Avatar image for df
#1 Edited by df (256 posts) -

I don't know, but the QL EX on The Cave is enough to sold me a copy of it - I see the game with my own eye.

If I only read Alex' 3-star review (just by saying 3-star, readers have a prejudgement already), I will probably skip this game.

So it seems QL now has higher "trust" level than both Review and Metacritic to me.

Anyone feeling the same?


Edited: or maybe it's the DoubleFine effect, I wanted to trust them on this too.

Avatar image for sirdesmond
#2 Posted by sirdesmond (1395 posts) -

I have always preferred the Quick Look format in terms of getting an idea of the game and then deciding if I want to take the plunge on it. I still enjoy the duders' written reviews in order to see their complete opinion but I tend to get more (in terms of buying advice) out of Quick Looks.

Avatar image for toxeia
#3 Posted by Toxeia (790 posts) -

There have been a number of times where I see a quick look and think it's awesome, and then spend all of maybe a half hour playing the game before I grow bored of it. Seeing game play is always going to be a better experience than reading someone's thoughts on it, but if you know what to look from a reviewer it can make the difference. Have you read his other reviews to see where he stands on his preferences and points of focus compared to your own?

Avatar image for df
#4 Posted by df (256 posts) -

@Toxeia said:

There have been a number of times where I see a quick look and think it's awesome, and then spend all of maybe a half hour playing the game before I grow bored of it. Seeing game play is always going to be a better experience than reading someone's thoughts on it, but if you know what to look from a reviewer it can make the difference. Have you read his other reviews to see where he stands on his preferences and points of focus compared to your own?

I would think Alex prefers emotional storyline rather than Tongue-in-cheek.

But I read his article since the Burning Questions days back in GS, he seems like a guy that enjoy Tongue-in-cheek way of writing his own article, but not others.

No offence to him though.

Avatar image for truthtellah
#5 Posted by TruthTellah (9809 posts) -

I think they're powerful together. A Quick Look is good at giving an impression of a game, but a full review can often give a better idea of how the whole experience pans out.

For example, a Quick Look could be entertaining for a hour, but a full review can give you an idea of whether it maintains that level of quality.

Avatar image for wickedfather
#6 Posted by WickedFather (1694 posts) -

Generally for me Quicklooks are great tools for letting me know that I don't want some games that might get great reviews because the mechanics just aren't for me; DmC being the latest example. Reviews generally paint a bigger picture, but if that picture isn't moving there's always some guesswork.

Avatar image for levio
#7 Posted by Levio (1953 posts) -

Opposite for me. QL's rarely show the late-game content which is where I usually end up spending the bulk of my play-time. So I trust the reviews which always cover the entire game. But QL's are still good for getting a quick impression.

Avatar image for beachthunder
#8 Posted by BeachThunder (14579 posts) -

It's not a case of one or the other: Quick Looks are usually very rough and sloppy first impressions; Reviews are (relatively) polished editorial pieces.

Avatar image for ares42
#9 Posted by Ares42 (3561 posts) -

Quick looks and reviews gives completely different styles of advice. Quick look = is this game for me. Review = is the game good at what it does. It's easy for a game to look good for 30+ minutes (especially an early part), but only a review can really tell you if it stays good throughout the entire experience.

Avatar image for huntad
#10 Posted by huntad (2346 posts) -

I don't really take either one as purchasing incentive. Quick looks are usually uninformed looks at the beginning of a game - with some exceptions. Most reviews are just not in the format that I would want. I prefer looking at raw gameplay now and just deciding based off of that. I look to youtube videos to see if a particular game will appeal to me now.

Avatar image for bonbolapti
#11 Posted by bonbolapti (1731 posts) -

@df: Seeing the game for yourself is going to have that effect.

Sure, if you really want to believe in the power of his review.. that's one thing. But at the end of the day it's up to you.

Avatar image for g6065
#12 Edited by g6065 (291 posts) -

It's almost as though we need a service where you can hire / borrow games for as long as you like, then send them back.....and you could have a queue for games you want to play in the future...

Avatar image for wemibelle
#13 Posted by Wemibelle (2391 posts) -

I personally wouldn't trust a QLEX as much, just because I've noticed that the guys tend to be a little less critical on them. I don't really blame them, with someone who worked on the game right there.

I use both still. The Quick Look is often an earlier look at a game and may not be the full feelings of whoever is reviewing it. If a game gets worse as it goes on, that ends up in the review and that is information that I want to know.

Avatar image for joey_ravn
#14 Posted by JoeyRavn (5219 posts) -

In the case of The Cave, I think the Quick Look can be representative of the whole game. The core mechanics are all shown and explained there, and I don't think they deviate too much from that throughout the game. Alex's review is a good way to see how the game is done in a general way, but if the Quick Look did (or didn't) get your attention, I think you'll have to trust that hunch.

