Support NeoGAF

[timetokill]

The idea that you get more points the more games are list is bad.

How about we do it like last year and the people that object can make their reasons known 4 days before it starts? That way you get a system that works and the people that dislike have their chance to sway the others.

Every type of list, including the Top 10 and last year's, is a format where "you get more points for listing more games," up to a certain total. If you did a descending order thing with up to 5 games, you would get 5 points for listing 1 game, 9 points for listing 2 games, etc.

Also, as I said in the OP, if people still want to assign their own points within the constraints (either 2 pts per game/20 max, or 2x+2 as ZealousD suggested) then I'm happy to allow that.

This system is similar to last year's in many ways, but phrased differently.

Thank you and Cheesemeister for all your trouble! I would lean more to Zealous D system.

Got it
I may end up going with that if people's main complaint (as it seems to be) is that they don't want people to be forced to list 4 games to get full points for their top pick.

 

[Fredescu]

How about we do it like last year and the people that object can make their reasons known 4 days before it starts? That way you get a system that works and the people that dislike have their chance to sway the others.

The people that didn't like last years system complained last year, and several members boycotted. The OP is a response to that. There's no need to go through all that again.

 

[ZealousD]

The idea that you get more points the more games are list is bad.

The alternative encourages a lot of padding and one-off votes. Let's say you give 10 points for people to allocate however they like. There will be a lot of people that list one game and give it the full 10 points. That way discourage people from listing multiple games and breaking up those 10 points, and it effectively wouldn't be much different from asking people to put down a single game. Part of the reason we want bigger lists from people is that it gives us an overall list that includes some more niche titles rather than just a single game grabbing top honors.

 

[benny_a]

Every type of list, including the Top 10 and last year's, is a format where "you get more points for listing more games," up to a certain total.

That isn't true if you get a certain amount of points you can allocate. For example:
You have 10 points to allocate, but none of the entries may have more than 6 points.

Game Foo #=> 6
Game Bar #=> 3
Game Baz #=> 1
----- Total: 10

Game Foo #=> 5
Game Bar #=> 3
Game Baz #=> 2
----- Total: 10

Game Foo #=> 2
Game Bar #=> 2
Game Baz #=> 2
Game Qux #=> 2
Game Quux #=> 2
----- Total: 10

The 6 points restriction is there so that the people that want to game the results will have less chance of doing so.

 

[Najaf]

The alternative encourages a lot of padding and one-off votes. Let's say you give 10 points for people to allocate however they like. There will be a lot of people that list one game and give it the full 10 points. That way discourage people from listing multiple games and breaking up those 10 points, and it effectively wouldn't be much different from asking people to put down a single game. Part of the reason we want bigger lists from people is that it gives us an overall list that includes some more niche titles rather than just a single game grabbing top honors.

I agree that giving a set amount of points which can be alloted in any way is bad. That would encourage a list with just one entry. I do not understand the argument against a decreasing value structure. If everyone's number one pick was awarded ten points, their second nine points and so on, where does the trouble arise? If someone only listed one game, his number one would have no more weight than someone who listed ten titles.

 

[Ellis Kim]

Can we expect there to be a list of games that came out in all territories this year in the OP? I see that you mentioned listing nominees, but I think it could help to have a list like this, too:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_in_video_gaming

Only... it looks like a western-centric list, or even specifically console North American, which makes it worse.

 

[ZealousD]

That isn't true if you get a certain amount of points you can allocate. For example:
You have 10 points to allocate, but none of the entries may have more than 6 points.

Game Foo #=> 6
Game Bar #=> 3
Game Baz #=> 1
----- Total: 10

Game Foo #=> 5
Game Bar #=> 3
Game Baz #=> 1
----- Total: 10

Game Foo #=> 2
Game Bar #=> 2
Game Baz #=> 2
Game Qux #=> 2
Game Quux #=> 2
----- Total: 10

The 6 points restriction is there so that the people that want to game the results will have less chance of doing so.

