Support NeoGAF

[timetokill]

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

Actually people insisted that it was Games of the Year as it has historically been called that every year that Anihawk and I have done it :lol

 

[KevinCow]

This seems needlessly convoluted, and the idea that lists with more entries will get more points allotted to the higher votes is a really bad idea. It'll only lead to people adding more games to their list that they don't really think deserve it just so their top votes get more points. Even if people don't exploit the system, where's the logic in making some people's votes count less just because they listed fewer games?


How about something like this:

#1 always gets 4 points
#2 and 3 always get 3 points
#4 - 6 always get 2 points
#7 - 10 always get 1 point

So you'll have stuff like:

Example Ballot A - 10 games
1. Game A - 4 points
2. Game B - 3 points
3. Game C - 3 points
4. Game D - 2 points
5. Game E - 2 points
6. Game F - 2 points
7. Game G - 1 points
8. Game H - 1 points
9. Game I - 1 points
10. Game J - 1 points

Example Ballot B - 5 games
1. Game A - 4 points
2. Game B - 3 points
3. Game C - 3 points
4. Game D - 2 points
5. Game E - 2 points

Example Ballot C - 3 games
1. Game A - 4 points
2. Game B - 3 points
3. Game C - 3 points


Edit: Actually screw that, I like this better:

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.

 

[TheExecutive]

Actually people insisted that it was Games of the Year as it has historically been called that every year that Anihawk and I have done it :lol

Ahh, ok... proceed :lol

 

[Visualante]

I would like to see an end to strategic voting. If the running total was kept private that would be cool. But someone will probably do it then post it on console forums or some shit.

 

[TheExecutive]

This seems needlessly convoluted, and the idea that lists with more entries will get more points allotted to the higher votes is a really bad idea. It'll only lead to people adding more games to their list that they don't really think deserve it just so their top votes get more points. Even if people don't exploit the system, where's the logic in making some people's votes count less just because they listed fewer games?


How about something like this:

#1 always gets 4 points
#2 and 3 always get 3 points
#4 - 6 always get 2 points
#7 - 10 always get 1 point

So you'll have stuff like:

Example Ballot A - 10 games
1. Game A - 4 points
2. Game B - 3 points
3. Game C - 3 points
4. Game D - 2 points
5. Game E - 2 points
6. Game F - 2 points
7. Game G - 1 points
8. Game H - 1 points
9. Game I - 1 points
10. Game J - 1 points

Example Ballot B - 5 games
1. Game A - 4 points
2. Game B - 3 points
3. Game C - 3 points
4. Game D - 2 points
5. Game E - 2 points

Example Ballot C - 3 games
1. Game A - 4 points
2. Game B - 3 points
3. Game C - 3 points

This works. I mean if it is Games of the Year the least amount should be 3 but the 3 listed shouldnt be penalized because 10 were not listed.

 

[Conrad Link]

Sorry if its been mentioned before, but how are expansion packs for games handled? Can they be counted?

 

[timetokill]

KevinCow, that was actually the alternative I was playing with before deciding on this method and hearing about ZealousD's. Since people seem worried about their top game and some supposed "list padding" that will actually be minimal at best in practice, I will likely go with one of those two solutions.

I am surprised people find the method complicated, though. It's a pretty simple setup.

I would like to see an end to strategic voting. If the running total was kept private that would be cool. But someone will probably do it then post it on console forums or some shit.

I didn't do a running total last year, and besides the unavoidable fanboy voting, I don't think there was any strategic voting last year due to that.

 

[Visualante]

I didn't do a running total last year, and besides the unavoidable fanboy voting, I don't think there was any strategic voting last year due to that.

Oh cool, excellent! Sorry for not noticing. Personally I didn't play 10 games this year, I'll be listing 3-5 but I would prefer that they were treated equally to those who get 10 entries.

 

[Despera]

I think it's excellent, timetokill. Looks perfectly balanced.

Cheers.

 

[timetokill]

Sorry if its been mentioned before, but how are expansion packs for games handled? Can they be counted?

Like last year, expansion packs are allowed, as long as they were released this year.

I think it's excellent, timetokill. Looks perfectly balanced.

Cheers.

Thanks, Despera!

 

[StuBurns]

Porthos' is the best so far.

 

[Haunted]

Do we have a final ruling on Minecraft?


Many people expressed the desire to be able to vote for it, although it didn't have an "official" release in 2010.

 

[Deleted member 30609]

I like this system much better than last year's.

