• 196 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
Avatar image for ramone
#151 Posted by Ramone (3080 posts) -

I think the majority of the core GB audience doesn't give a shit about reviews because we hear what the guys have to say about games in so many other venues and we usually get a better sense of their feelings on new games that way, however I still think they serve a purpose for some people on the fringes of the community who don't have time to watch QLs and listen to the Bombcast. I also think there is an element of "This is how everyone does it and it's how we've been doing for the past 15+ years so there's no sense in changing that now"

Avatar image for ares42
#152 Edited by Ares42 (3555 posts) -

If they stopped doing reviews I would imagine they would start covering less and less games, with less and less detail. Sure they would still cover the top games pretty well, but having that end goal of a review gives them a real impetus to stick with games and spend some time investing in them. As game journalists they are probably already pretty jaded when it comes to mediocrity in games and that could quickly affect their gaming habits.

Like would you imagine anyone in the crew would've finished ZombiU if they weren't reviewing it, or would it get thrown away as a gimmick before Patrick came around to liking it ?

Avatar image for chosenone
#153 Edited by ChosenOne (237 posts) -

I want reviews to stay if only for just by the virtue of them being there it allows for a seperation and Quicklooks can be entertaining without always necessarily being informative.

Avatar image for omegachosen
#154 Posted by OmegaChosen (658 posts) -

Probably not.

Avatar image for probablytuna
#155 Posted by probablytuna (4917 posts) -

I agree that quick looks are far more useful than a review, but I don't know, I kinda like reading reviews.

Avatar image for sniperxan
#156 Posted by SniperXan (233 posts) -

Although I do also get more out of Quick Looks and Podcast candid talk. I would be sad too see the chaos that a DMC or Catherine or Whatever creates go away... it's just so amusing to see fanboys lose their shit.

Avatar image for fearbeard
#157 Posted by Fearbeard (877 posts) -

All I really need are the Quick Looks.

I like hearing the GB crews opinions on the Bombcast but it's usually the Quick Looks that help me decide on a game or not. I'll occasionally check out a review if it has a really high score or a really low score but that's about it.

Avatar image for professoress
#158 Edited by ProfessorEss (7957 posts) -

I'd like to see them continue writing reviews but treat them more like editorials and ditch any sort of score. 
I would be cool with them ditching reviews if they changed the format of Quick Looks to make them a little more informed and informative. In their current state I would say only 25% of Quick Looks actually have any useful information in them.

Avatar image for grilledcheez
#159 Posted by Grilledcheez (4066 posts) -

I don't pay a lot of mind to them, but enough that I would definitely miss them if they were gone.

Avatar image for daiphyer
#160 Posted by Daiphyer (1478 posts) -

It'd be crazy if they stopped doing reviews. To you and me, they may seem irrelevant and useless, but you're not seeing the bigger picture. I bet they get thousands of views from Google searches or from Metacritic for their reviews. And plus, it gives a scale to which rate the games they are talking about. Some people need that absoluteness of "THIS GAME IS AN 8 OUT OF 10!!!" and those people cannot be ignored.

Avatar image for th3irdeye
#161 Posted by Th3irdEye (280 posts) -

By the time the quicklook and bombcast has been watched and listened to, reviews are just more of a formality. It usually boils down to glancing at the score and making some sort of "eh" sound as my thoughts on what the crew was going to give the game are confirmed. I may or may not skim the actual written portion. I just don't think they are very useful on this specific website with the exception of Alex Navarro reviews, considering he is not here to weigh in on things.

Avatar image for zor
#162 Posted by Zor (746 posts) -

Yes, i don't have time to watch every quick look or listen to all the bombcast on games that i care about. That and either my connection or theirs breaks down every so often, so i end up unable to watch videos or download podcasts. So yeah, if they stop doing reviews, i would come to this site less... that and reviews offer more information on a game as a whole, and not just the start of it, or gut reactions.

Avatar image for mordeaniischaos
#163 Posted by MordeaniisChaos (5904 posts) -

The thing about the reviews, is that the work put into them spreads out into more than just the article that contains the review. It means that the staff keeps informed about major games, and that they are playing games in a complete way with the intention of determining quality. The conversations about these games, as a result, ends up being different than if they were to just play whatever in an unstructured way. While that sort of talk also gets plenty of time, there's a good balance between "here's this fun thing I played over the weekend" and "here's this game I played 60 hours of and put serious though into the quality of."

I also find that the reviews are useful to help with purchasing decisions, and I don't like the reviews I've read on other sites, to be honest.