This is the exact same system as last year, except the restriction was 3 points, not 6. As is being discussed, people wanted to vote for more games.

I agree that giving a set amount of points which can be alloted in any way is bad. That would encourage a list with just one entry. I do not understand the argument against a decreasing value structure. If everyone's number one pick was awarded ten points, their second nine points and so on, where does the trouble arise? If someone only listed one game, his number one would have no more weight than someone who listed ten titles.

A decreasing value structure still gives you more points the more entries you add, albeit logarithmically.

 

[timetokill]

That isn't true if you get a certain amount of points you can allocate. For example:
You have 10 points to allocate, but none of the entries may have more than 6 points.
The 6 points restriction is there so that the people that want to game the results will have less chance of doing so.

Yes, I know -- since that was last year's model (except with a max of 3 for the top game). This year I am doing a hybrid to address concerns people had with that model.

 

[timetokill]

Will there be a list of games that came out in all territories this year in the OP, or will there be a link to the wiki page of that info? I see that you mentioned listing nominees, but I think it could help to have a list like this, too:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_in_video_gaming

Only... it looks like a western-centric list, or even specifically console North American, which makes it worse.

The 2nd post in the voting thread will be a list of all nominated games, and I will expand it as more games are nominated. As usual, if a game came out in a specific territory (or you imported it from a territory) where the game came out this year, it will be eligible for voting.

I agree that giving a set amount of points which can be alloted in any way is bad. That would encourage a list with just one entry. I do not understand the argument against a decreasing value structure. If everyone's number one pick was awarded ten points, their second nine points and so on, where does the trouble arise? If someone only listed one game, his number one would have no more weight than someone who listed ten titles.

The complaint with that system is that people can just list a one off game for 10 points and it will have a pretty large effect on the voting. This is actually why I decreased the range between the top score and the lowest score, so that the effect of people posting just a single game at the top is diminished. This allows some of the smaller games a better chance to shine through.

Your last sentence suggests a problem with simply the top game and its value, which would be rectified by ZealousD's suggestion. That's easy enough to do and mostly maintains the benefits of this new system.

I don't see anything wrong with last year's model but think the model that having the total amount of points be variable the more games you list is bad.
People are just going to nominate the Ubisoft Imagine series to maximize their points so everyone is on equal footing.

People were doing/threatening/worrying about that with the Top 10 lists as well. People would list a game at 1, then two others at 9 and 10. ZealousD's suggestion seems to rectify your problem as well (again, the value of the top game in short lists) so it is looking more and more like I will switch to that model.

 

[benny_a]

Yes, I know -- since that was last year's model (except with a max of 3 for the top game). This year I am doing a hybrid to address concerns people had with that model.

Okay. I was just addressing the claim that the amount of games listed with a total amount of points doesn't change the total amount. But enough of me side-tracking the thread.

I don't see anything wrong with last year's model but think the model that having the total amount of points be variable the more games you list is bad.
People are just going to nominate the Ubisoft Imagine series to maximize their points so everyone is on equal footing.

 

[Fredescu]

A decreasing value structure still gives you more points the more entries you add, albeit logarithmically.

It doesn't allow you to assign more points to any given game though right? Does it matter at all if a person gets more points to assign? They should do because they listed more games. There is no problem with gaming it so a certain game gets more points if every rank has a fixed value regardless of how many games you list.

 

[Najaf]

A decreasing value structure still gives you more points the more entries you add, albeit decreasing exponentially.

Yes, more points collectively, but the weight of each game on the list is balanced. The structure does in no way encourage padding by adding random games. Additional points do not make voting unfair. If I really enjoyed ten games and fill out the list I am using 55 points. Yet, each rank is no more valuable than someone who listed a top three. (27 points) Our top three are still weighted just the same. I don't see why that is a poor option.

