Do you feel some times GB Quicklooks do a game a disservice?

Sometimes, but keep in mind that the GB guys usually just load them up and hop in. For example the DIablo quick look just shows normal difficulty and things like that. Also just first impressions their not even reviews or anything of the sort.

@rb_man said:

@Example1013 said:

@rb_man: I don't think you understand the point and process of doing a Quick Look.

I think I do because they have said quite a few times it is to show and inform people about video game they are quick looking. The comedy is to keep it from being some shitty seminar.

Okay I am going to say this right now I love the GB quick looks I really do I just want them to just put a bit more work in to them that's all.

That's the basic idea, but that's not all of it. The idea of the Quick Look is to present an unedited look at someone (or sometimes a couple people) just playing the game. There is no cutting and editing for time or whatever, meaning that when you watch a Quick Look, you're watching the guys sit down for half an hour to an hour straight and play. Barring the weirdest technical circumstances, they never actually even pause recording for errors, and the only QL I can remember that has any sort of break in it is the A-10 Quick Look (I think there's another flight sim game that also has a similar break).

Yes, they can always jump back to earlier content that they know how to do, and in fact they often do go back over content to show off certain features that they might not hit, but it's important that they also go over new things in the video, because it shows how the game will actually play for you, the consumer. Using a puzzle game like Quantum Conundrum or QUBE as an example, it'd be really boring and fast to watch Ryan or Brad just blow by a puzzle because they've already done it, and it doesn't really show how the game works and how you learn new things and such, because the biggest part of a puzzle game is figuring out how to solve it.

Conversely, there are also games that they might not even be planning on reviewing, and they'll go in for a blind QL just to have some fun and show off the game even if it might be outside their assigned games to play. Sometimes they even play QLs of shitty games just to torture themselves for our amusement (that South Park game, all the Game Room QLs).

Long story short, the organic nature of QLs is part of what makes them entertaining, and is integral to what the GB guys look to accomplish when they QL a game.

@Totori said:

They are normal people not experts on every game ever. If you want someone to just yell facts at you go watch a kessler quicklook.

What he said! , specially the part about Kessler YELLING in every single quicklook he did , glad that's over.

@Example1013 said:

@rb_man said:

@Example1013 said:

@rb_man: I don't think you understand the point and process of doing a Quick Look.

I think I do because they have said quite a few times it is to show and inform people about video game they are quick looking. The comedy is to keep it from being some shitty seminar.

Okay I am going to say this right now I love the GB quick looks I really do I just want them to just put a bit more work in to them that's all.

That's the basic idea, but that's not all of it. The idea of the Quick Look is to present an unedited look at someone (or sometimes a couple people) just playing the game. There is no cutting and editing for time or whatever, meaning that when you watch a Quick Look, you're watching the guys sit down for half an hour to an hour straight and play. Barring the weirdest technical circumstances, they never actually even pause recording for errors, and the only QL I can remember that has any sort of break in it is the A-10 Quick Look (I think there's another flight sim game that also has a similar break).

Yes, they can always jump back to earlier content that they know how to do, and in fact they often do go back over content to show off certain features that they might not hit, but it's important that they also go over new things in the video, because it shows how the game will actually play for you, the consumer. Using a puzzle game like Quantum Conundrum or QUBE as an example, it'd be really boring and fast to watch Ryan or Brad just blow by a puzzle because they've already done it, and it doesn't really show how the game works and how you learn new things and such, because the biggest part of a puzzle game is figuring out how to solve it.

Conversely, there are also games that they might not even be planning on reviewing, and they'll go in for a blind QL just to have some fun and show off the game even if it might be outside their assigned games to play. Sometimes they even play QLs of shitty games just to torture themselves for our amusement (that South Park game, all the Game Room QLs).

Long story short, the organic nature of QLs is part of what makes them entertaining, and is integral to what the GB guys look to accomplish when they QL a game.

