How can we get more people at Gamesquad!

[Michael Dorosh]

All that said, I would like to publish more reviews at GameSquad. But in the big scheme of things, we get a lot more mileage out of posting editorials, guides, and opinion pieces than we do reviews. We can be as hard-hitting and opinionated as we feel like, and there's little anyone can say because A) there's no deadline B) we don't need anything from the publisher and C) the article is clearly labeled as an opinion piece which makes it hard for anyone to really criticize.

It might be easier to garner more attention to GameSquad if the reviewers/editorial writers had more bona fides. I'm not dismissing the writing ability of some of the better bloggers, editorialists and reviewers, but if none of them has ever published a game or worked for a game company, the question unfortunately becomes - why listen to them?

 

[Dr Zaius]

It might be easier to garner more attention to GameSquad if the reviewers/editorial writers had more bona fides. I'm not dismissing the writing ability of some of the better bloggers, editorialists and reviewers, but if none of them has ever published a game or worked for a game company, the question unfortunately becomes - why listen to them?

It's a fair question, but now you're raising the bar even higher and asking for something that not even mega-sites like IGN and Gamespot can provide. Are you really suggesting that traffic for a given article would significantly increase depending on who wrote it? While that might be true in some cases, requiring that game critics have game development experience would simply result in, well, game sites not publishing reviews. It's that simple. Think about it: Why in the world would someone with the skills necessary to work at id Software, CCP or wherever want to stop doing that in order to make peanuts writing reviews? The short answer is they wouldn't. Not to mention it would be a huge conflict of interest for one of Ubisoft's developers to get paid to review one of EA's products. The fact is few game site editors would want to go anywhere near a hand grenade like that.

And so game reviews will continue to come from journalists and not designers, just like movie reviews come from people like Roger Ebert and not Ridley Scott. In all fairness, there are some pretty talented game writers out there, and I'm not really convinced that coders and designers would necessarily turn out to be better qualified reviewers. The experienced games journalist has a breadth of experience that isn't easy to come by, and a unique perspective from playing so many different games.

As I see it, reviews are a nice type of article to have, but generating them in enough quantity to really make a difference takes a lot of resources.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

It's a fair question, but now you're raising the bar even higher and asking for something that not even mega-sites like IGN and Gamespot can provide. Are you really suggesting that traffic for a given article would significantly increase depending on who wrote it? While that might be true in some cases, requiring that game critics have game development experience would simply result in, well, game sites not publishing reviews. It's that simple. Think about it: Why in the world would someone with the skills necessary to work at id Software, CCP or wherever want to stop doing that in order to make peanuts writing reviews? The short answer is they wouldn't. Not to mention it would be a huge conflict of interest for one of Ubisoft's developers to get paid to review one of EA's products. The fact is few game site editors would want to go anywhere near a hand grenade like that.

And so game reviews will continue to come from journalists and not designers, just like movie reviews come from people like Roger Ebert and not Ridley Scott. In all fairness, there are some pretty talented game writers out there, and I'm not really convinced that coders and designers would necessarily turn out to be better qualified reviewers. The experienced games journalist has a breadth of experience that isn't easy to come by, and a unique perspective from playing so many different games.

As I see it, reviews are a nice type of article to have, but generating them in enough quantity to really make a difference takes a lot of resources.

Hey, Ebert wrote Beyond the Valley of the Dolls. :laugh: But I take your point.

Good response. I don't necessarily believe what I wrote but was interested in your take on it. You read a lot of whining on military and wargaming sites about historians without military experience, too. But some of the best military historians ever have been scholars and not soldiers. Which I think is a comparable situation. It's definitely a "nice to have" but you can be a competent military historian without it. And if you want to write on, say, the Roman Army, I am pretty sure you will not find any surviving veterans from any of Caesar's Legions in any event.

 

[Palantir]

{Here's another dimes worth}

As far as a preview all I want to know is the cost, what the game is about, what's in the game (details), the scope of the game plus some screenshots. I don't expect a play by play account "pre-release."

I don't care for release day reviews of any game, the tendency is to rush straight thru a game by-passing anything that takes time (if you can) just to get an "I played it so I can talk about it" article. {In that first day did he play all the levels, did he try out the scenarios, a full campaign, sand box mode, multiplayer etc.}

Plus I don't put much stock in "professional" reviewers because it’s a job and flat out they don't care about the game they are reviewing (like movie reviewers) & it's just ANOTHER game to review. One hour later they are onto yet another game they care nothing about. How many pre-release game reviews consist of this line: "we only got to see the few minutes of it but it looks FANTASTIC and will be a must buy!" Is the professional guy just coming from reviewing a Harry Potter X-box game and then reviewing an PC operational level WW2 with diplomatic functions? Just what is he comparing these game reviews against?


