• 152 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
#1 Posted by rb_man (451 posts) -

This is some thing I have been thinking for a while but the LEGO batman 2 quicklook really just pushed me over the line. What I am trying to get at is the fact they portrayed that game very poorly. Now you could say well it is a LEGO game it is going to be like the rest but the thing is some people don't know what a LEGO game is and this could make them think well I might not want to get this game when they would love it.

Look it is not like I hate the GB dudes what I want is like a bit more quality control. Like don't film them playing the first 5 levels when they barely know what is going on. I think some of there best quicklooks are ones were they finish the games first so then they can replay one of the early levels. I come here for info on a game not to watch you get stuck in the same spot for 20 minutes I can go to youtube and watch a 1000 people do that. What I really want is for GB to inform me about the game and just trust in there personalities to make it funny because they will

#2 Edited by AhmadMetallic (18955 posts) -

Anyone who doesn't discuss the topic at hand but rather spouts out the usual mindless "Stop complaining about ze staff" crap below me is a luzah. The guy is asking a legitimate question, nothing is wrong with criticism. 
 
I totally agree, @rb_man. I love this website, its staff and community, but while Patrick is my least favorite staffer, ironically he's my favorite Quick Looker because he PLAYS the game and reads about it so he can inform me of what it's about and showcase it correctly. 
Whereas it has happened so often that the four GB guys simply ruin a game by calling it frustrating because they didn't play it prior to recording or give it a chance. 
 
But you won't get much love. This community, sadly, just wants laughs, they don't care about the quality of the content from an editorial standpoint. Quick Looks = Comedy.

#3 Posted by RoujinX (419 posts) -

No.

#4 Posted by AjayRaz (12429 posts) -

@AhmadMetallic said:

Anyone who doesn't discuss the topic at hand but rather spouts out the usual "Stop complaining about ze staff" crap below me is a luzah.

says the person who doesn't discuss the topic at hand!

oh.. wait, now i'm doing that too. shit.

#5 Posted by Totori (559 posts) -

They are normal people not experts on every game ever. If you want someone to just yell facts at you go watch a kessler quicklook.

#6 Posted by HarlequinRiot (1098 posts) -

No. It's a preview of a game, not a sales pitch. People can make up their own opinions about the product based on what they see.

#7 Posted by UitDeToekomst (716 posts) -

not really. i know people have complained in the past sometimes (Twisted Metal springs to mind), but i view the QLs as a snapshot of a couple of dudes playing a game. i don't really recall a time that they terribly misrepresented anything. maybe they don't always touch on all the nuance of a game, or every aspect of it, but i always feel like they give me enough accurate info to make a decision on whether to play it or not.

#8 Posted by pornstorestiffi (4923 posts) -

You got a lot of valid points, personally i can't really bring much to the table, i don't watch every quicklook they do. I tend to only watch for games i have interest in.

#9 Posted by joshthebear (2700 posts) -

Sometimes, yeah. I mainly watch the QL's for the entertainment of them though but can definitely see where you're coming from.

#10 Posted by AlexW00d (6281 posts) -

All the time.

#11 Posted by Clonedzero (4200 posts) -

@Totori said:

They are normal people not experts on every game ever. If you want someone to just yell facts at you go watch a kessler quicklook.

they are not normal people when it comes to video games. they are video game journalists and reviewers. they are experts. if i wanted two assholes attempting at witty banter and shouting memes at each other playing a game they barely know how to play, i could go to a billion youtube lets plays. i expect more from giantbomb. i think thats fair. they are professionals, right?

#12 Posted by Kaiserreich (705 posts) -

You can't look at the Shadow of the Colossus Quicklook (for example) and tell me that was a fair and representative look at the game. All it would take is cracking open the manual 5 minutes before recording and the problem would be fixed. Its not like they have the hardest job in the world.

Online
#13 Posted by rudyarr (260 posts) -

I do agree to an extent. There are times where a quicklook starts and its usually Jeff or Ryan that say "So we are jumping in this game fresh from the start" and then you say..great the first 10 minutes is them trying to figure out how to play it.

I love the guys but I do agree that Patrick likes to do a little research first and explain the game properly.

Also...how come they never remember how much they paid for the game? It cracks me up when one says how much is this? The other replies...um I don't remember..I think 14.99 ( Checks actual price, 9.99)

Love you GB but play a section of the game you have played before so we don't run into the Lego Batman 2 situation which was 10 minutes of Ryan and Brad trying to figure out what to do.

