next »

[JackieJay]

Well I used to be a regular visitor of Gametunnel.com, but given the fact that it was last updated in September I suppose the site is gone for good.

Does anyone know what happened ?

[ஒழுக்கின்மை]

the owner (russell carrol i believe) sold it to someone last year; that person didn't take care of it as well and let the forums and database be corrupted due to lack of attention. check out the forums for a huge number of spam posts (more than i've ever seen anywhere).

it's a shame though, since it was really the first site that specifically reviewed indie games. it's now been eclipsed by tigsource, timw's blog, and playthisthing, but it was the first.

[Derek]

Joseph Lieberman is the guy who took it over: http://vgsmart.blogspot.com/

(He writes the "M.Indie" columun on GameTunnel.)

[Christian Knudsen]

Wow, imagine going from trying to become president/vice president to running a gaming site. How the mighty have fallen...

[moi]

I guess he must have turned coat about the site

[JackieJay]

I suppose it's not the democrat, that would be too awesome. However that would also explain why he wanted to ban GTA in the US, fuck the mainstream, indies ftw.

Anyway, that's a real shame he's not taking care of the site, like paul eres said, it was the only place where they actually reviewed indie games. TIGS, indiegames.com and the likes are awesome sources of information, the kinda site you visit every day looking for new stuff to play, look or drool at, gametunnel was more like the gamespot of indie gaming, I often made up my mind on whether buying a game or not after I read one of their reviews.

What about creating a new sister site for TIGS exclusively for reviews, written by the TIGS staff with the odd guest review, with scores and all that ?
Now that would be awesome. 

[ஒழுக்கின்மை]

actually i don't think scores really fit in with indie games -- they feel like a mechanism of mainstream games which don't really cross over well.

[Melly]

Instead of reviews, perhaps we should do critiques.

Yo Guert we got a job for ya.

Also:

the gamespot of indie gaming

This is not exactly flattering.

[moi]

actually i don't think scores really fit in with indie games -- they feel like a mechanism of mainstream games which don't really cross over well.

Actually working on a game isn' indie at all.
I mean why slave on a game when you could be posing at social events.

[Derek]

I like scores - they provide a clear reference point for discussion.  I think without scores many more games (including low-scoring ones) would go unnoticed.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை]

they don't really provide that when they're bought (and they're bought most of the time for the big videogame journalism outlets) -- they're a measure of how much a company paid journalists for the scores, if anything.

[imaginationac]

they don't really provide that when they're bought (and they're bought most of the time for the big videogame journalism outlets) -- they're a measure of how much a company paid journalists for the scores, if anything.

Could you substantiate this claim with proof?

[ஒழுக்கின்மை]

it's kind of well-known. one big example is one guy getting fired for giving a game a 6 (a case which became famous only because because of a penny arcade comic strip, but it's one of many). this blog has recorded many cases of it over the years: http://www.vgmwatch.com/

even the govt recognizes it as a problem; in 08 or so a law was passed that vg journalists have to reveal all "gifts" etc. from videogame publishers to the federal trade commission (i'm not sure how often they actually follow that law, though).

often, games journalists even brag about it. i remember the editors of egm once bragging how they get free vacations and stuff, just because game publishers hope that sending them bribes will help their scores.

[Gimym JIMBERT]

only 3 (good, average, bad) and a badge for greatness. That's how we discuss game.

[Derek]

Yeah, I like the 5-star format.  The 10 point or 100% scales are dumb.  Even when you're told 50% is average, most people are thinking anything below 80% is just BAD.  And then you have controversies over the 89% type scores... that should be a non-issue.

And when they're bought, that's terrible, too.

But if they're not bought, and follow a 5-star scale, and accompany a nice review, I like 'em.  I'm glad we have them on TIGdb.

[skaldicpoet9]

I personally hate scores, I don't believe that something as subjective as a game can be quantified with an arbitrary number. I am much more partial to the system that Kotaku uses: highlighting what the reviewer liked about the game and then listing what the reviewer disliked about the game.

In my opinion, I think this works much better to get an overall feel for the game and not be distracted by random scorecards being lifted over reviewers head's. Also, in case anyone wants to know, I feel the same about any type of medium. I would much rather read a review that doesn't have any sort of score attributed to the content, I think stars, points, grades etc, are bullshit.

But hey, that is just me, some people love them, so, to each their own, right?

[Rob Lach]

Yeah, I like the 5-star format.  The 10 point or 100% scales are dumb.  Even when you're told 50% is average, most people are thinking anything below 80% is just BAD.  And then you have controversies over the 89% type scores... that should be a non-issue.

And when they're bought, that's terrible, too.

But if they're not bought, and follow a 5-star scale, and accompany a nice review, I like 'em.  I'm glad we have them on TIGdb.

I'm fond of a scale a program on Public Radio here in Chicago called Sound Opinions uses. It's a music talk show and they usually do a review of 1-3 albums towards the end.

The use the Buy It, Burn It, Trash It scale.

For games it would roughly translate into something like this:

But It - Definitely must buy since it's awesome.
Burn It - Worth checking out since depending on your tastes you might like it.
Trash It - Avoid.

[alspal]

I personally hate scores, I don't believe that something as subjective as a game can be quantified with an arbitrary number.

People give scores to show if they liked a game or not. If they didn't show the score (i.e., they're hiding it from you), then you have to read through what they've said and guess as to what score they would have given it. That's why it can be helpful to just look at a score out 5 or 3, to quickly understand whether the reviewer likes it or not.

[TheDustin]

What about creating a new sister site for TIGS exclusively for reviews...?
Now that would be awesome. 

We aren't TIG's blood relation but reviews/critiques are our main draw. 

Instead of a score you should just have a "bottom line" one sentence explanation for people who are too lazy to read a whole review.

[moi]

it's kind of well-known. one big example is one guy getting fired for giving a game a 6 (a case which became famous only because because of a penny arcade comic strip, but it's one of many). this blog has recorded many cases of it over the years: http://www.vgmwatch.com/

I disagree. It's kind of well known that most score aern't bought.
For examlpe this one guy not getting into trouble for honestly giving a score. Oh man that shit was hardcore. I remember it.
This website has recorded many examples over the year, you can make a search.