Recommend
5 
 Thumb up
 Hide
26 Posts
1 , 2  Next »   | 

BoardGameGeek» Forums » Gaming Related » General Gaming

Subject: What Makes a Good Representative Image? rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: reference [+] [View All]
Ben Penner
United States
Tucson
Arizona
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
As I've been looking through games, I've noticed that there are about 3 different types of representative images:
1) Close up of the Box
2) A spread of the board, compontnts, and the box
3) An image of the board.

So the question comes to mind, "What makes the best representative image?"

To me, I would rather see the Box. It puts a specific image into my mind for the game. A spread that includes the box is nice because it lets you see everything, but it doesn't stick as well in my mind. Just an image of the board is lost on me, I won't remember it specifically to the game.

At least that's how I see it as someone looking at a game for the first time. I guess that after knowing the game for a while, I could understand that a cool image would mean more.

On a couple of games I have tried to suggest the Box image, but see it was declined. I don't know if anyone would agree with me, but if there are, would there be a way to re-propose images?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Joe Grundy
Australia
Sydney
NSW
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
There were huge arguments discussions about this when the representative images got voted in a couple of months ago.

On the one hand were the gamers, who point out that BGG is not a shop, you are unlikely to be looking for a game you've never seen the inside of and if you are "just browsing" you will likely use some sort of search filters and go to game pages or indeed be looking to be drawn to a game by its bits not its box.

On the other hand were the collectors, who it seems never actually play their games and can only remember what the games look like by what's on the outside of the box.

Ahem. Yes all the discussion was polite and not at all ad hominem.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
If Actions Speak Louder Than Words, Then Actions x2 Speak Louder Than Actions
United States
Las Vegas
Nevada
flag msg tools
badge
One of the Original Twelve
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
What makes a good hot-button topic to toss into a room and run away?
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Malachi Brown
United States
Hermitage
TN
flag msg tools
It's turtles all the way down.
badge
“Questions are a burden to others; answers a prison for oneself.”
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/115130

After reading a fraction of those, I got the idea that it might be a better plan to have three types of representative images. One for the box, one for the bits, and another for the game in action. Then users could even pick which type of picture they would like to see by default... I think, until something is done, there will be regular see-saw changes where people hope that the geekmods of the minute are "in their camp".
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Gabe Alvaro
United States
Berkeley
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Malachi wrote:
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/115130

[snip]
I got the idea that it might be a better plan to have three types of representative images.


I totally avoided this whole discussion cuz I just didn't think I cared. Then I read your suggestion. I brought up a game screen and noticed that the +Information box consists of the representative image, the basic game specs and then quite a bit of empty space. What a lot of unused space!

If someone hasn't suggested it yet, I think you should make your suggestion and drive it. I would add that the rep image space could be a multiple panel space for multiple images (maybe four images like this +) and then the game specs. Maybe the whole +Information space could be divided into three or four columns even. It sure does seem like a waste of valuable (and highly contentious) space.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Phillip Heaton
United States
Springfield
Virginia
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I still like the cover art. I use the geek to find new games that interest me. When I find one, I want to know what it looks like so I can find it easier on the FLGS shelves.

Part of the vetting process I go through, before a game hits my want list, includes reading the reviews and looking at all the pictures. I don't depend on just one of the pictures to help me decide which game I want. After it is on the list, it may be some time before I'll buy it, and a picture of the cover keeps it fresh in my mind when I'm at the FLGS.

This can lead to another type of flame war, the "Why buy games at your FLGS when you can get them for so much less through an online store?". I guess that some people don't care if their FLGS survives or not, and if they don't use it for anything, I can understand. Unfortunatly, a lot of people who play games at the store refuse to buy anything there, then wonder why it finally goes under, costing them one of their favorite places to play.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mark Cahill
Canada
Lethbridge
Alberta
flag msg tools
badge
Game group needed...
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
When the representative image was first introduced, it was poorly named. It was to be used as a thumbnail image as well as a stock image of the game. The box front is clearly the best thing to use as a thumbnail image because it usually has the name of the game in large font that's easy to read. It also allows you to see what the box looks like so you can spot it in a store.

