D&D 4E Video Review of the 4E D&D Website

[nerfherder]

I think most of the points made in the video were fair. WotC have put a lot of effort into putting free content onto their site from the days of 3e. They just* need to overhaul their design and layout.

I find the current layout to be unintuitive, messy and unattractive. It makes me less likely to buy a DDI subscription.

(* and when I say "just", I realise that this is a big undertaking)

 

[Failed Saving Throw]

Overall, I'm not sure which is worse - WoTC's website or that awful pile-o- known as Gleemax. If they really expect people to shell out money to access such online content, they really need to get cracking on making it a LOT better.

 

[Belen]

That guy was way too nice to WOTC. Their site blows.

 

[Plane Sailing]

Nit-picking the border line-up of unlinked and unrelated parts of the site does not make you clever. Sorry.

I'm a professional web developer/designer, and I have to say that getting 'grid' elements to line up nicely is an important aspect of getting a site right; good design cares about the details as well as the big picture.

His points about the way that 'Dragon' and "Dungeon' are portrayed on the wizards.com site are right-on too - Each 'Issue' of the 'virtual magazine' needs to have an splendid table of contents that draws people in to each of the articles. Too much of the current design relies upon people clicking on tiny sentences to see what they might find.

 

[Cirex]

For all that the D&D site could do with whole swathes of improvement, that guy killed his own argument by coming across like a tool. His points might be valid, but he's not funny, he's just a geek... And after that video he just seems a sad geek who is riding high on a 'I pointed out the failings of others' moment. A victory only he acknowledges.

Nit-picking the border line-up of unlinked and unrelated parts of the site does not make you clever. Sorry.

I don't think he killed his own argument. It was quite clear : Wizards site needs more attention. Most of his comments were showing a lack of attention, focus, design, etc. Those

WoW site, US version, is managed by Geoff Fraizer, who is a gamer and a webmaster, and you can see that he designed the site like the kind of site that he would like to see.

Wizards could try to spend some more money and get someone with a clear idea of what is needed, someone who takes care of details and presents a structure that the entire site follows.

The DDI FAQ is a clear example of the current state of the site.
I don't like the Wizards site, but well, I don't really need much from it, so I guess I didn't bother "complaining" about it till now, when I had the chance.

 

[Mottokrosh]

Bad dog. Er, site.

I have to agree with the reviewer and others on this point. With such a history of fantastic artists on their books - just look at the recent Githyanki and Githzerai art by Michael Komarck - their website designs have just been awful. Both from an initial look factor, and from a data architecture point of view.

I understand that there are budget considerations, but why not open up a "design D&D's website" competition? I have no doubt that among the D&D following there are many great web designers and developers (with spare time on their hands).

Oh, and do Gleemax while they're at it. Ugh.

 

[Grimstaff]

"Ooh! OOh! This tiny line over here, when I click on it, it just goes to another page with more words on it. How crappy is that!? Ooh, Ooh! And here's a picture of an orc, it just sits there on my browser like a plague on my eyes, what kind of crap is that!? WoW's website has lots of boobs on it that I can see without my parents finding porn on their basement computer, while WotC's site has this friggin' orc? While I'm at it, let me show you my great website, its so much better than WotC's and Wow's combined....blah, blah, blah."

Seriously, dude, get a life.

When I saw the article link on ENWorld's front page I thought the guy was reviewing the new digital game table or something. But no, he just rambles on about the basic WotC website, after some incomprehensible praise for the WoW website. Nitpick much? Sheesh...

Am I the only one who fails to see any noticible, important difference between the two? (Other than the excrutiatingly long load times over at WoW, that is, but hey, they're a busy site.)

Don't bother clicking that link, find something better to do with your five minutes. I dunno, plant a tree or something...

 

[nerfherder]

Am I the only one who fails to see any noticible, important difference between the two? (Other than the excrutiatingly long load times over at WoW, that is, but hey, they're a busy site.)

I've never looked at the WoW site, so I don't know, but I do visit a *lot* of sites for work and play, and the current WotC site does not compare well with most of the others.

 

[Belen]

When I saw the article link on ENWorld's front page I thought the guy was reviewing the new digital game table or something. But no, he just rambles on about the basic WotC website, after some incomprehensible praise for the WoW website. Nitpick much? Sheesh...

You're right. The fact that they cannot handle a basic site or web forums tells me that they will have an uberkewl DDI. They have proven to me that they can do it!

Wizards site is an awful mess. Why would anyone spend any time there?

 

[Charwoman Gene]

Can I get a crappy video on the front page too by posting it to my blog?

Will shooting in in ghastly lighting and camera angle **inappropriate insult removed after moderation** help?

(I left the appropriate criticism. The review is ghastly lit and shot. I was trying to make a point about production values. I got snarky. I'm trying to improve sorry.)

EDIT: This is inappropriate. CG, see my comment on the next page, please. ~ Piratecat