Vote for the forum's Game of the 2010s Decade!



  • @iboshow Welcome to the party.

    @tokyoslim said in Vote for the forum's Game of the 2010s Decade!:

    I just want to say that I STILL disagree with not allowing Persona 4 Golden in 2012. My Persona 5 vote moved up about 4 slots because of Royal because I know we won't allow it in our GOTY this year for the same BS reasons.
    *Edit: not trying to sound like I'm criticising the decision making process, or people involved. I just don't like the outcome



  • @iboshow I mean, it came out in 2008.



  • @miserableperson That doesn't work though because it favours the votes that were valid.

    If you've watched EZA do Hall of Greats, they discovered this very early on. At one point Brad couldn't make it but still wanted to put forward a game. However, as he wasn't there to vote, that meant that the voting was skewed in his game's favour. It could receieve more votes than any other game.

    This is much the same thing. It skews the voting in a way that favours the games that received valid votes. You simply have to award all the points, otherwise it invalidates the whole thing.

    On a side note. Theoretically, if you had one game that you wanted to get as high as possible and didn't care about anything else, you would simple give that game your one spot and then vote for #24, #25, etc for each year with the rest of your votes. You can sort of game the system then as you're decreasing the likelihood of your votes swinging a marginal with your #1 vote.



  • You know, I don't see why we force people to use all their voting slots in the first place to the point of making it an unbreakable rule (and not, say, just a strongly encouraged behavior). There are political voting systems that allow this, and it isn't considered a defect : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optional_preferential_voting

    I was actually confused about this subject during a recent GOTY thread where my voting list was dropped. I'm not sure of any other way to explain this, but I didn't even consider for a second that it was a strict requirement even after I received a message about my list. (In my case, my votes were all valid but -- in my mind -- I desired to leave my last few points unused instead of picking a random game based on its reputation). And I'm probably paying closer and more regular attention to the forums compared to how we might imagine someone who just joined the forums and hasn't shown much activity yet.

    The setup for this thread (having a limited pool of games) actually makes this point more relevant, because people might not have played these particular games. This time I was actually quite eager to draft a list that was filled with votes based on reputation/perception and not personal experience, but if I was a voter who didn't feel that way I wouldn't have been able to submit a full list. Think about that.

    To sum up, I'm not so concerned about changing the rules. The way we do it is fine too. But I want to emphasize that the broader sentiment "Well, if they aren't invested enough in the process to understand the rules..." is just plain wrong. It's very easy to make an honest misunderstanding and/or not have enough games to vote for.

    Edit: Also, to a certain extent the rule doesn't necessarily achieve the benefit that probably comes to mind first (putting care/effort into your list). Suppose person A voted for 20 games but got lazy after a few minutes and stops putting in any effort into selection and ordering, while person B votes for 18 games after putting in a large degree of time and contemplation, but gets lazy in trying to decide how to handle the last two spots. The rule removes person B and keeps person A.



  • I agree. Since "list should be full" rule wasn't declared from the start, we shouldn't add it now.

    We can discards votes with invalid games because they don't follow eligibility rule. But we can't discard them just because they have empty slots.



  • @ffff0 said in Vote for the forum's Game of the 2010s Decade!:

    I agree. Since "list should be full" rule wasn't declared from the start, we shouldn't add it now.

    ?

    Top 15 minimum was a very clear rule at the start.

    @chocobop said in Vote for the forum's Game of the 2010s Decade!:

    Edit: Also, to a certain extent the rule doesn't necessarily achieve the benefit that probably comes to mind first (putting care/effort into your list). Suppose person A voted for 20 games but got lazy after a few minutes and stops putting in any effort into selection and ordering, while person B votes for 18 games after putting in a large degree of time and contemplation, but gets lazy in trying to decide how to handle the last two spots. The rule removes person B and keeps person A.

    This is an unlikely situation. If somone puts a lot of effort into most of their list, they'll probably submit a full and compliant list.



  • For 2000 goty I've submitted one game because I played just one 2000 game. My list was accepted.



  • When I first sent my list, I had one ineligible game even after I went through the list of games multiple times. I sent a replacement after I was notified but I would have been disappointed if my whole list didn't count because of one game.

