Gah! What happened to GameFAQs?

[MattKeil]

Massive redesign get!

http://www.gamefaqs.com

[Robert Sharp]

GameFAQs is such a great site. I don't think I could have made it through DWVII without it, and it helped with Gothic 2 as well. I don't like cheats, but walkthrus are nice for those times when getting stuck just gets too frustrating.

[Derek Meister]

I've never really been a big fan of fixed width website design.

[MattKeil]

Yeah, at anything over 800x600, you end up with huge amounts of wasted border space. The old design filled the screen.

[Jamie Madigan]

It's been GameSpot-ified. Lots of obnoxious advertising and pictures of goofball editors. At least the guides themselves are still plain text, though.

[Wholly Schmidt]

Yeah, at anything over 800x600, you end up with huge amounts of wasted border space. The old design filled the screen.
The flip side of the argument is that the reason you'd want a high resolution for your desktop in the first place is so you can fit a whole bunch of things on it and still see them all, not so you can have one thing spread across a whole lot more pixels. Multitask baby.

[nutsak]

That and people still use shitty lower resolutions for the desktop environment. Thus anything over 800x600 would force the wrathe of side scrollers on them. (the bars at the bottom not Sonic the Hedgehog.)

[MattKeil]

Why not just use a design that conforms nicely to whatever resolution is being used? Like, say, oh, I don't know, the one they already had?

I'm all for improving stuff, but a lot of the redesign seems sloppy here. Why is the PotD so far down on the page? (note that very few people have responded today...are they slow or just missing that it's there?) Why are the Gamespot headlines way at the bottom of the page?

I also like that if you use the dropdown menu on the right side, double clicking the list item you want will end up clicking you through the ad on that side. Overall I guess it doesn't really matter, since I spend maybe .8 seconds on the main page per visit, but it's weird that someone didn't think of these things before it went live.

[steve]

It's been GameSpot-ified. Lots of obnoxious advertising and pictures of goofball editors. At least the guides themselves are still plain text, though.
What do people think of this obsession with focusing on the editors? Not just online, but you see it in print as well.

I always was under the impression that the authors and editors should be sort of invisible so people could focus on the content, but maybe that's outdated, that people see the pics and say, "Hey, that's my gaming buddy" or something.

[Jobe]

It's especially bizarre with female editors. If she's gorgeous, the forums fill up with disrespectul lewd references. If she's anything less, or just took a bad picture, the forums fill up with REALLY disrespectful insults. Reminding game writers who they're writing for doesn't seem like a good idea.

Overall, there's just too much talk about writers in general. Maybe GameInformer is some kind of industry joke or something, I wouldn't know (I like it for the most part), but in reading the newest issue today I was really surprised by all of the self-referencing. Each of the writers/editors acts like they're characters in some sort of ongoing drama that the magazine exists to document. Very weird, but maybe I'm one of the only people who couldn't care less about the nicknames they call each other at the office.

[Alan Au]

"My eyes! The goggles, they do nothing!"

The new look will take some getting used to, and I'm not sure why they felt obliged to fuss with the old layout. Meh.


I always was under the impression that the authors and editors should be sort of invisible so people could focus on the content, but maybe that's outdated, that people see the pics and say, "Hey, that's my gaming buddy" or something.
...says the man who has his picture on his CGM editorial page. :P

- Alan

[Jamie Madigan]

What do people think of this obsession with focusing on the editors? Not just online, but you see it in print as well.

If they're charasmatic, interesting, and/or entertaining, it's fine for them to put their personality out there. I think Fargo and some of the other guys at GameSpy are good examples of this. But don't force it, because then it just gets kind of pathetic. Kind of like someone trying too hard to be cool or the life of the party and getting the opposite effect.

Of course, the hard part is telling what is indeed charasmatic, interesting, and/or entertaining. But somebody's got to be the judge of it (hopefully a good one) and move on.

[steve]

...says the man who has his picture on his CGM editorial page. :P
.... which is what almost every editorial has... but seriously, it's not like there are pictures of me anywhere else, with little cutes-y quote bubbles saying things like, "Whoa, look at these cool screens!!!!" Nor do we put comments about any editors in other articles, which is something the other PC game magazines do a lot.

[steve]

If they're charasmatic, interesting, and/or entertaining, it's fine for them to put their personality out there.
That's fine and appropriate for editorials and columns, but I'm more specifically referring to its use in other types of articles, or on a homepage.

[steve]

Each of the writers/editors acts like they're characters in some sort of ongoing drama that the magazine exists to document. Very weird, but maybe I'm one of the only people who couldn't care less about the nicknames they call each other at the office.
Yeah, this is what I'm talking about.

I wonder if the benefits, which I assume are for regular readers who become more closely tied to the editors, are offset by the way it makes it appear to new readers like some private club. Of course if people want to be a member, they'll stick with it, I guess.

[Qwijybo]

EDIT: Removed mistaken comment. So sleepy...

