I liked Gamecenter for its personality, and I like Quarter to Three for its attitude. But when Gamecenter had to close shop, I was stuck with Gamespot (where I would often go for a second opinion) for my game reviews. Gamespot has neither attitude nor personality. The reviews are well written, but most are boring! I like Q23's reviews, but there aren't that many, which is not a complaint.

What large gaming sites that review everything that comes out have some personaity/attitude?

Computer Games Magazine and Online is your best bet probably. Too many have died...

I miss Gamecenter too. But not for the personality.

http://www.cgonline.com

Yeah, shameless plug here. Try http://www.gamersclick.com
My band of merry men tries to take pretty much every game that comes out for a bit of a spin. Read it and see if ya like it... I *think* I'd read it if I didn't run it... can't really give my perspective on that.

Other than that, yeah, CGO is a good bet for honest reviews that are really well written.


If it's just personality you're looking for, try IGN... but ... you know--it's IGN.

It's unfortunate that all of the major sites are dying off... I'm trying to get my share of the pie with GamersClick right now... but hopefully the new Ziff Davis site will be pretty good.

Another site that covers games and usually does a really good job with reviews is Firingsquad.com. Their reviews are a bit long, and they don't write about every game that's released, but they do a decent job of covering the ones they do.

With gamecenter and dailyradar put out the pasture, there are not many sites that review almost everything that comes out anymore. Gamespot and CGO are the major game sites with smaller sites like avault.com providing some good articles from time to time.

Your best bet may be to check out the Gold Guide over at www.gonegold.com. Rich and Andy do a good job of finding game reviews and linking to them from one site. Of course the always useful www.bluesnews.com is a good site to check as they list recent game and hardware review links each day.

Hey, um, Tom. Is the masturbating fat guy ad designed to get you off the main page as fast as possible? Because it certainly worked.


- Raife

I also miss Gamecenter. I liked the layout and it had a good mix of articles and reviews.

Gamespot on the other hand seems to have turned into a console-centric website with very little substance. I tend to glance over it once or twice a week now.

The Adrenaline Vault website is still good but some of their latest reviews have tended to be rather gushing for mediocre games. Even AVault has been infected with console-itis.

http://gamespot.com/gamespot/filters/0,10850,6013054,00.html

For a console-less version of Gamespot. Bookmark it.

-Andrew

"Is the masturbating fat guy ad designed to get you off the main page as fast as possible? Because it certainly worked."

That "fat guy" happens to be me and I don't consider myself "fat." Let's take a poll--who here has interviewed more than 2 pornstars? Oh, just me? heheh... Just kidding. Seriously though, you can have your opinions about it, but I've done much of what I've tried to achieve with the site. Plenty of people find the ad hilarious... we can't please everyone. But we will be changing the ad soon--not because of public pressure, but because of the fact that we want to add a little variety.

Everyone takes life too seriously and I'm just trying to bring a little juvenile humor into the world. Marketing.

Avault has some great writers, but I find their articles a bit long-winded. Additionally, they publish reviews weeks after the game in question is released... Sure, a few days are required to finish it, but the time they take is just silly.

Hey, I applaud Avault for not rushing reviews. I think a lot of us freelancers will tell you that various sites demand that we have the review done earlier than we're comfortable with. If a site's policy is to have a review up within a day or two of the game's arrival at retail, that might be a good policy for traffic, but it's a bad policy for thorough and accurate reviews.

About the masturbating Tom ad, it was a bit much for me, too. Next time, Tom, get one of the porn stars you interview to masturbate. Fat or skinny, I'm not really into you working the kinks out of the old garden hose.

Oh, I agree totally, Mark (with the rushing reviews thing). It's just that it's not really useful as a review. If companies didn't declare a game gold until a few months after it was already done, that might be a start. Writers need to actually finish the game before they review it, so if pubs could get the games to them, say, a week early, they'd have enough time to finish it and review it before it hit shelves. I realize that some places do have the options to do this, but it's just not common enough.

As for the ad... well, we will be changing it, so any worries about that should disappear soon. I just need to come up with something equally ingenius. ;) Any ideas?

