YOUR Desire Index
I’m surprised to be giving Update 5.7, not because there are more lists, but because we should know what the next games are sometime late this evening and the next version will be live tonight or sometime tomorrow afternoon. Before I get started, a note to @CJTreader: You’re missing Team Sonic Racing from your list, and because it’s incomplete, I can’t factor it in. BUT: If you wait until tonight or tomorrow when the new games are revealed, you’ll be one of the first to be taken into account! Now onto the changes.
The Last of Us Part II got a big benefit, moving up two and into the top five. It leads Red Dead Redemption 2 by 0.2, which barely holds a 0.1 lead over Resident Evil 2: Remake.
Conversely, Devil May Cry 5 drops two to be behind Sekiro by 0.1.
Death Stranding moves up two to supplant Control for 10th and hold off Kingdom Hearts III by 0.1. Control takes the spot Death Stranding vacated.
Halo: Infinite and Fallout 76 trade places, and the difference between is the mascot of this thread: 0.1.
The most intriguing movement occurs just behind, as Darksiders III moves up one, staying ahead of this update’s big winner The Elder Scrolls VI, which moved up four spots and into the top 20. TES VI is just ahead of Forza Horizon 4 by 0.1, which sputtered down two places, and is ahead of Babylon’s Fall by 0.2, which outpaces Skull & Bones by 0.3, and Shadow of the Tomb Raider brings up the last of this group (and another game that fell two) by 0.2. All of that means the difference between Darksiders III and Shadow is just over a full point.
As I touched on earlier, I hope to have the next version tonight, but no later than tomorrow afternoon.
Ladies and Gentlemen, the day has finally come. It was inevitable, but I held out the vain hope it wouldn't until games started releasing:
The Allies do NOT add to the Index this week.
So, a choice. Would you rather:
Wait a week without doing any additions, see if the Allies come back to it (because it is implied during Corrections they will revisit it again at somepoint), and keep doing what we've been doing. If you select this option and the Allies do NOT revisit it next week, we will go to the other option....
Open it up to the chaos. All lists include ALL games (With us KEEPING every game that's been introduced so far.) we desire. This means four things:
1.) You would DROP the games you seriously do not desire AT ALL, but every game that has been introduced will STILL be factored in the index.
2.) The formula would fundamentally change because of number 1. So the Master Index might SIGNIFICANTLY change. Or it might only vary slightly. Games no one desires will of course be at the bottom, but if it's part of the original 28, they will NOT be taken off UNTIL they come out.
3.) I'm considering starting a different thread. With a fundamental shift in how the list is curated, the 325 posts already have followed and focused on a particular way everything was collected, compiled and computed. Also, doing this would mean people wouldn't have to update their first posts here and have a completely fresh start with what they really want. HOWEVER, I'm hesitant to do this because I would like to have this one topic STAY one topic, and this thread shows an evolving and growing narrative, from the first 10 games of immediate post E3 to as of now having an Index 28 strong.
4.) We follow the Allies no more. Meaning: if the Allies DO come back to the index, it doesn't matter for THIS thread specifically (unless anyone wishes to leave a thought about how we differ).
So for all you KYB and SC veterans out there, here's a throwback:
Because of this, I'm not going to immediately take lists (unlike the post DIRECTLY above implies), because I want as many of you to make your preference heard. I will check in when I can over the course of the day tomorrow, and by this time tomorrow, I'll call it off. Whatever has the most votes wins. If the first choice, I'll pop back in this time next week. If the latter.... My Friday evening and Saturday are going to be busy.
Let me know what you think and thanks in advance for your input and for participating in this fun thread.
Axel last edited by
Personally I'd prefer to open it up to all games, because right now it feels less like my Desire Index and more like my Which-game-would-I-least-dislike-to-play-if-forced-at-gunpoint Index.
Not sure I understand why we would keep the current games in though? For example, let's say nobody puts Anthem in their new desire index, why should it even be on the master list then?
But either way, I'll follow the game wherever you take it, thanks again for doing this!
SabotageTheTruth last edited by
Opening it up to all games would probably be the best course of action. I also agree with @Axel that we don't necessarily need to stick to the rigid 28 games that are already on the list - and not just because he proposed Anthem not showing up at all. If we're going to go off and do our own thing, may as well go all the way.
Brannox last edited by Brannox
@Axel @SabotageTheTruth Thanks guys! To the point about keeping what's already been introduced, with the new system, they would be at the bottom, and wouldn't be desired at all. But here's the thing: Every. Single. Game. Has at least ONE person that, while not necessarily at the top, has it in their top group. Looking at the numbers, Crackdown 3 and The Elder Scrolls VI MIGHT be excluded, but with only one or even two games, why eliminate just that much (when they're not out yet and won't be for a WHILE)?
