Forums > MobyGames > Relaxing the rules on descriptions
Martin Smith (81743) on 1/21/2007 11:17 PM · Permalink · Report
Recently the administrators and approvers on the site have been discussing the idea of allowing games to be added to the database with shorter descriptions, or no description at all. A system would be set up where games can be 'flagged' as having inadequate descriptions, with bonus points awarded for correcting them, over and above the standard points for revising descriptions.
This idea has produced a lot of debate. The admins are largely in favour of it, as it would mean more games being documented, especially from users who are not fluent English speakers, and entries for new releases being added more quickly, and would lead to less frustration with entries being WIPped back.
Many approvers are opposed to the idea however, noting that few of the inferior older descriptions are ever edited, and that the overall quality of the site would be reduced. People access this site to find accurate unbiased information, and the descriptions are central to that.
So, what do you all think? Does it frustrate you when you open a game entry and find an inadequate description? Would finding a lot of these put you off using the site? Do you bother to edit existing descriptions which are flawed? Would you add more games if the description requirement wasn't there?
Gonchi (3590) on 1/22/2007 2:10 AM · edited · Permalink · Report
I'm all for allowing people that like to contribute descriptions to do it instead of me. I hate descriptions. They're a pain in the arse for me to write. I find it annoying that things such as cover art, screenshots, tech requirements can all be included later, where as you must write a three to four paragraph description if you don't want an approver to send you a message telling you your description is useless.
I honestly don't think I've read more than half a dozen of them since joining. When I look for a game on Mobygames, I already have a good idea of how the game plays and what it's about, and most often than not, the first thing I check are screenshots. I have about a dozen games I could add to the database that I have elected not to contribute simply because it’s not worth the hassle.
Ace of Sevens (4479) on 1/22/2007 3:03 AM · Permalink · Report
I'm for it, but against bonus points as that would encourage people to submit without descriptions, then add them later. Perhaps we should just make descriptions worth more.
Corn Popper (69019) on 1/22/2007 3:12 AM · Permalink · Report
Well bonus points is not part of the original propsal and probably won't happen.
One thing that'll probably happen regards if this goes through or not is variable points given for description much like it is for reviews. We'll probably have some sort of cap to it also in the case that the original contributor wants to improve their own description.
Martin Smith (81743) on 1/22/2007 12:28 PM · Permalink · Report
Istand corrected on the bonus points issue - that was suggested by one of the approvers later. I would have thought it'd be easy to not award the bonus points for people revising their own description.
I have very mixed feelings about the idea of relaxing description rules. Quality over Quantity has always been this site's motto, and I think that is more important than documenting every game ever made in a skeletal way. Descriptions become less important if there are lots of (well-captioned) screenshots, well written reviews or a decent packaging blurb that goes into some detail, but for a lot of entries they are pretty crucial. Then again, I seem to be one of the better writers on here, and one of the hardest to please when it comes to description quality.
Roedie (5239) on 1/22/2007 3:00 PM · Permalink · Report
I'm against relaxing the rules. Not many people revise existing descriptions, so we'd better enter good ones into the database right away. In my opinion writing a good description for a game isn't that hard if you played it. Just use this as a checklist.
Luis Silva (13443) on 1/22/2007 3:07 PM · Permalink · Report
I think we could lax out a bit on descriptions if the submission is otherwise complete: credits, screenshots, box scans, accurate (as possible) release info, patches, trivia, technical specs and possibly a "nice" review are as crucial as a solid description for a good entry. It might be considered a huge part of the entry, but point-wise, even on a barebone submission it doesn't claim many points, which is why it might seem somewhat minor in importance when compared to screenshots, credits or even box scans (a single box scan takes me around 5 minutes to upload, a 3-point description revision can take 30 minutes).
On reading that other thread, I wonder if creating a special submission status like "waiting for description" would be useful. Anyone not wanting to write a description could simply skip it, and the whole submission would stay "pending approval", but also visible on a public list. Then, other users could simply check the list, find a game they're familiar with and submit a description, getting points like if it was a revision (getting +1 for entering a new description). If after 7 days there's not a new description, it gets WIPed back to the original contributor, and hopefully he/she already played enough of the game to get a new description going.
Oh, and as it seems everyone has problems with descriptions for sports games, I'm writting a guide for them that should be ready later this week. Anyone interested ?
Corn Popper (69019) on 1/22/2007 9:59 PM · Permalink · Report
See, now you're assuming everyone plays every game they have. So true if a person plays a game they should have a better feel for writing a description. But in my situation... I have well over 2000 games and at least half of those are not in the system. Now do you think I've actually played most of those? I wish but I don't have nearly enough time as much as I'd like to. I'm sure mine is an odd case with the amount of games I have.
The majority of the people are just plain and simple not natural writers, without some change the site won't grow as big as we'd like to if we are held back by just the description. Sure an entry may look bad, but not any worse than any other site.
Riamus (8480) on 1/22/2007 11:04 PM · Permalink · Report
At the same time, look at the number of user reviews here and on all of the other sites out there. Often, the same people who don't want to write a description to the game have contributed reviews here or elsewhere that are longer than any description needs to be. It isn't so much about the writing as it is about the style of writing needed for the descriptions. I really think that if we, as approvers (or admins approving), help users rewrite their descriptions so they are good enough and just have them verify that the revised description is acceptable (one WIP), then that shouldn't be too hard for people.
You are right that some (many?) people contribute without ever playing the games. And this is obviously going to make writing descriptions more challenging. However, if these are games that are perhaps a bit obscure and the contributor doesn't take the time to play the game and write a description for it, we may never get a description because we may never have another contributor to this site who has the game or has played it. Sure, someone else could paraphrase a description from other sources, but that's really the same as if the original contributor does that. And if the original contributor has the game, then there could be a much better description if that person takes the time to play the game before writing up a description for it.
Just as one example of how it can be a problem to paraphrase a description without ever playing a game... Star Trek: Legacy had on the official site a lot of information about how you could customize the captains and ships and fleets even up to release date. You can't do anything more than pick different ships for your fleet. There are many smaller sites out there that don't ever update their sites after a game is released, so you often have "coming soon" as the latest news item or something along those lines. Imagine when someone reads a description of a game that is not correct for the final product and was never changed on the official site because the site wasn't changed. They'd contribute that information and it would be incorrect. Yes, this is probably a rarity, but it can happen. Yes, contributors could go to other sites and look up information or read reviews and try to get more information and verify what they found at the official site. Unfortunately, I know that many people won't do that. They'll take the official site's word for it and go by that. Even if they do search for other items about the game, those may all be outdated pieces of news and reviews aren't always accurate to begin with.
In the end, unless a contributor cares enough to take the time and really research a game, the descriptions created by someone who hasn't played a game are going to be less accurate and less descriptive than ones by people who HAVE played the game. And, based on the number of contributions that just take release dates directly from sites like IGN or Gamespot without verifying them, I have a feeling many people just aren't going to take the time to verify their descriptions either. Verifying a description of a game you haven't played, if done well, can take much longer than verifying release date information. If people don't do that, they aren't going to do it for descriptions either.
Now, I really don't mind if people contribute games they haven't played. If they want to try and write a description for such games, that's fine by me... as long as they do a good job and it's correct. But I still think that descriptions are MUCH easier to write if you've played the game and can be done in half the time (or less) and look much better. Often, I find official site's descriptions to be lacking in details and they leave me still wondering what the game is about. We really do better when the descriptions are from people who have played the games rather than paraphrasing official sites and game boxes.
The point is that we are going to have a lot of games without descriptions or with bad descriptions (2 line descriptions are bad!) that will never be revised. For those that are revised, we'll end up having many of them done by people who haven't played the game (the same as the original contributor), so it is the same thing... someone is left to try and write a description for something he/she hasn't played and that will be difficult. We're not really making anything easier for people this way... we're just pushing the difficulty off onto someone else.
Игги Друге (46653) on 1/22/2007 11:55 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Corn Popper wrote--]The majority of the people are just plain and simple not natural writers, without some change the site won't grow as big as we'd like to if we are held back by just the description. Sure an entry may look bad, but not any worse than any other site. [/Q --end Corn Popper wrote--]
There is no point in looking like any other site, in that case we could just turn the site into a link-farm or merge with GameFAQs. The point of this project is to look better, not as bad.
Unicorn Lynx (181769) on 1/23/2007 12:38 AM · Permalink · Report
Exactly.
Corn Popper (69019) on 1/23/2007 3:37 AM · Permalink · Report
true but, the point I am making is that we're not going to look worse because we're a user contributed site as opposed to many other sites... with this there is the potential to have more
I really don't hear any good suggestions on other ways to add more games. If you want to down one suggestion then you guys should to come up with a better idea.
Игги Друге (46653) on 1/23/2007 4:54 AM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Corn Popper wrote--]I really don't hear any good suggestions on other ways to add more games. If you want to down one suggestion then you guys should to come up with a better idea. [/Q --end Corn Popper wrote--]
I added two games this evening. How's that for an idea?
Unicorn Lynx (181769) on 1/23/2007 12:38 AM · Permalink · Report
I think your case is an exception. Also, some games are documented on other sites or in magazines; you could read their descriptions and make your own, rephrasing what they write.
I don't understand why we must lower the quality of the site only because people find it hard to write descriptions. I find it hard to scan good covers. So, should the site have accepted my 100 dpi scans only because I didn't know how to use the scanning software properly?
Each person contributes what he can. So I like writing reviews and taking screenshots. And I can't stand submitting release info or credits. So I don't submit them much and let others do that. Same with descriptions. Somebody finds it hard to write a good description for a new game? So don't submit a new game. Submit something else. Or learn to write better descriptions.
If I really want the game to appear in the database, I'll write an acceptable description no matter what. I submitted obscure Japanese games which were a pain to describe, because I had to translate their intros and such to get some information about the story. It was hard work, but it was rewarding.
Corn Popper (69019) on 1/23/2007 3:48 AM · Permalink · Report
writing descriptions and scanning covers is totally different... descriptions takes more creative thinking while scanning is more procedural
you can easily tell someone on how to improve on scanning because those pure directions, you can't just tell people to get better at a description... you can show them examples but if someone just isn't creative it's not going to happen or will give a sub-par one which will frustrate them even more when the item is sent back and forth... I know we've lost a lot of people due to this... I read all the emails sent into the site
should the site only rely on good writers when the majority of people don't write? if so then those of you that can write need to step it up then... is that a better solution?
Unicorn Lynx (181769) on 1/23/2007 4:23 AM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Corn Popper wrote--]Should the site only rely on good writers when the majority of people don't write?[/Q --end Corn Popper wrote--] Everybody can write. We are not demanding novels here, just descriptions of video games. To combine a few phrases about how a game works and what it is about is not really "creative work"; no particular talent or inspiration are required. It's just a matter of some knowledge of English language, some knowledge of the game, clear thinking, and a bit of effort.
If someone really cannot write descriptions at all (for example, someone can't write English), he shouldn't submit new game entries.
And if a contributor leaves the site just because an approver was trying to maintain the quality of the site and to help him by sending an entry back to him, then sorry, but I don't think the site really needs such contributors. Contributing to MobyGames requires a certain amount of effort, and, I dare say, devotion.
Riamus (8480) on 1/23/2007 11:03 PM · Permalink · Report
Agreed. Besides, we lose contributors who don't like other things being rejected as well. Descriptions aren't the only thing people have WIP'd and rejected. As I mentioned, approvers may need to ease up on people and help more than just WIP descriptions back saying it's bad. It isn't hard to suggest ways to improve it, or things to add, or things to remove. It also isn't hard to ask the person if he/she would like the approver to help revise the description if that contributor isn't good at writing.
In response to Corn Popper, there are as many people who can't follow directions (no matter how well you explain them) as there are people who aren't able to put a few sentences together to describe a game.
Trixter (8952) on 1/22/2007 6:56 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Martin Smith wrote--] I have very mixed feelings about the idea of relaxing description rules. Quality over Quantity has always been this site's motto, and I think that is more important than documenting every game ever made in a skeletal way. [/Q --end Martin Smith wrote--]
We are listening to everyone's concerns and we think we have a compromise that would not allow bad descriptions into the database. We'll announce more when we've had more time to discuss it, both internally and on the public forums.
Everyone will have a chance to voice their concerns before implementation, don't worry.
Riamus (8480) on 1/22/2007 9:08 PM · Permalink · Report
Just to voice my opinion here for non-admins to read...
I know that descriptions can be a pain. This is especially true for non-English speakers or for specific games, such as Sports games. Sometimes it is hard to write a good description for a game. And many people submit games without ever playing the game, so they have a harder time trying to paraphrase various reviews and descriptions about the game(s) from other sources. In the end, unless you're a good writer, you probably don't like writing descriptions.
The problem with relaxing this is that we want quality descriptions in the database. There are many other sites out there that have no descriptions, or descriptions of only a few lines, and you cannot really read up about the game from those sites. Some people may come here to find out more information about a game they already know about, but many people look up games that they don't know about. Without a description, you can't really learn what the game is about unless the screenshots are described well enough to show you what the game is about. Or how many have tried the Random Game link just to see what comes up? If you haven't, you should. It's a great way to find obscure games that you haven't heard of. What happens if you try that and there isn't a description, or the description is only a couple of lines?
No matter how you look at it, descriptions are a central part to any game entry. Consider that if YOU don't like writing descriptions, chances are that most other people don't either. We have a lot of descriptions that should be improved already and no one will touch them. People just don't want to deal with the descriptions. Do we really want 20%, 30%, 50%, etc. of games in the database to suddenly start being description-less? Or have only a couple of lines? Does that look good for visitors?
There are many alternatives to relaxing the descriptions. It is my hope that one of those alternatives will be chosen instead of relaxing the descriptions.
For the time being, those of you who have difficulty with descriptions -- either you aren't good at spelling/grammar, or you have trouble not biasing the description, or something else -- do the best you can and include as much information as you can (gameplay, controls if applicable, plot/story outline, etc) in the best format that you can. Then, include a comment to the approvers asking for help getting it looking good. Most approvers will probably help clean up your description and then WIP it back to you to verify that it's okay. This will save a lot of back-and-forth WIP'ing of the game because of minor problems in the description.
Unicorn Lynx (181769) on 1/23/2007 12:55 AM · Permalink · Report
Well said, Riamus. My opinion exactly.
Guys, what makes MobyGames different from other sites is not that we have so many different games for different platforms and even not that we have so much different information about them. What makes us special is the fact we have quality information. We have good screenshots with descriptions that illustrate the gameplay. We have correct release dates and correct companies associated with the games. We have full credit lists with cross-references. And in order to match this level of quality, our game entries should also have good descriptions that give users an idea what the game is about and how to play it.
Description is the first thing a user sees when he opens a game sheet. It is the most basic and the most important component of a game entry.
I'm a non-native English speaker and there was a time when I found it very difficult to write good descriptions. The best way to learn is to find here in the database games with good, long descriptions that belong to the same genre as the game you want to submit. See if anything in their descriptions could also be applied to your game. Try to imitate the structure and the language of the description you see. The easiest way is to split your description into two paragraphs: one describes only the story, the other only the gameplay.
I've seen many contributors who started with awful descriptions. I WIPed those descriptions back to them several times, telling them what had to be corrected. After that, they started submitting excellent descriptions. If you have similar troubles, the approvers will always be ready to explain to you exactly what is wrong in your description and help you with details.
Ace of Sevens (4479) on 1/23/2007 6:39 AM · Permalink · Report
I disagree. This proposal wouldn't mean that MobyGames woudl suddenly start accepting bad information. It would still have release info, genre info, etc. Lacking a description doesn't nullify the value of the other parts of an entry. Frankly, I think the reason isn't all that popular compared to things like GameFAQs is that while the data is good, it's really lacking in breadth. Let's say there's a great new game that just came out I'd like to add to my want list. Let's call it NBA 2K7. Only I can't add it because it isn't in the database and between haggling about the details of the description and general queues, it coudl take more than a month to appear. Why should I use MobyGames if I can't even keep a basic wishlist? It seems like this woudl make sure the database could be much more responsive without compromising the integrity of the data.
Unicorn Lynx (181769) on 1/23/2007 7:29 AM · Permalink · Report
As somebody else said, there are games that have waited 20 years to be added to the database. How is it possible that we put speed in front of quality? That's contrary to the very essence of MobyGames. MobyGames is, more than anything, a catalog. Its purpose is not to provide immediate information about newly released games, but to document existing games with maximum detail and precision possible.
And there is no point in comparing MobyGames with GameFAQs, or any other site, for that matter. GameFAQs is about two things only: walkthroughs and reviews. They have no descriptions, no screenshots or covers. So they have more games and the games are added more quickly, but they are much less diverse than MobyGames, and absolutely cannot serve as a reliable catalog.
Don't get me wrong, I use GameFAQs a lot, but our purpose is simply different. We don't concentrate on a particular type of information, platform, time of release, etc. We document everything so that later people will be able to get fully reliable and extensive information about games of the past.
GameFAQs and other sites are aimed at the current player; many of the things there won't have real value for future generations. MobyGames is able to serve well as a reference for gaming purposes without any restrictions of time.
Corn Popper (69019) on 1/23/2007 7:59 AM · Permalink · Report
well we do want to try and get most of the recent games in the system, especially while the information is still fresh... easier to be more accurate this way
Star Gem (98) on 1/23/2007 12:17 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Unicorn Lynx wrote--]As somebody else said, there are games that have waited 20 years to be added to the database. HOW IS IT POSSIBLE THAT WE PUT SPEED IN FRONT OF QUALITY? That's contrary to the very essence of MobyGames. MobyGames is, more than anything, a catalog. Its purpose is not to provide immediate information about newly released games, but to document existing games with maximum detail and precision possible.
--snip--
We don't concentrate on a particular type of information, platform, time of release, etc. We document everything so that later people will be able to get fully reliable and extensive information about games of the past.
GameFAQs and other sites are aimed at the current player; many of the things there won't have real value for future generations. MobyGames is able to serve well as a reference for gaming purposes without any restrictions of time. [/Q --end Unicorn Lynx wrote--]
Emphasis mine.
While I agree with most points in the above post, I couldn't help commenting that "quality" isn't a priority for MobyGames at the present either.
I've been a videogame reviewer in the past and, being a collector, as well as a researcher, I tend to know my facts about games. So what happens when I send a "correction" to MobyGames? I get some fool saying you have your own way to define things so facts don't apply. Oh, really? Then what good is MobyGames?
If it was meant to be a historical site - a museum, of sorts - then more care should be taken in something as basic as genre definition. However, if it's meant to be a personal view of the games by the staff that run the site then, by all means, admit it but do your own work, instead of milking people to do most of it for you.
In the end, it seems that MobyGames is run by a bunch of kids who think they know about games, but since they're too lazy to make their "dream project" of an online catalog, they put fans doing most of the searching, adding, and ultimately correcting. With one catch, if you agree with it, fine, if you don't, then forget about how accurate it is... just scrap it.
I understand that's not how most of you see MobyGames, and it's not how it was "supposed" to be (judging by the FAQ), but that's how it sadly is. I still send my occasional additions to this site because, frankly, it's the only one of its kind (that I know of), and some of the work done over the years is useful, but I've been very disappointed by the latest events regarding this site and I'm not one to believe in miracles.
Trying to stay a bit more on-topic, allowing people to add games without a description sounds logical, and should be encouraged. Sometimes, people know of a game, but not much about it. Or they do know the game, but have a very subjective way to describe it. Either way, descriptions should be considered an "extra" entry, just like screenshots, covers, trivia, etc.
That said, though, as long as you have people in the staff who act like dictators, some of who are complete ignorants of the subject at hand, I fear "quality" will be but a dream... and will stay that way.
Excuse the rant, but I found this post and, after what has transpired recently, the use of the word "quality" sprung the limit of my patience. If, in some way, this post helps to make MobyGames a better place (even if it means kicking some people off the staff), then it was worth it. Thank you for reading.
Corn Popper (69019) on 1/23/2007 3:10 PM · Permalink · Report
We already have set definitions on the site. The site started before wikipedia, why should we conform to their definition of a genre?
What do you mean personal view? We have a definitions for the genres we list here, some are not as clear as others true.
So let's bring this to light and see what others think... this is what you had sent in...
Deer Hunter:
- Platform: Windows
-
What Is Wrong: Genre should not include Sports/Hunting since this title of Deer Hunter has no competition whatsoever, or competitive mode.
-
Corrected Info: Simulation, 1st-person perspective, Shooter.
-
Proof: In videogame context, a Sports game is supposed to envolve physical competition - IE: Chess is a Sport in real life, but in videogames it's a Board game, and/or Turn-based Strategy game. In Deer Hunter, no animal ever chases you, and there are no other hunters, AI-controlled, or human.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_and_video_game_genres
This is the sites definition of "Hunting" - Describes gameplay that simulates hunting wildlife or game. Examples: Deer Hunter, Turkey Shoot, etc. Part of the Sports Themes category.
so what do others think? should Hunting be removed from Deer Hunter?
Corn Popper (69019) on 1/23/2007 3:40 PM · Permalink · Report
well hunting falls "under" the umbrella of "Sports" Sports is not denoted as a main definition for that game... you see Sports because of where hunting falls under
I don't think wiki even recognizes "hunting" as a type really
Riamus (8480) on 1/23/2007 11:14 PM · Permalink · Report
Hm... a sport needs competition in order to BE a sport? Really? So all of the sports that are played solo are not really sports? Bike riding is considered a sport by many people and that includes riding solo. Swimming is the same thing. So is mountain climbing, or skydiving, or hang gliding, or waterskiing, or numerous other sports. You don't need competition for something to be a sport.
Now, some people may not consider those to be sports, but they are still considered sports.
Hunting IS a sport, regardless if it's on the computer or not. That's not OUR definition. That is a widely accepted definition.
Игги Друге (46653) on 1/23/2007 3:13 PM · Permalink · Report
If you feel that you have been treated ill, please take it up so that it can be sorted out. It's difficult to arrange things if everyone is left ignorant of the problems you have encountered.
Maw (832) on 1/23/2007 8:33 PM · Permalink · Report
I like the idea of receiving varying points depending on how good your description is. If someone's lazy they could write a barely-acceptable review, and then someone could replace it with a better one if they want the points. Descriptions are a pain to write though, in my ones I usually end up padding them out with "checklist" type material (for instance, listing all the enemies or weapons in a game).
Something to ponder: hunting in RL is often called a bloodsport.
Игги Друге (46653) on 1/23/2007 9:43 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Maw wrote--]I like the idea of receiving varying points depending on how good your description is. If someone's lazy they could write a barely-acceptable review, and then someone could replace it with a better one if they want the points. Descriptions are a pain to write though, in my ones I usually end up padding them out with "checklist" type material (for instance, listing all the enemies or weapons in a game).[/Q --end Maw wrote--] "Checklist" material should not underestimated. A game about shooting down aliens or 11 men hunting a ball is often best described that way.
Riamus (8480) on 1/23/2007 11:25 PM · Permalink · Report
Until games can be added before release, you can always complain about the Wish List not being as useful as it could be. The Wish List isn't really the main reason for this site. There are many other places you can create a Wish List if that's what interests you.
The original suggestion by the admins was that the site would start accepting 2-line descriptions. Can you honestly say that a 2-line description isn't bad or low quality? Later (and the admins haven't said which way they are leaning), we (approvers) started discussing whether no descriptions is acceptable or if they are even worse than 2-line descriptions. Right now, it could go either way because there hasn't been any say from the admins over which way they want to go with this since the original comment about 2-line descriptions by them.
I guarantee you that there will always be sites out there with more brand new games listed than we have. All of the sites that put together pages about games before release with no descriptions and just a title and release date (that might not be correct by the time the game is released) and companies are going to have these games up before we do because we have an approval process to verify information and because we stand by quality. You can jump onto many other sites if you want to have a bunch of games with no descriptions and find a LOT more games, but a LOT less quality.
The way to get more games into the database faster is to get more contributors. That means getting our name out there and finding ways to get more people coming here and taking the time to contribute things. How many active new game contributors do we have here? By that, I mean ones who have added at least 2 new game entries (not necessarily newly released) in the past 30 days? Compare that number to the number of new games released each month and the number of games not yet in the database. We simply don't have anywhere near enough contributors right now to get games entered quickly, no matter what route is taken.
