skinnyman's forum posts

#1 Posted by skinnyman (195 posts) -

Ok, I have spent the last 2 pages showing that there is an obvious problem with the current setup. GB has a wiki to serve as a tool to the entire gamer community, not some tiny subset of the community that has played every new release on the day that it comes out. The quests are designed to get people into exploring the wiki database, not to spoil games for them. All of these efforts on the part of GB are rendered meaningless if the wiki is so rife with spoilers that skimming a concept page can ruin the entire plotline of a game that came out in 2010. No one except this tiny subset of the community is supposed to be viewing the database? I'm just not buying that. I'm betting Jeff wouldn't buy that either. Either implicitly or explicitly, that is what almost everyone in this thread has suggested.

I have not heard anyone refute any of the arguments that I have made, and it's obvious in some cases that there is no desire to even try to understand them, people just want to parrot whatever rules, written or unwritten, they have heard in the past. There is either a dogmatic view of completeness or "wiki rules," or just a cavalier attitude that it's funny to ruin new games for people who aren't in the "in crowd" that plays new releases immediately. There has been no one who has been able to show that the way things are currently done is actually better in any tangible way.

I realize that change is hard, and sometimes it involves a little work, but GB should always be striving to improve in every way. This applies just as much to the wiki as to any other part of the site. I already had a game, which I had interest in playing, ruined for me. I am trying to keep this from happening to someone else.

#2 Posted by skinnyman (195 posts) -
@LordAndrew: I meant a separate page for the Origami Killer, not a name switch.
#3 Posted by skinnyman (195 posts) -
@LordAndrew said:
  So right now if you don't want too see spoilers, don't look at the concepts. Don't look at objects either. Even seeing the list of characters could spoil.
That doesn't strike you as a bit counterproductive?

How about this: instead of the CHARACTER's name in the list of killers, put the name of the SERIAL KILLER i.e. the Origami Killer. That would solve most of the problems in this case.
#4 Posted by skinnyman (195 posts) -
@FireBurger: Other sites have them in the form of guides and walkthroughs, as far as I know. GB actually has a separate section for those items. But that's kinda beside the point.

I'm not saying we shouldn't have the end of the story in the story section. I'm not saying we shouldn't have a character's death on his/her character page. I'm just saying that maybe we could find some common sense rules for the most obvious spoilers. Like you said, the staff is able to do it with reviews, videos, and bombcasts, we are able to throw a (SPOILERS!!) tag in our blogs, and the forums have a nifty tool to hide spoilers. It's actually not that hard. People shouldn't have to avoid the entire wiki if there are games in existence which have "spoilable" plot points.

My best example is (insert character name) in (insert concept page such as serial killer). Sure, by excluding certain characters who are discovered to be serial killers at the end of the game in a twist ending we give up a certain sense of "completeness." But who cares.

Anyone viewing that page is in one of two categories, people who DO KNOW character X is a serial killer, and people who DO NOT KNOW character X is a serial killer.If you do know, then having that name in that list doesn't help you at all. You already know, so you don't care.

If you don't know, then THE LAST THING YOU WANT IS TO FIND OUT!! Seriously! The whole game is ruined!

I realize at this point this is going to be a losing battle. Change is scary, and of course it's not possible that the system wasn't perfect to begin with (sorry, sarcasm). But jeez people, do you realize how easy it is to hit spoilers in the wiki as it is now? I actively try to avoid pages for games I am interested in, as do most of you. It obviously didn't help in this case. I can't imagine what it would be like for a new user who is just trying to find a review. I dunno, I guess just something to think about for the mods, if any of them read this.
#5 Posted by skinnyman (195 posts) -
@FireBurger: It's not really an "off chance"... I would bet that anyone who did the quest, who hadn't played Heavy Rain yet, had an "aw fuck" moment where they realized that the entire game's plot had been given away, simply due to one character's name being on a concept list. I guarantee that NO ONE who was in that situation appreciated the "thoroughness" of the wiki.

I just don't buy the premise that "thoroughness" trumps any and all other concerns in building a database. GiantBomb should be a place that seeks to welcome all gamers, not an exclusive community of people who play all the major releases on Day 1 and don't care if they ruin the experience for others after that.
#6 Posted by skinnyman (195 posts) -
@MattyFTM said:

The Giant Bomb wiki is supposed to be a huge database of video gaming knowledge. That includes spoiler content. When viewing a wiki page you should expect to see spoilers. Generally spoilers should be contained within a "story" section of the wiki to avoid people accidentally stumbling over it, but it's always possible for spoilers to appear via page associations too. Bringing in a "no spoilers" rule or censoring spoilers in any way is counterintuitive to what the wiki is trying to do.

Well that's that I guess. It just seems to me like a lazy approach to say, "Hey, unless you have played all these games on or soon after their release date, stay out of our wiki." Isn't there some sort of common sense middle ground so that browsing non-game, non-character related pages wouldn't completely spoil the plot of an unplayed game?

I guess I don't understand the appeal of a database that is only useful to people who have already played every game in it, with no intention of playing the rest. It seems to exclude a huge number of people who might have legitimate interest in a game but don't necessarily want the plot points spoiled.

Also, did you look at my specific recommendations? Did you agree with any of them? I thought they were fairly common sense and didn't even require any sweeping changes.
#7 Posted by skinnyman (195 posts) -
@imsh_pl: Thanks. I wouldn't think that it would hurt anything either.

@Bocam: Again, I know that this is everywhere. I don't even have a problem with spoilers in the story section. Read my post, this is not where the spoiler that I discovered was. In fact, the story section of Heavy Rain is impressively spoiler free.
#8 Posted by skinnyman (195 posts) -

A) I looked at the character and game pages after the plot was already spoiled by something else. I didn't look at any character or game pages until after it was already a done deal.

B) I thought you didn't care about spoilers, so just read my post. Otherwise, you are just contributing an uninformed opinion and are out of your element. Donnie.
#9 Posted by skinnyman (195 posts) -
@Bocam said:

  don't look up a game if you haven't beaten it yet

I didn't. Read my original post.


 if you're looking at a page for a particular game

I didn't. Read my original post.


I wouldn't read the wiki page for the game post-release beyond the blurb and an overview section.

 I didn't. Read my original post.
#10 Posted by skinnyman (195 posts) -
@imsh_pl: I don't think we need to "change the entire wiki." From what I have seen, 99% of the pages don't contain spoilers, even ones like Heavy Rain's which contain plot devices, character descriptions, and gameplay details. There would be a very small number of pages that need some modification.

There is a difference between relevant, useful video game facts in a database and straight up story spoilers. We have spoiler warnings for forum posts; people who don't use them are regarded as jackasses. I don't know why the rules would change for the wiki.

Also, "this is how it's always been" is generally a pretty poor argument. I'm not aware that there has ever been a discussion about this, so I am trying to open one up.