 

[benny_a]

Yes, more points collectively, but the weight of each game on the list is balanced. The structure does in no way encourage padding by adding random games. Additional points do not make voting unfair. If I really enjoyed ten games and fill out the list I am using 55 points. Yet, each rank is no more valuable than someone who listed a top three. (27 points) Our top three are still weighted just the same. I don't see why that is a poor option.

But it does allow you to assign more points to any given game.

Top 3 in the examples listed in the OP:
- You pad up to 10 games, the top 3 will have 10 points combined.
- You pad up to 7 games, the top 3 will have 9 points combined.
- You do not pad. The top 3 will have 6 points combined.

Conclusion: If you don't pad, your top 3 are worth less.

 

[hatchx]

I vote this thread the most needlessly confusing thread of the year.

 

[Najaf]

But it does allow you to assign more points to any given game.

I'm not sure you and I are talking about the same thing.

I am saying that if I use all ten slots the points are as follows:

game 1 - 10 points
game 2 - 9 points
game 3 - 8 points
game 4 - 7 points
game 5 - 6 points
game 6 - 5 points
game 7 - 4 points
game 8 - 3 points
game 9 - 2 points
game 10 - 1 point

If I listed only three games for a top ten list:

game 1 - 10 points
game 2 - 9 points
game 3 - 8 points

It is the same weight for rank. There is no way to give additional points to my highest ranked game.

 

[timetokill]

It is the same weight for rank. There is no way to give additional points to my highest ranked game.

Again, if your concern is just the highest ranked game getting a consistent amount of points, ZealousD's alternative will work fine.

Part of the reason for this scoring format is to reduce the range between the top score and the bottom score so as to give the smaller titles that show up a chance to be recognized and not dwarfed by the blockbuster games getting the top marks from a lot of people.

 

[benny_a]

I'm not sure you and I are talking about the same thing.

It is the same weight for rank. There is no way to give additional points to my highest ranked game.

True. I was talking about the timetokill method described in the OP. What you describe is perfectly fine by me.

 

[Najaf]

Again, if your concern is just the highest ranked game, ZealousD's alternative will work fine.

Sure. Like I said earlier, I'm sure the system will be fine. I just don't like the idea of games on my list being weighted the same points wise given that I found one to be better and listed it as such.

I too, like so many here, do not want to be encouraged to add additional games to a list in order to bump up the value of my top pick.

 

[Lunchbox]

5 should be the max

if you cant narrow it down to 5 and have to post 10 then youre not picking games, just randomly naming games from the top off your head

 

[timetokill]

5 should be the max

if you cant narrow it down to 5 and have to post 10 then youre not picking games, just randomly naming games from the top off your head

Considering it's an enthusiast forum and people want to recognize many games, it's not hard to believe that people would have more than 10 games they could potentially list and they have to work just to narrow it to 10.

The top games will rise to the top in the results thread, don't worry.

 

[Haunted]

Excellent adjustments to your system timetokill.


More games played = more informed opinion = more points to allocate. It's brilliant.

Listing 10 games seems far too much in my opinion.

Keep it to short 3 or 5 lists and go from there.

No! 10 games is barely enough.

5 should be the max

if you cant narrow it down to 5 and have to post 10 then youre not picking games, just randomly naming games from the top off your head

Strongly disagree. Lots of great games came out this year. It's actually hard for me to whittle it down to just the 10 best. If you have played less games, or think that fewer games are deserving to appear in your Top X list, you're free to vote for just these. The system is good.

 

[Corto]

I'm not sure you and I are talking about the same thing.

I am saying that if I use all ten slots the points are as follows:

game 1 - 10 points
game 2 - 9 points
game 3 - 8 points
game 4 - 7 points
game 5 - 6 points
game 6 - 5 points
game 7 - 4 points
game 8 - 3 points
game 9 - 2 points
game 10 - 1 point

If I listed only three games for a top ten list:

game 1 - 10 points
game 2 - 9 points
game 3 - 8 points

It is the same weight for rank. There is no way to give additional points to my highest ranked game.

