they actually touch on this thought process bit in like the second pax panel,
how for the endurance run for persona, they said there was no way you can play that JRPG for just 15 mins at a time,
so i bet that thought process applies to quick looks,
quick look is just a name at this point :P
25 mins or less for Sleeping Dogs is madness, might as well be a non-existent look. At the same time a 30 seconds quick look EX with some brain dead developer who is obviously extremely uncomfortable talking to other human beings is like an eternity.
I thought in some video Jeff discussed how he liked that with Giantbomb they could take more extensive looks at games, where as with Gamespot they made them do shorter length content. I could be just making all this up though...
Anyways, I really don't care how long a QL is because they longer it is, the more content I get to watch. Whether that means I have an hour long QL I can watch spread out or shorter ones I can watch in one go, doesn't really matter to me. I enjoy both.
I voted purely on my definition of what is considered "quick." Of course, we all know that quick looks were really short in the beginning, and the format evolved to allow for enough time to show off a general idea of a game. Some games take 15 minutes to explain, some take an hour, and some are just really long for the hell of it like those simulator videos we all love so much.
Also remember that none of these videos are scripted or planned in great detail, so lengths vary depending on the staff's interest in how much of the game they wish to cover.
Where's the thread that guy made with all of the Quick Look stats, and the average QL length per year, and everything?
I think it would be interesting to also break down Quick Look length by staff member. I think Vinny and Brad can easily be goaded into continuing a Quick Look, while Ryan often ends them a little earlier than other staff (sometimes seemingly because he reaches a point he can't get past, so he just calls it). I feel like Jeff is probably the best at showing off a game enough that you get the idea without overstaying his welcome.
It's just a name used for brand recognition. Quick Look now isn't really meant to be taken as a literal thing any more. When you see the word Quick Look before something you know it's just mostly unedited footage of Giant Bomb guys playing a chuck of a video game, doesn't really matter how long it is. Personally I prefer the 45 minute long videos to the shorter ones, it gives me a much better idea if I would like the game way more than any other way of viewing it would.
Depends on game length. The "quick look" denotes a certain style of video, but only implies that it is not attempting to hit the full breadth of whatever game it is. You could probably do a 4 hr quick look of world of warcraft and still technically be under those limitations.
Depends on how entertaining the Quick Look is. An hour of Vinny playing Sleeping Dogs will fly by, 20 minutes of someone fumbling with a game that they don't understand and "explaining" it anyway isn't much fun to watch nor is it useful after the fact.