• 92 results
  • 1
  • 2
Posted by Donovas1 (9 posts) 7 months, 21 days ago

Poll: Would you like to see video reviews on Giantbomb? (454 votes)

Yes 37%
No 62%

Would you guys like to see the Giantbomb team make video reviews again? The last video review was for Legend of Zelda Skyward Sword in November 2011. I really enjoy watching video reviews and am not sure why they stopped making them.

I would like to see video reviews in addition to the written review.

#1 Edited by Turambar (6849 posts) -

Nah, quick looks fill that spot well enough.

#2 Posted by Yummylee (22297 posts) -

Yes, I would. But it's never going to happen, and I've (mostly) made peace with that.

#3 Posted by Video_Game_King (36272 posts) -

They tend to be high-effort low-payout ventures, so.....not really?

#4 Edited by Steadying (1426 posts) -

I mean, sure, why wouldn't I wanna see more video content on the site? It's not gonna happen again, though, and I'm fine with that.

Online
#5 Edited by Sterling (2615 posts) -

Nope. I'm actually glad they don't do video reviews.

On a side note. I also get really frustrated when trying to find something about a game. Like a quick little bit of info for an area, like where to get a certain item or something like that. And all I can find are videos about it. It really drives me bonkers. I would rather just read a quick little bit of text than sit through someones bullshit 5 minute video.

#6 Posted by Donovas1 (9 posts) -

@turambar: quicklooks are great (and the reason why I found this site) but they can be in excess of 1 hour, not everyone has that much time. Anyway I think video reviews would be great and just like to see what the communities opinion on the matter is.

#7 Posted by Alyssia (340 posts) -

Millions of reviews already. I don't like reviews because I like to form my own opinion first before reading them most of the time.

#8 Posted by Broomhitches (173 posts) -

That seems like a waste of time to have both a written and video review. Do I want more video content? Sure, but not a video review.

#9 Posted by Marokai (3115 posts) -

I would like to, but it's a choice of time and resources. I'd rather them spend it on almost any other type of video content, and the time-spent:content-delivered ratio on something like video reviews is staggeringly bad. It's just not worth all their effort.

#10 Posted by Yummylee (22297 posts) -

That seems like a waste of time to have both a written and video review. Do I want more video content? Sure, but not a video review.

Video reviews could take over written reviews, given the site's video focussed nature... in this purely hypothetical scenario where video reviews could potentially return ect.

Plus, while QLs have their place, they're often there for entertainment purposes more than anything, due to the bundles of misinformation and lack of just about any form of preparation. A video review, however, would theoretically have a lot more stock in it and would provide a much more precise and well put together summary about what a staff members likes/dislikes about whatever.

Though again, it's never going to happen anywhoo so, ah well.

#11 Posted by joshwent (2329 posts) -

That seems like a waste of time to have both a written and video review. Do I want more video content? Sure, but not a video review.

Bingo. The time it takes them to set up (make sure lighting/audio is good and all that), record the people, record specific gameplay clips and game audio, and cut the whole thing together, is pretty much a waste when they're just reading the written review out loud any way. That time could be (and is) better used making unique content.

#12 Posted by 71Ranchero (2796 posts) -

Reviews are a relic of the days when the most you got was a handful of postage sized screenshots and box art that had nothing to do with the game inside.

#13 Posted by LTSmash (648 posts) -

I imagine in the time it takes to put together a Video Review for one game, they can do Quick Looks for several different games.

#14 Posted by Donovas1 (9 posts) -

What I like most about video reviews is it provides a video representation of what is being stated in a review. But I see the main point is the effort/time to make the video and what would have to forgo in relation to other video content.

#15 Posted by AlexanderSheen (5077 posts) -

I barely want them to post written reviews as it is.

Online
#16 Posted by beepmachine (618 posts) -

I voted yes, because I definitely would love to see video reviews. However I completely understand why they don't do them and actually prefer they don't given the demanding nature of working on such a small team.

#17 Posted by VierasTalo (912 posts) -

Fiddy wants more video reviews.

#18 Posted by csl316 (9265 posts) -

Nah. A lot of them came down to them just reading the reviews. I think Mario Galaxy 2 was verbatim.

If they hire like 5 more people, sure. But overall it isn't necessary to me since other places already do them. I tend to get more out of a discussion on the Bombcast (although frequently they've had time to digest the game and start to nitpick, while briefly ending with "but it's awesome").

Online
#19 Edited by cthomer5000 (850 posts) -

A loaded question. It would clearly be "at the exepense of..." and we don't know what it would be at the expense of. Probably a lot more quicklooks. While I love, love, love the produced video this site does do, I can understand why from a bottom line perspective, there is very little of it anymore.

#20 Edited by MEATBALL (3402 posts) -

Yes and No.