So far you have made the most convincing argument well done. I have never said they should change quicklooks in big way I want is them is just do like half an hour of prep work like spend 5 minuets skimming the Wikipedia page that's all I want .

Just because that LEGO batman quicklook made me more unsure if I wanted to get that game then when I first went in because I did not get a good sense for how the levels would play out.

@rb_man said:

@TragicallyErock said:

They review games for a living, sure...

but aren't they also real people? They have opinions, and biases, and good days, and bad days just like all of us.

I don't want to see robotic fact-sheet filled, focus-grouped-for-marketing style quicklooks. I want to see real people playing the game. As far as I'm concerned, if they get stuck on something in the quicklook, then that IS an accurate representation of the game.

Also, Id rather miss out on one good game that had a bad quicklook, then play any of the dozens of trash-heap games that I thought might have been good before seeing how utterly terrible the gameplay looked. I barely have time or money to play the EXCELLENT games I want to play. I dont want to waste my time on something that MIGHT turn out to be KIND-OF up my ally if the quicklook only made it look a little more appealing.

In no way am I saying that's what they should do. I am just saying like a hour of playing the game and like 20 minuets of looking up info about the game before hand will not kill anybody or hell even just reading the the in game info.

I certainly agree with you there.

Although, I'd say they do a very good job of that for MOST of the games people really care about.

The only time it's really lacking is for really low-profile games that they don't have a lot of time for. In these cases, any type of quicklook is better than nothing at all.

In the case of the Lego Batman QL (which I just watched because of this thread), I take 2 things away.

1. they didn't spend much time with it because let's face it, the lego series churns out games like crazy, and they have more pressing places to focus their time.

2. and, yup... the frustrating "I can see what needs to be done, but can't find the item to do it", pretty much sums up that series for me. So I would expect no less than that from the quicklook honestly.

I can totally see where you are comming from. I just really don't think every game DESERVES the due-dilligence that you are asking for, and I'd rather see them spend the time on the games that DO deserve it.

Take, for example, gotham city imposters QL from a few months back. I never would have bought that game without the QL from giantbomb. But they did a great job of showcasing it for being exactly what it was. A fresh idea that was if nothing else, something INTERESTING, and full of a shit-load of laughs.

Sometimes I guess it can be frustrating to watch when you know how that game is supposed to be played, but they play a shit load of games and I'm sure they play some games that they don't even want to play in the first place. They don't really have the time, that you or I might have, to get good enough at any one game to be able to show the game in a way developers can. I like how Quicklooks work, because of the fact that it's usually them playing the game with little experience in the same way anyone would after starting the game. Yeah sometimes they miss important mechanics, but you shouldn't worry about the random viewer being turned away from a game because they'll probably notice the second or third comment that is someone bitching about how the person doing the Quicklook doesn't know what he's doing.

@rb_man: If the game is about environment puzzles, then you'll want to watch them actually tackle some, I'd assume. Yes they could go to the wiki, but that runs counter to the idea of just playing it out. They did go and play through most of another level after giving up, too, so it's not like there wasn't a decent showcase of how the game works.

@Totori: Actually I honestly can't remember the last game I played which they Quicklooked, maybe Skyrim? My point is not "oh they didn't like my game", I don't really follow the guy's opinions on games, usually because my main genre is PC strategy, probably the genre which the team cares least about. My point is that they play some games having played through them and know how to play them, but they go in cold and usually pretty poorly in other games, yet they label both as the same thing. They are treating games differently. As I said I don't have a problem with the 'go in cold' approach (apart from the fact it is an undeniably poor way to demonstrate games to consumers which is part of their job), I just don't think it should be labelled the same as the 'demonstrate game we have played extensively'.

I wish they would rip on games more. I think its funniest when they manage to break it or turn an terrible gameplay mechanic into a joke.

@TragicallyErock said:

@rb_man said:

@TragicallyErock said:

They review games for a living, sure...

but aren't they also real people? They have opinions, and biases, and good days, and bad days just like all of us.

