IMPORTANT SITE NOTICE - The END TIMES are here!

I prefer reading my internet content 80% of the time so I agree on that part. I think you might want to avoid repeating what created this place initially, if the desired effect is a legitimate business.

Just about everyone here is much more the wordsmith than I am. With placing an emphasis on writing and a disdain towards videos, you might actually have the effect of becoming less accessible to the general public and create merely a reinvigorated clubhouse for wordsmiths.

It might be wise to enbrace the video content as well, in tandem with awesome writing. Plenty of people are very entertaining and engaging in person/video and cannot write for shit, just as some great writers are complete lens cracking bores. For this site to truly go next step you're going to have to have video content. The kids want it and they'll send their traffic elsewhere if they cant access it. Script only websites are going the way of the Ameritrash moniker. Get some quality video shows to keep in step with everyone else and I'm not talking boring droning losers unboxing a new game unscripted with 40 "uh's" and "huh's" with the personalty of someone most people avoid.

That being said the "hosts" don't have to be professional performers either just fun and engaging with a little charisma...and a general script.

I'd make videos but I've often been told I have a great face for writing.

Seriously though I'm sure that if someone showed up and offered to make quality videos and host them on our front page they wouldn't get turned away. I don't think the site is anti-video but someone would have to make the videos and all we have is writers.

I’m definitely doing that Booze, Boardgames, and Babes. This is the project the Circus has morphed into.

Although videos are not for me, I do agree that they seem to be the unavoidable path to success. Bah, kids these days.

However, if you publish a single unboxing video, I will burn my F:AT membership card and never return.

Secret Satan unboxing videos are permitted in a closed group forum tho

I'm going to start making videos where I box games (i.e. put them away).

Black Barney wrote: And that section will fill up as we get more reviews of books and awesome podcasts. That culture section will be a fun off-shoot of the main gaming section(s).)

I have a review of the first episode of Into the Badlands already posted on my blog that I wanted to put here. Review of the 2nd episode is in my head. Just waiting on MB to start posting stuff in the regular. Planning on writing something about Annihilation and Infinity War as soon as I see them and about Incredibles 2 when it comes out. Also can pour out a few thousand words about Hearthstone at pretty much any time.

Truly, the only board game review videos worth watching are those from Shut Up and Sit Down, Drive Thru Review, and Calandale. Shut Up and Sit Down would be the apex and high-water mark.

I hate watching videos in real time because I really don't have the time since I'm always multi-tasking when on this forum and the net.

Play-through or how to play videos for complex games are worth it in real time if they're well done.

ChristopherMD wrote: I'm going to start making videos where I box games (i.e. put them away).

I might watch video reviews, if the reviewer did the dreaded Barnes box sweep to put away a bad game.

I'll look forward to the announcement on BGG in a couple of years time welcoming therewillbe.games "into the BGG family"
Seriously though, this a great move as it can only raise the profile of the contributors here which is richly deserved by all. It's a bit of a clubhouse at the moment for sure, but there are a lot of people listening in who value the fiercely independent and above all articulate voice of this site. I might even be encouraged to up my own post count, maybe even to as much as four times a year!

ChristopherMD wrote: I'm going to start making videos where I box games (i.e. put them away).

To be fair, with all of these overstuffed Kickstarter games that might actually be useful content.

Given all of the “how do I use insert” questions I’ve seen on BGG, that might actually be something people like. Sadly.

Getting all of the Massive Darkness minis back where they belong is an impossible task.

xthexlo wrote: There is a methodology in decision analysis called multi-criteria decision modeling (MCDM). It basically utilizes weighting and scaling to rank alternatives based on a well-defined set of characteristics (attributes) and preferences. Characteristics may be physical, operational, etc. and scores may be qualitative or quantitative, natural or constructed. An application to games would be a well-defined set of attributes (e.g., replayability, strength of theme, level of deck building, role of area control, number of players, etc.) with corresponding measurement scales (e.g., yes/no; high/med/low; 1 through 5; etc.). Once the measures are normalized to a common scale and relative trade-off weights are assessed and assigned (preferences), one would obtain a relative ranking of the games under consideration.

The difficulty lies in obtaining a common set of normalizations and weights. Because people have different preferences, two people’s valuation functions and weighting schemes rarely align. However, one thing this community could offer is a comprehensive set of well-defined and categorized attributes and suggestions for measurement systems. For example, “number of players required” or “optimal number of players” are pretty obvious and could be measured in integers. (Note here that some players would see a value increase with more players and some people would see a value decrease with more players.) An example of an attribute different than those typically considered (and one that would be beneficial for the games I design) would be a yes or no for “Require the right group to fully enjoy.”

I believe that a well-define and categorized set of attributes coupled with an attendant set of measures could prove quite useful in two ways. First, it would provide for a common lexicon for our ongoing discussions. Second, it could help us (and our readers) think more clearly about what interests them in a game so they can better research before they purchase. The F:AT contributors are, in my opinion, exquisitely suited to develop and curate such a set.

Generating a set of attributes and measures also paves the way for quantitative evaluations of games later on, should we find that desirable. For example, Barnes might offer a certain ranking of dungeon crawlers given his own set of valuations and weights (e.g., increasing the number of die rolls per turn offers diminishing value; theme is weighted twice as highly as play time, etc.). Nate could offer another view based on his preferences. Charlie a third. Readers would be able to think about their own preferences and then see how they align with the reviewer’s.

I’m not saying we do this right out of the gate — maybe not at all. But as long as we are thinking about TWBG differentiation, I wanted to throw these concepts into the ring.

I literally just started in LLC, about 2 weeks ago, doing just this for large corporations. If we ever did want to move in that direction, I would love to help. BGG rating/ranking system could be improved immensely. Additionally, it is straight forward to create a set of preferences/recommendations based on rankings and individual preference vectors.

They have an awesome database, but the leave a lot of analysis on the table. It could be much more useful

Space Ghost wrote: They have an awesome database, but the leave a lot of analysis on the table. It could be much more useful

You're leaping to the conclusion that their database is clean and well-populated. I don't get that feeling looking from the outside, and that's more or less what I do for a living. Looking from the inside may bring some indigestion.

Part of what I brought up earlier in the week is that BGG has become the de facto source of statistics for journalism, generally from an outsider's perspective. Things like "3,000 new games last year" in Bloomberg, with no citation, lead me to believe it's an avid boardgamer writing the story, who is spitting out numbers from the Advanced Search tool. I'm not as trusting, as I get paid to get good numbers out of shit data. As often as not databases aren't terribly cleanly unless they have "Accounts Receivable" in their name.