Quantcast
gamrConnect Presents: Their 979 Greatest Games, as of 2018

Forums - Gaming Discussion - gamrConnect Presents: Their 979 Greatest Games, as of 2018

mZuzek said:

That's not what I was planning either, but that system wouldn't be any different from the current one as long as unvoted games got -9 points. It's only done the way it is now because it's a lot simpler to compile the data.

What I'm thinking is something like... basically, the more votes a game has, the less each individual vote counts - so at the higher ends of the ranking, the average rank of each vote would matter more than the amount of votes a game gets. I'm probably going to have to apply a similar system for something else I'm planning on doing, but I'm not sure if it's the perfect or the worst time to implement a change on the final results.

You say it's always been an issue, but I've been here since 2014 and nah, it was never as Nintendo-heavy as it's been in the last few years. 2018 was thankfully slightly less Nintendo-centric than 2017, which had Mario Kart 8 at #5 (disgusting), but still pretty bad. It's obvious that Nintendo will always have a heavy presence in such lists, but it's been too much, and it's clear that games such as Mario Kart 8 only make it as high as they do because it's basically everyone's go-to Mario Kart game to list, so it gets loads of votes but rarely does it make it to anyone's individual top 10. It's just not as impactful of a game to most people, but it is one that's almost universally liked, and it's okay for the results to prioritize that, but it's making the list increasingly predictable and boring... and most importantly, alienating to some people.

To use an example of a game I personally love, Hollow Knight nearly made it into my top 5, but it hasn't made it even into the overall top 100, which boasts 13 Mario games (including MK), 9 Zelda games and 6 Pokémon games. That's alienating - that the list favors Nintendo games so heavily while your favorites might not have a shot at making it anywhere near the top. In fact, if you compare score averages, Hollow Knight averaged a 14th place among the 5 lists it was in, whereas Mario Kart 8 averaged roughly 20th place; but Hollow Knight is 101st on the overall results, while Mario Kart sits in 7th place. I'm not saying it can't work that way, but it is something to think about.

Lots of the games I like didn't make it in the top 100 either, but it doesn't bother me because I don't need the validation from a general list to feel good about the games I like. Just like I don't need the games I like to tear up the sales charts in order to feel good about liking them.

Sure, I could be sitting here and mourn the fact that Super Smash Bros. games made it into the top 1000 and at times rank higher than games that were on my list, but I accept that not everyone has good taste likes the same games as I do.



Legend11 correctly predicted that GTA IV (360+PS3) would outsell SSBB. I was wrong.

A Biased Review Reloaded / Open Your Eyes / Switch Gamers Club

Around the Network
RolStoppable said:

Lots of the games I like didn't make it in the top 100 either, but it doesn't bother me because I don't need the validation from a general list to feel good about the games I like. Just like I don't need the games I like to tear up the sales charts in order to feel good about liking them.

Sure, I could be sitting here and mourn the fact that Super Smash Bros. games made it into the top 1000 and at times rank higher than games that were on my list, but I accept that not everyone has good taste likes the same games as I do.

Maybe, but you still have loads of games that you do like and also made top 100 - that's why I'm not too bothered, either. But for people who aren't into Nintendo can't really say that, and as a result it's annoying for them to come into a thread like this and see Nintendo everywhere.



mZuzek said:

Maybe, but you still have loads of games that you do like and also made top 100 - that's why I'm not too bothered, either. But for people who aren't into Nintendo can't really say that, and as a result it's annoying for them to come into a thread like this and see Nintendo everywhere.

Do we pity Man City fans because their team fell prey to the Spurs (LOL) and couldn't win the Champions League?

Nope, they should learn to deal with the fact that Liverpool is superior. VAR makes a significant difference.



Legend11 correctly predicted that GTA IV (360+PS3) would outsell SSBB. I was wrong.

A Biased Review Reloaded / Open Your Eyes / Switch Gamers Club

If people are worried about the end result, then they need to vote. That is the only thing that could possibly change the list. No change to the formula is ever going to change the fact that this is basically a popularity contest. Popular games will get a lot of votes. And Nintendo makes very popular games, so...



NNID: theRepublic -- Steam ID: theRepublic

Now Playing/Backlog:
Wii U - Currently Gaming Like It's 2014 (Hyrule Warriors) - 11 games in backlog
3DS - Currently Gaming Like It's 2013 (Luigi's Mansion: Dark Moon) - 7 games in backlog
PC - Currently Gaming Like It's 2009 (Borderlands) - 9 games in backlog
Mobile - The Simpson's Tapped Out and Yugioh Duel Links

mZuzek said:
RolStoppable said:

Okay, it wasn't really clear what you were suggesting.

