• 139 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
#101 Edited by Bubbly (254 posts) -

@EXTomar said:

But those things are part of the game. I believe anything the player can access in the game is fair game for a Quick Look style series.

I'm not sure if you are replying to me, but I'm going to assume you are. I just don't think that tutorials make for good coverage of a game. Sure you can show the tutorial mission and waste a significant portion of the video showing a part of the game that isn't representative of the rest of the game, but what use is that to anyone? That time could be better spent showing something that is a more representative part of the game, which gives the viewer a better idea of what the game actually is. The guy above me mentioned that some of us would only be satisfied if the Quick Look was three hours long, but for me that is untrue. I actually think that they are too long, especially when so much of the video is filled with tutorial stuff. I just feel that they could do a better and more efficient job with their coverage of games in Quick Looks, and the things that I mentioned are ways that they could do it. Just for clarification I'm not trying to bitch and be all negative, just trying to give some constructive criticism.

#102 Posted by SpunkyHePanda (1665 posts) -

@KaneRobot said:

People complaining about a lot of these (expecially the Minecraft one) probably wouldn't be happy unless it was 3 hours long. That's not a quick look.

@SpunkyHePanda said:

There was that weird glitch in DJ Hero 2 that caused the game to lock up if you had 100 Xbox Live friends. Happened a couple of times in the Quick Look, if I recall. It did not look good.

That's not misrepresenting the game. That's showing a dumb oversight by the developer.

Yes, but all people saw was that a brand new game locked up twice. I can easily imagine someone being scared off by that, when it was really only an issue under very rare circumstances.

#103 Posted by Totori (559 posts) -
@Nux said:

@Animasta said:

Nier fo sho

they played through the worst part of it. Even starting the game from the beginning would have been preferable.

I completely agree. That quick look did not do Nier justice. They should of started after the time skip, that would of been better.

Yeah but that would have required them to play a ton of Neir, which they didn't want to do. Also the only reason you even know there is a time skip is because you've played the whole thing.
#104 Posted by RoyCampbell (1096 posts) -
@SpunkyHePanda said:

@KaneRobot said:

People complaining about a lot of these (expecially the Minecraft one) probably wouldn't be happy unless it was 3 hours long. That's not a quick look.

@SpunkyHePanda said:

There was that weird glitch in DJ Hero 2 that caused the game to lock up if you had 100 Xbox Live friends. Happened a couple of times in the Quick Look, if I recall. It did not look good.

That's not misrepresenting the game. That's showing a dumb oversight by the developer.

Yes, but all people saw was that a brand new game locked up twice. I can easily imagine someone being scared off by that, when it was really only an issue under very rare circumstances.

So be it? Giantbomb isn't the marketing branch of Activision.
#105 Posted by Nux (2360 posts) -

@Totori said:

@Nux said:

@Animasta said:

Nier fo sho

they played through the worst part of it. Even starting the game from the beginning would have been preferable.

I completely agree. That quick look did not do Nier justice. They should of started after the time skip, that would of been better.

Yeah but that would have required them to play a ton of Neir, which they didn't want to do. Also the only reason you even know there is a time skip is because you've played the whole thing.

Your first point is very true. I only said they should of started after the time skip because in my opinion the stuff after the time skip contains some of the best stuff in the game. It doesn't matter if you know that they are showing stuff after a time skip as long as what you are seeing shows off the game well.

#106 Posted by EXTomar (4736 posts) -

I don't get it...why isn't a tutorial a representative part of the game? For many players in many games, the tutorial is the one thing the majority see of a game will actually see where if the tutorial isn't done well then they aren't going to bother with the rest of the game. I don't think every game should take a look at the tutorial mode but I also don't believe there is anything wrong with showing one of the most important and common features either.

