• 196 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
#1 Edited by LordXavierBritish (6320 posts) -

I know this is a topic that's been brought up in the past, but I still think it's worth bringing up again.

As someone whose been visiting this site for a very long time, perhaps longer that I'd like to admit at this point, I can say with absolute certainty that I don't give a shit about the reviews GB puts out. It's not that I don't think the staff is up to snuff in terms of writing skill or giving good criticism, it just seems like a lot more honest and relevant things get said in QLs and on the podcast than ever show up in reviews.

I'm sure there are legitimate business reasons for GB to continue to pump out a review now and then to get the odd hit from Metacritic or some other aggregate, but really they add just about 0 value to the site for me as an individual. I can't speak for the rest of the community as a whole, but for as infrequent and random as they are (The four most recent reviews include some Family Guy bull shit and Adventure Time?) I can't say I'm really that excited when a new one gets posted. I mean fuck, I didn't even realize there was a DMC review until like five threads popped up about how many people were bitching about it.

Especially now that Giantbomb is partnered with Gamespot, which already has the whole pumping out reviews no one really gives a shit about department covered, I'd much rather any time or energy put into reviews be put towards the QLs or just some other miscellaneous nonsense instead. Preferably involving cameras and possibly green screen technology.

We already killed video reviews, let's take it the extra mile and go the home stretch.

Thoughts?

#2 Posted by Ravenlight (8040 posts) -

I get way more out of Quick Looks than I do out of reviews. It seems like the Bomb Crew keeps doing reviews because "everybody" knows that's what game sites do.

#3 Posted by Chrjz (321 posts) -

While I don't really care for reviews... They do add value to the site to the point where it would probably do more harm than good to get rid of them. That, and I'm pretty sure Jeff has said reviews are here to stay.

#4 Posted by Subjugation (4718 posts) -

I mainly care about Quick Looks to be honest. I understand that reviews drive traffic though, so perhaps that's why they still do them.

#5 Posted by Akeldama (4238 posts) -

Reviews are still important. The way reviews are done and consumed by the readers should be revamped and scrutinized some. Video reviews were made obsolete through the advent of what the QLs became. The written review will always be a valued component to games journalism and criticism.

#6 Posted by kalibr (120 posts) -

Keeping reviews and getting rid of scores would be cool for me. Video reviews are nice too but it doesnt look like there are gonna be any more of those.

#7 Posted by ZeForgotten (10397 posts) -

I wouldn't care no, but people using google to just look up a review for a game might. 
Bigger picture, and all that

#8 Posted by iceman228433 (583 posts) -

HELL NO get rid of them, who needs em from Giant Bomb it's not why I go to this site.

#9 Posted by granderojo (1778 posts) -

If we get more quicklook but lose reviews, I'm down. But only then.

#10 Posted by RecSpec (3764 posts) -

Even though they don't do them much, I like the reviews of GB a hell of a lot more than other reviews out there. A review is how a person feels about a game, so saying "Gamespot reviews everything." doesn't mean anything because I don't care about their point of view. Also, for a specific game, I prefer a review over talk on the Bombcast or a quick look.

#11 Edited by KaneRobot (1421 posts) -

Yes I would care. Quite a bit.

Quick Looks are fun and at least most of the time informative, but they are not always representative of what the game actually is (see: Fez). Reviews are pretty much the only reason I still take this site seriously - without them, it's just a bunch of goofy videos. I know there have been some attempts to try to bring "serious journalism" in here and there but that has been really hit and miss with me. I value reviews here more than pretty much every other site because I have some familiarity with the reviewers themselves, which makes reviews much more worthwhile to me when it comes to interpreting their score & what they have to say about the game. I know other sites review everything, but I don't get a damn about what Joe Nobody at IGN or Gamespot or whoever has to say about a game. I may as well ask a total stranger at a Gamestop what they think of something, since I don't know anything about their tendencies and likes/dislikes either.

Nothing wrong with goofy videos, but it's easy to forget most of these guys have been covering games for over a decade now, it would be a total waste to not have reviews.

