Hall of Greats Compendium



  • @bam541 said in Hall of Greats Compendium:

    Got bored and made a tiermaker of the Hall of Greats entries.

    https://tiermaker.com/create/the-easy-allies-hall-of-greats-174261

    Any chance we can get a 16th ceremony update to this tier maker? I'll rank them after.



  • @dipset thanks for the reminder, I just finished updating it!



  • My ranking:

    0_1629135236671_EZA HoG Tier Maker - v16.jpg

    I generally accept all of the EZA HoG selections as great games from the S to C Tiers, but D-tier I just outright disagree with.

    I'd define that C-tier as accepting these are generally considered "Greats" but I have my personal hang ups with them.



  • My Ranking! Would like to start Paper Mario and Ocarina of Time soon, but who really knows. The Backlog is too intense right now.

    0_1629227235816_my-image (3).png



  • So, tonight being the first (and hopefully sparsely) Hall of Shame... I don't know, I just don't vibe with the concept of taking two hours to trash on games (deserved or otherwise). Plus cross-examining for shame is weird. Cross-examining to critique excellent games is a strengthening process for both game and presenter, but this felt off. As someone who adores and looks greatly forward to every Hall of Greats, this was a miss for me with a particular pang because it adds MORE months of waiting since the last proper HoG was in AUGUST (which if you remember was two months late, and tonight being a replacement...). But, more importantly than anything, it seems the Allies had fun and enjoyed themselves, and that's what really matters.



  • I really enjoyed the Hall of Shame, mostly because it's just fun to be in unison for once. Just seeing the allies vent about actual bad games instead of the kind of "bad" games that people would throw out as a "hot take" feels great, it's like group therapy, lol. It's a very pure entertainment kind of thing. I feel like HoG inductions can feel too serious at times, intentionally or not, so this was refreshing.



  • Anybody willing to organize a community Hall of Shame?



  • @brannox

    I don't think it felt off at all. I thought the energy was super high and they didn't necessarily shit on them but really just made the case for why these games should be shamed or should be ashamed of themselves.

    Honestly, somebody needed to say what Isla said in this polarized world of being irrationally harsh, yet, irrationally forgiving in the gaming world. Huber's presentation was passionate as always. They were all winners (or losers) in their own right.

    Tbh, it was super competitive and was very fun to watch.



  • @dipset I'm not saying it felt off in terms of energy, but more specifically cross-examination, and how that determines what's more shameful than whatever else was brought. To me, it's kind of like the South Park joke about voting: What's worse between a giant douche and a turd sandwich?

    And for your second point, that was Brad's, Ben's, and Damiani's entire presentations (which, again, I'm NOT saying DMC 2, Duke Nukem: Forever, and Buck Bumble is or isn't worthy of that [or the other games brought for that matter], but it was a constant five minutes of describing how bad a game is, and personally, it's a downer to devote time solely for the purpose of demonstating how awful games are awful.). I mean Damiani literally says at the 1:36:35 of the video, "Definitely know two; there's two I'm voting for. Because they are truly, truly pieces of shit. And I think Brad and Ben made excellent cases reiterating why they're pieces of shit." So yeah, that was the entire point of almost half of the presentations.

    In terms of the namesake "Shame," I personally feel Huber's, Don's, Bloodworth's, and Isla's presentations better exemplified that. As for Isla's specifically, I mostly agreed with her statements, but I want to also come to my own opinion regarding CyberPunk, as I'm waiting on the next gen versions to experience the good, bad, and ugly for myself. I also concur all seven are terrible in their own right for their various reasons, but I wouldn't say it was competitive in terms of trying to out-prove a given game was the worst (though the point totals were in fact super tight at the top).



  • @brannox

    I agree that I thought Isla, Huber, Don, and Blood had the most compelling arguments for why their selections were absolutely shameful whether it be; greed, marketing, broken, betrayal to fans, and things along those lines.

    While Brad, Ben, and Damiani's games should just be ashamed for their complete tastelessness or lack of effort. And those games should be shamed for being so bad.

    Personally, I liked the concept and how everybody approached shame from a different angle. I think Huber approached it from the perspective of shameful greed changing an entire game series for the worse. Don approached it from a shameful depiction of a game to the point that it isn't even the same game as it's supposed to be. Ben's perspective was that the developers should be ashamed for their lack of effort and outright tastelessness.

    It was fun for me. I think everybody got a kick out of poo pooing on some really deserving games.