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

@csl316 said:

Oh, dammit, I guess I'm wrong.

You are correct in that you're wrong.

Avatar image for capum15
#202 Posted by Capum15 (6005 posts) -

I don't think so. I mean, yeah they can be pretty long, but you do always have the option of turning it off. I also just enjoy watching them play games so it's never bothered me. I tend to know if I want a game or not, and if I need to watch one to help me if I'm on the fence, they're fine.

Also the video player saves it's position so you can pause it and hop back on later if need be.

Avatar image for hermes
#203 Posted by hermes (2588 posts) -

Mmmhhh...

I enjoy the videos, but mostly for the comedy potential than as information to support a purchase.

Looking at the videos and their length, I can see what you mean. They have grown longer and longer, even when the games are not necessarily longer or more complex. I don't think they need over an hour to showcase WWE 2016 (it took them a third of that time to show 2009), or an hour and a half for the online component of MGS5; not when in earlier times, it took them less than 20 minutes to showcase Red Alert 3 and Valkyria Chronicles...

Avatar image for geirr
#204 Edited by geirr (3736 posts) -
@hermes said:

Mmmhhh...

I enjoy the videos, but mostly for the comedy potential than as information to support a purchase.

Looking at the videos and their length, I can see what you mean. They have grown longer and longer, even when the games are not necessarily longer or more complex. I don't think they need over an hour to showcase WWE 2016 (it took them a third of that time to show 2009), or an hour and a half for the online component of MGS5; not when in earlier times, it took them less than 20 minutes to showcase Red Alert 3 and Valkyria Chronicles...

They don't "need" to showcase any game for more than 5 minutes, but I'm very happy they do since sometimes I just want to see my favorite duders play some damn videogames.

Avatar image for donutfever
#205 Posted by DonutFever (4051 posts) -

Totally. Now I sometimes play them in the background, but it's been years since I straight up watched one.

Avatar image for razielcuts
#206 Posted by RazielCuts (3289 posts) -

To be honest, I don't think I've watched a full quick look in about a year? Maybe that's not true but it sure feels like it. They exhaust the game and end up just playing it not showing it, big difference. Perfect example is that Typoman QL, that could've been half the length, even felt like there was a good stopping point when Alex solved that teleporting puzzle and was going down in the lift (and it was for me as I felt like I saw enough about it that I knew what that game was). I kind of feel like they've forgotten why they're doing QL's in the first place? To be informative but not a Let's Play. It's how GB East have fallen into the trap a few times of 'Whoops, looks like we just finished this game now.' Not that I hate that, because the Contradiction series was great and I'd love to see a Blues and Bullets carry on. I just think when it's a gameplay heavy game you need to get in and get out. Don't just sit there and play through the game for an hour because that's now the quota.

I'm conflicted :(

I do however watch all the live show stuff. UPF, Mario Party, Amiibo Festival - those are just more prone to random acts of hijinx.

Avatar image for hermes
#207 Posted by hermes (2588 posts) -

@geirr said:

@hermes said:

Mmmhhh...

I enjoy the videos, but mostly for the comedy potential than as information to support a purchase.

Looking at the videos and their length, I can see what you mean. They have grown longer and longer, even when the games are not necessarily longer or more complex. I don't think they need over an hour to showcase WWE 2016 (it took them a third of that time to show 2009), or an hour and a half for the online component of MGS5; not when in earlier times, it took them less than 20 minutes to showcase Red Alert 3 and Valkyria Chronicles...

They don't "need" to showcase any game for more than 5 minutes, but I'm very happy they do since sometimes I just want to see my favorite duders play some damn videogames.

It doesn't mean that I don't enjoy the videos, but the idea behind them has changed with the years.

The feature started as an unguided preview video (where an informative showcase was the main focus), and evolved into the giantbomb response to "Let's Play" videos...

Avatar image for bakumatsu
#208 Posted by Bakumatsu (430 posts) -

If you asked me this question 2 years ago, I would respond definitely no. But with a full time job, a year old kid and time to play games being so little, I would say the answer is, sometimes, yes. More frequently than not, I see myself skip 20+ minutes of the video, since I just want to see if the game is for me or not. But hey, more is better than less.

