Avatar image for keris
#51 Posted by keris (190 posts) -

I've never understood why this question keeps getting posed. It's not like Quick Looks are some serialized TV show where if you miss one then the rest don't make sense.

And for their intended use, longer videos equal more information with which to make purchasing decisions.

Avatar image for belegorm
#52 Posted by Belegorm (1848 posts) -

Nope, I'm cool with them being the length they are. I do work a full time job, but rather than "watching everything you possibly can" I just watch the QL's of games I'm interested, QL's I think will be entertaining, or QL's friends tell me I should watch.

Avatar image for csl316
#53 Posted by csl316 (14959 posts) -

The too much content posts are always super weird. You don't have to watch everything and you don't have to watch all of something. Turn it off when you've seen enough, problem solved.

This post isn't about too much content. It's about videos of a variable length.

Avatar image for t_wester
#54 Posted by T_wester (839 posts) -

[Extended HD Gameplay] I don't watch all quicklooks in their entirety nor do I watch all videos giantbomb put out, if the game or commentary run long or gets uninteresting will just close the tab and move on.

Avatar image for cale
#55 Edited by CaLe (4799 posts) -

No, I watch Quick Looks so I don't have to look my hungry kids in the eyes and tell them I spent their food money on a premium subscription. The longer the videos the less guilty I have to feel because it means I spend less time with my hungry children.

Avatar image for yesindeed
#56 Edited by YesIndeed (97 posts) -

Nope.

In addition, I think Witcher 3 and MGSV are incredibly boring games, so I just stopped watching those quick looks part way through. This is probably in stark contrast to many other viewers who ate those QLs up but complain about the length of the QLs for "smaller" games. I'm glad the GB crew isn't short changing me for having different tastes.

Avatar image for betaband
#57 Posted by BetaBand (398 posts) -

No. What? No.

Avatar image for forkboy
#58 Posted by forkboy (1650 posts) -

I certainly see where the OP is coming from, I no longer watch every video either. And the QL's I do watch I don't always watch all of. I've also been unemployed and understand that some people do like to watch them all so I'd not say they should make them shorter. Just a case of picking & choosing, & cutting things off if after the first 5/10 minutes the game doesn't seem like something that's of interest to me these days.

Avatar image for travisrex
#59 Posted by TravisRex (819 posts) -

@forkboy: so you're saying people who watch all the videos are unemployed?

Avatar image for forkboy
#60 Edited by forkboy (1650 posts) -

@travisrex: Not necessarily. Could be students. Could work part-time. But if you're watching all the content that Giant Bomb puts out in a week while working a full-time job then I'm not sure when you sleep. I guess maybe you could dedicate your weekend to watching Giant Bomb?

Avatar image for irish_giant_bomber
#61 Edited by Irish_Giant_Bomber (210 posts) -

No.

Too the people arguing they don't have time, they have a full time job or whatever, nobody is forcing you to watch everything they produce.

Personally, the more content the better. It means I always have something to watch, and longer quick looks tend to be informative and interesting. I also rewatch old quick looks all the time along with old TNTs and whatnot. I honestly get more entertainment from Giantbomb than the likes of Netflix.

@forkboy can confirm, I am a student and have a lot of free time when I am not studying or even when I am studying.

Avatar image for ripelivejam
#62 Posted by ripelivejam (13164 posts) -

Why have we not changed the name to Looks?

Avatar image for belegorm
#63 Posted by Belegorm (1848 posts) -

@ripelivejam: When Giantbomb finally starts its "what's new in fall fashion" feature I'm sure it'll be called Looks.

Avatar image for csl316
#64 Edited by csl316 (14959 posts) -

I find it kind of interesting that a number of posters think more minutes of video is always better than less minutes of video. And any opinion to the contrary is unfathomable.

You know what else added minutes to its show without realizing the quality wasn't always there? Monday Night Raw. Which led to people slowly walking away.

Whatever, there's an audience for it, I suppose. But as constructive criticism, some shorter video now and then for busier people would be appreciated. They don't have to take away the hour-long puzzle game Quick Looks, obviously a lot of people would be upset based on these reactions. But hey, maybe putting up something under 30 minutes on a regular basis could be something they could fit into the schedule. The choice now is to turn off videos early, or not watch them at all. And the world will continue to turn.

I've been coming to this site for over 6 years and paying for the subscription since it was available, which means I probably won't leave any time soon. But there is an audience for people that appreciate shorter video and get pushed away by some of these times. In my original post, I even mentioned two videos that accomplished everything a QL should do in 20 something minutes. I'm not crazy, I swear to god, man. And I don't feel entitled to more 20 minute Quick Looks or something, as I'll probably eventually consume all that content in my downloaded folder when Chicago gets hit with a blizzard and I'm stuck indoors.

