Topic: All 1442 PlayStation 3 games need rating in order - I need you!

@themcnoisy so its just 2 'vetos' per person for the entire list?

I kind of thought that this was a collaborative effort - not a competition. Are we as a collaboration of 18 trying to rate 1442 but split into 3 groups to try and get through these more quickly? If that is the purpose, then surely the two groups that haven't been able to have a say - especially where so many games may not rated by people that have a greater depth of knowledge and experience by actually playing the game, have an opportunity to question the positioning?

Would it not be easier to shorten the deadline to get the lists sorted by the 3 teams (say Friday PM) and posted here, and then allow all 18 of us to assess all the lists, discuss any games that are 'wrongly' categorised and unite as 1 large group over the weekends to score any contented games - a 1-5 rating and the 'avg' score determining which group they should be in. That way, we still do 99 games in our 3 teams during weekdays, and then as 1 large group on the weekend? I don't believe many in my team had any experience on at least half of our list and in the end, they were placed according to any 'research' which often meant basing the position on a metacritic review, a wiki page - maybe a youtube video. It would have made a lot more sense for @Jaz007 to have assessed that game, been in a position to rate it based on actual experience. I am sure that others will see games that deserve more recognition but will now miss out on being place properly just because the assigned team had no actual experience or knowledge of the game and its importance.

If we all have say '1' game after every round that we think has been placed incorrectly, then we can, as a complete group of 18, rate each of the contested on a 1-5 (1 being pointless, 5 being Most Important), then we can rate these 18 as a united team and - based on their avg score rounded to the 'nearest' whole number. In other words, if the avg score ends up as 3.51, it is rounded to 4 and therefore place in 'Important', If it gets 3.49, its rounded down to 3 and placed in 'existing'.

I would think that would make more sense than the veto and the limitations that presents. Assuming that the purpose is to rate these games as accurately as a group of 18 and its not a 'competition'. I think that by giving everyone a chance to question just 1 game on the weekend, thus pulling those games out of the '33' and into a 'mini' group where all 18 of us can apply a rating, and thus as a group at least having a say and letting those with more experience and knowledge make a case for their chosen game. If I understood why @Jaz007 thinks that game deserved more recognition, as a group that placed it, we won't feel our efforts were for nothing and, as a group, the other 17 of us can have a vote to actually place games in their appropriate group. It stops games being placed in the wrong group, being overlooked etc but also stops a single person having a major bias and bumping up games far more than they should be (not saying @Jaz007 has done that with this game btw). If I wanted to 'waste' a veto, I could say Aliens: Colonial Marines is a Most Important game for absolutely no reason what so ever where as the correct thing to do would be for all of us, as a collective group, be able to have a say - rate it as '1' for example and that would place it in 'pointless' - where it rightfully belongs.

At the end, we should have the games in their rightful group, rated more accurately because every round would be a 2 stage event - the 33 (or so) we as separate groups place and then on the weekend, up to 18 games we collectively can fine tweak as a collective. Its not, or I didn't think it was, a competition. No group has scored 'points' for their placements, I thought the reason we are separated was primarily to get through a much larger volume of games in a shorter time frame. Therefore nothing is lost by getting the groups to lock down their placements by Friday PM every week, then allow everyone to pick a game, regardless of the 'group' the game is in, and then as a collective, rating those 18 on a score of 1-5 then averaging those to place those 18 games. That gives everyone a chance to pull a game out and put it forward for a 'collective' vote every round. That could mean some games go up, some could stay the same whilst others may well drop - but the point is that as a collective, we can have a say on some games that were not in their group, maybe have more insight and knowledge than the group that placed it. If we are not rating the games as a collaborative, you cannot say that this is 'our' categorisation - at best, its only a third of 'us' opinion because 2/3rds were not rated by any particular person, 2/3rds of us had no say on all the games. If I carry on in this manner, I am only rating 1/3rd of the games with my team so 2/3rds of the games we have no say on. At least If I (and everyone else) has a minimum of 1 game each round we can put forward to be rated as a larger collaborative effort, then we can say we all had at least some say. You could say 2 games and so we have 36 to rate as a collaboration - that could be at least 1 from either group that we had no say, no input on.

