How about Game of the Decade?



  • 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:

    0_1594025674557_5aa31ac5-2df4-47bb-a0f1-14a00696ecd8-image.png

    • #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.



  • Oooooo! I'm totally down for this. How many total listed picks are you thinking? The regular 25, or might the list get padded out a bit, given the possible 250 titles?



  • Xenoblade Chronicles

    Xenoblade Chronicles Definitive Edition would win if it came out last decade though.



  • @sazime Hard to tell now if we'll end up with a top 25, or a top 50, or more. Will depend on how many people vote, how the votes are spread, etc.

    I'm hoping for a top 50 but we'll see how it pans out!



  • I think the instinct about not making the lowest value a "1" is right on the money, but this seems like a weird solution to that end. I'm still happy with it, but I wouldn't mind seeing the points even further simplified into, say, 3 tiers (top 5, middle ranks 6-15, and then bottom 16-20), with the points being the same within a tier. The lack of finer distinctions won't shift the results too often when the end tally is the sum of so many people providing inputs. But it makes it easier to think about and acknowledges that for anyone's individual list, there won't be a precise pattern to how much each entry is liked above the next.

    If we don't like tiers, I also like the idea of just having the points vary from 25 points down to 6 points, or even more compressed like 30 points down to 11 points.

    Basically, I think one should be cautious about each additional formula embellishment that minimizes the impact of "number of votes" in order to emphasize "how high was it voted". The formula is going to be forgotten once results start rolling in, and at the margins more people are happier with the overall community list when the more popular games win.



  • @chocobop From my understanding, @Axel 's suggestion is meant to emphasise the impact of number of votes. He's saying that a game that is voted for by five people should always be at least equal to a game voted for by one person, no matter how highly that game is listed by the one person.

    I definitely want to majority of my list to be ordered.



  • @chocobop I'm not in favour of tiers because I think ranking the games is something most people enjoy, and only splitting them into 3 or 4 groups wouldn't be as satisfying (and agonizing). We would also probably end up with a lot more draws, if there's only 3 or 4 different amounts of points a game can receive.

    Having the points decrease linearly from 25 to 6 is almost the same as what I'm suggesting, except it would remove the distinction between HMs and the games that made your top 15. And the top game getting a bigger point bump over second place. I find it "cleaner" to have the points range between 5 and 25 rather than 6 and 25 too, just OCD things :)



  • So I gathered all the eligible games into one big list, and out of curiosity highlighted the ones I have personally played, and I got 90! So I'll have to pick 20 out of those 90, this is going to be more heartbreaking than ever!