I very very much enjoy the Quick Looks here at GiantBomb. I have watched countless quick looks for games that i never heard of, or never liked the series just for the humor and enjoyment that comes from the staff playing them.

I have come to a sad realization in doing so tho, and that is, most of the time no one seems to know anything about the games they are playing. I've watched countless quick looks where someone asks the person playing a question about if a mechanic, mode, character was in a previous game, and the person playing or another person watching has no clue.

I have also seen them be completely wrong about things in the game. Often times when they say they are the ones that are reviewing the game. Then there's the countless comments of skipping cut scenes and the like, saying thing like " oh is that what she wanted? i wasn't paying any attention to the dialogue at that point ". Really dude? your the reviewer for this game and you weren't paying attention to something so key in peoples "scores" as the story?

I understand as a reviewer your gonna play/ have played tons and tons of games and they will start to run into each other and your not gonna recall everything. But come on if your playing the game currently and reviewing it then you better know whats what in the game, and for the love of god you better pay attention to the story.

It just drives me nuts when I see people doing such have assed jobs on something I'm so passionate about and know I could do a better job of

Is this about Brad again in that Skyrim Quick Look?

I liked his quote to one of the whiners there though: "Cool, so we can assume you'll spare us your opinions about every game you play until you can recite every minute and invisible aspect of their mechanical design?"

I think they play it one way in the Quick Look, and another while reviewing. Also, they do some research, i guess...

Don't worry about it.  Come and enjoy all the motion control quick looks and have a laugh.  Then buy games on steam for $5.  It's not a big loss if the game is a turd.  I certainly stopped reading video game reviews.

@Axxol: well if you read my post you'd understand what i mean, its that they seem to show little knowledge on the game and that they skip story

It's called a quick look for reason, they're supposed to be fast and loose with the cut scene skipping to keep everything moving, i mean, would you really enjoy watching two guys silently and methodically pay attention to every detail of game instead of giving context and opinions? Every quick look isn't done the moment they've played the entire game, in fact, i find it helpful to get a reviewers idea of a game even when they've only started it or are only minutes in, they even say they're only now starting the game..... Also, i'm pretty sure you wouldn't do a better job, but i guess i don't know you as a person and i can only guess by your lack of punctuation.....

You do realize that sometimes they do Quick Looks of games they're just starting. Just because they do Quick Looks does not always mean that they've finished the game. Also, it's 'half-assed', not 'have assed'. I kind of can't believe you didn't know that.

@MikeGosot: oh i understand they play games one way on a quick look and another when getting a review, but when they are doing a quick look and mention they are getting the review around for the game and then in that same quick look make mention on how they missed that part of the story dialogue yet still review its story

there will always be (at least) two separate schools of thought on reviewing a game. one side will be how approachable is this game to someone who just wants to pick it up and play. the other side will be if i am a complete expert on this game, done thorough research on it and such, how much will i enjoy this game when i already know everything there is to know about it before i even turned it on. in the end, you can't review a game to please both sides. Skyrim is totally one of those games where you are going to piss people off by not already knowing everything there is to know about the game before reviewing it. on the other hand, no one would jump down a reviewer's throat for not already knowing the ins and outs of a more fringe game like Deadly Premonition, Gal Gun, etc.

@ZeForgotten: hah nah actaully didn't know about that, havent watched the whole quick look for skyrim yet

@soiledsanchez said:

@MikeGosot: oh i understand they play games one way on a quick look and another when getting a review, but when they are doing a quick look and mention they are getting the review around for the game and then in that same quick look make mention on how they missed that part of the story dialogue yet still review its story

Probably because if they're working on a review, then they've been playing it for some time by that point.

@PrivateIronTFU: yup I know that, and those weren't the ones I'm talking about. I'm talking about the ones where they mention being in the middle of reviewing, or wrapping up the game getting the review finalized

This is something that has been bothering me for years tbh. I'm not talking about GB or any site in particular but in all the reviews i've read there have been a lot of times where things they state are factually wrong and to be fair a lot of times it's small minor things but in some cases it is glaring things I have no idea how the reviewer could miss or mess up so bad. I think in a lot of cases it may come down to how long they have to review a game, especially at this time of the year. It's not something you can really get too angry about but there have been a few reviews I've read where something was so wrong or messed up it actually annoyed me quite a bit.

