reviews? Yes, for stupid people.

Sick burn, bro.

@doobie: You sure nailed me, guy.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that there's always people who are incapable of having a discussion. This is the Internet, after all.

#19 Posted by Abendlaender (2808 posts) -

I'm @ChosenOne said:

I'm actually kind of disappointed if a QL is not at least 30 minutes, and I'm absolutely ecstatic when they are 40min +.

Yeah, same here

#20 Posted by geirr (2576 posts) -

No.

#21 Posted by Athadam (693 posts) -

I totally get ya.

@whatisdelicious said:

@zudthespud said:

I don't understand what your point is, I mean, it's fine for you to not like Quick Looks but are they causing any problems? Do you think that they are reviewing fewer games because they are doing more Quick Looks? Is it just that you feel like you used to enjoy them more?

I think what it comes down to, for me, is that I feel like they aren't as approachable anymore. A lot of that is just due to the sheer length of them, which is often what discourages me from checking out games I'm only half-interested in (which used to be the appeal of a QL for me), but it's also content, too. I'm really interested in Dishonored, but I thought that QL was pretty boring. Somebody in the comments on it suggested taking a drink every time Patrick said "these types of games" and the reason is because, for the entirety of the video, they were analyzing "those types of games" and how Dishonored stacks up in excruciating detail.

A friend of mine told me that his friends back home hate Patrick and "what he's done to the site." They say he's been steadily making Giant Bomb more serious, and they liked when it was just silly and dumb all the time. Now, I really like Patrick a lot and love the features he writes and what he brings to the podcast, but I think I can see why some people don't like him. I just saw a topic asking if there can be a search option to filter Patrick out, so I'm guessing that my friend's buddies aren't alone in this sentiment. Again, I really like how Patrick takes games more seriously sometimes and analyzes them on a deeper level (like Spec Ops) but... again, that Dishonored QL was pretty boring and serious.

Basically, I just don't want Giant Bomb to lose the charm that brought us all here in the first place. I don't think they're there yet, but I also don't want to see a slow decline either.

Also, I just feel like they have an opportunity to do something innovative in the video space and it'd be cool if they explored that.

Here's the thing. Giantbomb will continue being Giantbomb. I don't think they've lost any of their "charm". I mean, did you watch the Pax Panel? Fucking ridiculous.

Anyhoo, I think Giantbomb sets the tone for their quicklooks by how they feel about the game.

Dumb game? Mockumentary.

Elaborate/innovative game? More serious/descriptive tone.

Fun/action game? Tons of jokes.

And I think this is generally true. If you think about all the games that were good and were potential GOTY contenders, they had more explained mechanics in the QLs.

#22 Edited by whatisdelicious (1216 posts) -

@Castermhief117: Probably the best summation of Giant Bomb QL-styles I've ever seen.

I totally agree: the PAX panel was crazy, and the Big Live Live Show: Live! 3 was equally ridiculous. My friend just told me that about his buddies and it just bugged me that there are people out there who don't like Giant Bomb anymore because they aren't silly enough anymore. Like, what? It's Giant Bomb, home of the silliest motherfuckers on the Internet and proprietors of the popular China Don't Care™ shirt. Then I thought about it and realized that, yeah, I guess in some respects, they're right. I'd just hate to see more people feel that way.

#23 Posted by Slab64 (1056 posts) -

@doobie said:

maybe the GB team should make 3 or 4 edits of each QL to try and satisfy everybody.

they could do a shortened edit that would satisfy those with less time on their hands and are just look for a Quicker Quick look. they could do a longer edit for those that like the QuickLook around an average of 30 mins and a longer edit for those that like a longer QuickLook.

They could also do various edits that have varying degree's if informativeness so for instance those looking for a QucikLook this has less information and more of a 'going in blind' framework are happy and an edit with more information and less of a 'going in blink' perspective are satisfied as well.

also different edits for the amount of humor you like in your QuickLook. a 'dry' version with a very serious and sober tone, a 'mid' edit with a 'half-half (50/50)' mix of humor and no humor moments. and a 'maxed out' humor edit with lots of hilarious moment for those that are looking for a more humorous QuickLook can enjoy.

i guess what im trying to say is that the GB team should make more of an effort to try and please everybody.