Ace of Sevens (4479) on 1/24/2007 1:08 AM · Permalink · Report
Yes. It's not bad if it's accurate. At least, it is considerably less bad than not having the game listed at all, which is the alternative. Having bad info is worse than none, but having some good info is better than none, even of not as good as lots of good info. Some game may never be added either due to lack of a contributer with the will or ability to find sufficient info. This is particularly true of budget and children's titles that mainstream sites ignore and games that game out before 1997 or so, so don't have much internet coverage. One could extend your argument to say that MobyGames should only list games that have full credits and cover scans. These do, after all, improve the entry and we're after quality not quantity. So long as what we have is accurate and useful, I'm willing to accept incomplete, because completeness is not really possible.
chirinea (47507) on 1/24/2007 2:34 AM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Ace of Sevens wrote--]One could extend your argument to say that MobyGames should only list games that have full credits and cover scans. These do, after all, improve the entry and we're after quality not quantity. [/Q --end Ace of Sevens wrote--] Well, now you're exaggerating a little bit. See, to get an accurate description, all you have to do is play the game. I know that there are people who contribute games without ever playing them, but that's much more difficult than actually playing it in order to write a good description. BUT, to get full credits or cover scans, you need much more difficult things to get. For cover scans, you need to have the game, or meet someone who has it, or have it from a reliable source. To get the credits, you need the game to provide them, or the game's manual, or some other reliable source. In any of those cases, it is much, much more work than to just play the game in order to write a description, or maybe paraphrase an ad blurb. Of course credits and cover art are an important part of an entry, but they aren't as vital as a good description. I mean, you get to a game entry and all you can see is a cover scan and a bunch of names. On the other hand, you get to another entry and all you can see is a detailed description, with all the game's features listed and stuff. What entry you'd prefer? What entry do you think is more informative? I'd stick with the good description one...
I'd like to say that I understand you're not proposing such a thing (to demand full credits or cover arts), and I get your point about having things accurate but not as complete as we'd like. And I'm not trying to lead this discussion to another direction. I'm just trying to emphasize the importance of a good description, and why I think we shouldn't let our standards get lower.
Riamus (8480) on 1/24/2007 5:12 AM · Permalink · Report
Exactly. There are people who care about credits and come here looking for credits, but they are relatively few. The same goes for cover art. You can find more cover art on certain other sites than on here and most people looking just for cover art will go to those other sites instead.
On the other hand, the number of people who come here to learn about games in very high (I'm guessing here, but I can't imagine that it's low). How do you learn about a game? By credits? By release info? By title? By cover art? None of that really helps you to learn about the game itself. Screenshots can, if they have good descriptions and if there are enough to show gameplay/story throughout the game. However, it really is easier to make a description that describes the game than to do enough good screenshot descriptions so that the screenshots can describe the game. In the end, screenshots and descriptions are the 2 main entries for anyone coming here looking to learn about what a game is about. And I honestly think that at least 40-50% of people who come here are here to learn about the games. There are those interested in the historical information such as the release info and such, but again, those are relatively few in comparison to the number of total visitors to the site.
I stand by calling a description "vital" to a game entry.
Corn Popper (69019) on 1/24/2007 7:31 AM · Permalink · Report
I wouldn't say people are here to learn about games like you assume. Here is how most people come here:
Looking for hints or help with a game... since we have pretty good page ranks, if we were to add more games ala the no description/easier standards we'd attract a lot more people.
Developers looking themselves up on the web... they would for sure want to add games to the site in an easier manner to bolster their profile page.
You know, this project started out as a game have list... that's actually the core of the site... Jim can correct me if I'm wrong... what you have now is what has morphed out of that. We have pretty good have list capabilities and plan to expand on it more and in order to have a complete have list there needs to be a way to add games to the site in an easier manner as well. We'll probably expand into more wish list stuff as well meaning pre-release at some time. We've grown quite well and there's nothing wrong with growing even more. There are more pros to adding descriptionless game entries than there are cons to it.
Star Gem (98) on 1/24/2007 10:13 AM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Corn Popper wrote--]We already have set definitions on the site. The site started before wikipedia, why should we conform to their definition of a genre? [/Q --end Corn Popper wrote--]
Ok, little clarification here. The link to Wikipedia (or any other site I may have chosen) was added at the end of my "proof" section, it wasn't meant as the main proof, but rather as an addition. I never said they were an authority in the matter. I'd prefer if my arguments were read and understood instead of the link, of course.
[Q --start Corn Popper wrote--] What do you mean personal view? We have a definitions for the genres we list here, some are not as clear as others true. [/Q --end Corn Popper wrote--]
You have some definitions, yes, but who wrote them? Someone did, and that person may have more knowledge of some of those genres than others. His or her knowledge may even be simply what he/she got out ads, reviews, press releases, and marketing in general (which all have their own way to put things without explaining how or why). That would classify as a "personal view", unless someone did research on the genre back to its roots. Some genres nowadays are so bastardized that their term is used left and right, even when there are few (if any) elements of that genre in the core gameplay ("Adventure" and "RPG" come to mind).
[Q --start Kabushi wrote--]Well, the theme Hunting should definitely be used here. However, I am not so sure whether we really should consider Hunting a sports theme. [/Q --end Kabushi wrote--]
Thank you. My point exactly. The problem with MobyGames current definition is that "Hunting" is under the Sports "umbrella" (as someone called it) when, in fact, there are many reasons that lead people to hunt, not all related to sport. In a game where hunting is presented without any signs of competition (this is especially true in the first games of the series), only a fool would call it sports. I have no problems with the definition of "Hunting", though, as it's pretty obvious.
[Q --start Riamus wrote--]Hm... a sport needs competition in order to BE a sport? Really? So all of the sports that are played solo are not really sports? Bike riding is considered a sport by many people and that includes riding solo. Swimming is the same thing. So is mountain climbing, or skydiving, or hang gliding, or waterskiing, or numerous other sports. You don't need competition for something to be a sport.
Now, some people may not consider those to be sports, but they are still considered sports.
Hunting IS a sport, regardless if it's on the computer or not. That's not OUR definition. That is a widely accepted definition. [/Q --end Riamus wrote--]
Just choose:
"- an active diversion requiring physical exertion and competition" (http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=sport)
"- the occupation of athletes who compete for pay" (http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=sport)
"- A form of leisure-time physical activity that is planned, structured and competitive." (http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/pau-uap/fitness/definitions.html)
"- Sport is a physical activity involving large muscle groups, requiring strategic methods, physical training and mental preparation and whose outcome is determined, within a rules framework, by skill, not chance. Sport occurs in an organized, structured and competitive environment where a winner is declared." (http://www.tsa.gov.bc.ca/sport/Glossary.htm)
"- activities that are competitive, have formal rules, require physical effort and skills, and are organised within institutional structures" (http://www.health.qld.gov.au/npag/glossary.asp)
I could go on and on... the point is, and I said this in my "proof" section for some of those titles, Chess is also CONSIDERED a sport, but at least it's competitive, and funny enough, chess videogames are not considered Sports, go figure. Regardless, videogame definition is dependent on GAMEPLAY, which in the case of a Chess title is referred to as "Boardgame" or "Strategy".
I have no doubt you can prove anything with links from the net, so I'm not trying to say here that this post is any "ultimate proof" that I'm right and you're wrong, but my complaint about MobyGames genre definitions goes deeper than this.
Taking the hint from one of my paragraph above, regarding RPGs, take a look at how many games are marketed as such simply because you have Hit Points (instead of a Life Bar), or multiple pieces of equipment scattered in dungeons (as opposed to power-ups in levels). Some games even try to pass the obvious market ploy by saying "it has RPG elements", so they don't have to justify the fact it bears no resemblance to a true RPG... but that's another story, and I'm really straying off-topic here. Just wanted to clear some points on my first post. Thanks for reading.
PS: The third quote above was by Kabushi, and the fourth quote was by Riamus. For some reason, all the names revert to the name of the post I'm replying to (Corn Popper). I'd post three different messages, but that would be pointless (it's all about the same subject) and definitely spam.
Riamus (8480) on 1/24/2007 2:30 PM · edited · Permalink · Report
Heh... you say that I can prove my point with links and you say it in a way that basically says not to bother because anything can be proved with links. So why are YOU giving links? :)
The original definition of sports was in regard to sports games like baseball, football, soccer, etc. That does not mean that other things that do not include physical exertion and/or competition are not sports as well.
Btw, I personally don't think Chess (even in real life) is a sport. But it IS considered that by a lot of people and so I accept it. Hunting if considered a sport by even more people.
Regardless whether or not you agree with whether or not Hunting is a sport, that is where it falls on this site. If we took it off, we'd see people complaining about it NOT being put as a sport. You can't please everyone. That's not a good reason to go off on a rant about quality just because our definition isn't the same as yours.
As for your RPG example, there are various levels of RPG games; from the hardcore RPG games to the games that can hardly be called RPG. Diablo is considered an Action-RPG because it has stats. The stats are the only RPG item in the game. Yet, even though most hardcore RPG players would probably prefer to not have it considered an RPG at all, I don't think anyone is going to really get worked up over it being called that.
Genres are not black and white. And they never will be. If they were, you'd need hundreds or thousands of them to satisfy the needs of all of the different kinds of games out there.
Btw, to quote different people, click the Quote button instead of Reply, then look under your post box for the part showing [ q1 ], [ q2 ], etc. You can use the numbers to select the person you are quoting. It's a pain, but if you need to quote multiple people, it's the only real way to do it.
Star Gem (98) on 1/27/2007 3:24 PM · Permalink · Report
It's hard to put "tone" in an internet message, but let me assure you my following comments are done in a light-hearted manner, and that's how I intend to end this discussion.
[Q --start Riamus wrote--]Heh... you say that I can prove my point with links and you say it in a way that basically says not to bother because anything can be proved with links. So why are YOU giving links? :) [/Q --end Riamus wrote--]
Ever heard of examples? My, what a novel concept it must be!. If I hadn't, you'd probably argue "if you can prove anything with links, why don't you add some?" It's a no-win situation when you're talking to someone who's just looking for something to pick on.
[Q --start Riamus wrote--] Btw, I personally don't think Chess (even in real life) is a sport. But it IS considered that by a lot of people and so I accept it. Hunting if considered a sport by even more people. [/Q --end Riamus wrote--]
Then why isn't Strategy under the Sports "umbrella" like other sub-genres? Rhetoric question, I suppose.
[Q --start Riamus wrote--] Regardless whether or not you agree with whether or not Hunting is a sport, that is where it falls on this site. [/Q --end Riamus wrote--]
Ah, so it is true that MobyGames follows a "personal" view. That should answer Corn Popper's question better than my previous post.
[Q --start Riamus wrote--] If we took it off, we'd see people complaining about it NOT being put as a sport. You can't please everyone. That's not a good reason to go off on a rant about quality just because our definition isn't the same as yours. [/Q --end Riamus wrote--]
There's a difference between opinion and factual information. If MobyGames had any aspiration for "quality" (the word that sprung this conversation to begin with) then it would look for factual information, and would be able to inform readers WHY it isn't considered a "Sports" title as opposed to an half-***ed response like "well, that's how it is in our site".
[Q --start Riamus wrote--] As for your RPG example, there are various levels of RPG games; from the hardcore RPG games to the games that can hardly be called RPG. Diablo is considered an Action-RPG because it has stats. The stats are the only RPG item in the game. Yet, even though most hardcore RPG players would probably prefer to not have it considered an RPG at all, I don't think anyone is going to really get worked up over it being called that. [/Q --end Riamus wrote--]
That depends. If you're going to spend your hard-earned money to buy a game, believing to be just the kind you like, only to find out you've been a victim of marketing, then you'd be pretty worked up.
A lot of gamers would welcome the opportunity to find more games, and franchises, from their favorite genre - little hidden gems they may have failed to acknowledge in the past - and as time goes by, and the gaming industry creates and develops a history, the more important and sought-after that information will be.
It's true there are other sites that already work as a database for every possible released game out in the world, but wasn't "quality catalog" something people looked for in MobyGames? Why settle for less?
[Q --start Riamus wrote--] Genres are not black and white. And they never will be. If they were, you'd need hundreds or thousands of them to satisfy the needs of all of the different kinds of games out there. [/Q --end Riamus wrote--]
Never? Hopefully not. The problems mentioned above, regarding RPGs as well as other genres, can be put in these few words: "where do you draw the line?" See? That's exactly the problem, no one draws the line, and people like you, who take the easy way out, don't really help the matter in the least.
One example, from the top of my head, was seeing Duke Nukem 3D (yes, the first FPS) called RPG in the site GameRevolution.com. Why? Well, "you do play the 'role' of Duke", they said... sigh. Gran Turismo has also been called RPG both online and off, and there are many other examples of people who obviously don't know where to draw the line.
Anyway, the point is that genre definition isn't that hard to pin down. What defines genre in a game is its Gameplay, so if the only RPG element you can find in a game is the fact a life bar has been replaced with hit points (just an example), you can pretty much determine it's not RPG.
Regardless, as I said before, this whole subject surfaced out of the concept that MobyGames "philosophy" being one of quality over quantity, or so some are inclined to think. Personally, I'd expect a little more from a site that has that kind of aspiration, but it's a fact that it's not my site, and I have nothing to do with it. I do feel some surprise on how someone may feel "empty" entries are any worse than "inaccurate" ones but, as it stands, either nothing will change, or some people will be making an extra effort towards that goal. We shall see.
Thanks for reading.
Игги Друге (46653) on 1/27/2007 8:06 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Star Gem wrote--] [Q2 --start Riamus wrote--] As for your RPG example, there are various levels of RPG games; from the hardcore RPG games to the games that can hardly be called RPG. Diablo is considered an Action-RPG because it has stats. The stats are the only RPG item in the game. Yet, even though most hardcore RPG players would probably prefer to not have it considered an RPG at all, I don't think anyone is going to really get worked up over it being called that. [/Q2 --end Riamus wrote--]
That depends. If you're going to spend your hard-earned money to buy a game, believing to be just the kind you like, only to find out you've been a victim of marketing, then you'd be pretty worked up.
A lot of gamers would welcome the opportunity to find more games, and franchises, from their favorite genre - little hidden gems they may have failed to acknowledge in the past - and as time goes by, and the gaming industry creates and develops a history, the more important and sought-after that information will be.[/Q --end Star Gem wrote--]
And that goes to prove how necessary a description can be. Using the game browser to find – for example – RPGs, you will find a lot of games. You can narrow down your search by adding other genres and motifs, and end up with a small selection. Now you can go to the Diablo entry and find out that it wasn't exactly the kind of game you were looking for, even though it fulfills several of your criteria.
[Q --start Star Gem wrote--] [Q2 --start Riamus wrote--] Genres are not black and white. And they never will be. If they were, you'd need hundreds or thousands of them to satisfy the needs of all of the different kinds of games out there. [/Q2 --end Riamus wrote--]
Never? Hopefully not. The problems mentioned above, regarding RPGs as well as other genres, can be put in these few words: "where do you draw the line?" See? That's exactly the problem, no one draws the line, and people like you, who take the easy way out, don't really help the matter in the least.[/Q --end Star Gem wrote--]
Well, the genre definitions on this site do draw a line, don't they? Still, they can be confusing, since the lines drawn do not align with the general definition or someone's personal definition, but if you know the genre definitions here, you can use them to find a game.
[Q --start Star Gem wrote--]One example, from the top of my head, was seeing Duke Nukem 3D (yes, the first FPS) called RPG in the site GameRevolution.com. Why? Well, "you do play the 'role' of Duke", they said... sigh. Gran Turismo has also been called RPG both online and off, and there are many other examples of people who obviously don't know where to draw the line.[/Q --end Star Gem wrote--]
Obviously that's stupid, and they don't qualify as RPGs according to Moby definitions. Nevertheless, there are virtually no computer RPGs that actually involve roleplaying to any real extent, save for MUDs and the like. Instead the computer and console definition of RPG, especially as crystalised according to Mobygames, takes only one small concept from D&D type roleplaying games and applies it to something else. The fact is that most so-called RPGs are adventures, with RPG as a qualifier.
[Q --start Star Gem wrote--]Regardless, as I said before, this whole subject surfaced out of the concept that MobyGames "philosophy" being one of quality over quantity, or so some are inclined to think. Personally, I'd expect a little more from a site that has that kind of aspiration, but it's a fact that it's not my site, and I have nothing to do with it. I do feel some surprise on how someone may feel "empty" entries are any worse than "inaccurate" ones but, as it stands, either nothing will change, or some people will be making an extra effort towards that goal. We shall see. [/Q --end Star Gem wrote--]
I would appreciate if you would discuss this more thoroughly, so that we can reach some kind of agreement (even if we end up agreeing to disagree), preferably in another thread.
Игги Друге (46653) on 1/24/2007 5:16 PM · Permalink · Report
I would classify hunting as a hobby, not a sport. When there's hunting season, I see not athletes, but men who enjoy going into the forest, or people who want meat and trophies. Hunting is mainly for meat, and largely unstructured, without rules and scoring.
On the other hand, ski shooting, archery, darts and clay pigeon shooting are sports.
Riamus (8480) on 1/24/2007 8:53 PM · Permalink · Report
And are you always competing in all of those? Sure, you can, but you aren't always. My point is that competition isn't really a requirement of something being a sport.
As far as hobby vs. sport goes, it's more a matter of opinion in some situations. I'd definitely call hunting a sport and not a hobby. If I shot arrows in my free time, I'd consider that to be a hobby of mine. I wouldn't say it's not a sport, but I'd consider that to be my hobby. I just wouldn't call hunting a hobby. We have different opinions on that, but I don't think there is a clear way to prove one person is right or wrong. I think it's more opinion than purely factual in some of these cases.
Игги Друге (46653) on 1/25/2007 1:28 AM · Permalink · Report
I've never heard of hunting as a sport, it's a leisure activity. There are no hunting championships.
Corn Popper (69019) on 1/25/2007 1:41 AM · Permalink · Report
there are certainly hunting competions, maybe not on a grand scale of "champions" that you would recognize but every field has their celebrities
Игги Друге (46653) on 1/25/2007 10:09 AM · Permalink · Report
There are cooking and bricklaying competitions as well, probably more common than hunting competitions.
Trixter (8952) on 1/27/2007 6:01 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Iggy Drougge wrote--]There are cooking and bricklaying competitions as well, probably more common than hunting competitions. [/Q --end Iggy Drougge wrote--]
With all due respect, you don't live in America and you're not aware of how things are here. Yes, Hunting is definitely a sport here, there are definitely competitions here, and while MobyGames is global, we are 300+ million people so we certainly have a voice.
Fishing is also a hobby... and a sport. And solitary, if no competitions are involved. How would you classify fishing? There are leisure sport activities, you know. Our definition says "Any sporting activity", so fishing, hunting, etc. stays.
Игги Друге (46653) on 1/27/2007 8:08 PM · Permalink · Report
I grant you that I know nothing about American sports. After all, Americans play other strange sports such as baseball, American football and show wrestling, so why not hunting as well?
Trixter (8952) on 1/27/2007 8:18 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Iggy Drougge wrote--]I grant you that I know nothing about American sports. After all, Americans play other strange sports such as baseball, American football and show wrestling, so why not hunting as well? [/Q --end Iggy Drougge wrote--]
Aha, except that show wrestling is not a sport, it's entertainment.
Confused now? Some of us still are ;-)
Игги Друге (46653) on 1/27/2007 8:23 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Trixter wrote--] [Q2 --start Iggy Drougge wrote--]I grant you that I know nothing about American sports. After all, Americans play other strange sports such as baseball, American football and show wrestling, so why not hunting as well? [/Q2 --end Iggy Drougge wrote--]
Aha, except that show wrestling is not a sport, it's entertainment.
Confused now? Some of us still are ;-) [/Q --end Trixter wrote--] Is Guantánamo Bay a sport or just a leisure activity?
Corn Popper (69019) on 1/27/2007 9:33 PM · Permalink · Report
huh?
Luis Silva (13443) on 1/25/2007 3:59 AM · Permalink · Report
In 1900 there were two hunting events (pigeon shooting and another one I don't remeber the name) at the Olympics. There are no championships for a number of reason, from the barbaric spectacle (apparently some of the bystanders in the 1900 competition were showered with pigeon gibs) to the reserves of most companies to sponsor the event (PeTA and the less radical would have a field day over them).
That's why clay pigeons were invented.
Marko Poutiainen (1151) on 1/25/2007 8:12 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Riamus wrote--]As far as hobby vs. sport goes, it's more a matter of opinion in some situations. I'd definitely call hunting a sport and not a hobby. [/Q --end Riamus wrote--] Here in Finland it's definitely NOT a sport. Somehow I see that if it's considered a sport there is somehow a competition on who gets most game which is not what hunting really is about. You could have a great hunting trip and get nothing.
To me anyone who thinks hunting is a sport should not try it. The animals must still be respected even if you hunt them. If hunting is seen as a sport the animals are just another prop in that sport, like a basketball.
Trixter (8952) on 1/27/2007 5:55 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Star Gem wrote--] Just choose:
"- an active diversion requiring physical exertion and competition" (http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=sport)
"- the occupation of athletes who compete for pay" (http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=sport)
"- A form of leisure-time physical activity that is planned, structured and competitive." (http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/pau-uap/fitness/definitions.html) [/Q --end Star Gem wrote--]
Sports as defined in MobyGames is one of our seven main genres, one or more of which are mandatory in a game entry. They define the basic type of game it is. With that knowledge, Sports is an "umbrella" category and includes games that fall under sports/sporting even if the game doesn't have any competition elements. Hunting falls under that definition, as does fishing, and rock climbing. If you asked most people off the street if hunting and fishing were sports, they would say yes.
That is what we're using, so if you have an issue with our current definition of Sports, which is currently "Any sporting activity" (which is broad, but accurate), then you take it up with me, because I'm the original designer of the project. If you feel we need additional wording to describe "any sporting activity", then please be specific instead of regurgitating 5+ wildly-differing definitions from all corners of the web.
While you can nitpick over your definition of Sports, which you feel must include competition, how would you categorize a fishing or hunting game? If those games had to have at least one genre definition, what would you choose?
You also might be missing the fact that more than one main genre can be selected. I agree that the Deer Hunter series is much more an arcade game than a sports game, but were you aware that it would be completely valid (and encouraged!) to mark Deer Hunter as both Sports and Action? And even Arcade if you felt it was completely non-realistic?
Riamus (8480) on 1/24/2007 2:40 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Corn Popper wrote--]There are more pros to adding descriptionless game entries than there are cons to it. [/Q --end Corn Popper wrote--]
We've listed a LOT of cons and I've seen very few pros. Can you show the pros vs. cons that you see? I really don't see there being more pros than cons to this.
Marko Poutiainen (1151) on 1/24/2007 4:55 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Riamus wrote--]There are more pros to adding descriptionless game entries than there are cons to it.[/Q --end Riamus wrote--] The fact that if that it would be possible to add stuff to a game other than descriptions? I tried adding a game at one point but since it's a C64 game that I had bought about 20 years ago and probably tried it once or twice I couldn't come up with a very good description since I could only rely on the back cover and the small sheet of paper that pretended to be the manual.
I would have had the cover & media scans plus credits so I fail to see how the site is better off not having anything at all rather than my rather short description & the other stuff.
Игги Друге (46653) on 1/24/2007 5:17 PM · Permalink · Report
Just about all C64 games are downloadable with a minimum of effort. Refreshing your memory by playing it through in an emulator can't be that difficult, can it?
Marko Poutiainen (1151) on 1/24/2007 5:49 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Iggy Drougge wrote--]Just about all C64 games are downloadable with a minimum of effort. Refreshing your memory by playing it through in an emulator can't be that difficult, can it?[/Q --end Iggy Drougge wrote--] "GFL Championship Football". Googling it gives some info but not enough for a description. Can't find a download (or maybe I'm just stupid, but I did try lemon). And it's about gridiron football, so I find it hard to explain it no matter what... I know the Dallas Cowboys know how to have a good time (well, at least they used to) but that's about as far as my knowledge goes. I don't even know why I bought the game in the first place...
This is also kinda putting me off from going to pawnshops and the like to buy bunches of cheap games to contribute because how could I add them? No point scanning the covers & impossible to submit all the other info because writing a decent description would be next to impossible.
Игги Друге (46653) on 1/24/2007 7:19 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Marko Poutiainen wrote--] "GFL Championship Football". Googling it gives some info but not enough for a description. Can't find a download (or maybe I'm just stupid, but I did try lemon). And it's about gridiron football, so I find it hard to explain it no matter what... I know the Dallas Cowboys know how to have a good time (well, at least they used to) but that's about as far as my knowledge goes. I don't even know why I bought the game in the first place... [/Q --end Marko Poutiainen wrote--]
If you can't find it, you should first visit GB64 and see if it is there. If it is not, you should dump it, because all C64 games /should/ be dumped.
Otherwise, I know what you mean. I wouldn't mind adding 400 shogi games or 2 000 mahjongg games, but I don't know the first thing about shogi or mahjongg. The problem is that 400 shogi games without a description wouldn't help you when telling them apart. I like browsing the Breakout gamegroup, but it wouldn't be half as interesting if the descriptions only amounted to "Reflect your ball against disappearing bricks." time and time again.
