A little grumble back at you

[Kadayi]

It's nothing to do with advertising - in fact, I think (but am not sure) the way the comments tech works doesn't even reload the page, so doesn't add a page impression. We use pages because otherwise the load time of an article with very many comments becomes very poor, and the site becomes unwieldy. I agree pages can be frustrating sometimes, but it's the best solution we've currently got.

If you can get it so that the 'reply' screen is within the nest (so you can see the post your responding to) rather than it defaulting to the bottom of page one that would be great though John.

[John Walker]

One thing that does seem to be revealed here (by a few, not most) is a peculiar narcissism when it comes to desired content.

I think the Day Z stuff is the best example of this (and I'm not just picking on those who've raised this game in particular, but they are including in upon whom I'm picking). I've no interest in playing Day Z. First of all, it would require a £25 investment in the games, as they don't feature on the press account, which is a big chunk for a mod I doubt I'll enjoy. Secondly, it's multiplayer, and I don't enjoy multiplayer games. Thirdly, while it sounds so close to a game I'd love to play, it also falls just outside of it with the competitive nature - I'm a perpetual noob, and would likely flail and get frustrated.

All that in mind, Jim's Day Z posts have been my favourite stuff on the site this month. They've been compelling reads, really interesting tales, that have not only immediately rewarded me in the process of reading them, but also made me think about what I would want a similar game to do, and generated envy that I'm not directly involved, and further interest to find out more.

My point is, not being interesting in game X is obviously not a sensible reason to resent its being posted about - that's unsubtle narcissism, just wanting the site to be about *you* and *your interests* and nothing else, and includes asking that always-peculiar question, "What is wrong with your scroll wheel?" - but it's also not a reason not to read anyway. I think we're pretty good writers at RPS, and I like to think that we try to make a post worth reading even if you're not interested. Especially because - well - not being interested in something isn't something to boast about! You could... become interested? Wouldn't that make your life more interesting, rather than be a personal affront?

Obviously everyone isn't going to care about everything on the site. I mean, hell, I write posts about games I'm not interested in playing. I try to make those posts worth reading to anyone, even if they're not interested in gaming at all, because I think that's a key to good content. And I also find a way to become interested, even if it's some obscure hardcore strategy game I'd rather drink my own wee than play. Why is it interesting to someone else? That's a fascinating question to ask.

So complaining that there are multiple posts on something you don't care about: firstly, so what? Seriously, are you the King Of Earth, for whom all must be tailored when reading your free content on the internet? Secondly, maybe it could become something you care about? Thirdly, if you feel personally affronted by the existence of posts, and by some genetic mutation incapable of scrolling past them and getting on with your day, I reckon you'll find something in most posts that makes it worth your enforced reading - be it a gag, the alt-text, a mad claim, or a link to something else.

[deano2099]

While I have no objection to posts about stuff I'm not interested in, the combination of my life being busier and an increase in post numbers (11 to 15 is a lot, that's a 40%ish increase) means, with the greatest will in the world, I can't read everything. And in terms of the Day Z stuff, yes I skipped it as I'm not interested in the game. But you're right, Jim's diaries probably are quite interesting. But it's hard to distinguish those articles from a post about some news at a glance. The RPS feature thing is a good step in the right direction though.

[Heister]

My point is, not being interesting in game X is obviously not a sensible reason to resent its being posted about - that's unsubtle narcissism, just wanting the site to be about *you* and *your interests* and nothing else, and includes asking that always-peculiar question, "What is wrong with your scroll wheel?" - but it's also not a reason not to read anyway. I think we're pretty good writers at RPS, and I like to think that we try to make a post worth reading even if you're not interested. Especially because - well - not being interested in something isn't something to boast about! You could... become interested? Wouldn't that make your life more interesting, rather than be a personal affront?

John, do you actually mean all of that?

You think that not liking Game X and related articles makes your readers narcissistic? That they want RPS to be about them and their interests alone? Really? Then I'd like more Nintendo coverage please. j/k Nintendo Life fills that gap.

And you think that even if someone isn't interested in Game X then they should read the articles on that game anyway?

Honestly, I scroll past more articles on here than I read. That's not meant as an insult. It's just a lot of the articles are about games that I may already know about and/or have no interest in.

[RogerMellie]

You think that not liking Game X and related articles makes your readers narcissistic? That they want RPS to be about them and their interests alone? Really? Then I'd like more Nintendo coverage please. j/k Nintendo Life fills that gap.