Avatar image for huntad
#209 Posted by huntad (2407 posts) -

@csl316: I didn't see this thread until now, but yes. I do feel that they are too long at times. If you compare these to older quick looks, there's a pretty big difference. Sometimes these ones become boring. Could be just me though.

Avatar image for wjb
#210 Posted by wjb (2157 posts) -

All I know is I'm less likely to watch the entire thing if it's over 30-40 minutes.

Quick Look Live for big games are fine, but I don't need an hour plus for every little game.

They know what's best, though. I'm sure it's a reaction to people wishing QLs were longer.

Avatar image for veektarius
#211 Posted by Veektarius (6407 posts) -

It's not uncommon for me to stop a QL early and never come back to it, but those extra minutes I never watched don't cost me anything.

Avatar image for captain_max707
#212 Posted by captain_max707 (671 posts) -

If a video is long enough that I can't watch it in one sitting, I'll pause it and come back later. It's not a big deal in my mind.

Avatar image for jeldh
#213 Edited by Jeldh (521 posts) -

I love long quick looks, more content is always better for me and they seem to have more fun when it goes on for a while

I always do something else and watch Quick looks on a second screen, so maybe I never get bored because of that

Avatar image for dr_insane
#214 Edited by Dr_Insane (756 posts) -

I used to think some were too long, till I remembered that I simply don't have to watch the whole thing. If it's feeling like it's running on a bit long I'll just skip to the end or close it and watch something else. No harm in that, you should able to get the jist of the game in the first 10-30 minutes and if you're no longer entertained after that then simply don't watch anymore. There's plenty of other content on the site to watch.

Avatar image for silversaint
#215 Posted by SilverSaint (87 posts) -

I don't mind longer quick looks, but I do wish there was more of the game and their thoughts near the beginning. From what I remember quick looks used to be 20-45 mins and generally revolved positives near the beginning and negatives halfway through or near the end. Now its more just someone playing and little thoughts are giving during the quick look, which combined with most being 50-90 mins is slightly annoying. Just a slight summary near the beginning of "The idea of the game is X, I think Y is great, I dislike Z, I'll show you some examples of Y and Z and talk about it more as we play" seems to me the core of a quick look, with X, Y, and Z missing or spread over incredibly lengths for many recent quick looks. One of the recent quick looks that did this X, Y, Z thing quite well was the recent Typoman one by Alex, namely because in general Alex gives 0 shits about saying the negatives of a game and within the first 20 minutes everything about the game was pretty clear.

Now in most cases I don't mind missing the X, Y, Z as most quick looks are of games I would never buy, but the banter is enjoyable so I am more watching for pure entertainment then to get information (example being the Fallout 4 quick look which was basically useless information wise). I would prefer more concise thoughts near the start, even for a 2 hour quick look, but I think the actual quick look length is irrelevant.

Avatar image for sammo21
#216 Posted by sammo21 (5962 posts) -

its been a hot minute since someone made another one of these posts.

No, the answer is no. If they are too long for you I would suggest turning the video off when you feel as though you've gotten enough out of it.

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

no

Avatar image for davidh219
#218 Edited by davidh219 (904 posts) -

I don't mind longer quick looks, but I do wish there was more of the game and their thoughts near the beginning. From what I remember quick looks used to be 20-45 mins and generally revolved positives near the beginning and negatives halfway through or near the end. Now its more just someone playing and little thoughts are giving during the quick look, which combined with most being 50-90 mins is slightly annoying. Just a slight summary near the beginning of "The idea of the game is X, I think Y is great, I dislike Z, I'll show you some examples of Y and Z and talk about it more as we play" seems to me the core of a quick look, with X, Y, and Z missing or spread over incredibly lengths for many recent quick looks. One of the recent quick looks that did this X, Y, Z thing quite well was the recent Typoman one by Alex, namely because in general Alex gives 0 shits about saying the negatives of a game and within the first 20 minutes everything about the game was pretty clear.

Now in most cases I don't mind missing the X, Y, Z as most quick looks are of games I would never buy, but the banter is enjoyable so I am more watching for pure entertainment then to get information (example being the Fallout 4 quick look which was basically useless information wise). I would prefer more concise thoughts near the start, even for a 2 hour quick look, but I think the actual quick look length is irrelevant.