It cracks me up to read reviews about a movie made for 7 year olds that's reviewed by 50 year old "professionals" who then proceed to explain why a 7 year old won't like it. The movie then makes a zillion dollars but fails to win any awards from those 50 & 60 year old voters who know better than all those little kids what they should like. How about some reviews from a 2nd grade class full of 7 yr olds that the movie was made for? Then I might believe what they said about the movie.

So in that vein the game reviews I want to read & put stock in are ones done by average Joes who bought the game because they liked what they initially saw. They are more likely to have put some thought into getting it, playing it and actually play the game as intended before spouting off. I don't care if the writing style is not up to "War & Peace" standards because all I want to know is what he thought of the game, not if he'll win an award for clever writing. I want his honest opinion on what was good, bad and what needs to be fixed or what you have to do (ignore) to enjoy the game. Toss in a few more average player reviews on the game and I'm good to go.

At those "professional" game sites I look more at the player comments & scores than the official ones because nearly all official reviews reads like they just copied and pasted off each other. But the players tell it like it is both good & bad about the game.

There should be a simple point/counterpoint on the reviews if possible. Instead of just 1 on-site reviewer just ask on the site who just bought "X" game & liked it- please write a review and who bought it & didn't like it- please write a review why. (Easier than it sounds I know) I’m sure there’s a template they could follow so all reviews follow the same style & cover everything.

If someone else wants to comment on historical aspects or accuracy let them post a rebuttal.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

Gary Krockover had a pretty good thing going as far as scenario reviews for Combat Mission over at The Scenario Depot II, as well as The Proving Grounds - kind of a "pre-release" workshop for same. It was (well, is, since both are still up and running) well structured and had a good template and definition of scale for how the reviews were to be done. It was populated by fans, and had fans talking to other fans.

Perhaps if there were pre-made templates like that, there would be more reviews here...?

 

[GrumpyWargamer]

It might be easier to garner more attention to GameSquad if the reviewers/editorial writers had more bona fides. I'm not dismissing the writing ability of some of the better bloggers, editorialists and reviewers, but if none of them has ever published a game or worked for a game company, the question unfortunately becomes - why listen to them?

I find there are only three types of reviewers.

Hostiles, fans, and paid for opinions.

If a hostile says they like something they normally would hate, then that might mean it is damned good, good enough even they like it.

Fans, let's face it, they likely will know the thing fairly thoroughly, they're fans. If they hate something they normally like, then that's a real red flag warning potential. If the fans hate it, it must have done something really strange.

Paid for opinions. They got paid to watch/play/use something and their opinion is likely tainted. Sure they might have seen the competition, then again, they likely were just as 'professional' with the competition too.
I couldn't give a damn about Ebert's opinions on movies for instance. His views mean utterly nothing to me. Worth less than nothing in fact. He sounds like someone talking just to hear himself speak.

And in the realm of wargames, well lets face it, our best ones require skill to play, and often have a steep learning curve, plus require more than an afternoon's worth of casual screwing around.
If you haven't beta tested War in the Pacific Admiral's edition, or played it for a month, or have a long history of playing WW2 grand strategy, keep quiet, no one cares what you think is essentially is the correct approach.
It's won awards, not sure who was responsible for the deciding though. Hope it was all people worth listening to.

I seen reviews of wargames from sources (sites) I normally expect to know better end up looking like they picked a reviewer that was doing it too much for the money, and couldn't have actually played the game.
And I HAVE played the game, and thought the review was totally worthless.

I'm just an opinion though. I think a valid opinion is all. I've been wargaming for many years now, and I think that counts.

 

[Palantir]

I find there are only three types of reviewers. Hostiles, fans, and paid for opinions..

Which is what you want really- many opinions coming from different viewpoints.

And in the realm of wargames, well lets face it, our best ones require skill to play, and often have a steep learning curve, plus require more than an afternoon's worth of casual screwing around...

Agreed but you want to have reviews by those exact gamers that tried playing in for one afternoon & hated/loved it. Why? Because it offers an honest opinion of a "noobs" first look at the game which is how all players see a game first- as new players. (minus the "X2" games)
This again allows for a rebuttal of, "you need to play longer to get to XYZ or did you forget this rule..."

In a review of a well established game you'd expect some seasoned players to step up and post their "corrections" and thoughts on it.

If you haven't... a have a long history of playing WW2 grand strategy, keep quiet, no one cares what you think is essentially is the correct approach...

