Finally, someone puts their money where their mouth is.Rez said:if time is the issue, I have a lot of free-time this year. I'd be happy to take over the reins and do it the old-school way.
Finally, someone puts their money where their mouth is.Rez said:if time is the issue, I have a lot of free-time this year. I'd be happy to take over the reins and do it the old-school way.
I don't know if you've been reading the thread, but it already has. He is changing the weight system, allowing more games. And as I've explained before, it's a very small minority of people in this thread that dislike the system. A lot of people are just posting their votes and don't care.Gilgamesh said:That's not what we're saying. We've clearly explained why we feel this system is broken. I appreciate that he experimented, but it failed big time. It needs to be reverted to the old system or get taken back to the drawing board.
DeadGzuz said:True, but that says more about UC2, the year was very good IMO.
Maxrpg said:I don't know if you've been reading the thread, but it already has. He is changing the weight system, allowing more games. And as I've explained before, it's a very small minority of people in this thread that dislike the system. A lot of people are just posting their votes and don't care.
No, it hasn't been taken back to the drawing board. It's had a minor revision that still hasn't totally fixed the core issue of the weighting.Maxrpg said:I don't know if you've been reading the thread, but it already has. He is changing the weight system, allowing more games. And as I've explained before, it's a very small minority of people in this thread that dislike the system. A lot of people are just posting their votes and don't care.
JardeL said:KILLZONE 2 - 5
UNCHARTED 2 - 5
inFAMOUS - 4
As I already said, I agree completely. A three points cap still wouldn't fix the problem, unless you can only give three points to ONE game.Pyke Presco said:Don't get me wrong, I appreciate timetokill taking the initiative and setting this all up, trying something new. I just think it is flawed in its current form. I still think 3 points is too much, and 2 would be best, but its his thread and his rules, so I'll go along with whatever he ends up choosing. He wants to streamline the experience, and I can't fault him for that.
If they are weighted 3 points each, you have at least four games that can get nominated. But you could also list five games at 2 points each, and still get a respectable list. People are just ANGRAY at not having a top 10 list of games. His system is different.Sysgen said:Just curious. How do you allow more games when people are only posting 2. ..and what are you his lawyer?
You can still list 10 games, each weighted 1, can't you? (Goes back and reads the rules).Maxrpg said:If they are weighted 3 points each, you have at least four games that can get nominated. But you could also list five games at 2 points each, and still get a respectable list. People are just ANGRAY at not having a top 10 list of games. His system is different.
And no, I'm defending his choice of system because I believe in the simplicity of it, and I like it.
Yes, but you would waste your points since poster B can come and give two games 5 points each, thus rendering your votes (and those of four more posters that voted 10 games like you) useless, all by himself.Porthos said:You can still list 10 games, each weighted 1, can't you? (Goes back and reads the rules).
I think this system is fine but I'm going to wait until the dust settles before voting.
You should have done it this way from the start, it's kinda late now.timetokill said:As far as the rest of the criticism:
I'm very hesitant to redo the thread. I wouldn't mind as much as it would cause confusion, and I prefer this format. I won't be changing it to last year's formula, if that's what you're asking.
I totally get your concern that only the big-name games will be getting recognition. I understand. My only change, then, and one I had considered would be to keep the 10 point total and limit the top scores to 3 points, thus requring a few more games to be listed (to get to 10) and the one remaining point more likely to be given to a lower-profile game.
I want to avoid situations of people just listing out every game they played this year. I think it should be a list of your TOP games. Awarding a game 1 point should be noteworthy.
If you guys really want to change it up to that change then I am willing to do so, since it's so early in the voting, and if you guys won't mind. If we do so I will make a new thread to avoid confusion.
You can, but most people are working on the THEORY that people will just keep listing two games at 5 each just to make them win. Which some people could be guilty of, but a lot of people would break down the list (yours included) to include games they really liked. The original system at 5 is a little broken, at 3 points each is much better. I COULD put three games at 3 points each, but I could put one game at 3, three at 2, and one at 1 to let people know I liked X more than Y. It's the simpleness and smallness of the list that bothers people.Porthos said:You can still list 10 games, each weighted 1, can't you? (Goes back and reads the rules).
I think this system is fine but I'm going to wait until the dust settles before voting.
Jocchan said:Yes, but you would waste your points since poster B can come and give two games 5 points each, thus rendering your votes (and those of four more posters that voted 10 games like you) useless, all by himself.
His opinion on those two games would be worth five times yours.
cuyahoga said:5 - Brutal Legend
1 - Plants vs. Zombies
1 - NHL 10
1 - Wii Sports Resort
1 - Imagine: Babyz Fashion
This oversimplifies the list though. I'd imagine people didn't like ten games equally this year, even if they really loved a few games this year they don't have enough points to list them and distinguish which ones are really at the top tier.Porthos said:You can still list 10 games, each weighted 1, can't you? (Goes back and reads the rules).
There is a deadline, you can come back and vote when you are sure.Dance In My Blood said:This oversimplifies the list though. I'd imagine people didn't like ten games equally this year, even if they really loved a few games this year they don't have enough points to list them and distinguish which ones are really at the top tier.
Also, I don't know why we run these Game of the Year things so early. I still have at least three games I need to run through that I'm just getting around to with Christmas Break.
Rez said:if time is the issue, I have a lot of free-time this year. I'd be happy to take over the reins and do it the old-school way.