Marko Poutiainen (1151) on 1/24/2007 8:10 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Iggy Drougge wrote--]Otherwise, I know what you mean. I wouldn't mind adding 400 shogi games or 2 000 mahjongg games, but I don't know the first thing about shogi or mahjongg. The problem is that 400 shogi games without a description wouldn't help you when telling them apart. I like browsing the Breakout gamegroup, but it wouldn't be half as interesting if the descriptions only amounted to "Reflect your ball against disappearing bricks." time and time again.[/Q --end Iggy Drougge wrote--] Well, if it's a game about Mahjonh, what exactly should be told? Wouldn't it really be helpful if you had the cover scans, credits, company and release year? I would think those would be more useful in such a case than trying to come up with some arbitrary differences between the hundred different variations of Mahjong.
I'm not advocating empty game entries. Just that some of the other info can be just as important as the description yet they are not required. And it's easy to understand why.
Игги Друге (46653) on 1/25/2007 1:30 AM · edited · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Marko Poutiainen wrote--] [Q2 --start Iggy Drougge wrote--]Otherwise, I know what you mean. I wouldn't mind adding 400 shogi games or 2 000 mahjongg games, but I don't know the first thing about shogi or mahjongg. The problem is that 400 shogi games without a description wouldn't help you when telling them apart. I like browsing the Breakout gamegroup, but it wouldn't be half as interesting if the descriptions only amounted to "Reflect your ball against disappearing bricks." time and time again. [/Q2 --end Iggy Drougge wrote--] Well, if it's a game about Mahjonh, what exactly should be told? Wouldn't it really be helpful if you had the cover scans, credits, company and release year? I would think those would be more useful in such a case than trying to come up with some arbitrary differences between the hundred different variations of Mahjong.[/Q --end Marko Poutiainen wrote--] No, I think that those arbitrary differences are important. There wouldn't be such a plethora of mahjongg games if there was no difference between the games, however minute it is. If I just wanted a big list of mahjongg games with names and release dates, I could use Wikipedia.
Trixter (8952) on 1/27/2007 6:18 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Iggy Drougge wrote--] [Q2 --start Marko Poutiainen wrote--] [Q3 --start Iggy Drougge wrote--]Otherwise, I know what you mean. I wouldn't mind adding 400 shogi games or 2 000 mahjongg games, but I don't know the first thing about shogi or mahjongg. The problem is that 400 shogi games without a description wouldn't help you when telling them apart. I like browsing the Breakout gamegroup, but it wouldn't be half as interesting if the descriptions only amounted to "Reflect your ball against disappearing bricks." time and time again. [/Q3 --end Iggy Drougge wrote--] Well, if it's a game about Mahjonh, what exactly should be told? Wouldn't it really be helpful if you had the cover scans, credits, company and release year? I would think those would be more useful in such a case than trying to come up with some arbitrary differences between the hundred different variations of Mahjong. [/Q2 --end Marko Poutiainen wrote--] No, I think that those arbitrary differences are important. There wouldn't be such a plethora of mahjongg games if there was no difference between the games, however minute it is. If I just wanted a big list of mahjongg games with names and release dates, I could use Wikipedia. [/Q --end Iggy Drougge wrote--]
Nobody is disputing that. I hold that opinion as well. What we are trying to fix is the requirement that the original submitter be the only one who can satisfy that requirement. That's unfair to the great majority of people who want to contribute everything BUT a description.
Игги Друге (46653) on 1/27/2007 8:17 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Trixter wrote--] [Q2 --start Iggy Drougge wrote--] [Q3 --start Marko Poutiainen wrote--] [Q4 --start Iggy Drougge wrote--]Otherwise, I know what you mean. I wouldn't mind adding 400 shogi games or 2 000 mahjongg games, but I don't know the first thing about shogi or mahjongg. The problem is that 400 shogi games without a description wouldn't help you when telling them apart. I like browsing the Breakout gamegroup, but it wouldn't be half as interesting if the descriptions only amounted to "Reflect your ball against disappearing bricks." time and time again. [/Q4 --end Iggy Drougge wrote--] Well, if it's a game about Mahjonh, what exactly should be told? Wouldn't it really be helpful if you had the cover scans, credits, company and release year? I would think those would be more useful in such a case than trying to come up with some arbitrary differences between the hundred different variations of Mahjong. [/Q3 --end Marko Poutiainen wrote--] No, I think that those arbitrary differences are important. There wouldn't be such a plethora of mahjongg games if there was no difference between the games, however minute it is. If I just wanted a big list of mahjongg games with names and release dates, I could use Wikipedia. [/Q2 --end Iggy Drougge wrote--] Nobody is disputing that. I hold that opinion as well. What we are trying to fix is the requirement that the original submitter be the only one who can satisfy that requirement. That's unfair to the great majority of people who want to contribute everything BUT a description. [/Q --end Trixter wrote--] If you can supply meaningful screenshots with meaningful descriptions, you've played the game, so you can supply a meaningful description. If you can't supply meaningful screenshots, you haven't played the game. So what can you supply? A box scan? It's beautiful but not very informative. Release info is great too, but there are other sites featuring that. Credits is my main interest, and I would really like to be able to enter that without entering a complete game entry. The only problem is that all that is very auxiliary information.
I'm having problems submitting a game right now because I can't be arsed to play it. That means no good descriptions, but also no good screenshots. So I could submit what amounts to an empty game page with a picture of a box and some info I found in a readme file. That's basically no info at all, and the info is why we're here.
Sorry, Trixter, but this was not what I was thinking of when I designed Mobygames in the first place. We could fill this site with 50 000 games instead of the 31 000 we have now, but it wouldn't make the site 40% better and would add much to the approver workload.
Corn Popper (69019) on 1/27/2007 9:37 PM · Permalink · Report
but when you go to the store what are you presented with for the game... the box/packaging... so it does have some meaningful information in which it needs to sell itself... an entry with no description, release info and a package scan I think is passable
Игги Друге (46653) on 1/27/2007 9:49 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Corn Popper wrote--]but when you go to the store what are you presented with for the game... the box/packaging... so it does have some meaningful information in which it needs to sell itself... an entry with no description, release info and a package scan I think is passable [/Q --end Corn Popper wrote--]
It is useless. Image these two scenarios:
1) I go to a shop and see an interesting game with a nice box. I go home and go to Mobygames to find out something about the game. I am presented with the same info I got in the shop.
2) I go to Mobygames because I intend to go to the shop later that day to buy a new game. I look what is new, and find a page with a picture of the box and a release date. Now I know that there is such a game waiting for me at the shop, but I don't know whether it's worth buying or not.
Marko Poutiainen (1151) on 1/27/2007 10:37 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Iggy Drougge wrote--]It is useless. Image these two scenarios:
1) I go to a shop and see an interesting game with a nice box. I go home and go to Mobygames to find out something about the game. I am presented with the same info I got in the shop.
2) I go to Mobygames because I intend to go to the shop later that day to buy a new game. I look what is new, and find a page with a picture of the box and a release date. Now I know that there is such a game waiting for me at the shop, but I don't know whether it's worth buying or not. [/Q --end Iggy Drougge wrote--] What if someone would write a review or enter a score for that game but don't want to add it to the database? If someone did add it you would get a review even if you didn't have a good description. Because you can't force people to write descriptions, in your scenario, you wouldn't have that review.
Игги Друге (46653) on 1/27/2007 10:45 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Marko Poutiainen wrote--] [Q2 --start Iggy Drougge wrote--]It is useless. Image these two scenarios:
1) I go to a shop and see an interesting game with a nice box. I go home and go to Mobygames to find out something about the game. I am presented with the same info I got in the shop.
2) I go to Mobygames because I intend to go to the shop later that day to buy a new game. I look what is new, and find a page with a picture of the box and a release date. Now I know that there is such a game waiting for me at the shop, but I don't know whether it's worth buying or not. [/Q2 --end Iggy Drougge wrote--] What if someone would write a review or enter a score for that game but don't want to add it to the database? If someone did add it you would get a review even if you didn't have a good description. Because you can't force people to write descriptions, in your scenario, you wouldn't have that review. [/Q --end Marko Poutiainen wrote--] If you can write a review, you can write a game description. Just remove your own opinion and you have a description.
Marko Poutiainen (1151) on 1/28/2007 1:21 AM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Iggy Drougge wrote--]If you can write a review, you can write a game description. Just remove your own opinion and you have a description.[/Q --end Iggy Drougge wrote--] You are completely missing the point and seem extremely stuck on your viewpoint.
Unicorn Lynx (181769) on 1/28/2007 7:25 AM · Permalink · Report
I don't think so. If you are able to write a review, then you obviously know enough about the game in question in order to write a good description as well.
Marko Poutiainen (1151) on 1/28/2007 12:19 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Unicorn Lynx wrote--]I don't think so. If you are able to write a review, then you obviously know enough about the game in question in order to write a good description as well.[/Q --end Unicorn Lynx wrote--] So, what do you propose? That you force people who are unwilling to write descriptions to write them? Writing a description is a completely different task to writing a review. Reviews are usually written because it's fun. Very few find writing descriptions fun. Even typing credits with all the classification problems is easier. Are you really saying that a game entry with the covers and release info is not useful at all? Of course the description is useful, but even in the case of new games (with strict rules about them) they are not always as good as you make them.
chirinea (47507) on 1/28/2007 8:13 PM · Permalink · Report
Maybe I'm the only one, but I'd rather write a description than a review. This is so true that I've contributed much more descriptions (full new ones or revisions) than reviews. A good description isn't that hard to write, even more if you write well in English. I'm not a good English writer, and that's why I find it sometimes hard to write a description.
Игги Друге (46653) on 1/29/2007 12:27 AM · Permalink · Report
I stay away from approving reviews because it adds the matter of stylistics, which is no big deal when it comes to descriptions. Descriptions are more technical, whereas a review requires you to actually be a good writer if you want more than the very lowest score.
Unicorn Lynx (181769) on 1/29/2007 4:58 AM · Permalink · Report
Why "force people"? Nobody forces anyone to add new entries. But if someone is willing to add a new entry, he should also be ready to write a passable description for it.
Corn Popper (69019) on 1/28/2007 2:25 AM · Permalink · Report
in previous posts it's been said that we don't often have the new games to even view and there are plenty of other sites that cover current games, why would someone come to us knowing that it usually takes us much longer to add a game to the site? so it's a pointless point
but at least an entry with a package scan would be no less worse than seeing it at the shop... at least if we did have the covers on file you wouldn't have to make the trip to the shop to see the package... and all those "other" sites don't usually have front and back covers of the package and even less have the inside shots of the ones that open up
Riamus (8480) on 1/28/2007 11:26 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Corn Popper wrote--]but at least an entry with a package scan would be no less worse than seeing it at the shop... at least if we did have the covers on file you wouldn't have to make the trip to the shop to see the package... and all those "other" sites don't usually have front and back covers of the package and even less have the inside shots of the ones that open up [/Q --end Corn Popper wrote--]
Other than inside covers, most sites selling games have the basic cover art. At least enough for people to get an idea what the box looks like. Can you honestly tell me that most people care what the box looks like if what they are trying to do is learn about the game? I do like cover art, but I don't look there to find out about a game. I look to descriptions. If this site doesn't have descriptions for tons of games (that's where we ARE heading if you allow this), then I'll be forced to start looking on other sites for this BASIC need.
Corn Popper (69019) on 1/29/2007 7:53 AM · Permalink · Report
I'm not saying "learn" about a game... but if you think about it... marketing of a game is based a lot on only the packaging and how it portrays the game... marketing has to rely on the packaging to sell the game... most people that don't know about a game only learn about the game by what they see and read on the packaging... most people that want to read or learn about a game that is in the store go to sites that have "pre-release" submissions on their site where we do not... perhaps for historical purposes it might be more critical to have a description but even more important for historical purposes is to at least list the games on the site
you guys say that description won't get updated? then explain to me how wikipedia gets it done? They have stubs... and no one updates those? We should be able to list games almost as easy as it is on wikipedia... at least we would have release info... the very basic requirement to get a entry on
what if we changed some requirements?... if you don't submit a description you have to submit a full cover set or some other info which I am willing to hear... this way there is some level of more than just title and release info
Игги Друге (46653) on 1/29/2007 9:01 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Corn Popper wrote--]I'm not saying "learn" about a game... but if you think about it... marketing of a game is based a lot on only the packaging and how it portrays the game... marketing has to rely on the packaging to sell the game... most people that don't know about a game only learn about the game by what they see and read on the packaging... most people that want to read or learn about a game that is in the store go to sites that have "pre-release" submissions on their site where we do not... [/Q --end Corn Popper wrote--] Well, we are not a marketing organisation for the games industry. We're an independent database about games. We're the site people go to when they want to know more than they already know by looking at the packaging. [Q --start Corn Popper wrote--] perhaps for historical purposes it might be more critical to have a description but even more important for historical purposes is to at least list the games on the site [/Q --end Corn Popper wrote--] List them? Wikipedia already has those pages, we approvers and many submitters consult those all the time, those pages titled "List of NES games" or "List of Sinclair Spectrum games". Those lists are already readily accessible, but this has never been a list site. [Q --start Corn Popper wrote--] you guys say that description won't get updated? then explain to me how wikipedia gets it done? They have stubs... and no one updates those? We should be able to list games almost as easy as it is on wikipedia... at least we would have release info... the very basic requirement to get a entry on [/Q --end Corn Popper wrote--] Oh, but Wikipedia is all about text, and it provides instant gratification, instead of the slow and arduous approvement process here. It's totally anarchistic, whereas Mobygames excels in bureaucracy. And Wikipedia is all about text, the very element you propose we remove.
Riamus (8480) on 1/29/2007 9:16 PM · edited · Permalink · Report
EDIT: STUPID QUOTING! Q = Iggy, Q2 = Corn Popper
[Q --start Iggy Drougge wrote--] [Q2 --start Corn Popper wrote--]I'm not saying "learn" about a game... but if you think about it... marketing of a game is based a lot on only the packaging and how it portrays the game... marketing has to rely on the packaging to sell the game... most people that don't know about a game only learn about the game by what they see and read on the packaging... most people that want to read or learn about a game that is in the store go to sites that have "pre-release" submissions on their site where we do not... [/Q2 --end Corn Popper wrote--] Well, we are not a marketing organisation for the games industry. We're an independent database about games. We're the site people go to when they want to know more than they already know by looking at the packaging. [/Q --end Iggy Drougge wrote--]
Agreed. Your response that I quoted, Rob, was in regards to the 2 scenarios offered about buying a game and it did not refer to marketing a game. You can easily view the boxes at the stores. You cannot easily get a description of the game at a store.
[Q --start Iggy Drougge wrote--] [Q2 --start Corn Popper wrote--] perhaps for historical purposes it might be more critical to have a description but even more important for historical purposes is to at least list the games on the site [/Q2 --end Corn Popper wrote--] List them? Wikipedia already has those pages, we approvers and many submitters consult those all the time, those pages titled "List of NES games" or "List of Sinclair Spectrum games". Those lists are already readily accessible, but this has never been a list site. [Q2 --start Corn Popper wrote--] [/Q --end Iggy Drougge wrote--]
Agreed here as well. A list site is pointless. There are so many of those available already. That's not what we are and it is not what we should become.
[Q --start Iggy Drougge wrote--] you guys say that description won't get updated? then explain to me how wikipedia gets it done? They have stubs... and no one updates those? We should be able to list games almost as easy as it is on wikipedia... at least we would have release info... the very basic requirement to get a entry on [/Q2 --end Corn Popper wrote--] Oh, but Wikipedia is all about text, and it provides instant gratification, instead of the slow and arduous approvement process here. It's totally anarchistic, whereas Mobygames excels in bureaucracy. And Wikipedia is all about text, the very element you propose we remove. [/Q --end Iggy Drougge wrote--]
Remember that the reason we have people who don't want to write descriptions is because they need to be approved. Whether done now or later, they still need to be approved. Wikipedia doesn't require that, so people are more willing to write for them than for us. We won't get all of those descriptions updated just because Wikipedia can.
I find it painful to see all the sudden concern for making sure we have all of the newest releases entered ASAP rather than maintaining concern for the quality of the site and remembering that we also document older games. I mean, is a new game more important than an older game? Most of the talk from the admins centers around NEW games and ignores old games. The proposed changes may not have much impact on the quality of new games (I already explained why in another post here), but it will have a huge impact on older games (also explained previously).
Marko Poutiainen (1151) on 1/29/2007 10:14 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Riamus wrote--]I find it painful to see all the sudden concern for making sure we have all of the newest releases entered ASAP rather than maintaining concern for the quality of the site and remembering that we also document older games. I mean, is a new game more important than an older game? Most of the talk from the admins centers around NEW games and ignores old games. The proposed changes may not have much impact on the quality of new games (I already explained why in another post here), but it will have a huge impact on older games (also explained previously). [/Q --end Riamus wrote--] I am more interested in the old games. Even some information about them would be better than none at all in many cases. I would like to see the covers, for instance.
Riamus (8480) on 1/29/2007 10:23 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Marko Poutiainen wrote--] I am more interested in the old games. Even some information about them would be better than none at all in many cases. I would like to see the covers, for instance. [/Q --end Marko Poutiainen wrote--]
Yes, but as I said, how many complete entries for older games do we see? It's usually going to be more likely that someone adding a game can write a description (even a poor one that needs work) for an older game than for the person to have the game on hand with the cover art in order to submit that. The problem is that most entries for older games will end up being looking like barebones entries if we have no descriptions.
Игги Друге (46653) on 1/29/2007 12:34 AM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Corn Popper wrote--]in previous posts it's been said that we don't often have the new games to even view and there are plenty of other sites that cover current games, why would someone come to us knowing that it usually takes us much longer to add a game to the site? so it's a pointless point [/Q --end Corn Popper wrote--] It's a point you brought up, not I. There is a reason that games aren't added as quickly here, and we're discussing it right now. That reason is also this site's raison d'être.
Corn Popper (69019) on 1/29/2007 7:54 AM · Permalink · Report
well... the fact is we're going to make it easier to add and we need to come up with a way to do it
Игги Друге (46653) on 1/29/2007 9:03 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Corn Popper wrote--]well... the fact is we're going to make it easier to add and we need to come up with a way to do it [/Q --end Corn Popper wrote--]
What is the point in discussing a fact which cannot be changed? If that's the case, none of us needs to waste more time, and our enlightened leaders can just do whatever they see fit.
Riamus (8480) on 1/29/2007 9:19 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Iggy Drougge wrote--] [Q2 --start Corn Popper wrote--]well... the fact is we're going to make it easier to add and we need to come up with a way to do it [/Q2 --end Corn Popper wrote--]
What is the point in discussing a fact which cannot be changed? If that's the case, none of us needs to waste more time, and our enlightened leaders can just do whatever they see fit. [/Q --end Iggy Drougge wrote--]
Yes, it does seem like we're being ignored on this. There are so many more cons than pros that it is inconceivable that we're still debating it and not dropping the idea. Yet we are still being told it is happening no matter what.
Trixter (8952) on 1/28/2007 5:53 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Iggy Drougge wrote--] [Q2 --start Corn Popper wrote--]but when you go to the store what are you presented with for the game... the box/packaging... so it does have some meaningful information in which it needs to sell itself... an entry with no description, release info and a package scan I think is passable [/Q2 --end Corn Popper wrote--]
It is useless. Image these two scenarios:
1) I go to a shop and see an interesting game with a nice box. I go home and go to Mobygames to find out something about the game. I am presented with the same info I got in the shop.
2) I go to Mobygames because I intend to go to the shop later that day to buy a new game. I look what is new, and find a page with a picture of the box and a release date. Now I know that there is such a game waiting for me at the shop, but I don't know whether it's worth buying or not. [/Q --end Iggy Drougge wrote--]
You're assuming that such entires will stay untouched in the database for a long long time. If the game is worth buying, surely someone will contribute a decent description quickly, yes?
Игги Друге (46653) on 1/29/2007 12:32 AM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Trixter wrote--] [Q2 --start Iggy Drougge wrote--] [Q3 --start Corn Popper wrote--]but when you go to the store what are you presented with for the game... the box/packaging... so it does have some meaningful information in which it needs to sell itself... an entry with no description, release info and a package scan I think is passable [/Q3 --end Corn Popper wrote--]
It is useless. Image these two scenarios:
1) I go to a shop and see an interesting game with a nice box. I go home and go to Mobygames to find out something about the game. I am presented with the same info I got in the shop.
2) I go to Mobygames because I intend to go to the shop later that day to buy a new game. I look what is new, and find a page with a picture of the box and a release date. Now I know that there is such a game waiting for me at the shop, but I don't know whether it's worth buying or not. [/Q2 --end Iggy Drougge wrote--]
You're assuming that such entires will stay untouched in the database for a long long time. If the game is worth buying, surely someone will contribute a decent description quickly, yes? [/Q --end Trixter wrote--]
No, they won't. No-one is forcing them to do it. That's the problem; those who want to drop the descriptions want it because they don't like to write them; those who don't want to drop the descriptions want it because they don't like to write them. I already told you so when you were kind enough to approve my C128 entries – I'm not writing them because it's fun in any way. I write them because I must, and so does everyone else.
Unicorn Lynx (181769) on 1/29/2007 5:02 AM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Iggy Drougge wrote--] I'm not writing them because it's fun in any way. I write them because I must, and so does everyone else. [/Q --end Iggy Drougge wrote--]
I think that every person who wants to make MobyGames a better site should feel this way.
Marko Poutiainen (1151) on 1/29/2007 7:10 AM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Iggy Drougge wrote--]No, they won't. No-one is forcing them to do it. That's the problem; those who want to drop the descriptions want it because they don't like to write them; those who don't want to drop the descriptions want it because they don't like to write them. I already told you so when you were kind enough to approve my C128 entries – I'm not writing them because it's fun in any way. I write them because I must, and so does everyone else.[/Q --end Iggy Drougge wrote--] Sounds a bit like "I have done something I didn't like so I demand everyone else does it too"...
Игги Друге (46653) on 1/29/2007 9:06 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Marko Poutiainen wrote--] [Q2 --start Iggy Drougge wrote--]No, they won't. No-one is forcing them to do it. That's the problem; those who want to drop the descriptions want it because they don't like to write them; those who don't want to drop the descriptions want it because they don't like to write them. I already told you so when you were kind enough to approve my C128 entries – I'm not writing them because it's fun in any way. I write them because I must, and so does everyone else. [/Q2 --end Iggy Drougge wrote--] Sounds a bit like "I have done something I didn't like so I demand everyone else does it too"... [/Q --end Marko Poutiainen wrote--]
I know that you can interpret it that way, just as you can interpret it as "I demand of no-one else what I don't demand of myself".
Or you can simply interpret it as "I know it's a bother, but some things are worthwhile even if they're bothersome".
Indra was here (20752) on 1/29/2007 6:35 PM · edited · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Iggy Drougge wrote--]
those who want to drop the descriptions want it because they don't like to write them;
those who don't want to drop the descriptions want it because they don't like to write them.
[/Q --end Iggy Drougge wrote--]
That's a good darn point. Just realized that. I don't like writing game descriptions that much.
The only reason why I do it is because it looks dang good on the front rap sheet of a game. Especially if its a game I love. If the game I like has a lousy game description, I consider it a personal insult.
which reminds me. I have 30 games on my list where I am personally insulted...sigh
Trixter (8952) on 1/27/2007 6:16 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Iggy Drougge wrote--]Just about all C64 games are downloadable with a minimum of effort. Refreshing your memory by playing it through in an emulator can't be that difficult, can it? [/Q --end Iggy Drougge wrote--]
People can and will always be able to do that. People will not always be able to contribute original cover scans, etc. I'm running out of space in my 2800 sqft house and need to say goodbye to some more of my collection. Wouldn't you rather I contribute the stuff that degrades before the stuff that won't?
Игги Друге (46653) on 1/27/2007 8:21 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Trixter wrote--] [Q2 --start Iggy Drougge wrote--]Just about all C64 games are downloadable with a minimum of effort. Refreshing your memory by playing it through in an emulator can't be that difficult, can it? [/Q2 --end Iggy Drougge wrote--]
People can and will always be able to do that. People will not always be able to contribute original cover scans, etc. I'm running out of space in my 2800 sqft house and need to say goodbye to some more of my collection. Wouldn't you rather I contribute the stuff that degrades before the stuff that won't? [/Q --end Trixter wrote--]
I don't know, Trixter, why didn't you think of this in the first place? Did you think we would have covered 90% of all games by this point when you started this site? Then you were very naïve, and your naïveté has fooled a lot of people then.
I have some suggestions: Either you but a CD burner; a single CD-R will fit hundreds, if not thousands, of cover scans. Or you add another section where we keep that kind of thing. Think of Wikipedia; when you write up a new Wiki page, you can go to Wikimedia Commons to find a suitable illustration that someone else has uploaded for you.
