Reviews: Can Giant Bomb Live Without Them?

@JasonR86 said:

@xbob42 said:

@JasonR86 said:

No. No matter what the forums say, reviews are a big part of GB. It is one of the cornerstones and a huge part of the editors' job.

Are they? Is that why we almost never see any?

There have been fewer lately because of the transition. Plus it is the summer and fewer games of note are out right now.

At most, during the busiest time of the year, we'll see 2, MAYBE 3 reviews in any given week. Hardly what I'd consider a cornerstone. It's just old-hat tradition.

@Milkman said:

They could, sure. But they probably shouldn't.

@xbob42 said:

@JasonR86 said:

@xbob42 said:

@JasonR86 said:

No. No matter what the forums say, reviews are a big part of GB. It is one of the cornerstones and a huge part of the editors' job.

Are they? Is that why we almost never see any?

There have been fewer lately because of the transition. Plus it is the summer and fewer games of note are out right now.

At most, during the busiest time of the year, we'll see 2, MAYBE 3 reviews in any given week. Hardly what I'd consider a cornerstone. It's just old-hat tradition.

Tradition is a cornerstone for these guys. Reviews are what they do.

@xbob42 said:

On second thought, I'd actually watch video reviews if they were more long-form. Trying to condense a review --that is, a judgment on an hours-long product-- into a 2-3 minute segment is just a really, really bad idea in my opinion. I want a video review to be longer, more informative. I want it to be like the written review but with lots of footage and examples of gameplay rather than 2-3 second clips that match up to "OH AND SOMETIMES IT'S BUGGY."

That just doesn't jive with me.

I would agree with you, but making video reviews takes a HUGE chunk of time. They would need to hire more staff to produce video reviews on a consistent bases.

I personally don't read/watch the reviews, but I think the function of reviews as a way for the GB crew to critique/rate games (of their choosing) after having completed/sat down with them for some time is important.

If we had nothing but Quick Looks (which I love, adore, and never decry the GB crew if they run too long -- loved the Tera QL), we might run into a situation where GB may not be as fair to a game as they otherwise should be. No one can fully appreciate a game's merits after one Quick Look session, and I still would like to see the GB crew's final thoughts on a game after they have faithfully 'completed' it. Maybe the format could be changed up a bit, in a way that suits GB and its community, but the primitive function of a review has to remain IMO.

@SSully said:

@xbob42 said:

On second thought, I'd actually watch video reviews if they were more long-form. Trying to condense a review --that is, a judgment on an hours-long product-- into a 2-3 minute segment is just a really, really bad idea in my opinion. I want a video review to be longer, more informative. I want it to be like the written review but with lots of footage and examples of gameplay rather than 2-3 second clips that match up to "OH AND SOMETIMES IT'S BUGGY."

That just doesn't jive with me.

I would agree with you, but making video reviews takes a HUGE chunk of time. They would need to hire more staff to produce video reviews on a consistent bases.

...And since they're now part of a megacorporation, that sounds like a fine idea to me.

I could but I'd prefer that they'd keep them.

I dunno. I like reviews. They can be an easy and quick way to get an impression of a game as a whole. I mean, Quick Looks are the main meat of GB, but usually they just go into a game without having played it, or at most an hour or two. That's great for seeing what that part of the game is, but it's not the whole thing. And I know they talk about stuff on the Bomb Cast, but I like reviews.

I don't read reviews, but before we toss them out, lets think about the place they fill: They are long(ish) written articles that can be read without having played the game. They are in depth and more critical than previews and Quicklooks. They also don't require first hand experience with the game the way a postmortem or other "games criticism" piece would need.

Remember that Fez Quicklook? Jeff was very cool towards it, but that is the nature of Quicklooks, they haven't played through the whole game at that point.

You know what I liked? Rorie's piece on Dark Souls. I read it because I curious about that game and I know he had put a lot of time into it, so I trusted his ideas/judgements. It wasn't a review, and it wasn't the navel gazing stuff that Patrick posts. I thought it was solid, well thought out writing that didn't spoil anything, didn't require first hand experience with the game, and didn't force "covering the bases" the way a review does (graphics, sound, level design, value, etc).

I pretty much only watch videos and listen to the podcast, so since they stopped doing video reviews I stopped noticing reviews.

It's weird because Giantbomb has some of the best written reviews out there yet I still rarely ever read them unless I plan on buying the game and am not sure about it.
 
Probably because I don't read a lot of reviews in general and those I do read are for games GB doesn't cover.
 
So yeah,I don't really care. Quickloooks are good enough.

I would prefer more video content and podcasts on games after their release, instead of reviews.

I don't watch the Quick Looks or Listen to the Bombcast and enjoyed the written reviews immensely. I don't want to sit down and watch half an hour of someone else playing a game, I'd rather spend 5 minutes getting an opinion on it.

The Bombcast is good enough for reviews. I don't actually like reading them.

Reviews are outdated. I imagine the only reason they still do any reviews at all is because its expected of them to do so.

I think GB shouldn't bother with reviews. A QL is better then a review for determining if a game will be fun or not.

@Synthballs said:

I don't watch the Quick Looks or Listen to the Bombcast [...]

I don't even know why you would visit the site at this point. ;)

I don;t think Reviews is one of the top reasons people come to Giantbomb so yeah they could do without them, but i do defiantly like to know they're opinion on a select few games so i don't really think they should get rid of them just cuz it isn't the biggest thing about the site, even if i am personally more interested in just listening to them talking about it on the Bombcast and not really one to read reviews unless im really interested in the game in question, there are totally others that will read it and want that, most part perfectly fine just just seeing a Quicklook and forming a opinion on that which is totally a valid way too.