As for Neir, it is kind of a giant game with a lot of modes. Some games don't work well in a Quick Look format but I don't think anyone should try to suggest it is an end all, be all demonstration. I don't think Neir could be demonstrated in a quick look easily but that doesn't mean they shouldn't try either. And to be honest as much as I liked what Neir was doing there were issues and that came through in the Quick Look. I don't think anyone, be that player or creator, is done a favor by carefully staging demonstrations. If you want those go to the vendor and they'll have plenty of things in their Media section.

#107 Edited by SpunkyHePanda (1665 posts) -

@RoyCampbell said:

@SpunkyHePanda said:

@KaneRobot said:

People complaining about a lot of these (expecially the Minecraft one) probably wouldn't be happy unless it was 3 hours long. That's not a quick look.

@SpunkyHePanda said:

There was that weird glitch in DJ Hero 2 that caused the game to lock up if you had 100 Xbox Live friends. Happened a couple of times in the Quick Look, if I recall. It did not look good.

That's not misrepresenting the game. That's showing a dumb oversight by the developer.

Yes, but all people saw was that a brand new game locked up twice. I can easily imagine someone being scared off by that, when it was really only an issue under very rare circumstances.

So be it? Giantbomb isn't the marketing branch of Activision.

Not blaming Giant Bomb at all, guys. It was just an unfortunate thing. Not for Activision, but for anyone who might've enjoyed the game, but didn't buy it because of this weird glitch that they probably would never have experienced.

#108 Posted by JasonR86 (9707 posts) -

They are describing what they are feeling and thinking as they experience a game. What we see is a WIP of the editors' opinions. They aren't formed yet. So, to me, a Quick Look can't 'misrepresent' it can only inform us what the editors are thinking as they play a game.

#109 Posted by RoyCampbell (1096 posts) -
@EXTomar said:

I don't get it...why isn't a tutorial a representative part of the game? For many players in many games, the tutorial is the one thing the majority see of a game will actually see where if the tutorial isn't done well then they aren't going to bother with the rest of the game. I don't think every game should take a look at the tutorial mode but I also don't believe there is anything wrong with showing one of the most important and common features either.

As for Neir, it is kind of a giant game with a lot of modes. Some games don't work well in a Quick Look format but I don't think anyone should try to suggest it is an end all, be all demonstration. I don't think Neir could be demonstrated in a quick look easily but that doesn't mean they shouldn't try either. And to be honest as much as I liked what Neir was doing there were issues and that came through in the Quick Look. I don't think anyone, be that player or creator, is done a favor by carefully staging demonstrations. If you want those go to the vendor and they'll have plenty of things in their Media section.

I recall Jeff saying Quick Looks are supposed to show games as is; if they're starting from the beginning and going through a tutorial, that's representative of the game.
 
So I agree with what you said.
#110 Posted by beef_melody (273 posts) -

I thought the Binding Of Isaac one didn't really do the game justice, but that's the only one that springs readily to mind.

#111 Posted by upwarDBound (654 posts) -

Which is why I do not watch quick looks for purchasing advice. I watch them for entertainment. Admittedly some aren't that good and those are usually the ones where the guys are just apathetic about the game, not exactly misrepresenting it. But when you have over a thousand of these things with so many of them good it's really hard to complain.

#112 Posted by JeanLuc (3584 posts) -

Force Unleashed II quick look. They're feelings on the game are very different from the review.

#113 Posted by Yummylee (21652 posts) -

I love the responses to this thread, after how nearly everyone was so certain that reviews needn't exist on GB anymore...

#114 Posted by dcgc (878 posts) -

IMO, this would be solved or wouldn't happen if the members of the staff "quick-looking" a certain game would play it before the recording of the Quick-look. Therefore, they would retain more information or grasp better some aspects or mechanics from that game; or have some interest in it. If you don't like a game and you are forced to play it, you'll eventually "bad mouth" it in someways and dismiss it.

#115 Posted by Tesla (1923 posts) -

The nature of the Quick Look puts the blame for misrepresentation on the game developer. Did Jeff fumble around not knowing what to do with the controls? Then your tutorial could probably use some work. If you don't want your game to be misrepresented, then present it well.