#14 Posted by Dixavd (1358 posts) -

I think it is unfair to ask them to play a game to completion first; most of the time this is all they are going to do about the game and have no outside interest in it so they won't even go on to mention it on a bombcast or enjoy playing it at home. So the only way they could consistently do that is if they reduced the number of games they quick look, and even bad QL can help some lesser known games sell - especially since there is almost guarenteed to be someone in the audience who knows more about these lesser-known games than the GB guys would have time to look up so these people will be able to voice their opinion on if they think the opinion on it is fair to the game; in these instances simply someone brining up the game will help it sell.

I do think they should try and not make a decision on a game during a quick look and more point out the things which they can show and say their opinion if each feature is well done (for instance some players may not care that X feature isn't implimented well while the GB guys may think it is vital to the experience and write off the entire game because of it). Another thing I would like is for them to try and stay specific to the title at hand, I hate it when they bring up their biases around a title (like when they point out how they no longer like the art-style of Final Fantasy when playing one of those titles) rather than just pointing out parts of the actual game.

Nevertheless, in the long run it isn't the Quick Look which decides the ultimate opinion the site gives out - that comes form reviews, and since these lesser-researched/played titles aren't usually reviewed by the team then the reviews which become the most seen on the games page are user reviews from people who have played the game who will be able to point out their differing views. So remember, if there is a title you like and you think they did the game a disservice then try and find time to write a review on the game (or just make a blog-post or forum thing on it). I think people on this site are more willing to openly debate when it is specified to a game and its different aspects rather than generalising all quick looks.

On the other hand though, I personally think they have improved on the quick looks recently so I am actually more positive on them now than this time last year.

#15 Posted by Totori (559 posts) -
@Clonedzero said:

@Totori said:

They are normal people not experts on every game ever. If you want someone to just yell facts at you go watch a kessler quicklook.

they are not normal people when it comes to video games. they are video game journalists and reviewers. they are experts. if i wanted two assholes attempting at witty banter and shouting memes at each other playing a game they barely know how to play, i could go to a billion youtube lets plays. i expect more from giantbomb. i think thats fair. they are professionals, right?

You can be a professional and not an expert.
#16 Posted by rb_man (451 posts) -

@AjayRaz said:

@AhmadMetallic said:

Anyone who doesn't discuss the topic at hand but rather spouts out the usual "Stop complaining about ze staff" crap below me is a luzah.

says the person who doesn't discuss the topic at hand!

oh.. wait, now i'm doing that too. shit.

Well you showed him :P

@Totori said:

They are normal people not experts on every game ever. If you want someone to just yell facts at you go watch a kessler quicklook.

But there not normal people there video game reviewers they get payed to tell you the facts about the game.

@HarlequinRiot said:

No. It's a preview of a game, not a sales pitch. People can make up their own opinions about the product based on what they see.

That's true most times in a Quicklook I decide if I was a game based on the gameplay. But I will still like it if they give some more info I really don't think it would hamper there videos. (Side note I am only talking about "Real Games' not Who wants to be a millionaire :P)

#17 Posted by Cloudenvy (5891 posts) -

Do I think they do a disservice to some games? sure! but it doesn't really bother me.

#18 Posted by rb_man (451 posts) -

@Dixavd said:

I think it is unfair to ask them to play a game to completion first; most of the time this is all they are going to do about the game and have no outside interest in it so they won't even go on to mention it on a bombcast or enjoy playing it at home. So the only way they could consistently do that is if they reduced the number of games they quick look, and even bad QL can help some lesser known games sell - especially since there is almost guarenteed to be someone in the audience who knows more about these lesser-known games than the GB guys would have time to look up so these people will be able to voice their opinion on if they think the opinion on it is fair to the game; in these instances simply someone brining up the game will help it sell.

I do think they should try and not make a decision on a game during a quick look and more point out the things which they can show and say their opinion if each feature is well done (for instance some players may not care that X feature isn't implimented well while the GB guys may think it is vital to the experience and write off the entire game because of it). Another thing I would like is for them to try and stay specific to the title at hand, I hate it when they bring up their biases around a title (like when they point out how they no longer like the art-style of Final Fantasy when playing one of those titles) rather than just pointing out parts of the actual game.

Nevertheless, in the long run it isn't the Quick Look which decides the ultimate opinion the site gives out - that comes form reviews, and since these lesser-researched/played titles aren't usually reviewed by the team then the reviews which become the most seen on the games page are user reviews from people who have played the game who will be able to point out their differing views. So remember, if there is a title you like and you think they did the game a disservice then try and find time to write a review on the game (or just make a blog-post or forum thing on it). I think people on this site are more willing to openly debate when it is specified to a game and its different aspects rather than generalising all quick looks.

On the other hand though, I personally think they have improved on the quick looks recently so I am actually more positive on them now than this time last year.

