Video Reviews -

So, what is up with Video Reviews? It's been 4 & 1/2 months since the last one, which was for Skyward Sword. Have they given up on doing those? Was it an active decision on their part or was one of those "yeah, I guess we stopped making them" things? I believe no one said that they were going to stop making video reviews.

Also, would you be fine with no more Video Reviews on the site? Or do you feel like Giant Bomb would be lacking if there weren't any Video Reviews?

In general, I find the combination of a Quick Look and a review just fine. A video review is redundant when there's a more detailed review I can read, and the Quick Look shows off a chunk of actual gameplay where words might not perfectly convey.

They usually refrain unless a video game is worth the effort. And since for about a month or so things have been a bit up in the air I'm sure they haven't had the time or the means. I'm sure they will return.

So, what is up with Video Reviews? It's been 4 & 1/2 months since the last one, which was for Skyward Sword. Have they given up on doing those? Was it an active decision on their part or was one of those "yeah, I guess we stopped making them" things? I believe no one said that they were going to stop making video reviews.

Also, would you be fine with no more Video Reviews on the site? Or do you feel like Giant Bomb would be lacking if there weren't any Video Reviews?

Why does someone always make a thread about this when there's a lull in video reviews?

I think in the most recent Whiskey Media Radio Show/Radio Dave they spend a lot of time talking how much work has to go into making video reviews. Apparently in the past (as in Whiskey Media days) they didn't have a lot of capture units so getting gamepaly footage from a game would tie up the whole office for capturing. They also complained how it's tough getting all the footage for the appropriate parts of the review and they'd often be stuck hours ahead or hours prior to the point they had to record.

Long story shrt: it's a lot of work; they don't like doing them

I hope they start doing them though because I prefer them to text. Say what you will about GameTrailers but they have excellent video reviews. Go watch the Ninja Gaiden one - it's amazingly well put together, inormative and funny at that.

They have a huge production overhead so they only do them for big games. There have not been many big releases since xmas, combined with the move I would say they are a very low priority.

If you can not tell what they think about a game with the QL, bombcast and written review then I am not sure how you think a video review will help you make up your mind.

Quick Looks >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>video review

@MooseyMcMan said:

Why does someone always make a thread about this when there's a lull in video reviews?

You kinda answered your own question. It would probably come up less if there was a more consistent distribution of video reviews.

@The_Laughing_Man: Like Mass Effect 3?

@MooseyMcMan: I didn't know this was a common theme.

I mean, if GB did less video, a video review would make more sense. But the crew writes well enough and does enough coverage with their QLs and whatnot that it doesn't often make sense to do a video review.

Plus, videos reviews take a ton more time and production to make than a text review supplemented by images. So there's that.

Why does someone always make a thread about this when there's a lull in video reviews?

Im fine without video reviews. More quick looks please!

I'd much rather them spend more time on quick looks and other features than spending their time scouring through a game to get appropriate clips of game play for a video review.

They should just drop reviews/video reviews and focus on Quicklooks and original content.

@Winternet said:

@MooseyMcMan: I didn't know this was a common theme.

Yeah, it actually is pretty common.

I also think people should give the staff some time to make a full transition into their new office space. They've been dealing with crap behind the scenes for the last few months.

I'm fine with Quick Looks + text reviews. I'd rather they spend that effort on covering more games that could actually use the exposure.

@rebgav said:

@Winternet said:

Also, would you be fine with no more Video Reviews on the site? Or do you feel like Giant Bomb would be lacking if there weren't any Video Reviews?

Video reviews are pretty pointless. Quick Looks give you a better look at the gameplay and the written review is better at expressing whatever the reviewer wants to say about the game. When you can put out long-form video content at will, video summaries of reviews stop making sense.

That said, I think there a lot of people that don't bother to read the review, but are willing to watch a 5 minute video. Also, youtube.

Quick Looks and video reviews can often be very different things despite this whole 'just gimme more QL's duder' attitude. Very often they do QL before they finish the game or sometimes before they even get very far into it.

I consider QL more like First Impressions and then the Review is the full deal.

Also instead of going back to capture footage they should just always record while they're in the process of playing the games.

@Sackmanjones said:

Quick Looks >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>video review

I don't agree. Especially when it's Brad toying with a game he's clearly never played before and dies over and over on a very stupid obstacle.

@rebgav said:

If someone isn't interested enough to read the text of a review then they don't really care about the game

Do you actually believe that the majority of people that look for a review in the internet read the actual review instead of just looking at the score?

Also, the more the review is out there the better, right? If someone is looking for a review is either because they check the website regularly or they found it through search. I don't think Giant Bomb is up there on the google search results. So putting the review in video and on youtube is another way to get people to "consume" the review.

Quick Looks pretty much replaced video reviews.

@rebgav said:

@Humanity said:

Also instead of going back to capture footage they should just always record while they're in the process of playing the games.

That would be prohibitively expensive. It also wouldn't solve the problem, just create the new problem of someone having to scrub through hours and hours of video looking for useful footage.

I don't see how it would be expensive at all. I've done it - you don't need dozens of data racks or anything - and with proper labeling it's very easy to find exactly what you want. You turn on the capture equipment and start playing, then when you're done you turn it off and label the file Chapter 1 Part1. I understand how that might be a hassle for people just playing games on an every day basis - but when it's your job then I think it's not too far stretched to assume you should put in that extra effort.

They've already said they are really complicated to make so they only do them for major releases. A lot of the reason for that being they are incredibly time consuming.

@rebgav said:

GB is the second google result for "Sine Mora review," third for Ridge Racer, ninth for Ninja Gaiden 3, so they're doing okay in that respect.

.