[Aszurom]

Yes, but without the whole "editors gone wild" bling, I'd never have known what Vede looks like in a dress, or licking a video card. Images I'm still trying to shake. I finally gave up and got a mental frame, because those pics are going to be with my psyche for a long time.

[Supertanker]

I guess this means none of you bought the GamePro staff action figures?

[Jamie Madigan]

That's fine and appropriate for editorials and columns, but I'm more specifically referring to its use in other types of articles, or on a homepage.

So was I, though I acknowledge it's harder to be any of those things with only 75 characters of text and a graphic. That's probably why they try to overcompensate with wacky zany facial expressions or props in the pictures. I'd much rather just have a headshot and a few lines of text with the person speaking to me without using headlines or hype-filled marketing speak.

[Jason Becker]

It's been GameSpot-ified. Lots of obnoxious advertising and pictures of goofball editors. At least the guides themselves are still plain text, though.
What do people think of this obsession with focusing on the editors? Not just online, but you see it in print as well.

I always was under the impression that the authors and editors should be sort of invisible so people could focus on the content, but maybe that's outdated, that people see the pics and say, "Hey, that's my gaming buddy" or something.


Guess to be more like the other media outlets today. You see TV media trying to make stars out of their people all the time now. Give them their own shows etc. Newspaper columnists become known and put in hundreds of papers because of their name and reputation.

[chet]

They constrict the width, so it is easier to read. Letting content adjust to any size browser results in hard to read content, and goofy layout.


Chet

[Derek Meister]

I understand why a designer would want to limit the width of large sections of text to improve readability, but I don't see why they can't have columns with a fixed width text column flanked by variable width columns with extra information and navigation to better make use of the fact that most browser windows end up being wider than tall.

I mean there's no reason not to put lists like "the top ten FAQs" or the "best game ever" poll in columns flanking the main text, is there? As it stands, I'm still going to be forced to scroll due to the site being taller than my browser window, while having lots of whitespace that just looks wasted.

[steve]

I'd much rather just have a headshot and a few lines of text with the person speaking to me without using headlines or hype-filled marketing speak.
In a reading media, I'm just not sure why we need the headshot at all.

[steve]

You see TV media trying to make stars out of their people all the time now. Give them their own shows etc. Newspaper columnists become known and put in hundreds of papers because of their name and reputation.
But that's TV, where you're constantly seeing the person. When I'm reading, I don't see the person. And for syndication, the names are probably more important than the picture.

I guess when I'm thinking of a newspaper, magazine, or website, I think more about words than pictures of the people typing those words. With TV, someone else usually writes the stuff, and the talking head blathers on about it.

[Bethany]

In a reading media, I'm just not sure why we need the headshot at all.

We put up a bunch of video content at GameSpot, too, including video reviews and Let's GameSpot. The bulk of it's still reading, but the kids like the movies, too.

Not having my picture on the homepage would've saved me a bunch of unflattering comments, but the users are unhappy and need a target. It'll blow over, but next time Brad or Jeff or Greg is going in there! ;)

[steve]

We put up a bunch of video content at GameSpot, too, including video reviews and Let's GameSpot. The bulk of it's still reading, but the kids like the movies, too.
This is true, so it makes more sense there. Though I'd hate to see a floating Ted Koppel head all over the ABCNews.com website.


Not having my picture on the homepage would've saved me a bunch of unflattering comments, but the users are unhappy and need a target. It'll blow over, but next time Brad or Jeff or Greg is going in there! ;)
Remember, they're all perfect. And I bet your glasses are cooler than theirs are.

[Gendal]

They constrict the width, so it is easier to read. Letting content adjust to any size browser results in hard to read content, and goofy layout.


Chet

On a 24" Monitor I frequently expand out myIE2 to 1920 pixels wide just because it's easier to hit maximize than size it perfectly. So I for one really don't mind when they force a reasonable size on me. It reminds me to resize my browser because it's fairly annoying to try and read one sentance that long, let alone try and pick up the next 12pt tall line from over a foot away.

[Sparky]

...it's not like there are pictures of me anywhere else, with little cutes-y quote bubbles saying things like, "Whoa, look at these cool screens!!!!"

...I'd hate to see a floating Ted Koppel head all over the ABCNews.com website.
http://www.phobe.com/koppel_comments.jpg

No, I don't have any idea what this means either.

[Ben]

Oh man, that's a new high point.

[Supertanker]

Sparky, still reigning Photoshop Goddess.

They tweaked the layout at Gamefaqs already. I actually used it to look something up, and it takes about two or three more clicks to get to something now. More pageviews, I guess. The server is fast, so it didn't annoy me. I assume this lets them make a little more scratch to stay a free service, so I'm OK with that.

[steve]

No, I don't have any idea what this means either.
Yikes, did that picture come from some intereview somewhere? I think it's the one the PR fools at theglobe made them remove the large "LOSER" type I had on my T-shirt.

[Sparky]

Oh, the original did have "LOSER" on it, but I took that off so I could potentially Photoshop better things onto it, like "I'm Not As Think As You Drunk I Am" or the Rush 2112 logo.