HoG's Flawed Rule



  • Why when creating a list of the best video games ever made, a list in which every game suggested is a possible contender, would you ever ban a game from being eligible for a whole year?

    I'm hoping it's not some cheap plot by Kyle to try to create extra drama and tension to an event which clearly has enough of. So I hope the aim is to prevent a game that doesn't win from being nominated every single time. That would be a valid reasoning, but there is a much better way to deal with it than Kyle's banning rule which has the following effects instead.

    Doing this might punishes future Hall of Great winners not because they were bad games, but because there were "better choices that day." Roughly 75% of all the votes this round went into just 3 games. They were clearly the top 3 options and the other games had no chance against them this round, so why should they be punished for it?

    In one round a game might not have stood a chance compared to others, but in the next round it might be the crowd favourite. It comes down to whatever games were chosen that day, and no game should be removed as a valid candidate because randomness decided it was up against something it couldn't beat previously.

    You encourage EZA Allies to put votes into games just to prevent them from being banned. For example if someone doesn't think a game can win this round but still wants it in the hall of fame, they might put one of their votes into it to prevent it from being banned for the whole next year.

    Banning can have other effects too. What happens if multiple allies want to make sure the same game doesn't get banned, and being blind and not seeing what the others are doing, it ends up winning? Being able to ban another game for a whole year could be a tactic of it's own, nominating a game to try to get it banned if you consider it a threat to you, or avoiding nominating a worthy game in fear of no one else voting for it and having it banned for a whole year.

    You're looking for the best games of all time, which it clearly won't be if ANY game is ineligible for any reason... unless you plan to rename the event to the "Hall of Some of the Greats"

    I agree with the idea behind it, preventing certain games from being nominated every single time, but not the length of the ban. Please find an alternative solution, whether it being simply not being able to nominate that game the following round (still sad but more acceptable), or trusting that your fellow allies won't simply nominate the same game every week.

    Banning ANY game in a quest to find the greatest games of ALL time goes against the very point of the event.



  • Personally I'm not too worried about this having the affect you describe. Is the length of the ban harsh? I think so, yes. I would rather see it only banned for the next round or two.

    The reason I don't think this will be an issue is because of the amount of potential nominees being extremely high, even keeping in mind that there are 9 nominees per round there is a staggering number of choices that could be put up to vote, and having one not receive any vote by someone other than the one that nominated the game is telling enough that there are much better choices out there. The fact that no Final Fantasy game has been brought up, no Doom, no Smash Bros, no a lot of things have been mentioned in the first 2 rounds means there's plenty of games that are worthy and plenty of time to get those that were banned another chance later on.

    The "better choices that day" argument I also disagree with because I trust the allies to bring up games that they truly believe in with their vast collective knowledge of games and gaming culture. Maybe my sarcasm detector is malfunctioning, but I don't think that any nominee that we've seen so far has been a troll. A good case has been put up for each game nominated, even for the ones you could call surprise entries like Megaman Legends or Black Flag or Link's Awakening DX.

    I guess what I'm trying to get across is this...the chances of a not-worthy game being nominated to begin with and therefore take the spot of one of the greats over a "better" game that was banned previously (and keep in mind, everyone's opinions will differ to a degree as to what game is "better") is extremely unlikely from what I've seen so far, so I both enjoy the added tension it brings and am not worried about another game getting an unfair placement in the HoG.



  • I think if a game can't get a single vote out of the twenty four made across the eight other allies that didn't nominate it then none of them think it deserves a spot and a year ban is more a formality than anything else. Even if the length is harsh (which I disagree with personally) it isn't the end of the world. They only do these quarterly so far and there's so many potential greats that whoever brought it to the table can think of a few other games that deserve a spot until the ban's lifted. Also that paragraph about how they might game the system using the bans implies that this is, well, a game to them and not an actual attempt to create a true hall of greats, and so far I haven't gotten that impression at all.



