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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.