I don't want to see robotic fact-sheet filled, focus-grouped-for-marketing style quicklooks. I want to see real people playing the game. As far as I'm concerned, if they get stuck on something in the quicklook, then that IS an accurate representation of the game.

Also, Id rather miss out on one good game that had a bad quicklook, then play any of the dozens of trash-heap games that I thought might have been good before seeing how utterly terrible the gameplay looked. I barely have time or money to play the EXCELLENT games I want to play. I dont want to waste my time on something that MIGHT turn out to be KIND-OF up my ally if the quicklook only made it look a little more appealing.

In no way am I saying that's what they should do. I am just saying like a hour of playing the game and like 20 minuets of looking up info about the game before hand will not kill anybody or hell even just reading the the in game info.

I certainly agree with you there.

Although, I'd say they do a very good job of that for MOST of the games people really care about.

The only time it's really lacking is for really low-profile games that they don't have a lot of time for. In these cases, any type of quicklook is better than nothing at all.

In the case of the Lego Batman QL (which I just watched because of this thread), I take 2 things away.

1. they didn't spend much time with it because let's face it, the lego series churns out games like crazy, and they have more pressing places to focus their time.

2. and, yup... the frustrating "I can see what needs to be done, but can't find the item to do it", pretty much sums up that series for me. So I would expect no less than that from the quicklook honestly.

I can totally see where you are comming from. I just really don't think every game DESERVES the due-dilligence that you are asking for, and I'd rather see them spend the time on the games that DO deserve it.

Take, for example, gotham city imposters QL from a few months back. I never would have bought that game without the QL from giantbomb. But they did a great job of showcasing it for being exactly what it was. A fresh idea that was if nothing else, something INTERESTING, and full of a shit-load of laughs.

That's a really good point about gotham city imposters and how they do get it right when it matters. It is just really stands out like I mean hell if they had spent like 30 sec to just read what that suit did that quicklook could have been a lot better. Just some times there don't stop for nothing style of quicklook bites them in the ass. I truth I am really torn about what I want from my quicklooks now. But as long as it is still Giant Bomb I will be happy :)

@Totori: If they don't know something, that's fine, but when they blame something on a game that's their fault, then it's a problem. Like the Shadow of the Colossus QL. Brad got mad at the game because he didn't know about a mechanic. And date/price stuff is even worse. They're site is built around a wiki that they pride themselves on. Would it kill them to use their own wiki to find date/price/dev stuff before a QL. it takes all of 30 seconds on their own website.

@Example1013 said:

@rb_man: If the game is about environment puzzles, then you'll want to watch them actually tackle some, I'd assume. Yes they could go to the wiki, but that runs counter to the idea of just playing it out. They did go and play through most of another level after giving up, too, so it's not like there wasn't a decent showcase of how the game works.

All I was saying is they should know the basic mechanics off hand and ya they did show off another level that's why I think GB is a great site. For me I would have liked to see like 2-3 levels just to know what the verity would be like but hats just me.

@DirtyEagles said:

I wish they would rip on games more. I think its funniest when they manage to break it or turn an terrible gameplay mechanic into a joke.

I think that's funny as shit too but in my mind GB is more help people decide what games to buy and what games are broken. Because showing that a crap game is crap is not really that useful.

Sometimes they do, yes. But that's kinda the point of Quick Looks; to get the first impressions from the guys.

Games journalism often does a game a disservice. Most coverage of Catherine and Deadly Premonition has too greatly dismissed what makes those games fantastic, and the quick looks for Cargo! and Dead Island make those games out to be a lot more interesting than they really are.

It's easy to see the difference between a badly-designed game, and the player being erroneous in their methods. Recently, we saw Steel Battalion. Clearly unresponsive and straight-busted. Look at Lego Batman; clearly a well-made game, but Brad and Ryan got stumped and fed up. While neither of them enjoyed very much their time with either game (at least in those moments), it was easy to see which game was actually a bad game, and which was just confusing for the guys.

