Gaming Forum official thread guidelines

Status
Not open for further replies.

alr1ght

bish gets all the credit :)
I'd request OTs to be ctrl-f friendly as well, so not being completely made of images.
I'd recommend that all the pertinent info (platforms, release date, price) be at or near the top in plain text.

Here's the template I usually use
Code:
[INDENT][b]Publisher:[/b] 
[b]Developer:[/b] [url=""][/url]
[b]Director:[/b] 
[b]Platform:[/b] 
[b]Genre:[/b] 
[b]Rating:[/b] 
[b]Players:[/b] 
[b]Price:[/b] 
[b]Release Date:[/b][/INDENT]
 
If anything ,another thing that need to be kept in mind while making OTs (as weird as it sounds) is that in many cases, many don't read OTs after a game is released. So, sometimes the OTs are flooded by questions that are already answered in the main post. Granted, in big/bloated threads it is a problem and telling people to "look for it yourself" of course it would suck; but if anything it's something that should be kept in mind when making them.

OT creators also need to update threads after posted, and not just typos. If you see a question been asked a lot in the thread (i.e. which version is the best, does the game has a reversible cover, online pass, etc.); that kind of stuff should be added to the main post (if not there from the beginning). But in many cases, OTs are posted and never updated with latest info unless something "big" happens.


Yeah, and is something I wanted to "copy" for a possible OT. XD

But then, people started saying that it sucked because it was just a bunch of images with links. That it didn't look well in their phones, that "control+F" didn't worked (because it's an image)..so I'm quite torn now. :p

I'd like to make an OT like that, but it will also bring some critiscm towards it.
The other problem with those were if the links die, the OP is wiped completely with is part of why AC:R OT was hated so much since AC:B was completely dead from image links being broken.
 
I am fine supporting this. However, I do wish that these rules were established before my thread was used as the final scapegoat. For the record, there was no intent to market the title in any regard. We were trying to offer gaf information that is not available elsewhere, which appears to be a misconception here. Looks like that wasn't something desirable.
 
I am fine supporting this. However, I do wish that these rules were established before my thread was used as the final scapegoat. For the record, there was no intent to market the title in any regard. We were trying to offer gaf information that is not available elsewhere, which appears to be a misconception here. Looks like that wasn't something desirable.
If you still can't understand what was wrong with your thread then I don't know what to tell you.
 
If you still can't understand what was wrong with your thread then I don't know what to tell you.
Where did I say I didn't think anything was wrong?

The formatting was all wrong. It was late and therefore rushed. We got tunnel vision and didn't foresee the end result. It was more about getting it out there. I put effort into my formatting using the little tools available for separating text. But in my head, those two posts weren't that long or bothersome. Like I said, tunnel vision.

I am only disappointed in how it was handled except for some great help I did receive. A couple fans of a game got carried away and made a mistake. I was told about the complaints and basically said "oh shit." I was then in my opinion insulted when I had no ill intentions and was being receptive to the complains. It then took 5 minutes to pastebin and get things to one post. What was wrong were the accusations of marketing and that we were c+p from elsewhere. I wrote all that DMC3:SE content myself so there was zero c+p from this fictitious wiki that people were citing. Nobody even bothered to read it before making accusations.

Anyway, the change will stop fans from making the same mistake.
 

Snuggles

erotic butter maelstrom
The new tabs look really good. Glad you guys didn't go with the obnoxious bright orange highlight that a few people suggested.

edit - meant to type this in the OT sticky, oops.
 
So I really want to know what that guy with the Zero avatar thinks about this.

is it good reason to exceed the 1 post per OT if you explain how a combat system works in lets say a FF, or explaining a multiplayer aspect of a game like changes from MW3 to BLOPS2?
That sounds like a horrible reason and exactly the kind of things that we should hopefully see less of.
 
Still sad we'll never see a MGS4 mega thread again. :(
Yeah, that was the only "mega-thread" that I liked. It was so neat and well-organized that the number of posts weren't even bothersome. The disarray of pictures in the AssCreed thread and walls of text in the DMC one just hurt my eyes, but the MGS4 one had it down.

Still, the good structure of the MGS4 thread is capable of being condensed into one post (U3 |OT|), so it's not a huge loss.
 
Wouldn't it be better better to have the "|OT|" part the first part of a thread title instead of going after the game title? I guess uniformness would be broken abit when |OT2| & ups came into play. >.<;

Least I dun gotta worry about 56k low ram warnings when opening up an OT anymore! I hope! Sucks having your pc chug and browser freeze just for trying ta view a thread.
 
I'm a big fan of these guidelines and feel that they were much-needed. There is one that I think should be bent a little, though. This one:

-Do not be affiliated in any way with the game in question, whether as a developer, publisher, or marketer.
For big name, big budget games I can see why this makes sense and I'm all for it. On the other side though, for smaller games made by GAF members I don' tthink it should necessarily apply. For exmaple, I can't of a good reason why Feep or Jocchan shouldn't be able to make the Sequence or Dudebro threads, respectively. Obviously you don't want people joining just to promote their game, but for long-time members with good reputations I wouldn't see an issue with letting them make their own OT's.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.