Just a suggestion for the OP (as in the post not the poster), it would be cool to have a list of all the major releases across platforms so people are reminded about some of the earlier/smaller budget releases of the year.

 

[shintoki]

Do we have a final ruling on Minecraft?


Many people expressed the desire to be able to vote for it, although it didn't have an "official" release in 2010.

It has the Shintoki seal of approval and my reality is absolute.

 

[StuBurns]

Do we have a final ruling on Minecraft?


Many people expressed the desire to be able to vote for it, although it didn't have an "official" release in 2010.

Alpha and Beta came out this year, no reason it shouldn't count.

 

[Yeef]

I think 2x + 2 with assignable points is more interesting, but a descending point value seems more practical. If you're worried about the ratios just change them while keeping the points descending at a constant rate. For example:

1. 3.0 points
2. 2.5 points
3. 2.0 points
4. 1.5 points
5. 1.0 point

I don't think those should necessarily be the values, but I do think that the disparity between the top game and the bottom game shouldn't be as large as 5:1 or 10:1. Still, I think descending point value is the best system.

If you prefer assignable points, again, i think 2x + 2 is great, but it may be a good idea to add tier limits. That is, limit how many games on a single list can be given 1, 2, 3, or 4 points. Otherwise you'll still get list padding with people listing their top 4 games at 4 points then 6 other games at 1 just to get the extra points.

 

[timetokill]

Do we have a final ruling on Minecraft?

Many people expressed the desire to be able to vote for it, although it didn't have an "official" release in 2010.

Since a new version (Alpha/Beta) was released this year this is (as I understand it) significantly different from "Classic", I will allow it to be voted on this year.

Just a suggestion for the OP (as in the post not the poster), it would be cool to have a list of all the major releases across platforms so people are reminded about some of the earlier/smaller budget releases of the year.

There will be a list posted in Post 2 of the OP, which will have all of the nominated games for the year, and will be updated as new games are nominated. I already have a pretty sizable list to start off with, don't worry

 

[A Human Becoming]

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

I say go with this or the standard 1. 10, 2. 9, 3. 7, etc. This gives the #1 entries a max number so if people want to list three games with one being number 1 and the other 9 and 10, all the points aren't stack for the first game and the other two get 1/4 the points of the first, which fairly represents the distance on their list. Also if someone lists fewer games, those few games don't really get a lot more points compared to the ones on a list of ten.

 

[Corto]

Alpha and Beta came out this year, no reason it shouldn't count.

And they are/were open to whoever wanted to play them. It should be considered.

 

[KevinCow]

KevinCow, that was actually the alternative I was playing with before deciding on this method and hearing about ZealousD's. Since people seem worried about their top game and some supposed "list padding" that will actually be minimal at best in practice, I will likely go with one of those two solutions.

But it's a terrible system. It's not just about the first place counting less than others, it's about any place counting less than others. If I only vote for three games, why does my third place game only score 1 point while someone else's third place game scored 3 points just because they voted for more games? How is that fair or in any way reasonable?

I can tell you right now that if you go with one of these systems, I'm certainly padding the hell out my list.

 

[Nasreddin]

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

+1

 

[benny_a]

I can tell you right now that if you go with one of these systems, I'm certainly padding the hell out my list.

Same here. It's not some nerd-revolt, it's so my votes are weighed equal to those that choose more games.

 

[TacticalFox88]

Can't wait. Last years thread was EPIC. The KZ2 trolling. :lol :lol :lol

 

[StuBurns]

But it's a terrible system. It's not just about the first place counting less than others, it's about any place counting less than others. If I only vote for three games, why does my third place game only score 1 point while someone else's third place game scored 3 points just because they voted for more games? How is that fair or in any way reasonable?

I can tell you right now that if you go with one of these systems, I'm certainly padding the hell out my list.

That is certainly the problem with the system in the OP.

Everyone's no.1 should be worth as much as anyone's, same for their number 2 etc.

 

[Guevara]

But it's a terrible system. It's not just about the first place counting less than others, it's about any place counting less than others. If I only vote for three games, why does my third place game only score 1 point while someone else's third place game scored 3 points just because they voted for more games? How is that fair or in any way reasonable?

I can tell you right now that if you go with one of these systems, I'm certainly padding the hell out my list.

Same.

 

[SirSwirl]

I actually after looking through this thread like timetokill's in the OP most. If you played more games you should have a more informed opinion so I don't see the problem with giving them a little more points. But they all work, so I'm sure things will go well either way.