This distribution seems more fair to me too. The position of your picks will determine the points they get. And those are fixed and not applicant-alloted. The number of picks doesn't affect the distribution of points.

And it has a significant advantage too. It's simpler to explain...

 

[timetokill]

Excellent adjustments to your system timetokill.

More games played = more informed opinion = more points to allocate. It's brilliant.

Thanks Haunted, as well for the discussion we had about it earlier in the year Helped out a lot.

 

[Haunted]

Honestly, I don't see the potential "padding" as a big issue.

I have faith in most GAFers to take this (appropriately) serious and be honest in stating their opinions instead of trying to exploit the system by adding games they haven't played.

 

[Bigfoot]

I like the 5 point method described by many in this thread, but you could also allow up to 10 games by doing it like this:

Game #1 - 5 points
Game #2 - 4 points
Game #3 - 3 points
Game #4 - 2 points
Game #5 - 1 point
Game #6 - 1 point
Game #7 - 1 point
Game #8 - 1 point
Game #9 - 1 point
Game #10 - 1 point

Submitting games 2 to 10 is optional so someone could submit 1 game and others could submit 10.

 

[GhaleonEB]

I do not see how the 5/5 structure suggests listing only one game. People list five games, and each game is awarded points according to where it ranks on the list.

#1 = 5 points
#2 = 4
#3 = 3
#4 = 2
#5 = 1

I like this, but let people list more if they want - but #5 on would only get one point.

Edit: as the good man above me said.

 

[timetokill]

Honestly, I don't see the potential "padding" as a big issue.

I have faith in most GAFers to take this (appropriately serious) and be honest instead of trying to exploit the system.

It's always a bigger issue in discussion than in actual practice. It's not completely unwarranted, but it's also overblown.

 

[Fredescu]

I'd much rather the full order of 1-10 matter.

 

[mujun]

I like being able to list 10 games. 5 is not enough. I also like that the top game is worth 5 and the bottom one 1 point. I don't like the idea that the top game is worth 10 times the bottom one.

 

[h3ro]

What's wrong with listing 5 games.

game 1 - 5 points
game 2 - 4 points
game 3 - 3 points
game 4 - 2 points
game 5 - 1 point



....and if someone is lazy and only wants to list three games:


game 1 - 5 points
game 2 - 4 points
game 3 - 3 points



.....and if someone is really lazy and just wants to list one:

game 1 - 5 points

I vote for this method.

 

[ultron87]

If you make a list of a single game give that game maximum points (in this case 4) then it makes that the most powerful kind of vote as that gives that game +4 point on every other game that has been nominated. A list of multiple games is weaker as it gives the top game +4 points on most games, but +1 or +2 on other games also on that list.

So someone trying to stuff the ballot for a single game is encouraged to vote only for that game, and those votes become more powerful than the votes of people voting in a list.

I'd argue that lists of multiple games should be encouraged.

 

[Corto]

Honestly, I don't see the potential "padding" as a big issue.

I have faith in most GAFers to take this (appropriately serious) and be honest instead of trying to exploit the system.

I sincerely will be happy with whatever solution we'll have. I remember timetokill last year did some experiments with different systems that showed similar results through out. And I still think the last year system is excellent. But if so many thought it was prone to be "gamed" hehehehe then I commend timetokill for asking for our input before implementing it.

In the end, it's timetokill's final decision. Haters can volunteer to do a better work next time.

 

[Papa]

For those of you talking about the 5 point/5 game structure:

before the voting last year, I originally allowed the top game to get 5 points, and for people to list only one game, as that format is suggesting. People just about screamed bloody murder over that alone.

Wasn't the issue that there was a total number of points distributed over however many games you listed, thereby skewing stats for people who only listed one game?

I like the 5 to 1 structure, where your first game still gets 5 points, regardless of whether you list 1 or 5 games.

 

[vodka-bull]

Is it required that GOTYs were released in 2010 or can I also vote for games that came out in 2009?

