Are Quick Looks and the Bombcast too long?

The longer the video/podcast the better is my standard for all of their original content.

I wish the Bombcast was longer. 4 hours a week seems long enough.

I think they're perfect the way they are. I like to have them on when I'm doing homework or working on jewelry. And since I'm too much of a lazy asshole to read this whole thread, I will politely point you towards the Best Of Quick Looks that a member of the community makes:

They get the best bits from a bunch of Quick Looks and condense them into about 10 minutes for the Modern Man On The Go. If you want to introduce your friends to Giant Bomb but they don't want to watch crazy long videos, these are your best bet. Also, the youtube snippets from the Bombcast are great, like the infamous never.

What good memorable quick looks were ever that short? Quick Looks usually don't need to be over an hour long or anything, but pining for the good old days of amazing 15 minute quick looks is crazy and just screams of you remembering better times that never existed. I don't see how a QL being long means it can't be funny.   Please, don't give them a reason to skimp on content.

@CaLe said:

No, you just sound selfish. And saying that long videos deter certain people is a weak ass argument.

Yeah, good counterpoints. You sure showed me. You've clearly got a future in debate.

@pixieface: Love those "Best of" videos. That's not a bad idea, really. Wouldn't be a terrible way to assure people that Quick Looks are worth watching. Mind you, after watching some recent Quick Looks, I still think they should be cut down. The Rise of Nightmares one, for instance, was just boring. Condense that one to 15 minutes and it probably would've been way better.

Also, it's kind of like how Ryan says on the Gunstringer DLC Quick Look that he only wants to show a little bit so that people can experience it for themselves. As someone else pointed out, these aren't "Let's Play" videos. You really don't need to see that much of a game to get an idea if it's for you or not. People that needed to see almost an hour and a half of Dark Souls before making a decision probably aren't the target audience, and how much are you benefiting the people who will play the game by showing them all that footage? Did they really need to see how to beat two bosses and a miniboss, how to deal with the first dragon, and where a bunch of the traps are?

I do appreciate the civil tone though. I'm getting so tired of the "fuck off" sentiment from other people that don't understand how to have a reasoned discussion with someone who shares a different point of view from them.

@whatisdelicious: I agree with you. I think 15 minutes should be the norm for quick looks and 20 minutes for the special occasions. They're quite long.

@keris: To your first point, remember that Quick Looks never used to be this long. The Bombcast never used to be this long. Are you saying that, until now, Giant Bomb's Quick Looks and Bombcasts were just too short and that Jeff and crew couldn't (or shouldn't) stand behind them?

On the second point, I have two things to say. 1) Apparently it's not just me that finds these Quick Looks too long. I've been surprised at the number of people in here that have said, "You know what? Yeah, Quick Looks have gotten a little long lately. Lot of dead air sometimes. I'd be totally fine going back to shorter Quick Looks." 2) Everyone is pretending like I'm trying to take away their content. I don't understand this at all. If Quick Looks are shorter, doesn't that mean they have more time to film something else? It's not like that time just disappears forever.

With your third point, I think you kind of nailed one of the reasons the Dark Souls Quick Look wasn't as good. They wanted to show off more. It felt way, way more "telling" than "showing." Rorie and Vinny just sat there and explained all the core mechanics to Brad, who barely had anything to say. It felt much more organic with the Demon's Souls Quick Look, which, to be fair, is partially because it was an unknown quantity at the time. But here, they didn't need to explain nearly as much as they did, or show off nearly as much as they did. If a person needed to see two bosses, a miniboss, enemy placement, traps, and how to deal with the first dragon to know for sure whether or not they'd want Dark Souls, they're probably not the Dark Souls kind of person. How many bosses did they show off in the Demon's Souls Quick Look? (Honestly, I don't remember. I want to say "none," but I'm not 100% sure. It's been a while since I've seen it.) Like, yeah, there were moments when that was a really funny Quick Look. Yeah, the bridge part was hilarious. Yeah, the end rush was so awesome -- but it took an hour and 20 minutes to get there.