I also miss the occasional video reviews, but I guess that ship has sailed.

tl;dr summary: If you want reviews to go away, FUCK YOU, FACIST

#12 Posted by IIGrayFoxII (303 posts) -

I think the traffic alone on the Devil May Cry review would say otherwise. Reviews provide clicks and I think are an excellent forum for the staff to get their thoughts about a game that isn't in a discussion on the Bombcast or trying to get them across while playing in a Quicklook.

I know we don't care, but they do get on metacritic (as you said), which also gives the site more publicity.

If the staff does not enjoy writing them anymore, than they should go. Just because your not getting the enjoyment out of them, does not mean others are not.

#13 Posted by SaFt (379 posts) -

I'd say get rid of them. Quick Looks is where it's at.

#14 Posted by mwng (921 posts) -

THINK OF THE BOX QUOTES!!

#15 Posted by Mesoian (1572 posts) -

I wouldn't mind...but I like seeing them.

I would almost prefer if it they just ditched their points system and did something similar to (shock) what Kotaku was doing a few years ago before they went back to their numbered review system, and just gave the pluses and minuses about each game after a detailed write up. Numbers obscure things in such a dumb way.

#16 Posted by Branthog (7342 posts) -

Of course, I would care. A Quick Look only gives you a 30-60 minute snip at the beginning of the game. I'd like to know the thoughts and context of an entire game from someone who has played it and whose style and taste I've come to know.

#17 Posted by ImmortalSaiyan (4676 posts) -

Not really. I much prefer listening to the crew talk about a game on the podcast or a quick look than reading a review.

#18 Posted by CheapPoison (724 posts) -

IT would not effect my in the slightest. Most thoughts are made verbal in the quicklooks or bombcast anyways. Although i guess a written review is a faster way for some people to get access to that information. But i rather judge for myself.

#19 Posted by LordXavierBritish (6320 posts) -

@KaneRobot said:

Yes I would care. Quite a bit.

Quick Looks are fun and at least most of the time informative, but they are not always representative of what the game actually is (see: Fez). Reviews are pretty much the only reason I still take this site seriously - without them, it's just a bunch of goofy videos. I know there have been some attempts to try to bring "serious journalism" in here and there but that has been really hit and miss with me. I value reviews here more than pretty much every other site because I have some familiarity with the reviewers themselves, which makes reviews much more worthwhile to me when it comes to interpreting their score & what they have to say about the game.

Nothing wrong with goofy videos, but it's easy to forget most of these guys have been covering games for over a decade now, it would be a total waste to not have reviews.

I also miss the occasional video reviews, but I guess that ship has sailed.

I would accept this as a valid argument were it the Bombcast did not exist.

If we are to take the site as a whole, which would include the Bombcast, and not just the Quicklooks into account than that line of thinking really starts to fall apart. Even your example, Fez, had much more interesting discussion take place on the Bombcast than in the review. The benefit of this is also that multiple persons are involved in Bombcast discussions where as the review is a single writer allowing for a much more varied and dynamic discussion of the game.

#20 Edited by CaLe (3911 posts) -

They should just give stars without any explanation. Flip the whole 'remove scores from reviews' thing on its head and only give scores.

#21 Posted by JoeyRavn (4949 posts) -

@Mesoian said:

I wouldn't mind...but I like seeing them.

I would almost prefer if it they just ditched their points system and did something similar to (shock) what Kotaku was doing a few years ago before they went back to their numbered review system, and just gave the pluses and minuses about each game after a detailed write up. Numbers obscure things in such a dumb way.

I agree with this. I get why the point system is so useful and, when used correctly, can be a great indicator of the quality of a game. But it's seldom taken in the correct way by the audience, and it yields more headaches than anything positive. Maybe the answer is not to get rid of the five-point scale altogether, but a compromise between a it and the total absence of punctuation. If that utopia could be reached, I would be happy.

#22 Posted by LordXavierBritish (6320 posts) -

@CaLe said:

They should just give stars without any explanation. Flip the whole 'remove scores from reviews' thing on its head and only give scores.

This is also acceptable.

#23 Edited by Slag (4016 posts) -

Yeah I would

as much as I love Quick Looks I don't have thirty minutes to spend on every game out there to see what the general opinion is.