Avatar image for kpaadet
#15 Posted by kpaadet (421 posts) -

As far as purchasing advice goes, I would never take a QLEX over a review. Why they still do QLEX is beyond me.

Avatar image for hunter5024
#16 Posted by Hunter5024 (6702 posts) -

I think they're both useful, they complement each other in important ways. Quick Looks give you a much more direct slice of a game and while this gives you a better idea of its mechanics, such a small portion of the game isn't indicative of it's overall quality. Reviews may be a little more esoteric, but they give you an impression of the game in its entirety, and help you better understand the full experience.

Avatar image for darkshaper
#17 Posted by DarkShaper (1378 posts) -

I never use just one thing as purchasing advice. I tend to take in the QL, the impression from the bombcast, a demo if available, the reviews from the handful of sites I use as well as what my friends are saying about it they bought it. I tend to do way to much research before I buy a game at full price. 

Avatar image for granderojo
#18 Edited by granderojo (1899 posts) -

I feel like a "average" review for an adventure game from Alex means I'll probably really like it. I predict Vinny really likes The Cave.

Avatar image for captain_insano
#19 Posted by Captain_Insano (2705 posts) -

I still prefer reviews. I often don't have time for 30min - 1hr plus quick looks but can easily read a review in less than 5min.

That said, QL's are great at getting a look at how a game actually plays. I like the look of The Cave and will probably get it, but I'm not expecting it to blow me away, even from the QL. That's what 3 stars means I suppose.

Avatar image for perryvandell
#20 Posted by PerryVandell (2219 posts) -

It depends on the person. I find both Quick Looks and reviews to be useful tools when deciding on which games I want to buy. A Quick Look gives me a better impression of how a game plays and looks than a review does, and reviews delve deeper into a game's underlying mechanics and (usually) offer an opinion from someone who has beaten it.

Also, a 3-star game means it has some faults that only certain people can look past. The problems that irked Alex might not have the same effect on you. That's where watching Quick Looks comes in handy.

Avatar image for meatball
#21 Posted by MEATBALL (4231 posts) -

They're different beasts, the game certainly gives a great impression in that Quick Look, but it's also worth keeping in mind that it's a Quick Look EX and the problems addressed in Alex's review aren't necessarily immediately apparent. All of it aids in purchasing advice, really, I wouldn't discount one in favour of the other.

Avatar image for df
#22 Posted by df (256 posts) -

@bonbolapti said:

@df: Seeing the game for yourself is going to have that effect.

Sure, if you really want to believe in the power of his review.. that's one thing. But at the end of the day it's up to you.

Yeah, I think QL (or demo in general) does more to influence my choice.

Another recent example will be DMC, I played it a few years back and didn't get into it;

when Brad gives it a 5-star review I was positive to try it again, but QL undid the hype in me because its core gameplay is still the same.

Avatar image for morningstar
#23 Posted by Morningstar (2375 posts) -

It's been quick looks for me for ages.

Avatar image for brendan
#24 Posted by Brendan (9038 posts) -

I disagree. Look at this instance: Alex's advice came from playing the whole game, where one of his complaints was that the constant backtracking got tedious over the course of the game. In the Quick Look you can't see that past the small section of what was played, and wouldn't know about that issue with only that information. Alex's review accurately captures the whole game in a way that the Quick Look does not.

Avatar image for sooty
#25 Edited by Sooty (8193 posts) -

I don't think a Quick Look has ever made me want or not want a game, reviews usually don't either.

Yakuza 3 is one of the best games of the last decade but it got so-so reviews, so screw those guise.

Avatar image for fetchfox
#26 Posted by fetchfox (1678 posts) -

Both yes and no. Anything that Vinny quick Looks seems awesome, but sometimes it ends up being almost purely negative (without any particular reason), so the written review might then provide a more balanced look on the game.

Avatar image for gamer_152
#27 Posted by Gamer_152 (14480 posts) -

Ultimately I value reviews over Quick Looks in this department, but they each do their own important job, and I think work best when utilised together. Quick Looks allow you to often more immediately see what a game is like, however, they don't give a complete sense of how it feels to play them or what the game is like as a whole, and that's where reviews come in.

Avatar image for giefcookie
#28 Posted by Giefcookie (654 posts) -

Reviews are not purchasing advice for me so Quick Looks work way better for me in making a decision.

Avatar image for sayishere
#29 Posted by Sayishere (1854 posts) -

I usually have determined whether or not im buying a game just by looking at the developer, the franchise name and some minimal information. If i dont possess these things then a Quick Look is perfect to get a understanding of what a games about. I usually skim a review, or just look at the star rating and who reviewed it to gauge my personal interest. So id say Quick Looks are definitely more of a useful tool than a general review, whist also (for the most part) being more entertaining.

