Forums

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

Posts 341 to 360 of 1,292

Th3solution

I am just getting around to reading up on the few vetos and post ranking discussion on this thread.
I would say that this has been great fun so far and I have really enjoyed discussing and reading about games that many of us have long since forgotten about. I am learning a lot and the wealth of knowledge and experience here on the forums is outstanding. The captains are are doing a spectacular job! Thanks to everyone for contributing and I hope all are finding it as enjoyable as I do.

I think one thing we learned from the first round was that maybe it makes sense to drop into the other teams’ threads if a game on their list catches your eye. We separated out into team threads in order to keep discussion easier to follow, but this is still a group effort. I dont think the idea is to exclude an opinion if it’s not on your assigned team. For simplicity, the teams have jurisdiction over their games as far as voting, but I think some level of campaigning for a game should be open to all. I think we should feel free to drop in and make our case for a game that we have interest in on another thread.
Obviously we don’t want to take things too far and competely derail another team’s workflow, but honestly we are all mature here and I doubt that will happen and I think feedback from anyone who feels passionately about a game (whether in the positive or negative) is useful for that team as they start the voting process.
I think the logistics of running the huge project will never be perfect, but @themcnoisy has a really good system that balances ease of flow with fairness.

In summary, I think if you’re thinking you may end up vetoing or questioning a placement of a game, drop a note to the team who is debating said game. Maybe you can influence them. If not, you’ve always got your veto.

At least that’s my opinion, but Noisy can correct me if I’m wrong.

That being said, Knack Attack team, I’m keeping one eye on one of my favorite PS3 games, Bioshock Infinite 😏. Don’t make me come over there and beg. 😜

And welcome to the forums @Foxy-Goddess-Scotchy . Thanks for your input.

“We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.”

HallowMoonshadow

Awww thanks @Th3solution !

And so far team Knack attack seem to agree on Bioshock's importance... I'll come join on the begging train though if things take a turn ha ha! 😉

Previously known as Foxy-Goddess-Scotchy
.
.
.

"You don't have to save the world to find meaning in life. Sometimes all you need is something simple, like someone to take care of"

Jaz007

@BAMozzy To counter your point though, only one member of your team looked the game up and formed an opinion of it. Pointless was basically saying it’s shovelware. In this specific instance, the only difference was instead of one person did a small amount of research on it catagorizing it, someone who had played it did.
I don’t feel your critizing me, but just saying that it was hardly a group decision for this game. I saw no second argument for this game from anyone else. And I totally understand where your coming from and saw why your group did it that way too, so I’m not trying to criticize you in how you run your group.

Jaz007

BAMozzy

@themcnoisy I don't believe I am going over the top here! You asked us to come along and help you rate 1442 games - yet we only have a say on 1/3rd of those. You them bring up some 'BS' allowing anyone to pick 3 games of their choosing - regardless of whether the other 17 of us agree or not to move a game that 6 people decided to place at a 'lower' tier - essentially giving 1 person total freedom to make a complete mockery of the verdict of a third of the people involved in a group decision.

I don't care whether those 2 games deserved to be moved or not - its the principal! Their position was determined by up to 6 people yet 1 person can over-rule and move a game significantly higher than 6 people thought it best fit. At best, the game maybe should be 'reassessed' by the 18 of us if 6 can be wrong.

Its absolutely pointless me continuing because
a) I have no voice at all over 2/3rds of the games here
b) 1 person can dictate where up to 3 games can be moved to regardless of where 6 people were in agreement of its position - what's the point in us placing them in groups if 1 person can just dictate without discussion or without the other 17 of us having a voice at all, without the other 17 (6 of whom had already decided where the game belonged) involvement. Like I said, any one us could make a mockery of the system by Vetoing games - I will veto Alien: Colonial Marines then, Duke Nukem and maybe Rambo, Cabela's Dangerous Hunts or some other pointless game - just to prove how ridiculous the system is - how WRONG the system in place is.
c) This is not democratic when at least 12 (the majority) have no say on the games in any round, the minority are deciding on which group 1/3rd of the games belong. I am not prepared to put my name as one of the people who rated the 1442 games when I have NO say on the majority of this list.

