Are Quick Looks too long?

Avatar image for elko84
#101 Posted by elko84 (1384 posts) -


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

@csl316: i feel like Giant Bomb East are forcing in their PlayDate content into Quick Looks since Vinnyvania has them locked down, that's how it comes across to me anyway. I'm not asking for shorter content, i'm asking for more consciousness in their content, more awareness of the format. I'm saying you'd be better off with a short Quick Look getting the explanation of what the game is out of the way, and then extend the content by playing it within the Playdate show.

Avatar image for deactivated-5b45500a95f79
#103 Edited by deactivated-5b45500a95f79 (628 posts) -

The entire industry is obsessed with meaningless 5 - 15 minute clips packed with ads that are void of personality and riddled with marketing terms for "your inner geek". These long videos are full of personality and actual discussion which is still rare and make GB unique and successful.

So no. They are fine.

Avatar image for onemanarmyy
#104 Posted by Onemanarmyy (4501 posts) -

No. I've had more instances where i wish the vid would go a bit longer than instances where i wanted the vid to be shorter. Hell, if a quicklook gets too long and doesn't captivate me, i could always turn it off.

Avatar image for arbitrarywater
#105 Posted by ArbitraryWater (15746 posts) -

I'd normally say yes, because I don't have the kind of free time or patience to watch 45 minute QLs on everything that comes out like I did when I was in High School. However... I just started a part-time data entry job that is mindless enough that I can do it and watch a Quick Look at the same time, so the length on those things has turned around and become a plus instead of a minus when I'm tired of listening to podcasts about some dudes from New Zealand who watched Grown Ups 2 every week for a year.

Avatar image for techiesrobo
#106 Posted by TechiesRobo (89 posts) -


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

Here are some numbers: (Mid-2011 era)

The lengths of all videos on that page of Quick Looks:

32, 41, 23, 18, 40, 19, 15, 54, 37, 37, 24, 55, 21, 31, 24, 18, 38, 24, 17, 27, 25, 19, 15, 32 = 11.43 hours (Today)

The lengths of all videos on that page of Quick Looks:

44, 23, 47, 36, 1:19, 1:23, 47, 43, 48, 1:06, 45, 45, 47, 37, 42, 2:05, 1:09, 26, 34, 1:01, 1:08, 1:27, 40, 1:05 = 20.4 hours

EDIT: Page 56 was chosen at random from the 2008-2012 range.

RE-EDIT: Page 2 (pretty much August alone) totals 20.6 hours.

Avatar image for millaj
#108 Posted by MillaJ (288 posts) -

I'm in a position such that I can't really watch a lot of their longer video content, but that doesn't necessarily mean I want them to change how they do things. The quality of their content is generally solid, even if it can be lengthy. I can consume it in smaller pieces, download it for later consumption, or just be more choosy. Complaining about it would feel like complaining about video games being too long or something. If that content doesn't have a place in my life, I'll just have to find content (or ways of consuming the content) which does work for me. I see nothing wrong with asking for or suggesting more imminently consumable content, but I personally have no desire to push someone to create based on my personal circumstances.

Avatar image for ithryn
#109 Edited by Ithryn (125 posts) -

I love waking up early in the morning, getting a hot cup of coffe and watching 45 to an hour of GB goodness. I'm ok with the length, but that is just me.

Avatar image for franticrain
#110 Posted by FranticRain (155 posts) -

Yes, they are called "Quick" Looks, not "oh God another hour of Brad bumbling through a game" Looks. If they changed the name, it wouldn't bother me at all though. Like "First Looks" or something like that. Maybe just put the name of the game and then "[Extended HD Gameplay]" after it.

Avatar image for TechnoSyndrome
#111 Posted by TechnoSyndrome (1614 posts) -

Yeah, usually. I generally only watch premium content nowadays though.

Avatar image for westernwizard
#112 Posted by WesternWizard (604 posts) -

IMO it would be interesting to see them do something sort of like what happened with the initial Contradiction videos, where you've got a core video that focuses on the gist, then do a part 2 with the more in depth stuff for people hungry for as much GB content as they can get. This way people who want complete videos that aren't an hour long have something to watch, but there's still that more for those who need every second they can get.

