After watching the EZA's betting special, a few of us Discord users decided to make our own bet. How many minutes of Battlefront 2 footage would be shown at the EA Panel. The losers would have to write a poem about Jar Jar Binks to whoever had the closest guess.

As one of the losers, I thought I'd share my poem for everyone as well as just Pigagreg, so here it is. If any other allies made any other bets with friends they'd like to share feel free to add them here.

Is Life a Test, The Story of Jar Jar Binks

Is life a test, a test of pain.
To live the life of exiles bane.
Losing your home, your friends, your all.
Wandering swamps for ever more.

Is life a test, a test of luck.
To always escape when truely stuck.
Wandering aimlessly like a lost nomad.
To being saved by Jedi from things bombad

Is life a test, a test of might.
To be invited to join the fight.
Joining a war against the Federation
Who's home, their droid army invaded.

Is life a test, a test of pride.
To have friends standing by your side.
Your leader holds aloft a mighty sphere.
And shouts of peace, all of Naboo cheer.

Is life a test, a test of trust.
As war breaks out, peace turns to dust.
A chancellor believes he could end it all.
With emergency power to stop the Republic's fall.

Is life a test, a test of blame.
To try in vein to clear your name.
The Empire's rise is strong and true.
Everyone was fooled, but they all blame you.

Is life a test, a test of time.
To hit rock bottom despite your climb.
From end up back where you started from.
Exiled and living on the streets of a slum.

Thought you picking Street Fighter 2 was great. It was like, honorable, ironic, funny and strategic all at the same time... and that level of strategy was something I was hoping would've been the limit of what was possible over the course of these inductions. Seeing what further strategic moves are possible now should, whether I agree with them or not, should be very interesting :-)

Wasn't upset by it as much as concerned it was something you hadn't considered that could be used to influence the results, an 'error' that wasn't meant to be there, etc, okay that's technically still upset by it but at least now I know it was somewhat intentional to raise the stakes and add another layer of strategy instead of over a possible oversight. Guess I lose either way, will continue to watch (and care) :-)

Keep the curve balls coming.
L&R.

That was my original fear... what if it's not a poorly planned decision, but a carefully planned plot by Kyle, lol. I still hope it's not even if I'm the minority :-)

I was hoping for a nice simple nominee list , discussion and then vote. Within seconds of Kyle bringing the ban rule up I instantly came up with ways it could be used to alter the way voting could works if one choose to. In my mind the whole thing instantly became a strategic list instead of a best games list.

When is the optimal time to vote for a certain game? Does it have a better chance of winning now, or should the person who wants it in the Hall of Greats wait until other games have been banned? I'm sure a lot of it is just me as I have a very overactive mind and often play scenarios out in many different ways, but in my mind the rule effects both the Allies and the Viewers.

For the Allies actually voting, the banning rule can change the outcome of the votes. Ian voted for Ben's game, saving it from being banned and said "Saved it for you, Ben" on stream tonight. While I believe he saved it because he thought the game deserved a vote and was only joking about doing it to 'save' it, this is already an example of how the banning rule may effect votes, even if only a possibility.

For the Viewers (me in other words), I can't help but wonder now whether the games that make it into the game are the greats or had the best strategist nominating them? As mentioned above I' not 100% certain if Ian was serious or or not about 'saving Ben's game. It's also going to be a total mind%#$# for me if I can never tell whether a game is either unpopular, or someones favourite they're trying to save if it only gets 1 vote in all future rounds.

If all the allies are trusted not to use any of these strategies to get their favourite games added to the Hall of Greats, should they also be trusted not to keep nominating games that don't get any votes over and over again? If so then why is the rule there, or necessary?

The banning rule is simply something I don't think is needed, but while it's there creates the a whole list of extra possibilities, no matter how likely they are to be used, that aren't needed, wanted or required.

Why when creating a list of the best video games ever made, a list in which every game suggested is a possible contender, would you ever ban a game from being eligible for a whole year?

I'm hoping it's not some cheap plot by Kyle to try to create extra drama and tension to an event which clearly has enough of. So I hope the aim is to prevent a game that doesn't win from being nominated every single time. That would be a valid reasoning, but there is a much better way to deal with it than Kyle's banning rule which has the following effects instead.

Doing this might punishes future Hall of Great winners not because they were bad games, but because there were "better choices that day." Roughly 75% of all the votes this round went into just 3 games. They were clearly the top 3 options and the other games had no chance against them this round, so why should they be punished for it?

In one round a game might not have stood a chance compared to others, but in the next round it might be the crowd favourite. It comes down to whatever games were chosen that day, and no game should be removed as a valid candidate because randomness decided it was up against something it couldn't beat previously.

You encourage EZA Allies to put votes into games just to prevent them from being banned. For example if someone doesn't think a game can win this round but still wants it in the hall of fame, they might put one of their votes into it to prevent it from being banned for the whole next year.

Banning can have other effects too. What happens if multiple allies want to make sure the same game doesn't get banned, and being blind and not seeing what the others are doing, it ends up winning? Being able to ban another game for a whole year could be a tactic of it's own, nominating a game to try to get it banned if you consider it a threat to you, or avoiding nominating a worthy game in fear of no one else voting for it and having it banned for a whole year.

You're looking for the best games of all time, which it clearly won't be if ANY game is ineligible for any reason... unless you plan to rename the event to the "Hall of Some of the Greats"

I agree with the idea behind it, preventing certain games from being nominated every single time, but not the length of the ban. Please find an alternative solution, whether it being simply not being able to nominate that game the following round (still sad but more acceptable), or trusting that your fellow allies won't simply nominate the same game every week.

Banning ANY game in a quest to find the greatest games of ALL time goes against the very point of the event.

Created an Xbox version to join you since those first two are for Playstation.

Playstation is C564X and Q1EPM
Xbox is TSSPF.