 

[Cheech]

I think the method is fine. At the end of the day, the guy who does all the work can make the system IMO.

My impression of crying is of people who want to give their fanboy favorite 10 points and call it a day.

Also, regardless of Minecraft's "status" it was a sold game in 2010. I bought a copy.

 

[Corto]

I actually after looking through this thread like timetokill's in the OP most. If you played more games you should have a more informed opinion so I don't see the problem with giving them a little more points. But they all work, so I'm sure things will go well either way.

Well that's assuming a lot... Maybe the person feels that from all the games he or she played only one deserved the commendation.

 

[Nasreddin]

I actually after looking through this thread like timetokill's in the OP most. If you played more games you should have a more informed opinion so I don't see the problem with giving them a little more points.

Most of us have played 10 games this year. But not all of us have played 10 great games that are worth the list. If I want to push my favorite game, I have to add shitty games to my list. That's problematic.

 

[Cheech]

Most of us have played 10 games this year. But not all of us have played 10 great games that are worth the list. But if I want to push my favorite game I hjave to add shitty games to my list. That's problematic.

It's ONLY problematic because YOU feel like you need to "push" your favorite. That's how shitbombs end up on community GOTY lists.

 

[Deleted member 30609]

and to be fair, if you played only ten games, and two of them were shit, then I can see a reasonable argument being fought (crowd-sourcing the 'evidence' and 'body' part of this paragraph) in favour of them deserving their points.

actually, no. I don't believe that. Scratch it from the record.

 

[A Human Becoming]

Actually, I like KevinCow's idea the best. Keeps things consistent and lets the voter decide how to distribute their points without changing the value by how many games they vote for.

 

[Yeef]

It's ONLY problematic because YOU feel like you need to "push" your favorite. That's how shitbombs end up on community GOTY lists.

Do you really not see the problem with one person's vote counting more than another person's? It completely defeats the purpose of the whole thing.

With a system based on attributable points it forces everyone to pad their list up so that their #1 vote counts as much as the next guy's.

 

[StuBurns]

It's ONLY problematic because YOU feel like you need to "push" your favorite. That's how shitbombs end up on community GOTY lists.

The point is that everyone should have the same contribution, should your number one vote mean more than mine just because you have enjoyed more games than me this year? That's barren of logic.

 

[timetokill]

Purely out of curiosity, if we used the same system as last year, but modified to allow more points, would those of you unhappy with this system be in favor of it?

- list from 1 to 10 games
- you get 20 points max
- only one game can receive 4 points
- only two games can receive 3 points
- you allocate the points yourself.

Generally, a typical list of 10 would look pretty much the same as what was listed in the OP, KevinCow's example, etc. But everybody would have the same total number of points allowed and you wouldn't need to worry about "padding" to get your top games the max points.

 

[user_nat]

Everyone's number 1 vote should be worth the same.

I honestly don't understand why you would want it any other way. I shouldn't have to list a bunch of games that I don't think deserve GOTY just to get my favorite to be worth the same as someone who thinks 10 games deserve GOTY.

edit: Good.

 

[timetokill]

Everyone's number 1 vote should be worth the same.

I honestly don't understand why you would want it any other way.

Everybody's #1 vote will be worth the same in the end. Whether that means ZealousD's adjustment, KevinCow's suggestion, or the one I just offered,etc... Regardless of the final system, I will ensure that at the very least the #1 vote for everyone will be worth the same number of points.

 

[StuBurns]

I think this:

1 - 6
2 - 5
3 - 4
4 - 3
5 - 2
6 - 1
8 - 1
7 - 1
9 - 1
10 - 1

Effectively a top five system, but spaces for up to ten if you really care.

 

[benny_a]

Everyone's number 1 vote should be worth the same.

I honestly don't understand why you would want it any other way.

Philosophical difference between a democratic process and a meritocratic process.
IMO the latter is on flimsy grounds as you're not more able to judge the GOTY just because you played more than 10 shovel ware games released in 2010.

 

[Tricky I Shadow]

I’m calling it now - Red Dead Redemption will win this comfortably and deserve it! That is all.

 

[Cheech]

The point is that everyone should have the same contribution, should your number one vote mean more than mine just because you have enjoyed more games than me this year? That's barren of logic.

No.