Avatar image for onarum
#113 Posted by onarum (3212 posts) -


Avatar image for almostswedish
#114 Posted by AlmostSwedish (952 posts) -

Yes. I don't think I've watched all of a QL in a few years. I tend to skip a round a bit, but then it becomes hard to get a feel for a game.

Avatar image for wlleiotl
#115 Posted by Wlleiotl (310 posts) -

Another baffling 'I don't have enough time to watch it all, so GiantBomb should do less' thread.

Obviously not.

Avatar image for glots
#116 Posted by glots (4383 posts) -

Heck no. If the game's not interesting, I just skip it, no matter the length of the QL. But with good QLs I end up yearning for more nine times out of ten, even if I can understand that they just can't play it for as long as I'd like. Especially with something like Vinnyvania, I *usually* just wait with horror for when they decide to stop playing...except with that last one, I somewhat wanted the insanity to stop, but luckily they triumphed through.

Avatar image for castiel
#117 Posted by Castiel (3488 posts) -

I'm definitely watching less and less GB content and the length of the videos is a big part of the reason. I just don't feel like devoting more than 20-30 minutes is justified with the majorities of the games they look at.

Back in the day a long GB video was a goddamn event because it was something they did so rarely but now most quick looks are at least 10-15 minutes longer than they should be.

Avatar image for rethla
#118 Posted by rethla (3725 posts) -

They have 15min quicklooks which are to long and 2hour ones that are to short. Just never turn off the camera at Gbeast and it will be fine.

Avatar image for strathy
#119 Posted by Strathy (193 posts) -

Nope, because you can allways choose when to stop watching.

Avatar image for fredchuckdave
#120 Posted by Fredchuckdave (10824 posts) -

They should be as long as humanly possible, else they wouldn't be quick.

Avatar image for one1zero0one
#121 Posted by one1zero0one (82 posts) -

I don't recall any that felt like they went any longer than they needed and quite a few which i would have liked to have seen more of.

Quick looks typically have a short intro and early game scene setting followed by something a little later to show the progression, how long this takes depends on the game. But their approach appears to be 'Here's something i like' not just a 'we should cover this', so they have an interest in it and hence fill the time accordingly. I don't think the youtube style sub 10 min videos 'because nobody has any attention span anymore', would be enough and certainly not something i would want to see happen here.

Avatar image for avantegardener
#122 Posted by avantegardener (2381 posts) -

I would say the bad ones are, and good ones are not long enough :) Actually I think they could probably stand to be a be a bit eh.. quicker, although this basically a long a running joke at this stage.

Avatar image for ratamero
#123 Posted by ratamero (387 posts) -

Counterpoint: if shorter QLs would mean more games get coverage, for a total amount of video time similar to what we have currently, how would people feel? Because I think that's the gist of the OP: shorter content, but not LESS content. Pretty much all "hell no" answers seem to come from a place of "less content is worse than more content", which is never the point of this topic.

Avatar image for alistercat
#124 Posted by AlisterCat (8093 posts) -

Yes and no. They could be more concise and informative but that's antithetical to giant bomb. Every day is unprofessional friday.

Avatar image for atwa
#125 Posted by Atwa (1690 posts) -

I can never understand people that complain that something is too much, too long, too many.

Just don't watch them all the way. I usually watch half of a quicklook and get enouhg out of it.

Avatar image for shrinerr
#126 Posted by shrinerr (290 posts) -

i wish the quick looks were shorter and the bombcast/beastcast was longer. the podcasts are my diablo 3 audio so the longer they are the longer i grind paragon. but since i only have 1 monitor, i can't play and watch quick looks at the same time, so i can only devote so much time to watching quick looks.

Avatar image for frymillstrum
#127 Posted by frymillstrum (1324 posts) -


Avatar image for mjhwwbg
#128 Posted by mjhwwbg (183 posts) -

No. I believe they are a great length as it stands. I really enjoy the videos and as others have said I come for the entertainment as much as the information on games. I'd strongly dislike any movement to shorter videos as you wouldn't get the personalities of the team coming across.

