What price quality? -
May 2, 2001 - Chris Jones
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed
within this column are those of the participants and the
moderator, and do not necessarily reflect those of the
GIA. There is coarse language and potentially offensive
material afoot.
Did you know that it takes nearly half an hour for an 8-processor system to find all 9233 unique solutions to the 13-queens problem? Well, now you do.
Don't say we didn't warn you.
Have you ever considered that if people didn't get sick, doctors would be out of a job? That if people didn't argue, there'd be no employment for lawyers? That if a frog had wings, it wouldn't... er, never mind.
The vast majority of what I got in the mail today was overwhelmingly positive in support of the site, but it doesn't give me much to discuss. Still, it's petty to bitch about too many positive letters, so let's just get this thing started.
Onward.
| The best the web has to offer, on zero dollars a day |
| Chris;
Just a quick letter on this topic since I'm short on time - you ask if
it's a bad thing that good hobby sites may be making it harder for
"professional" sites to stay afloat. From my perspective, the answer is
definitely "No". I generally *prefer* hobby sites to for-profit sites,
simply because the people running them tend to be more interested in what
they're doing.
Now, I'm not saying that the people running professional gaming sites
don't like games - but the fact is, the need to do whatever works for
their bottom line, while people like the GIA can concentrate on the things
they really enjoy. I happen to know someone who works for an IGN site,
and while he often has a ot of fun, he also spends a lot of time
complaining about the utterly crappy games he's forced to play and review.
To sum up - yes, the GIA has financial constraints in the form of server
costs, but I think that in the end not having to worry about some parent
corporation's bottom line is a *huge* freedom which in the end makes for
better, more entertaining reporting and coverage. It's in a bit of a
niche, but since GIA's interests largely correspond with my own, it's the
niche I want to read. It often the case that the well-done niche "hobby"
sites are home to some of the best the web has to offer.
- Ben / Kirin |
| Money just clouds the issue |
| I think hobby sites are definitely the way to go. Reporting
on this stuff is a lot like software: money is a very, VERY poor
motivator, and a very, very bad method of quality control. Some of
the best software ever written was written by people who were simply
writing something they felt was useful. Also, some of the worst
software ever written was made simply for a paycheck.
You guys have proven that the best formula for a gaming news
site is a group of people who enjoy games and are interested in
reporting on them. Daily Radar has proven that economic motivations
are not enough to keep a news site alive.
That said, I wish the GIA the best of financial success. I
have donated money to you guys before, and hope to again in the not
too distant future. Not because it's WORTH that much to me, but
because it MEANS that much to me. There's a huge difference.
And you're absolutely right about World War 2. That was
heavy.
- Zen
|
| The Atom Egoyan of websites |
| Hey, personally I almost never go to those other sites. I think the last time I looked at IGN was in January or something, and I've never even bothered to go to videogames.com. Why is this?
,p>They're just not as good, to my discerning eye. The reviewers always seem to be more interested in graphics than plot, and the readers are treated as little better than cattle to boost the counter numbers.
I don't get that feeling here, though. The reviews take everything into consideration, I know and like the people running the site, and I feel like an individual, rather than another drone passing through.
Professional sites turn into souless, faceless monsters, much like professional magazines. The best gaming mag of all time, Game Players, fell to a crashing halt when the owners tried to make it more serious and professional. And I'll tell you why it failed right now : It was BORING. Professionalism is all good and well, but it's really, really not fun to read.
If those guys are pros, then I hope The GIA stays indie for a loooong time.
Negative Creep
|
| The anti-Walmart |
| Hi Chris,
I think the way all of you work for the site (and therefore for us) is the key to your success. I explain myself : some people prefer to go and get their gaming stuff at huge stores while others do prefer the little intimacy of a small shop where everybody is known by names (or nicknames in case of the internet) and where one can discuss the pros and cons of the release of DQ7. When someone hits at the GIA, he/she gets a turn around the latest news, sees what's intereting him/her and then talks/reads a bit with the actual "bartender".
The GIA delivers that pleasure to feel at home and to have what we're seaching for : information.
PitFighter
~who hope you won't be swallowed up anytime soon into the maelstrom of dead websites~
|
| A common sentiment |
|
I don't know how much of the gaming community I represent, but I already
prefer sites like the GIA over Daily Radar, IGN, and the like. It'll be a
cold day in hell before I pay for a gaming site as long the GIA is around.
