|
Post by Shellshock on Feb 1, 2009 10:56:47 GMT -5
^^^
Indeed. I agree this site is a sort of rising underdog thanks to 1) regular updates, 2) unique content, 3) community effort, and 4) Kurt's format. My site is pretty much a copy of this one, and I have to dance around HG101's articles in order not to be redundant and offer different content.
But hey, obscure game prices rising due to HG101 is still a little far fetched. The site isn't mainstream enough to have that kind of influence.
|
|
|
Post by Ryu the Grappler on Feb 1, 2009 12:18:07 GMT -5
You guys have to remember that Wikipedia is a user edited website. People who cite HG101 in articles are usually editors who don't know any better, considering Wikipedia actually has a policy against citing independently or self-published sources for information (especially other user-submitted sites like IMDB and Arcade-History.org). I noticed some HG101 articles tend to have some mistakes or unsourced statements of facts.
I think its even worse when they cite information from third party sources that could be cited to the primary source as well. Do we really need to cite three different magazine articles stating that Solid Snake is the main character of the Metal Gear series, when the primary sources (i.e: the games themselves) are sufficient enough to support this fact?
Or course, Wikipedia is nothing compared to what some actual companies do. Some companies are too lazy to research their own history, so they basically copy and paste content from Wikipedia or fansites. Capcom USA is currently the biggest offender: the SF IV Training Manual that was given to the press had character and gameplay descriptions ripped straight from fansites and wikis, and history section of their official site is nothing but borrowed content from a fansite.
Since when the hell does a company needs a fansite to research their OWN history?
G-Mode, the company who bought all of Data East's former IPs, is guilty of this as well.
|
|
|
Post by Discoalucard on Feb 1, 2009 14:44:12 GMT -5
I noticed some HG101 articles tend to have some mistakes or unsourced statements of facts. Like Ganelon said, a lot of these are peer edited. If you see any mistakes, please bring them up! (as like the Fatal Fury stuff.) I usually verify my facts firsthand, but I can't verify everything, especially from contributors. I think its even worse when they cite information from third party sources that could be cited to the primary source as well. Do we really need to cite three different magazine articles stating that Solid Snake is the main character of the Metal Gear series, when the primary sources (i.e: the games themselves) are sufficient enough to support this fact? Yeah this is pretty ridiculous. Someone referenced my Dragon Quest article(s) when stating that the games take place a pseudo European medieval world, which is plainly evident if you play the game for more than a few minutes. Since when the hell does a company needs a fansite to research their OWN history? I doubt a lot of their "official" history, at least the really obscure stuff, is in English. A lot of this is probably done by PR people anyway, who don't know/care either. Besides, there are so many continuities between the comics/anime, and previous localizations, that it's nearly impossible to keep track of without being inconsistent somewhere along the line.
|
|
|
Post by Ryu the Grappler on Feb 1, 2009 16:04:55 GMT -5
I doubt a lot of their "official" history, at least the really obscure stuff, is in English. A lot of this is probably done by PR people anyway, who don't know/care either. Besides, there are so many continuities between the comics/anime, and previous localizations, that it's nearly impossible to keep track of without being inconsistent somewhere along the line. True, but at the very least don't companies usually have an archive of every game they published, including their packaging and manual? Or at least an employee who is fluent in Japanese that can verify the differences between regional versions?
|
|
|
Post by jorpho on Feb 2, 2009 23:31:32 GMT -5
If Home of the Underdogs ever revives, I would gladly link to this site wherever applicable. (Too bad that seems increasingly unlikely these days.)