Avatar image for ajamafalous
#65 Posted by ajamafalous (13816 posts) -

Are they too long? No, that's part of what has always made GB unique; the fact that they can give you a true cross-section of the gameplay of an average (or below average hyuck hyuck hyuck) player seeing stuff for the first time.

Do I still watch a ton of Quick Looks? No, I probably only watch one QL for every ten they upload, because they are too long, but my personal situation has nothing to do with what the site should do. I wish they had sub-15 minute, well-produced content for me to throw on while I'm eating; because they don't, I just end up watching nothing. I would rather they stay true to their audience and themselves, though, than cater specifically to my situation.

Avatar image for monkeyman04
#66 Posted by Monkeyman04 (2793 posts) -

As someone who has all the time in the world to watch all the content ( I get bored sometimes and re-watch videos) I'm alright with the lengths of the videos. On the other hand I can understand people that have jobs (and social lives) that it would be frustrating to not be able to consume the content that one wants to.

Avatar image for clairvoyantvibrations
#67 Posted by ClairvoyantVibrations (1616 posts) -

Well I'd say Quick Look is a misnomer at this point but I enjoy the long form video content

Avatar image for ripelivejam
#68 Posted by ripelivejam (13164 posts) -

@csl316: nothing wrong with your criticism; honestly i personally am unable to finish 9/10 of the stuff on this site. I tend not to sweat it personally and either skip around or only watch a few min of this and that video, but it might be nice to have some more bite sized stuff that people can fit into their schedules. It seems like a lot of dan's stuff is closer to the under 30 min mark recently.

Maybe some things don't need to be 1 hour plus like the new tony hawk, though i can usually eke out entertainment on pretty much anything here. That got a little draggy despite dan and jeff's best efforts.

Avatar image for csl316
#69 Posted by csl316 (14959 posts) -

@ripelivejam: Yeah, I'm not trying to be a jerk or something. The Beastcast even asks for feedback so maybe I should see what they think directly.

I know Jeff addressed this before but I'm curious what his thoughts are nowadays. He mentioned things like highlights or shorter edits. I brought up Monday Night Raw, and their 90 minute Hulu version is just a better show than the full one that runs 3 hours (minus commercials).

Speaking of Jeff talking about stuff, when the hell was the last Jar Time?

Avatar image for theblue
#70 Posted by TheBlue (1034 posts) -

Yes and no. Some of them go on for far too long, sure, but if the game is beefy enough, they might need to play over an hour to really show all the game's offerings. A game like The Witcher 3 or MGSV have a lot of stuff going on so I'd expect over an hour. Others like Tony Hawk didn't need to go for over 90 minutes, everyone could tell the game was bad by the first 15. Even the Persona 4: DAN didn't need to be as long as it was, but I suppose they felt like continuing to play. I don't watch every Quick Look, I certainly don't have time for that. (and frankly, that's way too much Dan in a week) I only watch the ones that interest me and if it's a game I'm on the fence about getting, the more they show the better.

Avatar image for the_nubster
#71 Posted by The_Nubster (4093 posts) -

I've struggled with this. But having a full-time job and a social life makes it nearly impossible to catch up. Every month or so, I'll just shut myself in on a Sunday and marathon Giant Bomb to catch all of the stuff that I missed, and even then it isn't always enough time. But that's fine; I don't have to stay 100% up to date on stuff. Everyone can watch what they want for how long they want, and that's awesome.

Avatar image for geirr
#72 Posted by geirr (3759 posts) -

@csl316 said:

Oh, dammit, I guess I'm wrong.

Yep

Avatar image for deactivated-5b43dadb9061b
#73 Posted by deactivated-5b43dadb9061b (1649 posts) -

This is something I've been thinking for quite some time. As you said, there are absolutely some games that benefit from long videos: games like MGSV or The Witcher 3 that have a lot of systems/depth and need more time to be shown off properly. On smaller games, however, it seems far too common that the crew keep going well past covering what a game is and just want to keep playing because they're having a good time.

This is around what I think. It really depends on the game. Some videos do not need to be past even a half hour, let alone 15/20mins while some games it would benefit to be longer.

Avatar image for xerseslives
#74 Posted by xerseslives (258 posts) -

As someone without TV, that just gets by on Youtube and streaming, Quick Looks can't really be too long, especially given that we average about three or four a week and I'll skip games that don't interest me.

I'd rather they be too long and be given the choice to turn them off than have them be too short.