That being said I'm not sure reviews have to stay the same as they are now. I Jeff has hinted at a major overhaul of the concept of reviewing games. Don't know if that's still coming or not.

#24 Edited by Grissefar (2842 posts) -

Don't give a shit about their reviews. I get everything I need from bombcast and sometimes quick looks, which also give me more than one perspective usually.

#25 Posted by Ghostiet (5226 posts) -

I would. However, if you threw the star system out of the fucking window and replaced it with a "buy/rent/skip" one, I'd be all for it.

#26 Posted by Colourful_Hippie (4330 posts) -

Yes even though I mostly come here for everything else.

#27 Posted by Petiew (1332 posts) -

I've stopped watching Quick Looks, or only watch a portion of them. They're too long, often filled with misinformation and consist of the whoever is playing not reading, dying a lot or complaining about something they should know.
If I want to see how a game plays I can head off to Youtube and watch some higher skilled stuff.
The reviews are a bit more substantial and summarise pros and cons of the game. I'd rather read a quick informed opinion than see them fumble through a painful 35 minute quick look and try to pick out information. Qls only really serve as entertainment, and IMO they're not even very funny anymore.

#28 Posted by pyromagnestir (4247 posts) -
@LordXavierBritish

@CaLe said:

They should just give stars without any explanation. Flip the whole 'remove scores from reviews' thing on its head and only give scores.

This is also acceptable.

If they pick scores by rolling a die all the better. Devil May Cry? 6 stars!
#29 Edited by kgb0515 (411 posts) -

Mmmmm...I don't know. Some of the quick looks get pretty long, whereas a review takes me around 5 minutes to read at most. There are some quick looks that I won't watch depending on what staff members are in them for that matter. For example, I don't care much for Patrick's quick looks, but I don't mind his writing style at all so I enjoy his reviews. I just don't care for his on camera personality. I'm not a premium member though, so that might have something to do with how I view GB's video content since I don't have access to things like Jar Time, etc.

#30 Posted by Animasta (14648 posts) -

@Ghostiet said:

I would. However, if you threw the star system out of the fucking window and replaced it with a "buy/rent/skip" one, I'd be all for it.

honestly, it'd probably be better as a buy/buy cheap/rent/skip system now

#31 Posted by Ubersmake (754 posts) -

@LordXavierBritish said:

@KaneRobot said:

Yes I would care. Quite a bit.

Quick Looks are fun and at least most of the time informative, but they are not always representative of what the game actually is (see: Fez). Reviews are pretty much the only reason I still take this site seriously - without them, it's just a bunch of goofy videos. I know there have been some attempts to try to bring "serious journalism" in here and there but that has been really hit and miss with me. I value reviews here more than pretty much every other site because I have some familiarity with the reviewers themselves, which makes reviews much more worthwhile to me when it comes to interpreting their score & what they have to say about the game.

Nothing wrong with goofy videos, but it's easy to forget most of these guys have been covering games for over a decade now, it would be a total waste to not have reviews.

I also miss the occasional video reviews, but I guess that ship has sailed.

I would accept this as a valid argument were it the Bombcast did not exist.

If we are to take the site as a whole, which would include the Bombcast, and not just the Quicklooks into account than that line of thinking really starts to fall apart. Even your example, Fez, had much more interesting discussion take place on the Bombcast than in the review. The benefit of this is also that multiple persons are involved in Bombcast discussions where as the review is a single writer allowing for a much more varied and dynamic discussion of the game.

I like reviews because they're concise. This is the value I get out of them, and their length (or lack of it) is why I think they need to stay on Giant Bomb. The Bombcast is great, but there's a time investment there, and I've avoided a lot of Bombcasts to avoid spoilers. I'm sure there's a lot of Walking Dead related talk out there, and I've avoided a good amount of the GOTY stuff because I haven't played that game yet, and I still want to. There's a lot of value to be grabbed from the staff's discussions, yes, but they don't serve the same purpose as a review, which is to provide someone's concise judgment on the value of a game.

