Adam Smith is the bestest.
Adam Smith is the bestest.
Irrelevant on further examination of the rest of the thread.
I read RPS much longer then I have a comments account. And it then took me a while to register at the forum. Since then I don't comment on news anymore. I don't know why and it seems odd at first but maybe it would help if forum accounts could also post on news comments. Maybe even coments being persistent threads on the RPS forums.
Something that might improve the site could be filter options. If you don't care about Diablo 3, Indie or Minecraft, simply select news tagged with these to not be diplayed. I think the gawker media sites have such a function.
But I love all the "niche" things you post about and read it. But of course stuff like D3 gets more comments. I think that's just the way it is. But I want you guys to write about what you like as long as you don't neglect the other sweet games out there. Which you don't (imho). If you like a game you have all the right in the world to write about it on your own website.
Last edited by bonkers; 31-05-2012 at 05:14 PM.
Comments. Sorry, I have always been sparing with comments and forum posts here, for a variety of reasons (have no opinion on the subject, dislike for messy arguments, someone already said what I felt like writing).
When you spoke about how some interesting articles receive less comments, did you mean just comments or also page visits?
Posts. The volume increase means that now (last 12-18 months, probably) I cannot read everything, but need to skim some articles (usually announcements or videos). But diaries and features are always welcome, and I like them even if I'm not interested in playing the game they cover.
New writers. Nathan (if I understood correctly) was hired mostly to post the random news stuff, which at least for me aren't as interesting as diaries, reviews, interviews, and other features; to some he might feel weaker because he covers stuff that is less interesting to them. My weak opinin is that he writes well; also, he might get to post more interesting stuff in the future (for example, he has started doing interviews).
KG was awesome and extremely hard to replace, but Quinns did a great job and I loved his writing. Adam is different, but I love him sooo much (I also like how the five of you have different, recognizable voices).
Complaints. I have only a wish: could you please write more subscriber newsletters? It's been a while since the last one (unless I've stopped receiving them), and I'd like to know what happened to Jim and Podlington :) Please, even only once every 3-4-6 months, but it would be lovely. Thanks.
Last edited by Fede; 31-05-2012 at 11:31 PM.
We do have plans (that I am going to push harder to see happen) for ways of grepping the site more favourably, but I would be pretty unwilling to have the site be filtered by tags to someone's "ideal" feed. It sounds practical in some ways, but I think it would mean people would miss out on some amazing content, and engender the notion that people don't change their minds, develop new interests, or experience variety - that's not something I'd want to encourage.
Some of the best titles that I've played in the last two years have been 'indie' games - titles I wouldn't have even known about if they hadn't appeared in an RPS feed at some point.
I love the indie articles - I've rarely got less than half a dozen tabs open pointing at games I keep meaning to try. In the last few days alone you've reminded me of the existence of Gateways and Against the Wall, and told me about Back to Bed and StarForge.
I rarely comment on articles as I follow RPS from the RSS and usually don't get round to reading until hours after the post when the commenting has died down. (Even when I do get there early I usually just try to spawn a pun thread - it's a terrible habit which I must try to break myself of). However, I'm firmly of the opinion that RPS goes from strength to strength. I'll try to think of apposite remarks to make on more of the articles.
And then there are those who are just fruitcakes.
Last edited by Rii; 01-06-2012 at 12:42 AM.
I should say, that interest may come from our dislike for it, or our surprise at our indifference for it. I'm not saying we only write about games we think are good - certainly not. But we don't draw a distinction on grounds of how a game is funded, or its scale. So no, we don't cover indie games because others sites don't - in fact, there are other sites that do a better job of passionately covering indie games than we do. Rather, we just like games, and we write about games. I think it's that simple.
On the other hand, the stance RPS takes towards Kickstarters is refreshingly responsible.
People saying they 'don't like indie' is where we're starting to get into a music-esque distinction between a game developer being independent and what's perceived to be an indie genre, right?
A brave heart and a courteous tongue. They shall carry thee far through the jungle, manling.
But yeah, if you outright 'don't like indie', that's basically everything that isn't published by the major publishers, who incidentally, everyone also hates.
So basically if you don't like indie, you hate everything and also probably yourself.
My logic is fucking flawless.
