Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Announcements' started by terin, Mar 11, 2009.
Haha, no pressure Joe. Keep up the goods man.
Agreed, and myself I'm not really interested in reading the marketing guys review of X Game. Give me someone that definitely has no conflict of interest, or has an interesting take (like another indie game dev).
I suppose I should've mentioned that I'll still visit the site, especially if there's new content regularly. And yes, I'm interested in how the single-person reviews turn out. Was just lamenting the loss of the panel.
Hilarious...I was just re-reading my copy of your book last night!
Nothing to critic here... except that you might want to consider taking somebody to 'help you manage things'... who can then help putting pieces together.
Good luck with the GT
P.S. No whining about 'what's changing' from my part yet... let's wait a month or so first...
I thought he did... or is Andrew Skaar a handle after all?
Good Feb round up - that ragdoll game was new to me.
It's still always going to be one of the few sites that does a professional job at reviewing smaller titles. So...I'll keep visiting.
I agree though, why not bring on some help? I'd go out on limb and say it probably wouldn't be that hard to find it? I am not qualified to review a game, but I don't think you have to be a veteran either. It would be a shame to now have less content, as opposed to more. Seems like a good opportunity to expand not shrink. That's what communities like this are good for.
Haha - Ok the worry that I am personally reviewing the games is hilarious but justified I guess. Your hate of marketing people is classic. Andrew is the new full time (PAID) writer. I hired him because
A) He is inexpensive
B) passionate about games
C) INEXPERIENCED about indie games - meaning he won't be jaded by failed indie dreams
and D) LOCAL - meaning I can go to his house and kick his ass if he slacks off.... except he's like 1ft taller than me.
He'll actually be at GDC with me this year for those of you who are REALLY paranoid about marketing people and think I am making it all up, lol.
Yes, game of the year awards will not only continue to exist but we'll hopefully be able to promote it as heavily as it was 2 years ago, thus driving even more exposure to the candidates.
Finally since everyone seems to care so much:
#1 reason is I can't afford to PAY four writers and I don't like people working for free. I'd rather pay one guy well enough that he sticks around and becomes efficient than constantly having to "hire," train, and keep track of a dozen volunteers.
Anyway, I am doing this to make money, but sometimes you have to NOT be cheap to get the results you need to grow efficiently. That said if it doesn't pan out I may end up getting volunteer writers and editors to keep the site going- but I figure that's more than a year away before I would consider it.
Congratulation, I hope you will improve gametunnel and that we will see it flourish.
I have just one critique, if I may.
Was it necessary to use the word "unmolested"?
Do you intend this site to be for young audience as well?
If so, I think you should keep the content appropriate.
Even if gametunnel will have age restrictions, it is allot more pleasant for adults to read reviews without obscenity.
Just my two cents.
Molested is actually a tame word that is too quickly associated with that nasty criminal and disturbing behavior. I don't think he meant it that way. He meant #1.
tr.v. mo·lest·ed, mo·lest·ing, mo·lests
1. To disturb, interfere with, or annoy.
2. To subject to unwanted or improper sexual activity
Yea, that is probably due to my lack of good understanding of the english language.
Sorry for that.
Nice acquisition Terin - will be watching you closely
I also liked the multi-author roundup. It was usually much more interesting to read 3 very short, to the point reviews rather than one longer one.
Whoa this is big news!
Russ, Sorry to hear that you had to give up your baby that you've worked on for years and years. I know you've put a lot of heart and sould into it, but I understand you have more important things to attend to. I'd agree that it's certainly in good hands now.
Joe, Good Luck with Game Tunnel! Hopefully you can breathe some new life into it. It's been a great resource for making people aware of Indie games. I like the roundups, and it sounds like you are keeping them (thank you). I understand your reasons for making them done by a single person (instead of a panel), and I think it can still work that way. Hopefully it will.