#116 Posted by Khann (2851 posts) -

I have no problem with them playing a game poorly, dying lots, getting a bit lost etc. What I DO have a problem with, is when they blame the game because they are too fucking stupid to read a simple prompt that explains exactly how to do something.

#117 Posted by Animasta (14691 posts) -

@Nux said:

@Animasta said:

Nier fo sho

they played through the worst part of it. Even starting the game from the beginning would have been preferable.

I completely agree. That quick look did not do Nier justice. They should of started after the time skip, that would of been better.

that's a little far. beginning would have been good because of how depressing it is. I also think Kaine's introduction would have been a fine place to start too

#118 Posted by notdavid (839 posts) -

@Khann: Exactly. This ruined the Chrono Trigger ER for me. I love to see them stumbling around obliviously, I hate to see them criticize a game for faults that it doesn't have.

#119 Edited by DexterKid (668 posts) -

I would say 99% of QLs are misrepresentative of the game in question, whether it is in the way they play it or the comments they make. It's fine when they are honest about their ignorance and have fun with it. But when they just spread complete misinformation and/or outright blame the game for something obvious they are missing, then it can get irritating.

#120 Posted by Pyroman777 (6 posts) -

There are a lot of points in this thread I think are totally valid, but the way quick-looks work means that many are generally impossible to implement. Most quick-looks are of a game not being reviewed, or one prior to/mid-way through the review process, which means in both cases the team has seen little to none of the game in question. In my opinion it's not a case of negligence, but time constraints. While it might seem to us stupid that they didn't play all the way through Nier, for example, and hand-pick the best part, that's just not something that is feasible when these quick-looks are usually just a case of grabbing someone who is free and recording when time permits. The best case scenario is that the "Driver" has played a good portion or even all of the game, but that assumes that this random schedule lines up perfectly with all parties.

To me even the worst quick-look serves the purpose of showing me some raw game-play. If that means watching someone be bad at a game, it doesn't really matter, I am still seeing the game function and getting a sense of whether or not I'll want to look into the review, or see more footage. Quick-looks are inherently skewed towards inaccuracy, it's like trying to explain why your favourite game is awesome in one sentence. I don't think Quick-looks themselves are being misrepresented, I think the issue lies in what people interpret them as being, and that much is clear from the comments in this thread alone. Everyone has a different opinion on what a Quick-look means, and these are so disparate and contradictory that it isn't possible to create one video that will please everyone.

I don't disagree with the opinions stated here, quite the opposite. I believe some games shouldn't be quick-looked, for example, in that their game-play is impossible to demonstrate in a short amount of time (though I disagree with the idea that they should only show the best parts of a game). This being said, I don't need to see someone be good at a game, or compliment it, or even play the best part, in order to understand whether I want to see more it; and that to me is the purpose of a quick-look.

#121 Posted by Khann (2851 posts) -

@Pyroman777 said:

There are a lot of points in this thread I think are totally valid, but the way quick-looks work means that many are generally impossible to implement. Most quick-looks are of a game not being reviewed, or one prior to/mid-way through the review process, which means in both cases the team has seen little to none of the game in question. In my opinion it's not a case of negligence, but time constraints. While it might seem to us stupid that they didn't play all the way through Nier, for example, and hand-pick the best part, that's just not something that is feasible when these quick-looks are usually just a case of grabbing someone who is free and recording when time permits. The best case scenario is that the "Driver" has played a good portion or even all of the game, but that assumes that this random schedule lines up perfectly with all parties.

To me even the worst quick-look serves the purpose of showing me some raw game-play. If that means watching someone be bad at a game, it doesn't really matter, I am still seeing the game function and getting a sense of whether or not I'll want to look into the review, or see more footage. Quick-looks are inherently skewed towards inaccuracy, it's like trying to explain why your favourite game is awesome in one sentence. I don't think Quick-looks themselves are being misrepresented, I think the issue lies in what people interpret them as being, and that much is clear from the comments in this thread alone. Everyone has a different opinion on what a Quick-look means, and these are so disparate and contradictory that it isn't possible to create one video that will please everyone.

