• 154 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
#1 Posted by ch3burashka (5112 posts) -

First things first: a Quick Look is meant to show off a game to people, with the intent to educate them on whether or not they want to buy the game or not. That assumes that the game is played competently. And herein lies the problem. Lately there's been a significant decrease in QL quality in terms of informative gameplay and accurate discussion of the game at hand. I believe I speak for most of the GB community when I say, please do your research - at the very least, play through the section you plan on showing off.

PS For an example of how QL's should be made, watch some of the Kessler-directed QLs. Love him or hate him, he definitely did the games he showed off justice. Despite the fact that one was a mediocre JRPG and the other was a complex map-making dungeon crawler, he clearly did his research and understood the underlying mechanics before showing them.

#2 Posted by gunslingerNZ (1908 posts) -

I don't entirely agree. It's good when they've done enough to familiarise themselves with the controls and the basics of the gameplay but beyond that I'd prefer it if they didn't research a game too much. It's nice to hear their thoughts as they see things for the first time. Quicklooks work best really where the driver is familiar with the game and the observer hasn't seen it at all and that's generally the formula they apply.

#3 Posted by ch3burashka (5112 posts) -

@gunslingerNZ: You're right - there should be a member knowledgeable in the game, and one uninitiated member that's being shown and taught the game. That, however, doesn't work well when both members aren't sure what to do.

#4 Edited by Pazy (2592 posts) -

I dont mind either way. Often the gameplay itself is enough for me to form an opinion so I come to quick looks to be entertained more than educated. That and Kessler-love!

#5 Edited by Akyho (1677 posts) -

Look at the Dead island QL. Brad had played for 25 hrs and he still was not sure all the details and was dieing. I think what you want....is not a QL... you want a VIDEO REVEIW....you get those sometimes. You get a proper reveiw later. QL are not reveiws they can be informative or just fun. Its a role of the dice. If they spent alot of time perfecting a QL that they do out of niceness then it would be a half finished video reveiw.

Best to keep it informal.

#6 Posted by Blaze4Life86 (32 posts) -

@CH3BURASHKA:

"First things first: a Quick Look is meant to show off a game to people, with the intent to educate them on whether or not they want to buy the game or not."

Actually a review is intended to inform a person whether or not they may want to purchase the game.

A quick look is exactly what it is, if i were going to quickly look at a film I wouldn't then try and influence someone to purchase said film.

If after watching a quick look you feel like you want more information, go collect that information yourself.

#7 Posted by ch3burashka (5112 posts) -

@Akyho said:

Look at the Dead island QL. Brad had played for 25 hrs and he still was not sure all the details and was dieing. I think what you want....is not a QL... you want a VIDEO REVEIW....you get those sometimes. You get a proper reveiw later. QL are not reveiws they can be informative or just fun. Its a role of the dice. If they spent alot of time perfecting a QL that they do out of niceness then it would be a half finished video reveiw.

I don't quite agree. A review (at least, in the GB form) is an overall review of narrative, feel, mechanics, graphics, etc. It's a 6 minute polished, scripted performance. The QL is much more impromptu than a review, but that doesn't mean that the Quick Looker shouldn't be familiar with the game. Like gunslingerNZ said above, the second member of the QL team should be there to ask questions, and the Quick Looker should be there to answer them and elaborate, not say, "I don't know - let's try that out right now for the first time".

#8 Posted by ZeForgotten (10397 posts) -

"Quick Look" never, to me, meant that they know absolutely everything about the game they're "Quick Looking". I always saw them as a "here's our first look at what this game is so join us as we try this out for the first time too"

#9 Posted by BeachThunder (12089 posts) -

I feel that the main problem is they try to entertain more than they try to inform. This is not always the case, but I would rather finish watching a quick look with an understanding of what the game is rather than having a few chuckles.

#10 Edited by Marz (5658 posts) -

Your argument that Kessler knows a lot about the game's he quicklooks because he's actually playing almost all of them for Review so of course he will have a lot of knowledge on those games.  Don't think quicklooks were meant to sell you on the game, but only to show you some gameplay.  It's probably a waste of time to try to know the in's and outs of every game perfectly when they probably won't continue playing some  game's beyond the quicklook itself.  I mean do you really want to know the intricacies and facts about Jerry Rice Nitus Dog football to a T?

#11 Posted by ch3burashka (5112 posts) -

@Marz: I like gameplay, but I like competent gameplay better.

And yes, everyone that's talking about the joke QLs, I don't expect them to look up intricate strategies for Dog Football, or read up on Dragonball for Dragonball Evolution. I'm talking about the real QLs, of games that matter.