Also by way of suggestion, I recently became aware of another Indie Game Review site, Bytejacker. They do reviews in a different format (via video hosted on YouTube), but they seem to be gaining some traction. I'm not sure if there's some way to do some partnerships with them in some way (such as linking to each other's content), but it may be something to think about. Please don't view them as your competitor, as Indie Games can use the exposure from both sites. Anyway, its something to keep your eye on.
Best Wishes to both of you!
GT used to be the best indie game news site but for me was later eclipsed by sites which were updated much more frequently, like indiegames.com/blog, tigsource.com, playthisthing.com, etc. -- the main reason I don't read GT as often as I used to is that it reviews only a tiny portion of indie games and other sites cover a much larger subsection of them. So I see branching out into casual, flash, and freeware as a long-needed thing.
I also could care less about "reviews" -- I want news, not reviews. I don't care what some guy thinks about a game's quality, I want to download it and judge for myself. Game reviews don't really make much sense for games with demos or for freeware, game reviews evolved in a world where you could not play a game before you bought it, so you needed magazines to tell you whether a game was worth buying or not, and without such a context anymore they make less sense. It'd be fine with me to get rid of the reviews and numerical scores entirely, the way that the other sites I mentioned above did. Game reviews are really rather anachronistic.
One of the main reasons people are saying, "I just went to GT for the monthly roundup", is because none of the other sections were updated regularly. The monthly roundup was the only interesting feature that was updated with any regularity.
Several years ago, I thought DIY Games and GT complimented each other nicely. GT had a ton of reviews and DIY did a great job of covering indie news and personalities. You got a feel for the indie scene with DIY beyond just the actual games.
But then DIY stopped updating regularly and eventually died. GT started to just primarily focus on the monthly roundup and year-end awards. There became a gap in indie coverage, especially for downloadables.
I think it's nice to have reviews of indie games, but as RinkuHero said reviews aren't quite as important these days because people can just play the demo themselves. I still think reviews serve a useful function because not everyone has time to play every single demo to find the good/decent games. But a game site these days has to be a lot more than just reviews. What I would like to see with an indie game site is one that covers the whole indie scene. Something that pulls the curtain back and show you who's making the games. Play up the "indie" aspect a lot more. Do more interviews and previews. Even on basic things like on the game stats, list not only the developer/publisher name but also the number of people who worked on the game, where they worked on it (home office, bedroom, kitchen, and etc) and budget (if they're willing to divulge it). Hype up upcoming games. If you notice, major game sites like Gamespot spend 80-90% of the coverage hyping unreleased games. Make people excited or at least interested in the possible indie games that might be released.
I just don't want GT to be another glorified affiliate site. Instead I'd like to see it aim to be the number one source for the indie games scene with the focus on downloadables. Take advantage of some of the outspoken indie personalities and don't be afraid to poke fun at us developers. You want gamers to be your primary audience, not us. If Joe is heading in this direction, I'm all for it. But if GT is just going to be another affiliate farm, then maybe its best days are behind it.
I agree 100%. Reviews are too subjective in any case. Even for AAA titles I tend to play the demos, and never rely on any reviews unless they show the game has lots of serious problems (bugs, etc).
Neat news, Joe! Congrats on taking over the site. And thanks for the nice write up of ECC.
Thanks for the feedback so far on where you'd want to see GT.com go.
When we get the layout change done we should begin to see what's what.
And Chris, can't I be both a great coverage spot AND an affiliate farm (What a cruel word to use, haha).
Really my objective is to get great content coverage flowing regularly (this DOES include news, reviews, previews, snapshots, ect.) and do this in an unbias fashion. How I profit from the site is unimportant
Anyway, im not saying I am turning it into an affiliate farm, lol; I just think that mixing up the idea of good content and how a site makes money is silly.
... I don't have the time to play everything that reviews suggest looks interesting. I definitely don't have the time to play everything released!
Numerical scores are meaningless to me, but I just ignore them. What I want is pros and cons. What's good about this game? What's bad about this game? That gives me some basic ground to judge whether I should put it in a stack of things to check out or not, while still leaving plenty open for me to form my own judgment.