@soiledsanchez: I see, my mistake. The reasons given here were just as dumb as the one that was being mentioned in the comments of that Quick Look. Carry on then!... His comment still rocked, though, at least give me that! :P

@Zenaxzd: yea like in the gametrailers review for saints row the third , they call the city your in Stillwater, when its been made clear from day one that the city is now Stealport (sp?)

@ZeForgotten: like I said i haven't see it so I don't know what his comment is actaully in relation to so I cant give him props for it, and yes I understand some people may not care about such things as I've posted but again I'm very passionate about gaming and to see such things annoys the hell out of me after awhile

Quick Looks can be frustrating when they skip tutorials, but I wouldn't assume that's how they play the game when they're reviewing it. Things are different when you're "on camera" and trying to make good content for your customers. Usually, a Quick Look isn't part of the review process, and I know at least Ryan has gone back and played a mission that they showed in the Quick Look because they skipped the cutscene. I'd like to think that any reviewer with integrity would replay any story-integral missions when not recording, since it's a completely different atmosphere. Playing the first hour of a game, almost completely ignoring tutorials, then continuing that save to review the game seems, as I'm sure is your point, ridiculous.

I do know how you feel, though. Watching a Quick Look where they leave a tutorial pop-up on screen for 15 seconds while they look away from the screen (or something,) close it, then immediately have no idea what to do is aggravating. Skipping story stuff is fine, in my opinion, as long as skipping a 30 second cutscene doesn't lead to 5 minutes of "what do I do now?" or if they're reviewing it and don't intend to go back.

I think part of the difficulty with not realizing what is going on with the game in Quick Looks is that they're talking and playing the game at the same time, so they're not concentrating fully on what's going on.

They show it during quick looks, but they PLAY it for reviews. That's when they actually figure out what the fuck is going on and write it all down and talk about it.

@nickb64: I completely get that and have no problem with it, my problem is when the person playing it mentions they are -insert x number of hours in- and especially when they mention they are in the process of reviewing the game and they don't know this stuff.

maybe its just me, and no one else puts so much into their gaming experience anymore the way i do

I don't know if it's been brought up yet, but the save they use in quick looks is usually not the save they use while reviewing the game. Brad's mentioned several times that he would reload after the quick look is done. So they are absorbing any tutorial or story they skip in the quick look for the sake of time.

@soiledsanchez said:

It just drives me nuts when I see people doing such have assed jobs on something I'm so passionate about and know I could do a better job of

I sometimes agree, but I figure these guys have a lot on their plates what with the Quick Looks, reviews, previews, preview events, premium member content, and all the other random shit they pull together here, so I let it slide.

Good luck, OP, in getting genuine comments beyond sycophantic excuses that ignore what you have actually written.

While I've not noticed it often, there have been occasions where a Quick Look makes it clear that they're several hours into the game and still haven't noticed some pretty basic shit. Quick Looks that aren't from the reviewer, are very early in the game, or involve far too many elements to expect full knowledge, e.g., knowing how every system in Demon's Souls works, are expected to have some of these flaws. However, when someone ten hours into a game complains that there's no mechanic x and says the feature would make the game much better while failing to notice that it's in there, there is a problem. I've seen several reviews (from various sources) in which complaints demonstrate that the reviewer never even opened up the options menu. With Giant Bomb, the problem is rare, but sufficient that I double check dubious statements and take most Quick Look commentary with a good dose of salt.

Quick Looks are almost always better when at least one person knows what the hell they're doing. Some of the videos where they spend inordinate amounts of time going in circles and bitching about the game in frustration while missing the bleeding obvious are just amateurish shit. There are a few Quick Looks that they probably shouldn't have bothered uploading at all. I get wanting an immediate feel for a title, and it usually works well, but when things turn to shit, they'd be better off starting over and doing it right. For all I know, they might do this from time to time, but there are a few that get by offering a pissy, inaccurate view of a game.

It's a problem, but it's pretty infrequent.