There was a minority of people that took the term 'representative image' at face value and insisted on shots of the game in action. While I agree that this may be more representative of what the game actually is, it makes for some lousy images, particularly when the image is small.

Once an image is declined, it can never be resubmitted. Many images of the cover art were declined by the 'game in action' camp and now we are stuck with some hard to see thumbnails.

It was really all a matter of semantics. What was needed was a clear image that communicated at a glance what the game was at different sizes and resolutions. What was asked for was the ambiguous 'representative image.'

And here we are today...
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ben Penner
United States
Tucson
Arizona
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Wow, thank's for the all the input, as well as the link. I'm trying to read through them now, but 13 pages of comments is a lot.

I think I can see both sides (the 2 major sides) of the argument. I think the sugestion of having 3 representative images (box, spread, and in play) is a GREAT idea. That would solve a lot if it could get implemented.

In the meantime, I am finding that the arguements for the box cover are winning me over (and I kept an open mind as I was/am reading them).


-B-
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Alfred Wallace
United States
Champaign
IL
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I tend to vote for pictures of the most recent box cover, if available. I'm not 100% convinced that's the way to go, and I'm not 100% convinced Representative Images are worth the trouble in the first place, but that's my rule Dadgummit and I'm sticking to it.

I'm kind of attracted to the three representative images idea, but I'm worried about a slippery slope. Eventually, there'll be an RI for pictures of people playing the game. Then an RI for best "funny" picture of the game. Then an RI for best picture of a cat interacting with the game/box. Then an RI for Most Irrelevant Picture. Blurriest Picture. (I'd win some of those.)

As said before, this is an argument oft-rehashed.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Joe Grundy
Australia
Sydney
NSW
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Philgamer wrote:
I still like the cover art. I use the geek to find new games that interest me. When I find one, I want to know what it looks like so I can find it easier on the FLGS shelves.

Part of the vetting process I go through, before a game hits my want list, includes reading the reviews and looking at all the pictures.

So if you're going to look at all the pictures anyway, you don't actually benefit from the box being the "representative" one?

neoshmengi wrote:
The box front is clearly the best thing to use as a thumbnail image because it usually has the name of the game in large font that's easy to read.

Mind you, you can't see a thumbnail of anything on BGG without the name of the game in big friendly plain font written next to it somewhere, so you won't ever need the image to identify the name of the game.

neoshmengi wrote:
It also allows you to see what the box looks like so you can spot it in a store.

See above.

Hmmm. On this topic, Vocal I am, Reasonable I am not.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Paul P.
United States
Waukesha
Wisconsin
flag msg tools
badge
We don't take kindly to YOUR color of cubes around here.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I'm terribly amused by the whole "representative image" issue. For many games, the most obvious representative images are no longer eligible to be proposed--the box covers have been rejected for failing to demonstrate gameplay, and the gameplay images have been rejected for failing to display box artwork! shake

Two or three categories of representative images would probably work out pretty well.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Todays avatar: Birdy Joe is about 40 years old.
United States
Louisville
Kentucky
flag msg tools
badge
Pet photographer, that's me.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Quote:
"...I got the idea that it might be a better plan to have three types of representative images. One for the box, one for the bits, and another for the game in action."



I suggest one for the box, one for the bits and another for a girl with great big..............................
Spoiler (click to reveal)
beautiful eyes.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Gabe Alvaro
United States
Berkeley
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Galvatron wrote:
Two or three categories of representative images would probably work out pretty well.


Why not just have 2 or 3 images without any categories and let the top 2 or 3 vote getters be displayed? Wasn't making specific categories one of the reasons for the controversy in the first place?