 

[lowrider007]

Edit -

Actually after reading through the thread again I agree that the following seems like the best method,

So here's some examples of how scores could be allocated if the point formula is (2x + 2) rather than (2x), with x being the number of listed entries.


(1 Entry)
1. 4

(2 Entries)
1. 4
2. 2

(3 Entries)
1. 4
2. 3
3. 1

(4 Entries)
1. 4
2. 3
3. 2
4. 1

(5 Entries)
1. 4
2. 3
3. 2
4. 2
5. 1

(10 Entries)
1. 4
2. 3
3. 3
4. 3
5. 2
6. 2
7. 2
8. 1
9. 1
10. 1

 

[timetokill]

Wasn't the issue that there was a total number of points distributed over however many games you listed, thereby skewing stats for people who only listed one game?

I like the 5 to 1 structure, where your first game still gets 5 points, regardless of whether you list 1 or 5 games.

The issue was similar to the previous formats, where in general people didn't like others listing one game at all, for the most part. Even in previous years it was forced that people listed at least 3 games. My format actually allowed for single games to be voted on, but the tradeoff was that the top score was very close to the bottom score for everyone.

If I use ZealousD's scoring system, everybody's top game will get 4 points regardless of whether you list 1 or 10 games. So since that seems to be a sticking point for everyone, I am leaning towards going with it.

Is it required that GOTYs were released in 2010 or can I also vote for games that came out in 2009?

They have to have been released in 2010, sorry.

 

[Corto]

Is it required that GOTYs were released in 2010 or can I also vote for games that came out in 2009?

Yes. After all it's a 2010 Game of the Year Award. But a game like Demon's Souls for example can still be nominated this year as it had the European release in 2010.

 

[Phenomic]

So Timetokill,

Just want to clarify something, I know Zealous put in the 2x+2 Formula in a post a page back. Is that officially how things are going down now? I guess my biggest concern (and I'm sorry if you posted it and I missed it or didn't understand it) Is... What is the max number of games I have to post in order to allow the top game I select to get the max amount of points?

I definitely want to list more then 1 or 2. I'd say probably in the 5-7 Range and I might end up listing the top 10 if I feel warranted. I just want to make sure the game I feel trumps the others gets the recognition it deserves. (Not that my opinions matter to anyone else but I love GOTY thread and taking part in it :lol)


Edit* One other thing: How should spoilers be handled this year? Should I black text all of my descriptive writing about why I loved the game if I so choose or should I just mark at the beginning Spoilers Text and keep the black bars out?

 

[StuBurns]

Is it required that GOTYs were released in 2010 or can I also vote for games that came out in 2009?

You can sometimes be sneaky, just because something came out in your country last year, didn't mean it didn't come out elsewhere, or on a different platform this year.

 

[feel]

I like the 5 point method described by many in this thread, but you could also allow up to 10 games by doing it like this:

Game #1 - 5 points
Game #2 - 4 points
Game #3 - 3 points
Game #4 - 2 points
Game #5 - 1 point
Game #6 - 1 point
Game #7 - 1 point
Game #8 - 1 point
Game #9 - 1 point
Game #10 - 1 point

Submitting games 2 to 10 is optional so someone could submit 1 game and others could submit 10.

Best one. Screw strategic bs, your goty will get 5 points in every case, and only get one more point than your runner up.

 

[timetokill]

So Timetokill,

Just want to clarify something, I know Zealous put in the 2x+2 Formula in a post a page back. Is that officially how things are going down now? I guess my biggest concern (and I'm sorry if you posted it and I missed it or didn't understand it) Is... What is the max number of games I have to post in order to allow the top game I select to get the max amount of points?

I definitely want to list more then 1 or 2. I'd say probably in the 5-7 Range and I might end up listing the top 10 if I feel warranted. I just want to make sure the game I feel trumps the others gets the recognition it deserves. (Not that my opinions matter to anyone else but I love GOTY thread and taking part in it :lol)

hi Phenomic,

In the format listed in the OP, you would need to list only 4 games in order to get your top game to get 4 points. But since many are concerned about their top game getting the max points regardless, I am leaning towards using ZealousD's suggested scoring. Either way, I will make it clear in the OT which scoring method is being used. But since you're planning on listing 5-7 games anyway, you'll be in the clear no matter what.