Amazing troll post. Seriously, congratulations.

On-topic: my only real complaint is when there's too much talking instead of actual playing (sitting in menus, running around in circles). in situations like that, I almost wish they would get two people who are familiar with the game to do the video so one can play and the other can explain whats going on, but that isn't always realistic. And it also gets to my second concern, which is the over-preparedness...I like it when they are reacting to stuff without any foreknowledge.

Other than that I don't mind the length and I don't think they are becoming too review-like.

#24 Posted by Grissefar (2842 posts) -

@Slab64 said:

@doobie said:

On-topic: my only real complaint is when there's too much talking instead of actual playing (sitting in menus, running around in circles)

Yeah you're right man, and it was really bad with Dishonored. I had looked forward to it but it really sucked a terrible dick and I had to turn it off. Here is a pro tip: you don't have to tell me how fun it is every 5 seconds. Just show me, man. And this habit of spending 10 minutes on the start screen, sharing a story they have probably already told on the Bombcast has got to go, man.

It used to be only Brad who made Quick Looks suck, which made for a good chance that between the 4 people, Brad would not be in the Quick Look. These days with Patrick, who is also boring in Quick Looks, and with Vinny pretty much absent from them, you're probably going to see at least one of them, more often than not. Or both of them, may God forbid.

In fact It's been a while since I've finished watching a QL with either Brad or Patrick, except RE6. So perhaps they really suck more, or it could just be that I have less patience with them in general. Ha ! Ha !

#25 Posted by MordeaniisChaos (5730 posts) -

Most are nothing like reviews, with a very small selection of exceptions. And usually those are games that are really well liked or just fucking terrible and they feel the need to go that indepth with it all.

But the format is very different from a review. A quick look is looking at uninterrupted, commented gameplay for extended chunks. There may be several chunks as they jump around, but a review is just clips. Rarely do video reviews ever show what the developer is talking about in any real way, beyond a 5 second clip of the AI being derpy or a really awesome thing happening.

@Abendlaender said:

I'm @ChosenOne said:

I'm actually kind of disappointed if a QL is not at least 30 minutes, and I'm absolutely ecstatic when they are 40min +.

Yeah, same here

Yup. The Dark Souls Quick Look is basically a feature film. And that is awesome.

#26 Posted by Swoxx (3001 posts) -

The point of a review is essentially to give the reader buying advice, based on the reviewers opinion, quick looks serve a similar purpose. Nothing wrong with that in my book.

#27 Posted by makari (599 posts) -

Considering how wildly inconsistent integrity can be in Quick Looks you should never really look at them as reviews. As much as I don't get butthurt at how badly Quick Looks can represent a game, the knowledge or lack thereof of the individuals doing the Quick Look (by no real fault of their own considering the time spent at time of recording) can make a game look better or worse than an eventual review will tell. This is fine, because the majority of Quick Looks recorded pre-review or early in the review process aren't necessarily meant to be representative of having a qualified opinion of the games overall worth and quality but rather a place to show initial thoughts and reactions.

If Quick Looks were ever going to be used as a stand-in for reviews then they would all have to be recorded post-play rather than pre-play like many Quick Looks are and basically become a video review where the reviewer plays and shows you the game to reinforce their final opinion, which obviously allows the viewer to match their own impressions against a reviewer much better than with a text review that you must take at face-value.

#28 Posted by adam1808 (1504 posts) -

What's the alternative? Having them hire a punch-up writer for 2 minute skits?

Online
#29 Posted by atomic_dumpling (2473 posts) -

@Swoxx said:

The point of a review is essentially to give the reader buying advice, based on the reviewers opinion, quick looks serve a similar purpose.

I don't think so. I think they are more akin to a comedy show in many cases, because a not so small part of the community demands 30 minutes of inane bullshit and doesn't really want to see how a game truly plays.