Therefore my participation is pointless, the whole thing is 'pointless'. Its not a game where 1 team will win. I thought the purpose of the groups was purely to get through the vast list of games much quicker - I certainly didn't expect that I have no say on 2/3rds - after all you ask for help rating 1442 games. I certainly didn't think that 54 (3x18) can be placed much higher by 1 person regardless of the findings of 6 people without any discussion or input from the 17 others (11 had no say at all anyway) involved.

What's the point in this? Are we actually rating the games democratically and as a much larger group or just splitting up and only rating a 1/3 of the games? How is that 1 person has complete freedom to dictate the positions of '3' games irrespective of the discussion and decision of 6 people - all of whom agreed on the position prior. Essentially that's like giving 1 person the authority to over-rule a 'jury' and their decision. At most, 1 person should be ask the jury to reconsider new 'evidence' and 'revote' - and a way of doing that would be to allow people from the other 2 groups who had no say on 2/3rds of the games, ask for a game (or 2) to be 'reconsidered' and placed according to the 'majority' or the 'average' decision. Not give 1 person total autonomy after 6 people reached a 'verdict'.

Its not the point that it was only 1 spot with Batman or that the game Jaz wanted was barely talked about, the point is that 6 agreed on a position and 1 has total authority to override a decision by 6 people without any question, without any input, without any 'reason' (Jaz didn't need to show his reason even though he did eventually) instead of asking for a 'retrial' with EVERYONE having a chance to have their say. Like I said, on a whim I could Veto Alien:Colonial Marines to 'Most Important' regardless of whether the 6 who placed it agree or any of the other 11 people who had no say agree or not. If you don't see how ridiculous that is, then I cannot continue. Jaz, at most should be able to ask for that game to be 'reassessed', ask for a retrial and then all 18 of us, inc the 6 who initially placed it, can decide much more accurately due to a higher number of people involved whether the game should be moved and if so, into which category. I would be perfectly fine with games like the one Jaz picked or Batman being retrialed and then moved into the groups they are now in - the voice of all of us deciding which group a game deserves - its much better that 18 decide as opposed to just 1 with their own agenda and/or bias affecting that decision. Not accusing anyone of that so far - but the potential is there with the veto system for an individual to overrule a group decision for whatever reason - including personal bias instead of asking the other 11 who had no say, as well as the 6 who had ALL agreed on a games position to reconsider based on 'new' evidence as to what group a game belongs.

Its NOT a competition, its not a 'game' as far as I was aware - if it is then I am out - I refuse to play a 'game', participate in a 'competition' - especially without knowing the rules beforehand. I honestly thought we were doing something more important, more worthwhile, something we ALL have a voice on but it seems not. So what's the point?? What are you hoping to achieve? A fair position, a fair 'rating' where a group of us have had an input and decided which category all 1442 games belong into? At least 54 won't have been decided by a 'group' - just purely individual choice rather than the reason and discussion by the majority. I or anyone here will have no say at all, cannot voice any opinion, cannot ask for a 'retrial' to be decided by the 'majority' whether the game was correctly placed by 6 or needs to be moved and into which group by all 18 of us. If Batman needed to go up a group, all 18 of us should be able to vote and decide not be dictated by 1 person autonomously. If the game Jaz picked needed to go up groups, then all 18 of us should be given the option to decide which group the game really belongs in. After all, its supposed to be all 18 of us rating ALL 1442 games yet have no voice on 2/3rds (-3 games) so therefore its not something I want to be part of.

