YOUR Desire Index
A7X458 last edited by
Updated List :
1-The Last of Us Part II
2-Resident Evil 2 Remake
5-Ghost of tsushima
7-Red Dead Redemption 2
9-Dragon Quest XI
10-Kingdom Hearts III
11-Devil May Cry 5
12-The Elder Scrolls VI
15-Super Smash Bros. Ultimate
16-Pokémon: Let's Go
18-Call of Duty IV
19-Skull & Bones
22-Team Sonic Racing
Update 3.7: Resident Evil 2 and Red Dead Redemption 2 switch spots, the first update where two games trade places NOT next to each other. Ghost of Tsushima is tied with RDR 2, but takes precedent for having more highest desires. RE2 R is ahead of this tie by 0.3.
The Last of Us Part II catapults from 9th to 6th, making it the big winner of this update.
Kingdom Hearts III slides down in between Sekiro (trailing by 0.3) and Control (ahead by 0.1).
Smash gets back ahead of Dragon Quest XI, but only by 0.1.
The difference between Fallout 76 and The Elder Scrolls VI is almost at a full point. Fallout is over Halo by 0.4, who leads Skull & Bones by 0.4, which edges Elder Scrolls by 0.1.
There was no movement in the bottom ten games.
Faaip last edited by
Updated my list. Are we reposting at the bottom?
ANTiFanboyDevon last edited by
- Resident Evil 2 Remake
- The Last of Us Part II
- Red Dead Redemption 2
- Cyberpunk 2077
- Kingdom Hearts III
- Ghost of Tsushima
- Super Smash Bros Ultimate
- Devil May Cry 5
- Fallout: 76
- Halo Infinite
- Gears 5
- Babylon’s Fall
- Skull & Bones
- Sekiro: Shadows Die Twice
- Dragon Quest XI
- Elder Scrolls VI
- Call of Duty IV
- Sonic Team Racing
- Pokemon: Lets go Eevee/Pikachu
Update 3.8 are we’re getting close to version 4.0! The back and forth battle between Red Dead Redemption 2 and Ghost of Tsushima has been fun to watch in recent updates! RDR 2 gets the better of of Tsushima this time, but only by 0.1.
Control also switches with Kingdom Hearts III, with the same margin of difference. Sekiro leads Control by a slim 0.3.
The Elder Scrolls has very slowly, but surely clawed as much as it could to move out of the basement of versions past to keep climbing. Only a couple of spots, but still notable, now passing Skull & Bones by 0.1.
Now I think it’s gotten to the point where aside from a couple of flips, the list is stabilized… well, for at least a couple of days.
@Faaip I posed the question to gauge how others felt we should or keep it as is and it was split. We'll keep updating our original posts unless I see several others in favor of creating a new post with our full indexes.
FF7Cloud last edited by FF7Cloud
Sekiro: Shadows Die Twice
Kingdom Hearts 3
Dragon Quest XI
The Elder Scrolls VI
Super Smash Bros. Ultimate
Pokemon Let's Go Eevee/Pikachu
Ghost of tsushima
Sonic team racing
last of us part 2
devil may cry 5
red dead 2
skull and bones
@ff7cloud I noticed you're missing a game: Skull & Bones. Could you please include that in your rankings? Otherwise I can't properly average out.
FF7Cloud last edited by
@brannox fixed just shows you how much im looking forward to it ;)
And immediately 3.9 is live! As I just mentioned, Red Dead Redemption 2 and Ghost of Tsushima are constantly going back and forth. Resident Evil 2 Remake holds a slim 0.2 lead of GoT right now.
Kingdom Hearts III slips back in front of Control, and by a larger margin than it was before 3.8.
Smash is able to re-enter the top 10, but the vying among it, Devil May Cry 5 and Dragon Quest XI is tight with 0.1 in between each! With Dragon Quest XI getting so close, the gap between the top group and everything else is more pronounced than ever.
Fallout 76 is closing the distance on Babylon’s Fall, with only a 0.3 difference.
And once again, The Elder Scrolls closes on whatever is above it. Now it’s only 0.2 away from Halo: Infinite.
The bottom dozen didn’t move, but as I just pointed out, there was a lot of background shifts.
luckywallace last edited by
My desire list is as follows right now going by those on the 'official' list;
1 - Cyberpunk 2077
2 - Super Smash Bros. Ultimate
3 - Gears 5
4 - Control
5 - Resident Evil 2 Remake
6 - Anthem
I don't really care for anything else on the list right now.
I'm hyped-up for Assassin's Creed Odyssey and Shadow of the Tomb Raider though. I'll be intersted to see where they place with the Allies but sense it won't be too high... :-\
Mbun last edited by
@luckywallace You gotta order all the entries or it won't be included in the one that averages everyone's lists together. Most of us have some to alot of stuff we don't really care for on our lists, but you can kinda gut feeling what you would potentially care more or less for from all that noise.
