Do Your Research, QL Crews

They aren't reviews. They are quick looks, designed as far as I am aware to show what your experience would be picking up the game and just playing it. If a game doesn't explain things through the experience of playing, that's the game's fault. You shouldn't have to research how to play a game. Sure, it'd be cool for the more serious releases to get a more in depth look and have someone in on the QL that had a good amount of knowledge of the game (Gears of War 3 Ql is a great example) But at the same time, I kinda prefer the way they are now. I wanna see an out of context chunk of a game, not get a video review that only shows like, one level and maybe a multiplayer component or extra mode or what have you.

TotalBiscuit on Youtube does this series called "WTF is..." which is literally boot up the game and start from minute one and he does fine so I don't see how they all can miss the freakin grip meter :|

I think all they need to is look at controls and read the tutorials. People can talk about learning curve all they want and they can say they go into a game blind because thats how people play games, but I don't find that true at all. People don't just buy games not knowing what they are getting right? People will research a game to know that they'll like what they are paying money for and will usually try to learn the machanics of a game instead of just blurring past some stuff. I just think it's kind of crappy to blame the game for your own ignorance, especially when the game has tried to tell you what to do. It's like if I thought SF2 sucked because I never learned to throw a fireball.

It depends, when it is stuff like what happened with Shadow of the Colossus, I am not against it.

Nah would ruin it.

@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 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.

You don't speak for the community that's a ridiculous statement, and regarding quick-looks they're quick-looks not reviews, why do so many people not grasp this?

I agree.

I agree totally with the OP. It always surprises me that I know a lot more about games than these guys sometimes do, despite the fact that I have a 40+ hour a week job that DOESN'T INVOLVE KNOWING ABOUT AND WRITING ABOUT VIDEOGAMES.

Eh... That's what the reviews are for.

@ZeForgotten said:

"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"

It’s frustrating when they get the facts wrong, but still entertaining for the most part.

It's really annoying watching a QL and hearing the guys fumble around or state made up things as fact. Wish they would take some time to research the games before a QL if they are going into a game they don't know anything about.

@ModerateViolence said:

@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 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.

You don't speak for the community that's a ridiculous statement, and regarding quick-looks they're quick-looks not reviews, why do so many people not grasp this?

Anger over someone "not grasping something" is kind of the crux of the argument...

@gladspooky said:

@ModerateViolence said:

@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 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.

You don't speak for the community that's a ridiculous statement, and regarding quick-looks they're quick-looks not reviews, why do so many people not grasp this?

Anger over someone "not grasping something" is kind of the crux of the argument...

I see what you did there.

I don't mind the lack of research if they don't say things that they really aren't sure of in an "authoritative" manner. This sometimes wrongly disparages the material. I remember Jeff was playing Killzone 3 multiplayer and he makes an annoyed comment that he captured a point after the round was over. In actually, he had captured a respawn point as part of his class that wasn't at all part of the objectives.

This thread sucks.

I've found that to be a problem with some of the reviews as well, if you're playing the game while ignoring basic and downright essential mechanics you're not really playing the game.

I couldn't agree less with anything you just wrote, but i do love me some kessler. I do like informational quick looks and i think the crew does a great job!

They aren't really there for buying advice, that's what reviews are for. That said some times when a game looks very fun in a QL (such as Renegade Ops and Hard Reset) I do buy them but its very rare.

I agree that it can be frustrating to see a game being played so badly but it's also quite funny usually and I watch the QL's for entertainment more so than anything else like most people I would hope.

Someone probably already said it but I'm gonna say it too, quick looks aren't reviews! A quick look is a first impression video you shouldn't judge a game from a quick look.

@Aishan: I don't think I missed the point of your post.

I just hate how they constantly make stuff up. They clearly don't know, so they just lie rather than say they don't know.(Brad does this A LOT). And I also dislike how they get confused at the most obvious things.(Mainly Ryan because he refuses to actually read anything.) Example being in the Clash of the Titans QL, he was at one spot for like 15 minutes and couldn't figure out what to do and was complaining that it's the games fault(The games bad, not defending it.) When it was telling him what he had to do with a pop up that came up every 10 seconds.

They aren't really there for buying advice, that's what reviews are for.

I get the idea behind Quick Looks and I love them but it's just amazing how the guys don't pick up on the simplest things.

id at least like them to know the controls if anything

I believe I speak for most of the GB community

Nope.

Holy crap, so many people are assuming I (and others) confuse QL's with reviews. They are two distinct products. A review is a very deliberate reflection upon the game, and the QL is much more off-the-cuff. However, that doesn't excuse poor playing and blatant misleading that sometimes takes place during QLs.

What the OP is asking is not crazy. I want to know about a game, I expect the quick look to tell me about the game is a reasonably informative fashion.

@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 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.

Okay, okay, we get it, people want the crew to "learn more about the game" before they decide to record it. We've heard it a thousand times now. I don't want them to go into the video knowing everything because then it becomes just another review that's worded differently. I love the moments when "holy shit!" sequences pop up and the crew gets all fussy, its fun. If they always knew what was coming, how it worked, then it wouldn't feel as human as it is now.

@csoup: They should just play the game for a certain time where the mechanics and structure of the game is fairly understood. Yeah, doing quick looks on games of 'lesser quality' lend themselves in going in fresh.

@Video_Game_King said:

@Lazyaza said:

They aren't really there for buying advice, that's what reviews are for.

