2
\$\begingroup\$

A lot of non-programming questions on this site are closed because they are "broad" or "open-ended". Game design is not a science and hence there are bound to be multiple answers. There is an informative thread about posting questions about game design questions here

Similarly, the game industry is an ever-changing landscape. There are a lot of variations in how things are done in the industry. Moreover, it is shrouded in mystery for those not working in the industry. Many of the people who answer questions here, already work in the industry (resulting in such a high quality of answers). This is not the case with a lot of the people who primarily ask questions. A naive question gets closed immediately, although tons more might have the same question.

How should industry-related questions be framed in order to restrict their scope and keep them answerable, despite their inherently broad nature? Moreover, should these questions be redirected to a descriptive answer (outside this website) before closing them?

\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ Can you give examples of questions that were closed for posterity? \$\endgroup\$ – MichaelHouse Oct 16 '12 at 17:00
  • \$\begingroup\$ @Byte56 I assume this is based at least in part on recent activity here. \$\endgroup\$ – Josh Oct 16 '12 at 17:09
  • \$\begingroup\$ @JoshPetrie I'm aware of that one, but that's only one. According to this question there are "A lot". \$\endgroup\$ – MichaelHouse Oct 16 '12 at 17:10
  • \$\begingroup\$ @Byte56 These are some of the ones I find interesting. They are broad, but not chatty, IMO. 1 2 3 Compared to the amount of questions answered, admittedly, the number of questions closed are not a lot. But the percentage of closed questions in these non-coding categories is more. Hence the qstn. \$\endgroup\$ – ApoorvaJ Oct 16 '12 at 17:27
  • \$\begingroup\$ In addition to the question being overly broad, I cast my close vote on that question because it included multiple questions. We ask that "questions" include one question. \$\endgroup\$ – Jesse Dorsey Oct 16 '12 at 17:43
  • \$\begingroup\$ 1: Like your question, was very broad and asking for a lower level answer. They already listed the typical things and wanted more. That's too broad. 2 Is better for the programmers SE. It's not a question that a game developer could answer better. 3 is just generating a list. Just look at all the answers. They're opinions of how people think levels should be designed. Very few facts. Not the way the site should operate. \$\endgroup\$ – MichaelHouse Oct 16 '12 at 17:53
3
\$\begingroup\$

We had another discussion on game design and mechanics questions recently, as well.

The guidelines for scoping a question about the professional aspects of the industry are the same as the guidelines for scoping any other question, I'd imagine. Be specific in your needs, focus on an actual problem you are having, et cetera.

Remember that the basis for closing a question isn't how many people want to know the answer to it, it's how answerable the question is within the guidelines of the site. Sometimes the question is just too broad no matter how you toy with the phrasing, and in those cases the question is just not appropriate here -- other venues, such as the chat and sites like GDNet, are probably better.

\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ The GDNet forums do indeed seem like a more beginner friendly place. Thanks for the pointer. \$\endgroup\$ – ApoorvaJ Oct 16 '12 at 17:30

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .