How about Game of the Decade?

  • Just pick a new year for voting. The decade isn't even over according to the gregorian calendar. No need to rush.

    But with life still going slowly I would welcome a new voting.

  • @axel said in How about Game of the Decade?:

    I'm leaning towards doing 2010... now, and following it up with the GOTD later this year, so we can wrap it up before the 2020 GOTY. But if a majority of you prefer to wait for 2020 to be over and have the decade be 2011-2020, so be it.

    Yes - 2010, then Game of the 2010's (2010-2019).

  • @oscillator Hmm I'd probably go for only having the top 20 be eligible for those, especially if there's too many runners-up. I guess any game who didn't make the rankings on any given year wouldn't stand much of chance in the overall decade vote anyway :)

    @ffff0 I hear you, but like @Brannox says, there's never going to be a perfect time when we've all played all the games. Even a year from now, plenty of us would still have a backlog from this past decade. And even though the most recent games could be considered to be at a disadvantage because less people had the chance to play them, they're also fresher in people's minds and benefit from better tech/graphics/design practices/etc, so it evens out.

    The thing is, those rankings are never going to be scientifically accurate or perfectly fair and objective, and it's fine, it's for fun, even if we like we take them as seriosuly as possible.

    @El-Shmiablo I don't get why? If the vote is for games 2010-2019, even according to your rules you should have played enough games from that period already, no? Except maybe some 2018-2019 games, but again, that's how these things go, we all have games we haven't played yet.

    Either way, we should do GOTY 2010 first, and we'll see where we stand once we're done with that. I might get it started soon!

  • Banned

    @axel Oh sorry I should have been more clear. I mean if we were going to do it from 2010 to 2020 like some people were mentioning. My bad.

  • 2010 to 2019, it just more consistent but yeah let's do it in any case, it's always entertaining, I guess I would just wonder what happens wit hgames rerelased with differences in the decade, for example Persona 3 Portable and 4 Golden.

  • If we get 25 from 2010, that's 240 games to choose from. Wowser.

    This might be too much work, but I think it would be cool to try and rank like, 100, rather than just 25. Because there's going to be some absolute bangers that don't make the top 25. We always end up with runners up. I think that maybe a cool thing to do would be to do runners up rounds.

    Simply put, everything works as normal up to the reveal of the top 2 games of the decade according to the votes. Then, rather than revealing the votes for games that haven't made the cut, Axel keeps them a secret, and we open up a second round of voting.

    All the games that received points in the first round get to keep them to represent them being considered so highly by some members of the community (plus it feels like it makes sense to keep them). Then everyone votes again, apart from they're voting for 26 -> 50. Anyone can vote for anything that isn't in the top 25, including the people that voted for games that already have points. It makes sense I think that they get to vote for it a second time as the context of the votes has changed.

    Axel could reveal two or even three games a day, just so it doesn't take that long to get through the runners up, as ultimately they're not as important as the top 25.

    To keep things fair, there might need to be a rule where you can only vote in subsequent rounds if you voted in the first round. My brain is telling me that some games could receive unfair advantage otherwise, but I can't quite verbalise why.

    It's just an idea, but I think we could get a whole lot of mileage out of a Game of the Decade ranking, and it would be a shame to waste it.

    In my opinion, I'd like to wait until 2021 to do this, as the first rankings after the 2020 rankings. I still have plenty of 2010s big hitters to get through, especially towards the latter end, like Dark Souls 3, and Sekiro, the newer Assassins Creeds, the Outer Wilds, Yakuza Zero, Fire Emblem Three Houses, Tetris Effect. I think the likelihood of any of these games I haven't played changing my rankings is unlikely, but I also like to entertain the idea that one of these games could turn my world upside down.

    Oh, and if it wasn't already clear, 10-19.

  • Sound like a great idea!

    I think it should be 2010-2019.

    I like the idea of submitting a top 10.

  • If our pool from which to choose from will be 250 games big then I'm not sure about only picking 10 games to vote for. Or maybe that's okay, I don't know. It just makes it impossible to give any support to all those Honorable Mentions, but yeah, the whole thing would be about the best of the best, not the cute weirdos, so to speak. A lot to consider.

    But let's do the 2010 vote first. This thread is now still a good place to plan things out after that.

  • I think 2010-2019 would be good.