Well, no offense directly intended to you, Tom, but when you, ahem, expose yourself that way, you've got to expect some flak. Especially when you plug it (cannot... avoid... double entendre... arrrgh).

I don't have a problem with it, but when I'm looking for gaming information, and see that, I'll pass the whole site off as juvenile and move on.

Maybe your site is aimed at the younger gaming crowd, and that's fine. Maybe I'm just a grumpy scrooge (bah HOMMbugs!). Whatever the reason, if I came across Gamersclick with no other information, I'd move on without passing Go, forget the $200.

Just my Baltic Avenue.

- Raife (I'd probably stick around for the porn star, though)

Yeah, I can see where you're coming from on that one, and that's actually one of the reasons we're changing it. We really are trying to aim at the 18-30 crowd, and I think most of our content plays to that audience. Personally, I think the ad is hilarious, but you have to be in the right mindset to enjoy it--I pass up on Frasier to watch Futurama. I'm 19, and have the sense of humor of a 19-year-old... an immature 19-year-old when I want to be. The site's only been open for... oh, a month I think... so we're still ironing out all the wrinkles. Seriously, though, if you have any other suggestions, please email them to me--I'd love to hear 'em.

How about and animated gif of you digging in your nose... you whip your finger out, the camera zooms in... and there's a tiny WW2Online box on the tip of your finger. GONE GOLD baby!

I swear that's how they made it.

"How about and animated gif of you digging in your nose... you whip your finger out, the camera zooms in... and there's a tiny WW2Online box on the tip of your finger. GONE GOLD baby!

I swear that's how they made it. "

LOL! I almost spewed coffee all over my keyboard. I think there may be some truth to that theory. I played WW2OL last night for about an hour, and in that time the sun rose and set twice; there was a strange tank noise near the river that may have been really poor river noises, or a hydroelectic damn; and my rifle disappeared and was replaced by a luger. Then I ctd'ed. But how bad is this: I kinda had fun too.

-Rob

---

Quote:

Then I ctd'ed. But how bad is this: I kinda had fun too.

---

Tom, that ad of yourself pretending to masturbate is completely moronic. Here's a hint: if you're doing something more personally embarassing than IGN, stop.

"We really are trying to aim at the 18-30 crowd, and I think most of our content plays to that audience."

Hmm, lets see: disturbingly convincing animation of guy pretending to masturbate on the front page. Unless by "18-30 crowd" you meant "18-30 gay gamers who like junior-high advertising," I think you're aiming for the wrong target.

"Personally, I think the ad is hilarious, but you have to be in the right mindset to enjoy it."

What mindset would that be? "Unprofessional and not particuarly good at it?" I think IGN and OMM have both of your targeted brand areas locked up here, and they're better at it.

"Let's take a poll--who here has interviewed more than 2 pornstars? Oh, just me? heheh... Just kidding."

I haven't interviewed any, which would apparently make me one-third of the whore you are. Jesus.

GameSpot's straightforwardness is a deliberate compromise--we're trying to be as accessible as possible to as many people as possible. We do have funny guys like Erik Wolpaw and Bruce Geryk writing for us, and occasionally they get to sneak in a clever line or two. But our priority is always clarity and conciseness.

We still focus equally on PC games and video games. You might have noticed more video game coverage on GameSpot lately, but that's because there's been a lot to cover on the video game side, between the forthcoming launch of three brand-new platforms (well, the Game Boy Advance is out now).

--Greg

---

Quote:

http://gamespot.com/gamespot/filters/0,10850,6013054,00.html
For a console-less version of Gamespot. Bookmark it.
-Andrew

---

---

Quote:

GameSpot's straightforwardness is a deliberate compromise--we're trying to be as accessible as possible to as many people as possible. We do have funny guys like Erik Wolpaw and Bruce Geryk writing for us, and occasionally they get to sneak in a clever line or two. But our priority is always clarity and conciseness.

---

Jason, thanks for that constructive criticism--I appreciate it. If you didn't realize, I don't make money off my site--I have in the past, but right now, I'm doing it for myself. It's a hobby. If you consider it unprofessional, you're just pointing out the obvious. It's a site run by a bunch of people who don't get paid.