I don't disagree with the opinions stated here, quite the opposite. I believe some games shouldn't be quick-looked, for example, in that their game-play is impossible to demonstrate in a short amount of time (though I disagree with the idea that they should only show the best parts of a game). This being said, I don't need to see someone be good at a game, or compliment it, or even play the best part, in order to understand whether I want to see more it; and that to me is the purpose of a quick-look.

Nice try, Patrick.

#122 Posted by B0nd07 (1699 posts) -

I'll agree with a lot of people here and say their near constant ability to ignore tutorials or mission objectives (and then fumble around for several minutes, sometimes blaming the game for not being clear) is the most annoying. Still love Quick Looks though.

As for specific misrepresented games? Yakuza: Dead Souls is the first that comes to mind. Not only did Brad and Patrick only have a passing knowledge of the series (where was Ryan and/or Jeff?), but they were also wrong about other zombie games they were trying to reference (that screaming zombie was much more similar to the siren of Killing Floor than the boomer of Left 4 Dead).

Also, IIRC, the Dustforce QL was pretty misrepresentative as well.

#123 Posted by DoctorWelch (2774 posts) -

I think the Fez quicklook applies to this more than any other. When they did the QL Jeff didn't really understand how deep and crazy that game is, so it came off as boring and kind of bad.

#124 Posted by Egg0 (169 posts) -

The thing is, they do Quick Looks for a bunch of games, while they pick and choose which ones to review. I don't expect them to sit down with every game they do a Quick Look with and learn about the mechanics beforehand.

#125 Posted by ashleychittock (136 posts) -

F1 2011's wasn't so much misrepresentative, but it doesn't exactly sell the game all that well. It's more hilarious on Drew and Vinny's part, and in a "this is embarrassing" sense.

#126 Posted by Khann (2851 posts) -

@ashleychittock said:

F1 2011's wasn't so much misrepresentative, but it doesn't exactly sell the game all that well. It's more hilarious on Drew and Vinny's part, and in a "this is embarrassing" sense.

The difference there, for me (a massive F1 fan, for what it's worth), is that they were well aware of how little knowledge they had. Drew did actually make an effort to learn as much as he could, so he'd have something to talk about. He does this all the time, and I wish the rest of the crew would follow suit.

#127 Posted by lockwoodx (2479 posts) -

This is the reason the PC quicklooks are so much better than the console ones, because it's almost as if they dumb the entire QL down for the console crowd and just blunder through things.

#128 Posted by Yummylee (21652 posts) -

@Khann said:

@ashleychittock said:

F1 2011's wasn't so much misrepresentative, but it doesn't exactly sell the game all that well. It's more hilarious on Drew and Vinny's part, and in a "this is embarrassing" sense.

The difference there, for me (a massive F1 fan, for what it's worth), is that they were well aware of how little knowledge they had. Drew did actually make an effort to learn as much as he could, so he'd have something to talk about. He does this all the time, and I wish the rest of the crew would follow suit.

Yeah, God bless Drew <3. It astounds me just how much stuff Drew is at least relatively knowledgeable about.

#129 Posted by leejunfan83 (967 posts) -

@Hailinel said:

Any Quick Look in which the guys blatantly ignore tutorials that explain basic gameplay concepts and then go on to complain about how the game doesn't do the thing that the tutorial told them about.

Muramasa, for example.

Major issue

#130 Posted by ashleychittock (136 posts) -

@Khann said:

@ashleychittock said:

F1 2011's wasn't so much misrepresentative, but it doesn't exactly sell the game all that well. It's more hilarious on Drew and Vinny's part, and in a "this is embarrassing" sense.

The difference there, for me (a massive F1 fan, for what it's worth), is that they were well aware of how little knowledge they had. Drew did actually make an effort to learn as much as he could, so he'd have something to talk about. He does this all the time, and I wish the rest of the crew would follow suit.