Trixter (8952) on 1/27/2007 6:15 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Marko Poutiainen wrote--] [Q2 --start Riamus wrote--]There are more pros to adding descriptionless game entries than there are cons to it. [/Q2 --end Riamus wrote--] The fact that if that it would be possible to add stuff to a game other than descriptions? I tried adding a game at one point but since it's a C64 game that I had bought about 20 years ago and probably tried it once or twice I couldn't come up with a very good description since I could only rely on the back cover and the small sheet of paper that pretended to be the manual.
I would have had the cover & media scans plus credits so I fail to see how the site is better off not having anything at all rather than my rather short description & the other stuff. [/Q --end Marko Poutiainen wrote--]
Exactly. This is exactly the situation that breaks my heart, since someone ELSE could easily have had come along and taken care of the description for you. This is the situation we are trying to correct.
Игги Друге (46653) on 1/27/2007 8:25 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Trixter wrote--] [Q2 --start Marko Poutiainen wrote--] [Q3 --start Riamus wrote--]There are more pros to adding descriptionless game entries than there are cons to it. [/Q3 --end Riamus wrote--] The fact that if that it would be possible to add stuff to a game other than descriptions? I tried adding a game at one point but since it's a C64 game that I had bought about 20 years ago and probably tried it once or twice I couldn't come up with a very good description since I could only rely on the back cover and the small sheet of paper that pretended to be the manual.
I would have had the cover & media scans plus credits so I fail to see how the site is better off not having anything at all rather than my rather short description & the other stuff. [/Q2 --end Marko Poutiainen wrote--]
Exactly. This is exactly the situation that breaks my heart, since someone ELSE could easily have had come along and taken care of the description for you. This is the situation we are trying to correct. [/Q --end Trixter wrote--]
Who, Trixter? Even the most famous games that have influenced the entire industry are stuck with poor descriptions. You won't be submitting that description, and I won't, and chances are slim that anyone but Marko ever will.
Riamus (8480) on 1/27/2007 8:28 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Iggy Drougge wrote--] [Q2 --start Trixter wrote--]
Exactly. This is exactly the situation that breaks my heart, since someone ELSE could easily have had come along and taken care of the description for you. This is the situation we are trying to correct. [/Q2 --end Trixter wrote--]
Who, Trixter? Even the most famous games that have influenced the entire industry are stuck with poor descriptions. You won't be submitting that description, and I won't, and chances are slim that anyone but Marko ever will. [/Q --end Iggy Drougge wrote--]
Agreed. We'll never see the descriptions of the majority of these older games if the person submitting doesn't provide it.
Corn Popper (69019) on 1/27/2007 9:39 PM · Permalink · Report
so then we shouldn't document these games at all like they never existed?
Игги Друге (46653) on 1/27/2007 9:50 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Corn Popper wrote--]so then we shouldn't document these games at all like they never existed? [/Q --end Corn Popper wrote--]
Are you saying we should close the site down because we don't cover every game ever released yet? Go ahead, make my day.
Corn Popper (69019) on 1/28/2007 2:28 AM · Permalink · Report
no one said shut the site down... I'm saying we're about documenting games and we're not giving many games a chance to get documented at all because it would be left up to the few people that write descriptions
Игги Друге (46653) on 1/29/2007 12:36 AM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Corn Popper wrote--]no one said shut the site down... I'm saying we're about documenting games and we're not giving many games a chance to get documented at all because it would be left up to the few people that write descriptions [/Q --end Corn Popper wrote--]
Yes, that's the principle of Mobygames, as you well know. We're giving every game a chance, except for those games which can't enter this site because they were released on a platform which isn't supported.
Corn Popper (69019) on 1/28/2007 2:26 AM · Permalink · Report
but at least they would have a "primer" to even document them
Trixter (8952) on 1/28/2007 5:57 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Riamus wrote--] [Q2 --start Iggy Drougge wrote--] [Q3 --start Trixter wrote--]
Exactly. This is exactly the situation that breaks my heart, since someone ELSE could easily have had come along and taken care of the description for you. This is the situation we are trying to correct. [/Q3 --end Trixter wrote--]
Who, Trixter? Even the most famous games that have influenced the entire industry are stuck with poor descriptions. You won't be submitting that description, and I won't, and chances are slim that anyone but Marko ever will. [/Q2 --end Iggy Drougge wrote--]
Agreed. We'll never see the descriptions of the majority of these older games if the person submitting doesn't provide it. [/Q --end Riamus wrote--]
I disagree. There are contributors for whom their main enjoyment is contributing screenshots. That's almost all of their contribution point spread: Screenshots. I find it hard to believe there won't be some people for whom descriptions will mean the same thing to them.
Riamus (8480) on 1/28/2007 11:17 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Trixter wrote--] I find it hard to believe there won't be some people for whom descriptions will mean the same thing to them. [/Q --end Trixter wrote--]
Really? So why are we so concerned with removing descriptions if so many people would WANT to do it? Believe me, this would not be an issue if more people wanted to do descriptions.
Игги Друге (46653) on 1/29/2007 12:42 AM · edited · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Trixter wrote--] [Q2 --start Riamus wrote--] [Q3 --start Iggy Drougge wrote--] [Q4 --start Trixter wrote--]
Exactly. This is exactly the situation that breaks my heart, since someone ELSE could easily have had come along and taken care of the description for you. This is the situation we are trying to correct. [/Q4 --end Trixter wrote--]
Who, Trixter? Even the most famous games that have influenced the entire industry are stuck with poor descriptions. You won't be submitting that description, and I won't, and chances are slim that anyone but Marko ever will. [/Q3 --end Iggy Drougge wrote--]
Agreed. We'll never see the descriptions of the majority of these older games if the person submitting doesn't provide it. [/Q2 --end Riamus wrote--]
I disagree. There are contributors for whom their main enjoyment is contributing screenshots. That's almost all of their contribution point spread: Screenshots. I find it hard to believe there won't be some people for whom descriptions will mean the same thing to them. [/Q --end Trixter wrote--]
Screenshots is a quick way to get a lot of points. One screenshot is rewarded with as many points as an entire description and is a fast way to climb the "top contributors" list.
R-Type had an abysmal description before I rewrote it. R-Type is one of the most influential shooters in history. Elite has a description that would make you think it's a minor shareware game submitted yesterday. And Donkey Kong has a worse description than most Donkey Kong clones on the site. These are games that everyone knows, many will encounter, yet no-one has rewritten the description for.
You could always look in the descriptions queue, it's hardly the most busy queue out there.
Trixter (8952) on 1/29/2007 1:49 AM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Iggy Drougge wrote--] You could always look in the descriptions queue, it's hardly the most busy queue out there. [/Q --end Iggy Drougge wrote--]
Which is a travesty, as you've already pointed out. So won't it be a positive thing if it picks up?
Игги Друге (46653) on 1/29/2007 9:07 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Trixter wrote--] [Q2 --start Iggy Drougge wrote--] You could always look in the descriptions queue, it's hardly the most busy queue out there. [/Q2 --end Iggy Drougge wrote--]
Which is a travesty, as you've already pointed out. So won't it be a positive thing if it picks up? [/Q --end Trixter wrote--]
It won't pick up because you whistle and snap your fingers. It will only pick up if you start submitting to it. How many new descriptions have you written this year?
Ace of Sevens (4479) on 1/30/2007 6:28 AM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Iggy Drougge wrote--]
It won't pick up because you whistle and snap your fingers. It will only pick up if you start submitting to it. How many new descriptions have you written this year? [/Q --end Iggy Drougge wrote--]
It will pick up because there will be a way to find the games that need work. Right now, there's nothing.
Игги Друге (46653) on 1/30/2007 1:43 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Ace of Sevens wrote--] [Q2 --start Iggy Drougge wrote--]
It won't pick up because you whistle and snap your fingers. It will only pick up if you start submitting to it. How many new descriptions have you written this year? [/Q2 --end Iggy Drougge wrote--]
It will pick up because there will be a way to find the games that need work. Right now, there's nothing. [/Q --end Ace of Sevens wrote--]
Don't you ever see bad descriptions when you use this site? In that case, I don't see why anyone would edit things in the future either, since all is already good enough.
Riamus (8480) on 1/30/2007 2:39 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Ace of Sevens wrote--] [Q2 --start Iggy Drougge wrote--]
It won't pick up because you whistle and snap your fingers. It will only pick up if you start submitting to it. How many new descriptions have you written this year? [/Q2 --end Iggy Drougge wrote--]
It will pick up because there will be a way to find the games that need work. Right now, there's nothing. [/Q --end Ace of Sevens wrote--]
As I have said, this argument is void. We can put the Stub idea into affect without changing the description requirements.
Игги Друге (46653) on 1/30/2007 5:39 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Riamus wrote--] [Q2 --start Ace of Sevens wrote--] [Q3 --start Iggy Drougge wrote--] It won't pick up because you whistle and snap your fingers. It will only pick up if you start submitting to it. How many new descriptions have you written this year? [/Q3 --end Iggy Drougge wrote--] It will pick up because there will be a way to find the games that need work. Right now, there's nothing. [/Q2 --end Ace of Sevens wrote--] As I have said, this argument is void. We can put the Stub idea into affect without changing the description requirements. [/Q --end Riamus wrote--] I've wanted that for a long time, too.
Corn Popper (69019) on 1/31/2007 2:22 AM · Permalink · Report
err that's one one of the things I have proposed... stock stubs
I thought about this a little more today and here is the current idea I have...
right now I am thinking that when you enter a game and go to the description you don't have to write anything, but if it's a game that's say out for all current systems and the handhelds should be separate you can add something to say this is the console version... along with this there would be a "stub" check box that would interest the stub blurb into the entry and would automatically submit a flag for the game for the proposed flagging system
if however someone submits an entry that is really sub par an approver can wipe out the description and click the "stub" on... if the stub is submitted no points would be awarded for the description portion of the entry
once someone submits a revision to the entry the stub would automatically clear... but with the flagging system anyone can submit a flag to the game which would place it back into the most wanted...
the flags would be on a count, so you could seatch the most wanted list and sort by the number of flags... so say game a has 5 flags and game b has 1 flag... this way you can that more people have flagged something... perhaps with the flagging system notification should be sent out to the people that flagged the game to let them know the flag is clear because a revised description was approved
also along with this addition is variable points for descriptions... I'll post more on this one later
Riamus (8480) on 1/31/2007 10:38 PM · Permalink · Report
Stubs are good for poor descriptions. They should not be used as a way to allow NO descriptions to be entered and Approvers shouldn't just remove descriptions from submitters. I know that if I wrote something and it wasn't good enough for the approver, I'd want a chance to fix changes rather than having it simply deleted.
Variable points isn't a bad thing and that could be used as an automatic flagging method. If a description has under a 3 (or perhaps a 4), it will be automatically flagged. If it's a 1, it would get 3 flags, a 2 would get 2 flags, and a 3 would get 1 flag, for example.
Riamus (8480) on 1/29/2007 9:25 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Trixter wrote--] [Q2 --start Iggy Drougge wrote--] You could always look in the descriptions queue, it's hardly the most busy queue out there. [/Q2 --end Iggy Drougge wrote--]
Which is a travesty, as you've already pointed out. So won't it be a positive thing if it picks up? [/Q --end Trixter wrote--]
If it's not a big thing now, it won't "pick up" just because we suddenly let people STOP writing descriptions. That is a very illogical thing to suggest and I can't see why you aren't seeing it.
Ace of Sevens (4479) on 1/27/2007 8:33 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Iggy Drougge wrote--]
Who, Trixter? Even the most famous games that have influenced the entire industry are stuck with poor descriptions. You won't be submitting that description, and I won't, and chances are slim that anyone but Marko ever will. [/Q --end Iggy Drougge wrote--]
I would if there were some good way to find them.
Игги Друге (46653) on 1/27/2007 8:34 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Ace of Sevens wrote--] [Q2 --start Iggy Drougge wrote--]
Who, Trixter? Even the most famous games that have influenced the entire industry are stuck with poor descriptions. You won't be submitting that description, and I won't, and chances are slim that anyone but Marko ever will. [/Q2 --end Iggy Drougge wrote--]
I would if there were some good way to find them. [/Q --end Ace of Sevens wrote--]
There would be a way, just like you can find entries without screenshots or credits today. But there would always be more new game entries than there would be new descriptions.
Riamus (8480) on 1/27/2007 8:46 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Ace of Sevens wrote--] [Q2 --start Iggy Drougge wrote--]
Who, Trixter? Even the most famous games that have influenced the entire industry are stuck with poor descriptions. You won't be submitting that description, and I won't, and chances are slim that anyone but Marko ever will. [/Q2 --end Iggy Drougge wrote--]
I would if there were some good way to find them. [/Q --end Ace of Sevens wrote--]
Heh. You would? You're saying you don't want to add a description for a game and yet you would go in and add one for some other game if you could find one somewhere? It is not any easier to go looking for a description off other sites after a game was approved than it is to do the same thing when submitting the game.
Ace of Sevens (4479) on 1/27/2007 9:19 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Riamus wrote--]
Heh. You would? You're saying you don't want to add a description for a game and yet you would go in and add one for some other game if you could find one somewhere? It is not any easier to go looking for a description off other sites after a game was approved than it is to do the same thing when submitting the game. [/Q --end Riamus wrote--]
You aren't following me at all. I'm not asking for this because I want to be lazy. I'm doing it because it would be beneficial for the database. Besides, not all games are equal. I'd be adding descriptions for games I have a good working knowledge of. This is not nearly all games or even all I wish were in the database.
To use another example, I tried to add ESPN NBA2Night a few months ago. I was unable to get enough detail in the description to satisfy the approver. I had read a whole bunch of reviews, so could have added some trivia and MobyRanks, but this would have required getting it on the site first.
Trixter (8952) on 1/28/2007 6:01 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Iggy Drougge wrote--] Who, Trixter? Even the most famous games that have influenced the entire industry are stuck with poor descriptions. You won't be submitting that description, and I won't, and chances are slim that anyone but Marko ever will. [/Q --end Iggy Drougge wrote--]
Aha, this is where the proposed system will actually help! Why is the bad description there? Because we forced someone to add one who wasn't good at writing them. It was either that, or jettison the entry, so he/she wrote the bare minimum to get it accepted. Because the entry has a description, it isn't immediately noted as needing improvement unless you specifically view it.
In the proposed system, people who don't want to write descriptions won't have to. Entries without descriptions will have the highest "bounty" in the Most Wanted query. It will be immediately apparent which games have no description text, and someone who does care will come along and write one.
Marko Poutiainen (1151) on 1/28/2007 6:22 PM · Permalink · Report
And you could have a Wikipedia style banner for that game stating something along the lines of "this game entry is considered incomplete by MobyGames. If you can add to it, please do." or something like that.
Corn Popper (69019) on 1/28/2007 6:24 PM · Permalink · Report
yup, something like would be added
Riamus (8480) on 1/28/2007 11:20 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Trixter wrote--] Aha, this is where the proposed system will actually help! Why is the bad description there? Because we forced someone to add one who wasn't good at writing them. It was either that, or jettison the entry, so he/she wrote the bare minimum to get it accepted. Because the entry has a description, it isn't immediately noted as needing improvement unless you specifically view it.
In the proposed system, people who don't want to write descriptions won't have to. Entries without descriptions will have the highest "bounty" in the Most Wanted query. It will be immediately apparent which games have no description text, and someone who does care will come along and write one. [/Q --end Trixter wrote--]
Do you not realize that this SAME idea can be implemented WITHOUT removing description requirements? As far as descriptions being approved that are bad (first paragraph), then the APPROVER should have noted it in the wiki when approving it so that it could be improved later. As for "bounty" ... once you start rewarding with bonus points for doing what they SHOULD ALREADY BE DOING, you lose. Once we start making this site all about POINTS, we lose.
Trixter (8952) on 1/29/2007 1:42 AM · edited · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Riamus wrote--] [Q2 --start Trixter wrote--] Aha, this is where the proposed system will actually help! Why is the bad description there? Because we forced someone to add one who wasn't good at writing them. It was either that, or jettison the entry, so he/she wrote the bare minimum to get it accepted. Because the entry has a description, it isn't immediately noted as needing improvement unless you specifically view it.
In the proposed system, people who don't want to write descriptions won't have to. Entries without descriptions will have the highest "bounty" in the Most Wanted query. It will be immediately apparent which games have no description text, and someone who does care will come along and write one. [/Q2 --end Trixter wrote--]
Do you not realize that this SAME idea can be implemented WITHOUT removing description requirements? As far as descriptions being approved that are bad (first paragraph), then the APPROVER should have noted it in the wiki when approving it so that it could be improved later. As for "bounty" ... once you start rewarding with bonus points for doing what they SHOULD ALREADY BE DOING, you lose. Once we start making this site all about POINTS, we lose. [/Q --end Riamus wrote--]
The flaw in your idea is that only the approvers would be responsible for improving the description, since it's in a wiki only they can see. In the solution I am proposing, every single registered user has a chance to help out. Also, like it or not, some people have very different views on what is a good and bad description. I don't share those views, but some people simply do, and think that some of our 3-liners that squeak by are perfectly fine for the calibre of the game being entered. Bad descriptions are not likely to get noticed. MISSING ONES ARE.
And I don't agree with your text "should already be doing", because people should already be entering games for games they physically own but aren't because of the description requirement...
Игги Друге (46653) on 1/29/2007 9:11 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Trixter wrote--] And I don't agree with your text "should already be doing", because people should already be entering games for games they physically own but aren't because of the description requirement... [/Q --end Trixter wrote--]
Since a description is one the basic requirements for a new game entry (in fact, it's the very first step in the new game wizard), there's no way to enter a game without a description.
Riamus (8480) on 1/29/2007 9:30 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Trixter wrote--] The flaw in your idea is that only the approvers would be responsible for improving the description, since it's in a wiki only they can see. In the solution I am proposing, every single registered user has a chance to help out. Also, like it or not, some people have very different views on what is a good and bad description. I don't share those views, but some people simply do, and think that some of our 3-liners that squeak by are perfectly fine for the calibre of the game being entered. Bad descriptions are not likely to get noticed. MISSING ONES ARE.
And I don't agree with your text "should already be doing", because people should already be entering games for games they physically own but aren't because of the description requirement... [/Q --end Trixter wrote--]
Uh. I said the SAME idea you are suggesting for tagging descriptions... not the CURRENT method. You can easily tag descriptions for EVERYONE to see/edit without dropping the description requirement.
As for some approvers letting things squeak by that shouldn't... don't you think that is a problem that should be resolved? You know who approves games. If we tag a game that was approved in the past few months or so, then find out who approved it and discuss with that person how they should be approving entries. If we have approvers who are not doing a good job, it should be dealt with directly and not by just ignoring the problem and creating more problems by dropping the description requirements.
People should not be entering every game they have. It would be nice, but they don't have to. Stating that means that you require all people to enter their games. That's rediculous. My statement referred to how games should be entered if someone chooses to enter a game. We have requirements and if someone chooses to enter a game, then they need to follow those requirements.
Игги Друге (46653) on 1/29/2007 12:47 AM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Trixter wrote--] [Q2 --start Iggy Drougge wrote--] Who, Trixter? Even the most famous games that have influenced the entire industry are stuck with poor descriptions. You won't be submitting that description, and I won't, and chances are slim that anyone but Marko ever will. [/Q2 --end Iggy Drougge wrote--]
Aha, this is where the proposed system will actually help! Why is the bad description there? Because we forced someone to add one who wasn't good at writing them. It was either that, or jettison the entry, so he/she wrote the bare minimum to get it accepted. Because the entry has a description, it isn't immediately noted as needing improvement unless you specifically view it.
In the proposed system, people who don't want to write descriptions won't have to. Entries without descriptions will have the highest "bounty" in the Most Wanted query. It will be immediately apparent which games have no description text, and someone who does care will come along and write one. [/Q --end Trixter wrote--]
Quite possibly the only one who will know about that American football game is Marko. We're not talking about Doom or Civilization here, it's an obscure C64 game. If I want that kind of information, there are at least two sites which already fulfill that task perfectly, and we don't need a third one.
Trixter (8952) on 1/29/2007 1:48 AM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Iggy Drougge wrote--] [Q2 --start Trixter wrote--] [Q3 --start Iggy Drougge wrote--] Who, Trixter? Even the most famous games that have influenced the entire industry are stuck with poor descriptions. You won't be submitting that description, and I won't, and chances are slim that anyone but Marko ever will. [/Q3 --end Iggy Drougge wrote--]
Aha, this is where the proposed system will actually help! Why is the bad description there? Because we forced someone to add one who wasn't good at writing them. It was either that, or jettison the entry, so he/she wrote the bare minimum to get it accepted. Because the entry has a description, it isn't immediately noted as needing improvement unless you specifically view it.
In the proposed system, people who don't want to write descriptions won't have to. Entries without descriptions will have the highest "bounty" in the Most Wanted query. It will be immediately apparent which games have no description text, and someone who does care will come along and write one. [/Q2 --end Trixter wrote--]
Quite possibly the only one who will know about that American football game is Marko. We're not talking about Doom or Civilization here, it's an obscure C64 game. If I want that kind of information, there are at least two sites which already fulfill that task perfectly, and we don't need a third one. [/Q --end Iggy Drougge wrote--]
You've confused me. Are you saying that there are enough sites already with complete information on obscure games? Or obscure c64 games? Or modern games?
Игги Друге (46653) on 1/29/2007 9:13 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Trixter wrote--] [Q2 --start Iggy Drougge wrote--] [Q3 --start Trixter wrote--] [Q4 --start Iggy Drougge wrote--] Who, Trixter? Even the most famous games that have influenced the entire industry are stuck with poor descriptions. You won't be submitting that description, and I won't, and chances are slim that anyone but Marko ever will. [/Q4 --end Iggy Drougge wrote--]
Aha, this is where the proposed system will actually help! Why is the bad description there? Because we forced someone to add one who wasn't good at writing them. It was either that, or jettison the entry, so he/she wrote the bare minimum to get it accepted. Because the entry has a description, it isn't immediately noted as needing improvement unless you specifically view it.
In the proposed system, people who don't want to write descriptions won't have to. Entries without descriptions will have the highest "bounty" in the Most Wanted query. It will be immediately apparent which games have no description text, and someone who does care will come along and write one. [/Q3 --end Trixter wrote--]
Quite possibly the only one who will know about that American football game is Marko. We're not talking about Doom or Civilization here, it's an obscure C64 game. If I want that kind of information, there are at least two sites which already fulfill that task perfectly, and we don't need a third one. [/Q2 --end Iggy Drougge wrote--]
You've confused me. Are you saying that there are enough sites already with complete information on obscure games? Or obscure c64 games? Or modern games? [/Q --end Trixter wrote--]
Not complete in the current Mobygames sense, but definitely complete in the way you propose. If I want to add a C64 game to Mobygames, I go to those sites first to find information, and even download the game. The same goes for other platforms.
Игги Друге (46653) on 1/24/2007 5:00 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Corn Popper wrote--]Looking for hints or help with a game... since we have pretty good page ranks, if we were to add more games ala the no description/easier standards we'd attract a lot more people.
(....)
You know, this project started out as a game have list... that's actually the core of the site... Jim can correct me if I'm wrong... what you have now is what has morphed out of that. We have pretty good have list capabilities and plan to expand on it more and in order to have a complete have list there needs to be a way to add games to the site in an easier manner as well. We'll probably expand into more wish list stuff as well meaning pre-release at some time. We've grown quite well and there's nothing wrong with growing even more. There are more pros to adding descriptionless game entries than there are cons to it. [/Q --end Corn Popper wrote--]
There is a big con to it, which you mention above. When you google for a game, you always find a near-empty page on the IGN network or on GameFAQs. Mobygames should keep its quality profile, which means only showing up high on Google if the site has anything to offer.
Trixter (8952) on 1/27/2007 5:34 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Ace of Sevens wrote--]I disagree. This proposal wouldn't mean that MobyGames woudl suddenly start accepting bad information. It would still have release info, genre info, etc. Lacking a description doesn't nullify the value of the other parts of an entry. Frankly, I think the reason isn't all that popular compared to things like GameFAQs is that while the data is good, it's really lacking in breadth. Let's say there's a great new game that just came out I'd like to add to my want list. Let's call it NBA 2K7. Only I can't add it because it isn't in the database and between haggling about the details of the description and general queues, it coudl take more than a month to appear. Why should I use MobyGames if I can't even keep a basic wishlist? It seems like this woudl make sure the database could be much more responsive without compromising the integrity of the data. [/Q --end Ace of Sevens wrote--]
This is the angle that some of us (myself, for example) are coming from. It takes way too long for new games to get into the database... I would like to have a complete havelist on moby (with links to the game wizard so I can see what I need to add entries for)... etc.