This is what you DON'T want to happen which will kill the whole idea of various skill reviews and drive off new players & readers. Even a new player is entitled to share his first opinions of "his" game without being character assassinated on his first post.

I'm just an opinion though. I think a valid opinion is all. I've been wargaming for many years now, and I think that counts.

EXACTLY!!!!! And that is how you'd start YOUR review by checking the "Experienced player of this game for X years" box.

I recently bought "Crusader Kings" which is several years old = a well established game. The reviews of it were mainly years old but I read all I could find especially since it still has an active forum- must be a reason they are still playing & talking about it. So here I could review what my first impression was of the game at this date, with the many patches etc.
I'd check the "new player- first play/look" box stating what I thought of it (for other new potential players) Then a seasoned player SHOULD post his rebuttal on why he's still playing the game, loves it & POLITELY correct any factual errors I mentioned about it. They could also link to other reviews/game help sites.

I'm sure that Don could come up with some small "icons" players could add under their names to show they reviewed a game or helped review/comment on other reviews. A good player symbol :thumup: or something.

 

[Dr Zaius]

We tried the whole user reviews idea here in two different forms. One was a simple forum where gamers could write pretty much any kind of review they wanted. While the console and handheld gamers initially used this feature quite a bit, the more hardcore strategy gamers completely ignored it for the most part. And interestingly enough, even when users did submit reviews of more hardcore strategy titles, the reviews got very hits. In short, there was little interest.

Second, we installed a professional review software package that attached to the forum and allowed registered users to review any existing title or add new games to the list. Other users could comment on the review or even add a review of their own which would alter the game's aggregate score. The more users that reviewed a given game, the more useful and interesting the overall entry for that game would be. We spent quite a bit of time hyping this review system, providing links to it on the homepage and forums, and attempting to pat people on the back that had taken the time to contribute. Again, the feature was almost completely ignored. Why? My guess is that most people don't want to contribute to a site just starting up a new feature like that and would rather go to Metacritic or an established site that already has tens of thousands of user reviews. Second, a lot of people say they want a particular feature, however, they really don't when it comes down to it. They want to partake of the efforts of others but won't take the time to contribute anything of their own. The end result is that it's very hard to start up any kind of feature that requires users to contribute. Lastly, there is little doubt that sites like facebook have really put a dent in the ability of smaller sites to get up and running when those systems already exist.

I firmly believe that smaller sites can have a lot of good content and a unique point of view in their articles that bigger sites just don't get, but it's pure hell trying to convince a significant numbers of gamers of that. They look at the big corporate game sites and ask, "Why would I want to contribute here? Your site doesn't offer a fraction of the features site X does." While there is some truth to that, smaller sites can offer some really cool stuff. Nevertheless, the jury is in and the verdict is that people are attracted above all else to activity.

As far as the suggestions of having multiple reviewers on a single review -- I would love that. It would make for much more interesting reviews in my opinion. However, there's a reason you rarely see it, and that's because it's just not economically feasible. Hell, even one-user reviews are a net loss most of the time. Multi-user reviews would be worse and much more difficult to coordinate and publish in a timely fashion. This is one of those things that falls into the category of being a good idea that simply isn't practical.

 

[Dr Zaius]

The issue of wargame reviews and wargame articles was raised, so I'll address that briefly. In short, you're not going to see much of it. GameSquad's emphasis has been MMOs and mainstream strategy games for some years, and I don't expect that to change. WarfareHQ will offer wargamers the ability to communicate and interact with a wargame-only crowd, but I do not plan on publishing articles there. The honest truth is that paying for wargame articles is a futile enterprise 99% of the time as they just don't get enough readers to make them worth the effort.

I like wargames too, but the truth is that they are a difficult subject to cover well. Wargamers tend to demand really detailed articles, otherwise they tend to dismiss the articles as "fluff" or whatever. With this in mind, writers have to expend a lot of time and effort to write meaningful wargame articles, and it's generally not worth attempting to cater to such a small audience.

I wish I could just snap my fingers and make this stuff happen because I, too, enjoy some of the really hardcore, off-the-beaten-path strategy games. But I've learned the hard way that running a site geared toward wargames is great fun and a great way to waste large amounts of cash in a hurry. It's a lesson I won't soon forget.

We'll cover them when and where we can.

 

[SkaterMcgee]

When will WarfareHQ be up Donny boy?

 

[GrumpyWargamer]

What he said

I'll be honest, I don't give a **** about an MMO player's opinions on my wargames for about the same reason I don't expect an MMO player to give a damn about my thoughts on MMO games.