Yeah. I watched it and my expression just kept alternating between cringing and being a bit "aww, at least he's trying to know about this sort of thing". I couldn't see it really doing it's job for any American (or person of other nationality for that matter) that doesn't know anything about F1. In fact I think it'd probably just scare them.

As a Brit though, it's a weird insight into culture over that side of the pond, Drew and Vinny not recognising any of the drivers' names. The biggest names in the sport are pretty ubiquitous throughout Europe. But then I'd hazard a guess that most British people wouldn't know who Tim Tebow is.

#131 Posted by Totori (559 posts) -
@Nux said:

@Totori said:

@Nux said:

@Animasta said:

Nier fo sho

they played through the worst part of it. Even starting the game from the beginning would have been preferable.

I completely agree. That quick look did not do Nier justice. They should of started after the time skip, that would of been better.

Yeah but that would have required them to play a ton of Neir, which they didn't want to do. Also the only reason you even know there is a time skip is because you've played the whole thing.

Your first point is very true. I only said they should of started after the time skip because in my opinion the stuff after the time skip contains some of the best stuff in the game. It doesn't matter if you know that they are showing stuff after a time skip as long as what you are seeing shows off the game well.

I actually kinda like Neir but a game takes more than a couple hour to get good is not a good game. No one wants to play 15 hours of crap, no matter how good the good part is.
#132 Posted by BPRJCTX (704 posts) -

@Hailinel said:

Any Quick Look in which the guys blatantly ignore tutorials that explain basic gameplay concepts and then go on to complain about how the game doesn't do the thing that the tutorial told them about.

Muramasa, for example.

That happens a lot.

But, like i sad many times now.

They are pretty clueless most of the time, that's why i don't come here for information, i come here for entertainment.

And that's what they're good at.

You got tons of sites for your gaming info, there's nothing else like Giant Bomb.

#133 Posted by Cold_Wolven (2220 posts) -

I feel due to the nature of the Quick Looks being there for mostly entertainment and comedy that they are misrepresented most of the time. It's hard to talk and play good at the same time so there's that but also they don't want to show too much of say the single player in fear of spoiling story elements and as for multiplayer it depends on whether they can join a game due to the fact that the game is shown before street date so not many people would be playing.

#134 Posted by Recall (103 posts) -
@BPRJCTX

@Hailinel said:

Any Quick Look in which the guys blatantly ignore tutorials that explain basic gameplay concepts and then go on to complain about how the game doesn't do the thing that the tutorial told them about.

Muramasa, for example.

That happens a lot.

But, like i sad many times now.

They are pretty clueless most of the time, that's why i don't come here for information, i come here for entertainment.

And that's what they're good at.

You got tons of sites for your gaming info, there's nothing else like Giant Bomb.

What's worse is the general gamer can pick up what is expected of them within minutes as many games share similar controls and tropes but the Giantbomb crew they act like they've never played a game before, even though they've played thousands between them.
#135 Edited by Tennmuerti (8103 posts) -

I don't mind if they misrepresent a game because they are playing through the most boring section, it happens nothing you can do about chance like this (Darksiders example).

I don't mind if they are just bumbling around like fools due to their own incompetence, it can be funny.

I do mind when the actual game gets shit on just because they don't bother paying enough attention themselves. (this is also true for the Bombcast)

#136 Posted by Willtron (243 posts) -

@Jimbo said:

I stopped watching when they became primarily about showing themselves off, usually at the expense of less well known games. Big games were being taken seriously and small games were being used as nothing but chuckle fodder. I found it (the disparity in treatment) kinda gross tbh. 'Watch me be bad at this <anything which isn't CoD or Gears> and then blame the game!' isn't very entertaining. Game coverage delivered by personalities > Personality coverage delivered by games, imo.