Avatar image for natedawg_kz
#164 Posted by natedawg_kz (265 posts) -

I would like reviews which don't have stars so people can read the review to see if it is a good game for them and not base their opinion on the score

Avatar image for nentisys
#165 Posted by Nentisys (925 posts) -

No. I don't care about any of their reviews.

Avatar image for themanwithnoplan
#166 Posted by TheManWithNoPlan (7002 posts) -

I think it's an important part of the site.I usually read most of the reviews they put out.So take brad for example.He said on the bombcast that he wasn't interested in DMC,but he played it for review and ended up loving it.He was able to do a quick look and talk on the podcast in depth because he reviewed it.The reviews give them an insentive and a structure in which to give us additional content.Also,some people probably don't listen to every podcast or watch every video they put out.Giant Bomb would be just as good without them,but some just want to read a review and be done with it.So to reiterate my initial statement,yes I think the reviews are an important part of the site.

Avatar image for barrock
#167 Posted by Barrock (3926 posts) -

Nope. I prefer them to discuss it on the Bombcast.

Avatar image for amducious
#168 Posted by Amducious (411 posts) -

I want the reviews, with scores. If someone points me in the direction of a game I want to be able to have a quick reference, especially if its a game that has been out a couple of years. I don't have time to look at all the quick looks or sort out and listen to all of the relevant bits in the bombcast that I might not have remembered .

Avatar image for pr1mus
#169 Posted by pr1mus (4158 posts) -

Not really. In terms of regular GB content reviews comes after quick looks, bombcast, live stream of Vinny driving trucks or playing Sleeping Dogs and TNT for me. Even for games i'm really interested into i usually just skim over the review quickly to get a general idea of the game.

Avatar image for miketakon
#170 Posted by Miketakon (535 posts) -

@ImmortalSaiyan said:

Not really. I much prefer listening to the crew talk about a game on the podcast or a quick look than reading a review.

Yep they seem more honest.

Avatar image for cthomer5000
#171 Posted by cthomer5000 (1287 posts) -

Me personally, no. But the site would be unsustainable I would imagine. I still enjoy them even though i largely know their opinions simply what I know between quick looks and bombcast.

Avatar image for artisanbreads
#172 Posted by ArtisanBreads (8074 posts) -

@Miketakon said:

@ImmortalSaiyan said:

Not really. I much prefer listening to the crew talk about a game on the podcast or a quick look than reading a review.

Yep they seem more honest.

Ryan's AC III review and how that game ended up being talked about in GOTY... yeah makes me feel more and more this way. That was just weird.

Avatar image for stonyman65
#173 Posted by Stonyman65 (3614 posts) -

I don't think I would care that much. Reviews are so subjective - just because some gives a game a bad review doesn't mean that it is necessarily a bad game.

I think Quick Looks and game play demos are much better than reviews because you are seeing it for yourself in real time, not just reading about it.

There are many games (Civ 5 was one of recent memory) that I would normally never play regardless of what a reviewer had to say about it until I actually saw someone playing it and talking about it. That sold me on the game and it turned out to be one of my favorite games that year.

Avatar image for miketakon
#174 Posted by Miketakon (535 posts) -

@ArtisanBreads said:

Ryan's AC III review and how that game ended up being talked about in GOTY... yeah makes me feel more and more this way. That was just weird.

Yea that was super weird.

Avatar image for jace
#175 Posted by Jace (1153 posts) -

@LordXavierBritish said:

I know this is a topic that's been brought up in the past, but I still think it's worth bringing up again.

As someone whose been visiting this site for a very long time, perhaps longer that I'd like to admit at this point, I can say with absolute certainty that I don't give a shit about the reviews GB puts out. It's not that I don't think the staff is up to snuff in terms of writing skill or giving good criticism, it just seems like a lot more honest and relevant things get said in QLs and on the podcast than ever show up in reviews.

I'm sure there are legitimate business reasons for GB to continue to pump out a review now and then to get the odd hit from Metacritic or some other aggregate, but really they add just about 0 value to the site for me as an individual. I can't speak for the rest of the community as a whole, but for as infrequent and random as they are (The four most recent reviews include some Family Guy bull shit and Adventure Time?) I can't say I'm really that excited when a new one gets posted. I mean fuck, I didn't even realize there was a DMC review until like five threads popped up about how many people were bitching about it.

Especially now that Giantbomb is partnered with Gamespot, which already has the whole pumping out reviews no one really gives a shit about department covered, I'd much rather any time or energy put into reviews be put towards the QLs or just some other miscellaneous nonsense instead. Preferably involving cameras and possibly green screen technology.

We already killed video reviews, let's take it the extra mile and go the home stretch.