I do miss produced content like that on Giant Bomb, I used to really enjoy getting video reviews for hyped releases. The best was when there was a hyped release and it meant that the site had quests related to said release along with a video review and a quick look on launch day. Giant Bomb used to do a fucking awesome job making big new releases feel like a fun, awesome event. Miss quests in general. :(

That said, their efforts can and probably do go to content that is a little more relevant to the typical Giant Bomb user.

#21 Posted by SaturdayNightSpecials (2431 posts) -

If they get a good idea for an entirely novel replacement, I would like to see it. For now, I don't miss them terribly.

#22 Posted by Nightriff (5257 posts) -

No, I want RPCG videos back

Online
#23 Posted by mrcraggle (1974 posts) -

I voted yes because GB has turned into a site of minimal effort. Gone are the days where we'd have video reviews and the like instead they just produce videos that are often over an hour long and require very little amounts of editing.

#24 Posted by joshwent (2329 posts) -

...instead they just produce videos that are often over an hour long and require very little amounts of editing.

Almost like... they plan it that way!

#25 Posted by Stonyman65 (2823 posts) -

I think Quick Looks pretty much are a de facto video reviews these days. I don't think adding specific video reviews would add anything to the site. I mean, if they want to do them it's fine, but if that means less other content (quick looks, UPF, whatever) then I don't think it is worth the extra strain on the staff. Quick Looks tell me pretty much all that I need to know review wise (in addition to reading the actual review, too.)

#26 Posted by Clonedzero (4200 posts) -

Sure, but that requires effort so it'll never happen.

#27 Edited by believer258 (12103 posts) -

@yummylee said:

@broomhitches said:

That seems like a waste of time to have both a written and video review. Do I want more video content? Sure, but not a video review.

Video reviews could take over written reviews, given the site's video focussed nature... in this purely hypothetical scenario where video reviews could potentially return ect.

Plus, while QLs have their place, they're often there for entertainment purposes more than anything, due to the bundles of misinformation and lack of just about any form of preparation. A video review, however, would theoretically have a lot more stock in it and would provide a much more precise and well put together summary about what a staff members likes/dislikes about whatever.

Though again, it's never going to happen anywhoo so, ah well.

That's true, but all of the information that you usually find in a video review can be better-placed in a written review. And written reviews allow for more detail and take less time to produce.

I'm not saying that they aren't nice. Video reviews are quite nice. But they're not really necessary when written reviews take far less time to produce and most people seem to have expressed a greater interest in Quick Looks anyway. And, frankly, I'd be willing to bet that QL's actually take less time to put together. You don't have to splice together footage or stand in front of a camera and get a script right. Video reviews are a time and money investment that do not actually give all that much in return compared to the alternative written review-Quick Look combination.

I think Jeff has mentioned hiring some new members recently. If that happens, maybe video reviews could see a return if it's not a monetary issue?

EDIT: Speaking of money, written reviews are also a hell of a lot cheaper to produce. I wouldn't be surprised if that was a limitation on video reviews as well.

#28 Posted by BeachThunder (12304 posts) -

It would be nice if there were some here and there.

#29 Edited by Nodima (1280 posts) -

I'v always hated video reviews, honestly. I've never felt like the edits give a good sense of what the gameplay is, and all too often the monologue of the review is nearly word for word the text review, which I always read first and therefore makes the video review super redundant. Quick Looks were what drew me to the site because they're unedited looks at a game, something I can actually relate to and understand what I'm seeing. The text format is a great way for someone to edit and shape their opinion of a game properly, while Quick Looks provide an example of what experiencing that game actually is.

Polygon easily has the second best video production staff in the business and even their video reviews have often proved useless besides the pretty overlay graphics. I did enjoy Adam Sessler's Rev3 reviews but he had a certain style that made him unique (and when it was more reigned in, like on XPlay, I found it totally uninteresting).

If they were going to do actual video reviews, I'd need them to be nearly as long as a Quick Look - 45 minutes with extended examples of most anything they felt bore mentioning in the review. And at that point I feel like you're just making a Quick Look without the spontaneity, so why?

#30 Posted by Aetheldod (3682 posts) -

Yes ... I prefer them to their "podcsat discussions" that go nowere , I still like the quicklooks too.

#31 Posted by BigJeffrey (5147 posts) -

nah text is alright.

#32 Posted by armaan8014 (5440 posts) -

Strange.. I thought everyone would say yes

#33 Posted by cthomer5000 (850 posts) -

Strange.. I thought everyone would say yes

Yes. I'd also love to see more cash giveaways. Or more non-sleepy Brad videos. Or more subscriber only Unicorn-on-Sasquatch-porn videos.

I want more content, but I'm not dumb enough to realize that they are making the decisions they are becuase its' either THIS or THAT. They can either do a produced video on 50 Cent: Blood On The Sand, or they can do it a QL on it, talk about it on the bombcast for 4 weeks straight, and cover 3 other games via QL.