Except everyone is tired of Call of Duty. Everyone fucking loved games like Bastion. Like Journey. Go watch the Botanicula QL. I think there's legitimate grievances to be had with quick looks, and I even think you have every right to think that they're more focused on personality than games coverage. That's your prerogative, even if you're wrong. But Giant Bomb definitely, definitely does not cater to the games like Call of Duty and Gears of War and forget the 'small' games. Some of the biggest praise from the dudes at Giant Bomb has been thrown towards indie games, arcade games, and obscure shit. They wouldn't have fucking adored Botanicula, or Bastion, or Journey, or have a flight club or load my last save if they only wanted to take the big games seriously.

Anyway, as for the Vita coverage? To be honest, I side with the team on how they approached it. The Vita has kinda been shit when it comes to support. Hard to show it off as something awesome when there's barely any games to show off.

Anyway, my only grievance is when it's blatantly obvious that someone's disregarding a game as soon as the quick look begins. I'll admit, if a game deserves it--if it's really fucking terrible--then go for it. Some of the best quick-looks ever are the complete shit-shows. And yes, there's a flaw in this argument, because we all have opinions. But it can be really disheartening to hear someone just completely dismiss a game. If you're begrudgingly covering a game, don't cover it? Simple as that. The Giant Bomb philosophy is not to be everything to everyone. Rightfully so. And I wanna see the Giant Bomb guys be awesome, and not down on a game just because it isn't to their tastes. They avoid sports games because they don't like them. They did Dark Souls right by giving it to Matt Rorie and Vinny, because those guys love Dark Souls. Seeing dudes just hate on Dark Souls for an hour? Would have been fucking awful for viewers and players alike.

But then there will be games they'll actively denounce and still quick look. If it is actively a bad game, that's fine. If it's just a broken mess, or it's boring, or whatever, then rip on it. Please. That's some of the best stuff. But if it's just not your taste, don't play it--let someone else do the quick look, or don't cover it.

It's more disheartening, too, when honestly, the majority of the time the duders are super open to games. On the flip-side of all the negativity, some of my favourite quick looks are of games that the guys are kind of uncertain on, but by the end of the quick look they're sold. Binary Domain is a perfect example of that. Jeff just accepts the insanity, and loves it. And I appreciate that. I especially appreciate it because I've heard great things about the story. Jeff's turn-around on Fez was great, too. And Ryan finally caved in on Dark Souls a while back, and he seemed like he actually was enjoying himself. Patrick's open to play anything. Jeff loves a good 'so-bad-it's-good' game. Dave's got his Eastern bloc. Hell, they did a fucking Endurance Run of Deadly Premonition, and it definitely wasn't for the gameplay. Obviously these guys are not fucking robots. They're willing to give games a chance. And that's great--that's why I love Giant Bomb. But then there will be one quick look every so often where a game just isn't given a fair shake. And it's like... eh, why do it? Sniper Elite v2 comes to mind as the most recent example.

#137 Posted by Milkman (16798 posts) -

For the amount of complaining about cluelessness and misinformation in this thread, there's a lot of cluelessness and misinformation in this thread.

Online
#138 Posted by Slaegar (710 posts) -

The ones where they have people that don't enjoy that kind of game are a problem. Their biases can really ruin a quicklook if they already hate the game before they start playing it. Imagine if someone who hated anime did a Persona 4 quicklook.

The ones where they talk about something very unrelated are also bad if they talk about it too long or ignore something happening in the game to talk about it.

I would have liked them to play more of the pc version of minecraft so they can compare the two.

In the Tera one Brad complained about how little the women wore but at the same time many of the males are just as loose looking.

I get the feeling they hate most windows games because they are windows games. They would propably give them 6/5 stars if they were mac exclusive.

#139 Posted by Willtron (243 posts) -

I also can kind of see the point being made for quick looks with a lot of talking--like, say, The Walking Dead--but story-heavy games aren't going to be the best... quick looks. And just having dudes sit there and watch the game play out? Not a quick look. It's a conundrum, but I think you have to approach quick looks for story-heavy games in a completely different way.