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

Yes, they are called "Quick" Looks, not "oh God another hour of Brad bumbling through a game" Looks. If they changed the name, it wouldn't bother me at all though. Like "First Looks" or something like that. Maybe just put the name of the game and then "[Extended HD Gameplay]" after it.

So wait, you don't care about the length, you just care about the name? Ummmm. OK?

Avatar image for joshakazam
#130 Posted by Joshakazam (1257 posts) -

I spend about 3 hours on a bus each day, so I get the consume the vast majority of GB content (ironically except for the really long videos, which can never download properly to my Giant Bomb Video Buddy App), so i'll always say more content > less content.

I find going back to old videos the briefness of them is kind of frustrating, sometimes I just want to keep on seeing where it's going, and I like that that is so often an option in the "Quick Looks".

Avatar image for avanzato
#131 Posted by Avanzato (162 posts) -

I don't have time to watch all the quick looks so I now have a backlog of downloaded but unwatched ones.

Avatar image for mellotronrules
#132 Posted by mellotronrules (2624 posts) -


Avatar image for davidh219
#133 Posted by davidh219 (904 posts) -


If you don't have the time, start cutting stuff out. I have always stopped watching quick looks halfway through if they weren't super interesting. I went through a period where I didn't watch ANY quick looks, because I didn't have time for them and the premium content which I am far more interested in. I listened to the podcast every week when I had a job that let me listen to it while I worked. Now I don't, so I listen almost never because, again, time.

Saying there's too much content isn't an argument that ever makes sense, imo, unless the person producing the content is sacrificing quality for quantity, which doesn't really make sense here. It's just dudes playing games, not an author or a game developer. Since there's no quality sacrifice for more quantity (and you have the choice of what to prioritize) more content is always better. It just is, like, logically and scientifically. Sorry.

Avatar image for tr0n
#134 Posted by Tr0n (764 posts) -

Yes, they should be max 30 minutes.

Avatar image for evilcalvin
#136 Posted by EvilCalvin (124 posts) -

No they are not. Considering there are few articles and most of the content are videos then they should be long. Obviously big game (Witcher 3 or MGS5) should get longer QL but indies should tend to get shorter ones. It's fine.

Avatar image for theht
#137 Posted by TheHT (15875 posts) -


Avatar image for rafaelfc
#138 Posted by Rafaelfc (2243 posts) -

No, they should be longer

Avatar image for oursin_360
#139 Posted by OurSin_360 (6197 posts) -

I think with the lack of free content these days they kinda have to be long.

Avatar image for csl316
#140 Posted by csl316 (15002 posts) -

@ratamero said:

Counterpoint: if shorter QLs would mean more games get coverage, for a total amount of video time similar to what we have currently, how would people feel? Because I think that's the gist of the OP: shorter content, but not LESS content. Pretty much all "hell no" answers seem to come from a place of "less content is worse than more content", which is never the point of this topic.

You're right on point with what I originally tried getting at (and failed to explain properly).

Avatar image for wraithtek
#141 Edited by Wraithtek (426 posts) -

I generally don't have a problem with longer quick looks, but I get where you're coming from. Sometimes it's nice to consume a video all in one shot, rather than watching half one day and half the next.

But, I'm trying not to be too completionist about videos. If it's a game I'm not feeling, and it's not great fodder for the guys to riff on, I'll probably move on. Especially if it's a long video (say > 45 minutes). But others may be more interested in a particular game, and appreciate the extra run time.

I'd disagree with the suggestion that only "big" games deserve "big" quick looks.

Avatar image for bayernbomb
#142 Posted by BayernBomb (27 posts) -

I've never viewed Quick Looks being too long - it seems that most of them are appropriately sized for the game they're covering. A 30-minute video for a game that could rack up 40+ hours seems pretty quick.