Just as there are people who only contribute screenshots, there will be people who only contribute descriptions. It is not fair to a contributor to assume he/she must be responsible for all parts of a 100% completely perfect entry.
Игги Друге (46653) on 1/27/2007 8:29 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Trixter wrote--] This is the angle that some of us (myself, for example) are coming from. It takes way too long for new games to get into the database... I would like to have a complete havelist on moby (with links to the game wizard so I can see what I need to add entries for)... etc. [/Q --end Trixter wrote--] So would I. That's easy to fix, too. Look at Wikipedia. If you link to a page which does not yet exist, clicking that link opens the "new game wizard". [Q --start Trixter wrote--] Just as there are people who only contribute screenshots, there will be people who only contribute descriptions. It is not fair to a contributor to assume he/she must be responsible for all parts of a 100% completely perfect entry. [/Q --end Trixter wrote--]
The only one who really enjoys writing new descriptions is Pseudo_Intellectual. The rest of us do it because we must. If we must not, we do not.
chirinea (47507) on 1/28/2007 7:59 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Iggy Drougge wrote--]The only one who really enjoys writing new descriptions is Pseudo_Intellectual. The rest of us do it because we must. If we must not, we do not. [/Q --end Iggy Drougge wrote--] Nah, I'm pretty sure Martin does it for fun too. At least for revising them.
Martin Smith (81743) on 1/29/2007 10:14 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start chirinea wrote--] [Q2 --start Iggy Drougge wrote--]The only one who really enjoys writing new descriptions is Pseudo_Intellectual. The rest of us do it because we must. If we must not, we do not. [/Q2 --end Iggy Drougge wrote--] Nah, I'm pretty sure Martin does it for fun too. At least for revising them. [/Q --end chirinea wrote--]
Yes, particularly because I hate seeing really bad descriptions for really interesting/significant/excellent games. And I hate the idea of seeing them for every new game, which is a serious risk. I largely ignore IGN/GameFAQs and similar sites as thy are so skeletal, and not error free even on purely factual stuff. This site is founded on having quality information, and that goal has to be retained.
I note that the poll seems to agree - the bulk of posters believe the rules should not be relaxed. There's a certain dictatorial element from the admins on this, as on a few other issues in the past. I really can't promise that I'll continue to contribute as much if the rule change goes through.
Riamus (8480) on 1/29/2007 10:25 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Martin Smith wrote--] I note that the poll seems to agree - the bulk of posters believe the rules should not be relaxed. There's a certain dictatorial element from the admins on this, as on a few other issues in the past. I really can't promise that I'll continue to contribute as much if the rule change goes through. [/Q --end Martin Smith wrote--]
I think that is what we're seeing from the majority of approvers who have been here for a long time. They don't want to see the change go through and I agree that I may be less likely to maintain an interest in the site if it goes through. We may lose some good approvers (I'm not considering myself in that description as I haven't had free time to really approve a lot lately) over this. I think this will have a severe impact that will ultimately hurt the site.
Unicorn Lynx (181769) on 1/30/2007 3:11 AM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Martin Smith wrote--] I note that the poll seems to agree - the bulk of posters believe the rules should not be relaxed. There's a certain dictatorial element from the admins on this, as on a few other issues in the past. I really can't promise that I'll continue to contribute as much if the rule change goes through.[/Q --end Martin Smith wrote--] Unfortunately, that's also the way I feel... and it makes me really sad. We are providing tons of argumentation against the idea of description-less entries, and all we hear from the admins is "like this we'll have more game entries". It's obvious admins and approvers have different priorities. What amazes me is that the admins are the ones who abandon the "quality above quantity" concept. How could this happen? Are the admins getting pressure? Is there some financial problem involved? Have they been abducted and threatened with a gun by Wikipedia and GameFAQs employees? Because I can't find a suitable explanation for this irrational change of philosophy.
Corn Popper (69019) on 1/30/2007 4:20 AM · Permalink · Report
no one said we're abandoning quality at all.. you're twisting what's being said
Pseudo_Intellectual (66423) on 1/31/2007 2:50 AM · Permalink · Report
The only one who really enjoys writing new descriptions is Pseudo_Intellectual.
Heh, I missed this. I could say I don't enjoy writing descriptions, just playing cat and mouse with the approvers to see who yields an inch first... but the truth is of coss that I get a kick out of describing games that are fun to describe! Looking through my submissions it's easy to tell on which descriptions I was full of enthusiasm for the gameplay innovations and on which ones I was just dialing it in so I could say that I'd written up a game beginning with the letter "Z" and completed at least one entry for every letter of the alphabet 8)
Can writing descriptions of boring games (or: slight variations of common themes, as in football) be fun? Yes, but usually not while maintaining that esteemed "objective" tone... approvers will usually say that tearing the game a new one should be reserved for the review. (But how can I write a review for the game if no one has yet written a description for it! I whined. And, well, that brings us to the present.)
The sky hasn't fallen because we allow clearance of game groups with no descriptions (though it can be a pain in the arse, especially when trying to differentiate between similar ones); I don't see how clearing game entries with no descriptions is so very different. Even at a skeletal 30-40% of full completion, I think a pretty good idea of what a game is like can be sussed out through what context is provided: a couple of screenshots, a review, a platform, a game group membership and a trivia item go far. (Heck, a good set of screen shots can entirely replace a description; maybe we shouldn't be suggesting lowering description requirements but raising screenshot requirements 8)
I like to think that the "long tail" eventually ensures that all the games anyone cares about are eventually fully represented. (As for the ones nobody cares about? Well, uh, nobody cares about those ones, and griping about an absence constitutes instant volunteership to do something about it 8)
Riamus (8480) on 1/31/2007 10:51 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Pseudo_Intellectual wrote--]The sky hasn't fallen because we allow clearance of game groups with no descriptions (though it can be a pain in the arse, especially when trying to differentiate between similar ones); I don't see how clearing game entries with no descriptions is so very different. Even at a skeletal 30-40% of full completion, I think a pretty good idea of what a game is like can be sussed out through what context is provided: a couple of screenshots, a review, a platform, a game group membership and a trivia item go far. (Heck, a good set of screen shots can entirely replace a description; maybe we shouldn't be suggesting lowering description requirements but raising screenshot requirements 8) [/Q --end Pseudo_Intellectual wrote--]
Groups are allowed without descriptions? I didn't know that, but if that's true, then I don't support that. How can you add a game to a group if you are using just a title to determine what the group is about? Still, that's a group and does not do anything to really explain a game, so it's far less important.
Screenshots - If entered, these can describe a game well... but only if they represent more than just the beginning of the game and if their descriptions are good and not just goofy stuff or descriptions that say nothing useful.
Reviews - If a person won't write a description, then they are unlikely to write a review. And if we allowed no descriptions, then the policy should be that no reviews would be accepted until a description is written. NOTE that I do NOT support no descriptions. I'm giving a simple what-if.
Platform - This does nothing to tell anyone what a game is like.
Game Groups - Games don't NEED to be in a group, so game groups cannot be considered as a way to describe a game. Nor should they be used as such. They are meant as a way to find similar games or games in a series.
Trivia Items - These aren't meant to describe a game and although some might give you an idea what a game is about, most will not.
Other than screenshots or reviews, NOTHING else will give you a real idea of what a game is about. Covers could, but the blurbs on them are usually not that insightful and are meant for marketing the game rather that really describing it. Ad blurbs are generally the same thing. And, as I said, screenshots only work if they cover the entire game (or most of it) AND if they have quality descriptions. Most don't.
If I want to research a game or look up games to find something that I will like so that I can go and buy it, only screenshots and descriptions are really useful to me and descriptions are the most useful. Release date could be useful in just giving me an idea if I'd want to play it... most older games just don't interest me so much anymore, but that's a minor thing when looking up games to buy/play and is required anyhow. I may want to find games by a particular publisher (I know I will love a Blizzard game, for example), but again, that's a minor issue and is required already.
Descriptions are absolutely important.
Pseudo_Intellectual (66423) on 1/31/2007 11:30 PM · Permalink · Report
How can you add a game to a group if you are using just a title to determine what the group is about?7
Tentatively, as it turns out 8)
If a person won't write a description, then they are unlikely to write a review.
The old p_i had plenty of descriptions returned saying that they were too opinionated and were more like reviews. Apparently I had /already written reviews/ for games with no descriptions, which were turned away because, uh, descriptions were arbitrarily needed first. (Most reviews constitute descriptions of a sort -- just not the lofty and vaunted quasi-"objective" ones 8)
Platform - This does nothing to tell anyone what a game is like.
If I see game X (say, Zork 1) is available on the TRS-80 and game Y only on the Playstation (say, the other Zork 1 8), that already tells me a great deal about the differences between them in gameplay, graphics and sound quality, interface (needing full use of a ho-jillion modern joystick buttons) and likelihood of being lost in their own 3D engine 8)
Games don't NEED to be in a group, so game groups cannot be considered as a way to describe a game. Nor should they be used as such. They are meant as a way to find similar games
Worms? What's that? Oh, it's a clone of Scorched Earth. What? Scorched what? You know, it's an artillery game. Ohhh...
These aren't meant to describe a game and although some might give you an idea what a game is about, most will not.
It's the only approved place for all the behind-the-scenes accounts which, if thoroughly entered, can spell out the whole story for a dedicated reader. It's true however that doing so would constitute a great deal more work than just writing a description 8)
Other than screenshots or reviews, NOTHING else will give you a real idea of what a game is about.
Movie clips of the game in play? Download of the game? 8) (or, more realistically: curated suggestions of very similar games, some of the more famous of which the reader may already be familiar with)
Covers could, but the blurbs on them are usually not that insightful and are meant for marketing the game rather that really describing it.
All covers really tell anyone anymore is: "yes, our game is 3D also" 8)
If I want to research a game or look up games to find something that I will like so that I can go and buy it, only screenshots and descriptions are really useful to me and descriptions are the most useful.
We could tally "x% of users who liked this game also liked..." stats, though I imagine they could be quite a database load.
Descriptions are absolutely important.
Of that, you are apparently absolutely convinced 8)
I must seem to be the spurious devil's advocate, since apparently I'm the only person here who actually enjoys writing descriptions. I just don't think they're necessarily at the core of understanding of a game 8)
Riamus (8480) on 1/31/2007 11:45 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Pseudo_Intellectual wrote--]The old p_i had plenty of descriptions returned saying that they were too opinionated and were more like reviews. Apparently I had /already written reviews/ for games with no descriptions, which were turned away because, uh, descriptions were arbitrarily needed first. (Most reviews constitute descriptions of a sort -- just not the lofty and vaunted quasi-"objective" ones 8) [/q]
And if we, as approvers, take the time to help people rewrite them instead of just saying it's to subjective, it would help. I know that I always explain the problems and how a user could fix them, but I know that many approvers don't.
[q] If I see game X (say, Zork 1) is available on the TRS-80 and game Y only on the Playstation (say, the other Zork 1 8), that already tells me a great deal about the differences between them in gameplay, graphics and sound quality, interface (needing full use of a ho-jillion modern joystick buttons) and likelihood of being lost in their own 3D engine 8) [/q]
I think that's a bit exaggerated. Let's say I tell you that Gromper (made up name) was released on the DS. Yes, you'd know what the controls were and basic idea of graphics/sound, etc. You wouldn't know the gameplay. Sure, genres can help with that, but it isn't definitive. For example, if it were marked as a board game, you wouldn't know the gameplay other than that it is played on a board.
[q] Worms? What's that? Oh, it's a clone of Scorched Earth. What? Scorched what? You know, it's an artillery game. Ohhh... [/q]
Not sure what you were getting at there. As I said, they can be used to link similar games for people and when you read the games' descriptions, then you know what they are about.
[q] Movie clips of the game in play? Download of the game? 8) (or, more realistically: curated suggestions of very similar games, some of the more famous of which the reader may already be familiar with) [/q]
None of which we have, though the similar games thing is basically what groups/genres are for. Even then, I'd still want descriptions. Note that video clips are on queue for features to be added.
[q] I must seem to be the spurious devil's advocate, since apparently I'm the only person here who actually enjoys writing descriptions. I just don't think they're necessarily at the core of understanding of a game 8) [/Q --end Pseudo_Intellectual wrote--]
And, in that, we disagree. :)
Игги Друге (46653) on 2/1/2007 4:18 AM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Pseudo_Intellectual wrote--]Worms? What's that? Oh, it's a clone of Scorched Earth. What? Scorched what? You know, it's an artillery game. Ohhh... [/Q --end Pseudo_Intellectual wrote--] Unhistorical. Worms is an Amiga game, so it's a clone of Scorched Earth.
Pseudo_Intellectual (66423) on 2/1/2007 8:50 AM · Permalink · Report
Unhistorical. Worms is an Amiga game
What, developers for one platform were blind to developments on another?
so it's a clone of Scorched Earth.
Do you mean Scorched Tanks? Maybe I'm misinterpreting what you mean by "unhistorical". Either way, I suppose we pedants can agree that these split hairs have little to do with the discussion at hand 8)
Игги Друге (46653) on 2/1/2007 2:25 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Pseudo_Intellectual wrote--]Unhistorical. Worms is an Amiga game
What, developers for one platform were blind to developments on another? [/Q --end Pseudo_Intellectual wrote--] Basically, yes. Especially obscure PD developments. [Q --start Pseudo_Intellectual wrote--]so it's a clone of Scorched Earth.
Do you mean Scorched Tanks? Maybe I'm misinterpreting what you mean by "unhistorical". Either way, I suppose we pedants can agree that these split hairs have little to do with the discussion at hand 8) [/Q --end Pseudo_Intellectual wrote--] Yes, of course I mean Scorched Tanks. You're the one who brought up Scorched Earth.
Pseudo_Intellectual (66423) on 2/1/2007 6:12 PM · Permalink · Report
Basically, yes. Especially obscure PD developments.
And yet clearly the Amiga developers of Scorched Tanks were familiar with Scorched Earth, hence... retaining the "Scorched" 8)
This concludes this week's thrilling detour of "two pedants flog a dead horse", only on MobyGames!
Ace of Sevens (4479) on 2/1/2007 6:07 AM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Riamus wrote--] Other than screenshots or reviews, NOTHING else will give you a real idea of what a game is about. [/Q --end Riamus wrote--]
What about MobyRanks?
Riamus (8480) on 2/1/2007 2:36 PM · edited · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Ace of Sevens wrote--] [Q2 --start Riamus wrote--] Other than screenshots or reviews, NOTHING else will give you a real idea of what a game is about. [/Q2 --end Riamus wrote--]
What about MobyRanks? [/Q --end Ace of Sevens wrote--]
I think we've had plenty of discussions about how MobyRanks don't tell you anything. And we don't need to take this thread off topic to discuss it again. You can start another thread if you care to discuss it. :)
Even then, MobyScore/MobyRank just tell you a basic idea of what people think about it. Some reviews in the MobyRank system might give you an idea of gameplay, but descriptions are much better than sending people off to other sites to read descriptions/reviews.
Unicorn Lynx (181769) on 1/28/2007 7:52 AM · Permalink · Report
Jim, you are missing the point. A description is a basic component of a game entry. Basic, because otherwise, just like Iggy said, the entry will look like those empty IGN entries, which no one needs. This is not what I call "documenting a game". The whole point of MobyGames is to document games in such a way that the game entry will give the user an idea about what the game is like. Now, if we want that, the most basic part is descriptiion, we cannot go any lower than that. We'd lose our mission. Seriously.
You can't say that people should be allowed not writing descriptions only because they prefer contributing screenshots. I prefer contributing screenshots, too! It would be much more comfortable for me to add more obscure Japanese RPGs with 15 screenshots each and gather my points without all the hassle of translating a damn Japanese intro for the story description. But if we want to make this site a better place, we should also do things we don't like so much. If somebody doesn't want to do that, he is free to stop contributing new entries. There are enough already existing entries such person could improve by supplying additional information to them.
Trixter (8952) on 1/28/2007 6:16 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Unicorn Lynx wrote--]Jim, you are missing the point. A description is a basic component of a game entry. Basic, because otherwise, just like Iggy said, the entry will look like those empty IGN entries, which no one needs. This is not what I call "documenting a game". The whole point of MobyGames is to document games in such a way that the game entry will give the user an idea about what the game is like. Now, if we want that, the most basic part is descriptiion, we cannot go any lower than that. We'd lose our mission. Seriously.
You can't say that people should be allowed not writing descriptions only because they prefer contributing screenshots. I prefer contributing screenshots, too! It would be much more comfortable for me to add more obscure Japanese RPGs with 15 screenshots each and gather my points without all the hassle of translating a damn Japanese intro for the story description. But if we want to make this site a better place, we should also do things we don't like so much. If somebody doesn't want to do that, he is free to stop contributing new entries. There are enough already existing entries such person could improve by supplying additional information to them. [/Q --end Unicorn Lynx wrote--]
I'm not missing the point. I designed the concept, BELIEVE ME this is a fundamental change of operation we're debating and that's not lost on me. I have incredibly high standards -- if I didn't, none of us would even be here talking about this.
At the same time, even I can see that MobyGames needs to get current and stay current in order to grow; we have too much (inferior!) competition from IMDB and Wikipedia not to. Our mandatory description policy is turning more people away every day than the same time last year. I get the feeling that every approver opposed to even TALKING about this hasn't serviced a New Game approval queue lately.
We are doing our best asking for help from the community, instead of just implementing things blindly and losing contributors.
Riamus (8480) on 1/28/2007 11:23 PM · Permalink · Report
The difficulty in getting new games entered is not simply a matter of a description. We have large queues of games and parts of games waiting to be approved with not enough approvers to handle the load. Get more approvers so that we have all games approved within 1-3 days and you'll see more added.
Also, keep in mind that we will ALWAYS be behind those other sites because they add half of their stuff before release and even if we start doing that, we'll still be behind because we have to approve the information rather than it being added immediately.
Please stop trying to compare us with those other, as you said, inferior sites. They have more games and yet they are still inferior. Don't forget that. More games don't make them better, so why should they won't make us better? We have more information for every entry. That is what makes us better. Not the number of games.
Corn Popper (69019) on 1/29/2007 8:08 AM · Permalink · Report
so how do you propose to "get" more quality approvers? it's like pulling teeth to find "good" ones hardly anyone volunteers to be one... I usually have to ask
if we were to "add" more games we'd still be better than them because have a good base of information that's better than them... if we added more games that were descriptionless and we'd get a lot more items contributed to those descriptionless games that would make the entry better than their descriptionless entries
their entry... title and maybe tech info and release info
many of ours would be title, release info, tech info and other items... product codes, covers, screenshots, ad blurbs, ad scans and more
so in comparision even if these were descriptionless we'd still be better and I doubt this would be a rarity
Игги Друге (46653) on 1/29/2007 9:18 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Corn Popper wrote--]so how do you propose to "get" more quality approvers? it's like pulling teeth to find "good" ones hardly anyone volunteers to be one... I usually have to ask [/Q --end Corn Popper wrote--] A recruitment campaign. Why would anyone volunteer for something which they don't know they can volunteer to?
[Q --start Corn Popper wrote--]if we were to "add" more games we'd still be better than them because have a good base of information that's better than them... if we added more games that were descriptionless and we'd get a lot more items contributed to those descriptionless games that would make the entry better than their descriptionless entries [/Q --end Corn Popper wrote--] This good base of information is the result of hard work and would be diluted if the next batch of 30 000 games would be just a shadow of that. [Q --start Corn Popper wrote--] their entry... title and maybe tech info and release info [/Q --end Corn Popper wrote--] Wow, that's amazing. It's just like Amazon. [Q --start Corn Popper wrote--] many of ours would be title, release info, tech info and other items... product codes, covers, screenshots, ad blurbs, ad scans and more
so in comparision even if these were descriptionless we'd still be better and I doubt this would be a rarity [/Q --end Corn Popper wrote--] Better than what, pray tell? Better because we have copied some press releases?
Riamus (8480) on 1/29/2007 9:43 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Corn Popper wrote--]so how do you propose to "get" more quality approvers? it's like pulling teeth to find "good" ones hardly anyone volunteers to be one... I usually have to ask
if we were to "add" more games we'd still be better than them because have a good base of information that's better than them... if we added more games that were descriptionless and we'd get a lot more items contributed to those descriptionless games that would make the entry better than their descriptionless entries
their entry... title and maybe tech info and release info
many of ours would be title, release info, tech info and other items... product codes, covers, screenshots, ad blurbs, ad scans and more
so in comparision even if these were descriptionless we'd still be better and I doubt this would be a rarity [/Q --end Corn Popper wrote--]
You guys just aren't getting this, are you? (No offense intended)
First of all... approvers. You want more games added, right? Before you even consider that, you have to remember that we already have large queues. If we suddenly get an influx of new descriptionless games, the queues will grow even more. You're saying it's hard to get approvers. Well, if you want to do what you are suggesting, then you will need even more approvers than we already have. There is no way around that short of dropping the approval process. Approving a descriptionless game is not going to be all that much faster than one with a description. It's the rest of the entry that takes time to verify. If getting approvers is hard, perhaps you should advertise the need more prominently? The current link is not prominent, nor is it that useful. I imagine that if you put a large announcement on the main page that said approvers are needed and that any wanting to be one needs X amount of points to apply, I'm sure you'd get a lot more applicants. I'm sure most people here don't realize that we need more approvers.
As for having more information. Remember that we are talking about ALL games and not just NEW games. On average, how many games that are over let's say 2 years old are submitted with all of the information? I'm betting that the majority of those games come in with just the minimum requirements with the exception of possibly having screenshots. So that means that the majority of older games will be NO better than all of those other inferior sites. That will make us look bad whether you think so or not.
Игги Друге (46653) on 1/29/2007 12:57 AM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Trixter wrote--] At the same time, even I can see that MobyGames needs to get current and stay current in order to grow; we have too much (inferior!) competition from IMDB and Wikipedia not to. Our mandatory description policy is turning more people away every day than the same time last year. I get the feeling that every approver opposed to even TALKING about this hasn't serviced a New Game approval queue lately. [/Q --end Trixter wrote--]
This is not a competition, Trixter. If you think someone has "beat" "you", you're approaching it from the wrong angle. There are more than one way to skin a cat, and everyone is doing it his own way. Wikipedia does it in the Wikipedia way, Lemon64 does it the Lemon64 way and IMDB do it their way. If you think their "competition" is inferior, you have no excuse to sink to their level.
Furthermore, isn't it funny, how Wikipedia is all about what you're suggesting we remove? Wikipedia is about text first and foremost, any page starting out with just a cover picture will be deleted rather quickly.
As for your insinuations about our work as approvers, you don't need to have any feeling. The tools are right there at your fingertips, just use them. Every approver can see what the other approvers do. Here, have a look:
New games; respone time 2 days; status change 12; status change 12; rejections 0
Unicorn Lynx (181769) on 1/29/2007 5:24 AM · Permalink · Report
Maybe I'm missing something here, but I thought our goal was to provide a quality game catalog and not to compete with Wikipedia or some other sites - which, as you said yourself, are inferior to us in game-documenting aspect. Letting in new games without descriptions will reduce us to the level of those competitors. And they will win, because like this we will be playing their own game.
Frankly, I'm surprised that the admins are talking about "relaxing the rules". As I recall, the last four years were all about tightening the rules. The standards have become higher. A large group of approvers tries to keep low quality information away from the site. Descriptions, reviews, covers and screenshots that would have been approved in 1999 are WIPed and worked on now. We pay more attention to merging and splitting game entries. The approval of corrections has improved drastically. We have more and more hard-working contributors. We have more and more platforms and games. I think the site looks infinitely better than it did when I first joined it six years ago. So why this sudden change? Why the hurry?
Corn Popper (69019) on 1/29/2007 8:17 AM · Permalink · Report
it's not about competition, it's about finally handling the issue of the painstaking process of getting a basic game entry listed which is hindering growth
relaxing the rules is probably a bad title... the standards will still remain high... but the basic requirement to get a game listed would change... an approver would still be expected to verify that the game exists with correct release info
Unicorn Lynx (181769) on 1/29/2007 8:28 AM · Permalink · Report
But how can you even imagine game entries without descriptions?! Just the thought of this makes me feel sick. Can you imagine clicking on a game entry and seeing a Rap Sheet with covers, screenshots, etc., but no description?! This wouldn't be a game entry any more. It would be a goddamn collection of images. At the bare minimum, a new game entry should have a description.
Corn Popper (69019) on 1/29/2007 8:39 AM · edited · Permalink · Report
I'd rather have that than not to have a game listed at all... at least it's an acknowledgement of the game... as it's been said... we're about documenting games... the level of documentation varies... documentation does not mean you have to "have" a description in order to document it... what about my suggestion on at least having another item in place of description in order to get a game added?
since we document all sortof games from the hardcore to the kiddie games we're missing out on a lot... even those other sites hardly ever document those kiddie games...
just as an example... we're losing out on a lot of info that could get entered for kiddie games... how many people here would even add those? who wants to play through kiddie games to get a decent description?