You do realize that many people do use them as buying advice, right? And if they're not for buying advice, what are they for?

For you to do an second take and go read proper reviews on the game.

@csoup said:

@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 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.

Okay, okay, we get it, people want the crew to "learn more about the game" before they decide to record it. We've heard it a thousand times now. I don't want them to go into the video knowing everything because then it becomes just another review that's worded differently. I love the moments when "holy shit!" sequences pop up and the crew gets all fussy, its fun. If they always knew what was coming, how it worked, then it wouldn't feel as human as it is now.

But it would certainly feel more competent.

I honestly dont mind even when I have no clue how the game works.  Sometimes it bothers me when they say something wrong but I usually dont care

@Video_Game_King said:

@Gabriel: How foolish of me. Why didn't I think to look up a couple of reviews on Hollywood Squares or that Jerry Nitus game?

IGN does reviews those My Notebook game,s they probably made someone do Hollywood Squares if that's what you want.

So basically you want them to try and sell you the game, rather than give an honest portrayal of what it's like? Unless you live in a vacuum where Giantbomb is the only website that exists, I suggest you use multiple sources to make a decision on which games are good or not.

@CL60 said:

I just hate how they constantly make stuff up. They clearly don't know, so they just lie rather than say they don't know.(Brad does this A LOT). And I also dislike how they get confused at the most obvious things.(Mainly Ryan because he refuses to actually read anything.) Example being in the Clash of the Titans QL, he was at one spot for like 15 minutes and couldn't figure out what to do and was complaining that it's the games fault(The games bad, not defending it.) When it was telling him what he had to do with a pop up that came up every 10 seconds.

I would hesitate to say that they lie. Rather, they take a "fuck if I know" approach and kind of shrug off questions they don't know the answers to. Whichever way you interpret it, it does suck - I've fucked up my share of school presentations in my day, and there's nothing worse than look completely uneducated on your own topic.

@gunslingerNZ said:

It's nice to hear their thoughts as they see things for the first time.

@CH3BURASHKA: Giantbomb , it's their website you don't make the rules .Get of your high horse.

I dont know, becuase a lot of the games they quicklook most people pretty much know if they are in or out. And most ont he fence games are really bad, but games that might seem a bit janky. For the longest I didnt know what to expect out of Dead Island, but when I saw the quick look(and the TNT through the madness) I got a better idea of what the game is about, yeah tey miss stuff, but it's stuff that when I play I will understand.

I do liek the blind leaps of faith though, they makes for some of the better quicklooks and are the ones that people just dont forget (Rider meet horse, Horse meet rider)

It is SUPER frustrating when they miss stuff that fans already know or just outright write off a game, for me is was the Smackdown 2011 QL, they pretty much just completely written off the game. So I do find that to be a problem. But QLs aren't the perfect system, but writing reviews of every game that comes out isn't the best either... it's just a mixed bag and you hope to get something if not informative, at least entertaining.

I don't agree. It's a Quick Look, not a review. It could be the first time playing the game or they may have played it for several hours prior to the Quick Look. That's the nature of the Quick Look format which is still the best part of Giant Bomb. Don't be so anal retentive.

Why? If they do something wrong then you'll know how to do it right. They just have to show the gameplay, which they do.

The reason Kessler knows the ins and outs of the games that he Quick Looks is because he's only assigned a couple games every month or so. The other guys have much larger array of games to check out so they can't play each of them for 5 hours before doing a Quick Look.

Personally, i dont think they need to know the game play "perfectly" or all the ins and outs, but the driver should not be driving if they don't know the controls, AND your going to skip the tutorials. if you are planing to skip the tutorial at the beginning of the game, at the very least KNOW what your skipping. also knowing what platforms its available on and the price point is a good thing.

I think they should have a general knowledge of the game and its mechanics, but I don't think they necessarily have to play a level they'd alread played before...

@Milkman said:

The reason Kessler knows the ins and outs of the games that he Quick Looks is because he's only assigned a couple games every month or so. The other guys have much larger array of games to check out so they can't play each of them for 5 hours before doing a Quick Look.

This.

Also, for good measure: if an "incompetently" played Quick Look bothers you because...

• It doesn't do the game justice: You've probably already invested too much - heck, probably already bought the game - to be swayed by a Quick Look, maybe even to the point of accusing the crew of killing off the market for such-and-such game.
• They're mistreating a classic: Not everyone has time to replay older games, especially when it's your job to keep up with the new releases.
• It's misinforming the consumer: "It's a website. About video games!" "Video games?" "If you know about roundhouse kicks, type it on the site, it goes right on the site!". If a Quick Look whets someone's appetite, they could look for more info?

@CH3BURASHKA said:

Holy crap, so many people are assuming I (and others) confuse QL's with reviews. They are two distinct products. A review is a very deliberate reflection upon the game, and the QL is much more off-the-cuff. However, that doesn't excuse poor playing and blatant misleading that sometimes takes place during QLs.

well there's no excuse for you to bitch about it in the first place

Some of the best ( and worst ) Ql's are ones where they are going into it cold.

and as i said earlier, it would be ok if they wouldn't skip the tutorials, and then flail around because they didnt know what to do. but they have only done this on a couple of occasions.

@CH3BURASHKA: I completely disagree. For me, a quicklook is showing me what I can expect when I fire up a game and I sure as hell don't do any research before I do that. I prefer the organic approach they're currently taking.