Hall of Greats Compendium



  • I also liked the new voting system in front of the camera, really nice to hear their reasons now. The way they then revealed the results for themselves could still need some tinkering, though. Just not sure how.



  • @DeweyDTruman @Minamik Personally, while I don't have a problem with each Ally giving their reasons, I felt it just took too long. Bring back the blind voting and while the games go from least to most votes, then the Allies could give their reasons. Keeps the speediness of the old format while retaining the personal opinions and reasons behind why Allies voted the way the did.



  • @Brannox The blind voting could lead to more confusion and errors. It depends on someone not closing their eyes, and count correctly the votes of each ally. I could see myself getting confused and maybe voting or not voting correctly by putting my hand up incorrectly (Which already kinda happened once).
    I also like the new system better. The whole stream ended at the same time that the others did, so i did not feel it dragged too long. Plus.. them being alone can lead to golden moments



  • @edsortiz To respond in order.

    1.) Could. With the exception of Mr. Damiani being confused by Mr. Ellis being indicisive on whether or not to give a vote to World of Warcraft, the confusion in the voting process hasn't happened. If anything, the confusion risk is actually greater with always including new rules and changing the voting process. It's slightly confusing why there has not been a standard procedure on how things work outside of the 3-2-1 format. Take the betting specials: The way betting is tabulated and group changes every. Single. Special. There is no consistency.

    2.) On people closing their eyes. That carries the implication Allies are untrustworthy in peeking, which hasn't happened once. That is a non-issue.

    3.) The counting, in every Hall of Greats, including this most recent one, has not gone awry. It hasn't affected any Allies, so any personal counting hangups isn't a barrier.

    4.) On the decisiveness of one's votes: This has been why people have requested time prior to voting: To make up their minds before voting begins, NOT in the moment.

    5.) This is all personal preference. In no way do I feel the presentations/Q&A dragged (They actually felt a tad bit quicker to be honest). But stopping to write on the bags, deciding on the order of voting, having each Ally take time to give their entire thought process, not as each individual game is tabulated (which is what I suggested above) but for each vote, and THEN each Ally going bag by bag to figure out how many points their nominee had (which, talking about confusion, apparently they weighed down the bags with other coins? That was a weird choice).

    6.) Again, I also like the Allies providing their rationale about why they voted the way they did. All I was saying is they could do that when a game has its point value called out.



  • Hope they change the no vote, eliminated rule. Don looked devastated.



  • I absolutely adored the new voting system. It was great to hear people actually deliberate over what they were going to pick. Really hope that stays,



  • I also really liked the new voting, though I think bags are a bit awkward.



  • @TokyoSlim if we hit 50000 we can upgrade to Jars or Booths



  • @Brannox said in Hall of Greats compendium:

    4.) On the decisiveness of one's votes: This has been why people have requested time prior to voting: To make up their minds before voting begins, NOT in the moment.

    So much this. Aside from the voting being rushed, the only other BIG problem I have with HoG is the speeches getting cut off. Some kind of smoother time management for the whole thing needs to be worked out.

    Slick the presentation up. Do practice sessions. Make it more of a real event and not just "we pick games". Basically, give it more structure like the betting specials have.



  • What happened on the first H.o.G.? Why are there only 36 points tabulated? I know that some of the rules were different the 1st time, but am I forgetting some crazy rule or point change, or is there a mistake here? (I have upmost confidence in you 'edsortiz', I'm just confused.)



  • @alexcaste85 Hahaha, so what happened was that three of the allies did not attend. They did submit their nominee and made videos with their arguments but since they could not attend they couldn't vote on others, or defend their choices. Damiani, Huber and Brad did not attend.
    The voting system was the same as all the others after this week's HoG; the closed eyes raise fingers method.



  • So a few thoughts from myself -

    I've quickly realized Hall of Greats is one of my favorite streams, just seeing the Nine brought together to deliberate all sorts of games makes me happy. Still, there's a few things that have left a sour taste in my mouth. The largest problem is.... presenting a game without actually saying one word about it. There's no doubt Journey has a great soundtrack, but the main idea is to discuss the game as a whole, not just one aspect of it. Granted, this has only happened once (and may have been done due to the nature of the game) but I would have much rather heard Blood say what makes this game great in his opinion. I really hope a rule gets set in place where the Ally must speak, or at least make their own content. Seeing how much work Ian put into Myst compared to just playing some tunes from the game, it felt really unsatisfying.

    Don is right. Allies shouldn't be able to vote on their own games. I view it the same as someone making a post on Facebook - they don't need to like everything they post to their own wall, it's their thoughts/ideas, of course they're going to like it. It creates a really weird space where some Allies go all in on their own games, some maybe give themselves a third place vote, and others don't vote for themselves at all. There will be 8 other games to choose from, I don't see a scenario occurring where someone voting dislikes all 8 games.

    As far as the new voting system - I loved this change. Just seeing how each Ally came to their decision and how they went through their thought process, it may have been my favorite part. Sure, tallying stuff in the end could potentially be sped up, but for a first effort, I thought it was great.



  • @SabotageTheTruth I will respectfully disagree with you about them voting for their own games. I think it's important that they vote for the games they really think are the best, and that might mean they really think it's the one they brought. I might worry about people gaming a system like this, but I don't think any of the Allies would vote based solely on wanting to win.
    This is different than liking a post on Facebook where you're making an opinion on something. This is a vote, on something important to them. Ideally everyone comes to these thinking they will vote their own game, but it's great to see some have their minds changed, and sometimes staying strong on their feelings for their choice.
    Kyle might have exaggerated with the example of Brad bringing Chrono Trigger and everyone else bringing Skyrim, but the point is sound. I don't want anyone forced into voting for a game they don't really like. Might be unlikely right now, with so many good games, but it's possible there will be a Hall of Greats where one of the allies doesn't really agree with three games.



