Are Quick Looks too long?

Avatar image for colourful_hippie
#151 Posted by colourful_hippie (5913 posts) -

I haven't been watching them all like I used to because I don't have as much free time and the videos are getting longer but I don't mind because I just skim through the video if I need to

Avatar image for zagzagovich
#152 Posted by zagzagovich (835 posts) -

This question always comes up with gb stuff and just to reiterate what everyone said: It's alright to not watch a whole thing in one go. It might look intimidating to see a big number when you don't have a lot of time but the vid will always be there and you can pick up from where you left off thanks to the player having that.

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

Frequently I watch the QL's in 10 minute segments at a time, since the player saves where I was last at.

Apart from the podcasts, this site has always mostly been about video content, but chances are you aren't going to be interested in watching every video ever. I watched enough of that new assassin's creed QL to know it's the same game as they've always been still, it's not broken this year, and the video wasn't that funny so I didn't need to watch much of it. The more video content they put out, the more of it is stuff I'll actually enjoy (for example, another CK2 playdate would be awesome). Doing the opposite of that and actually making less video content seems kinda backward to me.

Avatar image for bradbrains
#154 Edited by BradBrains (2274 posts) -

@laserbolts said:

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.

blind austin hate?

anyway I don't know if too long is right but often you can get the just of wanting a game based ona short period. then again it takes more for some games. id rather have too much footage to judge a game than too little

Avatar image for jaalmo
#155 Edited by Jaalmo (1752 posts) -

I think long videos does me a service in some way. If end up turning off about 30 minutes into a video, it just means that means the game wasn't interesting enough for me.

For example; I watched through the entirety of that Fifa 16 video and wanted them to play more at the end of it, so I ended up buying it. Something I would have never thought of doing in any other situation. The Assassins Creed video? I turned off in 30 minutes. It sort of tells me what I want to play and don’t want to play more than any review could.

I guess that’s what they are made to do right? If you’re watching everything they are churning out and forcing yourself to watch through it all, you’re doing it wrong.

Online
Avatar image for superkenon
#156 Edited by Superkenon (1704 posts) -

As someone who doesn't have time to watch most Quick Looks, I don't think it's a problem. I still turn 'em on, watch only what I have time for, and they've still fulfilled their purpose. But if I need to know more -- lucky me, there's still more video.

Longer videos are a more efficient use of time anyway. It's not like knocking a 1-hour video down to a 15-minute video means they can use that extra time to record three more 15-minute videos.

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

No, they should be longer

Avatar image for pokeikzai
#158 Posted by PokeIkzai (427 posts) -

I think lately they've been on point and go as long as needed. I like Dan and Jeff's attempt at actual quick looks but I also appreciate that the long ones still happen.

Avatar image for rick
#159 Posted by rick (506 posts) -

Funny, inside story: GiantBomb's videos break CBS's content distribution network because they're too long, longer than any show CBS puts on TV. Its been a huge headache for a bunch of people and they've had to invest a lot to upgrade stuff. All because of "Quick"looks. :)

Avatar image for grantheaslip
#160 Posted by GrantHeaslip (1869 posts) -

I'm probably looking back with rose-tinted glasses to some degree, but I miss the more focussed Quick Looks of yore. I recall a lot of "okay, I've got a save with an interesting segment queued up, and some points I want to make -- let's go." Now, I find a lot of them just feel like they're being recorded with no prep, and unsurprisingly end up feeling a bit meandering and slow to start. I feel like there was a sense of restraint to the original format that's gradually been sidelined.

I don't watch as many Quick Looks as I used to, and I rarely finish the ones I do watch. I can chalk some of that up to being in a different place in my life -- and also having more access to similar stuff on YouTube -- but I also feel like the evolving format is a contributing factor. To be clear, I'm not saying they need to change to cater to me.

Avatar image for geirr
#161 Posted by geirr (3796 posts) -

Length doesn't matter too much, it's how they use it!

If the people Quick Looking the game are not entertained, or at least entertaining, then the video, no matter the length, is also not entertaining. In those cases it can feel like the videos are too long. However some people might enjoy this, I don't know, and that's fine. If I ever get bored, which is rare in Giant Bomb's case, then I'll just stop the video and move on to something else.

That being said, I do prefer the longer videos but I also have lots of spare time during evenings and my only "problem" is running out of new GB content. Which is a great position to be in, really!