Игги Друге (46653) on 1/29/2007 9:29 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Corn Popper wrote--]I'd rather have that than not to have a game listed at all... at least it's an acknowledgement of the game... as it's been said... we're about documenting games... the level of documentation varies... documentation does not mean you have to "have" a description in order to document it... what about my suggestion on at least having another item in place of description in order to get a game added? [/Q --end Corn Popper wrote--] Documentation here means exactly that, having a description. That's the way we document a game, everything else is in small boxes around that description. If you don't like it, you can join GameFAQs instead. [Q --start Corn Popper wrote--] since we document all sortof games from the hardcore to the kiddie games we're missing out on a lot... even those other sites hardly ever document those kiddie games... [/Q --end Corn Popper wrote--] We're missing approximately 970 000 games. Tomorrow, we will miss ten less. [Q --start Corn Popper wrote--] just as an example... we're losing out on a lot of info that could get entered for kiddie games... how many people here would even add those? who wants to play through kiddie games to get a decent description? [/Q --end Corn Popper wrote--] I think it mirrors the interest for kiddie games amongst our users. People are about as interested in submitting screenshots or release info for such games as they are in submitting the descriptions; i.e. not very much. Or, to use your own words: Who wants to play through kiddie games to get decent screenshots?
Riamus (8480) on 1/29/2007 9:48 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Corn Popper wrote--]I'd rather have that than not to have a game listed at all... at least it's an acknowledgement of the game... as it's been said... we're about documenting games... the level of documentation varies... documentation does not mean you have to "have" a description in order to document it... what about my suggestion on at least having another item in place of description in order to get a game added?
since we document all sortof games from the hardcore to the kiddie games we're missing out on a lot... even those other sites hardly ever document those kiddie games...
just as an example... we're losing out on a lot of info that could get entered for kiddie games... how many people here would even add those? who wants to play through kiddie games to get a decent description? [/Q --end Corn Popper wrote--]
Well then, let's just drop the entire idea of the site. Let's just go to a listing site that does nothing except give a list of all games ever made. That way we have everything and it's quick and painless. Obviously, that's not a good thing, but what you're suggesting is the same idea.
As far as the kid games... they are generally easier to write descriptions for than other games. They aren't entered much because few want to deal with them... not because of the description, but because they don't care about them. That won't change.
Игги Друге (46653) on 1/29/2007 9:24 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Corn Popper wrote--]it's not about competition, it's about finally handling the issue of the painstaking process of getting a basic game entry listed which is hindering growth [/Q --end Corn Popper wrote--] That process is by design, it's made to make it a little difficult. And the site is growing. It's covering a lot of games, about as many as we can expect given the premises. [Q --start Corn Popper wrote--] relaxing the rules is probably a bad title... the standards will still remain high... but the basic requirement to get a game listed would change... an approver would still be expected to verify that the game exists with correct release info [/Q --end Corn Popper wrote--] I think you fail to see the importance of a description when verifying a new entry.
Игги Друге (46653) on 1/29/2007 9:20 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Unicorn Lynx wrote--]Frankly, I'm surprised that the admins are talking about "relaxing the rules". As I recall, the last four years were all about tightening the rules. The standards have become higher. A large group of approvers tries to keep low quality information away from the site. Descriptions, reviews, covers and screenshots that would have been approved in 1999 are WIPed and worked on now. We pay more attention to merging and splitting game entries.[/Q --end Unicorn Lynx wrote--] Well, we won't have to bother about merging and splitting entries anymore, since the difference between Batman and Batman wouldn't be apparent without a description.
Riamus (8480) on 1/27/2007 8:05 PM · Permalink · Report
If a wish list/have list is really what people want, then let them add games that we DO NOT HAVE yet. This is the only way that people can ever have a COMPLETE wish list or have list anyhow. There will always be games missing from the database, so you'll never have a complete listing unless you can add games that are not yet in the database.
Trixter (8952) on 1/27/2007 8:20 PM · edited · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Riamus wrote--]If a wish list/have list is really what people want, then let them add games that we DO NOT HAVE yet. This is the only way that people can ever have a COMPLETE wish list or have list anyhow. There will always be games missing from the database, so you'll never have a complete listing unless you can add games that are not yet in the database. [/Q --end Riamus wrote--]
Agreed, and we are kicking it around internally. (To clarify: the "adding games we don't have yet" part is for lists only, not entries. I don't want to start another 100-post thread :-)
chirinea (47507) on 1/24/2007 7:49 AM · Permalink · Report
Let us all remember today's Random Thought:
Our design philosophy has always been quality over quantity. Sure, we could've populated MobyGames with over 50,000 game titles, but what good is that when every single game entry you view is nearly empty? --Jim Leonard
=P
Depeche Mike (17454) on 1/24/2007 2:54 PM · Permalink · Report
I'm all for quality over quantity as well but sometimes what can happen is that a description for some games is unnecessarily long. I think it'd be good to take a new game at least with a one line description if you guys are gonna go with the relaxation of the rules. That way at least you kinda know which game it is because there's a chance with some of the more obscure titles there could be confusion over remembered games and their titles if you don't own them anymore.
Indra was here (20752) on 1/24/2007 6:51 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start chirinea wrote--]Let us all remember today's Random Thought:
Our design philosophy has always been quality over quantity. Sure, we could've populated MobyGames with over 50,000 game titles, but what good is that when every single game entry you view is nearly empty? --Jim Leonard
=P [/Q --end chirinea wrote--]
I think this concludes our little discussion.
Unicorn Lynx (181769) on 1/25/2007 4:37 AM · Permalink · Report
Amen to that :-)
Trixter (8952) on 1/27/2007 6:20 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start chirinea wrote--]Let us all remember today's Random Thought:
Our design philosophy has always been quality over quantity. Sure, we could've populated MobyGames with over 50,000 game titles, but what good is that when every single game entry you view is nearly empty? --Jim Leonard [/Q --end chirinea wrote--]
That was written in 1999. It's 8 years later. We don't have that problem today, and I think we're all overestimating the amount of complete crap we'd get.
The Most Wanted query is where longtime veterans who have nothing left in their collection to contribute will eventually migrate. I will do the same when my personal collection is exhausted. We can all still keep MobyGames quality over quantity.
Riamus (8480) on 1/27/2007 8:23 PM · Permalink · Report
We don't have that problem today because we hold quality high. Let's look at a scenario...
We start accepting games without descriptions or with 2-line descriptions to get more games entered. We get more approvers to handle the workload. We start getting a ton of games without descriptions... mostly from games that are 10+ years old (new games usually will be entered with descriptions because they are new and people have played them recently). Most contributors don't HAVE the games they'd be adding. They are trolling the internet looking at gaming sites. They will get the minimum requirements (which now does not include descriptions) and submit the games. This will be the most that will be submitted for the majority of those older games because finding credits for those older games without owning the game would be difficult and you can't take someone else's cover art, so you wouldn't have that either. For games that old, it's even very difficult to get tech specs except on certain systems that are well-documented already. You also wouldn't have screenshots because the person doesn't own the game. And because we'll have hundreds (thousands) of 10+ year old games without descriptions, they won't be updated because most people haven't played it in that long and many of the games entered will probably be obscure or bad games that no one even played.
At this point, we'll have most of the older games being submitted without anything except platform, genre, publisher/developer, and release date (and title, of course). This would be VERY minimal information and wouldn't really help people. We'd be just a game list site, which someone said the original plan was. If that's all you guys want this site to be, then drop all requirements except Title and Release Year and Platform. I could literally add 500-1000 games in the next 24 hours if that's all you care about. We can have just another of the MANY game listing sites if that's all that is important.
Yes, we will help the relatively few people who still own their 10+ year old games (and boxes) so that they can submit those scans/credits/etc. And, yes, it won't likely have much impact on new games because many people play the new stuff and can fix those descriptions. However, we will be hit hard for the old stuff that will be submitted. Most of it will NEVER be rewritten. Just look at the number of descriptions already waiting to be rewritten... and we haven't even started this yet. There are a LOT of them and they have been sitting there for a LONG time. What is going to change to make people start fixing them? And fixing hundreds and thousands of new ones?
Honestly, I don't see this doing anything to actually IMPROVE the site. All I see is a drop in quality, a quick way to add tons of games in basically an empty list format, and a quick way to bring in more people through Google and other search engines by just listing tons of games with no (or little) information so that people visit and leave without having any good information. That may bring in people to help boost the ads displayed and perhaps even clicked, but we'd have MORE people leaving without having found what they were looking for than we do now because Google/etc would send them here thinking we had the information that we didn't. I know that if I visit a site that doesn't have what I'm looking for, I usually don't bother ever going back to it. But if I visit a site that DOES have what I'm looking for, then I'm likely to go there again the next time I need something.
If this thread wasn't started and we just put up a poll asking:
Is a description for games on this site important to you when viewing a game entry?
* Yes
* No
I bet you'd see 80-90% (at least) voting "yes". Now that we have this thread, it's too late for that poll because it would be thrown off with people knowing why they are being asked (people will change their vote just to not have to write a description).
Marko Poutiainen (1151) on 1/28/2007 1:25 AM · Permalink · Report
And before you know it the four horsemen of apocalypse arrive.It's also worth remembering that allowing poor descriptions will help global warming and increase famine.
Unicorn Lynx (181769) on 1/28/2007 7:54 AM · Permalink · Report
I think there is really nothing more to add. I sign my name under what you wrote.
Indra was here (20752) on 1/28/2007 5:26 PM · Permalink · Report
Er, who in the hell is going to enter the game descriptions for those hundreds of new games anyways?
Игги Друге (46653) on 1/27/2007 8:33 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Trixter wrote--] [Q2 --start chirinea wrote--]Let us all remember today's Random Thought:
Our design philosophy has always been quality over quantity. Sure, we could've populated MobyGames with over 50,000 game titles, but what good is that when every single game entry you view is nearly empty? --Jim Leonard [/Q2 --end chirinea wrote--]
That was written in 1999. It's 8 years later. We don't have that problem today, and I think we're all overestimating the amount of complete crap we'd get. [/Q --end Trixter wrote--] Exactly. Now we have 31 000 game entries, most of which contain a modicum of useful information and which can't be considered empty. 31 000 is not very far from 50 000, so perhaps the random thinker was correct?
Indra was here (20752) on 1/28/2007 5:23 PM · edited · Permalink · Report
Gah. Why is thread still going on.
Look, under normal "humane/social" circumstances, I would side with the admins.
However due to consistency and formalities of policy, that is NOT an option. I live by the book and by the book it shall be done.
Quality over Quantity. No one said freakin nothing about we "must get new games in the database ASAP". No that is NOT in the policy statement, that is NOT in the mobygames FAQ, that is NOT in any freakin documentation of mobygames, PERIOD.
Unless you decide to change the mission goals, then by law, you are overstepping the rules.
Laws were created to keep men consistent to past decisions/agreements. This is one fine example.
PS. Or you could "bribe" us by offering 10 points per description... cough
Marko Poutiainen (1151) on 1/29/2007 2:55 PM · Permalink · Report
OK, I have an idea that might suit everybody. It includes two things, one of which has already been discussed:
- Any entry that lacks a good description is marked as "incomplete" and this is clearly stated on the entry page.
- (And here's the idea) As long as an entry is incomplete, only half of contribution points is given for any contribution. Once someone writes an acceptable description, the rest of the points are awarded.
This would make it possible to have entries that lack a description while holding the high standards (since it's clearly stated that the entry is not considered to be good enough yet) and also give incentive for people to write the description. You could miss out on tens of points per game if the entry is incomplete.
This could, IMO, be applied retroactively as well. If any approver detects a poor description that would not be deemed acceptable by todays standards, (s)he could mark it incomplete. A message would be sent to any contributors that they have lost points on this entry until a decent description has been accepted.
Corn Popper (69019) on 1/29/2007 3:15 PM · Permalink · Report
the addition of the flagging system would show the incomplete entries
the variable points for description I think would achieve the same idea here... this will probably happen regardless
the problem with the points system right now is that it has no real value other than to measure a person's contribution level... some people just like to get points... perhaps if we brought the game giveaway back to the points system? that would encourage people to contribute more?
Игги Друге (46653) on 1/29/2007 9:34 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Marko Poutiainen wrote--]OK, I have an idea that might suit everybody. It includes two things, one of which has already been discussed:
- Any entry that lacks a good description is marked as "incomplete" and this is clearly stated on the entry page.
- (And here's the idea) As long as an entry is incomplete, only half of contribution points is given for any contribution. Once someone writes an acceptable description, the rest of the points are awarded.[/Q --end Marko Poutiainen wrote--]
One problem with this is that having incomplete entries is incompatible with the quality stance, and the fact that it would clutter up Google with more useless pages. Another problem is that it is dependent on the value of points, which is disputable.
Riamus (8480) on 1/29/2007 9:51 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Iggy Drougge wrote--] [Q2 --start Marko Poutiainen wrote--]OK, I have an idea that might suit everybody. It includes two things, one of which has already been discussed:
- Any entry that lacks a good description is marked as "incomplete" and this is clearly stated on the entry page.
- (And here's the idea) As long as an entry is incomplete, only half of contribution points is given for any contribution. Once someone writes an acceptable description, the rest of the points are awarded. [/Q2 --end Marko Poutiainen wrote--]
One problem with this is that having incomplete entries is incompatible with the quality stance, and the fact that it would clutter up Google with more useless pages. Another problem is that it is dependent on the value of points, which is disputable. [/Q --end Iggy Drougge wrote--]
Exactly.
Marko Poutiainen (1151) on 1/29/2007 10:09 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Iggy Drougge wrote--]One problem with this is that having incomplete entries is incompatible with the quality stance, and the fact that it would clutter up Google with more useless pages. Another problem is that it is dependent on the value of points, which is disputable.[/Q --end Iggy Drougge wrote--] So, would Wikipedia be better off if they banned those incomplete pages? I have often found some info from pages that were marked incomplete so I know I'm much better off with that policy.
What do you mean by "disputable"? It's just an idea to increase the value of the descriptions considerably in a scenario where it's not a requirement any more. I know not everyone is interested in points, but some people are. If they weren't couldn't we just remove the entire points system? Who would say "aye" to this?
I just fail to see why description is the be all and end all of quality. It's like nothing else matters, as long as there is a description of some sort, especially remembering that those descriptions are often written with incomplete information and approved by people who have no clue about the game. So there really is no way of telling if these descriptions even are any good. They could be completely misleading for all I know. For instance, is this an acceptable description:
"X puts the player in command of a space freighter crewed by a host of quirky aliens. The player must pilot the ship through pirate-infested space and needs to decide whether to fight off or attempt to evade the space robbers. Time is short and commands must be timely and prudent as numerous emergencies crop up as the ship is attacked and systems fail or are destroyed. The player is challenged to get the precious cargo to its destination!"
I replaced the name of the game with X. The game was very different from pretty much anything else I have seen but you wouldn't guess it from that description. Anyone who can honestly tell they can recognise the game in question?
Игги Друге (46653) on 1/29/2007 11:31 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Marko Poutiainen wrote--] So, would Wikipedia be better off if they banned those incomplete pages? I have often found some info from pages that were marked incomplete so I know I'm much better off with that policy. [/Q --end Marko Poutiainen wrote--] Of course, some pages marked as stubs on Wikipedia I find perfectly acceptable if you take the subject matter into concern. But what we are facing here are not stubs, but what on Wikipedia is called "sub-stubs". [Q --start Marko Poutiainen wrote--] What do you mean by "disputable"? It's just an idea to increase the value of the descriptions considerably in a scenario where it's not a requirement any more. I know not everyone is interested in points, but some people are. If they weren't couldn't we just remove the entire points system? Who would say "aye" to this? [/Q --end Marko Poutiainen wrote--] Points are fun, and sometimes not so fun, since it makes what could be fun into a "game" with a "high score" list. It can serve as some kind of gratification but you also run the risk of it being turned into an elitist metric. It's difficult to say if it's more good or more bad, but in the end, it's a purely immaterial reward which must be weighed against the effort involved. [Q --start Marko Poutiainen wrote--] I just fail to see why description is the be all and end all of quality. It's like nothing else matters, as long as there is a description of some sort, especially remembering that those descriptions are often written with incomplete information and approved by people who have no clue about the game. So there really is no way of telling if these descriptions even are any good. They could be completely misleading for all I know. For instance, is this an acceptable description: [/Q --end Marko Poutiainen wrote--] I don't see it as the only measure for quality – in fact, I always strive to submit as complete an entry in one go, with screenshots and credits and release info for several countries. But if you're going to submit a PS3 game or a game which fails to work in emulators, it's often the one substantial thing you and I can submit. And it is, which is why we're having this discussion in the first place, the most demanding part of a new game entry. It is also the biggest single thing to set this site apart from other game catalogues. It means we're lagging behind, but that is how things work. [Q --start Marko Poutiainen wrote--] "X puts the player in command of a space freighter crewed by a host of quirky aliens. The player must pilot the ship through pirate-infested space and needs to decide whether to fight off or attempt to evade the space robbers. Time is short and commands must be timely and prudent as numerous emergencies crop up as the ship is attacked and systems fail or are destroyed. The player is challenged to get the precious cargo to its destination!" [/Q --end Marko Poutiainen wrote--] No, it's bloody worthless. When I read that, it sounds like a synopsis for an action movie. Where is the game? Is this 2D or 3D? Do you shoot, do you have powerups, are there cutscenes or is this a text adventure? [Q --start Marko Poutiainen wrote--] I replaced the name of the game with X. The game was very different from pretty much anything else I have seen but you wouldn't guess it from that description. Anyone who can honestly tell they can recognise the game in question? [/Q --end Marko Poutiainen wrote--] I would have WIPed that description back. A basic description takes up both story (if there is any at all) and the gameplay. This description doesn't have a single sentence about gameplay.
chirinea (47507) on 1/29/2007 11:44 PM · edited · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Marko Poutiainen wrote--]Anyone who can honestly tell they can recognise the game in question? [/Q --end Marko Poutiainen wrote--] The game is Psi-5 Trading Company. Er, ok, I cheated, I've used the search engine. Anyway, as Iggy said he would, I'd also WIP that description. And that's why we're arguing that a good description is important. If that game had a good description, it could be recognized. From times to times we get people on this forum asking for help to find a game; usually they provide us some piece of info about the game, what was the game's perspective, what he had to do on that game, how the graphics looked like, etc. The more info we get, the easier it is to guess which game the person is looking for. And that's why descriptions are important: to make one know the game.
As you can see, we already have enough bad descriptions on file. That description you've mentioned was contributed in 05/05/2004, which make's me wonder why it was approved that way, since, as far as I know, in 2004 the rules were maybe as tight as they are now.
Riamus (8480) on 1/30/2007 12:48 AM · Permalink · Report
You should have seen the WoW: The Burning Crusade description. I WIP'd it back mentioning specific things that should be added. It was resubmitted and another approver approved the game. The description was a single paragraph that was little more than a comma separated list of some of the new things in the expansion. I rewrote it because it's one of those games that I can't allow to sit there with a bad description. Anyhow, whoever approved it let that really bad description past and that was just a couple of weeks ago.
Granted, it's an expansion and often you can list just the changes for an expansion. However, there are a LOT of changes and new story to go with it. And you can't just list half of the changes (additions) and leave the rest out. In the end, many changes are listed in a list on my description as well, but the major ones are described and all of them are listed. It also included the updated storyline. I'm not a writer, but this did not take much effort to do considering I had the game, had played it, and looked on Blizzard's site to verify that I had all of the new stuff listed. It did not take long to do. If someone wants to improve, they can, but it is at least high enough quality for an expansion's description to hold the site's high standards.
The point is that we're approving bad descriptions even today. I don't know who approved it or why they did and I really don't care who it was. But if we have approvers letting things slide for whatever reason, then they need to be asked to improve their standards and level of quality. I think that's part of the issue here... some approvers let things slide and some approvers WIP or Reject really minor things that they could easily fix themselves. If all approvers stuck to the high standards of the site and were helpful to contributors rather than WIP'ing or Rejecting everything, I think that alone would keep new contributors from leaving. I've seen many people complaining about how one approver approved all of their bad contributions and another approver rejected or WIP'd others.
Corn Popper (69019) on 1/30/2007 4:15 AM · Permalink · Report
it's not about standards of quality that the entry was approved the way it was... it's about personal views, what one person views as quality enough is not the same as for you... for this reason we'll always have what others would view as bad descriptions
with the amount of approvers we have it's hard to keep everyone on the same page for one... adding more approvers that we need would also make it a bad situation as obviously peoples' views are different
Riamus (8480) on 1/30/2007 2:43 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Corn Popper wrote--]it's not about standards of quality that the entry was approved the way it was... it's about personal views, what one person views as quality enough is not the same as for you... for this reason we'll always have what others would view as bad descriptions
with the amount of approvers we have it's hard to keep everyone on the same page for one... adding more approvers that we need would also make it a bad situation as obviously peoples' views are different [/Q --end Corn Popper wrote--]
I think that if we put in the effort to get the approvers together (even in small groups) and explain to them (and me) what is expected and what is quality or not quality, it would help. And, as I suggested, if someone approves something that is low quality, it should be pointed out to them.
That is another part where I see you suggesting letting the site's quality drop. If you KNOW that approvers aren't upholding basic standards, then why are you just saying "oh well, everyone has different standards" instead of doing something to FIX it? That's a very bad approach if you want high quality on this site. Yes, we'll all have different views on good or bad descriptions and whatever else, but you (as admins) should take it upon yourselves to help correct this and to minimalize the amount of variance between approvers.
Marko Poutiainen (1151) on 1/30/2007 7:15 AM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start chirinea wrote--]As you can see, we already have enough bad descriptions on file. That description you've mentioned was contributed in 05/05/2004, which make's me wonder why it was approved that way, since, as far as I know, in 2004 the rules were maybe as tight as they are now.[/Q --end chirinea wrote--] Well, that's my point. Bad descriptions are excepted even today. Besides, why are screenshots not considered essential? Aren't they just as important?
chirinea (47507) on 1/30/2007 7:23 AM · Permalink · Report
Yes, they are important, I don't know if "as important as" descriptions, since they can tell you a lot about a game IF they are good ones and have good captions.
The thing is, we've already said why we don't need any policy to improve screenshot contribution: they're paid 2 MobyBucks each, and are easy to take. OTOH, descriptions are a lot harder to contribute.
Anyway, did we say at any time that we should change the policy regarding screenshots? I mean, what does screenshots have to do with keeping the description standards high?
Marko Poutiainen (1151) on 1/30/2007 8:07 AM · Permalink · Report
I'm just wondering the double standards, that's all.
Игги Друге (46653) on 1/30/2007 1:45 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Marko Poutiainen wrote--] [Q2 --start chirinea wrote--]As you can see, we already have enough bad descriptions on file. That description you've mentioned was contributed in 05/05/2004, which make's me wonder why it was approved that way, since, as far as I know, in 2004 the rules were maybe as tight as they are now. [/Q2 --end chirinea wrote--] Well, that's my point. Bad descriptions are excepted even today. Besides, why are screenshots not considered essential? Aren't they just as important? [/Q --end Marko Poutiainen wrote--]
Screenshots require a lot of technical equipment in many cases. Usually it's not as easy as starting your NES emulator and press "print screen" a lot of times.
Marko Poutiainen (1151) on 1/30/2007 3:00 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Iggy Drougge wrote--]Screenshots require a lot of technical equipment in many cases. Usually it's not as easy as starting your NES emulator and press "print screen" a lot of times.[/Q --end Iggy Drougge wrote--] Isn't that abandoning quality just because something is hard to do?
Riamus (8480) on 1/30/2007 5:37 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Marko Poutiainen wrote--] [Q2 --start Iggy Drougge wrote--]Screenshots require a lot of technical equipment in many cases. Usually it's not as easy as starting your NES emulator and press "print screen" a lot of times. [/Q2 --end Iggy Drougge wrote--] Isn't that abandoning quality just because something is hard to do? [/Q --end Marko Poutiainen wrote--]
No. With screenshots, you need either software or hardware that can be expensive. With a description, you just need to write it. That is a major difference between the two... they cannot be compared as if they are the same thing.
Игги Друге (46653) on 1/30/2007 5:41 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Marko Poutiainen wrote--] [Q2 --start Iggy Drougge wrote--]Screenshots require a lot of technical equipment in many cases. Usually it's not as easy as starting your NES emulator and press "print screen" a lot of times. [/Q2 --end Iggy Drougge wrote--] Isn't that abandoning quality just because something is hard to do? [/Q --end Marko Poutiainen wrote--] No, it's about not requiring contributors to be rich and technically skilled. Writing a description requires nothing more than a keyboard.