No offence mate but that's not what he said.

He's a big boy obviously and can stick up for himself etc.

He said some of A is sometimes B.

Not all of A is always B.

[John Walker]

John, do you actually mean all of that?

You think that not liking Game X and related articles makes your readers narcissistic?

No - as I very clearly said, I think complaining that there are articles about things you're not interested in is narcissistic. What's the desired conclusion? That we consult those people and nix anything that doesn't pass their interest test?

And you think that even if someone isn't interested in Game X then they should read the articles on that game anyway?

Nope. I very clearly said they should scroll past it, and get on with their lives. I was merely addressing those who - as simply has to be the case for the complaints to exist - are incapable of this.

[laneford]

I've no interest in playing Day Z. First of all, it would require a £25 investment in the games, as they don't feature on the press account, which is a big chunk for a mod I doubt I'll enjoy. Secondly, it's multiplayer, and I don't enjoy multiplayer games. Thirdly, while it sounds so close to a game I'd love to play, it also falls just outside of it with the competitive nature - I'm a perpetual noob, and would likely flail and get frustrated.

All that in mind, Jim's Day Z posts have been my favourite stuff on the site this month. They've been compelling reads, really interesting tales, that have not only immediately rewarded me in the process of reading them, but also made me think about what I would want a similar game to do, and generated envy that I'm not directly involved, and further interest to find out more.

I wholeheartedly agree with this.

In fact, thinking about it, almost all my favourite RPS articles/features have been about games I have little interest in/have not bought/have not played

- Minecraft Diary
- Gameboys of Hell
- Song of Onionbog
- Spacestation 13 (whatever that indie game was called)
- Cardboard Children
- Fool in Morrowind
- A Dad In A Dungeon

All fascinated and entertained me in equal measure, but I still have barely played any of those games.

I think I'd like to reverse Heister's point, I'd prefer more articles on fewer games. More of the stories and the diaries and the odd / mad stuff that makes RPS stand out, than a more generic blunderbuss of stuff from the general news/previews/reviews PC world. But I'm perfectly happy to scroll past the announcement of a new trailer for Mr Manshoots Shooty Man game to read Jim's Day Z diary. I don't think the two can't co-exist.

Edit on a somewhat tangental note; I'd like to echo whoever made the point about not commenting on news posts because the site is so popular now that they get lost. Note: Am not saying popular site is bad thing. Just one of those things I suspect. Same with the 'PC Gaming' forum, too scary and busy for me in there now.

[Cooper]

Bringing it back to the OP.

I read and enjoyed the Gateway pieced and have filed the game under "to take a closer look at this weekend when I have some time", but had absolutely nothing to put in the comments. I'm incredibly glad the article exist; it's brought an unknown game to my attention; but more than that (which i could have got off of another site) it gave me a comprehensive idea of how the game plays; enough that I'm now interested.

That being said, I comment on the main site a heck of a lot less than I ever used to, the forums tend to be a better place to have the kind of discussions that would once have appeared in the comments.

On a more egneral "NAGAIUTB" line of thought; I've never thought that, but I am finding that the level of output on RPS is getting a bit much. I've missed excellent features because of the constant posting of this or that trailer.

I don't think RPS should stop posting this news stuff; I'd rather read this kind of news with RPS's style than elsewhere (Hitman trailer just now is a case in point: At least if it's on RPS it's on RPS because it is recognised to be so terribad for all sorts of reasons...). But I'm increasingly feeling that the blog format is just not the best format for the quantity of output RPS has nowadays. I'd rather a Eurogamer-esque separation of features, WIThunks and news/trailers from the outset.

[frenz0rz]

I dont think theres much I can really add to this discussion, except that I believe the vast majority of RPS readers throughly enjoy every last scrap of content on the site, and are very appreciative of the time and effort you chaps take to write articles purely for the joy of writing about games. I think what we are dealing with here is a vocal (though usually well-meaning) minority, combined with the fact that it is far easier to spit out a dozen suggestions than it is to discuss, analyse and successfully implement the best ones.

Having just said that (please dont bite my head off), I think you'd do well to acknowledge positive comments and constructive suggestions as well as arguing against the negative/whiny ones. A little nod of recognition goes a long way.

[thegooseking]

That being said, I comment on the main site a heck of a lot less than I ever used to, the forums tend to be a better place to have the kind of discussions that would once have appeared in the comments.