#12 Posted by ZeForgotten (10397 posts) -

@Marz said:

Your argument that Kessler knows a lot about the game's he quicklooks because he's actually playing almost all of them for Review so of course he will have a lot of knowledge on those games. Don't think quicklooks were meant to sell you on the game, but only to show you some gameplay. It's probably a waste of time to try to know the in's and outs of every game perfectly when they probably won't continue playing some game's beyond the quicklook itself. I mean do you really want to know the intricacies and facts about Jerry Rice Nitus Dog football to a T?

Stop right there, even you wanna know everything about that game! don't lie! :P

#13 Posted by tourgen (4542 posts) -
@CH3BURASHKA: No.
#14 Posted by Marz (5658 posts) -
@ZeForgotten said:

@Marz said:

Your argument that Kessler knows a lot about the game's he quicklooks because he's actually playing almost all of them for Review so of course he will have a lot of knowledge on those games. Don't think quicklooks were meant to sell you on the game, but only to show you some gameplay. It's probably a waste of time to try to know the in's and outs of every game perfectly when they probably won't continue playing some game's beyond the quicklook itself. I mean do you really want to know the intricacies and facts about Jerry Rice Nitus Dog football to a T?

Stop right there, even you wanna know everything about that game! don't lie! :P

maybe.....  o.O
#15 Edited by artgarcrunkle (970 posts) -

I think you're right but personally only think it's a deal breaker in Brad or Ryan quicklooks since I often feel like I didn't learn anything accurate about the game because the guy doing the quicklook was Bad At Games or clueless about game mechanics and didn't really give a shit.

Edit: Uh I should probably add that a shitty quicklook is fine if it's fun to watch content.

#16 Edited by Chop (1999 posts) -

I learned a long time ago to avoid using quick looks as buying advice. A lot of the time the guys are incompetent at the game (which makes it look worse than it is) and they tout misinformation about the mechanics as facts. They are there for pure entertainment value, not serious buying advice or informed opinions (not a bad thing). 

#17 Posted by Vexxan (4623 posts) -

I think they balance the fun with facts pretty good.

#18 Posted by XenoNick (1450 posts) -

Normally the don't bother me very much but the F1 2011 quick look was a little irritating (Since I'm a big F1 nerd). I understand that F1 isn't as big in the US as Europe but maybe in that case they shouldn't have done a quick look of it. That's just my slightly hungover opinion though.

#19 Posted by text (26 posts) -

Consider the recent F11 Quick Look. If you know enough about deep sim racing games to get all upset at how "innaccurate!!!" It was, you don't need the QL to help you make purchasing decisions. You already know much more about the game than the average consumer and know whether or not you want to buy it. Meanwhile, if you're an average joe, then that QL is a good indication of what your experience will be like, and you can decide whether or not it appeals to you from there. Same is true, for example, of the Dragon Quest Monsters: Joker 2 QL. If you're way into JRPGs, you don't need a GB video to tell you whether or not you want it. But, again, if you're the average consumer, the QL is a good indication of how you'll feel comming into the game fairly cold.

Let's examine a hypothetical situation. Let's say the GB crew decides to do a DmC quicklook down the road. I really, really like Character Action games, whereas they aren't too keen on them. That QL, for me and others like me, will be useless. There is nothing they can tell me about the DmC game I won't have personally researched months in advance. But, if you don't know a lot about the genre, a video of some guys trying it out and seeing how it plays will be pretty similar to what you'd go through if you went out and bought it. If what they're doing seems cool, you'll probably feel the same way when you play it yourself. If it seems terrible, hey, don't buy the game.

If they all went out and researched high level DMC play and pulled out crazy combo video stuff, that might be fun to watch, but that will not be your experience if you're the average consumer. It doesn't serve anyone. Blind QLs are actually much more useful to the people who need them in the first place.

#20 Posted by neckface (61 posts) -

I dunno, I always thought the point of the quick look was to be more of a 'first look'. You're seeing the gameplay at the same time as whoever's playing, and you're watching someone feel there way around the game for the first time.

As it stands I enjoy the way quick looks work now and I don't really see the value in having someone do a perfect run of a game while talking through the mechanics, that just sounds kind of boring.

#21 Posted by neckface (61 posts) -

@text said:

Consider the recent F11 Quick Look. If you know enough about deep sim racing games to get all upset at how "innaccurate!!!" It was, you don't need the QL to help you make purchasing decisions. You already know much more about the game than the average consumer and know whether or not you want to buy it. Meanwhile, if you're an average joe, then that QL is a good indication of what your experience will be like, and you can decide whether or not it appeals to you from there. Same is true, for example, of the Dragon Quest Monsters: Joker 2 QL. If you're way into JRPGs, you don't need a GB video to tell you whether or not you want it. But, again, if you're the average consumer, the QL is a good indication of how you'll feel comming into the game fairly cold. Let's examine a hypothetical situation. Let's say the GB crew decides to do a DmC quicklook down the road. I really, really like Character Action games, whereas they aren't too keen on them. That QL, for me and others like me, will be useless. There is nothing they can tell me about the DmC game I won't have personally researched months in advance. But, if you don't know a lot about the genre, a video of some guys trying it out and seeing how it plays will be pretty similar to what you'd go through if you went out and bought it. If what they're doing seems cool, you'll probably feel the same way when you play it yourself. If it seems terrible, hey, don't buy the game. If they all went out and researched high level DMC play and pulled out crazy combo video stuff, that might be fun to watch, but that will not be your experience if you're the average consumer. It doesn't serve anyone. Blind QLs are actually much more useful to the people who need them in the first place.