In a perfect world I'm sure every member of the staff would absolutely love to be doing more video reviews. I'm also sure cold hard data has borne out that it is not an efficient use of their time. This site has practically created the "editorialized preview" video in which we hear their reactions in a ~60 minute video, and then hear further detail in the next podcast. Our needs are still being servied, just not in the traditional format. And fuck tradition. Tradition brought us shit like the YEAR OF LUIGI.

#34 Posted by EdgeKasey (141 posts) -

I enjoy the Quicklooks, that works enough for me. I don't really pay attention to game reviews anymore though. I watch a quicklook of something that I think might appeal to me and I can tell fairly easily if that is a game that would be for me. Plus it allows the staff's personalities to shine through better than I think an official video review would, imo. :)

#35 Edited by AMyggen (3532 posts) -

Nope. Video reviews will take time away from other content and I'm fine with losing a 5 minute video review when we get written reviews anyways. 50 Cent is also pretty much the only video review I remember, so it's not like it was ever content I went back to.

#36 Posted by mosespippy (4379 posts) -

The main reason I don't want video reviews are because they are pre-planned productions. It takes a lot of man hours to do that sort of thing. It won't be as interesting as the off the cuff "we just turned on this camera" sort of content that Giant Bomb puts out.

#37 Edited by Tom_omb (416 posts) -

Quick Looks are better then video reviews. You get to see a good slice of a game play along with commentary that offers a sort of in progress informal critique of the game. Giant Bomb allows viewers to get a better sense of the tastes and play styles of the editors. It gives me a lot more room to make up my mind on game purchases then a structured, formal review. Video or written. Plus it's great entertaining long form content.

#38 Posted by DylanGW (130 posts) -

I would like to watch video reviews; but it seems like giantbomb has decided it doesn't fit their raw sense of style - much like how they changed I Love Mondays from a produced video in front of a green screen to yelling at a handycam for ten minutes. I think they see video reviews as more of a bigger site sort of thing - like gamespot, ign or gametrailers.

#39 Posted by Duder_Me (307 posts) -

@mosespippy: I don't know. This had a fair amount of production going into it and it's one of the best videos on the site in my opinion. It's too bad that they don't really do stuff like this anymore.

#40 Posted by McLargepants (398 posts) -

Those seem like something that take a lot more time than they are worth. I'd much rather they spend their time doing something else.

#41 Posted by TheManWithNoPlan (5903 posts) -

They've done so well with video production int he past, I'm positive it'd be great. I know they'd probably never do it, so I'm fine with what they're doing now.

#42 Posted by 49th (2819 posts) -

Yes, I would rather watch a video review than read one to be honest. Hopefully when more people are hired there will be more edited content because I think it's some of the best that the site produces. Videos from E3 and GOTY are among my favourite videos but they happen so infrequently due to the time commitment.

Online
#43 Posted by SomberOwl (712 posts) -

Yes because I feel like showing video behind dialogue is a better way to articulate what the reviewer is trying to get across and makes for a better more cohesive review.

#44 Posted by Levius (1205 posts) -

No, because through osmosis from podcasts and videos, and experience I can pretty much figure out which games I want to play without reviews from anywhere. If they start doing more scripted content I would prefer they do stuff like TANG which is something completely new, rather than echoes of what they say elsewhere.

#45 Posted by Zleunamme (697 posts) -

The Quick looks and the podcasts are enough. Video reviews would take away time for Giant Bomb to work on other features. Personally I feel that video reviews are going to be used for by some users who find reading to be a chore.

#46 Posted by chilibean_3 (1679 posts) -

Eh, it would be nice but they usually aren't worth the time investment. Though they really were great. The Tony Hawk Ride review gave them an excuse to do a pretty funny dumb video.

#47 Edited by Apparatus_Unearth (3216 posts) -

You guys are right about Quicklooks taking that spot.

#48 Posted by freakin9 (1171 posts) -

They have done video reviews. And not a one contained any jokes. They actually just reviewed the games. I'm of the opinion that this website is at it's best when they don't take videogames seriously.

#49 Edited by Butler (391 posts) -

No.

Giantbomb as I view it isn't really a site about "reviewing" games as much as other sites are concerned with it. Yes, they do post critical pieces regarding their views on games but if you look at the frequency of those it's really only the major titles. I see the reviews as a nice side dish to the main course that is quick looks, which honestly is the best review anyone can give, having someone competent thats not "Brad at games" play the game and you as the viewer form your own opinion from watching a bevy of goofballs putz around on camera. That's the beauty of it. I don't want a review of an old ass pc game I want Dave and Vinny and Drew to mess around with it. Similarly, I don't want a review of newer games I just wanna see Vinny break it.

I hate review scores for games anyway.

#50 Posted by Demoskinos (15110 posts) -

@sterling: I'm the opposite because most people are awful at giving good descriptions of things. I'd rather SEE someone find said item that way there is no confusion.