One solution floated earlier was shorter ERs, along the lines of the Phantasmagoria playthrough. But there is clearly a huge demand for serialized content.
@Sanj: Yeah definitely. There's no real easy answer to this after thinking about it some more. I don't know how that stuff works, the only thing I know is that something has been missing lately and it started before CBSi.
Jumanji's forum posts
Don't expect anything more than Youtube-esque entertainment from Giantbomb. It's easier that way.
Ha, easier is just taking my time and money to another site.
I don't really care if random people have a problem with the coverage... Doesn't affect my enjoyment of the coverage a whit. I care if the coverage fails to meet a basic standard of curiosity and perseverance in learning about and conveying the details of a game's systems. From the posts in this thread, it sounds like actively timing your dodges is an important part of Guild Wars 2's combat design out of the immediate noob levels. This is the kind of thing that I would like to learn from a Quick Look.
I think Jeff has already explained himself about the mechanics. Even if they have some basic knowledge, I still think they're damned either way, because someone will have a problem with the way they play, but whatever.
It's not just about purchasing. When it does come to a buying decision, I rely on the opinions of forum posters whose taste I trust + a quick vicarious play session via a QL or a Let's Play. But in general, I watch Quick Looks and such to keep in touch with what's happening in the industry. I have maybe an hour a day max to devote to games in general, and a lot of the games I do end up playing are retro gems and such... QLs are so much better than written coverage like reviews or forum posts in seeing what games are ACTUALLY doing. So, for someone with my expectations and interests, shoddy misreadings of games don't really give me what I'm looking for.
I agree with your statement about planning -- always have -- but I never considered Quick Looks to be on the same level as a review. I don't think that was ever their intention. If someone is making purchases purely from Quick Looks, then they get what they get. If however amount of money is that important to them, then like I said, they need to go to more than one site.
@Gamer_152 said:Or they can spend 10 minutes before the shoot running through the tutorials.Yes. Yes, that is exactly what they are supposed to do. Or they can read it out loud/to each other, whatever.
For example I've heard a lot of complaints about how staff aren't reading instructional text in games when it appears, but what are they supposed to do? Sit there in silence while they diligently read through every word?
It's not about liking sometthing... It's about acquiring some basic knowledge about X product you're demonstrating, and then successfully conveying that knowledge to your audience so they don't have to waste more of their precious lives trying to figure out whether X is worth buying.
Trying to get someone (Jeff) to like something they don't particularly care for because "it's their job" is a crap-shoot, so you might as well go somewhere else for that particular coverage or else don't care so much.
I agree with you. I started watching Giant Bomb because their excellent Borderlands Quick Look let me vicariously play the game by faithfully explaining and demonstrating the game systems. Quick Looks are failures to me when they totally misunderstand/overlook basic game systems or fail to properly demonstrate how they're implemented. Most egregious and common on the latter point is failing to grasp the basic controls of a game.
edit: I suppose the bottom line is that you shouldn't necessarily expect a QL to be a good, informed look at a game. Sometimes they are, and sometimes they aren't.
Yeah, this statement pretty much nails it. I only watch them for the funny moments now. If I want real coverage of a game, I'll usually check 1-2 more sites to see what the game's really like. It sucks that I don't really use this site for any of that anymore, but that's just the way things are. I end up finding a lot of really awesome things about a game that I didn't know were in it, because it wasn't shown here. Oh well.
I don't get much value out of "A Quick Look Into Joe Gamer's Pick Up and Go Experience with a Game." I get a LOT of value out of "A Good Faith Look at a Game, With Informed and Funny Commentary on Design Choices or Weird Serendipitous Stuff that Just Happens During the Play Session."
The quick looks are meant to be a basic representation of the experience you'd have with a game and it didn't seem unrepresentative that Jeff's experience was not knowing about dodging because the game hadn't conveyed information about it's mechanics properly. From what a lot of people have said in here it also doesn't seem like dodging is that fundamental a mechanic or would have been that advantageous for him anyway.
When you've got people sitting in their basements producing Let's Plays for free and getting 50k+ views on youtube, (or just doing long writeups with screenshots every sentence/paragraph and still getting HUGE traffic and feedback) then the "no tools" argument falls apart completely.
It just makes me wonder if I resub if the money is just going to get pocketed by CBSi mgt.
Well, Vinny could have bought several tricasters by now if they had any free reign over the subscription money, which CBSi probably just lists as "miscellaneous revenue" or something.
I meant pocketed by people higher above the CBSi foodchain than the GB crew. I figure all the sub money goes straight to CBSi AR dept now and Giantbomb has to petition and fight for every dollar they need for equipment and such.
Which is why they probably still don't have what they need. Karen is right they need a "fixer", or producer or something to go to all these meetings and get them the stuff they need, so they can get back to doing their real jobs.
This might seem like a weird way to look at it, but who cares? Up to that point they've proven they were the two best teams, if they want to prize split that should be acceptable. It's money they've earned and they should be able to do what they want with it. I also find it odd that the viewers are such self entitled babies that they believe they're entitled to watching a good match. Why? I think the only biggest problem in all of this is that people care so much about prize splitting. It isn't that big of a thing.
The point of the tournament isn't to decide the better team. The point of the tournament is to DRAW EYEBALLS AND MAKE MONEY.
Bombcast is worth a buck a week to me, but maybe not to others. So long as the Bombcast quality doesn't decline like the video quality, I will stay subbed.
I agree with above criticisms that Quick Looks have become especially disorganized and uninformative. If it was up to me, I would dispense completely with reviews, and focus energy on polished video content. If "polish" means "knowing basic controls when you sit down to play the game for your paying audience" then so be it.
Let's review the victim's policy:
IF the victim is involved in a collision with an underinsured driver AND that other driver is at fault THEN Progressive will pay the difference on the settlement.
Given a legitimate dispute about the facts of the collision (here, it would certainly be about either the victim's negligence or the uninsured driver's), the victim and Progressive would either go to litigation or hash out a settlement. THIS IS COMPLETELY NORMAL. IT HAPPENS EVERY WEEK, IF NOT EVERY DAY, IN EVERY CIVIL COURT ROOM IN AMERICA.
Because of the law in Maryland, Progressive can't be a counterparty in a suit with the victim. The uninsured driver becomes the proxy for what would in any other state be a totally routine proceeding.
IF you want to avoid this kind of situation, get some no-fault coverage that doesn't turn on the other driver's error.