People won't be concerned about holding on to a veto in case a 'bigger' game to them is not placed in the group they think it belongs in - it could be reassessed as a big collaboration on the weekend so it has a better chance to be placed in the right slot - 18 of us decide its group rather than 1 in a 'veto' situation or just 6, 6 they may have little/no insight into a game but the person nominating it can at least provide reasoning as to why they believe its wrongly placed. The other 17 then can make up their own mind or just agree with the nominator.

Its up to you of course as the originator of this project but I do think it would make sense to split the rounds into two with round 1 being the group placement and round 2 being the collaborative vote and voting on 1 or 2 (you decide) over the weekend. That would make this more of a collaborative venture, a chance for everyone to have a say on basically every game - at least more than just a 1/3rd...

@BAMozzy You make some brilliant points and absolutely that would be the best way to run it. However I understand that we wont all be on all of the time. I could shorten the space to get the list in by for sure - to say Saturday then we would have 2 days to use that veto power! I don't want this to become too complicated either which is why a quick veto is easier to manage.

Also I haven't mentioned the post game once all of the games have been placed into the respective groups, at that point we will all have a final discussion inside of our teams to move those final few games possibly one for every person in the team. But I digress and what we have done so far has been great. I will be removing team vetos from this point though, although the 2 thread wide vetos will remain. @AdamNovice made a great point and I have taken that on board.

Edit - Everyone is also free to drop into the team discussions to make a valid point (like I did with Fifa WC 2010).

303 Team Name not found
@Jaz007 @themcnoisy @Th3solution @RogerRoger @Frigate @TowaHerschel7

Team Micro Transactions
@BAMozzy @ZeD @Ralizah @leucocyte @LieutenantFatman @Rudy_Manchego

Knack Attack Six Pack
@AdamNovice @KALofKRYPTON @Kidfried @Gremio108 @Fight_Sora_Fight @Octane

Absolutely final veto rules;

We all get 3 - repeat 3 thread wide vetos for the duration of this project. Once the final decisions are locked in by Midnight on Saturday (Team Captains you can lock them in earlier I wouldn't want to ruin anyone's Saturday night). You will have until 9pm on Monday to cast a veto. Therefore both Jaz and RogerRoger have used one each in the last list of games and have 2 remaining each. There is now no such thing as a team veto just thread wide vetos which can be used on any game you think is lower rated than it should be during that specified time frame. I hope that clears everything up. 3 vetos each, a veto can be used on any game from any team (even your own) if you think a game is in the wrong bracket. Use them even more wisely as you only get 3 for the whole project!

Phew Thanks for joining in everyone and good luck here on out. The next lists of games are coming up.

2nd list of games

Knack Attack Six Pack
@AdamNovice @KALofKRYPTON @Kidfried @Gremio108 @Fight_Sora_Fight @Octane

BioShock Irrational Games / 2K Marin
BioShock 2 2K Marin / Digital Extremes / 2K Australia / 2K China / Arkane Studios
BioShock Infinite Irrational Games
Birds of Steel Gaijin Entertainment
BlackSite: Area 51 Midway Studios Austin
Blades of Time Gaijin Entertainment
Bladestorm: The Hundred Years' War Omega Force
BlazBlue: Calamity Trigger Arc System Works
BlazBlue: Central Fiction Arc System Works
BlazBlue: Continuum Shift Arc System Works
BlazBlue: Chrono Phantasma Arc System Works
Blazing Angels: Squadrons of WWII Ubisoft Bucharest
Blazing Angels 2: Secret Missions of WWII Ubisoft Bucharest
Bleach: Soul Resurrección SCE Japan Studio
Blitz: The League II Midway Games
BloodBath: Fight for your life UIG
Blood Drive Sidhe
Blur Bizarre Creations
Bodycount Codemasters Studios Guildford
Bolt Avalanche Software
Borderlands Gearbox Software
Borderlands 2 Gearbox Software
Borderlands: The Pre-Sequel! 2K Australia
Bound by Flame Spiders
Brain Challenge Gameloft
Brave: The Video Game Behaviour Interactive
Brink Splash Damage
Brothers in Arms: Hell's Highway Gearbox Software
Brunswick Pro Bowling FarSight Studios
Brütal Legend Double Fine Productions
Bulletstorm People Can Fly
Burnout Paradise Criterion Games