  • I was hoping for a nice simple nominee list , discussion and then vote. Within seconds of Kyle bringing the ban rule up I instantly came up with ways it could be used to alter the way voting could works if one choose to. In my mind the whole thing instantly became a strategic list instead of a best games list.

    When is the optimal time to vote for a certain game? Does it have a better chance of winning now, or should the person who wants it in the Hall of Greats wait until other games have been banned? I'm sure a lot of it is just me as I have a very overactive mind and often play scenarios out in many different ways, but in my mind the rule effects both the Allies and the Viewers.

    For the Allies actually voting, the banning rule can change the outcome of the votes. Ian voted for Ben's game, saving it from being banned and said "Saved it for you, Ben" on stream tonight. While I believe he saved it because he thought the game deserved a vote and was only joking about doing it to 'save' it, this is already an example of how the banning rule may effect votes, even if only a possibility.

    For the Viewers (me in other words), I can't help but wonder now whether the games that make it into the game are the greats or had the best strategist nominating them? As mentioned above I' not 100% certain if Ian was serious or or not about 'saving Ben's game. It's also going to be a total mind%#$# for me if I can never tell whether a game is either unpopular, or someones favourite they're trying to save if it only gets 1 vote in all future rounds.

    If all the allies are trusted not to use any of these strategies to get their favourite games added to the Hall of Greats, should they also be trusted not to keep nominating games that don't get any votes over and over again? If so then why is the rule there, or necessary?

    The banning rule is simply something I don't think is needed, but while it's there creates the a whole list of extra possibilities, no matter how likely they are to be used, that aren't needed, wanted or required.



  • I totally get why they did a year.

    Like Dewey said, these nominations are only going to happen every 3 months. So we'll get 4 per year. The minimum ban a game could be given is 6 months, that means it skips one round of voting and is eligible again. 6 months sounds long but one round of voting isn't. 9 months is a bit more fair but still fairly low stakes and is an unusual amount of time, thus harder to keep track of. So a year. A game gets nominated, is out for 3 rounds of voting, and can then return. A year is a long time but when you break it down to the voting cycles, it is the only option that has any teeth.

    I honestly think all the potential effects you listed were already thought about ahead of time. Those things were exactly what Kyle wanted the Allies to have in mind while voting, it is definitely to add an element of strategy to everything. Personally, I don't see any of that potential strategy in the voting process as a negative, but I understand why others would prefer a more vanilla voting system. Kyle likes weird rules and adding drama. He likes to try to spice games up with weird twists. I think this is a very similar situation to the podcast 'Prove It' ticket leveling/dice roll system. It's experimental and if it doesn't work the way it's intended, or the Allies really hate it, they'll kill it.



  • That was my original fear... what if it's not a poorly planned decision, but a carefully planned plot by Kyle, lol. I still hope it's not even if I'm the minority :-)


  • Easy Ally

    I think what is important to remember is that the Hall of Greats is meant to be an entertaining stream first and foremost. If we truly cared to make the most fair list of greatest games possible, we would do it off stream where no voices could interfere and there wouldn't be any speeches. So yes, I think this could technically be gamed--long cons, backstabbing, sinister alliances--but I'm not concerned about that ever translating into undeserving games getting inducted into the Hall of Greats. If you had everyone vote before the speeches and cross examinations, I believe the results would be identical to those afterward (except for Brad's weird choice to change his Wow vote), but those elements are what make this a fun thing to watch.
    The fact that World of Warcraft--easily one of the greatest games of all time--is banned for a year adds stakes to this. There are consequences. If people are upset about that, I'm actually happy. It means they care. As logic__error suggested, I think drama is good. That said, I will definitely devise a new voting system for next time.



  • Wasn't upset by it as much as concerned it was something you hadn't considered that could be used to influence the results, an 'error' that wasn't meant to be there, etc, okay that's technically still upset by it but at least now I know it was somewhat intentional to raise the stakes and add another layer of strategy instead of over a possible oversight. Guess I lose either way, will continue to watch (and care) :-)

    Keep the curve balls coming.
    L&R.