In any case, the current system is fine because it's rigged against games with a low amount of votes. You said that any game without a vote receives 60 points from the given user, so that's a fine way to penalize less popular games.

Don't think about turning the points system upside down. If you gave the #1 50 points, #2 49 points etc., then you wouldn't penalize a game for getting no vote at all from someone. Naturally, the game with the highest points total would be #1 on the overall list.

That's not what I was planning either, but that system wouldn't be any different from the current one as long as unvoted games got -9 points. It's only done the way it is now because it's a lot simpler to compile the data.

What I'm thinking is something like... basically, the more votes a game has, the less each individual vote counts - so at the higher ends of the ranking, the average rank of each vote would matter more than the amount of votes a game gets. I'm probably going to have to apply a similar system for something else I'm planning on doing, but I'm not sure if it's the perfect or the worst time to implement a change on the final results.

You say it's always been an issue, but I've been here since 2014 and nah, it was never as Nintendo-heavy as it's been in the last few years. 2018 was thankfully slightly less Nintendo-centric than 2017, which had Mario Kart 8 at #5 (disgusting), but still pretty bad. It's obvious that Nintendo will always have a heavy presence in such lists, but it's been too much, and it's clear that games such as Mario Kart 8 only make it as high as they do because it's basically everyone's go-to Mario Kart game to list, so it gets loads of votes but rarely does it make it to anyone's individual top 10. It's just not as impactful of a game to most people, but it is one that's almost universally liked, and it's okay for the results to prioritize that, but it's making the list increasingly predictable and boring... and most importantly, alienating to some people.

To use an example of a game I personally love, Hollow Knight nearly made it into my top 5, but it hasn't made it even into the overall top 100, which boasts 13 Mario games (including MK), 9 Zelda games and 6 Pokémon games. That's alienating - that the list favors Nintendo games so heavily while your favorites might not have a shot at making it anywhere near the top. In fact, if you compare score averages, Hollow Knight averaged a 14th place among the 5 lists it was in, whereas Mario Kart 8 averaged roughly 20th place; but Hollow Knight is 101st on the overall results, while Mario Kart sits in 7th place. I'm not saying it can't work that way, but it is something to think about.

I think the formula was kept secret in the past, but now that you have revealed it...

Since you are doing a lower score is better format, and any game not showing up on a list gets hit with a 50+10 score, that is doing huge damage to games that only get a few votes.  At the same time, it is a bonus to games that get a lot of votes, even if they are low on a list.  Do games that get a lot of votes really need a bonus?  This is exactly what you are talking about in your last paragraph.

It might take more work, but reversing the scoring and going with the highest score as the winner may work out better.  And just a zero score for anything not showing up.

Although I guess you could keep the same format and just hit games not on a list with a 50+1 score.  You could take the data from this year and see what happens with that change.



NNID: theRepublic -- Steam ID: theRepublic

Now Playing/Backlog:
Wii U - Currently Gaming Like It's 2014 (Hyrule Warriors) - 11 games in backlog
3DS - Currently Gaming Like It's 2013 (Luigi's Mansion: Dark Moon) - 7 games in backlog
PC - Currently Gaming Like It's 2009 (Borderlands) - 9 games in backlog
Mobile - The Simpson's Tapped Out and Yugioh Duel Links

Around the Network
theRepublic said:

I think the formula was kept secret in the past, but now that you have revealed it...

Since you are doing a lower score is better format, and any game not showing up on a list gets hit with a 50+10 score, that is doing huge damage to games that only get a few votes.  At the same time, it is a bonus to games that get a lot of votes, even if they are low on a list.  Do games that get a lot of votes really need a bonus?  This is exactly what you are talking about in your last paragraph.

It might take more work, but reversing the scoring and going with the highest score as the winner may work out better.  And just a zero score for anything not showing up.

Although I guess you could keep the same format and just hit games not on a list with a 50+1 score.  You could take the data from this year and see what happens with that change.

It was public knowledge from the very start, though over the years both Smeags and Leadified (well, and I) have often ommitted the information. Keeping things well tied up is kinda in the nature of the event, and all.

I think the 10 point penalty is justified in that it's consistent. If a game's not on someone's list, it's not on someone's list - that is to say, if this person was to extend their list up until this game would show up, on most occasions it wouldn't be #51 and to be fair neither would it be #60, it'd be way down. But giving it 51 points kinda makes it feel like it "just" didn't make it into that list, which isn't the case at all, and it also means it gets only a single point less than that person's 50th favorite game, which they probably love a lot more than mostly anything they didn't list. Again, the penalty is there mostly to prioritize the consistency of the individual lists rather than the final results.