Avatar image for deactivated-5b031d0e868a5
#162 Posted by deactivated-5b031d0e868a5 (935 posts) -

Huh its that time of the year again - nope!

Avatar image for none_braver
#163 Posted by None_Braver (316 posts) -

If you think they are too long, just skip through some of the parts. I know I've made the buy decision solely on the gameplay in quick looks.

Avatar image for hunter5024
#164 Posted by Hunter5024 (6706 posts) -

I think they could probably show off the game just as well in less time, but I don't see that as a problem.

Avatar image for csl316
#165 Posted by csl316 (15000 posts) -

Oh right, I made this thread.

Anyway, status report, I've been keeping up on the games I want to see and downloading videos that don't look like my thing. Hell, I even turn some off early. It's been working out. I'm also downloading MGS V and Life is Strange and saving them for later (realistically, I probably won't ever get to them).

To reiterate, I have the time to watch them. My question was more about focus and quality. Thanks for the additional replies. The longer it goes, the more mixed opinions I see.

Avatar image for relkin
#166 Posted by Relkin (1214 posts) -

Now, I find a lot of them just feel like they're being recorded with no prep, and unsurprisingly end up feeling a bit meandering and slow to start. I feel like there was a sense of restraint to the original format that's gradually been sidelined.

This is right on point.

I don't think they need to be shorter, but I do wish they would render their opinions in a more...organized/efficient(?) manner. Having to skip around the video to get their thoughts on the product in a timely manner when I just don't have the time to watch the whole thing isn't a good experience. I would like if they tried getting their main points across early in the video (first 20-30 minutes).

Avatar image for extragingerbrew
#167 Posted by extragingerbrew (358 posts) -

No.

Avatar image for ilikepopcans
#168 Edited by ILikePopCans (966 posts) -

@csl316:Thanks for making this thread. Sucks that 90% of the responses are half ass answers like "no" but what can you do, thats a forum for you, but reading the other 10% that actually had some thought in it was nice.

And I generally agree. Quick looks for the bigger/AAA games that are longer works cause there is a lot to talk about and a lot of interest in said game. But when the smaller indie games are getting hour long quick looks, those are the ones that I feel could benefit being sub 30 minutes. The informative part of that quick look can get done in less then 20 minutes, so its that 40 minutes part I feel is purely for entertainment, and in the end a, by the books, indie game is not a lot of material the crew can make fun with. With austin coming aboard I feel like GBEast QLs are now pretty good at being entertaining enough throughout with the 3 people on, and GBWest are good at stopping at a good place in QLs I feel most of the time. This argument is base on the quality vs quantity side.

For the argument of "it would be nice to have shorter videos cause i have a full time job and a social life" I would say... tough luck I guess. Having shorter QL's as the answer to wanting shorter videos on the site is not a good one cause QL's should not be keep short just to be short (the length should be whenever it stops being informative and entertaining, which I feel QLs can go past). And for having shorter videos on the site period, since the CBS days, GB has pretty much stop with the short, edited videos (excluding GOTY stuff), which sucks. TANG was great and the E3 recap videos were great. I wish Gb could do mostly the streaming stuff which they do now, and a little of the edited stuff, especially now that they have 2 video producers in west, but sadly those days are over I guess.

In the end, yes some QLs, especially the 2 man indie game ones, probably can be shorter to make the quality higher. As someone who would rather have more quality then quantity in the content I consume I say yes to some QLs should be shorter. But the game and the crew who are in the QL will determine how entertaining the QL is more anyways so... does length really matters?

EDIT: I will say QLs have turn more into informative products then entertainment products... lot less recent QLs I want to rewatch for funzies. Thats probably has to do more with staff changes and staff moves and such though. No new Angelica Weaver: Catch Me When You Can replacement QL is what im saying

Avatar image for rvone
#170 Posted by RVonE (5015 posts) -

Longer. They should be longer.

Avatar image for nonekjr
#171 Posted by nonekjr (95 posts) -

I usually skip through them or watch around half of them and then stop. It's mostly from lack of interest in the game or lack of time in general that makes me tune out. I don't play a lot of games but I'm always looking for something new and interesting. Only sometimes ql's tend to drag on imo. It's fine, it works for me.

Avatar image for tophar01
#172 Posted by Tophar01 (246 posts) -

Nope, if anything they're too short.

Avatar image for geralt
#173 Edited by Geralt (484 posts) -

They have to fight a gazillion of YouTube kids out there in term of the amount of content that was put out. I guess you just can't stop in this business.