Agreed 100%. Although, I still like Jeff's reviews. That being said, I wouldn't be that sad to see them go if it allowed for more content where he discussed new games.

Like a game discussion-jar time hybrid. That would be awesome.

Avatar image for irrelevantjohn
#176 Edited by IrrelevantJohn (1192 posts) -

I wouldn't really care if they didn't do any more reviews because I rarely read their reviews anymore and that goes with every other websites. I will say that if they stop doing reviews, some of the traffic is going to die. Good or bad, reviews will bring in a crowd.

Avatar image for fox01313
#177 Posted by fox01313 (5205 posts) -

Even with getting some of the GB crew on the quick looks or bombcasts with those thoughts on a game, the reviews are well worth reading too where they have some time to look back at the game after finishing it to give more of their thoughts on it which is always a good thing. Compared to other sites the GB reviews I find are a lot more interesting to read.

Avatar image for wickedcobra03
#178 Edited by WickedCobra03 (2237 posts) -

@Ravenlight said:

I get way more out of Quick Looks than I do out of reviews. It seems like the Bomb Crew keeps doing reviews because "everybody" knows that's what game sites do.

I get a ton more out of quick looks too as far as I guess an introduction with a game... it is like a buddy back in the day showing me their new genesis game for 30 minutes to an hour, showing me cool stuff and talking about their experiences so far.

I think what I like out of reviews is that they finished the game off for the most part, they have had a bit of time to reflect on their experiences over their time they spent with the game and make a final wrap-up or summary on the game. Reviews imo are still a good thing. Like Halo 4, I really liked the first 2 or 3 levels, but by the end, the whole hiding those terminal videos behind waypoint, space jesus plot, lack of any direction or really no cohesion with what bungie had done to for the past years to transition the series if that is what 343 wanted to do, turned me off. I am fine with it going in a different direction, but the game was kind of a bummer overall. It was not terrible, but a bummer when all was said and done.

Avatar image for pandabear
#179 Posted by PandaBear (1484 posts) -

@DeathsWind said:

I really like reviews you actually get the person who's completed the game and had to reflect about it to some level. I'll use Dragon age 2 as my example if the only coverage had been a quick look the failing of that game would not have been Apparent.

Hit the nail on the head.

I like Quick Looks ... but man they can be misleading sometimes. And a consumer I'm going to spend a lot more time with a game then they will if they just do enough to record some video... reviews give you a big picture, Quick Looks give you an extended view of the game in action and the Bombcast is usually the guys reflecting on a game, sometimes months later.

Avatar image for bourbon_warrior
#180 Posted by Bourbon_Warrior (4569 posts) -

No but they would, they would stop getting invited to media events and getting free games in the post.

Avatar image for bourbon_warrior
#181 Posted by Bourbon_Warrior (4569 posts) -

@Th3irdEye said:

By the time the quicklook and bombcast has been watched and listened to, reviews are just more of a formality. It usually boils down to glancing at the score and making some sort of "eh" sound as my thoughts on what the crew was going to give the game are confirmed. I may or may not skim the actual written portion. I just don't think they are very useful on this specific website with the exception of Alex Navarro reviews, considering he is not here to weigh in on things.

Nope Quicklooks usually are just the start of the game.

Avatar image for gamer_152
#182 Posted by Gamer_152 (14479 posts) -

While there are things on the site I value a fair bit more than the reviews, I enjoy them and I think they serve an important purpose. Specific games may get discussed on the Bombcast or in Quick Looks, but opinions on the QLs and often in the podcast are not yet fully formed, and digging through the countless hours of podcasts to find opinions on games which may not even be complete summaries just isn't the same as actually being able to just type in a game name and pull up a review in front of you.

Avatar image for artso
#183 Posted by Artso (89 posts) -

I don't need reviews from GB. I feel like they should change their system if they are to continue doing reviews. I don't need reviews to have a score, a number, attached to them. To me it feels like the scores are inflated, people seem to think that 3/5 means the game is bad. In my opinion too many games get 5/5 or 4/5 when the review feels more like a 4/5 or 3/5. Removing the score would help but in the end I don't need reviews, I have QLs and the podcast.

Also, am I the only one who often gets the feeling that what they say on the Bombcast doesn't reflect the final review and score? Most of the time they can be really negative on the podcast then turn around and give a game 5/5 or 4/5... which is kinda weird.

Avatar image for murderbunny
#184 Edited by MurderBunny (68 posts) -

I would not care, but then again i only read reviews from people i know have a taste like mine.

Like Jeff and Brad are awesome on the site, but i could not give a rats ass about there score in a game because i do not share there taste. Vinny i agree with a lot in games so i care what he thinks.