#32 Edited by Blimble (302 posts) -

A review is just a comment on a game, any thing they put out talking about a game is technically reviewing. Just because they don't put a number up in quick looks doesn't stop that basically being a quick review of the game

As long as GB keeps putting out good content I'm happy

@Animasta said:

@Ghostiet said:

I would. However, if you threw the star system out of the fucking window and replaced it with a "buy/rent/skip" one, I'd be all for it.

honestly, it'd probably be better as a buy/buy cheap/rent/skip system now

I think getting rid of any rating is the best answer. It encourages people to actually read the review instead of just looking at the score and seeing as the system is so arbitrary it real isn't useful.

#33 Posted by The_Laughing_Man (13629 posts) -

More vinny quick looks.

#34 Posted by Kraznor (1578 posts) -

Definitely agree. Back when they did video reviews I got more out of them as they provided a brief summary of what a game's all about, which I still prefer to hour long "quick" looks, but the podcast banter generally provides more valuable insight into how the staff feel about recent games so I could do without proper reviews going forward as well.

#35 Posted by Ghostiet (5226 posts) -
@Animasta said:

@Ghostiet said:

I would. However, if you threw the star system out of the fucking window and replaced it with a "buy/rent/skip" one, I'd be all for it.

honestly, it'd probably be better as a buy/buy cheap/rent/skip system now

Whatever, my point still stands - a system that is as general as humanely possible, untranslatable for Metacritic and protected from people who consider 4 mediocrity.
#36 Posted by Humanity (8815 posts) -

No I wouldn't even notice.

Online
#37 Posted by jdh5153 (1034 posts) -

Nope. I don't read reviews anymore and as far as I'm aware GB only does text reviews which are a waste of time in today's world. So I usually watch Quick Looks and IGN video reviews.

#38 Posted by FunkasaurasRex (847 posts) -

I don't want to live in a world without Alex Navarro reviews.

#39 Posted by Milkman (16531 posts) -

Yes, I would. A lot of times Quick Looks don't show enough to help me decide if I want to spend 60 dollars on a game.

#40 Posted by Video_Game_King (36031 posts) -

I don't think I'm in a position to say.

#41 Posted by SeanFoster (856 posts) -

Nope. I make my buying decisions based off their discussions on the Bombcast or Quick Looks.

#42 Posted by YOU_DIED (702 posts) -

Keep reviews, get rid of review scores.

#43 Posted by SoldierG654342 (1735 posts) -

Not really. I come here for the editorializing.

#44 Posted by Binman88 (3684 posts) -

Not at all. The format feels archaic.

#45 Edited by wjb (1638 posts) -

The only way I would be cool with no reviews is if they stepped their game up with Quick Looks. None of this "I just fooled around with the game 10 minutes before we started" or their inability to answer certain basic questions.

Also, considering reviews take a lot out of certain people's time, there should be more video content than ever before if there weren't reviews. Like, multiple videos on a daily basis.

That won't happen.

#46 Posted by Bane122 (783 posts) -

No. I like reading them but it wouldn't bother me if they stopped.

That said, I understand why they do them and don't actively want them gone.

#47 Posted by SharkEthic (1004 posts) -

@Video_Game_King said:

I don't think I'm in a position to say.

You aren't in a position to say if you would care?

Anyway, I get everything I need to know from Quick Looks. Case in point, Brad gave DmC a 5 out of 5 (maybe you heard?). Never played a DmC game, but that really got my attention. After watching the QL, I couldn't care less about that game.

#48 Posted by wewantsthering (1552 posts) -

I stopped reading their reviews a while ago. There aren't enough of them and they're usually too late. I read it elsewhere before I even notice it being on GB. It's about GB's video content.

#49 Posted by Video_Game_King (36031 posts) -

@SharkEthic:

Correct. I don't play the games Giant Bomb reviews.

#50 Posted by Fredddi43 (318 posts) -

I care about the video content and since they mostly express their feeling of a game in the podcast or other media content, the review is kinda obsolete. I look at the rating, skim over the text and watch the Quick Look. The only important thing about a review, to me at least, is the last paragraph and how many stars it has got.