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



  • @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.



  • Speaking as someone who truly believes Dishonored 2 belongs and is the one game I wanted but was ineligible, I don't believe it's an honest mistake regarding intent as two which Dishonored to place, but the honest mistake lies in not properly reading the fifth line of the OP.

    But just as important (and kind of risky to reveal), is WHERE on these two lists Dishonored 2 is placed. If either or both of the voters have Dishonored 2 within their Honorable Mentions, then invalidating just that one entry is the best course, because HMs within themselves are not necessarily ranked. Rather, they are a pool of nominees because each HM receives the same amount of points, and those that receive the most nods rise up because of sheer number of people who believe it in enough to give it a shoutout.

    However, the higher up the list it goes, the more problematic I see it being. If one or both of these lists have it as their #1 overall game, that's a massive point disparity in a list where, if the last couple have taught us anything, entry to a list comes down to a single point or heartbreaking tiebreakers. So by moving a game in second place to give it a new number one, that's an additional five points, basically the whole value of an HM. But the real issue is by moving everything up, it means one of the HMs has to be arbitrarily selected to receive two additional points. Small disparity on the surface sure, but could have an impact at the cutoff line.

    On the other hand, by simply (for lack of a better term) 'blanking' out an entry means a slot becomes open, and as a result if another game doesn't get filled in, it or another eligible game would lose out on an opportunity to not just be nominated, but make the field entirely.

    At the end of it all, this is Axel's decision. As much discussion as this has generated the past few days, the point is entirely moot on the grounds of: Unless the difference is at a critical spot (say, 50th) and really is being decided by a minuscule amount, it shouldn't wholly impact the entire list. I'm still excited to see how everything shakes out once votes close and the countdown begins.



  • Without reading every post above, could we just replace one of the two Divinity Original Sin games, and swap it with Dishonored 2? I know it's different years but it might be a fair swap. We'd still be counting Divinity Original Sin and we'd lose the extra version of it making space for one more game.



  • I want to change all my submissions to Hollow Knight.



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

    Speaking as someone who truly believes Dishonored 2 belongs and is the one game I wanted but was ineligible, I don't believe it's an honest mistake regarding intent as two which Dishonored to place, but the honest mistake lies in not properly reading the fifth line of the OP.

    But just as important (and kind of risky to reveal), is WHERE on these two lists Dishonored 2 is placed. If either or both of the voters have Dishonored 2 within their Honorable Mentions, then invalidating just that one entry is the best course, because HMs within themselves are not necessarily ranked. Rather, they are a pool of nominees because each HM receives the same amount of points, and those that receive the most nods rise up because of sheer number of people who believe it in enough to give it a shoutout.

    Yeah, in this specific case (if, of course, the submitters don't respond), I see two options. If D2 is ranked low on the list, just blank it and submit the rest. If it's ranked high, reject the whole list.



  • @Axel can you maybe run a straw poll or something?


  • Global Moderator

    I havent forgotten, just havent finished my list yet... it SO SO hard!



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

    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.

    My guess is they heard about it from the community Showcase, signed up for the forum just to vote, and then didn't plan on logging in again. With the showcase coming up again, would it be a good idea to throw a message out there again, remind people to vote, and just mention that some previous ones have games not qualifying? That is unless voting needs to be done by then to be up for the showcase. I don't recall when the voting deadline is.



  • One of them placed it 4th, the other 15th, so we've got quite a spread :)

    To me, it makes sense to bump everything up, because it's essentially asking what the ranking would be if that game didn't exist. Obviously all the games under it would stay in the same order, just one spot higher.

    So the only tricky part is which HM to bump up. Either I arbitrarily pick the first one listed, or I just don't bump any, which means those two lists won't have a game in #15. It does break the rule since you're supposed to have a Top 15, so it's tricky to make an exception here: I don't want someone else to send me a Top 14 tomorrow and say it should count because of this...

    The votes will still stay open for a while, I don't have an end date in mind but there's no rush, at least one more week, so hopefully they will come back and the situation will solve itself!



  • @axel If we were to do a poll I would say to leave it how it is and give the non-eligible game a 0