Personally, while I don't mind the results being overly Nintendo-centric, I gotta say I'm not looking forward to another year of Mario Kart 8 and Super Mario World and Super Mario 64 and all that stuff in the top 10 (edit: okay SM64 isn't going anywhere). The last thing I want to happen to this event is for it to become stale.



mZuzek said:
RolStoppable said:

Okay, it wasn't really clear what you were suggesting.

In any case, the current system is fine because it's rigged against games with a low amount of votes. You said that any game without a vote receives 60 points from the given user, so that's a fine way to penalize less popular games.

Don't think about turning the points system upside down. If you gave the #1 50 points, #2 49 points etc., then you wouldn't penalize a game for getting no vote at all from someone. Naturally, the game with the highest points total would be #1 on the overall list.

That's not what I was planning either, but that system wouldn't be any different from the current one as long as unvoted games got -9 points. It's only done the way it is now because it's a lot simpler to compile the data.

What I'm thinking is something like... basically, the more votes a game has, the less each individual vote counts - so at the higher ends of the ranking, the average rank of each vote would matter more than the amount of votes a game gets. I'm probably going to have to apply a similar system for something else I'm planning on doing, but I'm not sure if it's the perfect or the worst time to implement a change on the final results.

You say it's always been an issue, but I've been here since 2014 and nah, it was never as Nintendo-heavy as it's been in the last few years. 2018 was thankfully slightly less Nintendo-centric than 2017, which had Mario Kart 8 at #5 (disgusting), but still pretty bad. It's obvious that Nintendo will always have a heavy presence in such lists, but it's been too much, and it's clear that games such as Mario Kart 8 only make it as high as they do because it's basically everyone's go-to Mario Kart game to list, so it gets loads of votes but rarely does it make it to anyone's individual top 10. It's just not as impactful of a game to most people, but it is one that's almost universally liked, and it's okay for the results to prioritize that, but it's making the list increasingly predictable and boring... and most importantly, alienating to some people.

To use an example of a game I personally love, Hollow Knight nearly made it into my top 5, but it hasn't made it even into the overall top 100, which boasts 13 Mario games (including MK), 9 Zelda games and 6 Pokémon games. That's alienating - that the list favors Nintendo games so heavily while your favorites might not have a shot at making it anywhere near the top. In fact, if you compare score averages, Hollow Knight averaged a 14th place among the 5 lists it was in, whereas Mario Kart 8 averaged roughly 20th place; but Hollow Knight is 101st on the overall results, while Mario Kart sits in 7th place. I'm not saying it can't work that way, but it is something to think about.

Donkey Kong '94 only got to place 386, despite having an average 4th place on the lists it appeared in. You should do something about that.



Flilix said:

Donkey Kong '94 only got to place 386, despite having an average 4th place on the lists it appeared in. You should do something about that.

Yeah, the current format is fine.



RolStoppable said:
Azuren said:

Well, then it would seem like a bonus would be a bad idea. Why would you like a bad idea?

Because it is amusing that people get so upset over Nintendo games having a strong presence on the list despite being on a sales website where it's easy to look up that Nintendo games are very popular and where it's verifiable that a lot of people consider a Nintendo console worth the price for Nintendo games alone, hence why Nintendo has continued to be a console manufacturer even through dire times.

Nintendo is the publisher with the biggest presence on the list of best-selling games of all time, so Nintendo having the biggest presence on a list of favorite games of all time is a logical consequence, especially when you factor in that Nintendo produces games that age well which isn't the norm in the video game industry.

The strong Nintendo presence on this list has been criticized since the existence of this event and the most reasonable solution would be that people come to accept that Nintendo is the best game publisher overall. If people could accept that, we wouldn't have this problem.

So your reasoning for why you believe it would be a good idea to further push non-Nintendo games out of the top 100 is because you literally just want to troll people who want to see their favorite games represented?



Watch me stream games and hunt trophies on my Twitch channel!

Check out my Twitch Channel!:

www.twitch.tv/AzurenGames

Azuren said:

So your reasoning for why you believe it would be a good idea to further push non-Nintendo games out of the top 100 is because you literally just want to troll people who want to see their favorite games represented?

It's baffling that you have to ask about something that has been obvious to everyone already.



Legend11 correctly predicted that GTA IV (360+PS3) would outsell SSBB. I was wrong.

A Biased Review Reloaded / Open Your Eyes / Switch Gamers Club