Okay completion is a stretch I can see that now but at lest they could play a part then have been thought.

#19 Posted by Totori (559 posts) -
@rb_man: quicklooks are not reviews 
#20 Posted by MikeGosot (3227 posts) -

Yeah, maybe they can do a disservice, but it is just their opinion. Take it with a grain of salt.

#21 Posted by rb_man (451 posts) -

@Totori said:

@Clonedzero said:

@Totori said:

They are normal people not experts on every game ever. If you want someone to just yell facts at you go watch a kessler quicklook.

they are not normal people when it comes to video games. they are video game journalists and reviewers. they are experts. if i wanted two assholes attempting at witty banter and shouting memes at each other playing a game they barely know how to play, i could go to a billion youtube lets plays. i expect more from giantbomb. i think thats fair. they are professionals, right?

You can be a professional and not an expert.

While that is true. But the thing you not really a professional unless you are willing to be a expert at your job.

#22 Posted by Totori (559 posts) -
@rb_man said:

@Totori said:

@Clonedzero said:

@Totori said:

They are normal people not experts on every game ever. If you want someone to just yell facts at you go watch a kessler quicklook.

they are not normal people when it comes to video games. they are video game journalists and reviewers. they are experts. if i wanted two assholes attempting at witty banter and shouting memes at each other playing a game they barely know how to play, i could go to a billion youtube lets plays. i expect more from giantbomb. i think thats fair. they are professionals, right?

You can be a professional and not an expert.

While that is true. But the thing you not really a professional unless you are willing to be a expert at your job.

Well they are experts in somethings like Jeff knows everything about Mortal Kombat, Trackmaina, etc. Asking anyone to know everything about every single game is a little crazy.
#23 Posted by rb_man (451 posts) -

@Totori said:

@rb_man: quicklooks are not reviews

I never tried to imply they were. What I was trying to say was the point of them is to show off the game and they are professionals so they should do that properly.

#24 Edited by Totori (559 posts) -
@rb_man said:

@Totori said:

@rb_man: quicklooks are not reviews

I never tried to imply they were. What I was trying to say was the point of them is to show off the game and they are professionals so they should do that properly.

So it's unprofessional to get stuck in a game, you've never played before? 
#25 Posted by rb_man (451 posts) -

@Totori said:

@rb_man said:

@Totori said:

@Clonedzero said:

@Totori said:

They are normal people not experts on every game ever. If you want someone to just yell facts at you go watch a kessler quicklook.

they are not normal people when it comes to video games. they are video game journalists and reviewers. they are experts. if i wanted two assholes attempting at witty banter and shouting memes at each other playing a game they barely know how to play, i could go to a billion youtube lets plays. i expect more from giantbomb. i think thats fair. they are professionals, right?

You can be a professional and not an expert.

While that is true. But the thing you not really a professional unless you are willing to be a expert at your job.

Well they are experts in somethings like Jeff knows everything about Mortal Kombat, Trackmaina, etc. Asking anyone to know everything about every single game is a little crazy.

Sorry sometimes I am bad at getting points across. They don't need to be a expert at all video games I said they need to be experts and professionals showing why someone might want to or not want to buy this game.

#26 Posted by wemibelec90 (1700 posts) -

I can usually tell when it is their fault that a game is being annoying and not the game's fault. They tend to have a knack for not paying attention to things and then questioning where to go later.

What I want from a Quick Look is to see how a game plays in its final form. That is usually enough for me to decide whether or not I'm going to play a game. For example, I watched the Quick Look of Max Payne 3 and have no intent of playing it in the near future. It looks like a perfectly serviceable game but not one I want to play.

#27 Posted by Totori (559 posts) -

This is starting to go in circles now. 

#28 Posted by rb_man (451 posts) -

@Totori said:

This is starting to go in circles now.

Ya kind of I think we just have very diffident ideas of what expert and professional mean to us what to just call it even?

#29 Posted by Totori (559 posts) -
@rb_man said:

@Totori said:

This is starting to go in circles now.

Ya kind of I think we just have very diffident ideas of what expert and professional mean to us what to just call it even?

They are glorified let's plays, where they speak their mind and that's it. You say you can get that from a 1000 youtube people, but none of them are the GB staff. The Quicklooks you want are Quicklook EXs and everyone hates those.
#30 Posted by WMWA (1162 posts) -

It's a valid complaint, it just doesn't bother me. Bummer for you

#31 Posted by TragicallyErock (109 posts) -

They review games for a living, sure...

but aren't they also real people? They have opinions, and biases, and good days, and bad days just like all of us.