Avatar image for beachthunder
#143 Posted by BeachThunder (15166 posts) -

Well, it seems they've taken this thread to heart. Maybe?

  • Over the last 2 weeks, the average Quick Look length has been 41.8 mins.
  • The two weeks before that: 50.3 mins.
  • Then the two weeks before: 58.4 mins.
Avatar image for imsh_pl
#144 Posted by imsh_pl (4208 posts) -

@csl316: Looks like we're vastly outnumbered but I have to agree with you.

I think that in the midst of enjoying the content and watching the crew having fun people at some point stopped realizing that what they expect Quick Looks to be is actually Let's Plays.

My view on QLs was always that they are a basic explanation of what's to be expected of a game, its mechanics, how it's different from other things out there. An overview that might get someone interested in finding out more about a game, possibly warrant a purchase.

I'll never play Destiny because I don't have a console, but I want to have a basic understanding of what it's about because I'm interested in the state of the industry. Is there really no way to convey that information without the use of at least 40 minute worth of footage in a single video? Is the yearly FIFA or Assassin's Creed game really that content rich that there's no way to portray the game in less than 50 minutes and an hour, respectively?

In my opinion at some point the crew made a transition from recording Quick Looks to Let's Plays, but never bothered changing the name. The thing is that the current QLs feel neither here nor there - they lack the polish and structural cohesion of a Quick Look, but they also don't scratch that 'I want to watch them play this whole game' itch. Often times the videos feel ramshackled and poorly put together, and it feels like I'm just watching them record a randomly selected hour-long chunk of the game with added commentary. It's more of 'watch me play through this level of this game' and less 'listen to me explain what this game is about'. It's less holistic.

It's really great to see features that are actually supposed to be Let's Plays, like East vs West, Choose Our Own Adventure, Metal Gear Scanlon, GBE Playdate etc. They are great at filling that ER shaped hole in my heart. I love Giant Bomb because of the personalities, but I kind of miss that I could just pop in an entertaining and informative video into my schedule instead of having to plan out an evening to watch the crew play FIFA.

Avatar image for kazona
#145 Posted by Kazona (3399 posts) -

For me, personally, yes they tend to be too long. I would love to watch every quick look that gets put up but with the amount of them and the average length that's just not feasible.

So I try to pick and choose where I can. And that in itself can be a daunting task because that obscure game I have never heard about might just prove to be just up my wheelhouse there's also that quick look they put up for a gave I've been interested in.

What happens is that I usually forego the quick look of the unknown choose the one that I know I want to see.

All in all I guess I would like some more shorter quick looks, but then you run the risk of not being well informed.

In short: yes, but maybe no. And I don't know! Stop asking questions that require me to think!

Avatar image for kagato
#146 Posted by kagato (1161 posts) -

Probably for the term "quick look" but i actually like them to be fairly long, i enjoy more of the Giant bomb guys as opposed to less.

Avatar image for laserbolts
#147 Posted by laserbolts (5506 posts) -

Depends on who is in them. Not going to name names but I find the gbeast videos too long if I can even hit play to begin with.

Avatar image for robotmayo
#148 Posted by robotmayo (78 posts) -

I sometimes wish they were longer lol.

Avatar image for paliv
#149 Posted by Paliv (251 posts) -

I don't think so, but I've moved from watching every single one to just ones for games I'm interested in or that seem like they'd be entertaining. They are good background for busy work also.

Avatar image for turtlefish
#150 Posted by TurtleFish (239 posts) -

I want the video to be as long and as entertaining as the GB crew decides it should be, and they can call it whatever they want. They've proven that they can do entertaining content, and I trust them enough to go along for the ride. And, if it turns out that the game isn't interesting or it's one of those rare videos where they can't make it entertaining for me? I just turn it off and go find something else.

You don't have to watch every video, and not every video has to be comedic gold, and you don't have to agree with them all the time. And if you only have time for 15 minute video clips, then sorry duder, it is what it is. I don't have time to watch any of the really long run stuff (Metal Gear Scanlon et al), but I'm not going to ask Giant Bomb to stop producing those.