I searched for Mass Effect 3 review and it was on the 4th page. Whatever, that's not the point. I think Video Review just help to get more interest in the review. Also it's always interesting to watch them.

@AndrewB said:

In general, I find the combination of a Quick Look and a review just fine. A video review is redundant when there's a more detailed review I can read, and the Quick Look shows off a chunk of actual gameplay where words might not perfectly convey.

Pretty much that. Quick Looks are just better than video reviews in every conceivable way.

I don't consider video reviews redundant.

Quick Looks are not really a great way to understand the game as a whole - a lot of times they flat out have no idea what they're doing. I would say QLs are decidedly more about entertainment than information.

What I really like about video reviews is that they're a nicely-presented summary of a game's pros and cons, with added game footage to reinforce their opinions. Then, of course, there's the added bonus of the reviewer's tone of voice and body language.

While I've enjoyed alot of the past video reviews, I find them useless, factoring in all the other content that's offered as part the coverage of a specific game. We already get a three-tiered catalogue of coverage -- the podcast (they most of the time follow up on a week after the review), quick look, and a written piece. Unless you want to see the guys in motion, the video reviews aren't anything but a distillation of the written text, slightly altered just to have it appear "conversational" on camera. Between everything else this website stands for and speaks to, a scripted video review runs counter to just about anything you could think of about Giant Bomb -- the naturalism with which they approach games is what's distinct about their coverage. I'd rather have them goofing out in those Year End features they put together last year.

I'm fine with the quick look + written review combo. it's nice when they do them but I certainly don't miss them when they don't do them.

@rebgav said:

@Humanity said:

@rebgav said:

@Humanity said:

Also instead of going back to capture footage they should just always record while they're in the process of playing the games.

That would be prohibitively expensive. It also wouldn't solve the problem, just create the new problem of someone having to scrub through hours and hours of video looking for useful footage.

I don't see how it would be expensive at all. I've done it - you don't need dozens of data racks or anything - and with proper labeling it's very easy to find exactly what you want. You turn on the capture equipment and start playing, then when you're done you turn it off and label the file Chapter 1 Part1. I understand how that might be a hassle for people just playing games on an every day basis - but when it's your job then I think it's not too far stretched to assume you should put in that extra effort.

That's great for capturing story beats or boss fights but what if you just know you have a dozen examples of the camera bugging out and you want to include them in the review footage? Should they notate and time-stamp everything that happens during a session just in case they want the footage later, or should they rely on memory?

Notating with time-stamps sounds like a great system. Are you saying jotting down a time while playing a game is too much work for the guys?

I'd like Video Reviews but only if they're done right. If it's just Jeff or Ryan on the green screen with random footage playing in the background, then I'd agree in saying don't bother I'll just read the written review.

Video reviews are just way more powerful than just the written review because the author is able to illustrate his points about the game in realtime.

The same reason I love Video Reviews is the same reason I love proper I Love Mondays. Well done pieces of video content that has helped amplify and showcase GB's unique personality. Vinny and Drew don't get enough credit when it comes to all the fantastic video content they've edited and put hours into. It stands way above most of the crap that every other video game website has put out. Seriously, what these two have done over the last few years is half the reason Giantbomb is so successful today.

A lot of the forum threads questioning the lack of video content is born out of the love for them. I just hope with the CBS merger there can be more of what makes Giantbomb so great, the videos

@rebgav: While I don't know for sure how they capture their footage a "capture rig" is just a computer with a capture card, internal or external, thats hooked up to a console. You literally start up the software program and press Record - it's not a WWII submarine with pressure valves and levers.

Do you know exactly how each person at GB writes their reviews? I know Jeff mentioned in some videos that he generally doesn't take notes but there are times when he will write things down. Maybe Brad or Ryan actually do annotate their time with the game.

Also I agree, quality content does inherently take longer to produce.

Think that the written reviews have more info to them than the video review, also looking back they always tend to have more written reviews. Also as they are still getting things set up, there's probably going to be a delay on any videos using more of the green screen or other tech beyond just pointing a camera at someone in the office. I'd much rather have a 20-40 minute quick look from giant bomb than a 5 minute video review as the video reviews tend to be all over the place but the quick looks are quite unique to Giant Bomb.

The last game to come out in a while that deserved one was what, Mass Effect 3? Don't know if you noticed but they were a little busy around the time of that games release.

@Winternet: While I don't disagree with you (I actually really like the video reviews), they've said before that they're a laborious process with very little payoff. They've stated before (though I'd be hard-pressed to find a source for it) that looking at the views for their videos, the video reviews don't generally get as much as say, a quick look or their review page hits.

So they'd essentially be putting in more work and going through a troublesome process with little payoff.

That's their rationale at least, I'd love to see some more frankly, but I can understand why the crew doesn't do them that often.

I didn't care for video reviews unless they specifically talk about something that would help with some visual accompaniment, like when Jeff reviewed Medal of Honor and he was on about the enemy you cannot kill giving the smoke sign to warn other enemies. But that was also in the QL.

More video reviews would be nice, but I don't miss them. I'm sure it takes time editing footage, and also conveying feelings without ripping straight from the review. Some websites just have the people read their written review word for word.

I generally viewed video reviews as goofy entertainment, as opposed to actually being an important element of my decision as to whether a game was worth my time or not.

I'd be fine if they never returned. I do sometimes think it would be nice for them to double up on quick looks with a short one after they actually finish a game to give a more final opinion, but then the times they do have a quick look after they've finished a game they either wind up saying or doing so little for fear of spoilers or they bounce around from one sequence to another going "hey here's a cool part." and those are the worst quick looks, I think.

Video reviews probably aren't high on the priority list (for good reason), and there haven't been many HUGE releases as of late so......that's probably why.