Talk:FAQ: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
m (added a sig for Aurora's paragraph; otherwise the two comments run together) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
I feel that the listing of the IF Comp is exclusionary. But before I go off and change the thing, I'd like to see what others thought first. I propose putting in a competitions section to replace it, and then limk to all the contests out there. | I feel that the listing of the IF Comp is exclusionary. But before I go off and change the thing, I'd like to see what others thought first. I propose putting in a competitions section to replace it, and then limk to all the contests out there. | ||
I also feel, on a side note, that we shouldn't talk about the age of commercial IF as being over. 1893 and Future Boy have dispelled that myth quite handily. | I also feel, on a side note, that we shouldn't talk about the age of commercial IF as being over. 1893 and Future Boy have dispelled that myth quite handily. -- [[Aurora]] | ||
Well, Aurora, my take on the FAQ is that it's a problematic page no matter what is done with it. It wants to be both succinct and authoratative, which are goals at odds with each other. It will either focus on one thing (like the IF Comp to the exclusion of all other comps), or become so bulky with information, it will no longer be succinct. The best compromise that I can think of is to include a 'see also' line at the end of each section to show that there is more to a given topic than the FAQ currently suggests. Unfortunately, my suggestion can't eliminate the inherit biases that are implicit within the FAQ. I would like to hear what others might have to say on how wide a scope the FAQ should be. | Well, Aurora, my take on the FAQ is that it's a problematic page no matter what is done with it. It wants to be both succinct and authoratative, which are goals at odds with each other. It will either focus on one thing (like the IF Comp to the exclusion of all other comps), or become so bulky with information, it will no longer be succinct. The best compromise that I can think of is to include a 'see also' line at the end of each section to show that there is more to a given topic than the FAQ currently suggests. Unfortunately, my suggestion can't eliminate the inherit biases that are implicit within the FAQ. I would like to hear what others might have to say on how wide a scope the FAQ should be. | ||
As to your suggestion that the age of commercial IF is not over, I think you are mistaken. Current sales of IF is miniscule, and organized by the authors themselves. It's little more than vanity press. This is nothing like how it used to be, when Infocom was selling millions of copies of their games. Yes, IF games will continue to be sold here and there, (and yes, I haven't forgotten Malinche's efforts), but it's still fair to say that the 'age' is over. -- [[User:Dswxyz|David Welbourn]] 13:53, 11 Feb 2005 (Central Standard Time) | As to your suggestion that the age of commercial IF is not over, I think you are mistaken. Current sales of IF is miniscule, and organized by the authors themselves. It's little more than vanity press. This is nothing like how it used to be, when Infocom was selling millions of copies of their games. Yes, IF games will continue to be sold here and there, (and yes, I haven't forgotten Malinche's efforts), but it's still fair to say that the 'age' is over. -- [[User:Dswxyz|David Welbourn]] 13:53, 11 Feb 2005 (Central Standard Time) | ||
Revision as of 19:54, 11 February 2005
I feel that the listing of the IF Comp is exclusionary. But before I go off and change the thing, I'd like to see what others thought first. I propose putting in a competitions section to replace it, and then limk to all the contests out there.
I also feel, on a side note, that we shouldn't talk about the age of commercial IF as being over. 1893 and Future Boy have dispelled that myth quite handily. -- Aurora
Well, Aurora, my take on the FAQ is that it's a problematic page no matter what is done with it. It wants to be both succinct and authoratative, which are goals at odds with each other. It will either focus on one thing (like the IF Comp to the exclusion of all other comps), or become so bulky with information, it will no longer be succinct. The best compromise that I can think of is to include a 'see also' line at the end of each section to show that there is more to a given topic than the FAQ currently suggests. Unfortunately, my suggestion can't eliminate the inherit biases that are implicit within the FAQ. I would like to hear what others might have to say on how wide a scope the FAQ should be.
As to your suggestion that the age of commercial IF is not over, I think you are mistaken. Current sales of IF is miniscule, and organized by the authors themselves. It's little more than vanity press. This is nothing like how it used to be, when Infocom was selling millions of copies of their games. Yes, IF games will continue to be sold here and there, (and yes, I haven't forgotten Malinche's efforts), but it's still fair to say that the 'age' is over. -- David Welbourn 13:53, 11 Feb 2005 (Central Standard Time)