- Brayniac
|
| Depth of field |
| "Hobby" sites like the GIA have always been my favorite, because they always have compelling CONTENT. Sites maintained by real fans usually have strong, informed opinions that are interesting to read (even if you disagree with some of the opinions), while commercial sites tend to just have a slick gloss (and bandwith hogging graphics) with no depth. The need for immediate videogame news is really an illusion - if you get your screenshot of a game 6 months before it's release or 5 months before the release really doesn't matter. I do use the commercial sites on occasion - for example, I just broke down and bought a N64 system, and Videogames.com archives are good to look at and get a general idea if the used games are worth the $5-$15 they are going for. There will always be some commercial sites, however, as they can use them to pimp their print mags (and costs can actually be low if they use the print mag staff rather than starting from scratch).
The District Attorney
P.S. As an admitted Nintindo Whore, perhaps you can suggest a few N64 games for me to pick up (I already got Zelda, Mario 64, and Goldeneye). System + Zelda for $40 - dying systems are great.
|
Not much to argue here, but it's always great to hear that we're on the right track. Satisfaction in a job well done is what keeps us going, corny as that might sound, and it means a lot to the staff to know that we're appreciated.
And Drew's the Nintendo freak around here, but Paper Mario and Ogre Battle 64 are worthy titles, as are Banjo Kazooie, Perfect Dark and Conker's Bad Fur Day.
| Breadth of experience |
| Not really. While you guys are a pretty trustworthy site to get game reviews
from, The GIA lacks game information in many genres of video games (Fighting,
Racing, FPS, ect). Also, when a new game comes out, some may want several
different views on a game.
-Something that rhymes with Lee... dammit.
|
You'd think that there'd be sites equivalent to the GIA for most any genre you can think of, but while it's true for some types of games (fighting, shooters) it's not true for others (sports, kiddie titles). It seems that, as a rule, RPG players are far more likely to be fanatic about their sites than anybody else, which leaves a window of opportunity open for a review of the latest racing game, or Disney spinoff. And that's where professional sites come in, because you pretty much have to pay people to cover some of these titles.
| Carrying capacity |
| Chris,
If the question is do we need to have full time staff on gaming websites in order to give us full time news on new games, then you have to ask the question, Is there enough happening to warrent that much coverage?
Certainly one can make the point that there's a lot more happening now than there used to be. However, just looking at the GIA front page, you notice that news items general top off at around 3 or 4 new items a day. And while most of these items are certainly of interest to most people. Around half of these updates seem to be mainly screenshots. While this is all well and good for what this site claims to be, a semi-professional one. It shows that there isn't quite enough material out there in the areas that matter (ie. news about what's now in the works, confirmations about what's coming over, previews and reviews, and interviews.) to generate the need for a full time staff and service. Granted, those criteria are simply my personal ones, but I like to think that they're good ones.
Another point which has been bandied about is that a full time service, which would require more funds and thus might need to be subscription only, would definatly be at a disadvantage to sites like the GIA and RPGamer which have most of the same information at no cost.
And, off on a completely different point. I'd just like to say that while WWII was major. It's not that big since the major players in civilisation were still the same afterwards. Which means it means squat when compared to the Fall of Rome and the Rise of the Islamic Faith. Both of which led to fairly major changes in the way the world looked.
Excal
|
This links in with what the District Attorney was talking about above - there's not enough news to warrant full time coverage, in most cases, and the news itself is rarely important enough to warrant breakneck coverage. I get as excited as anyone when new FF coverage comes out, but since it's generally a year or two between the games' announcement and the time it gets here, it doesn't actually affect me for a while. If such coverage is free, I'll read it and I'll enjoy it, but it's really not worth a couple of bucks a month for high-resolution screenshots of a game that's years away and I may never have time to play anyway.
And I don't want to argue WW2 any more than I want to argue the Columbine lawsuit, but take a look at who had empires prior to WW2, and who had empires (or hegemony, if you prefer) afterwards, and tell me it was the same group of people.
| Representing the masses |
| If someone out there is just in love with IGN, then I apologize in advance, but...
IGN sucks ass. And you know why? It's because it is a professional site, and it's run by people who think Tony Hawk's Pro Skater is some kind of digital messiah. I can't relate to those people.
