Overlong reviews

I love this site, I really love those guys (and would date them if I was a girl), but I sometimes struggle to read the staff's reviews. They're very well written, each of the four has a distinct and engaging style and I don't want to come off as if I'm hating on Giant Bomb in any way, but the reviews are all so damned long that I simply stop reading halfway through. I can read a fifteen page article on the objectification of females in gaming on Gamasutra or whatever, but sometimes I feel the GB reviews are just far too long and wandering to properly read.

I hate internet users with short attention spans as much as the next man, but honestly can't blame someone for starting to avoid reading the game reviews on here. Jeff's Fallout 3 review was over 2,000 words. That's insanity! Half the reason is the in depth descriptions, which would be understandable were it a magazine where inserts of info could be used, but the game has a damned wiki page right next to it, why do we need this level of detail? It adds virtually nothing to the appraisal of the game, something which, when I'm writing a review, do my best to avoid. Alright, point out negatives with the game if you want, but don't give us an enormous and irrelevant history lesson that, if we're reading this site, shouldn't need to be given. A good example is the SSFIITHDR review, when in the second paragraph he rattles on:

"HD Remix is, as the name implies, an updated version of Super Street Fighter II Turbo. Super Turbo was the last in the Street Fighter II line, and it's a game that built upon (and repaired) a lot of the changes made in the previous game, Super Street Fighter II. Super and Super Turbo essentially rebuilt the Street Fighter II experience with new moves, new characters, and newer, more powerful hardware underneath the hood. Some of the changes were positive, but there was definitely a downside, too. A new announcer and a lot of new character voices appeared here, and some of them were downright awful. Also, the CPU opponent got way more difficult, to the point where you could only really enjoy the game if you were playing with a similarly skilled human opponent. On top of all that, the Street Fighter II series had already been around for three years by the time Super Turbo was released. I don't know what you were doing in 1994, but I was sort of done with Street Fighter II and getting into other fighting games, so I never really gave Super Turbo much thought."

Even Jeff himself recognises this, and backtracks with: "OK, that's probably a bit more history than you actually require." This would be fine were it an isolated case, but it appears in most reviews on the site. Now, I'm not trying to say I'm a better writer than the GB guys - they're superb blokes and have done a mark up job on this website, which is probably my number one resource for gaming stuff at the moment - I just can't abide the way they review games here. It's more of a pet peeve to be honest, I know a lot of you will like that specific way of reviewing and I realise this post will get negged into oblivion, but that's just my two pennies. If you're going to reply, please make it constructive and don't just call me a super douche without thinking about it. I also acknowledge the point of "GTFO if you don't like it"/"don't read the reviews then", so don't waste your breath. Cheers if you made it this far into my hypocritically overlong post ;)

[Congrats J-Man, R-Dog, B-Rad and... Vinny on your excellent website, I love you all very much, so please don't take this as an insult if you see this.]

Descriptive sentences are pretty much required to me, the more they talk about the more it help decides if I want the game. Are IGN's reviews not longer? They usually have 2 pages, but are split up by pictures, ads, and a larger side-bar so I am not sure. To be honest, I haven't been reading reviews lately as much as I am akin to watching video reviews. Jeff, unlike many other reviewers, seems to fill in the bulk of his review with real "meat" to the review, rather than filler.

"Descriptive sentences are pretty much required to me, the more they talk about the more it help decides if I want the game. Are IGN's reviews not longer? They usually have 2 pages, but are split up by pictures, ads, and a larger side-bar so I am not sure. To be honest, I haven't been reading reviews lately as much as I am akin to watching video reviews. Jeff, unlike many other reviewers, seems to fill in the bulk of his review with real "meat" to the review, rather than filler."

I personally think the reviews are a great length, and shorter than most sites. Although you bring up a great point in that there is no need to describe the premise of the game, because, like you said, there is a wiki page right next to it. That point really made me think. Good point, well made.

Video reviews are your friend.

I adore long long reviews  ........... sue me :D

Dude, the reviews here are medium-length to even short at times. I don't mind a 2 or 3 page review when it's written well. I prefer it.

Im okay with Giantbomb reviews. There a good length to me but i can't stand IGN's reviews. I don't want to sit down and read 7 pages.

I don't read reviews, so they can write them however they want.

I would hazard that it's more of a precaution to the fact that most people probably will not look at said wiki page. And since the guys are trying to give us all as complete a review as possible when they write it serves to set the tone of whichever game they might be reviewing.

I agree that it can be a bit tedious but in many cases when I'm reading any article, not just on GB I tend to skip over what I think is irrelevant or extraneous, e.g.: "Dr. Michael P. Michaelson professor at MIT, author, Video Games will Destroy Us All, PhD, EdD, winner Cadbury author of the year, two time Nobel laureate, says, 'Video games are bad.'" Also the aforementioned selection of text from the SF2THDR but, eh, I can live with it, as long as I continue to get great reviews by genuine people.

On a side note, I had the same problem Jeff did in Fallout 3 with the autosave thing although it is quite easily solved by taking a gander into the gameplay settings :)

Jeff's Fallout 3 review was over 2,000 words. That's insanity! Half the reason is the in depth descriptions, which would be understandable were it a magazine where inserts of info could be used, but the game has a damned wiki page right next to it, why do we need this level of detail? It adds virtually nothing to the appraisal of the game, something which, when I'm writing a review, do my best to avoid.

I think that Giant Bomb's review lengths are fine, pretty much perfect for me.  Some of the smaller games have really short reviews, while even the biggest reviews aren't that long.  At least it isn't as bad as something like IGN, which can be way too long overall. So, yeah I agree with BWOODUHS.

IGN's reviews have become nonsense since they lost David Smith and David Zyrd.  It's just a bunch of snarky fanboi ramblings these days w/ sloppy writing and shout outs.  IGN has become the Myspace of gaming, a bunch of nonsense, ads, rants and corporate cock sucking while mugging for the webcame.