Avatar image for gruff182
#75 Posted by Gruff182 (1065 posts) -

Yeah I think some are, depends on the game. Gbeast often gets the bottom of the pile, I don't want to watch an hour of an indie platformer even if i like the look of it.

Avatar image for geraltitude
#76 Edited by GERALTITUDE (5989 posts) -
No Caption Provided

I think your OP is fair and I agree with it in a way, in a void, but this is Giant Bomb Dot Com. It's a website. About video games! And it sure ain't Small Bomb Dot Com! Content on this site should be so gigantic it just crushes you to the point you are falling out of your chair when you look in that bottom left hand corner and the see the length of the video. We're talking double, maybe even triple spit-takes.

Well, ok. Maybe that's going a little far. In general I feel quick looks are a good mixture of long and short, but I could be totally wrong here, as I don't really care to finish everything outside a few select series. And to be really honest, I'm not sure I ever watch any video on the internet that isn't at least 30 minutes. I dunno. I kind of like how GB let's you pick up videos where you leave them so when I do watch long videos or series, it's easy to do so in small chunks.

Anyways I sympathize with you and I would say that I'd love a series that was shorter, more edited or something like that, "Bite Size Bomb".

Avatar image for mlarrabee
#77 Edited by mlarrabee (3917 posts) -

This question pops up quite a bit actually, and in the past I've always disagreed.

But it seems like there's more filler in the QLs lately. A lot of the '09-'11 Quick Looks were in the 20-30 minute range, and I think that's a nice length for most things. Obviously, The Witcher 3, Fallout 4, and such can be 1.5-2 hours without overstaying their welcome.

EDIT: A ton of XBLA games were featured three-four years ago and they generally got about 12 minutes each. While I love a good long video, sometimes, a lot of times it just isn't necessary.

Avatar image for razzuel
#78 Posted by razzuel (399 posts) -

No, they're fine. You don't need to watch everything, and you don't need to watch the full length of each quick look.

Also, since we're being pedantic, yes, I do have a full time job. I mainly only consume the video content, but I watch a good portion of it. Sometimes I'll ignore some stuff here and there like (NHL 16), or I'll stop watching a quick look once I get bored. Other times I might not get around to a quick look for a month or two.

I just watch what I wanna watch in a way that makes sense for me. I don't see why the lengths have to be arbitrarily cut short to cater directly to you.

Avatar image for cwniles
#79 Posted by cwniles (104 posts) -

Simple question with a simple answer; No.

Avatar image for shagge
#80 Posted by ShaggE (9263 posts) -

Ehhh, I've taken to storing non-must-see QLs like a squirrel storing nuts, just waiting for some slow weeks or rainy days where I don't feel like playing anything but am still in "video game mode". Overlong QLs can be a blessing in those times, even if 20% of the runtime is Brad fawning over menus. (I keed, I keed)

But yeah, if a QL just isn't holding my attention, I stop. Suddenly that 7 hour coverage of font choices in Dota's options menu is a 33 second coverage. (we love you, Brad) Give me too much over too little any day.

Avatar image for shaunage
#81 Posted by Shaunage (933 posts) -

No.

Avatar image for sweep
#82 Posted by Sweep (10595 posts) -

People complain when there's not enough content, people complain when there's too much content.

The cycle continues.

Moderator
Avatar image for csl316
#83 Posted by csl316 (14959 posts) -

This question pops up quite a bit actually, and in the past I've always disagreed.

But it seems like there's more filler in the QLs lately. A lot of the '09-'11 Quick Looks were in the 20-30 minute range, and I think that's a nice length for most things. Obviously, The Witcher 3, Fallout 4, and such can be 1.5-2 hours without overstaying their welcome.

EDIT: A ton of XBLA games were featured three-four years ago and they generally got about 12 minutes each. While I love a good long video, sometimes, a lot of times it just isn't necessary.

I've had phases where I disagreed and didn't really see the point of shorter content. I guess because the average times were so much lower, as you pointed out, that's probably why it never phased me. Vinny/Alex/Austin is an incredible team that are a joy to have together. The West coast guys all have their strengths and bring something unique to the table. But there's only so much material you can pull from a game before the filler starts to creep in.

Lots of responses here are saying "well, just don't watch it." I'm here to watch these videos, and good things happen in the middle and at the end so it's my fault for not turning them off early. There's just a lot of "overstaying their welcome" in GB's current incarnation of the Quick Look, and getting them a little shorter again may raise the quality a bit. As the poster above pointed out, they used to be shorter and the fanbase kept growing.