Avatar image for grillbar
#174 Posted by Grillbar (2079 posts) -

no, sure i rarely have time to watch them in full length, but i just end up pausing them and watching the rest later. so i dont have a problem with the length, i just dont have the free time for it

Avatar image for jacksmedulla
#175 Posted by jacksmedulla (391 posts) -

Hell nah!

Online
Avatar image for moregrammarplz
#176 Posted by moregrammarplz (330 posts) -

I sort of miss the Quick Looks of years past which tried a little harder to be more focused and informative about the actual game, but these days the Bombcast/Beastcast is probably the place to go if you want to hear what your favorite duders have to say about a particular title. I watch Quick Looks for two reasons - when I want more Giant Bomb outside of the podcasts and UPF, and when I want to very quickly see some gameplay footage of a game that I have no clue about

Avatar image for rccola
#177 Posted by rccola (58 posts) -

No.

Avatar image for wacomole
#178 Posted by Wacomole (1177 posts) -

Nope. Days are just too short.

I say we erect an elaborate framework of rockets around the Earth to slow our rotation and add more hours to the day.

There, a "half ass answer" with a practical solution.

Avatar image for saddlebrown
#180 Posted by saddlebrown (1564 posts) -

@shaunk said:

Nope, arguing that an internet video is too long will NEVER make sense. You don't have to watch it and you aren't paying for it.

...Unless it's a premium video, in which case you are.

Avatar image for saddlebrown
#181 Edited by saddlebrown (1564 posts) -

@belegorm said:

Apart from the podcasts, this site has always mostly been about video content, but chances are you aren't going to be interested in watching every video ever. I watched enough of that new assassin's creed QL to know it's the same game as they've always been still, it's not broken this year, and the video wasn't that funny so I didn't need to watch much of it. The more video content they put out, the more of it is stuff I'll actually enjoy (for example, another CK2 playdate would be awesome). Doing the opposite of that and actually making less video content seems kinda backward to me.

It's surprising to me how many people completely missed the OP's point. He was never asking for "less video content." He was asking for the existing time to be divided differently, so for example, instead of having a one-hour Assassin's Creed QL that you say you stopped watching early because "it's the same game as they've always been" and "the video wasn't that funny," GB instead makes two 30-minute videos instead. Or maybe even three 20-minute videos. Or a 20-minute video and a 40-minute video.

Lots of people have had great ideas in this thread, like following the Contradiction model of having a shorter QL for people who want the gist of the game and to watch a funny video, then breaking it out into a longer video series for anyone who has the time and desire to keep watching. That's a great idea.

But for those people who keep saying "more content = better," I think @grantheaslip said it best:

Now, I find a lot of them just feel like they're being recorded with no prep, and unsurprisingly end up feeling a bit meandering and slow to start. I feel like there was a sense of restraint to the original format that's gradually been sidelined.

It's not just that QLs are really long that's the problem; it's that they no longer have a point or something interesting and specific to show off. QLs used to be short so the guys often had to prepare something in advance, like get a save ready or figure out what they want to show off. Now it's just "turn on the camera and go," which is 99% of the content on this site now. Personally I miss videos with tight editing and real production values because when Vinny really goes for it, he's one of the best in the biz. Same with Drew.

One of the first QLs on the site was for The Maw, and it was Jeff playing it solo for 15 minutes and going in blind, no prep. Obviously that breaks some of what I said in the last paragraph about being prepared, but still, it was tight, it was funny, it gave you a good slice of what the game is like, and it didn't overstay its welcome. A QL for The Maw these days would be 55 minutes long and show off a fifth of the game and judging by the responses on this thread, most people would either turn it off after 10 minutes, let it play in another tab, or fall asleep during it.

Avatar image for csl316
#182 Posted by csl316 (15000 posts) -

@saddlebrown: There was an argument that it's not as simple as 1 hour long video into 2 half hour ones. There is some prep involved, as far as scheduling and getting a save set up, etc. With lengthy tutorial openings being as pervasive as they are, the "turn it on and go" model has its limitations.

You're right that my point wasn't less video, but more variety. All I know is there have been more Bombasticas lately, which I'm very happy about.

Avatar image for jaketaylor
#183 Posted by jaketaylor (365 posts) -

"Quick" is specific to the game. An hour long quick look of a game like Skyrim is indeed quick. However, an hour long quick look of a game like Rocket League is quite lengthy.