Also, something I didn't touch on in the above post, I've always felt this would be the inevitable end, but I really feel that going along with the podcast allowed for games like Call of Duty, Team Sonic Racing, Pokemon Let's Go, Gears 5, and yes, even Anthem, have an opportunity to be included. And I still stand by what I said much, MUCH earlier in the thread concerning upkeep and being orderly on the back end. When the transition happens, I have to throw out everything I've done and start from scratch (which was the genesis to the idea of starting a new thread).
As for following the game, it follows consensus. So if those who agree with you outnumber everyone else (or if NO ONE else votes or comments, YOU will be the consensus =-D ), then I'll switch it up. Either way, look for that final decision soon.
Mbun last edited by Mbun
@brannox Make a post in the topic with the "FINAL" list before yall open it up and go nuts.
@mbun People can just click the double up arrow at the top to still the most recent version of the Master Index. I always keep it updated with every applicable list.
So no "Final" post like your suggestion would be necessary. Also, the concept of a "Final" list wouldn't work as the Desire Index is ever-living.
Mbun last edited by
@brannox I'm saying the Master Index is going to get nuts if you open it up to every game or whatever. Before that happens, preserve the "FINAL" iteration of the one that followed the Podcast by posting it, then you can keep updating the one at the top with whatever new rules yall use from there on.
bam541 last edited by bam541
Let's just wait, the only time Everything Now was a reasonable thing to consider was when Arcade Fire did it, and it's only decent at best.
Sentinel Beach last edited by
I think we could put this thread on hold and come back to the Official Index Games™ if and when the Allies return to the Index on the podcast. Then we'll continue moving those certain games into our most desired order.
At this point a new thread for "every game you want" could be the thing to do. People will get it. Just put a link here and explain the situation in the opening post of how things are now between the two threads.
I have a question, though. How would the points work, when people would have lists of different lengths? I mean one person could have 15 games on their index, another one 40. How would the points be distributed from those lists? Would the person with the longest list have the most influence on the Master Index?
Anyway, thanks for continuing to do this! I can tell you're both excited and maybe slightly worried about the chaos that the open-list system would create. You'll manage it!
bennysce last edited by
smoothrunes last edited by
This new proposal has me confused. If we open it up to all upcoming games, surely the cohesion of the ranking system will be sent into disarray. What would the cut-off point be, since we can't really include ALL upcoming games and still be able to keep with ranking them overall, since there's hundreds upon hundreds of games always in the pipeline at any given time.
Mbun last edited by
@sentinel-beach If nothing else, I see this as the end of Desire Index Season 1, so even if it point of the Desire Index is to be updated, I think the "Season 1 Results" should be "published" in a post to be preserved before things change or reset, so if anyone in the future finds the topic they can see how that section of the Index ended up, while the one atop the thread can continue to update as the "current, living" Desire Index. Think of it as ranked results for "top players" at the end of the season of a game. Sure, they will change, get reset, etc. and don't matter anymore when the Desire Index starts up again, but it is good to log seasonal results at points where natural stops come to or major changes are made to the index.
robbobwill last edited by
Spidey makin' me proud.
I can't go as in depth as I want right this moment, but I'll clarify in a few hours. However, some quick responses:
@Sentinel-Beach The point will be completely scrapped. I won't be using points at all. I don't want to give away how I'm doing things until a decision is reached. And thank you for the kind words! Yes it does concern me a little, but at the end of the day, I would much rather the majority direct how this is curated.
@bennysce Dependent on how the situation turns out, I'll add your list and do a typical update OR you'll just have what you're interested.
@smoothrunes Again, I'll be using a different system, and there isn't a cut-off point.
Since the podcast version of the Desire Index seems to be only on temporary hiatus, I lean towards waiting a week. We can always go nuts later. (I also think one should endeavor to word straw poll options neutrally, but I appreciate the desire for levity.)
I've been withholding myself from raising @Sentinel-Beach 's exact concern for a long time (simply because I figured no one would care until the day came). But I have silently been putting a fair amount of thought into it. To repeat his concern:
If and when we move to "all games allowed", how are we going to deal with each list varying in length?
I think putting a maximum size on each person's submitted list is one reasonable solution to this problem (whether that number be 10, 20, or 30, etc I have no opinion, but I can offer suggestions that will allow us to experimentally converge on a good number), because it allows the current system of awarding points on a linear scale to be preserved. Most people would use most of the available votes they are allowed, while others (as evidenced by previous posts in this very thread) would only post their top 5 because they sincerely don't care about anything else beyond those. And that's fine, as their votes wouldn't be punished for not filling up an entire list.