Marko Poutiainen (1151) on 1/30/2007 7:26 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Iggy Drougge wrote--]No, it's about not requiring contributors to be rich and technically skilled. Writing a description requires nothing more than a keyboard. [/Q --end Iggy Drougge wrote--] But you need something more.. i.e. an ability to write a good description. Someone might say it's easier to take screenshots than write descriptions, and no matter how you twist it, that's their opinion.
Riamus (8480) on 1/30/2007 7:29 PM · Permalink · Report
IF you have the software/hardware, it can be. That doesn't change the fact that a description doesn't require additional software or hardware that people may not have. We can't force people to add stuff that requires them to purchase additional software/hardware. You cannot compare those 2 things as they are not equitable.
Marko Poutiainen (1151) on 1/30/2007 8:27 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Riamus wrote--]IF you have the software/hardware, it can be. That doesn't change the fact that a description doesn't require additional software or hardware that people may not have. We can't force people to add stuff that requires them to purchase additional software/hardware. You cannot compare those 2 things as they are not equitable.[/Q --end Riamus wrote--] But you want to force people to buy hardware to play the game in order to be able to write a good description? Hello?
Just as well, usually taking screenshots is simple. Not always, but often.
Riamus (8480) on 1/30/2007 11:01 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Marko Poutiainen wrote--] But you want to force people to buy hardware to play the game in order to be able to write a good description? Hello? [/Q --end Marko Poutiainen wrote--]
You don't need the game or the system to write a description. Many contributors write descriptions based on what they find on other sites or on the box itself. They paraphrase what others wrote and make their own description that way.
Marko Poutiainen (1151) on 1/31/2007 7:29 AM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Riamus wrote--]You don't need the game or the system to write a description. Many contributors write descriptions based on what they find on other sites or on the box itself. They paraphrase what others wrote and make their own description that way.[/Q --end Riamus wrote--] So, you think you can write a good description based on the text on the box?
Riamus (8480) on 1/31/2007 10:57 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Marko Poutiainen wrote--] [Q2 --start Riamus wrote--]You don't need the game or the system to write a description. Many contributors write descriptions based on what they find on other sites or on the box itself. They paraphrase what others wrote and make their own description that way. [/Q2 --end Riamus wrote--] So, you think you can write a good description based on the text on the box? [/Q --end Marko Poutiainen wrote--]
Some seem to be able to. And if they look at the box as well as descriptions found elsewhere and perhaps even some reviews, then they will have plenty of information researched in order to write a good description. Personally, I think people do better after playing the game, but there are those who are good at researching a game and paraphrasing it. I could probably write a pretty decent description for Spore even though it's not out yet, and I obviously haven't played it, just because I've read so much about it. Note that I'd definitely not suggest only using a box as that's more marketing than actual useful information about a game.
The point is that it CAN be done and many people already do just that. I do think that some of the people who do that are among the ones that want the description requirement removed because researching a game to get a description is actual work, but that's their choice. I stand by my belief that the SITE comes first. We shouldn't ask to lower the quality of the site just to make things easier for people.
Игги Друге (46653) on 1/31/2007 6:34 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Marko Poutiainen wrote--] [Q2 --start Riamus wrote--]IF you have the software/hardware, it can be. That doesn't change the fact that a description doesn't require additional software or hardware that people may not have. We can't force people to add stuff that requires them to purchase additional software/hardware. You cannot compare those 2 things as they are not equitable. [/Q2 --end Riamus wrote--] But you want to force people to buy hardware to play the game in order to be able to write a good description? Hello? [/Q --end Marko Poutiainen wrote--] No, you are the one who wants to do that. For all I care, you can steal your games and hardware. Of all games I have submitted, the majority are pirate copies. [Q --start Marko Poutiainen wrote--] Just as well, usually taking screenshots is simple. Not always, but often. [/Q --end Marko Poutiainen wrote--] So is writing descriptions.
Игги Друге (46653) on 1/30/2007 7:46 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Marko Poutiainen wrote--] [Q2 --start Iggy Drougge wrote--]No, it's about not requiring contributors to be rich and technically skilled. Writing a description requires nothing more than a keyboard. [/Q2 --end Iggy Drougge wrote--] But you need something more.. i.e. an ability to write a good description. Someone might say it's easier to take screenshots than write descriptions, and no matter how you twist it, that's their opinion. [/Q --end Marko Poutiainen wrote--] You can learn to do that. After the first 100, it's no big deal anymore.
Martin Smith (81743) on 1/29/2007 10:22 PM · Permalink · Report
As far as the issue of writing descriptions in English when it is not your first language, a compromise might be to allow descriptions to be written in another language and then BabelFished, with the approver tidying it up if neccessary. For example, I translated my Grand Prix 3 description from English to Spanish and then back to English. Even though this gives twice the opportunity for errors to slip in, the results are perfectly readable:
Magnificent Prix 3 aims to be a complete simulation of championship 1998 of the world of formula 1, and offers to all the tracks, equipment and conductors. You can practice racetracks (that is recommended to learn its dispositions and to work in the car setup) or compete in single races or the complete championship. Each weekend of the race has sessions of the practice and the qualification, and the lengths of these can be modified for particular requirements, like the level of ability of the conductors of the opposition. There are 7 aids that lead available, including automatic brakes and gears and an option of indestructibility - because you compete with in the levels of one more a higher ability, less and less of these they are available. Disposition of car does in detail exact, with occasion to change adjustments of wing (that negotiates of squeeze against speed straight-line), brake balances (affecting how the handles of the car under restraining) and quotients of gear (acceleration which it negotiates dull against superior speed), or as so complicated has taste of packers, extinguishers and the height of the stroll - the manual explains it in considerable detail, so or as offering leading extremities. Before each race you choose your strategy of the hole and tires the compound - those with a in the short term better wearing down of the squeeze towards outside more fast, specially if its style that leads is aggressive. Wet competing with is including, that it requires to lead careful and the strategic options much more shrewd as far as which type of tires to use and when to mark with holes to change them.
Corn Popper (69019) on 1/30/2007 4:23 AM · Permalink · Report
you can help all you want but you have to maintain a balance and note that I never said what you quote as "admins" saying
Riamus (8480) on 1/30/2007 2:44 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Corn Popper wrote--]you can help all you want but you have to maintain a balance and note that I never said what you quote as "admins" saying [/Q --end Corn Popper wrote--]
I don't have time to find it now, but I actually do think it was you who basically said that either in this thread or the approver thread on this topic. I'll find it and quote it later.
Riamus (8480) on 1/31/2007 11:00 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Corn Popper wrote--]you can help all you want but you have to maintain a balance and note that I never said what you quote as "admins" saying [/Q --end Corn Popper wrote--]
Ok, here is your quote.
[q]leaving description to the approvers to "fix" is way too much work I think.. the queues are bad already as it is... [/q]
Riamus (8480) on 1/29/2007 10:37 PM · Permalink · Report
Ok, we've beat this thing so hard that it's mutilated. Here's the thing... I know at least Corn Popper has agreed that there are cons to this suggestion to remove the description requirement. I don't feel like seeing if other admins have also agreed, but it's pretty obvious that there are many cons and some are very severe. We've stated them over and over and if someone doesn't see them, they are purposely ignoring them.
With the number of problems with the suggested change, it would be a bad idea to go through with it. I understand the desire to get more games added more quickly. There isn't anything wrong with that as long as quality stays high and we have few, if any, cons (and none severe). That isn't the case right now. As such, I strongly suggest that we choose NOT to do this as it is currently proposed. Scrap it and start fresh. How ELSE can to get more games added? How can you do it without severe cons? If you want to do something to speed things up and make it easier, that's fine. But find another solution that is not so obviously flawed. We've had things this way for years and it has worked okay. It will not kill the site to leave things the way they are for another few months or even a couple more years while another plan is designed that has no flaws (or few). Don't rush this through without regard to the consequences. Take a break and realize it has problems and FIX all of those problems or design a new plan. There is no hurry.
Now, I know this site is yours (admins). As such, you should be able to do anything you want with it. However, considering it is a user contributed site, I would hope that you care enough to listen to the advice of those who contribute -- especially those who have been here through the years and have been strong supporters of the site. We aren't spouting nonsense. We have legitimate concerns and right now they are being completely ignored or are being disputed with things that don't make any sense. Right now, even the few suggestions we've come up with on relatively short notice have fallen on deaf ears with few (if any) comments from admins on them... not even to say they don't like the idea or that it won't work for whatever reason. You guys aren't stupid, but neither are we. Please don't forget that. Our concerns are not unfounded.
For those who aren't admins or approvers (I think approvers are all siding on keeping things as they are and admins are all siding on changing them) and who believe we should drop the requirement, take a moment to read through all of the problems with doing so. Can you honestly say that it's worth having all of those problems just so that you do not need to write a description? Think about the site rather than just whether or not you like descriptions. There may be other ways that would be better and that would suit you fine. Don't you think we should try to find a better solution that may be just right for you and for the site rather than just throwing together a poor solution that causes many problems? I won't repeat those problems... they are all written down in this thread already. If you didn't see them, read it again. :)
Riamus (8480) on 1/30/2007 1:01 AM · edited · Permalink · Report
I guess the problem I have is that the majority of responses to all of our posts explaining the problems with the current suggestion are being replied to with comments stating why people want it changed. I'm not seeing replies explaining why something we mentioned as being wrong or bad about these changes is not a problem or will be addressed and fixed. I'm not even really seeing comments about those problems by anyone except those of us who are pointing them out. Instead, all (or at least the majority) of the posts are about why it's good to do it.
Now, I AGREE that making changes to the site to get more games added faster is GOOD. I AGREE that making changes to the site to make it easier to add games is GOOD. I think everyone here agrees about that. So rather than continually pointing out why it should be done, start addressing ways to make it happen without creating problems. Yes, those should happen... once we have a good plan and not a flawed plan. You don't need to keep trying to convince us that those things are good. We (I think everyone) agree that those are good goals. But we are listing all of the problems with the currently proposed solution and no one is commenting on how to fix those problems or how to change the plan so that there aren't those problems. Rob said that we should come up with some other way to do it if we think this way is bad. Why must WE (the ones who are pointing out the problems) be the only ones trying to come up with other solutions? Instead of wasting time on this long thread; going back and forth over the current plan, we should just accept that the current plan is flawed and everyone try coming up with something else -- admins included. The current plan needs improved or changed or completely redone. As it stands now, it is a bad plan and should not be approved.
The fact that no one is disputing the problems and yet no one is trying to come up with ways to fix them and instead are just continuing to talk about how we need more games added more quickly and we need it easier for people to add games is getting frustrating.
For that matter, there are some MAJOR issues that have yet to be fixed on the site (ones that have been around for years) that are more important than changing something that has been this way for a long time and has worked well. Personally, I would rather see all of the major issues taken care of before worrying about something like this.
Corn Popper (69019) on 1/30/2007 4:42 AM · Permalink · Report
why do I put the issue on you guys that disagree? because you guys are the one disagreeing... so I want to hear a more viable way to get games entered in easier... the site is user contributed... so here's a chance to contribute
sure I know we'll need more approvers and other things need to be added to handle the flow, so it may take a bit to start, this is why the discussion is happening now... to get the ball rolling
Unicorn Lynx (181769) on 1/30/2007 5:42 AM · Permalink · Report
Yes, but will someone please explain to me why is there suddenly such a hurry to get more games into the database in an "easier way"? As I said in an earlier post, the quality of the site has been increasing over the time. But the quantity has also increased. We have more approvers, more contributors, more game entries, more platforms than ever before. I think there's nothing wrong with the pace of the site. We keep getting new game entries. What's the hurry? Why suddenly this urge to change things, to lower the standards in order to get more entries? Why are you dissatisfied with the current speed and quantity?
Corn Popper (69019) on 1/30/2007 6:18 AM · Permalink · Report
why do you think it's all of a sudden? it's a problem for a long and it's time we start looking to fix the problem
there are a lot of "ifs" that could happen if we increase the amount of games.... more exposure, more traffic, more contributors, more revenue to help fund better harder.. programming time, events, giveaways are just a few things
Unicorn Lynx (181769) on 1/30/2007 6:51 AM · Permalink · Report
What is the problem you are talking about? I don't understand what the problem is. You think we don't have enough exposure, traffic, contributors, etc.? Is that the problem? Well, if we have to allow description-less entries in order to get more of those, then I say this trade is not worth it. I'd rather have less of all those things than entries without descriptions. And most of the approvers who have posted here have the same opinion. Don't you see yourself that the sacrifice is simply too big?
You are speaking about getting more things: I'm speaking about making the site better (or at least not lowering its current standards!). So you want quantity, while most approvers want quality. That's just what I was talking about. There is a conflict of ideologies, and the admins, for some strange reason, are against the very ideology that made this site unique. Trxiter is literally speaking the opposite of what he said when he conceived MobyGames.
Your argumentations can be summed up in a following way: 1) The quality won't suffer if we allow description-less entries; and 2) We allow description-less entries to get more users/exposure etc.
I think we have all said enough to prove that the first point is not valid. The quality of the site will suffer, and suffer significantly. If this decision causes such a big argument, if it is driving approvers to the point of devoting less efforts and time to the site, then maybe something is wrong with it.
As for the second point, it brings us to the ideological conflict I was talking about. Quality vs. quantity. Better vs. more. I see no solution for this conflict because what you and Trixter say is a deviation from the original concept of MobyGames. Like other approvers, I feel the site will lose its very essence if it allows description-less game entries.
In fact MobyGames can have both quality and quantity. I see the quantity of everything you spoke about has risen significantly in recent years. I don't see any reason for the hurry, I don't see any problem worth mentioning.
It is always possible to have even more, but this should not be our first priority. Our first priority, as the other approvers pointed out, is maintain the high standards of the site. They shouldn't be sacrificed for any reason. Especially not now, when the site anyway has more exposure, traffic, contributors, games, platforms, approvers, etc. than ever before.
Ivan Napreenko (585) on 1/30/2007 11:39 AM · Permalink · Report
I also hate decriptions. Mobygames database will bee much complex if user can add games without description. I also try add rare games never play them, but submit rejected - bad description. Year pass, nobody add that games. I think mobygames must bee the biggest and the most complex database of all games all platforms all countries, and not a database of games with good description. With politic of good english description, database will never bee complex.
for example, who will write descriptions for non English game which released in non English countries?
Unicorn Lynx (181769) on 1/30/2007 12:12 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Ivan Napreenko wrote--]Ffor example, who will write descriptions for non English game which released in non English countries?[/Q --end Ivan Napreenko wrote--] Did you see how many Japanese-only games we have in the database? Ther eis no other site in English language with so much information about Japanese-only games. And do you know we don't even have Japanese contributors? People like Iggy Drougge and myself submitted many Japanese-only games, even though Japanese is not our mother language (my knowledge of Japanese is mediocre). Why? Because we want to make MobyGames a better place. If somebody doesn't want to make efforts and to write good descriptions, he is free not to do so. He can submit stuff for already existing entries.
Игги Друге (46653) on 1/30/2007 2:00 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Ivan Napreenko wrote--]I also hate decriptions. Mobygames database will bee much complex if user can add games without description. I also try add rare games never play them, but submit rejected - bad description. Year pass, nobody add that games. I think mobygames must bee the biggest and the most complex database of all games all platforms all countries, and not a database of games with good description. With politic of good english description, database will never bee complex. [/Q --end Ivan Napreenko wrote--] Wikipedia will never be complete either. That is the very nature of projects of this kind; they're too big to begin with, and will only be finished once our grandchildren are users.
The Swedish national dictionary was started in the 19th century. In a few years, they will be finished with the letter "T". [Q --start Ivan Napreenko wrote--] for example, who will write descriptions for non English game which released in non English countries? [/Q --end Ivan Napreenko wrote--] I submitted a Japanese game yesterday, another one last weekend, and a French game the week before that. I also approved another Japanese game yesterday, and we have a Russian user who submits a lot of French games.
Игги Друге (46653) on 1/30/2007 1:52 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Corn Popper wrote--]why do you think it's all of a sudden? it's a problem for a long and it's time we start looking to fix the problem [/Q --end Corn Popper wrote--] Oh, come on! It's a "problem" you invented more than five years ago! Don't tell me that you didn't think of this before. [Q --start Corn Popper wrote--] there are a lot of "ifs" that could happen if we increase the amount of games.... more exposure, more traffic, more contributors, more revenue to help fund better harder.. programming time, events, giveaways are just a few things [/Q --end Corn Popper wrote--] Since most of us have no part in those revenues, the above is about as interesting as what you had for dinner last night. It's none of our business. For you, this might be big business, but for the rest of us, it's quite the opposite.
Игги Друге (46653) on 1/30/2007 1:49 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Corn Popper wrote--]why do I put the issue on you guys that disagree? because you guys are the one disagreeing... so I want to hear a more viable way to get games entered in easier... the site is user contributed... so here's a chance to contribute [/Q --end Corn Popper wrote--]
I'm sorry, Cornpopper, but if there is one thing this thread has expressed, it's that this site is not about its users.
Riamus (8480) on 1/30/2007 2:49 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Corn Popper wrote--]why do I put the issue on you guys that disagree? because you guys are the one disagreeing... so I want to hear a more viable way to get games entered in easier... the site is user contributed... so here's a chance to contribute
sure I know we'll need more approvers and other things need to be added to handle the flow, so it may take a bit to start, this is why the discussion is happening now... to get the ball rolling [/Q --end Corn Popper wrote--]
Look... you should see by now that your suggestion is a bad one. We've all proved that beyond ANY doubt. So the next step is to either completely revise it or drop it and come up with something better. Instead, you're choosing to keep the idea unless one of us comes up with something better... and FAST. You won't put this on hold while people come up with another solution. You want it to be done NOW. Everything we say is being ignored based on how all of the answers are going. I've still failed to see comments from admins about how to FIX the problems we've mentioned. You are all STILL just regurgitating why you want it without care for the problems we present. Why even ask us if you won't listen?
Corn Popper (69019) on 1/30/2007 3:20 PM · Permalink · Report
nothing has been proven because nothing is in effect... you're only speculating
nothing is going forward, did you not read the post you quoted? I said the whole thing will take a bit to start whichever way we do this
you're also not commenting on other posts I've made about alternatives and modifcations to submissions
read Terok's post below, he has summed up pretty well what I've been saying
chirinea (47507) on 1/30/2007 4:47 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Corn Popper wrote--]you're also not commenting on other posts I've made about alternatives and modifications to submissions [/Q --end Corn Popper wrote--] About your suggestions, I have to say that I like the trade off idea: if "no description" then "something else". And the something else, in my opinion, would be good screenshots with good captions, so at least one can tell what the game is about.
And I've particularly liked Terok's suggestion about implementing the flagging system before dropping the descriptions.
Riamus (8480) on 1/30/2007 5:42 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Corn Popper wrote--]nothing has been proven because nothing is in effect... you're only speculating
nothing is going forward, did you not read the post you quoted? I said the whole thing will take a bit to start whichever way we do this
you're also not commenting on other posts I've made about alternatives and modifcations to submissions
read Terok's post below, he has summed up pretty well what I've been saying [/Q --end Corn Popper wrote--]
Let's see... we have listed many problems that are not speculation. We have also listed some that are speculation based on known information. Even if some of those things end up not being true, there are enough things that you will definitely have problems with the currently proposed changes.
I have commented on suggestions I have seen. If I missed some due to the length of this thread, then restate them and I'll comment on them. As for your suggestion about requiring something other than description in place of description -- I don't agree with that method. Descriptions are a KEY and BASIC part of an entry. Something like a UPC code is not. It may be useful at times, but it's not a KEY piece. I'm not sure you can convince me that another piece is equally important (and isn't already required) or is more important that could be an alternative to a description. A description is too basic and key a need for an entry to just drop.
Terok Nor (42679) on 1/30/2007 2:19 PM · Permalink · Report
OK, time to chime on this topic. My feelings are a little bit mixed, and maybe what I write now won't be too coherent.
First, while I think this possible new policy might cause some problems, I don't see the doomsday scenario that many other approvers paint in this thread.
OK, let's assume people can submit games without descriptions. And let's classify the games into two kinds: old and new. I don't see that people would suddenly start submitting hundreds of old games for the 8- and 16-Bits. Why would they? If they just want a list of all games for a certain system, they have their Hall of Lights, Lemons, Atarimanias, Nintendo and Sega listings, etc. Maybe they want MobyPoints, but there's a simple solution: no points for adding a game without description.
Maybe some older games will be added to complete the gameography of a certain developer or company or fill in the missing title in a series. I wouldn't have too much of a problem with that, actually. Having a list of all of Martin Galway's soundtracks, for example, without years of waiting because someone has to play dozens of crappy Ocean games, I wouldn't mind. And if someone is fan enough to add such cases, there probably will be someone else who is fan enough to write a description.
Now for the other case, new games. People want to add those because they just bought them and want to add them to their have list. No problem either. New games are popular, are easy to acquire and play, someone will write a description sooner or later (optimist speaking here).
Some other points that were addressed: We won't become another IGN or GameFAQs. All those sites need is a title. We need a title, genres, perspectives, themes, companies, countries, release year. And once we have that, we will get great covers (no other site I know of offers 300 dpi cover scans), credits (some sites have credits, but none have a linked credit database like we do) and some stuff other sites have as well (screenshots, tech info, ratings..). And we will still follow the policy of separate entries for different games with the same title, of course (so no dumping of five different games titled "Batman" in one entry).
And to ensure that we will still get quality submissions, maybe make it so that if people want to add a game without description they have to contribute either covers, credits, screenshots or something else (but not the simple things like tech specs or ratings).
Next: lots of people contribute great descriptions right now (most of those are approvers). Will they stop with the possible new policy? I don't think so. The size of this thread and the heated discussion shows that people are dedicated to quality descriptions. They will continue to write them. And about the often-mentioned competition of Wikipedia: that site is all about descriptions. And people write them. Sometimes great ones. Why shouldn't they do it here?
But what we absolutely need, of course, is a way for bad (or possibly missing, in the future) descriptions to be tagged and then be displayed and found by users. It all depends on whether people will use these tools to improve descriptions. So let's test it. Implement this before allowing no descriptions at all and wait for user reactions. Currently, we have a list at the Approver Wiki with hundreds of games, and maybe four or five people are removing games from that list from time to time. If we showed that list to non-approvers, would that rate increase? I think it's likely (the optimist again).
And a final thing on the two options of "lower standards for descriptions" or "no descriptions at all". In my opinion, a bad description is worse than no description at all, so if I had to choose, I would prefer the latter.
Riamus (8480) on 1/30/2007 5:58 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Terok Nor wrote--]OK, let's assume people can submit games without descriptions. And let's classify the games into two kinds: old and new. I don't see that people would suddenly start submitting hundreds of old games for the 8- and 16-Bits. Why would they? If they just want a list of all games for a certain system, they have their Hall of Lights, Lemons, Atarimanias, Nintendo and Sega listings, etc. Maybe they want MobyPoints, but there's a simple solution: no points for adding a game without description. [/q]
Yes, they will. We've had many threads regarding people who want MORE points for things because that is what is important to them. People will go to sites like you mentioned and just submit them right down the list with the minimal information found on those sites. As for no points, are you going to make it so people get no points for all parts of the entry by all contributors be 0 points until a description is written? So if a game without a description is sitting there, someone who submit screenshots for it will get 0 points until a description is written? I made a similar suggestion (not quite the same, but similar) before and I don't think anyone liked that idea.
[q] Now for the other case, new games. People want to add those because they just bought them and want to add them to their have list. No problem either. New games are popular, are easy to acquire and play, someone will write a description sooner or later (optimist speaking here). [/q]
I have stated that new games will generally not be a problem. However, we won't be able to make this only affect new games. It's the older games that will be the big issue. And, of course, if people start submitting new games for games that are not popular, we won't likely get descriptions for those either.
[q] Some other points that were addressed: We won't become another IGN or GameFAQs. All those sites need is a title. We need a title, genres, perspectives, themes, companies, countries, release year. And once we have that, we will get great covers (no other site I know of offers 300 dpi cover scans), credits (some sites have credits, but none have a linked credit database like we do) and some stuff other sites have as well (screenshots, tech info, ratings..). And we will still follow the policy of separate entries for different games with the same title, of course (so no dumping of five different games titled "Batman" in one entry). [/q]
Most of those entries do have publisher/developer and release date information -- at least on IGN. You can't compare to GameFAQs because that's just about FAQs and walkthroughs and not about documenting games. For quickly entered games (the types we will see with no descriptions), you'll see the majority of them be with only 1 country (US) as the person won't likely research other countries. Those who put in that effort are the ones who are likely to write a description in the first place. For genre/perspectives and themes? (not sure what that is meaning), yes, we have that... that's a very minor thing in comparison. And stuff submitted later on? Sure, for some. Not for most (regarding older games).