Avatar image for saddlebrown
#184 Posted by saddlebrown (1564 posts) -

@csl316: Yeah, I was trying to divide it for simplicity but of course the math doesn't actually work out like that when you factor in rendering, posting, any edits that need to be made, etc. That's why I also wanted to include the guy's comment about the tone of QLs, how much prep work goes into them, etc. I'm watching the Demon's Souls QL right now and it's still just fantastic even years later.

The phrase "turn it on and go" for me is more about the lack of prep work and the overall style than it is a literal thing. It's also about the complete lack of edited content on the site. I remember Vinny did one quick show about the games they didn't have time to cover maybe four to six months ago and it was great, the first video of its type they'd made in a long time. But even though they got a lot of positive feedback in the comments, they only made the one and never came back to the concept. I miss content like that, and that's not just a length argument, either.

Avatar image for dixavd
#185 Posted by Dixavd (2907 posts) -

If a quick look is meant to give impressions on a game and to explain the different parts of a game, then I would say yes: they are much too long. Furthermore, I'd say if this is their aim then for many quick looks they are ill-prepared, and often let their joking amongst themselves talk each other out of actually explaining mechanics and how they feel to play.

If a quick look is an excuse to get a general view of a game while putting the focus on how entertaining they are as hosts (essentially like bite-sized versions of the personality-driven YouTube Let's Players) then no the videos are not too long.

Many people come for the latter. I personally am interested in the former, though the podcasts do help in fleshing out their views on games. Giant Bomb has always been more personality-driven than journalistic so Quick Looks have just moved further to that degree over the years. I wish their was more of the critical and expiratory dialogue on the site (though I have been impressed by the recent number of reviews). I greatly miss seeing articles especially by Brad, Jeff and Alex. I've a little hope that Austin's new column might turn into this.*

*Hint hint @austin

Avatar image for pr1mus
#186 Edited by pr1mus (4158 posts) -

Yes they are. It's not about too much or not enough content. It's about more interesting or important content. They could use that time for better or more original content instead.

Just an example, the fact they won't finish Life is Strange before GOTY talks is a fucking tragedy and for what? The same sorry excuse of not enough time to play it. Cut 3 of those 1h30 long quick looks in half and lo and behold enough time to play another episode is created!

An 1h30 quick look of Vinny playing Just Cause 3 is 2 things. 1) Hilarious and 2) unnecessary when you already have an hour long quick look ex of the game. It being super funny in a vacuum doesn't make it any less unnecessary when better/more important content could have been created instead.

Avatar image for rigas
#187 Posted by Rigas (848 posts) -

I might be in a minority, but I don't go into a Quick Look to see if it's a game I want to play, sometimes I come out it and want to play that game. I don't need to watch the QL to know I want Just Cause 3 or Fallout 4. I watch them to see the guys play video games, granted sometimes Dan rambles way off topic instead of talking about the games while the others stay vaguely focused.

Avatar image for mrwakka
#188 Posted by MrWakka (322 posts) -

No

Avatar image for thatlad
#189 Posted by thatlad (178 posts) -

Yes, I rarely watch quicklooks unless I'm doing something else so I can barely watch. I find 30-45 mins is a sweet spot but anything longer I probably wont watch so I rarely watch any

Avatar image for griffinmills
#190 Posted by Griffinmills (320 posts) -

Well since we're reanimating this zombie of a thread instead of making a new Frankenstein Monster then I'll throw in a, "Nope." I do think they could use some time management refreshers or perhaps I just need much better insight into how they spend their work days. I much prefer the prepped quick look ideal where they start after tutorials or the first level to going in blind but understand it may not always be a thing.

Avatar image for thomasnash
#191 Posted by thomasnash (1106 posts) -

@dixavd said:

If a quick look is meant to give impressions on a game and to explain the different parts of a game, then I would say yes: they are much too long. Furthermore, I'd say if this is their aim then for many quick looks they are ill-prepared, and often let their joking amongst themselves talk each other out of actually explaining mechanics and how they feel to play.

I feel like a big part of the problem is that if the latter is the purpose of quick looks, they are really rarely entertaining enough to be worth the runtime these days - in part because they are taking it seriously to some extent, and treating it as an opportunity to inform the audience about the game.

Although looking back over the last few pages of quick looks I'm struggling to pick a particularly bad offender. Typoman maybe was a bit of a low ebb.