Avatar image for johnsublime
#30 Posted by JohnSublime (70 posts) -

I always prefer seeing a game in action at a friends and asking questions as they go to gauge whether I want to get it. Quick looks offer the closest to that online so for that I prefer it as a format. The quick look for DMC is the reason I've decided to pick it up

Avatar image for blimble
#31 Posted by Blimble (301 posts) -

I'm going with another option, a podcast a week later. They always seem to get more critical of games as time goes on so I've always found that more accurate. Fable 3 has to be the best example of this, started off okay but as time when on it literally became do not buy this.

QL and reviews are still both pretty useful. QL>reviews

Avatar image for hollitz
#32 Edited by hollitz (2176 posts) -

The only reviews that mean anything to me are 5-star and 1-star. Everything else is just personal taste.

Podcasts are definitely the best metric for judging a game's quality. So much more is conveyed when hearing some actually talk about a game. I probably wouldn't have ever played some of my favorite games of this generation had they not been evangelized via podcast.

Avatar image for ch3burashka
#33 Posted by ch3burashka (6087 posts) -

QL's are sore subject - they can be good to experience the game second-hand, or they can be shit, depending on how they're played. Sometimes the person playing should have done way more research. Every time Brad says, "I'm seeing this for the first time" it makes me want to, as he is also wont to do, "throw my computer out the window". How can you justify the content your creating for your video game website if you're literally unprepared to explain basic mechanics? At the very least, play the first 5 hours but show a save an hour in - that way you at least have enough of a feel of the game to show it off properly. I'm not looking for a speedrun, just competent content.


To me, reviews are rarely about purchasing advice - I like them as essays/articles relating to a game I care about. I read them for the language itself, how the reviewer expresses his opinion, rather than to get a feel for the "value" of the game. I'm a big boy - if I want a game, I'll buy it now or later. A review is more of a reflection of the reviewer than of the game. And that's why I hate Kotaku reviews - scoring system have been debated by both readers and reviewers, but their binary YES/NO they run with each review strips the post of any significance. In terms of 'path of least resistance', why would I spent 5 minutes reading when I can look at two positives, two negatives, and a big red or green box to make a decision for me? Similarly, Joystiq used to run non-score reviews, and it was kind of a great feeling to read it and still have the opportunity to interpret the meaning. Now you get to the end and BAM - the whole thing is summarized as 10 half-stars.

tl:dr QL is debatable, review is for reading.

Avatar image for arath
#34 Posted by Arath (58 posts) -

@CH3BURASHKA: It might be good if there were a Quicklook hybrid, where the person playing it had completed and essentially reviewed the game. They could then play through an hour or so of the game with someone who was less familiar and discuss all the good and bad and how they felt about the game overall. In think that could lead to a somewhat more informed discussion during the quicklook, which informed itself based on extensive play experience.

Personally I don't find quick looks go into enough depth to let me know if I want to buy the game. It's cool to see some of the mechanics and the game for an extended period of time, but it's often without the critical eye or reflection that a quicklook provides. I much rather read a review and then go consume media if I am interested further.

Avatar image for djou
#35 Posted by djou (895 posts) -

QLs are definitely persuasive in forming my judgement for games. So much so that I end up skimming a written review if I see the QL and review were by the same person. Mostly I end up reading portions to see how the narrative/progression play out at the end of the game since the QLs never cover this.

Both the QL and review for the Cave didn't leave me with a favorable impression. As Alex noted, this game looks to have a ton of back tracking which I don't find fun. I'll probably end up buying it at some point, but its definitely a delayed purchase for me.

One thing I wish I would be conveyed more upfront is the progress of the folks who are doing the QL in the game. Brad did a great job conveying the mechanics for Ni No Kuni but the fact that he was 8 hours into a 40-60 hour game (especially JRPG) annoys me. The whole thing could fall apart 1/3 of the way through. I'll definitely read the review to see if things come together but I take a QL with a grain of salt when I see this. When Patrick said that he played Cart Life for a few minutes before starting the QL and fumbled through most of the game I got frustrated because that game is awesome and they totally didn't do it justice. If it ends up winning some IGF award and people were to go back and check out the video they totally wouldn't get the context behind the game. I heard about this game from the Idle Thumbs podcast and they framed the whole premise in five minutes.

I understand there's a balance between producing new content and schedules, but I wish when there is a written review in progress the QL wouldn't shoot until after the review goes up. Although there are a ton of games with QLs that aren't reviewed and sometimes the reviewers aren't involved in the QL.

Avatar image for ducksworth
#36 Posted by Ducksworth (671 posts) -

Community buzz has always been the main seller to me when it comes to games I'm on the fence about. For me, quicklooks are only for entertainment purposes and reviews are to go back to after I've beaten a game to see what reviewers thought about it.

Avatar image for gogosox82
#37 Posted by gogosox82 (452 posts) -

I find them both useful. You can use the QL's to see how the mechanics of the game are, what the IU is like and how gameplay works and figure out if you like it. I find reviews helpful for a more detailed look at the game like whether this mechanic works or not in the long run or if there are glitches or bugs or whatnot.