Actually, the "featured article" bits on the home page are great for stuff you might have missed. But it's rather disturbing how often I skip past them or forget to check them or just for some reason subconsciously file them away in my brain under "unimportant fluff". They're not attention-grabbing enough, I'd say.

[Jockie]

I think I'd like to reverse Heister's point, I'd prefer more articles on fewer games. More of the stories and the diaries and the odd / mad stuff that makes RPS stand out, than a more generic blunderbuss of stuff from the general news/previews/reviews PC world. But I'm perfectly happy to scroll past the announcement of a new trailer for Mr Manshoots Shooty Man game to read Jim's Day Z diary. I don't think the two can't co-exist.

I also agree with this. I think it's probably what people are referring to when they say INAGAIUTB (or whatever the hell it is), but those are the kinds of articles that make RPS somewhat unique (and the fact they don't go for PR pleasing number in their WIT's and mean you actually need to read them). I suppose the fact that RPS has gotten bigger means there is a higher quantity of news with a funny hat on posts (which is still better than news with a newsy hat on).

My suggestion John, would be to bring back the Omnibus articles, the bits at the side and highlighting recent features is all well and good. But if you have a post dedicated to showcasing the best and most important bits of RPS every now and then, it would help those of us who don't see articles before they disappear from the frontpage (and give you a chance to point the readers towards the obscure indie gem, if they happened to miss it first time).

[Kadayi]

So complaining that there are multiple posts on something you don't care about: firstly, so what? Seriously, are you the King Of Earth, for whom all must be tailored when reading your free content on the internet? Secondly, maybe it could become something you care about? Thirdly, if you feel personally affronted by the existence of posts, and by some genetic mutation incapable of scrolling past them and getting on with your day, I reckon you'll find something in most posts that makes it worth your enforced reading - be it a gag, the alt-text, a mad claim, or a link to something else.

Occasionally it does seem like there's a torrent of articles all within a day, and that it's hard to keep up. Is this not really a format issue though? Sites like Lifehacker etc have lots of articles every day, but categorize them into subsections where as RPS is a bit of a free for all with everything and the kitchen sink being thrown out there, and it's upto the reader to make sense of it.

[John Walker]

Having just said that (please dont bite my head off), I think you'd do well to acknowledge positive comments and constructive suggestions as well as arguing against the negative/whiny ones. A little nod of recognition goes a long way.

Yes, you're absolutely right - I am guilty of that.

Thank you everyone who's said positive and constructively negative things. It's very much appreciated, and taken on board.

[Nalano]

Occasionally it does seem like there's a torrent of articles all within a day, and that it's hard to keep up. Is this not really a format issue though? Sites like Lifehacker etc have lots of articles every day, but categorize them into subsections where as RPS is a bit of a free for all with everything and the kitchen sink being thrown out there, and it's upto the reader to make sense of it.

I dunno; I like the broadsheet format. It puts everything on an even keel: Diablo 3 is just as important as the latest indie. If you start chopping things up into sections, then people stop noticing not only certain articles, but certain categories of articles.

[Sparkasaurusmex]

If you can get it so that the 'reply' screen is within the nest (so you can see the post your responding to) rather than it defaulting to the bottom of page one that would be great though John.

YES! This would fix my only frustration with RPS.

edit: I like the simplicity of RPS's format. Prefer the wall of articles over tables everywhere and categories.

[Kadayi]

I dunno; I like the broadsheet format. It puts everything on an even keel: Diablo 3 is just as important as the latest indie. If you start chopping things up into sections, then people stop noticing not only certain articles, but certain categories of articles.

I'm not suggesting that AAA get priority over Indie, but there's nothing wrong with having categories subsections, as well as a top stories/latest news header.

http://lifehacker.com/

Every story comes in fresh but as more appear they get pushed down to their respective subsections, but remain headers within them.

[John Walker]

We've definitely got plans for ways to make navigation easier, and to not lose stories so quickly.

[Sparkasaurusmex]

http://lifehacker.com/

While I have seen much uglier sites, I feel lifehacker.com's aesthetic is not as appealing as RPS' current design.

[Kadayi]

We've definitely got plans for ways to make navigation easier, and to not lose stories so quickly.

John One nice feature on lifehacker is how when you mouse over the right side stories where it has the date it will show you the number of views and comments (a popup) which is quite neat. It would be good to incorporate something like that.

[Kadayi]

While I have seen much uglier sites, I feel lifehacker.com's aesthetic is not as appealing as RPS' current design.

I'm not on about the aesthetic though. I'm on about how it functions.