While it is perfectly possible to use a linear scale point system without imposing a "maximum list size restriction", such a system might begin to feel silly if most people are doing lists of 20 and one or two people post a list of 100.
There doesn't, of course, need to be a size restriction on the aggregated, master index (the length of the master index would equal the number of distinct games that posters have voted for).
Finally, there are also other systems we could consider, this is just what appeared to me to be the simplest system.
@Sentinel-Beach The points will be completely scrapped. I won't be using points at all. I don't want to give away how I'm doing things [the replacement for assigning points] until a decision is reached.
I'm against this, and I think the reason is self-evident: Why are we voting or discussing the options without knowing what we are voting on or the options we are trying to choose between?
Second, you are also leaving me and many other people excitedly curious about what the new system is, but we aren't allowed to ask you about it?? I don't like that, I want to know and have my curiosity be saited or at bare minimum have a broad, low resolution outline of the new system.
Finally, the quoted portion also leaves the unintended impression that you aren't going to change the system after the switch over should people desire a different implementation that is more widely liked.
@chocobop While I was initially going to only respond to a couple of points without repeating myself while reading your above posts, I decided to stop part way through and I'm going re-read and respond to each point as I read in hopes that I don't miss anything. If I DO, please let me know! With that said, allow me to start.
Thank you for the feedback!
For your observation about word choice in the poll, I believe that's just personal preference. As long as the options are clear to what they mean, I, personally, don't think it matters one way or the other.
"...how are 'WE' going to deal with each list varying in length?"..... My response to this is two-fold, first in the most literal sense, the other in the sense of curation: I'M the only one who should be.... concerned?..... with list length. Opening it up to everyone's desires means ALL desires for EVERY person. Everyone is different. Maybe someone only cares for... I don't know... seven games. Someone else has ten games on their list. Me? I have 18. And half of them haven't been covered by the Allies as of yet. That diversity is why I wanted to go along with the podcast initially because it allows me to keep track of each entry from each person in the most detailed fashion while simultaneously giving games a chance to be represented like one person really being into Call of Duty, or perhaps a reminder to some of, "Oh yeah, I forgot about that. Not the top of my list, but I want to give that a shot."
Putting a cap on lists AFTER opening it up for all lists to include (and drop) anything is out of the question. That limits people's desires, and it is my absolute ardent belief that all desires should and will be represented, following both formats. I like the concept of a cap if this was something like GOTY deliberations, but all this thread is, is a Most Anticipated Games list. Also, the cap suggestion you brought forth is still based off a points system. If all lists are opened up, NO POINT SYSTEM OF ANY KIND will be used. It STILL will be numbers based, and tiebreakers will be handled slightly differently.
You are correct that no matter what, a size restriction will NEVER be implemented to the Master Index for any reason.
What may be simple to some may be complex to others and our discussion is a perfect microcosm of this. How I've been doing things may be the most confusing thing on Earth while the system you've provided is more hassle for me both in terms of understanding and in execution.
starting your second post
The options up for vote are clear: Do we continue to follow the podcast in how games are introduced to the Index; waiting for games we care about while taking games we may not care for, but others are hyped on, or do we NOT follow the podcast, allow everyone to have their desires, no matter few or many that may be, editing games that have been introduced yet they aren't into out, and pretty much ending any continual life to the thread. That's ANOTHER thing I forgot to add when I initially brought it to everyone's attention: Following the podcast allows this thread to continuously be commented in and allows it to live. Opening it up means people will come in, post one list, and have absolutely no other reason to visit unless someone decides to come in for the first time to give their list and it fluctuates the Master Index.
"Excitedly curious"? While that wasn't my intention, I must say that's an unintended boost of morale to me because it implies I generate more interest than I should. Regardless, thank you very much for the compliment!
Of course you can ask about it (Which you've done) and as I said to Sentinel Beach, I don't really want to spoil it and this is for two reasons. 1.) If I propose this new system, but the majority selects the other option and I don't use it, what then? 2.) As I've stated multiple times, the new system still factors in all games presented and yet-to-be presented, but it does away with points entirely because as yourself and others have pointed out, having list length variation throws a point system out of whack. If I explain the new system, and a majority doesn't care for it, what do I do once it opens up? Does the option of list variation still exist at that point? Does the thread just stop because the upkeep is convoluted.
And that brings me to what I believe is my most important point. The curation of the Master Index is MY SELF-IMPOSED challenge. I decided to take this on because it had support in another thread as an idea, it seemed like a fun thing to do, and it was something I felt I could do as a means to interact with others. Did I underestimate how many would participate, or how lengthy the curation would become the more games were added? Sure, a little bit. But it's something I chose to do, and I don't mind doing. My hope for this thread was people could come, leave their desires and discuss with others about how we, collectively, hold the games where we do. Not once did I want to pass any burden of maintaining this thread on anyone. At the end of it all, the calculation is all on me.