@luckywallace Mbun is right. I need to have the full list in order to factor it into the rankings. This prevents a skew where some games show up and others don't. If it helps, try slotting in the rest of the games like from least to most effort it would take to convince you to play it, or some other metric you're comfortable with.
robbobwill last edited by
I must confess I am in a similar boat, my Desire Index is: Spider-Man. I'm quite enjoying spectating on this though, so just want to also commend @Brannox on all the work being put in. I especially enjoy the update posts and tend to read them with a sports announcer voice in my head. Keep up the good work! :)
@robbobwill Thank you for the kind words! I'm a numbers nerd for this kind of thing like seeing how close games are and can switch spots from just one person, or how established groups are formed like the got to have it games to ones we wouldn't care if they got cancelled. This, the GOTY threads, the Selective Creation/Kill Your Babies threads ALL have been wonderful insights into both personal and collective interests, opinions, and some of my favorite discussions.
And now there's a timeout on the field, so here's a word from our sponsers.... ;-)
Chocobop last edited by Chocobop
@brannox Can I ask you a question about the calculations -- the math -- for a second? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm assuming -- primarily since it was never stated anywhere -- that you are using a linear system of assigning points to each person's "votes". By this I mean that the game someone chose to rank 10th on their list is worth 1 point more than the game they ranked 11th, which in turn is worth more than 1 point than their 12th rated gamed and so on for all positions in the list.
I would like to propose making things slightly less linear at the top of each person's lists.
My concern is that people care *a lot* more about their top picks than the bottom half. More specifically, towards bottom of people's lists consecutively ranked games typically have a "difference in desire" is a lot lower than consecutively ranked games somewhere higher in their own list.
Nevertheless, a linear system is still a reasonable choice because it's hard to agree on which non-linear decreasing function is best based on mathematical principles. Everyone is just so different! We "lose interest" at different and unpredictable rates as we go down our own lists. That's why I propose keeping the linear system as the bedrock, and only make this small change:
- a person's top rated game is worth 3 points more than their 2nd rated game
- a person's 2nd rated game is worth 2 points more than their 3rd rated game
Then continue as normal for the remainder of the list.
This proposal is not intended to fully capture what I asserted a few paragraphs above:
people care *a lot* more about their top picks than the bottom half.
but it would be a small tip of the hat in that direction, and I think it might be quite popular.
@chocobop Before going into greater detail, I want to stress I appreciate you taking the time to give it some thought AND provide a counter! The answer is yes, but there's an additional step in averaging the total number of lists submitted. I'll pull CyberPunk as an example:
It currently has a score of 492. Right now the highest score ANY game can get is 22 points for having the highest desire. 21 points for being the second highest and so on and so forth. Now, before recording every person's entry, I count up how many lists there are in total for the update. Currently there are 27 lists up to date. SO: 492/27 = 18.2222.... so it's 18.2. Yes, I round up the tenths place so there is only one decimal. This is to help me do two things: 1.) Be as accurate as I can in really close games and 2.) If there are ties after all that, I go by which game has more highest desires.
Now, I use this system for, again, two reasons:
1.) This helps me on the back end in making sure there ISN'T a skew (because that is what you're proposing) creating an imbalanced formula. I completely agree we all have varying levels of desires and hype. Just take a look at my list. The difference between Anthem and Spiderman for me is drastic. Anthem still (however miniscule) has a chance for me to play. Spiderman I'm not going to play (Though to its credit, E3 did all it could to convince me to get on my list). Spiderman down is a personal close call between each entry. Now above that? The difference between CyberPunk and Halo is pretty substantial, while Kingdom Hearts III and The Last of Us Part II are pretty much in a range all their own. By keeping everything equally spaced, the list can easily be maintained.
2.) The list vacillates a lot when it gets updated with new games. Several people immediately update Wednesday night. Others wait until Friday. There are posts currently that DON'T have the full 22 games. The Master Index is ONLY a representation of all games and lists with all said games. This prevents lists with only 10 or 17 entries from skewing away from the full 22. Please keep in mind, some BIG games got introduced last week.
I DO have a back up in the event the Allies don't revisit the Desire Index. That's when things will get crazy. But we'll see by this time tomorrow.
This is also intended to be BETTER than what the Allies do, because they try to slot a game and move on from that, not all nine are present, and the averages make sure people like me who are super high on Gears are not improperly placing it on the Master Index when it's not indicative of the COLLECTIVE. And as I try to highlight in the updates, there are definite groupings, so it all evens out.