As long as they state up-front their current experience with the game, which is often, it's pretty easy to tell which side the mistakes fall on. And Giantbomb isn't gonna be watched by someone who can't tell the difference. As a video game site, no one who dislikes or is not interested in video games will watch these videos, so it doesn't mislead anyone.

Could some of these games be shown better? Absolutely, and I agree that it's a little bit silly when they can't remember what they paid for a game (though often, they are given download codes and the like, so it can be excused sometimes) and other such small things, it's nothing that destroys a game's reputation or causes wasted money.

@Inkerman: I don't have the same opinions as most of the Giant Bomb dudes too more then like because I am a PC only gamer. Like take Payday: the Heist a game Jeff was less then happy with I FUCKING love because I play it with 3 of my best friends (the way that game is mean to be played) and it is one the best group experiences I have ever had.

@rb_man said:

@Example1013 said:

@rb_man: If the game is about environment puzzles, then you'll want to watch them actually tackle some, I'd assume. Yes they could go to the wiki, but that runs counter to the idea of just playing it out. They did go and play through most of another level after giving up, too, so it's not like there wasn't a decent showcase of how the game works.

All I was saying is they should know the basic mechanics off hand and ya they did show off another level that's why I think GB is a great site. For me I would have liked to see like 2-3 levels just to know what the verity would be like but hats just me.

You mean like the changing suit stuff, the building suit platforms stuff, and such? Didn't they show that? You're griping about one specific puzzle that they had trouble figuring out. Personally I find it infuriating whenever I watch them play puzzle games in general because I can see the solutions faster than they can no matter what, so I generally don't watch QLs of puzzle games. There are only a couple instances I can think of where they did a game a major disservice by just missing out on a central mechanic, but even then, by and large it's been due to poor conveyance of information more than just flat-out ignorance (although there have been a couple times where they rush through menus and such and just completely miss reading important info).

Sure.  They've misrepresented plenty of games, and will continue to misrepresent plenty of games in the future.  You'll get over it.

@The_Nubster said:

It's easy to see the difference between a badly-designed game, and the player being erroneous in their methods. Recently, we saw Steel Battalion. Clearly unresponsive and straight-busted. Look at Lego Batman; clearly a well-made game, but Brad and Ryan got stumped and fed up. While neither of them enjoyed very much their time with either game (at least in those moments), it was easy to see which game was actually a bad game, and which was just confusing for the guys.

As long as they state up-front their current experience with the game, which is often, it's pretty easy to tell which side the mistakes fall on. And Giantbomb isn't gonna be watched by someone who can't tell the difference. As a video game site, no one who dislikes or is not interested in video games will watch these videos, so it doesn't mislead anyone.

Could some of these games be shown better? Absolutely, and I agree that it's a little bit silly when they can't remember what they paid for a game (though often, they are given download codes and the like, so it can be excused sometimes) and other such small things, it's nothing that destroys a game's reputation or causes wasted money.

That's a fair point I have to agree with. I really do I love all seeing all the other ways people see stuff I find it so enlightening.

I had a copy of Nier for a month that I did not play because the quick look for it turned me off so much. I'm told it's just they picked a boring section of that game to quick look, and that there is a better game than what I saw there, but still, I returned the disc to Blockbuster unplayed, early. Similarly they picked a poor spot to start the Darksiders quick look.

Also, The Ico & Shadow of the Colossus Collection one game not designed to look good in a quick look format, and another where the guy playing didn't know the mechanics, and made it look shitty. Quick looks aren't meant to be advertisements, but sometimes I like a game so much it hurts to see it done such a disservice.

So yes. But mostly they do alright.

@Example1013 said:

@rb_man said:

@Example1013 said:

@rb_man: If the game is about environment puzzles, then you'll want to watch them actually tackle some, I'd assume. Yes they could go to the wiki, but that runs counter to the idea of just playing it out. They did go and play through most of another level after giving up, too, so it's not like there wasn't a decent showcase of how the game works.

