digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Welcome to Joystiq 2.0!

joystiq.com — There's a lot of new features in store, some of which still aren't ready for prime time (but soon will be).

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • mastercheif, on 10/11/2007, -1/+46I guess clutter is back in these days.
    • mrfreeziexp, on 10/11/2007, -0/+7I totally thought the same thing. the main reason I went to Joystiq was because of the clean layout. This new version gives me a headache.
    • xerus, on 10/11/2007, -3/+2Did you guys ever look at the right side of Joystiq in its previous layout? All the clutter was just shoved over there. At least now its managable clutter all over the screen.
  • Wailord, on 10/11/2007, -3/+13Looks very...different?
    I like it better, though, nicely seperated from the same look as every other blog.
  • andrewsmith1986, on 10/11/2007, -2/+9seems more like kotaku and destructoid now.
  • noahs, on 10/11/2007, -2/+10i want the pong logo back
  • estvir, on 10/11/2007, -2/+11Visually, it's horrible but I'm sure there are some good features. They really need to hire a new designer, actually, hiring one could be a start.

    Things which need work:

    - Colours; too much grey, text on the left, the yellow boxes on the right, bold text on the left, etc
    - Background: it just doesn't look right
    - The diagonal pattern; it's not 2001 and if you're going to try and use trends from back than at least have the dignity to add a lens flare
    - Metadata for each post; the position, colour, structure, etc
    - Structure of the site; it looks like they got a 4 year old to try and make a puzzle
    - The top right links to articles; just bad
    - Inconsistent 'updates' in posts

    I'll stop there, but seriously, it makes me eyes weep and my soul anguish, as a designer. Don't get me wrong, it will suffice but man.. Oh well, hopefully when they talk about the new features tomorrow they'll make up for it. Ah, and for those who think I'm being 'mean' or something along the lines of that, if you can't take comments like this about your work you're in the wrong field.
  • meshman, on 10/11/2007, -13/+2I don't get it. Where is it?

    Nevermind, I thought they were talking about an actual new Joystick design and a physical product. But no, it's another Dot-Com Crash 2.0 site.

    Buried for use of invalid/innacurate term "Web 2.0".
    • SkippyDoorknob, on 10/11/2007, -0/+7What are you reading? There is nothing here that mentions "Web 2.0"
  • The_Wallbanger, on 10/11/2007, -0/+21New and improved with more ads.
    • b3mus3d, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3...because how dare a website make any money.
    • SuperPunch, on 10/11/2007, -3/+0Well, you know. Joystiq is owned by Weblogs Inc, who is owned by aol-timewarner. Money from timewarner goes to the Bush admin as well as the Rockefeller and Hilton family. Of course Joystiq needed more ads.
    • celkin, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0No adblock on your web-browser? n00b:(
  • lukewind, on 10/11/2007, -9/+9Oh Yeah baby....and updated version of the worst gaming blog out there...what more could a guy ask for?
  • theonlyvlad, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5Is it me or are all Engadget-family websites slow to scroll? It's the only website I notice a lag in scrolling, and it only happens after all the supplimentary stuff on the sides loads
  • prockcore, on 10/11/2007, -0/+9I still hate their comment system. I hate that you can't create an account (or have to memorize some random password).
  • rick2k, on 10/11/2007, -3/+10Urgh that is shocking.

    Ad's ad's ad's + loads of cluttered crap
  • McTendo, on 10/11/2007, -2/+9Doesn't matter how Joystiq looks, it will always end up with the same people making the same comments. Joystiq has the worse gaming fanboys I have ever seen.
    • McTendo, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2Having said that, I do enjoy the mobile version of Joystiq. It's the only site out of the three that I visit (Kotaku,Destructoid,Joystiq) that bothered to include a mobile version so I can easily view it from my Palm LD. And the best part is there are no comments on the mobile version.
  • rmw132, on 10/11/2007, -3/+1I dont know about you guys, but at least now I can finally read their article headline font. Before it was just impossible to read.
  • ravi7791, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Don't like it here. The actual content feels way to "sandwiched in" between the other ads/links. It's not like I even read the wall of links on the other side. I just read the posts. Maybe a fluid setup would've been better? Heck, they should've just grabbed engadget's layout.
  • lolhax, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4Is there some hidden Web 2.0 rule that says that you can't have more than 10-12 words on a line? Seriously, make your main content areas wide, a lot of people have a widescreen monitor these days. Can't understand the ***** point of 3 inch wide text areas.
    • SkippyDoorknob, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Magazines and newspapers especially have very wide pages, but still put text in narrower columns to make it easy for your eyes to not get lost.
    • orb_nsc, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Agreed. Why do we need two inches of blue border on both sides of the content area, even on a 1600 x 1200 display?
    • zeejay, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1The more you have to scroll, the more ads you will see. The other thing that drives me nuts is when these Web 2.0 blog sites do the "more after the jump" (a phrase that makes me want to vomit), and when you click, you get, like, 2 more sentences.... but another 18 ad impressions.
  • contradictator, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Why do all the comments have Mario as the users' pic?
    • BrainCoder, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Maybe is the default avatar.
    • BugMeNot2, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2The avatar system wasn't ready for launch, so, at least for now, everybody is a Paper Mario.
  • ReapZor, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1so im at the site saying... what really is this? Never seeing this site before I look for an about page that will tell me what this site is... i click it... and it tells me everything i need to know, the very two words included in this about page are "about joystiq".
  • BrainCoder, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1Good layout, anyway needs some work...looks so Web 2.0!
    The old layout sucked so much, this is better a lot!
  • pretendex, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2This definitely isn't ready for prime time, I'm getting a syntax error!
  • crackedplastic, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6Wonder if Joystiq will now have original content, or just continue to rip content from other sites.
    • JagoX, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2I'm sure they will continue to rip off other sights by "paraphrasing" the original content and then calling it their own.
      • king3vbo, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1amen, Joystiq just rips off other people
  • Elric77, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4LOL Looks like ass!
  • HCJfilms, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4Blogs used to be all about simplicity.
  • miyamotofreak, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3Ugh. I liked the old style better.
  • darkNiGHTS, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3Buried for blog spam, please link to the source next time.

    /sarcasm
  • JagoX, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3New design...same ***** website and wanna-be bloggers who think they are journalists.
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.