Current Events > Was this really the reason for GameFAQs downfall?

(+) Yeah! (+)

"This game series used to be my favorite, but the following issues have lead to it being a sub-par game." List issues that are legitimate and be told "Why are you here if you don't like the game" about 100 times. People firmly believe each forum is to promote and advertise the game. Game forums have always been to discuss the game, and while some go just to troll obviously, most people who dislike specific games have enjoyed (or used to enjoy) the series.

The shallow, low minded people that constantly question why you're on a site to discuss a game series, I believe, was one of the main contributions to it's downfall. And then mods started to actively censor and remove topics that were critical of games, which is ludicrous. Imagine being a life time [your sports team here] fan, and getting on a forum during a terrible season and saying the coach needs to go, or they need to change players or strategies; then, you're told "why do you even come here, this team is great!" That rarely happens because sports fans understand that even as a fan of a team, you can dislike the team and it's direction without them taking offense. Yet, with video games, people will defend SBMM in games like Call of Duty to the point that they have no clue what they're talking about.

I remember around 2010 or so, I was getting host all the time in Call of Duty and absolutely getting destroyed. Those were the days where you could tell who connected to the host when the game began. I started saying that lag compensation (and there are many forms of it) needed to be drawn back because it was excessive on hosts. I probably received 10 posts to 1 claiming either lag compensation (like SBMM now) didn't exist or that it worked perfect. When a patch came out, and the developer actually quoted their notes as reducing the effect of lag compensation, crickets. The site turned from "lets discuss the good and the bad, and give reviews of games" to "you can only be here if you're 100 percent behind the developer in every way," and that mostly included moderators.

Saw it on Reddit

No. The site is just old as shit and never got with the times.

I mean if you don't like Zelda are you going to a Zelda subreddit to "genuinely" talk about the issue the game has and expect not to get the same replies you get from here?

Jagr_68 posted...

No. The site is just old as shit and never got with the times.

yep
i think of this from a 2015 Q&A with Sailor Bacon:

"The greatest growth in the gaming media sector over the past 5 years has been in the area of streaming videos/commentary by gamers. How do you feel about this? Does GameFAQs have any future plans or interest in getting involved in that area?" - The Admiral

If theres one thing weve learned in the past few years, its that GameFAQs and video just dont go together as well as they should. We tried video walkthroughs and they didnt take off. We allow YouTube links to video that we get plenty of submissions for but that dont really drive much interest in our users. Streaming is so outside of our niche in the market that adding it wouldnt even make sense. So many sites do this already and do an amazing job that trying to compete would be silly. We could look into partnerships with other sites and try a focus on teaching/walkthroughs of games, but thats probably the best case scenario there.