2nd List of games

Team Micro Transactions
@BAMozzy @ZeD @Ralizah @leucocyte @LieutenantFatman @Rudy_Manchego

Buzz!: Brain of the World Relentless Software
Buzz!: Quiz TV Relentless Software
Buzz!: Quiz World Relentless Software
Buzz!: The Ultimate Music Quiz Relentless Software
Cabela's Adventure Camp Cauldron
Cabela's African Adventures Activision
Cabela's Big Game Hunter 2010 Cauldron HQ
Cabela's Big Game Hunter 2012 Cauldron HQ
Cabela's Big Game Hunter: Pro Hunts Cauldron
Cabela's Dangerous Hunts 2009 Sand Grain Studios
Cabela's Dangerous Hunts 2011 Activision
Cabela's Dangerous Hunts 2013 Activision
Cabela's Hunting Expeditions Fun Labs
Cabela's North American Adventures Fun Labs
Cabela's Outdoor Adventures Activision
Cabelas Survival: Shadows of Katmai Fun Labs
Call of Duty 3 Treyarch
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 Infinity Ward
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 Infinity Ward, Sledgehammer Games
Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare Sledgehammer Games, High Moon Studios
Call of Duty: Black Ops Treyarch
Call of Duty: Black Ops II Treyarch
Call of Duty: Black Ops III Treyarch, Mercenary Technology
Call of Duty: Ghosts Infinity Ward
Call of Duty: World at War Treyarch
Call of Juarez: Bound in Blood Techland
Call of Juarez: The Cartel Techland
Captain Morgane and the Golden Turtle WizarBox
Captain America: Super Soldier Next Level Games / Sega
Carnival Island Magic Pixel Games
Cars 2: The Video Game Disney Interactive Studios
Cars 3: Driven to Win Disney Interactive Studios
Cars Mater-National Championship Rainbow Studios
Cars Race-O-Rama Incinerator Studios

2nd List of games

303 Team Name not found
@Jaz007 @themcnoisy @Th3solution @RogerRoger @Frigate @TowaHerschel7

Cartoon Network: Punch Time Explosion XL Papaya Studio
Castlevania: Lords of Shadow MercurySteam / Kojima Productions
Castlevania: Lords of Shadow 2 MercurySteam / Kojima Productions
Catherine Atlus Persona Team
Chaotic: Shadow Warriors FUN Labs
Champion Jockey: G1 Jockey & Gallop Racer Koei
Child of Eden Q Entertainment
Civilization Revolution Firaxis Games
Clash of the Titans Bandai Namco
Clive Barker's Jericho MercurySteam
Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs Ubisoft Shanghai
Colin McRae: Dirt Codemasters
Colin McRae: Dirt 2 Codemasters
College Hoops 2K7 Visual Concepts
College Hoops 2K8 Visual Concepts
Command & Conquer: Red Alert 3 EA Los Angeles
Conan Nihilistic Software
Condemned 2: Bloodshot Monolith Productions
Conflict: Denied Ops Pivotal Games
Crash Time 4: The Syndicate Synetic
Crash Time 5 Synetic
Create EA Bright Light
Cross Edge Compile Heart
Crysis 2 Crytek
Crysis 3 Crytek
CSI: Fatal Conspiracy Ubisoft Montreal
Cyberbike 2 EKO Software
Damage Inc. Pacific Squadron WWII Trickstar Games
Damnation Blue Omega Entertainment
Dance Dance Revolution Konami
DanceDance Revolution New Moves Konami
Dance! It's Your Stage Neopica
Dance Magic Targem Games
Dance on Broadway Ubisoft

Thank god my team didn't get the Cabela games lol

@AdamNovice don't worry you have Singstar all to yourself lol

@themcnoisy Uh...can you maybe throw in a single game I've played? This week I'm just a spectator.