Whoever said that it encourages people to actually put thought into their lists instead of throw some shit up there like:

"1. KILLZONE 2 10 PTS LOLOLOL"

was correct. If somebody actually put:

1. Heavy Rain
2. NBA Elite
3. PAIN expansion pack
4. Farmville 2.0 update
5. Poker Stars Blackjack

to pad out their lists, they will be laughed at. I don't think that will be an actual problem.

 

[Deleted member 30609]

I think this:

1 - 6
2 - 5
3 - 4
4 - 3
5 - 2
6 - 1
8 - 1
7 - 1
9 - 1
10 - 1

Effectively a top five system, but spaces for up to ten if you really care.

I like this too. Essentially a top five with honourable mentions. Might see some smaller games like, I don't know, Limbo or something, have more of presence.

Not that Limbo would actually make my list.

 

[Rainier]

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 makes the most sense.

 

[Agyar]

I think ZealousD's adjustment looked good (the 2+2X adjustment). Having the top vote capped then scaling the tail to match the number of entries seems to be the best way of allowing people to set their own list size without skewing the results.

 

[stupei]

In that case Game B and C get screwed for points.

The idea I think being that more than three good games came out this year. Surely you can think of at least 5.

I genuinely hate seeing lists that are just like:

1. Platform Exclusive A
2. Platform Exclusive B
3. Platform Exclusive C


Hopefully this will discourage that. It's silly and gives awesome games like Brotherhood the short stick.

And I can't even comprehend people saying the lists should be kept shorter than 10 games. I'm going to have trouble narrowing the good stuff from this year to ten, let alone five. Did people seriously not play enough this year?

I personally think this system is just fine. It's a response to the complaints last year and I can't imagine why anyone would only vote for one game anyway. If they only played one thing all year then surely their opinion isn't very informed and weighting that as less actually makes a lot of sense.

edit: But StuBurns' system makes perfect sense too, maybe even more so.

 

[Yeef]

Purely out of curiosity, if we used the same system as last year, but modified to allow more points, would those of you unhappy with this system be in favor of it?

- list from 1 to 10 games
- you get 20 points max
- only one game can receive 4 points
- only two games can receive 3 points
- you allocate the points yourself.

Generally, a typical list of 10 would look pretty much the same as what was listed in the OP, KevinCow's example, etc. But everybody would have the same total number of points allowed and you wouldn't need to worry about "padding" to get your top games the max points.

This and KevinCow's are the best suggestions so far.

 

[Fredescu]

And I can't even comprehend people saying the lists should be kept shorter than 10 games. I'm going to have trouble narrowing the good stuff from this year to ten, let alone five. Did people seriously not play enough this year?

Yeah, those people are a vocal minority for sure. Every voting thread up to 08 encouraged a top 10 but allowed you to vote for less than 10 if you wanted, but still 90% of responses were a top ten.

 

[StuBurns]

No.

Whoever said that it encourages people to actually put thought into their lists instead of throw some shit up there like:

"1. KILLZONE 2 10 PTS LOLOLOL"

was correct. If somebody actually put:

1. Heavy Rain
2. NBA Elite
3. PAIN expansion pack
4. Farmville 2.0 update
5. Poker Stars Blackjack

to pad out their lists, they will be laughed at. I don't think that will be an actual problem.

They'll be laughed at, but their marks will still be counted.

 

[Haunted]

yay for Minecraft!

Bad news for one of the games that will now get bumped from my tentative GOTY list.

Purely out of curiosity, if we used the same system as last year, but modified to allow more points, would those of you unhappy with this system be in favor of it?

- list from 1 to 10 games
- you get 20 points max
- only one game can receive 4 points
- only two games can receive 3 points
- you allocate the points yourself.

Generally, a typical list of 10 would look pretty much the same as what was listed in the OP, KevinCow's example, etc. But everybody would have the same total number of points allowed and you wouldn't need to worry about "padding" to get your top games the max points.

No! Don't backtrack now. More games played = more points to allocate. This is a good principle to have. The important thing is that you stay the course but make sure that the, top (2? 3?) positions get equal points regardless of total games listed, removing the motivation for people to artificially pad their list.


ZealousD's adjustment sounds pretty damn solid.

 

[stupei]

Yeah, those people are a vocal minority for sure. Every voting thread up to 08 encouraged a top 10 but allowed you to vote for less than 10 if you wanted, but still 90% of responses were a top ten.

Well and often the top five or so are from a fairly narrow pool of games. It's those lower selections where you start to see a few really interesting things pop up. I like checking out the games that end up somewhere in spots 11 - 30.