And finally, gotta tell ya, if you have to be "overly aggressive" to make your point, there's probably a better way to structure your argument.

I don't understand why any sort of compromise needs to be taken. You are talking about something you can pause and continue later. Why are we chattering at this like children and just understand that as an adult, you can make the decision to watch it in parts. Good lord.

@Lydian_Sel said:

Some of the quick looks certainly but not the Bombcast; that's sacred!

This. I'm happy with 20 minute Quick looks.

I'm ecstatic with 3 hour + Bombcasts. Quick looks I like to watch in one go but the bombcast I can listen to over the course of a few trips to the gym.

I'll cut you.

No they are not! 
 
I bet you are one of those people that consider to be ok for a 60 dollar game to last for 4 hours.

@whatisdelicious: No.

If that stuff is too long then sure, give them more time to make Premium Member exclusive material, I don't mind :)

Quick Looks yes, Bombcast no.

HOW. DARE. YOU.

Yea they're a bit long and I can't watch some of them but I'll find the time I haven't watched a lot of quick looks, but I try to listen to the bombcast every week takes like 2 days but that's fine, I could listen to the bombcast non-stop!

So... I want some videos shorter like bad games and such but if they make a 2 hour vid I'll watch it eventually.

Sorry I didn't have time to read your full post... it was too long.

Put this bar of soap in your mouth, go to bed w/out dinner, and think about what you've done!

; )

If all games had hour and a half quick looks I would probably skip more of the ones I'm really not interested in.

I do find myself watching most anyway just for the entertainment purposes.

If I don't have the time and it's not a game I want I'll skip some sections to shorten it. (Depending on who's running the Quick-Look.)

Bombcast could be longer if anything.

It all depends on the title. The rock of ages quick look was the right amount of time for a 9.99 title, but I wish they would have played it for an hour+

And here is me thinking that some of the more recent quicklooks havent been long enough...

I'm happy with the length - that's what she said. Particularly quick looks, I find them infinitely more valuable than a review.

I listen to podcasts when I am exercising, commuting and a lot more. So I need quite a few hours of podcasts to fill up that time. As for QL can't you simply turn off when you've seen enough to know whether you might like the game or not?

I don't listen to podcasts, but I do think the majority of the quick looks meander on for far too long. I wish GB would make separate "gameplay" videos where they cut out the commentary, loading screens, and menus. Personally, when I watch quick looks it's usually more for research than entertainment.

I appreciate the length in most cases. I don't normally watch an entire quicklook, after 10 or 15 min I feel I have the info I need. It would be really cool to have quick looks cover 2 games, then I could feel like 40 min was time well spent.

The bombcast is idle listening for me so driving, mowing the lawn, playing games in some cases. I just fit it in where I can. Length has never been an issue.

@whatisdelicious:

Someone not liking it when they get told to fuck off? A person on the internet having feelings? Who would have thought! :)

Haha, oh god, Rise of Nightmares was terrible. I'll agree with you on the that one. That was one of the most painfully awkward Kinect games I've ever seen and I am a sadder person for having been witness to two grown men trying to tackle it. Still, I like the longer content. Like I said before, I listen to them when I'm working on art or homework. Hearing people talk helps me concentrate and they keep me up to date on games in a funny, upbeat way, which is nice. The longer content means I don't have to keep hunting down new videos and clicking on them. Sound lazy? You would be correct.

I don't really have an answer for why they absolutely need to be long because they don't need to be. I only like them that way. They could definitely be shortened. It's not like that would be impossible. You make a good point with Dark Souls, too - that people who need to see an hour and a half of the game probably aren't the target audience. The thing is, I think since longer videos are in high demand (judging by a glance through this thread, at least), they're just going to keep doing them to feed the demand. And making the videos longer by goofing around means they don't have to spend the energy and money picking out more games to do other short videos of. I also know absolutely nothing about web hosting so I'm probably going to sound super ignorant, but it's always been my impression that hosting two videos on separate pages with separate comments would somehow cost more than just one long video on one page. I could be completely wrong, I've never had to host a website, but that's how it comes across.

