Hall of Greats Compendium
bam541 last edited by
Man, it seems that GoW's gonna go in the hall earlier than TLoU and that kinda grinds my gears.
Anyway, Silent Hill 2 is coming back this time I think. Got pretty close the last time it was there, if my memory serves right.
Hazz3r last edited by
They'll probably just all go in the Green Room.
I'd really like some new submissions. No salty runbacks this week please. Respect the first Hall of Greats of the studio.
@hazz3r I meant in terms of them casting the votes, not where they'll go. They've already hinted that they haven't quite figured out the multi-room setup yet for E3 coverage, so I wonder if the votes will stay in the stream room, or tonight might be the first time the majority of the stream is where it has been, and the voting is done on the main show stage. I think it'll all stay in the stream, but tonight is a good candidate for debuting such a setup.
Hazz3r last edited by Hazz3r
@brannox That's what I'm saying. They'll stick everything to the Stream room as always and just go into the Green Room across the hall while everyone has time in the Stream room voting.
Personally, this HoG had just a weird vibe for me throughout. No Bloodworth, I loved Don's willingness to be creative, and getting to see Ian live was really nice. Personally, I would've voted for the final three, but I would flip the orderr. Regardless, I felt this was another predictable outcome after the final presentation, but before the voting started.
bam541 last edited by bam541
This HoG session is pretty great, so many memorable moments again. Ben's presentation was emotionally potent yet again, Huber's almost frightening passion for something so new is astounding, and Damiani's defense against Kyle that got more heated as it ended was intense. Predictable results, but what can you do about that, it's just the nature of these sort of things during the early years.
Capnbobamous last edited by
I can't wait for year 8 when they bring out crazy shit like Viva Piñata and Crysis.
SabotageTheTruth last edited by
Per usual, we got a game in that I adore (Super Mario Bros 3) and a game I'd rather not think about, so it was another successful HOG for me.
One rule that I'd be interested in them implementing is not allowing a nomination if the game was released within the previous 12 months. While I enjoyed Huber's passionate argument for Sekiro and while everything he said may prove true after 12 months, there just hasn't been enough time to ingest the game. Time is a valuable resource. It gives us the ability to reflect on the product as a whole, as well as talk to others and get their perspective on it. We've all had that moment where we finished some piece of media, walked away from it super hyped, and then started to realize all the problems it has days, weeks, and sometimes months later. The rule would also remove the uneasiness around "how early is it to bring something?" as that would be a known factor.
E_Zed_Eh_Intern last edited by
I imagine it's been said but it'd be cool to carry the zero votes to the end along with top 3. HIGH STAKES.
bard91 last edited by
@bam541 yeah it kinda makes me wish they would have done like a pre-list of greats, bringing something like SMB3, or Ocarina is not exciting a just a sure bet that makes it all a bit less exciting. But at least as time goes by we do see less of this obvious candidates that just dominate.
Also nothing against the games, but I do have to admit I just like to see when a From Soft game doesn't make it in, it is not that I think they are not worthy, it's just that I don't ussually like the discourse around them and how uninspired it has become.
Brannox last edited by Brannox
For me, this was UNEQUIVOCALLY the most bizarre HoG to date:
- Ian's presentation was absolutely baffling as to what his motivations were bringing his nominee.
- The new voting method and confessional didn't feel "confessional."
- The entire segment of Damiani's cross-examination.
- I wonder the viability of having this stream when not one but multiple Allies are not in attendance.
ESPECIALLY WITH THE THREE WAY TIE FOR FIRST. I have the one I'll be voting for, but I don't feel great about it.
This is all in good fun, but easily my least favorite to date.
They can do something to make the 'confessional' part more fun if people don't like it, but the voting in general is way better this way. We don't have to sit around while they fill time to count the chips, especially when last time at least one chip got dropped on the floor when counting. It's faster and everyone learns who wins at the same time and they're more involved instead of just waiting around.
bam541 last edited by bam541
This is one of the most entertaining and painful HoG session for me.
Kyle's presentation is both kinda convincing and super funny. Ben always showed great passion everytime he brings a game here but it's never been clearer than today. Damiani's presentation opening is a stroke of genius that got me hyped for a game I don't even like that much (I loved Kyle's rants too). Huber using his Huber Syndrome format for the presentation panders right to me, as a fan of his unrelentingly sincere positivity.
On the other hand, Ian's negative presentation is just... ugh. I hope the allies ban negative presentations like this in the future. It's not cool to just present games in a bad way just to get them banned. I hate this so much, and I haven't even played FF7. I hate it when Skyrim got similar treatment (although the presentation was genuinely good), and I hate this one even more. I get it, you don't like it as much as others do. Just pick another game. If you want to be quirky, look at Kyle, he did a great presentation. I know HoG is not like a super serious thing, this just set me off really bad.
I kinda miss the confessional style picks but also enjoy the new method of revealing the winner more. That three way tie though, wow. I hope you patrons dont stress over that poll too much. I wish I'm a patron right now.