Hit the nail on the head here. I've always appreciated Alex-led quick looks and haven't really thought about why until reading this. Dude is really good about getting his thoughts on a game out there as fast as possible.

Avatar image for onemanarmyy
#219 Edited by Onemanarmyy (4169 posts) -

I think that they do a good job giving games the time that they need for quicklooks. a game like Xenoblade Chronicles X has a lot going on and therefore needs the time for Austin to explain how it all works and show off why the game is fun.

A game like Mario Ultra Smash or Shower with my dad simulator has not much going on and can be shown off completely within 10-20 minutes. Which they did.

The only recent quicklook that got more time than needed, was Typoman in my opinion.

Avatar image for csl316
#220 Edited by csl316 (14946 posts) -

@onemanarmyy said:

I think that they do a good job giving games the time that they need for quicklooks. a game like Xenoblade Chronicles X has a lot going on and therefore needs the time for Austin to explain how it all works and show off why the game is fun.

A game like Mario Ultra Smash or Shower with my dad simulator has not much going on and can be shown off completely within 10-20 minutes. Which they did.

The only recent quicklook that got more time than needed, was Typoman in my opinion.

Indeed, since I made this thread a few months ago, the Quick Looks have had a nice variety in length. Xenoblade and Anno 2205 were a good length to show everything off, while Just Cause 3 was open-world Vinny and could've kept going. Starcraft showed a bunch, as well.

Mario was a good length, Overwatch didn't overstay its welcome, and things just seem a little tighter. I'm hoping they read through some of this thread because there was some good feedback in general on the Quick Look format. In one of the videos, Vinny even said "we could end this here, but this is fun and we want to keep going." Which makes me think they're consciously thinking about it.

Again, there's nothing wrong with long Quick Looks. I, along with many other people that posted here, just don't feel every Quick Look needs to be super long. Which they've been doing a good job of lately.

And on a side note, I really, really enjoyed the light editing in today's Kerbal video. There's a debate in the comments going both ways, and I honestly think some variety to satisfy both camps could go a long way.

Avatar image for bluefish
#221 Posted by bluefish (876 posts) -

No.

I disagree. They're too long.

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.

Yes, but if information and their opinions are spread very thin over 40+ minutes of a game I'm interested in looking at quickly it becomes not something I see as having much value.

My perspective.

Avatar image for geirr
#222 Edited by geirr (3736 posts) -

@hermes said:

@geirr said:

@hermes said:

Mmmhhh...

I enjoy the videos, but mostly for the comedy potential than as information to support a purchase.

Looking at the videos and their length, I can see what you mean. They have grown longer and longer, even when the games are not necessarily longer or more complex. I don't think they need over an hour to showcase WWE 2016 (it took them a third of that time to show 2009), or an hour and a half for the online component of MGS5; not when in earlier times, it took them less than 20 minutes to showcase Red Alert 3 and Valkyria Chronicles...

They don't "need" to showcase any game for more than 5 minutes, but I'm very happy they do since sometimes I just want to see my favorite duders play some damn videogames.

It doesn't mean that I don't enjoy the videos, but the idea behind them has changed with the years.

The feature started as an unguided preview video (where an informative showcase was the main focus), and evolved into the giantbomb response to "Let's Play" videos...

I can understand that as they're not always quick looks anymore. Well in some cases they are. I find it varies with the game too however; like with a fallout game, 40-50 minutes is a quick look considering the scope of the game and with Undertale I believe the QL was 15-20ish minutes - which for some reason felt too long for such a tiny adventure.

Avatar image for kishinfoulux
#223 Posted by kishinfoulux (3328 posts) -

Should be longer if anything. I'm sad when a Quick Look is under an hour, especially if it's one I'm looking forward to. Same feeling when a Bombcast is under 3 hours.

Avatar image for sac
#224 Posted by SAC (143 posts) -

THIS

@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.

Avatar image for yummytreesap
#225 Posted by YummyTreeSap (1199 posts) -

What's the deal with Quick Looks? They're not quick at all!

Avatar image for dragon_puncher
#226 Posted by Dragon_Puncher (619 posts) -

Often a quick look is all the content about that specific game, that GB puts out, so it makes sense that some of then are pretty long. That being said, unless it's a game I'm interested in, I usually just watch the first few minutes and decide if the rest is worth it from there.