Were I to say I don't like indie games it would be more accurate for me to say that there are many types of game I have no interest in whatsoever, and india games tend to be populated by these types of game more than others.
Irrelevant on further examination of the rest of the thread.
Indie is shorthand for small really. If we want to really talk about 'independent' then in truth we're into the realms of private Vs public ownership, in which case some very big fish whom aren't beholden to shareholders enter the equation. Is 'small' a suitable category to throw at a game? Certainly it's a comment on the status of the creators (though some supposed 'indie' teams are surprisingly large), but it's not really telling us anything about the nature of the game and there in I believe lies a problem. I kind of feel that 'indie' is used as a shield against criticism. You can't really slate an 'indie' game, without being made to feel like your being overly harsh because 'hey there's only two of them, and they made it living off tips for two years'. It's up there with booing the kid for fluffing his lines at the nativity play. Without criticism what are you left with but faint praise?
Last edited by Kadayi; 01-06-2012 at 01:26 PM.
I fear that's just usually the recourse of certain fans rather than most people out there. I know RPS *definitely* treat games as games from first hand experience and might praise something as remarkable for being the work of one man but they're certainly just as quick to discuss the flaws (Gillen's amazing and entirely right thinking descriptions of Limbo for one) or pull a grumpy face if they're not enjoying it (John's Book Of Living Magic review). I've never really been treated drastically different elsewhere, except for the time Edge called me "defiantly indie" but I think that was just because I tell people to fuck off or something?
As for the usage of indie? It's a label, they're always shit. I write games I'm the mainstream, my mates write games. Some people want to be indie because it's a nice label, some people (HI MUM) try and distance themselves from it for other reasons, some people think it's a club, some people it is a club, some people it's business, some people it's... it's... it's all very tiring really. I know and have met lots of developers who get labelled indie, most just do games and get on with shit and are happy (and in a lot of cases, desperate) for honest criticisms.
And generally, we still, despite progress, have a much harder time of it getting *any* press so I don't think there's much of a shield thing going on. RPS are one of the few, rare, sites that treat games as games as equals except when they're not by virtue of being more shit or good than the other but that's it. So criticise away!
RPS has changed since its inception, in style and content as well as staff, but I enjoy it as much as ever. It's centred a little more around current events and less about gaming in general, but that's alright with me. I still find tremendous value in the site which is why I remain a $2/month subscriber.
The community here is still above average, though I'm starting to see more negativity and insult-hurling seeping in. That's a little troubling but I find a little positive reciprocity can steer an angry conversation back on track. To that end, I think a little more positivity in the narrative voice by the RPS writers would help set the tone of the comments. Maybe it's just me but I feel the tone of articles has become more negative and clinical than the carefree days of early RPS.
I hesitated to say this, but since he's the one who initiated this I guess I'll just go for it. John Walker has always been such a ray of sunshine with his positivity and carefree attitude. He's always been my favourite writer here and his articles have always been a real pick-me-up. Not so much lately. His articles seem more critical and harsh than they've ever been now. His opinions are no less valid and I still relish his contributions but I can't help but feel there's something missing from the site. There's a void where there used to be a warm sunbeam on a shag carpet that attracted fluffy cats to snooze.
It is my sincerest hope that all is well with everyone at RPS. This is one of few very web communities I call home, and the only one I pay money to. RPS does things that no one else does and I love them for it. Just keep on doing what you're doing and I will remain smitten.
(also, don't ever lose Adam. Tie him to Horace, if necessary.)
People dismissing Indie are dismissing treating independent games as a genre, not individual games. A game should not be treated differently because it is Independent, and yet it is - including on RPS. How much press did A Valley Without Wind get, for what was essentially an ugly boring game that tried to do nothing new? Would it have gotten anywhere as much (both on RPS, and elsewhere) if it was published by some middling publisher? Personally, I think not though I'm sure people will argue differently.
It was interesting, even if it's flawed or failed badly, it had potential and promise and who knew where it'd end up? Surely that's worth a mention? And that's where the equal treatment comes in. Plucking a game out of my bum here but Dishonored has every bit, possibly more, chance of going to munt but it still gets many a mention because it's interesting.
So either you treat them differently (ie - you don't touch AVWW even if it is interesting to you because it's indie) or you don't. RPS don't.