4

On the surface, I'm thinking so. Outside of the diagrams, there's nothing that can't be answered quickly.

| |
  • 1
    Cheat... books? Why would you need a book for cheats when you've had the internet since the n64 days at the very least? – Aeo Nov 12 '10 at 20:32
  • @Aeo At the very least, one can leave a book in one's lap a lot more comfortably while sitting in front of a console than trying to muscle a computer in there somewhere. Then again, we're not a book... – Grace Note Nov 12 '10 at 20:41
  • @Aeo's point still stands. Between the internet and printers, I don't see the need for actual books. – user56 Nov 12 '10 at 21:22
  • 2
    @Arda And that is the problem with your generation. – Grace Note Nov 12 '10 at 21:24
  • @Grace Cheat books. I still love to read actual bound books, but not while I'm gaming. – user56 Nov 12 '10 at 21:32
  • 3
    @Arda You never owned an original strategy guide for Final Fantasy III on the Famicom, complete with illustrations of the items and weapons in the game. You can't get that sweet, sweet Amano quality with the text files on the net, not without spending a fortune on ink. Price of a book these days is far cheaper than the materials I'd need to print any guide worth anything. – Grace Note Nov 12 '10 at 21:36
  • @Grace The problem with my generation is that we don't read strategy guides while gaming, and actual literary works don't count? :( – user56 Nov 12 '10 at 21:45
  • @Arda It depends. Is Yoshitaka Amano's adaptation of "The Magic Flute" amidst the actual literary works you've read? ♪ – Grace Note Nov 12 '10 at 21:53
  • @Grace Who made you the president of literary works worth reading? :-) – user56 Nov 12 '10 at 22:20
  • 1
    @Arda After the 8th possible retort I came up with, I think I've decided to agree that we can't go much further off-topic here. ♪ Obviously, we'll have to continue in chat proper sometime~ – Grace Note Nov 12 '10 at 22:33
  • 1
    Actually @Grace the big difference with us and your FFIII cheat book is that someone actually spend a huge amount of time to design such a beautifully looking book. Not every answer here get's that same amount of attention! – Ivo Flipse Nov 13 '10 at 9:38
8

Gaming doesn't aim to kill anything. There's a void and we're trying to fill it.

| |
  • What exactly is that void? – Charles Boyung Nov 16 '10 at 3:01
  • 1
    @Charles: a site that answers your questions about gaming (as opposed to, what do I know, sites with lists of everything you might ever want to know about games, most lists of which are released under a closed license that explicitly negates redistribution). – badp Nov 16 '10 at 8:20
  • Last time I checked, there were LOTS of sites that answer your questions about gaming. And the site that you are referring to does it quite well. Also, why is a "closed license" a problem? [edited by Oak] – Charles Boyung Nov 16 '10 at 16:04
  • Discussion logs. – badp Nov 16 '10 at 17:07
5

I see Gaming.SE as a completely different, non-conflicting thing. Strategy guides aim to tell you about everything in a game. We're here to answer specific questions (that you can't find with a quick Google search preferably). Sometimes a strategy guide doesn't cover what you'd want to know, or there may just be no strategy guide for a particular game.

Really what we aim to "replace" is the myriad forums out there dedicated to gaming strategy/non-technical help. We feel like the Stack Exchange engine is better suited to asking and answering questions and keeping current than the clunky old forum paradigm. No one likes to scroll through 35 pages of forum discussion from 2001 that may or may not contain the answer you're looking for.

| |
-2

If GameFAQs, which has existed for years, hasn't done away with the need for guide books (they are most definitely not "cheat" books), then I highly doubt that this site will do it. Especially since that site provides something much closer to what guide books provide (walkthroughs) than this site does. And it has forums for your desired "quick question and answer" functionality as well.

Actually, GameFAQs is much better than this site for most games because right now, I rarely see any questions getting answered here that aren't the "top" current games out there (SC2, Civ5, WOW, Minecraft and now Black Ops).

| |
  • 1
    It's a self-reinforcing loop. The majority of incoming traffic is going to be for new games, because resources may not exist yet. This leads to questions about new games, which we provide answers to therefore strengthening our position in new games and promoting more attention to us for new games. Older games tend to get asked more often by people who have become adjusted to the community, and have come to learn that "Hey, I know I'll get my answer here". Comparatively, outside users are more likely to stumble on existing other resources first, since we're not on the top of the list. – Grace Note Nov 15 '10 at 22:28
  • @Grace Note - I understand that. My point was that even when questions here ARE for other, older games, there are rarely answers. Obviously there isn't a large enough user base yet, but when those questions DO get asked and are left unanswered, it isn't going to get this site the traction it needs to stay afloat. – Charles Boyung Nov 16 '10 at 16:06

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .