#1 Posted by Anthony (237 posts) -

It's been over 3 months since the last video review which I think was LA Noire. Have the guys said anything about stopping video reviews? I suppose a Quick Look is a decent replacement since it will show the gameplay.

#2 Posted by Giantstalker (1684 posts) -

I find video reviews are a bit redundant... expressing an opinion about a game just doesn't show character as much as the Quick Look does. Words are fine.

But you're right, it's been awhile, and they haven't specifically addressed it either.

Online
#3 Posted by crusader8463 (14423 posts) -

I don't think they really care to do them, since they basically just parrot what they say in the written review. Jeff has said several times that between the quicklooks and them talking about it in the Bombcast you can get a good enough idea if it's going to be good or not if you base your buying decisions on what they like.

#4 Posted by Dogma (975 posts) -

They usually only do video reviews for games that had access to early AND that they find big or extra interesting. The team seems very picky in what kind of games that gets the video review treatment. This is a wildshot but Gears of War 3 could be a contender for getting one.

#5 Posted by Afroman269 (7387 posts) -

Maybe, I wouldn't be surprised to see a MW3 or Uncharted 3 video review.

#6 Edited by Vyse (74 posts) -

They do even really do that many reviews, and video versions of those reviews only come when its a really big game or something one of the crew is really into. I'm actually kind of surprised when I see a video review on the site.

#7 Edited by AK_the_Twilight (52 posts) -

I really like the video reviews, but I'd agree with the fact that the Quick Looks do a sufficient job of showing the game's overall quality. The Quick Looks are thorough and lengthy, so comparing that to a five minute video review feels a small bit regressive.

#8 Posted by UprootedDreamer (31 posts) -

For the most part I do not think that we need video reviews, all you really need to form an opinion on a game is game trailers, written previews, written reviews and actually renting the game before you decide to purchase it.

#9 Posted by Kyreo (4600 posts) -

@Afroman269 said:

Maybe, I wouldn't be surprised to see a MW3 or Uncharted 3 video review.

Yeah those seem like the Triple A titles should have video reviews.

#10 Posted by Sooty (8082 posts) -

I would prefer to see a round up video that is done every now and then when a bunch of new games come out and it just shows the guys talking about what games they have been playing along with some footage of the games.

But then again that would basically be making the "What've you been playing?" segment of the Bombcast into a video.

#11 Posted by bibamatt (1089 posts) -

I LOVE the Giant Bomb video reviews. I'm a really satisfied user of the site and love the content but if I could ask for ONE thing, it'd be more video reviews.

You've all seen the 50 Cent Blood on the Sand video review, right? Best piece of video content Jeff has ever made.

#12 Posted by DeeGee (2140 posts) -

Video reviews are entirely dependent on getting an early copy of the game.

#13 Posted by Branthog (5583 posts) -

I was noticing how long it has been sine we've had a video review, too. I kind of miss it.

#14 Posted by fishmicmuffin (1041 posts) -

On several occasions they've said that it takes too many man hours to do it for just any game. It has to either be a game that a lot of people are looking for coverage on, or... 50 Cent Blood On The Sand.

#15 Posted by Deusx (1910 posts) -

I like video reviews but I appreciate the fact that they don't do them to get more people to see other exclusive Giant Bomb content.

#16 Posted by ImmortalSaiyan (4690 posts) -

I feel like this question gets asked every few months. They seem unnecessary.  The written review, quicklook and what is said on the bombcast are better are telling you about a game better then a Video review would be.

#17 Posted by kelbear (496 posts) -

I think they don't like doing video reviews because it's difficult to organize. The reviewer needs to write the review as they play the game! If they want to say something and show video of it, they need to save nearby it, and duplicate the event (especially annoying if attempting to show gamebreaking but inconsistent bugs). They haven't even formed a complete opinion, but need to save up spots for the video review. Then they need to get out the recording equipment, and play through each of those sequences again to match the completed review notes. Kind of a pain in the ass. Might not be as bad for a big site like Gametrailers where the reviewers must have their own individual sets of recording equipment and just editing down later. But it's a bit much for a small site like GB. 