I don't want to see robotic fact-sheet filled, focus-grouped-for-marketing style quicklooks. I want to see real people playing the game. As far as I'm concerned, if they get stuck on something in the quicklook, then that IS an accurate representation of the game.

Also, Id rather miss out on one good game that had a bad quicklook, then play any of the dozens of trash-heap games that I thought might have been good before seeing how utterly terrible the gameplay looked. I barely have time or money to play the EXCELLENT games I want to play. I dont want to waste my time on something that MIGHT turn out to be KIND-OF up my ally if the quicklook only made it look a little more appealing.

#32 Posted by rb_man (451 posts) -

@Totori said:

@rb_man said:

@Totori said:

This is starting to go in circles now.

Ya kind of I think we just have very diffident ideas of what expert and professional mean to us what to just call it even?

They are glorified let's plays, where they speak their mind and that's it. You say you can get that from a 1000 youtube people, but none of them are the GB staff. The Quicklooks you want are Quicklook EXs and everyone hates those.

Fuck I thought we were going to be to peace. Look thing is they have said that quick looks were to help people see if they wanted to get a game. I am pretty sure they have never billed it as a comedy show with with video games in it. That's the thing I want to know whats up with a game but why I come to GB is because I love the GB staff and the stuff they say. All I want is for them to spend like sometime getting the info about the games right is that really a crime? I mean is that so much to ask?

#33 Posted by laserbolts (5324 posts) -

Sure I guess they do sometimes but I don't really care about it. If it was a review that would be different but I don't really take any of this stuff too seriously.

#34 Posted by AhmadMetallic (18955 posts) -
@rb_man said:

@Totori said:

@rb_man said:

@Totori said:

This is starting to go in circles now.

Ya kind of I think we just have very diffident ideas of what expert and professional mean to us what to just call it even?

They are glorified let's plays, where they speak their mind and that's it. You say you can get that from a 1000 youtube people, but none of them are the GB staff. The Quicklooks you want are Quicklook EXs and everyone hates those.

Look thing is they have said that quick looks were to help people see if they wanted to get a game. I am pretty sure they have never billed it as a comedy show with with video games in it.

I couldn't have said it any better.
#35 Posted by Phatmac (5726 posts) -

Yeah they can, but most of the time I enjoy Quicklooks more than other sites and their previews of games. They should put more research into certain games instead of jumping in blind and being mad.

#36 Posted by Bishna (334 posts) -

Sometimes I think that the crew goes into a quick look not having played the game in question enough to provide an entertaining piece of content. Ultimately, however it is not their job to go out of their way to make the games they play look good. I think that they understand that most of their audience doesn't exclusively use Giant Bomb for their video game information and that they are not the be-all and end-all source for a games quality. The crew can really only give us their short experience with a game.

That being said, the least enjoyable quicklooks for me are the ones where they are fumbling around with controls or are completely stuck. But they can't all be gems I suppose.

#37 Posted by rb_man (451 posts) -

@Phatmac said:

Yeah they can, but most of the time I enjoy Quicklooks more than other sites and their previews of games. They should put more research into certain games instead of jumping in blind and being mad.

That's all I want. For them to put the work in for the games that could have some thing going for them.

#38 Edited by Totori (559 posts) -
@laserbolts said:

Sure I guess they do sometimes but I don't really care about it. If it was a review that would be different but I don't really take any of this stuff too seriously.

Yeah, you don't have to take everything so seriously. I mean it is just video games after all. This is as stupid as complaining about review scores. 
#39 Edited by rb_man (451 posts) -

@TragicallyErock said:

They review games for a living, sure...

but aren't they also real people? They have opinions, and biases, and good days, and bad days just like all of us.

I don't want to see robotic fact-sheet filled, focus-grouped-for-marketing style quicklooks. I want to see real people playing the game. As far as I'm concerned, if they get stuck on something in the quicklook, then that IS an accurate representation of the game.

Also, Id rather miss out on one good game that had a bad quicklook, then play any of the dozens of trash-heap games that I thought might have been good before seeing how utterly terrible the gameplay looked. I barely have time or money to play the EXCELLENT games I want to play. I dont want to waste my time on something that MIGHT turn out to be KIND-OF up my ally if the quicklook only made it look a little more appealing.

In no way am I saying that's what they should do. I am just saying like a hour of playing the game and like 20 minuets of looking up info about the game before hand will not kill anybody or hell even just reading the the in game info.

#40 Posted by Inkerman (1451 posts) -

@Totori said:

@rb_man: quicklooks are not reviews

No (and the OP says as much), but they are demonstrations of the game.