Edit: Oh yeah, and change "representative" image to "display" image.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Malachi Brown
United States
Hermitage
TN
flag msg tools
It's turtles all the way down.
badge
“Questions are a burden to others; answers a prison for oneself.”
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
blindspot wrote:
Why not just have 2 or 3 images without any categories and let the top 2 or 3 vote getters be displayed? Wasn't making specific categories one of the reasons for the controversy in the first place?

That would only really suit the faction that constitues a plurality of the bgg population.

If 40% of people are in the "game bits" faction, then the top 2 or 3 images will most likely all be "game bits" images, instead of images that represent the different preferences. Conversly, if there are more "game box" users than any other type, then it's likely that the top 2 or 3 images will just be game boxes from different versions of the game.

Beyond that, it doesn't do anything to address the geeklist default image preference issue.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Michael Jordal
United States
Austin
Minnesota
flag msg tools
badge
Ike Clanton painted by me for Wild West Exodus
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I think box shot is the best for the small image area.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ben Penner
United States
Tucson
Arizona
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
blindspot wrote:
Why not just have 2 or 3 images without any categories and let the top 2 or 3 vote getters be displayed? Wasn't making specific categories one of the reasons for the controversy in the first place?


This suggestion completely negates the reason the suggestion was made in the first place. It would allow for the most popular images to be shown. Which could mean that 3 images of a game in progress (for instance) could end up there. Then the other 2 groups wouldn't be represented at all.

Having 2or3 different images for the different aspects will make (almost) everybody happy in the long run.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jorge Montero
United States
St Louis
Missouri
flag msg tools
badge
I'll take Manhattan in a garbage bag. With Latin written on it that says "It's hard to give a shit these days"
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I'm not a big fan of a box cover as a representative image.

As far as I know, there are two places where we are using represntative images: default picture for geeklists, and the first picture on a game view. On both of those cases, I can already see the game's name: It's right there, on the geeklist topic/page header! This makes the game's cover becomes significantly less informative than a quality action shot.

All in all, I like malachi's suggestion: If collectors want to see nothing other than game boxes, let them have it. Just don't force those boring, uninspiring shots down everyone else's throat.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Gabe Alvaro
United States
Berkeley
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
RecklessJester wrote:
blindspot wrote:
Why not just have 2 or 3 images without any categories and let the top 2 or 3 vote getters be displayed? Wasn't making specific categories one of the reasons for the controversy in the first place?


This suggestion completely negates the reason the suggestion was made in the first place. It would allow for the most popular images to be shown. Which could mean that 3 images of a game in progress (for instance) could end up there. Then the other 2 groups wouldn't be represented at all.

Having 2or3 different images for the different aspects will make (almost) everybody happy in the long run.


My reasoning for the suggestion was that the current state of having only ONE image unnecessarily polarizes people. If I could vote for 2 or 3 images per game I would pick the box cover, a game spread, and a third image to illustrate some really important aspect of the game because I would want to see all of those things. If I had to pick only one, then my opinion would be different, and of course polarized. That's what having only one box does. So replace the one box with 2 or 3 and remove the polarization.

I just think that having more images display would relax the polarization a bit. Maybe I just have good faith in my fellow Geeks not to go and vote three images none of which would be the box cover.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Malachi Brown
United States
Hermitage
TN
flag msg tools
It's turtles all the way down.
badge
“Questions are a burden to others; answers a prison for oneself.”
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
blindspot wrote:
I just think that having more images display would relax the polarization a bit. Maybe I just have good faith in my fellow Geeks not to go and vote three images none of which would be the box cover.


We can all select a box shot, a bits shot, and a gameplay shot and still have the plan fall down. The easy example would be a game with multiple releases. Cosmic Encounter would be a good candidate. Now, if enough people pick many different box shots and select a small variety of the other types of shots, the box shot votes will be diluted to the point that they don't show up anyway because no single box was able to get enough votes to make it into the top n pictures.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mark Cahill
Canada
Lethbridge
Alberta
flag msg tools
badge
Game group needed...
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
hibikir wrote:
I'm not a big fan of a box cover as a representative image.