And then, I think that Quick Looks are becoming less and less about snippets to tempt or turn off potential customers and most about pure audience entertainment. What other reason is there for an hour and a half of Dark Souls? I don't think that's a bad thing, personally, but some people naturally don't have time for that. It's a weird balance to strike because both groups of people want the completely opposite thing.

Either way, I hope your friends eventually get into it. More people watching this ridiculous website can never be a bad thing.

@whatisdelicious said:

@RazielCuts said:

The irony is that this post is too long.

I don't get it. Just because you can't fit them in to your schedule you want them to shorten what they do best? I think thats pretty selfish and is entirely your problem. I for one want all giantbomb, all of the time.

Honestly? I was thinking the same thing when I wrote it. I was just hoping that, if I explained my own point of view well enough, that I wasn't just saying that Giant Bomb should conform to my schedule, and that I'm simply here to ask what other people think, then I would avoid this exact reaction. That's the irony.

I've said it before and I'll say it here again, and I'm sure I'll say it again some time down the road yet another time - Have you ever stopped and considered that if people, multiple people, several times over, keep inferring a particular message from something that you wrote, that it's not THEM that are misinterpreting the message and that you're the one at fault? I know people like to think "well, I spent all this time crafting this message that says exactly what I want it to say and that can't be taken any other way and if they do take it some other way, they're the ones that are reading it wrong because I wrote it perfectly." But that's not how it works. And the assumption that what you're saying is "my life is too busy, I want it to be more fitting with my life" isn't a far stretch from what you wrote. You could have relied upon the argument of "I want them shortened because I think them being too long is lessening their quality in these key areas." But you didn't. You may have subtly brought it up, but it's not what you relied upon for your argument. You relied upon "I'm too busy and I want everything now, faster, shorter, and more fitting with my life style." That's where people are getting that message from.

Wait, I know, "but I didn't say that! You're putting words in my mouth!"

Let's take a look back to your original post, shall we?

@whatisdelicious said:

Maybe it's because I'm older and busier than I used to be, but I just don't have the time or desire for a 30-minute Quick Look of Nicktoons MLB or a 40-minute Quick Look of Kinectimals: Now With Bears. I don't really need or want the Bombcast's average length to be creeping up on the 3-hour mark either. I used to have the time to sit and listen to an entire Bombcast in one go, but now it takes me almost the full week to get through it all.

Let's see what you said there. "I'm older and busier and I just don't have the time or desire" What's that? You don't have the TIME for a 30 minute quick look? But, I thought that wasn't the issue, that your time constraints had no bearing on the argument at hand here that quick looks should be 20 minutes max? Now, where does it go from here. "I used to have the time to sit and listen to an entire bombcast" Oh, but you don't anymore? But, I'm sure that means that time constraints don't factor in to you wanting a 2 hour max (or, probably even shorter going by the amount of time you seem to not have) right? It's because of um... other reasons, but nothing to do with your personal time issues. Your personal time issues have nothing at all to do with why you want everything shorter.

Like I said - if you don't want people to take away a particular message from your post, and they're still taking away that message...maybe you're the one at fault.

Hell no!

Well, maybe some >40 minutes-long QLs drag a little. It depends on the game though. Dark Souls QL was great, for example, despite it's length.

6" to 9" is plenty providing good girth.

@FateOfNever said:

Like I said - if you don't want people to take away a particular message from your post, and they're still taking away that message...maybe you're the one at fault.

Someone needs to tell that to Ray "Fahrenheit 451 totally isn't about censorship even though I based the entire plot around the most universal symbol for censorship" Bradbury.

Seriously, there comes a point where you have to ask what the common denominator in the problem is.

No.

The Bombcast and State of the Game are the two things keeping me sane during my daily commute (and 8-4 Play when it's available). I'm already listening to the Bombcast ~1.8 times every week. If anything I wish it was longer.

Quick Looks can feel a bit too long sometimes but I think they Bombcast's just fine. 

No one is forcing you to watch and/or listen.

O.O The longer the fucking better.

I normally have bomebcasts on in the background when surfing other sites, or doing things else where in my house. So length doesn't really bother me one way or the other. As for quicklooks if I really want to see the game they are talking about I watch all of the video, even if its 90 min and it takes more than one view. If I don't I either close the video when I have had my fill or treat it like a bombcast and just make it background talking in a closed window.

@Sackmanjones said:

They are perfect in every way possible

Agreed, no website that devotes that kind of time to quality content. (This is my first forum post as a subscriber :P)

I loooooooooooooooove having long ass bombcasts. I only watch a few of the quicklooks, so I don't really mind the length one way or another. But I want my bombcasts to be absurdly long dammit!

@whatisdelicious said:

@DrSnaqrite said:

Wow, you're kind of a dick.

The argument most people are making here can't be summed up by "I want 24 hour live coverage all the time and if you don't like it don't watch it." The closest you get to summing up the argument is "If you don't like it don't watch it," which is actually a pretty decent argument when it comes to entertainment, depending on the context.

[...]

Oh, by the way:

appalling [əˈpɔːlɪŋ] adj

causing extreme dismay, horror, or revulsion

Man, I just love when discussions on the Internet turn to personal insults. Makes me really appreciate how much better actual, real world discussions are. And someone literally said they wanted a 24-hour Bombcast. That wasn't an exaggeration on my part. Oh, by the way, look at some of the examples for appalled, not just the raw definition. But do you really want to argue over something as dumb as my usage of one word completely inconsequential to either of our arguments?

Dude, look at the way you've been responding to people. You asked people for their opinions, and every time you come back you basically completely ignore their arguments. I'm not just calling you a dick to be a dick myself, I'm saying you're really not helping your argument when you talk to people the way you're talking to people.

One dude said he wanted a 24 hour bombcast. Pretty sure he was joking, too. Even if he wasn't, you can't take the most extreme example of one side of an argument and claim it represents what everyone else thinks.

The only reason I brought up the definition of appalling is someone else said he doubted your friends were appalled, and you said he was wrong. Just because you might use the word appalled more casually than most people, doesn't change its definition to everyone else around you.

You're free to your opinion, and if it's your opinion that the bombcast and quick looks should be shorter, great. But it seems to me that most people disagree at least partially with your opinion, and if you ask people to share their opinion and then get all pissy when it's not the same as your opinion, then don't be surprised if not everybody's thrilled about it.

No.

This thread offends me to my very core.

I've got no problem making time for bombcasts, but as quicklooks have been getting longer I've almost stopped watching them completely. I can't count the number of times I've started a quicklook, noticed that the length was somewhere from 40 minutes to an hour, then just closed the tab. It'd help if there was a way to know the length of videos before I start watching them. I guess I'm just spending less time in front of a computer these days.

If I ever find a quick look long, I usually just watch the rest later. I also never listen to the Bombcast in one sitting.

@DrSnaqrite: How am I ignoring people's points? I literally responded to someone with a bullet-pointed list that addressed each of his points for me. There are 15 pages of responses here. I can't reply to everybody, nor should I have to. It's not about me and my opinion. A lot of people are taking it really personally, and if you look at my original post, all I did was outline my own feelings on this issue, then asked what other people thought about the same issue. I'm not trying to impose my own viewpoints. I recognized explicitly that not everyone has the same time constraints as me. So please, enlighten me on all the times I've ignored people's arguments. Enlighten me on how much of a dick I've been to people -- people that have been telling me to "fuck off," "get the fuck out," and "just shut up."