It is the Giantbomb phenomenon: People care more about the staff than the games. Sometimes I feel like this is a website about Video Game Editors, sadly.

#30 Posted by Swoxx (3001 posts) -

@atomic_dumpling said:

@Swoxx said:

The point of a review is essentially to give the reader buying advice, based on the reviewers opinion, quick looks serve a similar purpose.

I don't think so. I think they are more akin to a comedy show in many cases, because a not so small part of the community demands 30 minutes of inane bullshit and doesn't really want to see how a game truly plays.

It is the Giantbomb phenomenon: People care more about the staff than the games. Sometimes I feel like this is a website about Video Game Editors, sadly.

So you don't feel you get any info about a game from watching Quick Looks that serve as help in making a purchasing decision? I sure do at least. Hell I bought a PS3 solely based on the Uncharted 2 quick look and I've bought numerous games cause of quick looks.

#31 Posted by whatisdelicious (1216 posts) -

@adam1808 said:

What's the alternative? Having them hire a punch-up writer for 2 minute skits?

I'm glad you asked, because I think this is getting derailed just a bit. I didn't start this thread to complain about Quick Looks not being funny enough or whatever; I started it because I think Giant Bomb has a really cool opportunity here to innovate on video again. They're easily pioneers of using video for video game coverage, which is totally obvious when you look at how other sites rip off the Quick Look format, Endurance Runs, Thursday Night Throwdown, etc. I think they have a chance to do that again. I think they can establish a new kind of video review that isn't merely a video version of a text review.

How long has it been since they've done a traditional video review? Skyward Sword. That was almost a year ago. There's no point doing a video review that way; they realized that. It's extra work for Vinny, having to find the right clips and have it go along with what Jeff or whoever is saying as they read their text review. So it comes out later and is basically irrelevant anyway. That's because the traditional format is supposed to be snappy and highly produced.

Why do we need that? Jeff has already acknowledged that Quick Looks are becoming more relevant than reviews, that people find them and the banter on the Bombcast a better barometer of a game's quality. Embrace that. Start a new type of long-form video review where you have two guys: The reviewer, who's finished playing it, and a second guy, who hasn't played it yet and who represents us. All of a sudden, video reviews are relevant again. They're more informative. They can show instead of just telling. They can come out earlier. They require less work, as the reviewer literally just hops around the game, showing off what they're talking about.

As for Quick Looks, it could just be that reviewer (or somebody who isn't going to review the game) playing one of the early levels for the first time for like 20 minutes. Then a Quick Look goes back to being just a small slice of a game, not a review, and it goes back to raw reactions, not "let me explain this whole game to you for 50 minutes." And from a content perspective, now Giant Bomb gets two videos out of most games, not one. That's better for them, better for their advertisers, and better for us.

Everybody wins.

#32 Edited by c0l0nelp0c0rn1 (1807 posts) -

I blame it on Patrick Klepek.

Seriously, though, I've heard it said that people didn't like it when they had no idea about a game they were doing a QL of. MAKE UP YOUR MIND GIANT BOMB!

Edit: I am being semi-serious when I say I blame it on Patrick Klepek. Patrick is good at prefacing everything he does. This is not necessary for Quick Looks, and is almost antithetical to the idea of a quick look. Patrick I love your hot scoops (bleugh, that's nasty) and I like your younger perspective, but the preamble is not needed. Just shh, baby shh....play you some video games, baby...shhh...

#33 Posted by the_OFFICIAL_jAPanese_teaBAG (4308 posts) -

Blame the people who complained about unprepared quick looks in the first place.  And now people are complaining about them being too prepared.  Madness.

#34 Posted by TheHumanDove (2523 posts) -

I prefer it how it is now. Information is good, with minimal spoilers and stuff.