[q] Next: lots of people contribute great descriptions right now (most of those are approvers). Will they stop with the possible new policy? I don't think so. The size of this thread and the heated discussion shows that people are dedicated to quality descriptions. They will continue to write them. And about the often-mentioned competition of Wikipedia: that site is all about descriptions. And people write them. Sometimes great ones. Why shouldn't they do it here? [/q]
Those who write descriptions will continue to, yes. However, there will be an increase in those who don't and it will become problematic. Even those of us who will continue writing descriptions usually don't really enjoy doing so and will not write hundreds of descriptions for games others submit. Require it from the start and it will get done. Don't require it and it won't.
[q] But what we absolutely need, of course, is a way for bad (or possibly missing, in the future) descriptions to be tagged and then be displayed and found by users. It all depends on whether people will use these tools to improve descriptions. So let's test it. Implement this before allowing no descriptions at all and wait for user reactions. Currently, we have a list at the Approver Wiki with hundreds of games, and maybe four or five people are removing games from that list from time to time. If we showed that list to non-approvers, would that rate increase? I think it's likely (the optimist again). [/q]
That, as I have said over and over, is separate from no descriptions. We don't need to get rid of descriptions to have this feature. It's a good feature to have.
[q] And a final thing on the two options of "lower standards for descriptions" or "no descriptions at all". In my opinion, a bad description is worse than no description at all, so if I had to choose, I would prefer the latter. [/Q --end Terok Nor wrote--]
Different people have different opinions on that one. Some here (including me) have said the opposite. At least with a bad description, we can still get a general idea of what the game is about. With no description, we get nothing.
Terok Nor (42679) on 1/31/2007 11:45 AM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Riamus wrote--] Yes, they will. We've had many threads regarding people who want MORE points for things because that is what is important to them. People will go to sites like you mentioned and just submit them right down the list with the minimal information found on those sites. As for no points, are you going to make it so people get no points for all parts of the entry by all contributors be 0 points until a description is written? So if a game without a description is sitting there, someone who submit screenshots for it will get 0 points until a description is written? I made a similar suggestion (not quite the same, but similar) before and I don't think anyone liked that idea. [/Q --end Riamus wrote--] Very simple: no points at all for contributing a new game entry without description. Not now, not ever. All other things like covers, credits, screenshots and the eventual description, will get points. I think this could work in preventing people just adding hundreds of empty entries. Why should they if there's no "reward"?
Игги Друге (46653) on 1/31/2007 6:37 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Terok Nor wrote--] Very simple: no points at all for contributing a new game entry without description. Not now, not ever. All other things like covers, credits, screenshots and the eventual description, will get points. I think this could work in preventing people just adding hundreds of empty entries. Why should they if there's no "reward"? [/Q --end Terok Nor wrote--] Currently, you get 2 points for contributing a new game entry. That is not where the big points are. The points are in the screenshots, covers and credits.
Riamus (8480) on 1/31/2007 11:03 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Iggy Drougge wrote--] [Q2 --start Terok Nor wrote--] Very simple: no points at all for contributing a new game entry without description. Not now, not ever. All other things like covers, credits, screenshots and the eventual description, will get points. I think this could work in preventing people just adding hundreds of empty entries. Why should they if there's no "reward"? [/Q2 --end Terok Nor wrote--] Currently, you get 2 points for contributing a new game entry. That is not where the big points are. The points are in the screenshots, covers and credits. [/Q --end Iggy Drougge wrote--]
Exactly. You'd have to prevent ALL points from being given for the game entry if there wasn't a description... no matter who adds the stuff. No one will care if they miss out on a few points for a description if they can get a ton for something else.
Игги Друге (46653) on 1/31/2007 6:49 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Terok Nor wrote--]Maybe some older games will be added to complete the gameography of a certain developer or company or fill in the missing title in a series. I wouldn't have too much of a problem with that, actually. Having a list of all of Martin Galway's soundtracks, for example, without years of waiting because someone has to play dozens of crappy Ocean games, I wouldn't mind. And if someone is fan enough to add such cases, there probably will be someone else who is fan enough to write a description. [/Q --end Terok Nor wrote--]
This is a dilemma I can fully understand. I think we have all gone through the trouble to add a game some time just to fill in Mr. Galway's resumé. Or Hubbard's, or Katsuhiro Hayashi's. But I have shrugged off that as a result of the design of the site, and remained assured that it would be complete at some point in time.
Furthermore, a good point of this system is that you can look up Martin Galway's profile and let you draw a conclusion that other sites might not let you, namely: "What a load of crock Martin Galway has worked on!"
Riamus (8480) on 1/30/2007 6:10 PM · Permalink · Report
RE: Getting people to visit the site more
Ok, this is a reason given to drop descriptions. By dropping descriptions, one hope from admins is apparently to get more people to come here thanks to Google having more pages searched. The problem with that approach is that we are giving links under false pretenses. We're making it so Google says we have information about what a game is about when we don't have such information. I already avoid URLs from Google that do a similar thing.
If you really want to bring in more people, you might consider this suggestion:
Implement some form of banner program (affiliate program). You do not need to pay people, though you may consider the possibility of a secondary point system (AP - Advertising Points) that people get per click on ads they host. If you did that, just limit it to one point per IP per day on a user's account so people can't increase it incorrectly.
Here are suggestions for what to do. Have a variety of banners of different sizes and shapes and give information on how to put them on their sites. That's a basic way you can do it and would be easy to set up.
Another way would be to do something similar to RSS feeds. I've seen various sites that do this. Have a "banner" that is updated automatically with information from the site. Have many choices for the information displayed. For example, have it so a person can display the newest game addition for Windows or for Mac or for all platforms. Or have it so a person can display the latest poll. Or perhaps the top rated games. Then have it link back to the site. This is more difficult to implement, but I've seen it done well on other sites and it would definitely bring in more people.
Both of those would be legitimate ways to get people here based on content we HAVE rather than letting people click a link to us expecting to find information and finding none.
tarmo888 (5258) on 1/31/2007 4:50 AM · Permalink · Report
if i want do know something about new games then i look at youtube or google video for gameplay videos. so no descriptions needed.
if i am looking for old game at mobygames then i probably know concept of this game and i really don't care about description. Advertising Blurbs are ok too and if i want more personal description of a game then i can read a review. i am usually interested about trivia, user ratings (which also doesn't work here as it should - people just doesn't rate them), release info, images and credits of course.
Mobygames is way too US centric and world is not US, make it easier for other country users.
Corn Popper (69019) on 1/31/2007 5:12 AM · Permalink · Report
we've been working to make the site more "localized" and plan to do other things as well
do you have some suggestions on what you would like?
we do support a lot of worldwide release info which I don't any site really does in one spot
tarmo888 (5258) on 1/31/2007 5:24 AM · Permalink · Report
idea of localizing titles (so everybody has their own country's title as primary title) is super and release info is working well too now.
what i mean is that i also can't see no way how this site could get more contributions from non-US users when descriptions are so big thing to hassle with.
i am not sure but it also seems like more games are being released every day than documented here. do you have some info if this gap is going wider or not.
Corn Popper (69019) on 1/31/2007 5:38 AM · Permalink · Report
yeah titles would be the next thing I would like to localized... probably have some sortof drop selection or check box to annote where the title belongs
yeah that's one of the challenges since we don't have approvers from every country let alone contributors, some of the approvers know different languages but the way our queue is setup right now it doesn't separate on language at all... I could see it happen if we had more users/approvers that added more foreign content to the site but right now it's not worth investing programming time into it yet
I don't have any facts on the "gap" but I bet it just gets wider every week
Riamus (8480) on 1/31/2007 11:15 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Corn Popper wrote--]yeah that's one of the challenges since we don't have approvers from every country let alone contributors, some of the approvers know different languages but the way our queue is setup right now it doesn't separate on language at all... I could see it happen if we had more users/approvers that added more foreign content to the site but right now it's not worth investing programming time into it yet [/q]
See my response to that suggestion. It might work alright, I think.
[q] I don't have any facts on the "gap" but I bet it just gets wider every week [/Q --end Corn Popper wrote--]
This will be true regardless of what we do to descriptions. The indie scene is flourishing and that is what is increasing the gap so quickly on newly released games.
Corn Popper (69019) on 2/1/2007 1:02 AM · Permalink · Report
what response?
Riamus (8480) on 2/1/2007 2:24 AM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Corn Popper wrote--]what response? [/Q --end Corn Popper wrote--]
This one (my only response directly to the post that you replied to):
You want it easier for non-English speaking people to contribute? I have no problem with that. Why not do something like this instead? We find out what languages the approvers can read and then we allow descriptions to be written in any of those languages. The site would let the contributor flag the description as being in one of the accepted languages and then the approver(s) who know that language will have it listed in a special queue that only they see. This makes it so that users who speak many of the major languages (and perhaps some minor ones) can write using their own language and one of the approvers can translate it for them. Considering descriptions aren't all THAT large, this shouldn't be all that difficult to do. And if we feel we need more people who can translate a given language among the approvers, then we should ask for more approvers who know that language. Keep in mind that I am speaking ONLY of approvers who KNOW the language and can translate it that way and NOT about people using Babelfish or Google's translation or any other online translation for it. Yes, it's more work for approvers, but it keeps the site quality high and helps the contributors. Granted, I don't know enough about any language other than English to handle any of that, so I'm suggesting something that puts work on the other approvers instead of myself, but it's something to at least consider and see what they think and if they'd be willing to do that.
chirinea (47507) on 1/31/2007 5:52 AM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Corn Popper wrote--]we do support a lot of worldwide release info which I don't any site really does in one spot [/Q --end Corn Popper wrote--] VGRebirth does, but they don't need descriptions. Damn, they don't even need release dates!
Игги Друге (46653) on 1/31/2007 6:42 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start chirinea wrote--] [Q2 --start Corn Popper wrote--]we do support a lot of worldwide release info which I don't any site really does in one spot [/Q2 --end Corn Popper wrote--] VGRebirth does, but they don't need descriptions. Damn, they don't even need release dates! [/Q --end chirinea wrote--] I think we and VGRebirth complement each other well. Yet, for some reason, I contribute almost exclusively to Mobygames.
Игги Друге (46653) on 1/31/2007 6:40 PM · Permalink · Report
Not even I care much about descriptions in every case, usually I only care when I want to know more about the game, and that is rather seldom for me, since I'm almost exclusively interested in the more peripheral aspects of gaming. But that is the very reason that we should not drop the descriptions, because too few people care to do it voluntarily.
Riamus (8480) on 1/31/2007 11:12 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start tarmo888 wrote--]if i want do know something about new games then i look at youtube or google video for gameplay videos. so no descriptions needed. [/q]
So we tell people to go somewhere else for information? And hope that there happens to be a gameplay video of the older and obscure games? Not helpful.
[q] Mobygames is way too US centric and world is not US, make it easier for other country users. [/Q --end tarmo888 wrote--]
You want it easier for non-English speaking people to contribute? I have no problem with that. Why not do something like this instead?
We find out what languages the approvers can read and then we allow descriptions to be written in any of those languages. The site would let the contributor flag the description as being in one of the accepted languages and then the approver(s) who know that language will have it listed in a special queue that only they see.
This makes it so that users who speak many of the major languages (and perhaps some minor ones) can write using their own language and one of the approvers can translate it for them. Considering descriptions aren't all THAT large, this shouldn't be all that difficult to do. And if we feel we need more people who can translate a given language among the approvers, then we should ask for more approvers who know that language. Keep in mind that I am speaking ONLY of approvers who KNOW the language and can translate it that way and NOT about people using Babelfish or Google's translation or any other online translation for it. Yes, it's more work for approvers, but it keeps the site quality high and helps the contributors.
Granted, I don't know enough about any language other than English to handle any of that, so I'm suggesting something that puts work on the other approvers instead of myself, but it's something to at least consider and see what they think and if they'd be willing to do that.
Scaryfun (20368) on 1/31/2007 10:21 AM · Permalink · Report
I think what would be a good idea is to have ppl dedicated to entering new games as they are released. In order to become the most thorough database of game information then something like this has to be done to combat the continual missing of current games. Attracting new users to the site who only care about the latest games coming out will hopefully expose them to the rich wealth of information about older games here and get more of them to contribute as well. If an ad-blurb, release info and review links can be added as a game is released and let's say a front page of the site has a scrolling list of these titles then covers and screenshots should result fairly quickly as fans of those current games want to see a full entry for them.
Personally, whether the game has a user written description or its an ad-blurb description put out by the publisher it makes no difference to me.
Indra was here (20752) on 1/31/2007 4:48 PM · Permalink · Report
I just realized that the "description" thing may sub-consciously be more important to the approver than it is to the contributor. Why?
More than often person(s) submit items for the "incorrect" game. More than often these things slip past us because of lack of information. Checking wikipedia of that kind of information is something I really don't like. I'd prefer they'd be checking us.
"At least it must have a description".
Martin Smith (81743) on 1/31/2007 4:56 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Scaryfun wrote--]Personally, whether the game has a user written description or its an ad-blurb description put out by the publisher it makes no difference to me. [/Q --end Scaryfun wrote--]
To me, there's a huge different. Our descriptions should tell you what the game is about, how it plays, what its unique features are, and so on. Company descriptions tell you to buy a game, or at least try to. Any further information is coincidental. I can always spot descriptions which have been ripped from the box immediately - they tend to have excessive exclamation points and general over-enthusiasm, little or no gameplay details, and sometimes outright exaggerations or lies.
Indra was here (20752) on 1/31/2007 5:17 PM · edited · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Martin Smith wrote--] [Q2 --start Scaryfun wrote--]Personally, whether the game has a user written description or its an ad-blurb description put out by the publisher it makes no difference to me. [/Q2 --end Scaryfun wrote--]
To me, there's a huge different. [/Q --end Martin Smith wrote--]
Aye, huge difference dude.
Ad blurb --> Marketing. Primary fuction: Eye-catching. Quality not guaranteed.
Review --> Subjective overview.
Game description --> Objective overview.
Any experienced gamer wouldn't buy a game based on the ad-blurb. Even less would probably read it. Well, you know advertisement...
Riamus (8480) on 1/31/2007 11:22 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Indra Depari of the Clan Depari wrote--] Any experienced gamer wouldn't buy a game based on the ad-blurb. Even less would probably read it. Well, you know advertisement... [/Q --end Indra Depari of the Clan Depari wrote--]
Heh. I only read boxes if I'm in the process of installing a game and want something to read and the manual is really bad or is installed rather than paper, or on the off-chance that I choose to contribute the ad blurb to the site. I definitely do NOT use it to learn about a game. That is what a description is for.
Now, keep in mind as I make this next comment that I do NOT want to see this happen, but if it's a choice of this or a blank description, I'd choose this. If we want to allow empty descriptions, then rather than drop the description requirement, require people to at least copy/paste the ad blurb from the game's box and then flag it with the proposed Stub system with something like 50 flags to make sure it gets fixed ASAP. Remember that I don't want to see that happen, but given the choice of nothing or an ad blurb from the box, I'd choose the latter.
Scaryfun (20368) on 2/3/2007 2:47 AM · edited · Permalink · Report
Personally, where I like to have a person's viewpoint on a game is in a review not on a game description. A site like www.tothegame.com has what I feel is more than adequate in the descriptions. I believe those are issued directly by the publisher and have more detail than the back of a game box. It usually mentions the developers, story, features, even some technical info like graphics engines. Sure there's gung-ho sentences with exclamation points - I just ignore those.
Riamus (8480) on 2/3/2007 8:58 PM · Permalink · Report
A good description has all of that and is objective rather than going on and on about how a person hates the genre or loves the game or whatever else that is subjective. I use reviews as well, but I take them with a grain of salt -- I can find good and bad reviews for just about any game you can think of. Descriptions tell me what I need to know without sorting out what is real and what is opinion.
tarmo888 (5258) on 2/1/2007 1:09 AM · Permalink · Report
What if:
step 1
------------
* new game entry needs only one description to get added to database.
* contributor can choose if he/she adds a Ad blurb, Review or Game description. (i know that game entry with ad blurb only will look nasty, but for real, ad blurbs are not that evil)
* most wanted list shows missing descriptions
after that, step 2
------------------
* selection of possible languages for game description is limited by all approvers language skills.
* most wanted list will show if there is your native language description missing (and RSS feed for added descriptions so translating users could see when language they know is added.
THE THING IS - it is much easier to translate description to your native language (or vice-versa) than come up with a new one in foreign language.
then we should increase a number of approvers MobyGames has now. Also, there are long wait times for approvals sometimes, description approvers and other approvers can be found from leaders of every contribution type.
i am sucker when it comes to bringing different countries together to reach a same goal.
Diwrnach (87) on 2/22/2007 4:26 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Martin Smith wrote--]The admins are largely in favour of it, as it would mean more games being documented, especially from users who are not fluent English speakers, and entries for new releases being added more quickly, and would lead to less frustration with entries being WIPped back. [/Q --end Martin Smith wrote--]
I really think it would be a great idea. I'm one of these "not fluent English speakers", and I have a very bad time writing descriptions.
At one side, it forces every game having a description. In another side, it helps decrease description quality forcing people who doesn't want (or have difficulty writing) to make descriptions.
I think that the best way would not be relaxing rules, but instead separate game entry from description... And give each description a good amount of points, and a game entry a small amount of points...
Either way I look at it, it's always best to have a game entry without description (hopefully a temporary situation) than have no entry at all. And right now we have too many missing games :(
Maw (832) on 2/22/2007 8:27 PM · Permalink · Report
Man I had to scroll down to read that. :(
I don't really care one way or the other, especially since we've got a huge database of descriptions already built. Maybe we could let people get by without descriptions, but offer significantly more points (+1,2) if they do include one. If people submit masses of obsolete, little-known games to the database without descriptions, where's the problem? Is it likely those games would have been added anyway?
Игги Друге (46653) on 2/22/2007 9:28 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Maw wrote--]Man I had to scroll down to read that. :(
I don't really care one way or the other, especially since we've got a huge database of descriptions already built. Maybe we could let people get by without descriptions, but offer significantly more points (+1,2) if they do include one. If people submit masses of obsolete, little-known games to the database without descriptions, where's the problem? Is it likely those games would have been added anyway? [/Q --end Maw wrote--] The problem is that those games would end up in neglect, unlike Fall of Man or Tombaraider MCMLXVII. You wouldn't be able to find out anything worth knowing about those games which isn't already documented elsewhere.
Riamus (8480) on 2/22/2007 10:55 PM · Permalink · Report
Exactly. If the game really is so obscure and you don't give it a description, then there isn't a way to find out about the game itself -- what do you do in it, what are the gameplay elements, etc.
For anyone who has trouble writing descriptions, the best thing you can do is to try your best (this will make you better over time... some of the worst description writers in the past are now among the best on here) and ask an approver in the comment box to help you to fix the description. Alternatively, you can ask in the forum -- put your description up for everyone to look at and comment on. Personally, I think a forum dedicated to this would be very helpful.
Diwrnach (87) on 3/6/2007 2:10 PM · Permalink · Report
Obscure games are really another great reason to make descriptions not mandatory on game entries.
But another thing is that a game description takes lots of time to be reviewed. I've made one myself weeks ago and nothing. At least, if this is indeed relaxed, I would have already included lots of other games that I see are missing on the database.
Riamus (8480) on 3/6/2007 2:47 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Diwrnach wrote--]Obscure games are really another great reason to make descriptions not mandatory on game entries.
But another thing is that a game description takes lots of time to be reviewed. I've made one myself weeks ago and nothing. At least, if this is indeed relaxed, I would have already included lots of other games that I see are missing on the database. [/Q --end Diwrnach wrote--]
First, if you're adding an obscure game, you usually know something about it and can do a description. If you don't, then most likely, no one will ever write one. That's the point.
As for time to review/approve a description... they are easy to approve. It depends where you added it. If it's a correction, those often do take longer to approve simply because the corrections aren't approved by as many people. When it's part of a new game, then time can be slow if something in the game entry can't be easily verified. Either way, the actual approval of a description is pretty easy to do once it is started.
If you know the game that you submitted it for, you can mention it and someone can look into it.
Joshua J. Slone (4666) on 3/6/2007 9:50 PM · Permalink · Report
Looking through this big debate, my point of view seems to match closely with Trixter's. If there's a so-so description there for a game I'm already familiar with, I'm not likely to bother improving it, since it has already been deemed adequate by the approvers. However, if I find a game I'm familiar with that has NO description, I'd immediately notice and would probably be happy to do something about it. In this case, "no description" is better than "mediocre description". I'm glad to write a description when entering a game I'm familiar with like Mario Clash into the database, and think I do a fair job. But any attempt to write a description for "Kid Niki" or "Sqoon" would be coming from a poorly-informed source, and you'd get sub-par work. Who is it helping to not have Kid Niki and Sqoon in the database?
Let us say, though, that an entry remains description-less for a long time. Does this necessarily bring MobyGames down to the level of the much-maligned "skeletal" listings of other sites? I think not. Are people going to go to IGN to look for an image of the game's media or look for ad blurbs? Are they going to go to GameFAQs to see what else the people responsible for the game worked on, or check which N64 games had a 16:9 mode? There's still a wealth of information that's covered better here than anywhere else.
Diwrnach (87) on 3/7/2007 12:34 AM · Permalink · Report
I completely agree with Joshua. Thumbs up!
In my opinion, instead of helping to improve quality, mandatory descriptions helps to have poor quality comments, makes the site too much burocratic and slow.
Regarding descriptions, I think quantity is worst than quality. On the other side, game entries, in a game database, is the opposite, since quality is in the quantity.
At least this is my opinion, but after reading some comments in this post, I'm hopeless someday this will change :/
By the way, the game entry I submitted was xiaolin showdown, it's a new game entry, not a correction. The reviewer asked for modifications, which I've made some weeks ago, but have no reply until now (but I know my descriptions are somehow bad, even thought I think a lot while writing... English is not my native language, you know?). But no problem, I know that can take some time.
Riamus (8480) on 3/8/2007 12:01 AM · Permalink · Report
Which system is it for? If I have access to that queue, I can see what's going on with it.
I'd have to disagree about more games = greater quality. Many sites have many more games and their quality sucks. :)
Also, keep in mind that the number of entries (all kinds, including new games) has been increasing over the years -- double from one year to the next in many cases. This is all with the current description policy. I wouldn't say that the descriptions are causing anything to be "bureacratic and slow." The only real time that descriptions slow anything down is if they need some work. Even then, unless the queues are really full at the time, or the contributor is slow to make changes, things can be improved and approved very quickly. Also, remember that right now, approvers often fall behind trying to approve things because there are so many contributions. Removing description requirements won't speed anything up (at least not with the number of approvers we currently have). To speed things up, we need more approvers.
As for being a non-English speaker, my advice is to try your best and get in the main pieces of information to the best of your ability (plot/story, gameplay, any other important things). Then, leave a comment to the approver stating that you aren't good at English and ask if the approver can try to fix any grammar/spelling problems and then WIP it back to you so you can make sure that it still says what you wanted it to say. I can't speak for all approvers, but many will be willing to help out in that way if you ask. The main things to avoid in descriptions are copying it from other sites and biasing it with comments about what you like or don't like. Also, try to avoid mentioning the platform (unless it's to note that one platform in a multiplatform game has something different about it) or any form of date, including a comment like "latest game to feature ____" -- ie. Stuff that won't be true 5 years down the road.
Btw, I'm always willing to help anyone with questions. If you have a description you want help with, you can PM me or post it on the forum.
Diwrnach (87) on 3/8/2007 12:44 AM · edited · Permalink · Report
Thanks for the reply, Riamus. I'm sorry if I wasn't clear enought about the quantity over quality. What I wanted to say is that regarding game entries, for moby as a database, quality is quality. I'm not talking about any other thing, just about game entries. About the descriptions, I think it's the opposite, quality is most important than quantity. That's why I think the 2 subjects need to be separate (game entries that can be submitted without descriptions, and descriptions that can be made especially to be descriptions, without other information). But that's just my opinion ;)
PS.: The game I'm waiting for some weeks is Xiaolin Showdown, for the XBox.
Regards!
Diwrnach (87) on 3/8/2007 2:51 PM · Permalink · Report
Sorry but I don't want to edit my post. I know that my English is not so good, but all my posts were exactly what I meant to say. Sorry if you disagree or if you misunderstood it.
Anyway, I'll quit complaining, as I have already made my point, as other people made in this post.
Joshua J. Slone (4666) on 3/8/2007 6:21 PM · Permalink · Report
Could you clarify what you mean when you say "quality is most important than quality"?