#18 Posted by Marokai (3060 posts) -

Video reviews only seem like they're done on the huge releases that they think would draw in an audience to the video. So I suspect they'll have one for MW3, BF3, perhaps Skyrim as well. ME3 for sure, early next year. Other than that, they never seem to do them anymore.

#19 Posted by Masha2932 (1242 posts) -
@ImmortalSaiyan said:
I feel like this question gets asked every few months. They seem unnecessary.  The written review, quicklook and what is said on the bombcast are better are telling you about a game better then a Video review would be.
#20 Posted by MooseyMcMan (11290 posts) -
@Masha2932 said:
@ImmortalSaiyan said:
I feel like this question gets asked every few months. They seem unnecessary.  The written review, quicklook and what is said on the bombcast are better are telling you about a game better then a Video review would be.
Moderator Online
#21 Posted by kingzetta (4307 posts) -

their a waste of vinny's time

#22 Posted by ShockD (2409 posts) -

I miss them too. Definitely want some more video reviews.

#23 Posted by FateOfNever (1848 posts) -

This question again? Hmm.. lets see.. why, in the middle of summer, when jack shit came out, would they not have any video reviews.. Maybe they're just not doing them anymore, I dunno.

#24 Posted by SoldierG654342 (1783 posts) -

Video reviews are very time consuming. First they have to write the review. Then they have to comb threw potentially tens and potentially hundreds of save files for the footage they want. Then they have to rehearse the review and film the review. Then the review has to be edited so you get all that footage and all those fancy effects. All to convey the same information that is given in the written review.   
 
That time is best spent elsewhere. 

#25 Posted by Mars_Cleric (1595 posts) -

every other site does video reviews

I guess they'd do one if there's something that's easier to say in a video than it is in text

#26 Posted by StaticFalconar (4849 posts) -

learn to read bro

#27 Posted by ajamafalous (12029 posts) -

I just looked at this yesterday. There have been 4 video reviews this entire year. Pretty ridiculous.

#28 Posted by arch4non (443 posts) -

I think video reviews are kinda outdated. They either don't show enough gameplay or they don't get enough information across in the review itself. Quick Looks paired with written reviews are the way to go. You can glance at the star rating to see if a game is even worth considering, check out a Quick Look to see what it's like, and if you're still on the fence read the full written review to learn about all its flaws/features.

#29 Posted by Simmse (135 posts) -

Just look at the older video reviews, their are big gaps between most of them. 
Hunting through an entire game for a couple minutes of footage for a review that already exists in written form is basically fucking pointless because quick looks exist.

#30 Posted by subyman (646 posts) -

Written review is fine with me. Quicklooks give you a taste of the gameplay before they give their final word via written review. There really isn't a need for 3 different forms of review.

#31 Posted by Brendan (7837 posts) -

Video reviews don't seem like a good use of time. I'll watch them, sure, but I don't miss them, and I don't feel like there is anything about a game that I am not getting by not having a video review.

#32 Posted by CounterShock (420 posts) -

Isn't it just for relatively large releases? Which there really hasn't been since LA Noire, unless you want to argue for Deus Ex.

#33 Edited by falling_fast (2243 posts) -

I remember Vinny said in a video that video reviews are incredibly time consuming, and that they'd be cutting way back on them in favour of more quick looks.

which seems fair enough to me. video reviews in the giantbomb/gamespot format have always been basically shorter versions of the written reviews anyway, so we're not losing anything.

#34 Posted by DystopiaX (5334 posts) -

They take alot of time and often they just read the written review on camera. I'd rather they put out other video content.

#35 Edited by Siphillis (1296 posts) -

A 30-minute quicklook, a Bombcast discussion, and a written review are more than enough to make an informed purchasing decision.  That said, their video reviews are a cut above anyone else.