You usually have two types of QL's. One is the reviewer playing, the other is the 0-2 hour(s) of previous playtime. You also have the we got multiple copies so you have a non-reviewer that put helluva lot of time into it or the times when a dev shows off the game.
Most of the time it's early impressions, and usally pretty lighthearted take on it aswell. ;d
 
And I do myself often skip tutorials. When you've played games for 25 years or so you tend to believe you're able to face most games head on anyways. ;d

I came to the realization that reviewers don't give every game the respect it deserves when reviewing it (or they review in circumstances that could do for improvement), whether this means rushing through the game, not finishing it, not playing enough multiplayer to actually know how good it is, playing it on easy, playing multiple games at the same time, having to repeat sections of the game (at events), playing the game wrong, being crap at games, concepts about what the game is, external pressure, etc... The people who review games are not machines so the reviews they put out will never be perfect (not even close..professional is all you can ask for and some cant even do that..), thats why its ridiculous when people hold review scores up as an absolute standard. These reasons are also why i don't trust the reviews of many other sites (unless i know a bit about the staff), games journalism has a lot of manbabies whos opinions aren't wanted.

If someone can't even complete the game before reviewing it, then i want nothing to do with their opinion. Too bad full disclosure isn't always available.

I largely disagree with your opinions, at least on Giant Bomb. There are often times where someone doesn't realize a feature is in a game; for example, Deadly Premonition has locked its fast-travel system behind a side-quest that's extraordinarily hard to activate and complete. I think Brad hears about it through the comments during the Endurance Run, but most players have NO IDEA it's there while playing the game.

Quick Looks have been kind of a bummer to watch lately, because they don't pay any attention to the game.  It makes it real hard to be informative or funny if you ignore the thing the video is about.
 
Imagine how the Rogue Warrior quick look would've gone if they spent the entire time reciting things they heard in interviews and things they like about other games and not listened to the terrible dialogue and said fuck a lot.

Remember in the podcast when they were talking about RAGE, and Jeff was annoyed that he had to do some of the racing in order to progress with the main quest (to unlock some cars), and Brad (who reviewed the game) didn't seem to remember this at all. He kept saying, "You don't have to race," but Jeff pointed out that you have to do at least 3 races.

This seemed like news to Brad.

Anyways, I notice the phenominon you are referring to quite often too. I just chalk it up to alcoholism and the detrimental effects on memory.

@Old_Corncob said:

Remember in the podcast when they were talking about RAGE, and Jeff was annoyed that he had to do some of the racing in order to progress with the main quest (to unlock some cars), and Brad (who reviewed the game) didn't seem to remember this at all. He kept saying, "You don't have to race," but Jeff pointed out that you have to do at least 3 races.

This seemed like news to Brad.

Anyways, I notice the phenominon you are referring to quite often too. I just chalk it up to alcoholism and the detrimental effects on memory.

I was more baffled when Jeff admitted that he didn't understand the intro sequence for Rage. I mean, seriously? You have to purposefully ignore what is being said and shown in order to not get it...

@dudeglove: yes yes someone's spelling and grammar isn't top notch on the internet stop the fucking presses, I've never clammed it to be

@spilledmilkfactory: hey I understand completely how busy they must be. I know it felt like I singled out Giant Bomb here in this post, but as I mentioned I've seen it in GTtv reviews and many other places as well. I picked Giant Bomb for my rant as its the one site I felt would allow me to take such a view point and not get moderated or banned.

I love this site as I mentioned I've watched countless quick looks on games I don't even care about just because of who these guys are and the enjoyment and laughs they bring out in the quick looks.

@soiledsanchez said:

I could do a better job

And yet you have posted 0 reviews yourself. How do you know you could do a better job when you've never tried. Recording a quick look is different from reviewing a product. During recording they have to talk to each other. If the guy reviewing the game is listening to the questions from the guy who hasn't seen the game before then he can't pay attention to what is happening on screen. You see it all the time; they accidentally die because they were talking or listening to a question. You should READ THE REVIEW because the review is based on the hours spent paying attention to the game and not on the minutes spent answering questions and dicking around for the viewers entertainment.

I have written a couple of review's not here at giant bomb tho. Yet again someone who failed to actually read my post. I clearly mention when people who are the ones doing the quicklook and are also doing the review have no idea what to do even tho they should of allready did it in their review process.

I think the QuickLooks are generally when they are playing the game for the first time or one of them has played it about halfway. It's not an actual review and has no bearing on how they review the game. It's just to show you the game and the gameplay and maybe discuss a little bit of what the game is about.