"I haven't interviewed any, which would apparently make me one-third of the whore you are. Jesus. "

Wow. You even quoted my "just kidding," which sort of makes my entire statement what it was--not serious. Your statement just... baffles me.

I didn't post a link to my site to have it judged by people who don't know anything about the situation--if you don't like it, don't read it. Criticize constructively or something... just don't be a total ass about it. Constructive criticizm is always welcome, but your response was "unprofessional and not particularly good."

Out of all the mainstream gaming sites, GameSpot is probably the one I visit the most. The writing is at least coherent--which is something IGN really lacks--and it's generally pretty good, too. I wouldn't mind seeing some regular columns appear at GameSpot... ones other than TenSpot.

Tom, the "constructive criticism" buried in the insults was that if you don't take yourself seriously and stick to entertaining the market you want, you'll fail. You can't be both a reliable site for game reviews and a weak version of IGN. Write a one paragraph description on what you want your site to do, and stick to it.

OMM is an example of how to be funny/immature *well* and attract a crowd over 13, and he seems to be the only one able to figure out how to do it. Quarter to Three is an example of how to be an excellent, lighthearted professional game reviewing site.

For that matter, most of what makes OMM great is that they're pretty much the only people pointing out some significant issues in gaming (sewers, idiotic design, overpraise of games like Rune, ridiculous developer fetish worship). That they're able to do while Erik writes about fantasies of Jason Hall trapped in a transparent globe drowning in his own filth is what makes so popular.

"OMM / Quarter to Three"

Yes! The secret is "Don't update often".
I kid. I kid because I'm a fan of both sites.
Mark actually has the most interesting news thing going and Erik, Erik... I bow to your E3 airplane anecdote.

-Andrew

Jason... it's tough to "fail" when you're only paying roughly 40 bucks a month to run a site. It's a hobby site. Obviously, if everyone thinks we're some high-budget website, we're doing something right.

I'm defining failure as "lack of pageviews or effect on PC gaming commentary." You've made an excellent start, but there's tons of gaming hobby sites out there that died because they don't know what they're driving for.

As far as I know the amateur sites that have made it are:

Gone Gold
Blues News
Voodoo Extreme
OMM
Um, maybe Evil Avatar's stuff? I hate it, but it supposedly gets a lot of views. Maybe Quarter To Three, though I don't know hit numbers.

Anything else I'm missing?

At any rate, every one of those fills a specific niche:

GG - "Rookie card" gaming.
Blues - Blog of patches/interviews/drivers/screenshots.
VE - Blue's with more, but lower quality, updates.
OMM - The Neitszche (sp -2) role.
Avatar - no idea.
Quarter To Three - Intellectual gaming general commentary?

As near as I can tell, www.gamersclick.com seems to be quarter to three with simpler articles, flashier design, and pho-IGN content. You haven't defined your "area" too well yet.

I don't think it's coincidental that out of the list above, Avatar both has the weakest defined "area" and the weakest claim to influence.

Gah, I'm turning into Howie Kurtz.

Not sure "making it" equates with page views in the same way that they haven't died because they didn't know what they were driving for -- the two may be related but aren't thoroughly interconnected.

OGR as far as I'm concerned was "making it," though not because of page views or the fact that it was driving for something. IMHO of course.

--- Alan

As I understood it... OGR "died" because AirAge wanted to get out of the market and sold it to CGM (Attitude?) who digested it. (Admittedly, the fact that it was faltering anyway hastened that event - but AirAge still is a model airplane mag publisher.

Jason Cross was much, much MUCH more involved than I of course.

Alan: I was strictly talking about "amateur" sites becoming successful in some fashion - OGR seemed pretty professional from the beginning. Was it actually a hobby place gone pro?

"I was strictly talking about "amateur" sites becoming successful in some fashion"

Well, there's www.bustyamatures.com, which isn't really a pr0n site... it's actually a refuge for middle-aged game reviewers with overly noticeable manbreasts. I don't know the numbers, but I think they get a lot of hits.