I suppose in the end it depends a lot on the driver. Vinny is pretty good at making things entertaining while he's moving between the things he wants to show off, so that helps in his. Jeff and Austin (imo) are pretty good at knowing what they want to show beforehand, so that, for example, Austin showing off Anno 2205 manages to just about justify it's length (with a bit of dicking around at the end). I think Brad and Alex are produce the most flabby quick looks, as they seem to show things off almost as the mood takes them, and get distracted and tripped up a lot.

I dunno, I definitely find myself paying a lot less attention to quick looks. I also think it would be nice to have shorter quick looks and maybe invest some more recording time in stuff like Demo Derby and so on, but at the same time, producing tighter quick looks probably involves a lot more man-hours that don't get put directly on the sight (getting the right saves and writing loose itineraries and so on) which isn't worth it for them - not least because it could hinder there ability to get video on the site in time for the youtube hits.

This was all a really longwinded way of saying "shrug" I guess.

Avatar image for 49th
#192 Posted by 49th (3914 posts) -

At the moment in my situation, yeah, I think they are too long for me. I realised I haven't watched a Quick Look in over a month, the last one I wanted to watch was Triforce Heroes. I can get the same information/entertainment reading impressions on forums and watching shorter 10 minute edited youtube videos, but that's mostly due to me not having much free-time lately.

Online
Avatar image for laserguy
#193 Posted by laserguy (550 posts) -

Quick looks are not too long.

Avatar image for shaunk
#194 Posted by ShaunK (1665 posts) -

@shaunk said:

Nope, arguing that an internet video is too long will NEVER make sense. You don't have to watch it and you aren't paying for it.

...Unless it's a premium video, in which case you are.

Nope, you are not paying for a video. You are paying for access to the websites premium features which just happens to include videos which just happens to include whatever specific video you are talking about. You don't have to watch anything if it's too long. The fact of the matter is almost no one complains about something like a video or podcast being too long because you aren't paying for them on a case by case basis.

Avatar image for mikemcn
#195 Posted by Mikemcn (8599 posts) -

Watch a video in bits and pieces if its too long, or start skipping the ones you don't have an interest in either way you get the same amount of gb personality that you got before.

Avatar image for dudeglove
#196 Posted by dudeglove (13778 posts) -

FWIW, even though I'm on premium, I don't feel as though I'm missing out on anything in particular, and there's stuff I don't really watch or listen to, and it's usually the things that are live streamed out (but thanks to QLcrew.com being able to archive the chat, I can now watch said things as if they were life). Such things include:

- VinnyVania

- UPFs

- Breaking Bradborne

- Alt+F1

and there's still many other videos on this site that I've not watched yet, despite being on this site for ages. It's usually because of either time or just plain old lack of interest - which is totally fine. I'm glad they cover the stuff I wanna hear about, as well as the things I don't give a rat's ass for.

What I'd really love, and this is sorta creepy but whatever, is for Drew/Vinny/Jason to strap on a go-pro, and just time lapse their work day at 8/16x the speed, just to show you all how much time and effort it takes to actually record video.

Avatar image for mister_v
#197 Posted by Mister_V (2450 posts) -

I tend to save the longer ones for when I'm at my PC, I'll throw one up on my second monitor whilst I'm playing Elite or similar and split my attention between the two. That said I still don't get round to watching all of them.

I would like a few les of the "hey I haven't played this game before lets jump in" type of quick looks. Those have the potential to be hilarious but more often than not are just tedious.

Avatar image for somejerk
#198 Posted by SomeJerk (4077 posts) -

Most of the too long ones would benefit from planning beforehand, like what the quickerlooker wants to show off and do, and preferably that they know how to do it and show these things off without taking too long. In the case of the XenoChronX QL I put it down to Austin being wet behind the ears in the world of QL making and working with dadjoke Vinny but he's learning quickly, it's cool.

Improvised on the spot QLs when they work out are cool too. COD game QLs showing SP and MP are fine, always doing a good job showing the gmae.

Avatar image for trilogy
#199 Posted by Trilogy (3208 posts) -
Loading Video...

Avatar image for walkertr77
#200 Posted by WalkerTR77 (1811 posts) -

I think the longer quick looks are fine because part of the point of the video is to let you see what's on offer and seeing more of a game is helpful buying advice. Ultimately, if the video is too long, you can just watch your fill.