As far as I know, there are two places where we are using represntative images: default picture for geeklists, and the first picture on a game view. On both of those cases, I can already see the game's name: It's right there, on the geeklist topic/page header! This makes the game's cover becomes significantly less informative than a quality action shot.

All in all, I like malachi's suggestion: If collectors want to see nothing other than game boxes, let them have it. Just don't force those boring, uninspiring shots down everyone else's throat.


Again I propose that we look past the term 'representative image' in favor of 'image that is recognizable at small sizes'. The default size for images on BGG is fairly small if you have your monitor set at high resolutions. Some of the shots are hard to make out. Is that the board? Are those cards? Who knows...

The box tops are easy to recognize at a glance. At least you know what you are seeing.

All the other images are still there to be seen. With a click you can see them full size, with all the detail that befits the action shots. If you want a different image from the default for your geeklist, just select an image that you like instead!
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
tony brotherton
United Kingdom
orpington
kent
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
In most cases I will vote for box tops as the representative image for on shelf recognition purposes. However, I will vote for other bit pictures or in play photos if:

1. No quality box top pic exists or it is of poor quality
2. The pic has a particularly good composition
3. It is a particularly humourous card/board which sums up the theme of the game.

Of all the modding decisions this is actually the one I have least trouble making. It's a fairly immediate choice, whereas modding image submissions is usually much more troublesome, especially when someones submitted 10 different shots of the board layout from their last game of blokus.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Gabe Alvaro
United States
Berkeley
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Malachi wrote:
We can all select a box shot, a bits shot, and a gameplay shot and still have the plan fall down. The easy example would be a game with multiple releases. Cosmic Encounter would be a good candidate. Now, if enough people pick many different box shots and select a small variety of the other types of shots, the box shot votes will be diluted to the point that they don't show up anyway because no single box was able to get enough votes to make it into the top n pictures.


I see your point and why categories are needed. My avoidance of the issue generated some ignorance on my part. Thanks for breaking it down like that.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mike Jones
United States
Gainesville
Florida
flag msg tools
Yeah it's here! Really it's right here.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I really do think that it's all of the above. Some box covers are sooo good they tell to whole story. Some box covers are sooo bad, you would never want them to be the image a person has of the game. Some bits have been branded with the game and the bit IS the game. For me I prefer a very of the major pieces AND the box cover. Unless it's a bit that is so imbedded into the game, I don't like a close up of the game. I'll vote for both, it all depends on the game and/or the box top. It doesn't have to be one way for all. And that's the beauty of the moding. The group as a whole gets to decide each and every time. (Altough the massed can be ...)

As far as the size arguement, we all know how to click on it to enlarge, so if it is a cluttered pic, but you are interested in seeing it, a vast majority of the time you can click to enlarge.

Although I'd love to see them drop from the ranking lists. We can all read, why waste to load time to see a list of rankings? The pics aren't needed there.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Michael Jordal
United States
Austin
Minnesota
flag msg tools
badge
Ike Clanton painted by me for Wild West Exodus
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
hibikir wrote:
I'm not a big fan of a box cover as a representative image.

As far as I know, there are two places where we are using represntative images: default picture for geeklists, and the first picture on a game view. On both of those cases, I can already see the game's name: It's right there, on the geeklist topic/page header! This makes the game's cover becomes significantly less informative than a quality action shot.

All in all, I like malachi's suggestion: If collectors want to see nothing other than game boxes, let them have it. Just don't force those boring, uninspiring shots down everyone else's throat.


The problem is you can't see anything inspiring at that small size.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Michael Hammond
United States
Aurora
Illinois
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
This is one I've been pondering while GeekModding. I've seen two competing approaches to representative images, both of which seem reasonable. One camp is actively replacing standard, straight-on photos of the box top with "3-D" photos. The box is usually photographed while free standing, rotated away from the camera about 15 degrees to ensure the depth of the box is discernable in the picture. Artistically, I like the 3-D approach, but I think that straight-on better fits the idea of a thumbnail. Thoughts?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2  Next »   | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.