Personally a site I think would get big hits is www.allfemalenakedlanparty.com... get a few webcams in there, charge $20 to join a CTF match with 'em. Winner of the Quake tourney gets implants and a date with a game designer (ferrari optional).

Of course, if one of the male participants wins... there's a job waiting for you at www.busyamatures.com

Some of the genre-specific "amateur" sites are still plugging along, or have morphed into smaller pro sites (like OGR did), particularly in the wargame and flight sim worlds.

Above, Jason defines the target audiences for Qto3 as "Intellectual gaming general commentary?". I don't want to disagree with such a nice compliment to all the members here, but I do want to add that I think of this site as being, "the place where all the industry people hang out". I'm not one of them, and for that very reason I really like this site. It feels very plugged in. My favorite is when someone is taking issue with an article, or a review, and the author suddenly pipes up. Where else does that happen? Go Qt3!


-Rob

I agree Rob. That's one of the things I love most about Qt3. It lets people who are not "inside the industry" feel like they are. It's great to hear from the authors of articles, and occasionally game developers and such. I certainly applaud Mark and Tom for their site. I truly, truly hope that when (if) the internet rebounds and starts being profitable again, that Tom and Mark get some return for their site. I hope that it can eventually support them both. Of course, neither of you can ever stop writing, no matter how wealthy you become!

Re: Gamersclick -- I agree that the video is not the most professional ad in the world, and looks out-of-place on an otherwise-professional site. But, Jason, I thought you were a little harsh, for what it's worth. And I am ready for them to get a new ad as much as anyone, but no one has even looked at it as being anything more than "a fat guy masturbating" (no offense, Tom) -- he doesn't get any clever points? I at least thought it was a little amusing, although disgusting, at first. But Tom has some great content over there, and gets a surprisingly large amount of inside stuff for being an amateur site.

Anyway, just trying to jump to Tom's defense, albeit a little late, and put in my two cents.

(Hey, here's what bugs me: If you get a penny for your thoughts, but have to put your two cents in, somebody's making a penny! And whoever it is is probably rich, for making a penny on every thought...)

I haven't visited Gamersclick since the first time I went there and that ad came up. Sorry, you just can't look at sites like that while at work, nor can I do so at home with kids and wives moseying around.

It's not clever, it's just disgusting and out of place.

--Dave

Well, to appease all those who don't agree with the way I run my site, I've slapped up a new ad at GC, in place of the old one.
http://www.gamersclick.com/

That was my biggest problem with the video as well. It's not as big a deal for me to look at it at work, because I have a cube and my monitor faces me, but no one passing by can see what's on the screen. But, people like my wife, and some of my friends, wanted to read what I had written there, and had to deal with that video, while many of them were at work. Sure, you could turn it off, but it would turn itself back on from time to time. My best friend's wife told me she frequently opened a new window to cover it, which is fine, until you make Gamersclick the active window again.

I know, we spoiled your fun, Tom, and I'm sorry. I, for one, certainly never meant to do that. But this might help your traffic.

And, come on, Dave. It was a little clever! ;-)

Speaking of content not fit for work:

I read a ton of game forums, and what kills me are the forums that people just have to post pictures, animations, etc. in their tags, or even just cartoon characters next to their posts. I don't really mind them for what they are, but I can't really read those at work. Dang.
-Rob

---

Quote:

It's not as big a deal for me to look at it at work, because I have a cube and my monitor faces me, but no one passing by can see what's on the screen.

---

I don't think my boss is tech-savvy enough to do that! Not to say that no one from security is, but I don't know. I know how our security guys are, and they just don't care that much...Or maybe they're just giving us a false sense of security. ;-)

Anyway, the video is gone now. And, our company policy is that you get one warning when you are "caught" visiting any site that is "inappropriate for the workplace." I haven't heard anything yet, so for now, I'm not too worried.

But, Dave, your point is well taken.

---

Quote:

"the place where all the industry people hang out". I'm not one of them, and for that very reason I really like this site. It feels very plugged in. My favorite is when someone is taking issue with an article, or a review, and the author suddenly pipes up. Where else does that happen? Go Qt3!