Videos that are too long have their place, but that's when the GIant Bomb art requires it. Specifically, I'm talking about Mario Party Parties that see the crew slowly degenerating, and Vinnyvanias that make you truly appreciate the triumph of the human spirit at the end of the day.

When I talk about certain videos not needing to be as long as they are, here's an example. Patrick's Worth Playing segment on Stasis years ago was about 14 minutes.. This week's Quick Look was 44 minutes. Both sold me on the game. Meeting somewhere in the middle seems perfectly reasonable, right? Then they'll have some extra time in the office to look up some other cool game.

Avatar image for rapid
#84 Edited by rapid (1804 posts) -

should make this a poll

but NO there should be no arbitrary limits to how long it has to be. It should depends on how much there is to the game and how engaged the crew is.

Avatar image for cerebus
#85 Posted by Cerebus (90 posts) -

No

Avatar image for genfuyung
#86 Posted by Genfuyung (321 posts) -

Hell no.

Avatar image for franstone
#87 Posted by Franstone (1534 posts) -

No
Never
We need more
And they need to be longer
Or shorter

Avatar image for moonshadow101
#88 Posted by Moonshadow101 (755 posts) -

Not at all.

There are certainly some quick looks that I think go on longer than necessary, but when I'm watching one of those, I just... stop. It's not hard.

Avatar image for captain_insano
#89 Posted by Captain_Insano (3500 posts) -

I'm going to disagree with the "if you think they're too long just stop watching" argument. People seem happy to complain about the length of a game or movie if it is too long or bloated, yet any possible critique at the GB crew is seem as blasphemous.

I love GB's content, I always have. I have no issue with the name "Quick Look" even though they aren't quick. I do feel though, that sometimes the videos drag out a bit (this is not every case, as the OP mentioned, some games need a longer 'quick' look anyway). I'm fairly time poor in terms of what I can do (which is good). I have a very short commute to work, spend time with my young son, play sports, exercise, play games, want to catch up on tv shows/movies, do some reading, work at home (in addition to regular work) etc.

I'd love to be able to consume MORE GB content in the forms of various QL for a range of games. As such, I'm fairly selective about what Quick Looks I do watch and I do actually stop watching after a bit.

I do think that many Quick Looks could be a bit shorter. I don't want the guys to have an arbitrary cut off point, and I want them to be able to give a decent look at a game or to be able to articulate what they feel about a game, but this could probably be done a bit more efficiently (which in turn, would maybe free them up to do more other stuff at work, rather than just QL's).

I think the simple "NO" answers that a lot of people have given without justification is a simple gut reaction to a misinterpretation of the topic (which it seems like some people think is asking: do you want less GB content?). I don't want less GB content, I want the same, but maybe split up differently. It's not a huge complaint, GB seem to be putting out more types of content now than ever, but still, it's a suggestion.

Avatar image for ssully
#90 Posted by SSully (5631 posts) -

Not at all. I also don't have as much time to watch videos, but I still manage. I will watch QL's of games that look interesting. If it's long then I will skip around a bit to see the different aspects of the game. I usually try to crank out one or two premium videos on the weekend, but even those I jump around a bit.

Avatar image for alexw00d
#91 Posted by AlexW00d (7571 posts) -

@sweep said:

People complain when there's not enough content, people complain when there's too much content.

The cycle continues.

Come on dude you know full well that this isn't even slightly one of those pointless threads - hell if it was I'm sure it'd get locked. Whilst the title of the thread has obviously lead 90% of people to not bother to read the OP and make snarky comments, the actual content of the post is essentially saying "Hey GB bros, an occasional sub 30 min video would be greatly appreciated by people who are on a tighter schedule but would still like to enjoy a whole video." That's a valid point, and I'm very sure the guy appreciate constructive 'criticism' even if the users don't.

Avatar image for csl316
#92 Posted by csl316 (14959 posts) -

@captain_insano: Indeed, it's a suggestion. There's even a mod saying I'm complaining about too much content. I'm not. We're at an all time high of Giant Bomb minutes of video each week and that's exciting. The guys are working hard and the site is doing well.

There's just room for improvement, there always is, and a portion of the core audience agrees with me. Between all the NO replies here, I count over a dozen people that either skip videos, lose interest early, or just don't watch altogether. This is a portion of their demographic they can either engage or eventually lose. I used to watch every single Game Informer video, especially Replay, but eventually they started running too long and I left for good.

I don't want the site to change its identity. Being mindful of time is a simple suggestion. And like you said, this can free them up to do something else. But the site's great, and this is a minor thing in the grand scheme of things. I don't feel that being critical now and then is blasphemous, however.