The GIA is a site that is clearly run by people like me, hobbyists who just love games. The reputation and wit of the GIA only adds to my sense that there is no better place to get my gaming information online. It's the personal touch that makes all the difference. On the other hand, that doesn't mean that any amount of quality needs to be sacrificed. Why would I go anywhere else when I can get the best of both worlds?
(End of advertisement.) El Cacutar
|
Actually, I think that's a great argument in favor of sites like IGN. I've never played Tony Hawk, and don't ever plan to. I don't think it holds a huge amount of interest for the readers of this site either. But it was an incredibly well-selling game, and one that many people liked a lot. Somebody should represent that viewpoint, if for no other reason than if nobody does, public discourse on gaming is limited to relative fanatics (like us) and that's not good for anybody's perception of gaming. At some level, we're only cool compared to everybody else - take them away, and we're not much of anything, because there's no baseline to judge us by.
| 10x |
| Okay, this has been bugging me in the column for several days now. The news
story says that Dragon Quest VII has 1,700 pages of text to translate. NOT
17,000. That's a BIG DIFFERENCE. Just thought somebody ought to mention
that, and I'm surprised that thus far, no one has.
~Qui-Gon Joe
|
Our story does list it as 1,700 pages of text, but IGN's, which is where I first saw it, still lists it as 17,000. I'm more inclined to go with the former figure because of the reasoning that was thrown around yesterday, but given that IGN says otherwise, it wouldn't surprise me if that's the figure Enix actually had in mind.
| Off balance |
| I've been playing through Paper Mario this week and that game makes me SICK!
Literally, I've never gotten headaches or dizziness from any game before, but
I know alot of my friends complain that they experience this with many of the
3D adventure/shooter games where there is alot of camera and direction
change. Is this a common occurrence now that so many games are in 3D
environments? What can be done!!??
Painfully making my way through...
Ogopogo
|
My parents used to get sick watching me play F-Zero or Mario Kart - not that I was such a great racer, but if you're not directly controlling the system, it can be disorienting. The way I see it you've got a couple of options: take frequent breaks, look into some sort of motion sickness medication, and the classic Marx Brothers diagnosis: if it hurts when you do it, then don't do it.
| Dungeons and... more dungeons |
| Mr. Jones,
I realize that this is way off subject. But I'd love to see the column discuss Dungeon/location design and setting and how it impacts gamer's view of the game. I know that usually everyone talks about overall game setting but I'm talking very specific location settings.
For example, I stopped playing Grandia 2 about half way through because I got bored/frustrated with the location design (especially the dungeons) and the contrived story wasn't interesting enough for me to invest the time to see it through, despite having the best battle engine around. I constantly found myself thinking "Oh gee, look. Another cave." and "Oh man, yet another forest. But wait this one has SNOW! Original." Fact is, if I'm going to be trudging through some dungeon (especially overly-long ones) I want it to at least be interesting.
Location to me is almost as important as story. Why bother to spend all this time to save a world you really don't care much about. We've gotten to a point in videogames that what worked before will not work now, because we've been there, we've done that, and frankly we've seen it done better somewhere else.
Square seems to be one of the few developers that understand this, creating fantastic locations from the dwarven city of FF4 to Alexandria in FFIX, Shevat in Xenogears, Zeal in CT, LeaMonde in VS. To me FFVII's most important character was Midgar, it embodied everything the game was about (redemption), and set the atmosphere for the game beautifully, the game was more about saving Midgar than saving the world. Same might be said about LeaMonde, but to a lesser extent.
Dungeon length also needs to be re-thought. I'm married, have a job, and a kid, so I don't have time to sit through a 2 hour dungeon. I know that I'm in the minority in this, but even if I wasn't, fact is even the best dungeons get old fast. 1/2 or so is perfect. But I digress. I just wanted to make the point of how little we talk about location design, but how important it really is. Even if we don't notice it.
Mr. Cruz
|
Good letter, good topic for tomorrow.
Closing Comments:
Thanks again to everybody who wrote in supporting the site - having this turn into a love-in wasn't what I was thinking of when I suggested the topic yesterday, but far better that than to hear that we're not all that important to you.
Dungeon design's on the agenda for tomorrow, so send in your ideas. Later.
Chris Jones, will go insane if he sees anymore C code tonight
|
