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

[Kzach]

I thought he was spot on.

The Wizard's website has been terrible ever since I can remember and has never gotten significantly better despite several major overhaul attempts.

It's a complete hack-job. This is why I have very little in the way of hope for Gleemax.

 

[JVisgaitis]

I really don't like the WotC website. This is evidenced by the fact that whenever I want to find a link to something on the D&D site (like the Paragon Paths article), I come to EN World. I understand the reviewers passion for design, but trying to send a message to WotC that their website is severely lacking might come across a lot better without being all high and mighty. I really wish someone would update the D&D site. Right now, it's a total train wreck.

 

[nerfherder]

... whenever I want to find a link to something on the D&D site (like the Paragon Paths article), I come to EN World.

lol! Yeah, thinking about it, that's exactly what I do, too!

EN World = WotC's index

 

[lutecius]

the WotC site IS messy, gleemax is even more of a pain to navigate, with less content so far.
But i find it ironic to pick a site apart in such a boring video. It might be interesting for a web designer, but I couldn't get to the end.

 

[Frostmarrow]

lol! Yeah, thinking about it, that's exactly what I do, too!

EN World = WotC's index

Me too!

 

[AllisterH]

Strange...I've never had an issue with WOTC's website....

What other website do you guys recommend that I check out? I've been a WoW player and I've never though WoW website was impressive. Then again, my standard is pretty low (can I find it easily? Then it works).....

I've always been able to find things pretty easily on WOTC's website for both M:TG and D&D,..

 

[Waylander the Slayer]

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

Will shooting in in ghastly lighting and camera angle and facial hair that accentuate my neck fat help?

What is the point of this?

 

[ShadowDenizen]

My two copper on the situation?

The reveiw had some vaild points, though he's not as funny as he fancies himself to be, IMO.

IMO, TSR/WotC really is hurting themselves with their poor online offerings, especially when one considers that they want the Digital Initiative to be a cornerstone of 4E. Sure, print ads and TV spots MAY attract potential players, but when they come to the WotC website, I honestly think those potential players may think twice after seeing it.

And, personally speaking, I've seen very little that makes me want to pay for DDI, let alone for Gleemax. (Employee blogs posing as "Future Product Announcements"? Poor content and timing for online Dragon?)

Consider that, in 8 years, WotC could not come up with an worthy online character generator for 3E; why does one suppose that is going to change overnight now that 4E is almost here? Especially given the horrendous state of Gleemax, and the lackluster official website.

I'll will, however, look at the revised Campaign Settings when they come.

 

[lutecius]

Strange...I've never had an issue with WOTC's website....

A simple example.

I think there was a 4e pit fiend previewed in some article a couple of months ago...

My first reaction would be to click on "previews" in the home menu, or is it "excerpts"?

Neither. I should have known it was in "Dragon". why i have to sign in (or later pay) for this particular preview isn't quite clear but hey...

So it's not a "feature", it's a "column" of course. It makes much more sense.

"Design & Development" maybe?
NO it's in "AMPERSAND". the name tells it all! I should have known from the start!


....OR I could have googled [site:www.wizards.com "pit fiend"] = FIRST HIT

 

[wedgeski]

The WoW website is chock full of fantastic stuff, but the navigation is uninspired. I fail to see how it beats the WotC website, which is also chock full of good stuff, but hard to navigate. And I use both... a lot. They're extremely similar in feel.

What I will 100% agree with is that Dungeon and Dragon need their own portal pages, something that reminds you these are complete, individual magazines and not just categories for the web site to sort on. These portals need big, splashy artwork, and a table of contents with preview text. Articles which haven't been released yet should be there, greyed out and unclickable, to give you a taste of what is to come that month.

This stuff is so obvious that I wouldn't be surprised if Wizards had the button lined up for pushing in June.