    Maybe as long as they have at least 15 eligible games on their list, the list counts. Remember that the Honorable Mentions are optional so it wouldn't be considered gaming the system to only have a total of 15 to 20 games on your list.

    I would also trust Axel to decide on a case by case basis which lists are disqualified. If he feels that based on the list submitted, that a person made an honest mistake or if that person was acting like a joker to mess with the results.



  • @oscillator said in Vote for the forum's Game of the 2010s Decade!:

    This is an unlikely situation. If somone puts a lot of effort into most of their list, they'll probably submit a full and compliant list.

    But what if I play unpopular games (say, visual novels) that didn't get into top 25 and therefore not eligible. I will not be able to come up with a full list, but this doesn't make my perspective on the best games of decade less valuable. I've picked games I've picked for a reason and ignored the rest for a reason.

    Think about Don. He doesn't play every big game of the year, but this doesn't make his personal GotY less valid. So I say that incomplete list should be allowed.



  • @ffff0 said in Vote for the forum's Game of the 2010s Decade!:

    For 2000 goty I've submitted one game because I played just one 2000 game. My list was accepted.

    That was one of the earlier GOTY threads, so I'm not surprised the rules were looser.

    @ffff0 said in Vote for the forum's Game of the 2010s Decade!:

    But what if I play unpopular games (say, visual novels) that didn't get into top 25 and therefore not eligible. I will not be able to come up with a full list, but this doesn't make my perspective on the best games of decade less valuable. I've picked games I've picked for a reason and ignored the rest for a reason.

    Spoiler, a little more than half of the list I submitted I haven't played. I made up the gap with games that I'm likely to enjoy based on similarity and what I've seen of them, plus a few games I'm more distant to but can see merit in.

    The rule is a complete list of eligible games, but there's no rule on how you get there.



  • @hazz3r I don't think that's actually the case though, for our purpose every game had the same chance of making any list. The issue in HoG was literally that Brad's game could receive more votes than anyone else's due to his absence. If someone submits a list and 5 of the 25 games aren't on the list, they weren't prevented from choosing 5 different games that would have counted - they actively chose not to. Voting isn't fundamentally skewed in any way, no one is prevented from anything, the maximum points possible don't change. I don't think its perfect as people should just read the list, but I think its acceptable.



  • @axel Maybe an "Ineligible But Not Forgotten" category?

    And Hollow Knight could be the first, last, and the whole damn category?

    Joking about the last part.



  • @miserableperson If the person planned on using every slot and they accidentally added an ineligible game, it affects the maximum possible points and it absolutely skews towards the games that were valid. The situation we're talking about is different to just, choosing games that don't make the list, or knowingly submitting ineligible games.



  • @hazz3r "Maximum points"? You mean the total points from one person's voting list, or the maximum possible points that a game can receive as a whole from everyone?

    Here's my simple argument for why removing an invalid game doesn't skew the results: if they had instead voted for a valid game, but one that is incredibly unpopular (throwing that vote away), would that "skew the results"?

    Or, how about this: If someone intentionally and mischievously wanted to "skew the results" towards a specific game X, could they manage to do so by creating a list with a bunch of invalid votes? No, it'd be no different had they just voted for game X.



  • my two cents is that my lists tend to be riddled with games nobody else votes for with only like three or four actually mattering, so to speak. so essentially I am already wasting my votes by not putting them towards games that I expect will actually rank at the end of the day. That said I will never vote for a games to be higher on the totem pole so my votes count; like when we did the 2019 GOTY list I didn't give Link's Awakening my #1 because I thought it needed help getting extra points to rank higher, I gave it my #1 because it was my favorite game last year.

    granted on a specifically curated list like this one that might be a different can of worms but I'm just talking in general.

    @oscillator said in Vote for the forum's Game of the 2010s Decade!:

    Spoiler, a little more than half of the list I submitted I haven't played.

    Honestly I think that's a massive failure of the system if you're making up a list of the best games of a year/decade and didn't even play every one you chose.



  • You all brought up some good points, thanks!