@Kristen-Rogers I agree on the act of voting itself going from chips to cards (I've felt this way for about the last two or three HoGs), so apologies for not being concise. My point is if they were sitting there to talk out their picks and not designate their scores (which most Allies DID accomplish), it just felt like the rule wasn't thought through for all Allies' understanding (hence the disclaimer at the start of the stream) and the confessionals were either "You're not going to know what I voted for," or "Here's the three I'm thinking and why." I guess I would just like clear and concise uniformity, regardless of the decision. And I agree sitting around waiting is a bit of a drag (though we always get that slightly when they end the streams, but that doesn't bug me).
@bam541 I am 10000000% in agreement on being taken aback about Ian's motivation. It INSTANTLY reminded me of the Alliances and "anti-chip" suggestion a long time ago, and the fact it was he being the one arguing back then to rid Alliances and to hold up nominees for scrutiny to make the word "Greats" have meaning makes me absolutely blindsided of any Ally that he would be the one to do that style of presentation. While without an explicit stated reason as to why (and I'm an idiot, so I fail in discerning his reasons at this moment), I can only assume he chose to do that presentation for feeling burned on Dark Souls: Remastered being banned. BY NO MEANS do I mean or believe he did so in a malicious way, but I agree with you: Negative presentations are the antithesis of the nature of this stream. Hence, why all the other presentations this evening actually displayed their passion for their picks.
Sentinel Beach last edited by
Bloodworth and Huber both had a great presentation and passion for games that I also love very very much. And Damiani's video was simply perfection, would've earned my one vote. But like already stated, Ian's showing this time was just really petty and unnecessary. Like "if you're not voting for Dark Souls then I'm not gonna play along", uhh. Luckily Huber at least saved the game.
Here's that one Easy Update which, I don't know, explained Ian's actions.
bard91 last edited by
As so many people have pointed out on in the youtube video Ian really did make this unpleasant to watch. I know is a pointless remarks as he is just seeing it as a fun thing for himself and he is very good at failing to see others perspectives, but stuff like this really puts a dent into something people look forward to and goes against the spirit of what it should be. Maybe he doesn't care as it is not important at the end of the day but as something the audience has really bought into and something we look forward to it is extremely disappointing to see something like this.
paulmci27 last edited by
I know it's only a bit of dumb fun and all, but it was a bit of a "fuck you" to the people who look forward to & enjoy the Hall of Greats.
Axel last edited by
You guys already said it all, but just in case the Allies are reading this looking for feedback I'll add my voice to yours: I really didn't appreciate Ian's presentation. It was straight up trolling, and it wasn't funny or entertaining in any way.
Also I'd rather wait another week than have only 7 Allies present, these streams only happen once every 3 months so make them count.
Overall, please don't forget you have an audience, and openly antagonizing them isn't a clever thing to do...
SabotageTheTruth last edited by
This is the first Hall of Greats where I've played every single game listed and enjoy most of them. So in reality, that should mean I felt very split on the candidates, right? Well, not really.
The whole concept of this is to celebrate games that the Allies love and to ask probing questions as to why a game should be held in such a regard. While Kyle's Halo presentation made me laugh at points, it's purposely hyperbolic in a disingenuous way. The cross-examination of Bioshock didn't even really have questions in it - just mostly statements that this segment of the game sucks because Kyle says it sucks. Then Ian's presentation... While it does add a slightly interesting wrinkle (voting for a game that most consider excellent despite an awful showing), it's a months long grudge carried out since Dark Souls didn't get in - despite another Souls series game being in the HoG.
To me, it feels like the Hall of Greats stream has become more of an obligation to some of the Allies than a fun segment for them to work on. While some true passion does shine through, it seems to be less and less each time and my once favorite stream is quickly becoming something I might start skipping altogether.
Such a sour taste in my mouth after watching this one.
I realized the OP hasn't been updated in awhile so I thought I would go ahead and drop the stats of HoG's 9 & 10 here just in case anybody would be curious to see the most up-to-date Hall and inquire of current bans.
Q2 2019; April 30 (Bloodworth couldn't make the stream due to being on assignment so he did not have a nominee to list
The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past (Damiani) 14
Super Mario Bros. 3 (Bosman) 12
Final Fantasy IX (Ben) 10
The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess (Brad) 6
WaveRace 64 (Don) 3
Sekiro: Shadows Die Twice (Huber) 3
GoldenEye 007 (Jones) (BAN until Q2 2020) 0
Dark Souls: Remastered (Ian) (BAN until Q2 2020) 0
Q3 2019; Aug 6 (Two Allies were MIA as Jones was on Paternity Leave and Brad was either on assignment or under the weather [reason was not stated on stream])
The Last of Us (Huber) 8 (Patreon Vote)
The Witcher III: The Wild Hunt (Bloodworth) 8 (Patreon Vote)
Phantasy Star Online (Ben) 8
Halo: Combat Evolved (Bosman) 6
BioShock (Damiani) 6
Burnout 3: Takedown (Don) 5
Final Fantasy VII (Ian) 1