  • I'm into this idea. I also like the idea of doing the 2010 list first, then doing the decade one.

  • @hazz3r @Sentinel-Beach I like the idea of having more than just a top 25, I guess it would also depend on how many people end up voting. My worry with doing it in multiple rounds would be that some people woud probably not manage to vote twice (it's already difficult to get people to vote once for regular GOTYs :)).

    But letting people vote for more than 10 games could solve that too, maybe you could vote for 15 or 20 games, so we automatically get a wider range of games with points.

    Let's indeed keep this thread for more discussion. Sounds like at least a majority prefers 2010-2019, so we'll probably do that, and start by doing 2010 soon.

  • 10 games is ideal. Will it be "a game from every year" or "choose what you want"? Some places chose a game from every year to make it 10 games etc.

  • @scotty "Choose what you want" makes more sense to me.

  • @axel

    It's more meaningful to have a collection like favorite from every year, also more challenging and fun.

  • Also, yeah; like we talked about it on the first page of this thread: Let's do 2010 ranking soon but wait until the december to vote for 10-19 thing.

  • If we stick to just to a single round of voting, is there a problem with voting for more than 10 entries/ranking more 25 entries? I feel that since we are submitting our individual lists from a predetermined pool of games it is much easier to submit a larger list -- there's just a lot less faffing about and a lot more games that you are itching to include. If the average person has 5 games they really root for from each year, they would have 50 games they are rooting for overall. Cutting this number in half, say, suggests that submissions of 25 games could work without that person running out of favorites. I'd be in favor.

    As for ranking more than 25 entries, I'm not sure at what point it becomes impractical and/or at what point there is just a trickle of points to make the higher ranks less meaningful. That said, to make posting the results more practical I wouldn't be opposed to "grouped countdowns" where instead of counting down the winners one by one, the countdown groups together 5 or 10 games into one post until we reach the top 25 or whatever. So it might be like:

    • post 1: winners for 45th-36th spots
    • post 2: winners for 35th-26th spots
    • post 3: winner for 25th spot
    • post 4: winner for the 24rd spot
    • etc.

    Whether we need those higher spots or not might be a decision best deferred until all votes are in. Then a cutoff can be chosen around where the points sort of flatten out too much.

  • I would be okay with voting for 25 games. Would it be something like this:

    Top 10 (11-2 points), 15 Honorable Mentions (1pt) - 80 points per person

    That way Top 10 still has more significance.

    Edit: Actually, now that I think about it. Having to sort 25 games from everyone seems like a lot of work for @Axel. Maybe 5 honorable mentions is more practical.

  • Since we're approaching the end of our GOTY 2010 reveal, it's time to think again about what's next: the Game of the 2010s!

    As we discussed before, the only games eligible would be those who made the top 25 of each year (with only a top 20 in the case of two years).

    I agree that voting for only 5 or 8 games would be pretty limiting, with such a wide range of beloved eligible games. I feel like a sweet spot would be 15 or 20 games.

    I'm afraid to go higher than that because some people would then struggle to provide a full list (there are years when people tell me they can only name one or two games).

    With that said, I'm suggesting the following: you will rank your top 15 games + 5 optional honorable mentions. Hopefully this is an achievable number for everyone.

    In terms of scoring, I want to do things a bit differently. We could say #1 gets 20pts, #2 gets 19pts, ... until #20 gets 1pt. However, that means the #1 spot gets 20 times more points than the last spot. In other words, a game could get 19 honorable mentions and be ranked below a game that got a single #1 spot. Doesn't feel right.

    In order to curb this difference, I'd like to suggest the following:


    • #1 gets 25 points, #2 gets 20 points. The top spot gets a clear distinction from the rest of the pack.
    • The 5 honorable mentions get 5 points each (so the top spot gets 5 times more points than a HM, rather than 20 times).
    • Every game in between is separated by 1 point, with the exception of 2 points between #15 and the HMs, to reflect the importance of making the top 15.

    How does all of that sound?

  • Sounds good to me.

    I think the 5 to 1 (HM to #1) ratio works well for the normal GOTY. It should work well here.

  • This sounds MASSIVE in a great way, let's go for it! Can't wait to struggle with putting my favourites in order. :) That'll be something.
    The point system should be pretty solid now with that suggested score board, thumbs up.