---

Guess on how you really call amateur and pro; before the AirAGE deal OGR was amateur in the sense that we weren't getting paid a single nickel, and I can't even remember if we sold ads or not. If we did Paul pocketed the money :)

It was my understanding that AirAGE wanted to dump its computer gaming arm altogether, which meant the magazine (transformed into OGR Magazine) and ogr.com, so they sold it to the Brozens. One of the many deals that netted me about a dozen years of CGSP/CGM subs :)

We acted fairly professional though, as far as those things go.

--- Alan

Well, incase you guys didn't get the point (Dave included), the ad on GamersClick isn't offensive at all anymore--except to me. But y'know... if you still feel like boycotting it, go for it.

I think the replacement makes a great inside joke.

You could add, "And proud of it." underneath.

I didn't particularly like the orignal "ad" myself, it would have been ok if it just played once when the page first loaded.

It's funny because those three quotes were taken from both the OMM thread and this one (yeah, there was actually a thread about it at OMM for whatever reason). I was thinking about adding on the names of the quoted... but I didn't want to put anyone on the spot.

We'll see what the response is to this one. I can just see the jeers of "it's too damn true!" and "it's too quoted!"

I may be opening a can of worms, but I am curious where you folks think GameSpy.com and the GameSpy Network falls into the mix. There are obviously the GameSpy haters, but in terms of objective opinions, I'd like to know. What is the perception out there about its professionalism and quality of content?

I really like GameSpy.Com. Probably the best part is the www.planetxxx.com series of hosted websites. They are a goldmine of information.

As for a GameSpy itself I have been a registered user of the Gamespy 3D software for a number of years and couldn't live without it.

Plus GameSpy now hosts Mark Asher's excellent column.

I may be offering an extremely biased opinion on the matter, since GameSpy was the corporation responsible for the termination of my job with Mplayer, but I'll try and look at it objectively.

GameSpy.com is a pretty good source for news, but that's all in my opinion. Their reviews aren't anything to write home about, and the same goes for their regular articles.

The planet sites bother me. Like Sean said, they are loaded with info, but that information isn't always coherent, and generally the volunteer writers (who make up most of GameSpy Network's staff) aren't overly good writers.

If you need to know about a specific game and don't feel like searching for good sites, I guess the planet sites are a good bet... but you can usually unearth some better sites with just a little bit of digging.

I'd be interested in hearing more opinions. Along those lines, what is the weakest area of the main site (in your opinion)? If it is the reviews or articles, what would make them better? There are some good people writing for the site these days and hopefully the quality of the writing is improving and has improved over the last 6-9 months.

Thanks for the time and feedback.

I like Gamespy too (and I write for them), but I get confused by all the different planet sites. If I want the latest in strategy game news, where do I go? I really like to go to one site and have it all there instead of having to jump from site to site.

There's also a problem that every site struggles with -- we're writing about games, and there's not really all that much new to say at times about the gaming scene, yet the need for daily content is relentless. The result is a lot of articles at every site that really never needed to be written.

Getting back to Gamespy, in general I like the lighthearted tone of the writing and I like that they support a lot of the comic strips that are devoted to gaming. Gamespy's pretty impressive in its scope. The one thing I'd ask for is what I'd ask of every site -- improve the quality of the writing. Give me writing that's so good I'll want to read about games and genres that I otherwise wouldn't care about, just because I want to read an interesting writer's take on it. I'll cite Erik Wolpaw's look at adventure games that he did for Old Man Murray. I'm not a fan of adventure games, but I loved reading Erik's take on the genre. Give me stuff as good as that.

"I really like GameSpy.Com. Probably the best part is the www.planetxxx.com series of hosted websites. They are a goldmine of information.

As for a GameSpy itself I have been a registered user of the Gamespy 3D software for a number of years and couldn't live without it.

Plus GameSpy now hosts Mark Asher's excellent column."

Have you considered employment at GameSpy, Inc?