This is a much better thought out and articulated way of framing the Quick Looks than I could have managed.

Totally agree with this post.

#22 Posted by Fobwashed (2119 posts) -

Them being the ones that make it. I'm pretty sure the current quick look is exactly what they mean for it to be. If it doesn't fit what you want, that doesn't mean they're doing it wrong, just mean you're expecting it wrong.

#23 Posted by Crash_Happy (724 posts) -

There's always a problem trying to work out what percentage of a population you are speaking for, in general I'd suggest not making unfounded claims. You could have made this a poll and watched to see how many people agree.

So I understand where you are coming from, there are times I'm watching a QL and am slightly astonished and the things they don't know about the game. It's not like there isn't plenty of information out there though so if we as viewers are left with questions then surely we can find that stuff out?

That leaves us with whether the quality of the QL itself was hampered. I have to admit I don't have a huge amount of opinion on this. I certainly can tell you that I actively dislike your idea that they play through the area prior to filming. I like them approaching this stuff unseen, as I would have, and I like getting their genuine reactions.

#24 Posted by ryanwho (12082 posts) -

Alternate solution: call Quick Looks First Looks, keep doing them the way you do them. Problem solved.

#25 Posted by aspaceinvader (257 posts) -

Yes it can be a bit annoying when the lads doing the review don't know much about the game or what the history is, but it makes for an interesting QL as you get to see the game in action which counts for alot. QL have influenced my choice of picking up games that i would not or may not have shown much interest in. I don't want the guys to be all knowing about the game they're QL'ing and prefer them sometimes being like us punters going into the game with a fresh open mind, and giving you their general opinion of the game.

#26 Edited by PhatSeeJay (3322 posts) -

@CH3BURASHKA said:

the second member of the QL team should be there to ask questions, and the Quick Looker should be there to answer them and elaborate, not say, "I don't know - let's try that out right now for the first time".

That's not a quick look. That's an Ask Me Anything. At least by Giant Bomb standards.

#27 Posted by Mars_Cleric (1595 posts) -

I thought the point of a quick look was to take a "quick look" at a game and a review was to "educate them on whether or not they want to buy the game or not"

#28 Posted by Swoxx (3003 posts) -

@100_Hertz said:

In almost all cases I agree, and think going in fresh with no prior experience makes for a QL of lesser quality. But for some games (mostly shitty games, admittedly), it does make for a very entertaining, and thus, better QL.

This, as the kids say

#29 Posted by Von (328 posts) -

Yes, the F1 2011 is the first QL I've watched that's actually been utterly sub-par in its presentation. It was like "Well, there's cars of some sort.. and some options that I don't know what they do.. and I think you can do this.. maybe.. and, umm... yeah, a few rounds on the same track.. and.. uh.. yeah, that's F1!"

Nothing about how you can customize your cars, how the "campaign" works, etc, unless they showed that in the end because I got bored half-way through and turned it off. It's weird because Drew QL'ed some other racing games and those vids were top notch in quality and presentation.

#30 Posted by MikkaQ (10317 posts) -

@CH3BURASHKA said:

First things first: a Quick Look is meant to show off a game to people, with the intent to educate them on whether or not they want to buy the game or not.

That's the complete opposite of what a quick look is. A review is the site's official and researched purchasing advice.

#31 Posted by sugetipula (98 posts) -

Quick looks are exactly that.Quick Looks. They are meant to show the game from the eyes of first time players. They said that many times. Sure, they have a lot of them they already played for review or it's an old time favorite, but the point of a quick look is to give people a QUICK LOOK of the game, not to review it.

#32 Posted by TwoLines (2819 posts) -

It's a quick look man, you don't research a game before playing it, why should they? They want to show it from the consumer's perspective, not the reviewer's perspective.

#33 Posted by BraveToaster (12589 posts) -
@Fobwashed said:
Them being the ones that make it. I'm pretty sure the current quick look is exactly what they mean for it to be. If it doesn't fit what you want, that doesn't mean they're doing it wrong, just mean you're expecting it wrong.
Well said.
#34 Posted by jonano (366 posts) -

man i think the quick looks are their many for entertainment. I'd guess they seem to be more first impressions more than buying advice thats for reviews .

