Reader Review: Nintendo World Report
It was a long time coming. Was it worth the wait? Read on to find out.
Planet GameCube had a problem. It had survived long enough that its name was about to become obsolete. Rather than come up with some Wiik pun for a new name, the staff wisely sought out a name that could stand the test of time, at least as long as Nintendo did. The new name, Nintendo World Report, sounds serious, or as serious as a website about -- let's face it -- toys can sound. If the name has a weakness, it's that it's a little dry. It's not very abbreviation friendly, either, thanks to English's worst named letter, W, mucking things up. Overall, the new name meets the site's needs and style of reporting news adequately.
A new name only takes us so far, though. The site needed a new look, too, if for no other reason than that the old name was still plastered all over it. GameCube purple (okay, indigo) wasn't exactly in vogue anymore, either. What do we get instead? Blue on white. You know, like the Wii, only worse because you have to read it. All right, so the color scheme isn't very inspired and will have to be replaced again in five years (give or take), but it's not all bad. There are some very nice improvements to the site layout. For one thing, every single headline is clearly marked both by section and by platform. This is a much appreciated change, indeed. The platform names are even color coded. How cute.
Below the headlines, older headlines are condensed into an "Additional Content" section. This is a very good idea. It will no doubt keep the front page from getting cluttered during major events while still keeping all the news easily accessible. It should also be helpful to readers who don't visit very often. Visually, it ties in well even though a completely different format on the same page could have ended up looking out of place. The section and platform names are even shrunk down along with the headlines.
The game and review lists especially benefit from the updated look. The colored platform names make a world of difference. The various options introduced by the new backend fit the new design much better than they did the old one, presumably because this layout was designed with them in mind from the beginning, yet another sign that the redesign was overdue.
The reviews look much more professional now. Actually noting the platform on the review page is, once again, a welcome addition. I didn't notice it at first because it doesn't seem to show up on GC reviews for some reason. I'm sure this is only one of many bugs that will be worked out. There's a nifty new image viewer, too. It seems a little unnecessary, honestly, and it makes it impossible to link directly to a particular image. That may have been intentional to prevent bandwidth leeching, but it will certainly make citing particular screenshots in forum posts more difficult. The viewer also lacks navigation buttons, making its purpose even less apparent.
At first I thought the top of the page looked a little too empty, then I realized that the banner flashblock was disabling was actually part of the site layout. How very clever. Except not. Turning the banner on, I see that it's replicating the old method of putting image links to major stories at the top of the page. I liked this on the old site, but putting it in Flash doesn't make much sense. I lose the ability to quickly open the links in new tabs or windows while I read the rest of the headlines, and I can only assume it's harder to update the flash banner than it was to swap a new image into the old page. In return, I get a fuzzy effect when I mouse over the link. What on Earth for? I'll admit that there are some very useful benefits to using flash, like the ability to have more than just three top stories in the banner, or the ability to cycle through those story links quickly, or even some attractive animation. But no, we get fuzzy mouse over.
All in all, the new site is a good thing. Out with the old, in with the new, etc. Even if I criticize, I know that underneath the bland, redundant appearance and questionable design decisions still beats the heart of an old friend and staunch ally.
Summary
Pros:
Information is easier to find than ever.
Doesn't have any problems with Firefox 2.0.
Cons:
Questionable use of Flash.
Do we really need another white and blue Nintendo web site?
Score
Appearance: 6
While not ugly, the color scheme is predictable. The site is very easily readable for the most part, but blue text on a white background is not the best choice for either grabbing attention or being easy to read.
Usability: 8
Getting the information I need has never been easier. The image viewer is somewhat lacking, though.
Sound: 10
I don't hear a thing, just the way I like my web sites.
Final (not an average): 7.5
What really matters is the quality of the staff and the way they report news and review games. Nintendo World Report should continue to be my favorite Nintendo web site for many years to come, even if I don't like the way it looks.
Topic: Reader Review: Nintendo World Report (Read 2945 times)
