AniHawk said:
But I don't have 25 dollar bucks.
I also saw Dragon Age for $45. I had to escape with my $20 PSN card for Trine or else I would have spent about $100 in games I didn't mean to get.
Not sure how much our taste in games lines up (I think it mostly lines up well outside of the Metroid Prime games) -- but I would recommend Dragon Age as, personally, somebody who hasn't played the Baldur's Gate games and as somebody who rarely finishes a long game. When I played Dragon Age I think it was 40+ hours, and I've already started a second character and I'm over 10 hours into that one. Just my personal experience with it.
ethelred said:
I still don't like this system at all. :/ I guess I'll give all of my top ten games equal points since we're stuck with this for this year. Bleh.
I definitely hear the complaints of the group who dislikes this new system. I do appreciate that you still voted, however.
As AniHawk said, there were people who wanted to see experimentation in the way it was done and personally I geek out over this kind of thing, so I was really happy to get the chance to do it. There were things I thought could be improved or that I'd like to try. And of course AniHawk was stepping aside.
So again, I'm sorry to the people who preferred AniHawk's method. The main takeaway I was getting from the first (and admittedly flawed) version of this was that people wanted to be able to list more games and that they were worried that one game would dominate the votes when it could get 5x the amount of the smaller games so easily. I felt that this new version did a lot to remedy that, by making it so people could list more games with their points as well as reducing the impact of the top games over the smaller ones (although truthfully, in either version the winner this year would be obvious). And considering we still have nearly the same amount of games nominated as last year, I don't think the change in systems has really affected games from getting recognized, besides on individual lists.
Since then, I've taken that some people liked doing full Top 10's and others didn't. Some liked ranking them entirely while others liked putting them into tiers. Some people like listing a lot of games, while others like listing only a few. So I've gotten a lot of positive feedback alongside some of the (vocal) negative comments. I appreciate them both. If I were to do it again, I think I would consider expanding the number of points available to 20, while making the top game receive a score of 4. This wouldn't allow a completely discrete ranking per position, but I feel it would be a good way to get the best of both sides. Though not everyone would do them this way (a flexible aspect I like about the new system), the people doing Top 10's could use a format like this:
#1 - 4 points
#2 - 3 points
#3 - 3 points
#4 - 2 points
#5 - 2 points
#6 - 2 points
#7 - 1 point
#8 - 1 point
#9 - 1 point
#10 - 1 point
.. for a total of 20 points. It would allow people to list more games as well (if they wished to), allow people to still group games into tiers instead of ranking them individually if they so chose, and allow people to post full Top 10's while still ordering them somewhat.
Anyway this has all been a lot of fun for me so I appreciate everyone who is voting, and definitely want to say thanks to the people who, while disagreeing with the system, are still voting and helping with the experimental new system.
At any rate I've finished through Page 6 of the votes, and I'll post some more obscure "facts" about the updated tally in a moment.