But seriously. GameSpy isn't bad, except they have the SLOWEST FUCKING WEBSITE ON THE ENTIRE GODDAMN INTERNET. Every single time I've gone there in the last 6 months, the page is just ridiculously, offensively slow to load. Not occasionally. Not at peak times. Every. Single. Visit. Is. Excruciating.

It's like every visitor to the GameSpy web site receives a free V.90 modem downgrade. Thanks GameSpy(tm)!

Also, the planet(x) series of websites is horribly wrong in so many ways. It's like a giant game of madlib run amok, using games instead of adjectives and nouns. Unfortunately, madlibs are much funnier.

wumpus http://www.gamebasement.com

The way the main GameSpy.com site is laid out isn't great. People are more likely to be checking the site daily for reviews and news, yet those sections are way down the page.

Also, that Army ad really gets annoying. It's cool the first time--maybe even the second time--but after that it just gets in the way. I realize that probably pays a hell of a lot more than any other type of ad, but it's a pain.

Oh, that thing where the army men climb down the screen? That's an ad? I had no idea. I don't even pay attention to it. I just thought it was some designer running wild.

Wumpus, about the planet sites, I just think there are too many. I don't think the basic concept is bad. The more of them there are, though, the more diluted the overall content is.

Yeah, it's an ad for the Army--the main part of it is where GSI used to have their article features (the little Flash thing in the top right corner)

I hate flash. I hate sites that are loaded up with gizmos. All that stuff could go away and it wouldn't bother me a bit.

Does gamespy charge developers for the gamespy arcade?

---

Quote:

Have you considered employment at GameSpy, Inc?

---

---

Quote:

But seriously. GameSpy isn't bad, except they have the SLOWEST FUCKING WEBSITE ON THE ENTIRE GODDAMN INTERNET. Every single time I've gone there in the last 6 months, the page is just ridiculously, offensively slow to load. Not occasionally. Not at peak times. Every. Single. Visit. Is. Excruciating.

---

"I hate flash. I hate sites that are loaded up with gizmos. All that stuff could go away and it wouldn't bother me a bit. "
Don't blame Flash. Flash is a fabulous tool, and very powerful. Blame the same things that should get most of the blame in bad games: poor development and lazy design. A Flash presentation that is tiny, and doesn't eat up your whole day waiting for it download, is pretty cool. You'd just never know it, what with all tha huge, bloated, gimmicky things featured with it. I'm personally not a fan of using it for ads, but think it's great for presentations, content sites, and interractivity. Just my $.02.

I'm not particularly fond of how Flash is used on websites, but I no longer care. With so many gaming sites down now, I'm signing up for every silly mailing list and clicking on every banner that the remaining ones have. I figure I've got to help them earn some revenue & improve the image of online advertising.

I've actually grown fond of Gamespy's daily email, and I don't find the site to be a problem - as long as I'm on broadband.

"pho-IGN content"

Heh! I believe you meant "faux." I normally am not enough of an asshole to point out such errors in public, but because "pho" is a type of soup for us plucky Vietnamese people, you went and got me hungry for said soup when I read that phrase (yes, I am easily conditioned for such things).

As for gamesite stuff, er, I tend to read Q23, EvilAvatar, GameSpot, and check up on Blues, VoodooExtreme, and ShackNews. News overkill? I guess. Then again, I have three bookmarks dedicated to weird crap on the Internet (plastic.com, obscurestore.com, and memepool.com), so that's just the kinda guy I am.

Also, if anyone is really bored, and wants to see wacky web design-y stuff using Flash and whatnot, here're some links for that kinda thing. I know some guys who are into this whole "design" thing for the Internet, and they always forward me these quirky sites, because they still are entertaining, even if they lack "content":

http://www.project43.com
http://www.sparrowsfall.com/nosepilot/real.html
http://www.moma.org/whatisaprint/flash.html
http://www.danger.com/
http://www.ndroid.com/
http://www.steiner.com.au/
http://www.keicon.com/keicon.htm
http://www.jessambola.com/
http://www.once-upon-a-forest.com/
http://www.hoogerbrugge.com/

Time for me to go back and write drivel for Jeff now!

-Thierry