In summary, as it sits at the moment, the Master Index needs to have a linearity for: Upkeep, complete inclusion, simplicity without a skew, and to be definitive.
Chocobop last edited by
By keeping everything equally spaced, the list can easily be maintained.
Don't you have to recalculate everything though regardless? When someone updates their list, all the points from that person have to be recalculated regardless of what points formula is used, which I presume is being done by a program or spreadsheet.
On a separate matter, in your example with Cyperpunk you took the total number of points across all lists, 492, and divided by the number of lists, 27. Division by 27 doesn't change which game has more or less points, and thus doesn't change the ranking of where a game will end up. But rounding to the tenth decimal creates ties that didn't exist before, and you resolve those ties (whether they be natural ties or newly created ties) using a second method ("which game has more highest desires"). This does change the rankings. I feel that this is strange and potentially controversial. Resolving natural ties using whatever method of your choosing is fine, but I don't see why a game with 491 points should sometimes be ranked above a game with 492 points, just because they both round to 18.2.
robbobwill last edited by
@brannox I'm with you on the numbers aspect, I'm just awful at desiring multiple games when the ones I have are on my mind. I was a big fan of Danny O'Dwyer's short-lived podcast because it was just ranking all games ever in retrospect. Unfortunately it's on (possibly indefinite) hiatus currently, and I secretly wish the Allies could borrow the concept for themselves. Viewers could submit games in groups of three and they would rank each game into an ever-growing list. It led to plenty of entertaining discussions, like whether Mass Effect is better or worse than Ratchet & Clank 2.
@chocobop The only recalculation happens when their are games added. After that, it's just a simple plug in and doesn't take long at all.
No, it doesn't change more or less points, but it DOES help me group close games together AND more importantly than any other point I want to make, it is a factor of EVERYONE The division is there strictly as means to correct outliers. It's a failsafe that reinforces the list's correct order. Consider it a third check after the first (entering in the submission) and second (double checking I've entered it correctly). It doesn't really create ties, but rather makes sure the DESIRES NOT POINTS are the ultimate tiebreaker and as a result, it makes sure, to use your example, a 491 game that has 3 highest desires should be over a 492 only having 2 highest desires. The 491 game wins out.
For the record, CyberPunk is the only game in the 490s. Spiderman, after getting pretty close has been behind by a much larger amount after the last few updates.
The only way the rankings change have been with the addition of games. Not ONCE since I've started the thread has a calculation robbed a game with higher desires when it's been close. Also, tangentially, this is why keeping it like it is ensures things aren't skewed.
To use Spiderman and Resident Evil 2 Remake, the current 2nd and 3rd place games. Spiderman has two highest desires. RE2: R is tied with CyberPunk with the most highest desires on the list at five. That's a MASSIVE difference for a list like this. But why does Spiderman take precedent? Because on average more people have it higher on their list than they do RE2: R, in some cases REALLY down on the lists. This balances out and makes sure EVERYONE'S opinions on EVERY game is taken into account.
I'm sure I've probably confused you even more despite trying very hard to avert that but I don't know how else to put it. I DO have a question though: What made you curious all of a sudden? I haven't seen anyone care about how the list came to be. Is there something about the list that seems off to you? In 200 posts, no one has complained (And by NO means am I'm implying that you are) about how everything's gone for the last three weeks, so I don't see any controversy, potential or otherwise.
@robbobwill Yeah, that podcast is done. I'm a big fan of Mr. O'Dwyer as well, and I remember him saying it's practically impossible to do anything regular with it. Especially for him with NoClip AND he recently announced he and his wife are about welcome their first child (A MASSIVE congratulations to them)!
But to your point though, I disagree, because a never-ending list is daunting and while it may be fun to watch someone debate the quality of whether Strategy Game X is better than Fighting Game Y, doing that endlessly is not really an appealing project because you constantly have to revisit it AND more importantly: Interests can change. Also, from EVERY top 100 list from a publication I've seen, both online and in print, it's a universal sentiment shared by those who make it that those arguments are practically impossible because comparing different games is a crapshoot. The Allies have brought back top 10s and even then those are probably lengthy discussions. Can you imagine what the EZA top 100 games of all time debate would be like (If they ever did one)? That would be WEEKS on just deciding and ordering the list, much less video or stream production.
Mbun last edited by
@chocobop The main reason I don't like this is it would be dishonest to people's actual values of desire. Not everyone simply desires their top two games way more than the rest of their list, and some people even have trouble picking between number one, number two, and number three. There's whole chunks of my own list that have much wider gaps than what I think of between the top three, but I can't assign value differences to those spots properly, and even if I could that same formula wouldn't make any sense for another person. It is different for everyone, so the current way is the easiest for keeping it fair for everyone by keeping it a standard "I value this over this, so that's 1 point extra".