All I was saying is they should know the basic mechanics off hand and ya they did show off another level that's why I think GB is a great site. For me I would have liked to see like 2-3 levels just to know what the verity would be like but hats just me.

You mean like the changing suit stuff, the building suit platforms stuff, and such? Didn't they show that? You're griping about one specific puzzle that they had trouble figuring out. Personally I find it infuriating whenever I watch them play puzzle games in general because I can see the solutions faster than they can no matter what, so I generally don't watch QLs of puzzle games. There are only a couple instances I can think of where they did a game a major disservice by just missing out on a central mechanic, but even then, by and large it's been due to poor conveyance of information more than just flat-out ignorance (although there have been a couple times where they rush through menus and such and just completely miss reading important info).

I was referring to not knowing/ not rememberingthat you wash away that green ooz. I did not think I was griping on that hard sorry. You sound kind mad I am really sorry for that I hate making people mad because I did not see how tunnel visioned I had become. Again sorry. I hope we can still be friends. :D

They do put some sort of research into a game before they do the Quicklook. Normally one of them has played the game for a few hours beforehand. But Brad still sucks at video games so it doesn't matter.

Jesus...

How many of these topic pop up?

It's okay because they suck at video games.

Sure. I don't personally mind if they simply get stuck and frustrated with a game if that's their geniune experience. There's plenty of subjectivity here. But sometimes they make statements that are simply wrong, like claiming a game doesn't have X feature, because they didn't check their facts. In these cases I think that a fair number of more casual player may simply take them at their word and pass on a game based on false information.

yeah absolutely. some games just don't demo well and that extends to quicklooks...

not the guys' nor the games' fault it just occasionally happen

All the time and that why I love watching them.

I can't stand watching super fake positive looks at games.

Stop complaining about ze staff.

Oh no. I must be a....luzah? English?

The point of the quick look is that it is a QUICK LOOK at a game. It's not about review quality video and often time them not knowing 100% what they're doing is actually the point. They often attempt to give a look at what a person coming to a game for the very first time might experience. Like in the Lego Batman 2 QL, for example. Looking at the part where they got stuck, I couldn't inherently tell you what the hell they were supposed to do. That gives me a good indication that that could legit be a problem in that game.

It's easy to say "well they should just do prep work ahead of time and come in more informed" but look at it this way: when they do a normal quick look they set up the game and equipment, jump in, play for maybe an hour at most, and stop, and post the video. You say "just add 30-45 minutes prep time getting ready." That adds up. Fast. Real. Fucking. Fast. One game is just 30-45 minutes, sure. But what happens when they post 10 quick looks in a week? Suddenly that's an additional 5+ hours of work in one week where they already are under some pretty harsh time constraints (it's why they eventually got rid of Happy Hour, being forced to do that extra work every single week on Friday not only made the content they were putting up for the Happy Hour less interesting, but it interfered with things like I Love Mondays, a feature that all but disappeared during the life of the Happy Hour.) That is in no way insignificant. And what happens when, because it became a standard to be "totally informed to go into this game to quick look it" when they spend 45 minutes trying to prepare and go "I don't feel prepared enough for this game I need to spend another hour probably to feel totally prepared and informed to represent this game in the best light possible instead of in a realistic "just jumping into this game" kind of way."? Guess what, another hour of work, a delay to a quick look, and potential delays to other features as a result of it.

I prefer a much more genuine look at a game where they're going in cold because that's how most people actually approach games. Does it get annoying sometimes? Sure. But I'd rather they deliver an honest look at a game and show where your average person may get lost or confused or whatever than to misrepresent what most people's experience with the game may actually end up being by spending 30-45 minutes preparing to show it off ahead of time.

@StarvingGamer said:

Sure. I don't personally mind if they simply get stuck and frustrated with a game if that's their geniune experience. There's plenty of subjectivity here. But sometimes they make statements that are simply wrong, like claiming a game doesn't have X feature, because they didn't check their facts. In these cases I think that a fair number of more casual player may simply take them at their word and pass on a game based on false information.