Avatar image for razzuel
#93 Posted by razzuel (399 posts) -

I don't want to speak for everyone else saying no, but for me, no, it's not because "oh no, Giant Bomb can do no ill."

Yeah, some quick looks aren't good. It's not because of the length; it's because the content just isn't engaging. A great example is the THPS5 quick look. The game already looks incredibly boring, but then, I don't think Jeff and Dan's take on the game was interesting either. Would it have been better if it was shorter? No. I already bailed pretty earlier into the video. This isn't as simple as "shorter = better."

What's wrong with the Stasis quick look being 44 minutes? Vinny wanted to show off the beginning and a later portion of the game. It just so happened to end up at 44 minutes. There weren't even any lulls. He played it pretty fast too, avoiding all the story stuff in the environments to save time. It got the point across to me. I want to play the game now. Could it have been shorter? Maybe, I don't know. It is what it is.

What if a quick look was two hours long, but it was incredibly engaging for you the whole time? Is that wrong because you don't have the time, or is it wrong because it took up two hours of GB's time?

Maybe you need to ask a better question. "Should quick looks be more directed?"

My answer to that is also no. I like GB's style the way it is. I don't think it needs to be more efficient or more professional or less loosey goosey or what have you.

Avatar image for figurehead00
#94 Posted by figurehead00 (250 posts) -

Definitely not for me. But then I'm slightly disappointed when a Bombcast is less than 3 hours long and I wish every Quick Look was 2 hours long. One thing I love about GB is their commitment to long form content. Plus you can just pause it or remember where you were and watch the rest later. Then it's like double the Quick Looks!

Avatar image for sin4profit
#95 Posted by Sin4profit (3501 posts) -

Some QLs seem to drag a bit longer then they need and i tend to disengage and do other things while it runs in the background.

Avatar image for atomicoldman
#96 Posted by atomicoldman (831 posts) -

Survey says: no.

Avatar image for dichemstys
#97 Posted by Dichemstys (3923 posts) -

I don't think so, I think of them like reviews.

Avatar image for chilibean_3
#98 Posted by chilibean_3 (2371 posts) -

Yeah, kinda. At least I can no longer watch them in the morning before work and instead leave them for later. That usually ends up causing me to have a backlog of GB videos, not the worst thing. I'm skipping more stuff now than I ever did before but that wouldn't be effected either way by the video lengths.

Avatar image for sweep
#99 Posted by Sweep (10595 posts) -

@alexw00d said:
@sweep said:

People complain when there's not enough content, people complain when there's too much content.

The cycle continues.

Come on dude you know full well that this isn't even slightly one of those pointless threads - hell if it was I'm sure it'd get locked. Whilst the title of the thread has obviously lead 90% of people to not bother to read the OP and make snarky comments, the actual content of the post is essentially saying "Hey GB bros, an occasional sub 30 min video would be greatly appreciated by people who are on a tighter schedule but would still like to enjoy a whole video." That's a valid point, and I'm very sure the guy appreciate constructive 'criticism' even if the users don't.

There's nothing to obligate someone to finish watching content, or even to watch it at all. Reducing the length of content simply means is that there's less for the people who do want to watch it through to completion. The idea that "arbitrary stopping points" may somehow diminish the entertainment one might receive from the content seems like a weak argument, too; It's not like these are films, and you need to know how the story ends. Quick looks are, be design, a snippet of the game, and the length of each Quick Look often is proportional to the length or depth of the game.

This is constructive criticism, sure, but I think in the context of the wider criticism that the staff has received over the years, the general consensus is that people want more rather than less, and my dismissive "you can't please everyone" response, while blunt, seems the most realistic that any such criticism is likely to receive.

Moderator
Avatar image for csl316
#100 Posted by csl316 (14959 posts) -

@sweep: In all honesty, I looked back at some of the more recent Quick Looks and initially got taken aback by how many were over an hour in the past month. A game like Blues & Bullets getting an hour and a half a few years ago would've seemed insane, but it happened (and it was surprisingly engaging the whole way through).

But then I went further and noticed that recently, they've also been doing a lot of good, shorter stuff. The Uncharted collection, Nova-111, Lara Croft GO, Tearaway, Adventures of PIP, UBERMOSH, Gears of War: Ultimate, Airscape, Submerged, Everybody's Gone to the Rapture, all sub-30 and didn't go longer than they needed to. So I do think that they're more conscious of going long than I gave them credit for in the initial post.

In short, after following these responses through my whole sick day, I've come to realize that some Quick Looks are too long. But they've been striking a decent balance as of late and hope they get even better at it. They're getting closer at pleasing everyone and improving, even after all these years.