#35 Posted by rmills87 (463 posts) -

BAD BAD BAD, Mr. Delicious!! :-(

#36 Posted by EquitasInvictus (2030 posts) -

@Swoxx said:

@atomic_dumpling said:

@Swoxx said:

The point of a review is essentially to give the reader buying advice, based on the reviewers opinion, quick looks serve a similar purpose.

I don't think so. I think they are more akin to a comedy show in many cases, because a not so small part of the community demands 30 minutes of inane bullshit and doesn't really want to see how a game truly plays.

It is the Giantbomb phenomenon: People care more about the staff than the games. Sometimes I feel like this is a website about Video Game Editors, sadly.

So you don't feel you get any info about a game from watching Quick Looks that serve as help in making a purchasing decision? I sure do at least. Hell I bought a PS3 solely based on the Uncharted 2 quick look and I've bought numerous games cause of quick looks.

I agree, there's a lot I learn about games from Quick Looks and they definitely help me determine whether a game is for me or not. Sure they can do insane things and not actually play the game "right" according to sticklers and hecklers but just by playing the game for a good 30 minutes or so does allow me to see enough of a game to see if I'd actually like to play it myself.

#37 Posted by Aetheldod (3586 posts) -

I like this better .... theres nothing more infurating than people not knowing how to play a game .... I can do that when I get it , I just like when they show how bad or good a game is and I can work from there

#38 Posted by Dagbiker (6976 posts) -

@whatisdelicious: I doubt they would ever turn the QL format into a video review, because that would mean that they couldn't fuck around and just pop in a game unplayed. I also think that playing a 10-20 minuet segment of a game is not fair for some games, and unrealistic for others. Such as games that have one auto save through out the whole game. And games such as Spec Ops, that set the tone through out the whole game, and cant be divulged in 10-20 minuets.

#39 Posted by Draxyle (1856 posts) -

Reviews have been more or less useless to me in the last few years. A score alone is a pretty darn meaningless metric as most of us would agree; at best it's a purview of how functional a game is, which doesn't actually tell you if you'd like playing it (for example; Borderlands 2 gets a deservedly high score for being a solid and functioning game, but I may or may not be bored to tears playing it because it might not be my thing). And spending paragraphs explaining the systems in place does nothing if you can't actually see it in action.

Usually with a quicklook you'll know within seconds if it's something you'd be interested in. I've purchased a number of games based on just a few moments of them. If anything, a review score might just soil my expectations and make me see the game in a harmful light; a game I might have otherwise enjoyed.

Games are about the experience, something that is nigh impossible to deliver through text alone. A quicklook is the closest thing to experiencing an accurate representation of a game, outside of playing it yourself (not that reviews are entirely worthless, but they should only be used as supplemental material).

#40 Posted by SaturdayNightSpecials (2388 posts) -

I agree with most of what you're saying, aside from maybe the length comment.

But I think this is partly happening because their video coverage is in a transitional period. Once they figure out exactly how they want to do reviews, which from what Jeff has been saying may be soon, I suspect quick looks will find their proper place again.

#41 Edited by Supersoaker (78 posts) -

I think you're confusing Quick Looks with a really in-depth, bare knuckle review where they really get into specifics as to why they don't think the game is bad. Quick Looks are more of "Hey, this is what it is. Take it or leave it." And honestly they're really the first of their kind, you know? I mean yeah, before you had short little previews but fucking prior to 2008 you had maybe an article to read which didn't really give you a visual or auditory sense of how the game feels at all. I think that while your points are somewhat valid, you have to realize a quick look is the culmination of 20-40 (sometimes more) minutes of game play and a review is the finalized, full-on product review that you should read if you're still iffy about a product/game or you just wanna see how it's doing in someone's opinion.

Also I read about 4 answers and didn't read the rest, so I hope no one else said exactly what I did or I'd be pissed.

#42 Posted by Ares42 (2677 posts) -

"A picture is worth a thousand words".