Now, was the guy joking? I don't know. Regardless, I was literally saying, "Hey, I could try and boil the other side of this debate down to this, but that would be wrong." It was a hypothetical. Have I been harping on that one guy through 15 pages? Have I been boiling people's arguments down to simplistic exaggerations? And people have absolutely been doing that to me: "Oh, you just want the Bombcast and Quick Looks to conform to your schedule. You just want to take away our content. Fuck off." Which isn't true at all. I gave my opinion on the issue, then asked how other people felt. That's all. I don't get why people are getting so up in arms about this. It's nothing more than a discussion. It ultimately comes down to what Jeff and crew want to do, not you, not me, not anyone else.

The guy told me I was incorrectly using the word "appalled." He pulled out the dictionary definition, but none of the examples. It was a silly semantic argument, so I told him to check the examples the dictionary gives. They're a lot more casual than you'd expect if you're just looking at the raw definition. Regardless, a) the English language is extremely flexible, and you're allowed a lot of creative freedom, and b) who cares?

Yeah, a lot of people disagree. I assumed that would be the reaction. But I'm surprised at the number of people that have completely opposite feelings: "Quick Looks yes, Bombcast no," "Bombcast yes, Quick Looks no," "both should be longer," "both should be shorter," "they're perfect as they are." I'm not getting "all pissy" that people don't have the same opinion as me; I'm just taken aback at how vitriolic the response has been. I'm not a fan of people attacking the person behind an argument they disagree with.

Bigger is better.

I love the longer Bombcasts. I get a little bummed out when they are barely over 2 hrs. As for the Quick Looks, I watch as much as I can stand for the games I am interested in. I don't think they ate too long at all.

@whatisdelicious: You're basically asking Giant Bomb to stop doing what made it so successful.

So, Fuck Off

@whatisdelicious said:

@DrSnaqrite: How am I ignoring people's points? I literally responded to someone with a bullet-pointed list that addressed each of his points for me. There are 15 pages of responses here. I can't reply to everybody, nor should I have to. It's not about me and my opinion. A lot of people are taking it really personally, and if you look at my original post, all I did was outline my own feelings on this issue, then asked what other people thought about the same issue. I'm not trying to impose my own viewpoints. I recognized explicitly that not everyone has the same time constraints as me. So please, enlighten me on all the times I've ignored people's arguments. Enlighten me on how much of a dick I've been to people -- people that have been telling me to "fuck off," "get the fuck out," and "just shut up."

Now, was the guy joking? I don't know. Regardless, I was literally saying, "Hey, I could try and boil the other side of this debate down to this, but that would be wrong." It was a hypothetical. Have I been harping on that one guy through 15 pages? Have I been boiling people's arguments down to simplistic exaggerations? And people have absolutely been doing that to me: "Oh, you just want the Bombcast and Quick Looks to conform to your schedule. You just want to take away our content. Fuck off." Which isn't true at all. I gave my opinion on the issue, then asked how other people felt. That's all. I don't get why people are getting so up in arms about this. It's nothing more than a discussion. It ultimately comes down to what Jeff and crew want to do, not you, not me, not anyone else.

The guy told me I was incorrectly using the word "appalled." He pulled out the dictionary definition, but none of the examples. It was a silly semantic argument, so I told him to check the examples the dictionary gives. They're a lot more casual than you'd expect if you're just looking at the raw definition. Regardless, a) the English language is extremely flexible, and you're allowed a lot of creative freedom, and b) who cares?

Yeah, a lot of people disagree. I assumed that would be the reaction. But I'm surprised at the number of people that have completely opposite feelings: "Quick Looks yes, Bombcast no," "Bombcast yes, Quick Looks no," "both should be longer," "both should be shorter," "they're perfect as they are." I'm not getting "all pissy" that people don't have the same opinion as me; I'm just taken aback at how vitriolic the response has been. I'm not a fan of people attacking the person behind an argument they disagree with.