|
|
|
Post by Revolver Ocelot on Feb 3, 2009 11:58:24 GMT -5
I think this is part of the inevitable process of recognizing websites as authoritative links, same with books. Anyone can write a trashy and clueless book; anyone can create a trashy and clueless website with just a little less effort. But video gaming has thrived off the internet, with many breaking news announcements and other info being initiated here. For instance, since we've mentioned the game, take the case how Gundam Battle Assault 2's roster was first obtained. Now, the magazines already announced and had 3 screenshots for the game before anybody on the net knew about it but there were no details. Also at that time, I was really big into Gundam games on the GameFAQs message boards; I had actually joined there primarily because I wanted to write about the original Gundam Battle Assault so I was there to make the 2nd post when the GBA2 board was created and later the 1st post when the Gundam general board was created. That's a little sad but I was hooked and GameFAQs was the only place where people discussed Gundam games (as opposed to the anime, manga, or toys). Now, somebody had earlier leaked onto GameFAQs a Bandaigames.com press login for another title and I kept that info, looking day in and day out through the more detailed press site listing for hopefully some more info on GBA2. Finally, one day, my perseverance pays off and I find that Bandai had added a new mini-site for GBA2 that was invisible on the public site. In it was a shot of the character select screen and I saw all the MS available on there. I posted the link, login, and mobile suit list that I saw onto GameFAQs and there was my first major news breakthrough. And then later, I clearly remember that just as the board was dying down, Master ZED stepped in and graciously released his GameShark codes to select the 4 hidden suits in the game; yet more history straight from the internet and nowhere else. So my point is, the internet has totally changed things and is perhaps the most definitive source on games that you can get. Having Hardcore Gaming 101 recognized as an authoritative source on gaming only makes sense considering it's peer-edited and is maintained by a very active administrator. The format is top-notch; summaries for the games can be usually found in a less straightforward manner elsewhere but nowhere is there more explicit detail on the version differences. The multitude of pictures are exceptional and the pictures comparing different versions are simply incredible; lots of kudos to Kurt for coming up with such a solid review structure. The only thing I don't like is that after some HG101 articles are released, game prices for lesser known titles tend to spike due to the increase in demand from previously ignorant gamers. Segagaga used to be your typical $15-30 game and then suddenly some fools came in and were willing to pay $60 for the game before it mellowed down again (but still not to original levels, likely because any new gamer can now check HG101 to see what a game is about). Of course, that doesn't explain why MSX game prices have been inflated like crazy in recent years... I don't see a lot of crap-website-referencing in wikipedia's game articles, though. A lot of the links are to "empirical" sources like IGN and EGM, and to have HG101 stand alongside them as sources of game knowledge is pretty impressive, IMHO. I'm not saying HG101's writers should suddenly be consumed by hubris or lose sight of their modesty, but there's no reason to not be proud of one's own work being acknowledged. I don't think there's a single article on this site that didn't have a lot of work invested in it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 14, 2009 18:08:31 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Shellshock on Feb 15, 2009 10:40:25 GMT -5
G-Mode, the company who bought all of Data East's former IPs, is guilty of this as well. Well, G-Mode doesn't give a **** about anything anyways. Just look at their page for Data East's arcade titles, it looks horrible.
|
|
|
Post by Shellshock on Feb 15, 2009 19:45:10 GMT -5
Alright, this is funny. I hope this isn't one of you guys trying to pull my leg. I just got this email today: Hi. I'm an editor at wikipedia, and I am currently doing research for an article on the St. Giga company that broadcast Satellaview games in the mid- to late-1990s. As part of the article I was hoping to include a few useful pictures to illustrate the company's various logos, etc. I noticed that you have a number of images hosted at your website (www.blamethecontrollpad.com), and two of them caught my eye in particular.I was wondering if I could have your permission to upload and license the following images at wikipedia: www.blamethecontrolpad.com/bsx/bsxsystem/bs-x%20bios018.png www.blamethecontrolpad.com/bsx/Others/BSSuperMario1-01.gif
I think they would be a valuable addition to the article. Your website would be credited, of course and I could credit you personally if you wish to give me your name.
Either way, thank you for your consideration of the matter and congratulations on the interesting website.
-Thomas Hibbs
Nice of him to ask for permission to copy the images, but they aren't mine in the first place. I got them from... (get this).... Google! Edit: Here's my reply: Dear Tom, You are welcome to download any pictures from my website and use them at your discretion. After all, I in turn downloaded them from other sources and don't deserve the credit for taking the screenshots. Thank you for your time.
|
|
kmr
New Member
Posts: 1
|
Post by kmr on Feb 28, 2009 20:09:32 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Strider on Mar 1, 2009 12:17:29 GMT -5
Seconded- this would be really nice.
- HC
|
|
|
Post by Gilder on Mar 1, 2009 16:48:19 GMT -5
The site actually use to have one way back when the Darkstalkers article was put up, but Kurt has expressed his indifference with RSS before.
|
|
|
Post by Discoalucard on Mar 2, 2009 23:05:19 GMT -5
My big issue is I don't really "get" RSS - I guess I'm too old fashioned, but I just tend to check my favorite websites every once and awhile to see what's up. I tried it for a few weeks but got to be too big a pain. One of those sites linked a handy one that creates one automatically though - I generated one and uploaded it. It seemed to validate, but I don't have an RSS reader so I dunno if it works. Let me know, I guess.
|
|
|
Post by Scylla on Mar 29, 2009 20:47:41 GMT -5
Unless there's something intentional about it that I'm not aware of, none of the new articles added in the 3/2 update are on the master list. That definitely needs to be fixed before they fall off the recent articles list.
|
|
|
Post by Discoalucard on Mar 29, 2009 21:59:43 GMT -5
Huh, hadn't noticed that. Fixed now, thanks!
|
|