Greatest games by consensus - Results page 15

Anything to do with games at all.
the eponymous bollock
Member
Joined in 2017

PostRe: Greatest games by consensus - Results page 15
by the eponymous bollock » Mon Sep 11, 2017 7:46 pm

I can't even put into words how utterly nonsensical it being blind is.

The only thing I could potentially see it achieving is without an audience people would be less inclined to 'lol veto OOT'.

Regarding the final list, as a way of compiling a random list of some decent / some of the best games ever made this was pretty effective. As a way of compiling a top 100 games of all time it was clearly a complete waste of strawberry floating time. As a glimpse into the demented psyche of some of you lot though it was depressingly effective but also strawberry floating priceless :lol:

Good show OR

HSH28
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: Greatest games by consensus - Results page 15
by HSH28 » Mon Sep 11, 2017 7:55 pm

I think you could get a decent top 40 out of that list by removing the most ridiculous games left on it.

User avatar
OrangeRakoon
Member
Joined in 2015
Location: Reading, UK
Contact:

PostRe: Greatest games by consensus - Results page 15
by OrangeRakoon » Mon Sep 11, 2017 8:22 pm

Mafro wrote:That's actually a great result :lol:

Buffalo wrote:Absolutely horrific list :lol:

Dual wrote:Highly entertaining car crash thread.

Pancake wrote:entire train wreck

the eponymous bollock wrote:it was clearly a complete waste of strawberry floating time.


8-)

On a more serious note, I did actually have some thoughts about how this could be done in a more effective but still novel manner. Phase one, blind nominations. Everyone would PM a list of top games, perhaps limited to somewhere between 10 and 50. When nominations close, the votes would be tallied and we'd get an initial list of games ranked by how many times they were independently nominated. Phase two, the public culling. Everyone would get one post running through the list, voting down every game they don't want up there (with reasoning). Each vote against would take one off the games score, until it hits zero and gets removed. So if 10 people all nominated a game, it would need 10 votes against to completely remove it. Games that no one has heard of apart from the one person who nominated them get at best a score of 1, so that's not too much of an issue.

Not that I'm running that any time soon!

User avatar
Christmas Name Change
Bizarre Title
Joined in 2008
AKA: Dan.
Location: Bered Kai Nev

PostRe: Greatest games by consensus - Results page 15
by Christmas Name Change » Mon Sep 11, 2017 8:26 pm

I think the resultant list is pretty good!

User avatar
Jenuall
Member
Joined in 2008
Contact:

PostRe: Greatest games by consensus - Results page 15
by Jenuall » Tue Sep 12, 2017 3:38 pm

Cracking thread. I actually think it's a pretty decent list in the end, a few oddities aside. But I guess that's the point isn't - you can't please all the people all the time, there is no such thing as a universally accepted classic.

Everyone has that game which they believe to be brilliant, and that they cannot see a way that anyone could possibly disagree. But there will be people out there, probably more of them than you think, who just don't agree. Not because they are being dicks, or are trying to be vindictive, but just because they simply don't think the game is great like you do, and that is okay.

OrangeRakoon wrote:On a more serious note, I did actually have some thoughts about how this could be done in a more effective but still novel manner. Phase one, blind nominations. Everyone would PM a list of top games, perhaps limited to somewhere between 10 and 50. When nominations close, the votes would be tallied and we'd get an initial list of games ranked by how many times they were independently nominated. Phase two, the public culling. Everyone would get one post running through the list, voting down every game they don't want up there (with reasoning). Each vote against would take one off the games score, until it hits zero and gets removed. So if 10 people all nominated a game, it would need 10 votes against to completely remove it. Games that no one has heard of apart from the one person who nominated them get at best a score of 1, so that's not too much of an issue.


This would be a pretty good setup as well - although the blind nominations loses the ability to catch those games you forgot about until someone mentioned them (though one could argue if you had to be reminded of it then was it really that good for you?) Additionally I would recommend that in Phase 2 the ranked list doesn't indicate how many votes each game got - that way you avoid the situation where people know that a game they don't like got 10 upvotes so they go out of their way to find 10 people to down vote it.

Also I think the need to provide a reason behind a veto is a smart move - that and the fact that people should need to have played a game to veto it!

Image

Return to “Games”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: D_C, dab, deathofcows, Errkal, gamerforever, Google [Bot], Monkey Man, more heat than light, mysteriousdave, Photek, PuppetBoy, Return_of_the_STAR, Samuel_1, Trelliz, Yahoo [Bot], Zaichik and 48 guests