    Just FYI, the two people in question both only have one ineligible game, Dishonored 2. Can't really blame them, it's easy to assume it would have made the list in 2016. So I don't think anyone is trying to game the system in this case, just an honest mistake.

    The issue is, both of them seem to have signed up to the forums, sent their vote, and never logged in again, so I have no way to contact them or remind them. I'm just hoping they'll log back in eventually, if only to check the results.

    So for now I'll keep waiting, but when push comes to shove, I'll have to decide between just leaving a blank where they voted Dishonored 2, bump other every game up, or straight up not count their list. Hopefully it doesn't come to any of those :)



  • @chocobop This isn't worth arguing over, but I've already mentioned this.

    Accidentally including an ineligible game is what I'm talking about. If someone meant all their points to be counted and they weren't, then not correcting that would skew the points towards the games that were valid in their entry. The games that were valid would receive an advantage because they have a greater number of maximum possible points.

    To reiterate.

    If someone intentionally chooses ineligible games, this has no effect because that's the person's choice.
    If someone intentionally chooses unpopular games, it has nothing to do with the problem, and this has no effect because that's the person's choice.

    Both of these outcomes don't affect the maximum possible points that a game can receive. Because the person intends to not give points to any other games.

    If the person accidentally includes an ineligible game, it has an effect because it was not the person's choice. If I have games at #21, #22, #23, etc that I would happily bump up into my entry and replace those ineligible games with, then those games, as well as any others that may stand to receive more points as part of my individual entry are at a disadvantage. The maximum possible points they could receive is less than the games that would not shift if the entry was to be corrected.

    Let's use an example:

    Let's say that two people, Person A and Person B are voting on what the best SoulsBorne game is. They get three votes, with 3 points going to #1, 2 points to #2 and 1 point to #3.

    However, let's say that Person B doesn't realise that voting is not counting as Sekiro as a SoulsBorne, but they really like it.

    Person A votes:
    Dark Souls 2
    Bloodborne
    Dark Souls 3

    Person B votes
    Dark Souls 3
    Sekiro
    Dark Souls

    As it stands:

    1: Dark Souls 3 - 4 Points
    2: Dark Souls 2 - 3 Points
    3: BloodBorne - 2 Points

    Now let's say that Person B also really likes Dark Souls 2. It's their 4th favourite SoulsBorne game. And let's say someone told them that Sekiro was ineligible.

    They could have two reactions.

    1: I don't care, I can't possibly vote for anything else.

    This is fine. They're effectively wasting their points, but that's their decision to make, and doesn't affect the overall rankings.

    2: Oh, I didn't realise! I can change my entry a bit then.

    Person B's new entry is:

    Dark Souls 3
    Dark Souls
    Dark Souls 2

    This changes the outcome quite severely. The results now are.

    1: Dark Souls 3 / Dark Souls 2 - 4 Points
    2: Bloodborne / Dark Souls - 2 Points
    3: Err, King's Field? I dunno.

    Because we didn't know what the intent of Person B when they made the erroneous entry, we can't know that it doesn't skew the results, and I think it's fair to make the assumption that most people wish to make a valid entry and make full use of their points if they want to.

    TL;DR Intent is important.



  • @axel Uh, that sucks. But as it's only two people and only the one game, it should only shift games by 2-4 points max.

    As you said before, you can't really make the decision for people on what HM becomes a top 15, so I would just blank out Dishonored 2's spot and then take the list.



  • @axel Given the context and giving that Dishonored 1 is eligible, I think that we have just an honest mistake here, so not counting the rest of the list doesn't seems right.

    I think that the choice between leaving a blank or bumping everything up lies in interpretation of the rule "You must rank your Top 15 games, plus 5 optional honorable mentions." Does it mean putting things in order (if so, bumping up seems more reasonable), or assigning specific places for specific games (if so, leaving a blank seems more reasonable). I'm not a native English speaker, so I'm not sure. Also does word "plus" means that honorable mentions are separate from top 15? If so they probably should not receive a bump if bumping in top 15 is happening.



  • This is not like really really important. Maybe just leave a void without bumping up any games. Just don't invalidate the whole list.