@themcnoisy Team Knack has 7-8 games I've played, Team MTX has 2-3, and Team 404 Zip, Zilch, Nada...

@themcnoisy You're missing Caladrius Blaze btw.

@BAMozzy @themcnoisy

@TowaHerschel7 Looks like I’ve only played 2 from out group.
There is still plenty to consider contribute, just need to do a little research and remember what was said about these games, even if you didn’t play them.

@TowaHerschel7 it was digital only.

@Jaz007 you have your reasons - regardless of what anyone else thinks. I am not criticising you and cannot say for definite one way or another about the game you chose to veto.

All it does though is highlight how ridiculous the veto is and how pointless this whole thing really is! If the point is to rate these games as fairly and as accurately as possible, it makes more sense to give the other 12 a chance to have a say on the 66 or so games they had no say on, a chance to have a say just as you have here - except that it would be put to a collaborative vote to decide which group any game should belong in.

If I chose Aliens: Colonial Marines, maybe Duke Nukem - games most important for the examples they set as 'bad', for the fact that they are so widely spoken of and remembered - even by people that never played these - then they could be vetoed up - that's just how ridiculous this is and how pointless it is...

Are we here to help rate the games or not? I didn't think we were here just to rate a third of the games, have our group opinions overruled by just 1 persons veto - whether it is deserving or not. The purpose is to accurately place things in a group yet 6 are placing games as they see it, 12 have no say at all in 2/3rds of the games and then 1 can come along and have total autonomy and place a game anywhere they want regardless of what the other 17 think....

Absolutely Ridiculous!!! Not what I signed up for...

@BAMozzy your going over the top here mate. We have had 2 whole vetos (one being batman which moved up one spot) out of 108 games placed. The game Jaz mentioned was barely talked about so he used a veto.

We all have a tiny and finite amount of vetos each so no one can blast roughshot over everyone's hard work. Ive changed it from 5 to 3 vetos and have already mentioned we will have an epilogue to this section in 10 odd weeks to make sure we are all happy with the placements.

This is to get a rough idea before we narrow them down further. It's not meant to upset anyone.

I’m very happy with our batch this week. Should lead to some fun discussions.

Just putting in my thoughts (Sorry if it comes across as cheeky or rude) but maybe you could change the veto system so that instead of an instantaneous bump up to whatever tier people want...

...Perhaps it could instead put the title up for a group wide discussion with the person vetoing it making a case for it, with the possibility of it being bumped up after discussion? (You could leave the vetoed titles til after all the games are voted on)

Just a thought, sorry again if it comes across as rude or anything, especially to you @themcnoisy

@Foxy-Goddess-Scotchy good idea. Again with time constraints - bear in mind the results are in Saturday midnight - we will have Sunday and Monday to discuss it, it's just not enough time to again discuss the same games and do the admin. There will be a section after all the games are placed to discuss it further but for now the veto system is the only way we can run this in a timely manner.

The watchword here is trust. My opinion is no more valid than anyone else, these barebones rules may also need tweaking. However It would be unmanageable to run a poll or similar on a Sunday ask for 15 plus people's opinions and then put them all into a database. The thread is meant to be fun, and so far for me it has been - that alternative seems like unnecessary busy work especially over a weekend. It would be the best way to go if we had say upto 50 games per week but I am aiming for at least 100 (more likely 110-120 from next week to speed it up).

As a teacher i REALLY understand playing admin and time constraints @themcnoisy ha ha

I hope everyone else continues to enjoy this thread like you are!