 

[vodka-bull]

They have to have been released in 2010, sorry.

Don't have to be sorry, it's just that my list will be really short then since I haven't played many 2010 games

 

[benny_a]

I think Porthos's method is the best one as well.

You don't have variable points allocated as in timetokill's and ZealousD's method and you allow people to vote on 10 as a few have expressed that this is needed.

 

[shintoki]

Honestly, I don't see the potential "padding" as a big issue.

I have faith in most GAFers to take this (appropriately) serious and be honest in stating their opinions instead of trying to exploit the system by adding games they haven't played.

For me it is. =[

 

[legend166]

I really think for simplicity and fairness you should just do this:

Top 5.

xxxxx - 5 points
xxxxx - 4 points
xxxxx - 3 points
xxxxx - 2 points
xxxxx - 1 point

That's it. Every voter has to list 5 games or their vote does not count. All this tiered, complicated stuff is needlessly complex.

Top 5. The end.

 

[Papa]

The issue was similar to the previous formats, where in general people didn't like others listing one game at all, for the most part. Even in previous years it was forced that people listed at least 3 games. My format actually allowed for single games to be voted on, but the tradeoff was that the top score was very close to the bottom score for everyone.

If I use ZealousD's scoring system, everybody's top game will get 4 points regardless of whether you list 1 or 10 games. So since that seems to be a sticking point for everyone, I am leaning towards going with it.

Yeah I can go for that, as long as the top game receives max points regardless of how many games are listed.

 

[TheExecutive]

What's wrong with listing 5 games.

game 1 - 5 points
game 2 - 4 points
game 3 - 3 points
game 4 - 2 points
game 5 - 1 point



....and if someone is lazy and only wants to list three games:


game 1 - 5 points
game 2 - 4 points
game 3 - 3 points



.....and if someone is really lazy and just wants to list one:

game 1 - 5 points

This.

Just because 10 games arent listed does not nor should it mean that the #1 game on the list should be counted less. It makes absolutely no sense. Make it easy on yourself.

 

[Mt Heart Attack]

Best one. Screw strategic bs, your goty will get 5 points in every case, and only get one more point than your runner up.

I don't know, I think that one's game of the year should have some advantage over the other games in the allocating of the points.
What about something like:

1. 5
2. 3
3. 2
4. 1
...
10. 1

Last year's system was fine too. The one proposed in the op seems kind of weird to me:/

 

[lowrider007]

I really think for simplicity and fairness you should just do this:

Top 5.

xxxxx - 5 points
xxxxx - 4 points
xxxxx - 3 points
xxxxx - 2 points
xxxxx - 1 point

That's it. Every voter has to list 5 games or their vote does not count. All this tiered, complicated stuff is needlessly complex.

Top 5. The end.

The thing is though if we're limited to just 5 games I can see that a lot of games will be left out that deserve a mention and 'gaf ranking'.

This.

Just because 10 games arent listed does not nor should it mean that the #1 game on the list should be counted less. It makes absolutely no sense. Make it easy on yourself.

ZealousD's system also gives the maximum score for just one vote and also allows for up to tens games to be listed.

 

[TheExecutive]

The issue was similar to the previous formats, where in general people didn't like others listing one game at all, for the most part. Even in previous years it was forced that people listed at least 3 games. My format actually allowed for single games to be voted on, but the tradeoff was that the top score was very close to the bottom score for everyone.

If I use ZealousD's scoring system, everybody's top game will get 4 points regardless of whether you list 1 or 10 games. So since that seems to be a sticking point for everyone, I am leaning towards going with it.



They have to have been released in 2010, sorry.

People actually had a problem with this? Christ. It is called GAME OF THE YEAR. Not Games of the year.