You'd need a crowbar to remove my son from his PC most days Too into his WoW hehe. Myself, I have tried, and it always fails too, to get intersted in MMOs. I'll sum up most MMOs for you right now. They're messenger programs with a game attached. My son isn't so much into WoW, it's just he gets to chat while playing a game the people he is chatting with all like. He's playing mainly for the chat.

I belong to a site where the site owner actually liked a quote I made so much they converted the quote into a banner "I'm not here for the [insert hobby here], I'm here because all of us here are the same age and like [insert hobby here]. Used that insert here approach, because I want to focus on how a lot of times, it is not the specific topic that counts, it's that everyone is of a similar sort and also likes that topic.

I'm here for ASL, but, additionally I am here because I'm an old fart wargamer. And you guys are all like me. I chat on a few gaming sites that are predominately teens. The problem is I rarely fit in. Their inane babble is no worse than my inane babble, but my inane babble will usually only make sense to anyone my age

Gamesquad Don, is not an MMO site, it's a site of old men that play MMOs. I suspect when you consider the difference, you will understand why you won't be attracting the young any time soon much. You might have a few younguns, but let's face it, even the teen sites have a few old farts

 

[Dr Zaius]

Gamesquad Don, is not an MMO site, it's a site of old men that play MMOs. I suspect when you consider the difference, you will understand why you won't be attracting the young any time soon much. You might have a few younguns, but let's face it, even the teen sites have a few old farts

You're talking about the forums. And your attitude is a prime example of why you'll be much happier at WarfareHQ.

 

[Dr Zaius]

When will WarfareHQ be up Donny boy?

Soon. The forum database is huge and we did some tests with Sengo to see how long it would take to sort out the sub-forums and posts, and it took considerably more effort than it should have because the queries were bringing the server to its knees.

I don't have an exact date, but it will be fairly soon. It's just a lot of rather tedious work to make it happen. But I do think it will be worth the effort over the long run.

 

[Redwolf]

You might think over going after mature MMORPG gamers. The existing forums for those are usually kinship/guild based.

Will warfarehq be vBulletin 4.x based?

 

[Dr Zaius]

Will warfarehq be vBulletin 4.x based?

Yeah, there's really not much choice since we'll have to copy the database from GS and the GS forum runs on 4.x. I've seen some threads over on the official vBulletin forums where people have discussed the possibility of rolling back to 3.x, but so far no one has been able to do it because 4.x makes significant structural changes to the database structure. It would be possible to roll back to 3.x if we were willing to revert to a really old database backup, but obviously that would mean everyone would lose 8+ months worth of posts, blog entries, etc.

It does look like 4.0.4 (which we haven't installed yet) is a decent improvement over 4.0.2. It fixes some more bugs and IE6 issues, and people that have upgraded are reporting it runs faster, which is always welcome news.

4.0.4 also comes with the new style generation tool. I'm anxious to try that out for myself because the 4.x CSS/stylevar/template scheme is an absolute PITA to work with, making constructing decent themes extremely tedious and time consuming. I've done about 5 new 4.x CSS themes to date, and I'm not doing any more until I'm satisfied that this new theme tool actually works, or IB makes significant improvements to the theme system.

 

[Palantir]

I'll sum up most MMOs for you right now. They're messenger programs with a game attached. My son isn't so much into WoW, it's just he gets to chat while playing... He's playing mainly for the chat.

Obviously you haven't found an MMO that suits you yet.
FYI- WoW is awash of "children" of all ages who use it as anything but for game-play. I quit WoW for 2 reasons 1. the insane number of disgusting idiots running around and 2. game play was about 1 thing: get better gear- get better gear, get better gear...
I play LotRO because of the STORY, and can't count the number of times I've remembered in passing "Oh man I need to get some different gear, this stuff is way below my level now." Also I found players are more mature across the board there (or are until it goes F2P) who are there for that same reason to play a game concerning LotR not to stand around, hang out & chit-chat about non in-game stuff. That said game players usually gravitate to like minded players of their age who talk & act in the game as they do which includes on forums.

I am here because I'm an old fart wargamer. And you guys are all like me.

Agree with you there, :toast: but I avoid the teen-sites entirely.

Don- points well stated and completely understood on the game review issues- sadly.

 

[Dr Zaius]

I don't expect an MMO player to give a damn about my thoughts on MMO games.

Obviously you haven't found an MMO that suits you yet.

I agree. But I can see how he might form that opinion. I've editorialized about the apparent lack of diversity in the MMO genre. It's obvious that publishers see the rather unbelievable success of World of Warcraft and they want to try to emulate it, or at least get a piece of the action, which is's a perfectly understandable motivation. However, I wish more of them to attempt to go in a new direction and give us some MMOs we haven't seen yet.

