By the way, @CharlesBoyung, nice try trying to get me to say what site I think has filled the void we're trying to fill. If I thought the void was filled, there'd be no void to fill in the first place. Try again.
@CharlesBoyung, what part of "I'm not going to give further replies here." defies you?
Just because YOU think they suck doesn't mean they aren't there. Or maybe you are using some other definition of void that doesn't exist in this universe.
Sorry, but that definition is incorrect anyways. You can say that there is a void of quality sites, but just saying that there is a void means that the sites do not exist at all.
I'd have no problem with your answer if you said there was a void of quality sites, but saying that there is a void of sites that answer questions about games is unfair to all of those sites that have existed for years.
I just really dislike it when past successes are downplayed as irrelevant (or nonexistent), because things like stackexchange wouldn't exist if not for things like the forums on sites like GameFAQs.
Forums sucked enough for Jeff Atwood and Joel Spolsky to start this StackOverflow thing out of scratch, to create a new company around it and waste years of research and work into it. If you think it's a merit, fine.
Not the thing I'd boast around, but hey, to each their own.
Forums worked for years and years, and still do. I agree that Q&A is better suited to another form, but if you are denying that GameFAQs worked to answer gamers' questions, then you are wrong.
@CharlesBoyung I'm not denying GameFAQs is useless. I'm claiming GameFAQs focuses on something we don't want to go into. I'm claiming forums are poorly suited to getting questions answered. I'm claiming there's a void of sites that focus on the answering of questions about gaming, closing everything that doesn't fit in that description, and then some more.
That's fine. And I'm just saying that denying those sites even exist is not the statement that you should be making because all it has the potential to do is piss people off.
You still haven't explained one thing to me - what was your point of bringing up the licensing of the content on "other sites" (I'm assuming GameFAQs)?