Avatar image for d0tti
#185 Posted by D0tti (803 posts) -

Not really, I don't even use the site for "gaming suggestions" or how I should put it, since i'm at a point in my life where I know what kind off games I would like so I just watch either quick looks or let's plays on youtube. I'm mainly on this site for entertainment purposes.

Avatar image for hellknightleon
#186 Posted by HellknightLeon (489 posts) -

I would miss them. I use them for a host of reasons and It makes life a lot easier for me. Yet I might be one of the few that still reads the reviews as well. I this if you take away the rating you start to talk about games more than judge games. In the end I like to know good or bad and on a scale how good or bad. Yet I do understand why it can work without them.

Avatar image for deanoxd
#187 Posted by DeanoXD (708 posts) -

Nope, i wouldn't

Avatar image for sanity
#188 Posted by Sanity (2149 posts) -

No, i like them, dont get me wrong... but a quick look usually tells me what they think and im sure thats easier and quicker to put together.

Avatar image for firepaw
#189 Posted by Firepaw (3053 posts) -

I wouldn't care personally, but reviews are a good way for them to get traffic to the site, and if they didn't review games I doubt they would be invited to as many media events and get free review copies of games - which would in the end limit the amount of content that we get from Quick Looks and such.

Avatar image for phantomgardener
#190 Posted by PhantomGardener (551 posts) -

No, not at all. I don't come here for the reviews. I come here for QL's and all the other silly stuff.

Avatar image for droop
#191 Posted by Droop (1927 posts) -


Avatar image for hermes
#192 Posted by hermes (2254 posts) -

I would... Reviews are important, and I use this site as my main source.

I know there are other sections that have similar information, but they don't serve the same propose. Most quick-looks and podcast opinions are made while they are playing the game, so a review serves as a wrapped up version of it. Because of quick-looks and bombcast, I can give further context to what is written in reviews, but they don't replace them because it is written from the entire experience.

Avatar image for klei
#193 Edited by Klei (1798 posts) -

I think reviews are important; we have to make them work a little bit for their pay, don't we? I'm pretty sure that working for giantbomb is one of the lazier jobs on the internet. I don't want to take away their credit, because I love the content of the site, but still.

Avatar image for rafaelfc
#194 Posted by Rafaelfc (2225 posts) -

I would I enjoy reading their reviews a lot

Avatar image for hermes
#195 Posted by hermes (2254 posts) -

@LordXavierBritish said:

@KaneRobot said:

Yes I would care. Quite a bit.

Quick Looks are fun and at least most of the time informative, but they are not always representative of what the game actually is (see: Fez). Reviews are pretty much the only reason I still take this site seriously - without them, it's just a bunch of goofy videos. I know there have been some attempts to try to bring "serious journalism" in here and there but that has been really hit and miss with me. I value reviews here more than pretty much every other site because I have some familiarity with the reviewers themselves, which makes reviews much more worthwhile to me when it comes to interpreting their score & what they have to say about the game.

Nothing wrong with goofy videos, but it's easy to forget most of these guys have been covering games for over a decade now, it would be a total waste to not have reviews.

I also miss the occasional video reviews, but I guess that ship has sailed.

I would accept this as a valid argument were it the Bombcast did not exist.

If we are to take the site as a whole, which would include the Bombcast, and not just the Quicklooks into account than that line of thinking really starts to fall apart. Even your example, Fez, had much more interesting discussion take place on the Bombcast than in the review. The benefit of this is also that multiple persons are involved in Bombcast discussions where as the review is a single writer allowing for a much more varied and dynamic discussion of the game.

To me, bombcast discussion has the same issue than quick-looks. They are done while still playing the game... Most of the games discussion occurs in the "what you been playing?" section which many times describes the most recent experience with the game, not its entirely; and sometimes the points get diluted in 30-40 minutes long discussions. I am not dismissing the bombcast, I think they are great tools to give further context to their opinions, but I still go to reviews for a condensed view on the entire experience.

Avatar image for cleric22
#196 Posted by Cleric22 (160 posts) -

Reviews provide an important service, especially by the standards that GB has. A review in order to be complete means the review has played through the whole game. Quick looks are great and funny especially when you get to see those raw reactions, but a review is a pure account of the game start to finish including all of its flaws. More importantly, it was the reviews and QL's that drove me to my major game purchases this year. I actually bought Far Cry 3 because of the review and QL and I am loving that game, despite the fact that under normal circumstances I would have shrugged it off.

Reviews also provide context for the commentators. You can see who you related with most (In my case, it's Brad and Vinny) in terms of the games I like. So when they love a game, its easy for me to then look into it deeper.