Not all the MMOs have similar gameplay, though. EVE Online is the most conspicuously different from WoW, and it's reputation as the game of choice for the serious, hardcore player is well deserved. And though LotRO might be a fantasy MMO, its community of players distinguishes it from WoW.

As to the "kiddie factor" on game forums, that's a hard one. There are times when I enjoy forums that have very little banter and consist mostly of serious discussions about various games and/or features. The AVSIM forum is a good example of this. But there are other times I'll waste hours reading through the spirited flame wars and trollfests on any number of large game forums I know. It really depends on what kind of mood I'm in and what I'm looking for.

For example, you'll never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy than the official EVE forums. There's tons of good information and links there, but trolling other posters into oblivion has become something of an art form. It's not a forum for the weak hearted or easily provoked. Yet, most people agree it's not all that representative of the EVE community as many EVE players are very serious and spend a lot of time in-game. Forum warfare is just "politics by other means" in EVE, and that's something that takes some getting used to.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that it can be difficult to make judgments about games based on what you see on game forums. To each his own.

 

[SkaterMcgee]

For example, you'll never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy than the official EVE forums. There's tons of good information and links there, but trolling other posters into oblivion has become something of an art form. It's not a forum for the weak hearted or easily provoked. Yet, most people agree it's not all that representative of the EVE community as many EVE players are very serious and spend a lot of time in-game. Forum warfare is just "politics by other means" in EVE, and that's something that takes some getting used to.

You know what game is like that both in-game and on the forums? Maplestory, the in-game is basically the forums, but live lol. This game is absolutley disguisting if any of you have ever given in a try. It is also a very very kiddie game and looks like its geared toward 3rd graders.

 

[GrumpyWargamer]

Why do I visit forums? Is likely in important question.

In the early days of wargaming, we had the AH General, but it was only AH games, and if you didn't like the feature tfb.
Strategy and tactics was cool, and had a game periodically.

There were a few oher publications, but they came and went so easily.

Today's forum is really just an interactive magazine to a lot I think. You don't reeeeeeally think you have as many members that contribute as the membership numbers suggest hehe.
I bet the contributors are a surprisingly small number. Likely easy to research. Go and list by post count, and delete anything that has not posted in 3 months.
That's how many contribute. Doesn't mean people are not reading though.

Not many wish to contribute though. Heck I posted letters to the editor all the time in the 90s. Forums made it easier to be heard though, and didn't require an editor to include.
So I guess I consider Gamesquad a decent enough virtual magazine to be here and posting. I go to a few other places, but I only read there. Might not like the community enough to want to be one of them.

 

[Redwolf]

Yeah, there's really not much choice since we'll have to copy the database from GS and the GS forum runs on 4.x. I've seen some threads over on the official vBulletin forums where people have discussed the possibility of rolling back to 3.x, but so far no one has been able to do it because 4.x makes significant structural changes to the database structure. It would be possible to roll back to 3.x if we were willing to revert to a really old database backup, but obviously that would mean everyone would lose 8+ months worth of posts, blog entries, etc.

It does look like 4.0.4 (which we haven't installed yet) is a decent improvement over 4.0.2. It fixes some more bugs and IE6 issues, and people that have upgraded are reporting it runs faster, which is always welcome news.

4.0.4 also comes with the new style generation tool. I'm anxious to try that out for myself because the 4.x CSS/stylevar/template scheme is an absolute PITA to work with, making constructing decent themes extremely tedious and time consuming. I've done about 5 new 4.x CSS themes to date, and I'm not doing any more until I'm satisfied that this new theme tool actually works, or IB makes significant improvements to the theme system.

vBulletin 4.x just sucks royal rooten donkey balls.

Just right now as I type I am pissed off. Because the "Reply with quote", which is a link, I always mid-click to open the reply window in a new tab. I do that so that I can continue reading the thread and have the things I want to reply to forward-stored in new tabs that will be automatically visited when I am finished reading the thread and close that tab.

Guess what? The vBulletin idiots (it works fine in 3.x) put some Javascript into 4.x so that the link will forcefully open the dialog boxes in the old tab. There's no option to turn it off either.

The new company owning vBulletin obviously doesn't understand how people read forums, at least those users that are not just point and click. The renaming of the "userCP" with the thread tracked, which is the only good feature in vBulletin missing in other packages, has been renamed to "Settings". That, if nothing else, points very clearly toward the new management expecting users to be just point-and-click instead of using the forums to actually follow things and develop conversations.

I am sure I can write you a script that will convert the threads from the v4 tables back to what v3 needs. And it's risk-free you convert back and look at the results in v3. If it didn't work, repeat until success or giving up.