The main goal of Quicklooks IMO, is, as several people have pointed out, not to show two dudes playing a videogame, it's two video reviewers demonstrating the game to an audience. The difference between Quicklooks and industry demonstrations is that as videogame critics and journalists, the guys are not biased by a marketing department and can present an honest presentation of the game. Take the Steel Battalion Quicklook, Brad knew what he was doing, he knew the game, and demonstrated that the game is poor in Kinect recognition and we could see the game's issues for ourselves, basically the game struggled, not Brad. When they go into a game cold the guys are not demonstrating the game properly. I don't give a shit about what kind of game it is, good or bad (the Battleship experience comes to mind). You'll notice often bigger games or games the guys have just played more don't get a 'goin in cold' treatment, and are presented often quite well. If the guys have played game X and understand the controls and the level they're playing (they don't need to have completed the game, just understand it), then why the fuck do they go into game Y without any clue of what they're doing?

I would be perfectly happy if they split the feature in two, where the guys go in cold for some games, and do a proper Quicklook for others, as think that's only fair and professional.

#41 Posted by CaLe (3995 posts) -

I like when games are done a disservice. I hope more games are portrayed badly in future quicklooks because that's more fun for me.

#42 Posted by Example1013 (4834 posts) -

@rb_man: I don't think you understand the point and process of doing a Quick Look.

#43 Posted by ddensel (384 posts) -

Nope. Quick Looks provide me with some video game related laughs and give me a quick semblance of how a game plays, which is what I want.

#44 Posted by rb_man (451 posts) -

@Totori said:

@laserbolts said:

Sure I guess they do sometimes but I don't really care about it. If it was a review that would be different but I don't really take any of this stuff too seriously.

Yeah, you don't have to take everything so seriously. I mean it is just video games after all. This is as stupid as complaining about review scores.

I don' think I personly being very serious about this. All I was trying to do was add my own constructive criticism to try and help make GB better.

#45 Edited by rb_man (451 posts) -

@CaLe said:

I like when games are done a disservice. I hope more games are portrayed badly in future quicklooks because that's more fun for me.

@ddensel said:

Nope. Quick Looks provide me with some video game related laughs and give me a quick semblance of how a game plays, which is what I want.

That's fine for both of you but I just want some thing a bit diffident. Like the same jokes and humor with just a bit more useful information.

#46 Posted by Totori (559 posts) -
 The reason they don't go in cold on bigger games is because they've played them like 20 times already at events. They go in cold on games they just got that day and people would complain if no quicklook went up on release day for that game. They go in cold on games they've never heard that or have no interest in playing on their own time.  
 
This is so stupid the only reason you know something is up is, because you played the game and like it. All this is they didn't like the game I liked waaah  It's no different than, they gave my favorite game 3 stars. I thought it should have gotten 5 stars. 
#47 Posted by ddensel (384 posts) -

@rb_man said:

@CaLe said:

I like when games are done a disservice. I hope more games are portrayed badly in future quicklooks because that's more fun for me.

@ddensel said:

Nope. Quick Looks provide me with some video game related laughs and give me a quick semblance of how a game plays, which is what I want.

That's fine for both of you but I just want some thing a bit diffident

Something like..... a Video Review?

#48 Posted by rb_man (451 posts) -

@Example1013 said:

@rb_man: I don't think you understand the point and process of doing a Quick Look.

I think I do because they have said quite a few times it is to show and inform people about video game they are quick looking. The comedy is to keep it from being some shitty seminar.

Okay I am going to say this right now I love the GB quick looks I really do I just want them to just put a bit more work in to them that's all.

#49 Posted by rb_man (451 posts) -

@ddensel said:

@rb_man said:

@CaLe said:

I like when games are done a disservice. I hope more games are portrayed badly in future quicklooks because that's more fun for me.

@ddensel said:

Nope. Quick Looks provide me with some video game related laughs and give me a quick semblance of how a game plays, which is what I want.

That's fine for both of you but I just want some thing a bit diffident

Something like..... a Video Review?

No because those are boring as shit and there is no were need enough of the game in them for me at lest to get a good enough sense if I agree with the the review or not.

#50 Edited by nickux (1385 posts) -

My only defense of this is that I feel like Jeff holds reviews of games to a higher standard than Quick Looks in terms of what they do for the readers. While reviews are meant to give a more comprehensive look at the quality of the title, Quick Looks are there more as a way for me to take it in the playing of a game as I would do had I bought it and decide for myself whether it's worth checking out.

EDIT: The only time I dislike a Quick Look is when the people playing it have already decided it's a terrible game without even trying it. This happens a lot with some duders more than others but it bums me out when they just pile on the insults for a game.