So no i don't think they should cut reviews just because.

I get all of my purchase info from the podcast and Quicklooks.

I never paid any attention to Civ V reviews, but I bought it the day after the entire crew raved about it for half an hour.

But then again, I drop in for the review when the guys seem unsure, or a consensus can't be reached.

Between the Quick Looks and the Bombcasts, I never need to read the reviews. An opinion is almost always available in one of those two forms.

The last giantbomb review I read was the Catherine one to see what all the fuss was about. I just come for the forums and a few videos here and there.

i personally like the reviews, but lets be serious that not why im here.

@Meowshi said:

@Synthballs said:

I don't watch the Quick Looks or Listen to the Bombcast [...]

I don't even know why you would visit the site at this point. ;)

The Community.

Couldn't care less about the other stuff really. Navarro writes some good articles though. So does Patrick.

reviews get traffic.

I like reading the reviews but more quick looks of each game would be better. As long as they finish the game and could discuss it during a podcast, that could replace a review for me.

I read the reviews of the games I'm interested in. I sometimes read multiple reviews of a game I'm not sure of to get different people's perspectives on it. I also watch the quick looks but that's not always enough information. It's usually just a small slice of the game when the guys aren't very familiar with it. I watch them almost purely for entertainment purposes and rarely for purchase advice. Reviews usually give a more detailed analysis of a game and better notify the reader if the entire game is worth your time.

Giantbomb have sold me on countless games thanks to quicklooks (and bombcasts). Reviews not so much.

I'd say reviews are mainly important for website traffic.

I don't care too much about Giantbomb reviews, I usually don't agree with Jeff and Ryan that much. Brad hardly reviews anything ever anymore either. If I want reviews I have to go to other sites all the time anyway, so sure, no GB reviews is fine

Well there five star system really fucks up meta critic if it is less then a five. I guess its fine.

I don't read the reviews here, and I don't mean that as a knock on the site. I'm just not interested in them. I come here for all the quirky video content, forum and wiki.

It would be interesting to see the traffic they get for the different parts of the site. I personally don't read the reviews because the QLs and Bombcast chatter give me a good impression. However I don't believe that automatically makes text reviews redundant. Text is the most efficient way to get an impression out to the public quickly and accurately. With video you add the extra workload of producing and editing video.

A lot of the reviews often feel iterative of the podcast discussions. I often see similar points laid out with a little more exposition where it is necessary. I am generally alright with getting that information from the podcasts. However, it is nice to have a review to go back to when I am thinking about getting less recent games. Also, since Alex is not on the podcasts or Quick Looks, he doesn't have an outlet to express his opinions beyond those reviews. I really enjoy his reviews and hope that they will continue. Overall, I don't think the reviews are necessity, but they are nice to have.

quick looks are good. i enjoy the community forums.

I think Giant Bomb would be a-ok without reviews, but I still enjoy reading them. I do however think that we get enough of their opinions on various videos/podcasts where someone would not need to read the reviews.

They aren't important to established uses but they are important for drawing in new ones.

i never read the reviews i always watch the video reviews and i sometimes but rarely just look at how many stars a game might get even though that will not impact on if im buying it or not.

i just wanna watch and listen to all the stupid stuff they do

I appreciate the work they put in to reviews, but I wouldn't miss them if they stopped doing them completely. I'm sure reviews get more attention from outside sources though, so maybe they're not for us, and are instead for getting more people to visit the site. It's easy to stumble upon a review from metacritic or where-ever, but finding a quick-look in the same way is more difficult.

Brad is a good writer.

Giantbomb reviews games you say... i can't say id notied.

@PatchMaster said:

Are video reviews gone for good? Or has their absence been due to the move?

They're too much effort and the guys don't like them, unfortunately. Although you can just go to GameTrailers for those as they are really of high quality over there.

They might as well not even try though as good video reviews are great but sloppy video reviews are pointless and the crew seems to be more about doing these quick one-offs rather than full fledged production content, with the exception of Game of the Year stuff.

I like their reviews. While they do express their opinions on the games they have been playing in quick looks and the bombcast, I still like to read some official like statement on a game from them.
Also reading Alex's pain in his reviews of crap games.

yes

I don't read any reviews anymore, except for alex's bad game reviews

I rarely look at the actual reviews, in most cases the Quick Looks tell me more than enough. Of course there are the odd game or two where I don't feel the Quick Look tells me enough, and then I'll look at the review, but I could certainly live without them.

I wouldn't miss 'em.

@Phatmac said:

They should keep reviews, but do them dumber. Don't know how they'd do that though.

Le fix.

To me personally it would make sense. I almost never read their reviews anyway and if I do it has nothing to do with deciding whether to buy a game or not, just to see the viewpoint.

On the other hand reviews being gone completely is not a solution, in my opinion they should not be simply removed but rather evolve into a slightly different format. Exactly like Jeff mentioned thinking about during the Jar videos.

A move more towards opinion pieces, or critiques, or disassembly of the games in question. And having input from more then one person would be even better.

I never cared about the reviews. The Quicklooks are better in every way.

Reviews get the least amount of attention from me out of everything on this site. The Quick Looks are far more informative, as is just listening to their thoughts on the Bombcast. The reviews are just kind of superfluous.

to me personally.

Yes, i don't think i line up with them too well when it comes to that.

That and i just judge games on quicklooks and discussions. Reviews have been ignored by me for years.

Yeah I wouldn't miss them much, but I do enjoy reading them.

If I open a game review now, it's purely to read the final paragraph and see the score. I get enough infomation from Quicklooks and podcasts and would honestly rather they spent the time they give the reviewing process on other things.