@BlinkyTM: I know this, but I'm not referring to these time. I'm referring to when they say they are in the process of reviewing this game and start up a new game or load a early save for the quick look and have cant recall stuff about it. I'm also referring to when they mention playing the past games in the serious yet cant recall jack about them.

The biggest thing I'm referring to tho is when they actually review something and have things wrong. Such as the GTtv review for Saints Row the third in which the reviewer calls the town your in Stillwater even tho its been known forever now that Saints Row the third takes place in Stealeport(sp?)

@soiledsanchez said:

@BlinkyTM: I know this, but I'm not referring to these time. I'm referring to when they say they are in the process of reviewing this game and start up a new game or load a early save for the quick look and have cant recall stuff about it. I'm also referring to when they mention playing the past games in the serious yet cant recall jack about them.

The biggest thing I'm referring to tho is when they actually review something and have things wrong. Such as the GTtv review for Saints Row the third in which the reviewer calls the town your in Stillwater even tho its been known forever now that Saints Row the third takes place in Stealeport(sp?)

Oh, alright. I know what you're talking about. Doesn't really bother me if they can't remember stuff. I don't like when they mess up major things about the game though.

@soiledsanchez said:

@BlinkyTM: I know this, but I'm not referring to these time. I'm referring to when they say they are in the process of reviewing this game and start up a new game or load a early save for the quick look and have cant recall stuff about it. I'm also referring to when they mention playing the past games in the serious yet cant recall jack about them.

The biggest thing I'm referring to tho is when they actually review something and have things wrong. Such as the GTtv review for Saints Row the third in which the reviewer calls the town your in Stillwater even tho its been known forever now that Saints Row the third takes place in Stealeport(sp?)

I don't really care about other site's reviews. Giantbomb and RPS's reviews are the ones I trust most. If you can name a review on GB or RPS that actually got something wrong like that then I will take issue with it, but since I don't know/care about the review process of other sites, the fact that they don't review them properly isn't a big deal to me.

Quicklooks are just a way of showing the game off to the users, there isn't hardcore research or analysis of the game done for them. The main purpose of the quicklooks are to show an unedited experience with the game, and the game should be able to speak for itself in this setting.

How about you just chill out?

@nickb64 said:

I think part of the difficulty with not realizing what is going on with the game in Quick Looks is that they're talking and playing the game at the same time, so they're not concentrating fully on what's going on.

But there are sometimes where both are quiet, and then it seems like Brad comes out of a shock or something, and says: "What? I wasn't paying attention". Then what the fuck were you doing dude? You weren't talking, you weren't paying attention to the game you're playing; are you day-dreaming?

Sometimes, I think they play the game they are reviewing when they had a bit too much to drink, and the next day, their memory is cloudy, and something that was no big deal, has been extremely exaggerated. For example, when Ryan was talking about the Saboteur, he said whenever there is a new mechanic, the game gives pages upon pages of plain text explaining what the mechanic is. Complete nonsense. It's only a page, half picture, half very basic explanation in big fonts, and it only happens three times.

@soiledsanchez:

Quick Looks were designed to provide the audience, and the GB staff playing the game, a first, or close to first, glimpse of a game. Occasionally they show a game they've already beat (like Skyrim or Batman) but usually not. Further, they have gone on record in saying that they would never judge a game based on that experience.

@project343: my post has nothing to do with skyrim nor did i single out brad

in quick looks they usually skip cutscenes because spoilerz, and they talk over dialogue because they have a lot to talk about regarding stuff like game mechanics and it just happens.

it's completely different from when they're at home actually playing a game for review, and actually paying attention to what's going on/playing it properly, rather than just trying to show stuff for the camera and answer questions.

..... apparently no one knows how to read

Its easy to make these criticisms when you don't have to work the schedule these guys do. You're free to play a game for however long you want. You're not on a deadline where you have to finish game X and then jump right into game Y, with games Z, A, and B waiting as well, not to mention you have to quick look a handful of other games. So its no wonder why they don't figure out every single detail of a game or that they forget certain things from certain games. You try out their schedule, as well as all their other responsibilities, and then try to completely remember every game. You'll quickly find out its not easy and you forget things. If you really think you can do better, then do it. Don't just say you can without any actual proof.