I don't want to come off smarmy or anything, but dude, how long have you been on the internet? You're surprised people told you to fuck off when you said you think there should be less content?

I probably should have worded my "dick" comment a bit better, but re-read this post of yours I'm quoting. Do you not see how condescendingly telling me to "enlighten" you on all the times you ignored people's comments comes off as dickish? How when someone makes a joke about a 24 hour bombcast you use them as the example for what everyone else in this thread is saying? How you vigorously defending your use of the word "appalling" as being appropriate for describing your friend's opinion of long internet videos is kind of a bit crazy?

You asked people to give you their opinions. Some people's opinions are pretty damn strong, and if you ask them about it, you'll probably get some people who aren't going to be very guarded with how they say these things, especially on the internet, and even more so when the question you ask them is "should there be less free content from this website you like?"

I mean, hell, I'm not even really arguing with your opinion. I do think plenty of the quick looks this last year have been way too long. But if that's the case, I just don't watch it all. I don't understand why that's not okay for you except for that you want your friends to like Giant Bomb and they aren't willing to watch long videos. But that's up to them and if they don't like Giant Bomb, oh well. I have a friend who doesn't really get into Giant Bomb that much, and so what I do is I just don't talk to him about Giant Bomb unless it comes up or I find something very specific I think he'll find funny.

I kind of wish Jeff's question answering videos would be infinitely long, I could listen to that man talk about games all day.

He doesn't beat Ken Levine though, I could listen to that man talk about flowers and still be 100% interested.

@DrSnaqrite: I'll admit, in that post especially, I'm a little more aggressive than intended, but I'd challenge you to do the same. Read your posts, and other people's posts, that are directed towards me and think about what it's like to be on the other side of them. In a thread with now 300+ responses, you can only be told to "fuck off" so many times before your civility starts to falter a bit. That I've lasted this long is pretty impressive, I'd say.

But I guess I just took offense to being told that I've been ignoring people's arguments because, if you look at a lot of my responses to people, I've been addressing everything they're saying. If I happen to miss one or two things, well, again, we're 300+ posts in, and I'm still trying my best to respond to the people that seem to want a response. As for the "appalled" thing, I just stand by my use of the word. As a Creative Writing major, yeah, I might use words with a little too much flair or hyperbole sometimes, but I think "appalled" was fine and that it just felt like people were trying to pick out the most minute, tangential things to argue with me about.

Also, I think a lot of the confusion comes in that people think I'm asking for less content. First off, I'm not even asking for anything but people's opinions. Second, what's to stop Jeff and crew from using that extra time to produce new features? Then you get more concise, more easily consumable Quick Looks, as well as some other cool feature. It's not like they'll use the extra time to just sit back and do nothing. I mean, even some of the people that say Quick Looks are a fine length have said that, "I watch as much as I can stand for." I guess I just don't understand why they should be so long that people just keep watching until they get bored, then stop.

Finally, as for the friend issue, I was using that as an example to bring up the question of growth. Giant Bomb can't survive just by appealing to the users it already has; it has to bring in new users. That's why they had to implement this whole subscriber business model. The hardcore GB fan base seems to want longer content, but will that bring in new users, or just scare them away? That's what I was addressing.

Off course people are going to take this shit personally.

Just because you have time constraints in your personal life, and can't keep up with the content they put out there, doesn't mean that this website is doing anything wrong. The complete opposite, really. The fact that you actually felt important enough to e-mail them about it, requesting less content, makes the entire community look like whiny, ungrateful cunts.

That's why people get agitated, me included.

Here's a Protip: if you actually don't think the content is interesting enough to watch/listen all the way through, then don't.

I do find it interesting enough, I love almost every minute of content they produce. As do thousands of others. And I sure as hell don't want the Giantbomb staff to artificially limit their quicklooks and bombcasts because it clashes with your personal schedule.