#35 Edited by ryanwho (12082 posts) -

@TwoLines said:

It's a quick look man, you don't research a game before playing it, why should they? They want to show it from the consumer's perspective, not the reviewer's perspective.

This basically. But also, for a game like Dragon Quest Monsters, where nobody who does QLs is a huge fan of the genre or the subgenre, there is no "educated quick look". If they played it for 5 hours prior to the QL(as opposed to 2, which I guess wasn't enough time to be 'educated'), Ryan simply would have been more articulate about why the game doesn't work for him. The alternative is they don't do QLs on games like that at all.

#36 Posted by EscapingMinos (15 posts) -

I can tolerate Drew/Vinny not knowing too much about F1 - it's a complex sport not commonly followed or understood by Americans.

But watching Brad utterly fail to grasp the grip mechanic in the Shadow of the Colossus QL was absolutely infuriating. One mechanic. For 20-something minutes, neither he nor Ryan made the connection that Brad kept falling off when the giant conspicuous pink circle emptied.

That was the one time that I wish they would fess up and re-do their QL. They did a real disservice to one of the best games of all time.

#37 Posted by Fizzy (384 posts) -

I love it when they blindly play the games, it's how you'll react when you first play the game. I think the Quick Looks are more for entertainment and less for thought out/rehearsed walkthroughs.

#38 Posted by VoodooTerror (607 posts) -

a QL is first and foremost an insight into what they think of the game and how they see it.

if all they did was rattle off a load of features and gameplay techniques ect.. then it just becomes an advertisement

#39 Posted by TheSouthernDandy (3906 posts) -

I don't mind it usually but every once in a while I find myself yelling at the screen "JUST PRESS THE A BUTTON TO ACTIVATE THE THING!!!"

#40 Posted by SomeJerk (3304 posts) -

I believe I speak for the most of the GB community when I say you don't.

#41 Posted by Ghost_Cat (1458 posts) -

I think it's fun to watch QL videos when the crew isn't entirely sure what they are doing. Some of the funniest moments come from their uncertainty.

#42 Posted by Cloudenvy (5891 posts) -

@CH3BURASHKA said:

I believe I speak for most of the GB community

God, stop saying dumb shit like that, please! D:

#43 Posted by Hailinel (25179 posts) -

While I don't expect that the guys to be experts, I do find it absurd when they miss out on the most basic of gameplay mechanics. I remember Ryan was completely ignorant of the B button's rather important function in Muramasa: The Demon Blade. He even skipped right over the tutorial text that explained what it did during the Quick Look and just marched on, complaining about the simplicity of the supposed one-button combat.

#44 Posted by Bane (428 posts) -

You could look at QL content in a couple of ways. If you have no interest in playing the game yourself you're in it for the entertaining banter so who cares if they know what they're doing. It may be even more entertaining if they go in cold. If you're thinking about playing the game yourself I know I'd prefer it if they had a decent grasp of at least the basics before making the video so I could take a quick look at how the game plays once you're comfortable with it.

Watching them fiddle-fuck around in the menus, play the tutorials or learn the basics of making the game go doesn't serve the game or the viewer interested in playing. Doing that stuff before recording makes for a better QL in my opinion.

#45 Edited by Slaker117 (4843 posts) -

Yeah, they don't have to be scholars on whatever game they're presenting, but it can be frustrating to watch if they don't understand some basic gameplay mechanic. I like watching the guys dick around as well, that can be fun, though not at the expensive of being informative. At some point things have to be about actually covering video games, or they are just paid monkeys.

#46 Posted by alternate (2717 posts) -

@CH3BURASHKA said:

I believe I speak for most of the GB community when I say,

The fuck you do. Stop making ASSumptions.

#47 Edited by Chris2KLee (2337 posts) -

I like the Quick Looks the way they are. Do they miss stuff? All the time, but they've laid out the fact that quick looks are meant to be shot fast and turned around quickly. If they had to do research and setup for every video, then we'd probably have a lot less QLs, and probably then mostly on games they are currently reviewing. Tons of other sites do in depth previews, but that's not why I watch a GB QL.

#48 Posted by MooseyMcMan (11299 posts) -

Yes, it can be aggravating sometimes to watch them playing a game wrong, or not knowing how to do basic mechanics, but on the other hand, I feel like a lot of the time in Quick Looks they're just playing games like how most people do these days, which is without reading any sort of manuals or anything. Then they get a feel for how well (or poorly) a game explains its mechanics in game.

Moderator
#49 Posted by Matoya (416 posts) -

If they'd just read the fucking tutorial text once in a while, we wouldn't get some boneheaded, typical, "I'M GREAT AT GAMES" nonsense.

#50 Posted by Jolt92 (1559 posts) -

Quick Looks are great the way they are, stop crying.