Quick Looks aren't just about showing off only the best games out there.
Yeah, but they ARE supposed to be entertaining (because of a combination of the game's unique qualities and the GiantBomb commentators' reactions to them). Seeing the QuickLook player struggle with the game in a way that seems to be their own fault isn't much fun, and selecting games (or sections of the games) that seem generic isn't very informative.
A good comparison would be Jeff's videos from home (Jeff Gerstmann Home Games) where he quickly runs through a bunch of retro arcade and console games. He's able to show off why the games are weird/cool/good/terrible, provide entertaining commentary from personal anecdotes and historical information, and he moves on once he feels he's exhausted the entertainment potential of each game.
Yeah, without being a dick, I think Jeff or Vinny (and preferably both) are needed for any more games in this series. Jeff is the most competent GB member, and Vinny tends to play the 'wacky' role most effectively.
Regardless, this is a game that will seem much less engaging when watching the perspective of somebody who is completely unfamiliar with it (as Ben seemed to be). Having a 3rd party 'expert' who could provide guidance and education during the game might really help with this (even if GB doesn't heed that advice).
Sniper Ghost Warrior 3 has a Metacritic in the 50s, is the next instalment in a generally derided franchise, and is actually kinda broken.
Why are so many people pissed off that Dan doesn't like it?
I think the argument is that a 25 minute video of Dan vehemently complaining about a video game is not entertaining when the gameplay in the video doesn't seem to demonstrate anything obviously wrong with the game. This is compounded with what seems like a fair amount of user error (like not realizing how to use the sniper scope for his first 2 shots, or the complaint about melee kills that worked fine in the video), which makes Dan's superior attitude come off as unearned.
I'm reminded about how Jeff says they play a lot of games that span the spectrum of quality, but many/most of them don't lend themselves to the Quick Look format because they wouldn't be engaging to watch and they wouldn't give the hosts much to talk about. I feel like this game falls into that camp, where it's not worth purchasing for $60, but it also isn't laughably bad or so over-the-top that watching it is a spectacle to witness.
When Dan uses that annoying voice to try to aggressively mock something, it gives me the joy that trolls get knowing somebody is genuinely angry about something that is of little importance.
I feel like the best Quick Looks let the 'badness' of a game stand clear on its own, with the humor coming from the hosts reaction to the game, or riffing on the obvious problems they encounter. If a game doesn't annoy others on its own, and you have to resort to sarcastic mimicry of it to convince others of how bad it is, your problem might be personal rather than objective.
I really enjoy the Jason/Jeff videos. I feel like they're typically more straightforward & informative, while still feeling laidback and fun. Maybe that's because they tend to include Jason with games that are in his wheelhouse, but I'd like to see more of it (but maybe they need to hire another video person to first to free up his time).
I would love to see Jeff stream solo runs, or Jeff form a squad with GB members more familiar with this game. I just don't see Vinny and Brad ever getting to the number 1 spot.
Discospawn's comments