  • On voting for their own games, I'm on the side of they should. Look at all of Mr. Casanova's entrants: He is the only one who votes for his own, and since the ban went into effect, he is the ONLY person who has had EVERY PICK get banned.

    That's not fair to him.

    In the current system, there's nothing that can be done. He brings unique selections and gives great presentations, but whether he puts in one vote, or pushes all his chips on his choice, he is the only one that does so. If his own suggestion is implemented, I'm afraid his choices will have a big "0" next to his name. I also agree about forced votes: Vote for the three they truly believe in, even if it's one of their picks. It doesn't have to be the full three points, but if that's their choice, then so be it.

    If Mr. Casanova chose a game that has more popularity, or more specifically to his fellow Allies' tastes, and not his own, he has a better shot of getting votes. And that, in its essence is wrong.

    So, if he doesn't bring what he truly believes is "One of the Greats" (tm), he isn't doing so in the spirit of the Hall of Greats. If he does, and stays true to his tastes, he doesn't get votes. And seeing him crushed that Super Mario Maker get banned (I would've put 2 chips on it) is heartbreaking, because now he's got a THIRD game he can't bring back.



  • I believe things get a bit weird when the Allies and viewers start referring to the individual as a "Winners". Brad DID not win... Chrono Trigger won. Kyle did not win, Pokemon Blue and red won the entree. They/us shouldn't be focusing on who gets a win or not, the important thing is choosing what they deem worthy of being the greats and that it represent the group, because in the end its not Kyle's or Brad's Greats, its the EZAs great.
    Following this, the scenario of an individual forced on choosing between games he even hates is irrelevant, because there will be two chosen no matter what. It doesn't matter if the individual hates it, someone of the group nominated and won the votes. So choose the one you hate the least XD. So in the crazy scenario that you bring X game and all the others bring Skyrim? Then guess who will democratically be chosen by the voters to reflect the group? Skyrim.

    I dont really have an opinion on which one would be better, i think that statistically, it wouldn't change that much. Im interested in testing it out hypothetically with one of their votes



  • @edsortiz I respectfully disagree in terms of the "forced vote" aspect. As I said, they should vote for what they want to see get in and truly believe in. That means if there are games they don't believe are good enough in comparison to other options, then they shouldn't vote for those. So even if the majority voted for the option the hypothetical voter didn't like, the hypothetical voter STILL got to pick the ones they wanted, not because they were forced to pick something popular. Also, with nine games for nomination, the likelihood that one Ally would dislike AT LEAST seven of those is statistically low.

    But, in the end, this is nothing more than fun conjecture. The thing that interests me the most about the current Hall of Greats is that all eight entries exist in the five year window of the mid 90s. That isn't a bad thing, but it does provide a fun guessing game which non-90s game will be the first to get in. I understand the 90s was the first big leap in quality of gaming and a time which they grew up on so that period holds a special place, but it is curious.



  • @Inustar @Brannox Now you're betting against Don AND myself? Dangerous ground there.

    Since it's a work in progress, I honestly don't see a problem with experimenting and trying something new out. As has been said, it wouldn't affect that much, but it would inspire a bit of a change and would even make deliberations a little easier - you would now be choosing between 8 games instead of 9. Since only two games are inducted each time and there's 8 inducted a year... I honestly don't even see a scenario happening in our lifetime where an Ally would view all 8 options as stinkers - this would only change if they started doing this stream more often and inducting waaaay more games. If it's a system no one liked, they can revert to the old way but right now there's not a strong enough reason to not try it out.

    The one thing that still doesn't seem to be considered though would be the strength of the case being made, not the game. I do worry that we'll not continue to get the well-thought out words of Don or the brilliant videos from Ian because despite those being extremely well thought out arguments they still lose - that's not me saying Chrono Trigger or Pokemon had bad arguments made for them though. Maybe it's not even something I should bring up, as a case for Journey was almost non-existent and as such, received no votes and a system that rewards a game that happened to have someone make a video for it could become unbalanced fairly quickly. Hopefully the Nine continue to find creative ways to showcase games because those are generally highlights as well.

    I really wish Ian would nominate Silent Hill 2 already.



  • @SabotageTheTruth To use a different Ally as an example, I'll bring up Mr. Bosman, and his nominee of Pokemon. Because it BARELY squeaked in by one point, if Mr. Bosman did NOT vote for his own nominee, it would not have gotten in. He voted for his own game because he believed it to be "One of the Greats" (tm) ahead of the others he didn't vote for and Mega Man X. My point isn't about quantity of choice but desire. It all comes down to how the given Ally feels.

    And my ONLY issue about change is that it's constant with barely a foundation of format. In four Hall of Greats streams (I agree too! I LOVE them), the process has had three revisions and new rules are added each stream. I could go on a complete rant about thicker than necessary rule books, but I won't bore you. Suffice to say, personally, too many rules, too many problems.

    I agree about strength of case. I feel Misters Hinck and Casanova give the best presentations, but it's for naught. Especially in the latter's case.



  • I'm really glad Pokemon R&B got in, but imo Gold and Silver are the superior games, they fixed alot of the 1gen issues in G&S, like the crit rate and separating special defence and attack but i am glad one got in.



  • @A7X458 Not to mention Gen 1 Miss.