Stack Does Gaming | Hacker News Reader

Stack Does Gaming

avc.com

21 pointsmwsherman25 comments

I don't think gaming will work for Stack Overflow...too general...all those gaming forums he mentions tend to revolve around a single game or a series.

And Stack Exchange just doesn't subcategorize well...yes they have tags...but if you have a question about a specific game, you are more likely to go to thatspecificgameforum.com rather than posting on a general site hoping someone there actually played the game in question

Also a very large aspect of discussing gaming is subjective. More general gaming sites involve people talking about their favorite games, best game in <genre>, etc. Stack Exchange sites are really anti-subjectivity, which reduces a lot of the potential discussion for gaming. Take this question for example: http://gaming.stackexchange.com/questions/2168/relaxing-game...

That's exactly the sort of question that gaming forums thrive on. I'm going to have to go through some of the meta-discussion on this site to see what they actually think should be there :/

For the right games, discussing parts of the game is also really hard and require quite a number of elaboration to get done properly.

Just check out the number of theorycraft there is about starcraft BW and 2, about the Civilization games and so on. I just cannot see how this would fit into such a simple question/answer-system, given that quite often there is no single answer. (Consider e.g. Broodwar: What is a strong opening build as zerg? Well.. there are around 3-5 possibilities into 2 possibilities into 2-3 other possibilities, and there is a certain dependency on the enemy and the map. Good luck fitting all of that in a single answer).

Yes, the signal/noise ratio on this site is going to be brutal. Gaming forums typically reduce the cognitive load by having single threads/boards for discussions about one game. The StackExchange model is just going to blitz you; I'd be surprised if questions stay on the FP longer than 2 minutes, let alone get answered.

The gamedev StackExchange beta seems to be doing OK. I've never really jumped in to answer questions on SO, but I have been trying here. I'm surprised that people seem so compelled to answer, it's terribly unrewarding to put time and effort into a response and get no reply or one or two upvotes. It hardly seems worth it. I'll stick to forums where actually discussion can occur.

Take this with a grain of salt. He in an investor in Stack Overflow after all:

http://www.unionsquareventures.com/investments/index.php

..which he disclosed clearly in the first paragraph of his blog post.

Doesn't make it any less true.

I would use the site if I could say: I want to only view things related to starcraft, or warcraft, or whatever.. now, there are too much random question about things I don't like/don't know.

Isn't this the point of tags?

http://gaming.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/world-of-wa...

http://gaming.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/starcraft

Yes but this only works if the question is tagged. For instance, to take your example, there are more result for "zerg" than for "starcraft" which is illogical in my opinion :p

You are right that tag gives huge flexibility.. however, maybe a little bit less flexibility with more static section would be easier for gamers. I.e. tagging zerg,rush in the section StarCraft or something like that.

I find Stack Overflow's new gaming site to be quite underwhelming.

I had no idea USV invested in Stack Overflow. I thought Joel was strictly against VC capital, and his arguments were dead on (dramatic difference in risk aversion). Besides, I was under impression that SO never really needed external cash...

I wonder if they asked him "Why did you change your mind, Joel?" after they were done with their PP deck. That must have been awkward. :P

Joel's thinking re taking VC for SO: http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2010/02/14.html

Joel on Software, "Raising money for StackOverflow:"

http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2010/02/14.html

I miss the old layout of AVC's site, with the funny little painting that I always assumed was of him. It felt really homey. For some reason this one makes me feel like I just walked into a big warehouse with too much open space and high ceilings.

Just sayin'.

For me, the Stack sites rely on gentleman-like behavior - from the no need to sign up through to collaborative rather than discursive/bitching nature they are trying to foster.

Gaming seems to be at odds with that - most game forums seem to be infused with pre-pubescent tweens and teens discovering the 'art' of griefing for the first time. Sure there that isn't everyone who uses game forums, but these people shout the loudest.

I very much doubt this will work in Stack. But then what is the cost to them in trying out a few new verticals? I would like to see them try 10 risky verticals with the aim of shelving 5-8 that don't work after 12 months.

Maybe the "gentlemen gamers" haven't had a suitable forum to congregate. Wasn't there just a study that said most gamers were adult men? If so, this will be tailored to them much better and give them the tools to deal with the tweens.

It depends. Obviously, there are more communities of tweenagers yelling into the Internet well than there are those of mostly adults than software engineering, but it doesn't mean they are the only game communities.

The Penny Arcade forums, SomethingAwful's gaming forum, ElitistJerks, Quarter To Three, NeoGaf (to some extent) and other places are all renowned for decent discussion.

I don't really understand the need that this is addressing? As others have mentioned, this is completely subjective territory. In order for subjective opinions to carry ANY weight, one must take into account the person answering.

Smaller, focused forums are much more suited to produce useful answers on highly subjective material. They generate more relevant content to participating parties because both asker and answerer are more likely have some knowledge of the other.

"Gamers love to earn points, badges, and status."

I am completely sick of them. They scream "you are being fooled" to me - namely, you are doing work in exchange for play money.

I would say "Gamers love to earn relative status". There's definitely a desire in many for some sort of ranking system, and then it's competition instead of grinding.

But yes. Useless achievements are useless, and annoying when they're used to unlock extra things. TF2 is handling it relatively well, but it's definitely gained a bit of grind to me since they started adding unlockable weapons / hats / etc.

I feel like someone should tell his son about http://gamefaqs.com

or my favorite gaming site, http://www.giantbomb.com/

My favorite part about GameFAQs is that it's hardly about actual FAQs anymore. It's mostly walkthroughs, guides, maps, other content that doesn't really match a Q&A format. The forums are another popular location, but I wouldn't call them "FAQs" either.

There is a Q&A product called "Answers" attached to GameFAQs that doesn't seem to be as popular as their Walkthroughs offerings. For some games, however, they seem to be moderately well populated:

http://www.gamefaqs.com/ps3/928790-final-fantasy-xiii/answer...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com