Ever since GB revolutionized the reviewer industry with QLs it has been iterated on by loads of people, which has come back and influenced GB too. Unfortunately what they (unknowingly) did was warp the industry into an infotainment industry (yes, I feel dirty for using that word). People don't come to these sites for information anymore, they come for entertainment. This is why you're seeing a steady decline in importance of traditional reviews, they are not entertaining. With that in mind QLs are easily the best replacement to reviews. The standard review still has a place, but not on enthuisast websites. It is just straight up inadequate at satisfying that audience.

Basically what you're talking about is the good old "Internet destroyed print" debacle. Traditionally gaming review sites operated as web-shells for a print magazine. That is no longer the case. Web coverage is something completely different and therefore it has to leave it's print traditions behind. If you go check out some of the newer gaming sites out there now they are just all-video. People have just gotten too used to being entertained on the internet, wherever they go.

#43 Posted by Slag (4418 posts) -

@whatisdelicious said:

Why do we need that? Jeff has already acknowledged that Quick Looks are becoming more relevant than reviews, that people find them and the banter on the Bombcast a better barometer of a game's quality. Embrace that. Start a new type of long-form video review where you have two guys: The reviewer, who's finished playing it, and a second guy, who hasn't played it yet and who represents us. All of a sudden, video reviews are relevant again. They're more informative. They can show instead of just telling. They can come out earlier. They require less work, as the reviewer literally just hops around the game, showing off what they're talking about.

As for Quick Looks, it could just be that reviewer (or somebody who isn't going to review the game) playing one of the early levels for the first time for like 20 minutes. Then a Quick Look goes back to being just a small slice of a game, not a review, and it goes back to raw reactions, not "let me explain this whole game to you for 50 minutes." And from a content perspective, now Giant Bomb gets two videos out of most games, not one. That's better for them, better for their advertisers, and better for us.

Everybody wins.

I was prepared to reject your ideas out of hand, but I think you're onto something.

except I think the Quick Look name should be retained for what you are calling the an interactive video review. And I'm not sure the lines have to be drawn hard and fast between both styles.

But I do agree it is fun when someone gets thrown into the deep end of a game of a game they know nothing baout. That's basically what Random PC game is. A new feature like a Random New Release, would be fun. I don't think you'd want to do this for every game, in fact you'll probably want to Quick Look some and RNR the others.

e.g. Binary Domain is a game that probably merited a fullblown QuickLook but something off the beaten path with a lower budget Train Simulator all you really need is RNR.

#44 Posted by MiniPato (2741 posts) -

@the_OFFICIAL_jAPanese_teaBAG said:

Blame the people who complained about unprepared quick looks in the first place. And now people are complaining about them being too prepared. Madness.

I don't mind them jumping into a game blind. Most times, quick looks are most fun when they go in cold. But I don't like them bad mouthing a game or blaming it for their own mistakes when they've only scratched the surface of a game. And if they go into the game cold, they should pay attention to tutorials and objectives. A lot of times they skip tutorials and don't pay attention to what they're supposed to be doing and then spend 10 minutes bumbling around.

#45 Edited by Supersoaker (78 posts) -

People will always find a way to complain about somethin', I think, you know? Just take it with a grain of salt and stop worrying about it. Jeff's been fucking stressed lately and I'm sure so has the rest of the team, but they definitely have this shit, home slice.

#46 Posted by killacam (1284 posts) -

are forum posts becoming too much like critiques on giant bomb?

#47 Posted by CheapPoison (733 posts) -

I am all for replacing teh review with the quicklook.

#48 Posted by TheVideoHustler (406 posts) -

Well. I'm enjoying everything giantbomb is doing.

#49 Posted by BabyChooChoo (4525 posts) -

This just reminds me of the hordes of people bitching about the GW2 QL on GW2guru...

Good lord. I suppose it's to be expected given it's a site dedicated to a single game, but if you think you've seen butthurt-ness before you've seen that thread then you have seen nothing.

#50 Posted by Tygerbite (36 posts) -

10 to 20 minutes of a couple of guys fumbling through a game they've never played before doesn't really tell me a whole lot about it. Sure it'd be funnier, but I'd rather have a more in depth look at a game so I actually know if it's good or not.