Oh god that pisses me off more then brad just being kind of let's say silly.

@PrivateIronTFU said:

Stop complaining about ze staff.

Oh no. I must be a....luzah? English?

I really don't feel like this is complaining that would be more like I hate Ryan because of the way he sounds. I think this is more us trying to help them by telling them some thing we think is wrong and how they can fix it that's more of constructive criticism.

I have been wondering for a while now, so I might as well ask it here.

Why is it a bad thing that they "misrepresent" games? Do gamers have a personal stake in a game's performance? Are we all shareholders in publishers and developers?

@Gaff said:

I have been wondering for a while now, so I might as well ask it here. Why is it a bad thing that they "misrepresent" games? Do gamers have a personal stake in a game's performance? Are we all shareholders in publishers and developers?

They really don't have a stake in the games performance. But is bad if they misrepresent a game to us because what they are trying to do is inform us if we should buy a game or not. So if they say there is not some key feature in game that is in they game that could stop people from playing a really good game just because of there mistake.

@FateOfNever:

If they kind of fuck up in gameplay that's not so bad but there have been times in the past were they said a game did not have some thing when it did that's a big fuck up in my book.

Yes. If I was interested knowing about the game as part of a purchasing decision I might be annoyed, but I would probably just skip it because I didn't want any part of it spoiled anyway. For me they are purely entertainment, though, when I'm bored and have no other entertainment options. I usually gravitate to QLs for games that aren't gonna sell very many copies or are for kids specifically because I want to see the guys poke fun at them.

Quick looks are their honest first impression of a game. The reviews are meant to be more professional. One of the reasons the quick looks are so popular is that they are just two dudes giving their unfiltered opinions about the game they are playing.

@braveortega said:

Yes. If I was interested knowing about the game as part of a purchasing decision I might be annoyed, but I would probably just skip it because I didn't want any part of it spoiled anyway. For me they are purely entertainment, though, when I'm bored and have no other entertainment options. I usually gravitate to QLs for games that aren't gonna sell very many copies or are for kids specifically because I want to see the guys poke fun at them.

Well the thing is I watch them for entertainment too. But I all use them to help me decide if I should by game I am on the fence on.

Normally I would say that no, quick-looks do not do the game a disservice, but two recent ones (Lego Batman 2 and Quantum Conundrum), I feel like they (Ryan especially) did.

Basically what happened in both of those is that they encountered a moment that really rubbed them the wrong way, and suddenly that coloured their perception of the quality of the entire game.

Yes, I know you don't like first-person platforming, Ryan. And that sequence did not look especially enjoyable - but Christ, man. It is just one section of what, up until that point was a competently made, pleasant game. No need to burn it to the ground on the basis of one egregious section, without either the context of what comes next, or the memory of what was prior.

But usually, no. The whole point is that they are unfiltered, and that is generally why they are so excellent.

You should get over it. Less you become like me, who is waiting for a QL that was promised over two years ago.

Hyperdimension Neptunia. I'm still waiting for youuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu

They usually do their best to mitigate it, but ye sometimes. It depends a lot on the game, but from what I understand it's mostly games they haven't gotten preview builds of (so they have to buy it the same day the QL goes up) that's the most at risk. Though even then they usually play it for an hour or so before shooting the QL to make sure they sorta know what's going on. Sometimes you just run into shit in games though, and they've just decided that they'd rather show that than smooth over it by re-recording (for most games, although that's another discussion).

The biggest offenders I can remember was the day Bulletstorm and Crysis 2 demos dropped. They went in completely cold on both and clearly knew very little about what was going on. It all comes down the timeline pressure though. Getting the QL out on launch-day (or whenever embargo is) probably brings in way more views, so they have to go with however much time they can spare.

no never!! :) quicklooks are not reviews, the only thing that quick looks do is briing more attention to games.

Not really, I mean I'll take your example and that quick look was how most people would play it. I've played enough LEGO games that I know there will be multiple times when you get mad stuck due to the lack of direction or help the game gives you. Oh and if your getting all your coverage on video games from just one source your being pretty stupid.