  • @Bosman Please don't change the voting system.



  • @Bosman said in HoG's Flawed Rule:

    I think what is important to remember is that the Hall of Greats is meant to be an entertaining stream first and foremost. If we truly cared to make the most fair list of greatest games possible, we would do it off stream where no voices could interfere and there wouldn't be any speeches. So yes, I think this could technically be gamed--long cons, backstabbing, sinister alliances--but I'm not concerned about that ever translating into undeserving games getting inducted into the Hall of Greats. If you had everyone vote before the speeches and cross examinations, I believe the results would be identical to those afterward (except for Brad's weird choice to change his Wow vote), but those elements are what make this a fun thing to watch.
    The fact that World of Warcraft--easily one of the greatest games of all time--is banned for a year adds stakes to this. There are consequences. If people are upset about that, I'm actually happy. It means they care. As logic__error suggested, I think drama is good. That said, I will definitely devise a new voting system for next time.

    I would've made the bans even longer, it'd force everyone to really make a strong case for their games and in turn also shake up the pool of possible picks so it's not just the same games over and over.

    Bad enough Bloodworth pulled SF2 lol


  • admin

    @ZyloWolfBane said in HoG's Flawed Rule:

    Bad enough Bloodworth pulled SF2 lol

    People bring this up like I just played dirty or something. I picked SF2 cause it's one of the greats, and I thought it should be in there regardless of who represented it. Since my pick beat it last time, it only felt right to carry the torch rather than have the same person try to go for it again. I honestly was a bit nervous that I could really do it justice.



  • Thought you picking Street Fighter 2 was great. It was like, honorable, ironic, funny and strategic all at the same time... and that level of strategy was something I was hoping would've been the limit of what was possible over the course of these inductions. Seeing what further strategic moves are possible now should, whether I agree with them or not, should be very interesting :-)



  • @Bloodworth said in HoG's Flawed Rule:

    @ZyloWolfBane said in HoG's Flawed Rule:

    Bad enough Bloodworth pulled SF2 lol

    People bring this up like I just played dirty or something. I picked SF2 cause it's one of the greats, and I thought it should be in there regardless of who represented it. Since my pick beat it last time, it only felt right to carry the torch rather than have the same person try to go for it again. I honestly was a bit nervous that I could really do it justice.

    Oh I know, I'm just stirring the pot. No offense intended lol.

    It was amusing as it was cause you haven't ever struck me as the fighting game type of person yet you presented a thought out case. Only thing missing was a character winning pose ;)



  • I'm a big fighting game fan, so I was glad to see SF2 get its rightful spot. I do kind of wish that a specific version were chosen, though, just for clarity's sake. I would argue that the different versions of SF2 were fully-separate games in contrast to a nominee like World of Warcraft where the different releases of content were expansions requiring the base game to play. To my knowledge, you couldn't upgrade the arcade versions to the newer versions either and were completely separate cabinets as opposed to a game like SF4 and other modern arcade fighting games that allow you to upgrade to a newer version. I did a little research on this to confirm but please correct me if I'm wrong.

    In my eyes, the SF2 nomination would be specifically for either World Warrior since it was the first and biggest jump from the original Street Fighter game, or for Super Turbo since it is considered the culmination of all the previous versions and, essentially, the best version of SF2.



  • @ZyloWolfBane I agree with a year even being too soft, besides it encourages diversity and people coming up with quality contenders and good arguments.



  • Ben's passionate Valkyria speech was beautiful and completely justifies the format imo.

    It only got one point but it also got my heart ;_;



  • I definitely love this ban rule and thought it was implemented perfectly. It immediately added more stakes to the proceedings than the first stream originally had. If someone doesn't care for it, very obviously they are salty about Sim City 4 getting banned. Those sweet graphs will be back in a year, don't you worry.

    Really though, much love to Ian for nominating one of my favorite games of all time. So close to getting in as well! Hopefully SOTN gets its rightful spot next time.