I can completely understand you don't like not knowing what you're voting for/getting out of something, hell, ANYTHING, not just in this thread, but in practically anything in life. Again, the purpose of the poll wasn't to choose HOW the method chosen would be kept, but the how everyone would give their lists.
Could you clarify your last sentence? By stating "you aren't going to change the system after the switch over should people desire a different implementation that is more widely liked." is a little confusing for me, as I'm reading that as I'm sticking with the current system, even after the switch. While THAT may not be what YOU are intending, I just want to be clear and avoid any confusion. If it IS the intention, please allow me to reiterate: If we do switch over, the current system used is not viable for that option. At all. Period.
Three hours. That's how long I'm still waiting from the time of this post to call the vote. That's all I ask in terms of patience to determine what the consensus is.
If we wait a week, we wait a week.
If we switch over, I WILL make a post TONIGHT detailing the new method, in its entirety, and I'm looking forward to curating and publishing a new list no later than tomorrow night.
If we wait a week, and the Allies DON'T revisit the index the second option will go into effect, regardless.
Thanks again. If you've gotten this fall, I appreciate you taking the time to get through this exhaustive manuscript. I really do hope I was able to get everything.
I don't really want to spoil it and this is for two reasons. 1.) If I propose this new system, but the majority selects the other option and I don't use it, what then?
re: "what then". In all likelihood, your new system would still be used, but just not immediately. i.e., in all likelihood the Allies are not going to keep updating their desire index forever (as stated by Kyle Bosman during one of the episodes, I think), so barring a change of hearts on their part, the current thread poll is only about the short term future of the thread.
(I'll postpone responding to your 'reason 2)' that I didn't quote, since it falls under the umbrella of a larger sentiment that I will end my post with.)
Could you clarify your last sentence? [...] as I'm reading that as: ____
Sure. The meaning was not what you had read in what followed. The meaning was merely this: let's suppose the poll will vote to "switch over" from the current status quo of following the podcast to a new protocol of allowing all games. By keeping the new ranking system a secret instead of being open about it and thus allowing people to comment on the new system and offer suggestions, it creates an unintended impression that you are resistant to changing the new ranking algorithm should people desire a different implementation that is more widely liked. That was a lot of words so just to be clear: this was not particularly of concern to me (I was much more concerned with everything preceding the last sentence of that comment), but I didn't know whether or not it was of particular concern to you so I thought I would mention it.
Finally, more than anything else I've said in this post I feel there is something I want to reply to in your comment, but it is a reply to something too intangible and dispersed that I can't simply quote a sentence or passage and reply to that part. So I will just say this:
You do carry the burden of maintaining the master index and have the ultimate say on every decision, but remember that people on the outside still often want to offer suggestions for you to consider because they want to help you. If you ever find yourself with a new problem, people on the outside will want to brainstorm solutions, again because they want to help you. You're not alone.
Ok everybody. I gave the vote 24 hours and with a 4-2 decision...
We're waiting a week.
This means I'm going to take the one list added from a while back since the last update, factor it in accordingly, and leave one last general post. Then unless anyone else wants to chat here, we're not going to see much more activity until we know if the Allies revisit the Index. A reminder: If they do, we continue on as normal. If not... we're opening it up. See you here next week.
@Chocobop (I want to let you know I saw your most recent reply, but wanted to hold off until I called off the vote before responding to condense both posts into one.)
The poll was always a short term future. It just either would be wait and see or permanently jump. Also, I was figuring the thread would die off naturally around the end of September (with me striking off the games that would've released by that point), and then I would come back at the end of January and February taking more games off. I've always felt the Allies would stop with the Desire Index until what I hoped would be another two or three weeks (this of course is predicated on them having at least four or five additions as opposed to three, but hey, cest la vie.)
Ok! Thank you for the clarification. I see where you're coming from now. All I can say is I think it would be received well and more people might enjoy what I have in mind more. I DO promise: If/when we make the jump, I WILL go into great detail about how everything will change or just be adjusted a little bit.
I totally understand and am grateful feedback. It helps me get an idea the various ways people see this endeavor. Sometimes, its obvious, "Yeah, that's so much better than what's now," and other times its, "Uhhhhh.... what do you mean?" I really try to make sure if anyone has anything to critique, I want to listen and not be, "MYAH! MY THREAD!" And much like this instance, I do elicit everyone's thoughts. This change was proposed by me to start with after all. Thanks again!