I think it often helps to see games when the people playing aren't experts and don't know everything that's going on. Their cluelessness in Monster Hunter, for example, was a perfect illustration of what jumping into that game is like. With Lego Batman, it was a bit silly, since their problems came from the fact they were just ignoring the tips and not really paying attention, which is a shame. But it still convinced me to go out and buy the game right away.

Yes. The Shadow of the Colossus quicklook will go down in history as one of the worst things ever recorded on the internet.

I've seen gifs of people getting their heads chopped off, and that quicklook inspires more disgust.

They do a disservice in the way that people who then comment about the game bandwagon on their inaccurate information. They've done plenty of inaccurate QLs but I don't mind that improvised style without much research, it's just some trolls who'll parrot the staff's opinion and prevent others from at least trying out the game. As always, the trolls ruin everything.

For example, Quantum Conundrum. Brad didn't like they were now forcing first-person platforming on him now in the game and that conveyor belt sequence which made him give up.

In the game throughout, there has been plenty first-person platforming beforehand and I quite liked it, and that conveyor belt chase sequence is more of a palette cleanser of pacing between levels than a taste of sections to come.

So anyone else who thinks Quantum Conundrum suddenly gets bad after the quick look part looks like an ignorant person to get that impression of the game because of the QL.

It happens but every time Patrick's involved things so go much better because he does give a damn about knowing the basics of the game so it's not painful to watch.

@Vexxan said:

It happens but every time Patrick's involved things so go much better because he does give a damn about knowing the basics of the game so it's not painful to watch.

That's why he is starting to become one of my favored GB staff because you can tell he puts work in all his quick looks. I am not saying the others don't I am just saying they are inconstant.

@AssInAss:

Oh really I was thinking of passing on that because of that quick look.

@arimajinn said:

no never!! :) quicklooks are not reviews, the only thing that quick looks do is briing more attention to games.

But the thing is they can bring bad attention to good games. Because some times they just skip over and miss key things about games.

@rb_man said:

@Vexxan said:

It happens but every time Patrick's involved things so go much better because he does give a damn about knowing the basics of the game so it's not painful to watch.

That's why he is starting to become one of my favored GB staff because you can tell he puts work in all his quick looks. I am not saying the others don't I am just saying they are inconstant.

@AssInAss:

Oh really I was thinking of passing on that because of that quick look.

@arimajinn said:

no never!! :) quicklooks are not reviews, the only thing that quick looks do is briing more attention to games.

But the thing is they can bring bad attention to good games. Because some times they just skip over and miss key things about games.

Yeah, I love Patrick QLs. Not only because he's informed and yet doesn't sound like PR, but he can answer questions if the other person is confused about the game's mechanics or goals. And he's funny while he's at it, so it's like the best of both worlds for a quick look.

Yes, absolutely. It's sad that after watching a bunch of Quick Looks of games I've played and seeing how misrepresented they are it makes me not trust Quick Looks of games I haven't played.

I'd agree that Giant Bomb quick looks aren't always fully representative of the product as a whole. But I don't think that's necessarily a big issue. A 30 minute look at a game is never going to show the big picture, whoever conducts it and however it is conducted. It's the very nature of a quick look that leads to games being misrepresented rather than shortcomings of the staff themselves. Sure, there are possibly ways they could come into the quick looks better prepared, and that might show a more fully representative look at the game. But personally I like the impromptu, off-the-cuff nature of most quick looks. And I watch quick looks to be entertained, not for information or analysis of the game.

For me quick looks are just entertainment, I have never watched one to get informed.

@ajamafalous said:

Yes, absolutely. It's sad that after watching a bunch of Quick Looks of games I've played and seeing how misrepresented they are it makes me not trust Quick Looks of games I haven't played.

The thing is, you shouldn't take Quick Looks as reviews. You're expecting serious information from a non-serious source. If you want a truthful view on a game, go read a review.