I tried hard to make sure EVERYONE in my group had a voice, could speak out and re-vote on ANY game, The evidence for ANY game we had little/no experience/knowledge of was provided by someone investigating and either backed or discussed by EVERYONE. AC3 is a 'good' example - it started off in the Most Important category, after a discussion dropped down a group. 1 person still was not happy that it was in the right group so a 'vote' took place with EVERYONE free to vote based on evidence, discussion and their own free will to rate the game as they saw fit. The person who was 'unhappy' didn't get the result they were looking for particularly as they thought the game was 'Not Important' but as a 'collective team', the rating caused the game to drop from important but only down to existing. That was a 'team' decision, something that we ALL decided upon as a 'group' yet I could undermine the whole processes of that by using a 'Veto' to move the game back up, over-rule something that my whole team, as a group, worked through and concluded the final position - only for me (or anyone else with a Veto) to change its position - If I did that now, how do you think my team would feel, how do you think @leucocyte would feel - especially as they were unhappy with classifying the game as important in the first place!!!

If you cannot see that, then there really is no point me continuing. I cannot be part of something when the ststem in place is complete BS considering I thought that we as a 'collective' were rating the games. If any contentious placements are found by any person, they should have a 'say' and call for a 'retrial' for the majority to decide. I never agreed that the choice of myself or my team as a collective could and would be overruled by just 1 person if they so felt like. I never agreed to having NO say on the majority of these games and that 2/3rds - 3 games would and could be placed in categories that I may not agree or have any say whatsoever on. You have people afraid not to question one or more of the placements because of the fact that they don't want to use up all the veto's this early with over 1000games to go instead of having a voice and then a 'democratic' say in things.

As I said, its NOT about the games or the groups that those 2 'veto's' have affected - its the principal that the whole system is BS where 1 voice carries more weight than 6 collectively, that we have NO say on 2/3rds of the games, cannot question the positioning and resolve in a 'democratic' way. I have absolutely NO issue with Jaz asking for a 'revote' a retrial of that game but instead of the '6' who decided and agreed on its position based on the 'evidence/findings' of a person and even their own experience - never hearing of a game or any game that cited it as an influence for example (not saying it doesn't exist though), the game should of been relooked at by the 6 who originally placed it, the 11 who had NO say before so opening up a 'wider' experience pool to more accurately place a game, as well as the person questioning its position (in this example Jaz) who may have new evidence that may not of been presented to the 6 in the first case, to then determine which group the game belongs - not the 1 person but 18 of us deciding. If 6 are 'wrong', then let 18 decide - not 1!!!

That just makes sense - its not a 'competition' to see who gets the most 'Most Important' ratings or has the 'fewest' joker cards (sorry 'veto's) played against them. Its supposed to be something we can ALL put our name too as something we ALL agreed on in a collaboration together to rate ALL1442 games - not just a 1/3rd and have NO say on 2/3rds, not to have the findings of 6 be completely and utterely a waste of our Time after committing to do this in our own free time, not being paid to spend hours researching games no one has heard of, reading reviews after reviews, looking up on Wiki to see what, if anything jumps out regarding the game-play, the visual style, influences/impact, watching youytube video's to actually see the game in motion so you have an idea of whether its a format that has been influential, that its artstyle was revolutionary and inspired newer games, that brought something 'new' to gaming and perhaps has a 'legacy' that is still found in games today - not copied some older game and now you never see or hear of the game, the style etc (not saying that this is that example - but the principal - before @Jaz007 thinks I am referencing this game in particular - that's what I asked of my team, that's the research I did on the games none of us had actually played and/or heard of before - our free time when we could of been playing the new games we have, having 'fun' or doing something for 'ourselves/family' etc instead of trying to decide whether a game deserve to move up, down or stay in just 'existing' - only for 1 person to undermine all of that if the so desire...

Sorry but these are unacceptable terms and not the job description I signed up to be a part of!!!

A pessimist is just an optimist with experience!

Why can't life be like gaming? Why can't I restart from an earlier checkpoint??

Feel free to add me but please send a message so I know where you know me from...

PSN: TaimeDowne

themcnoisy

@Foxy-Goddess-Scotchy right that's it you can join a team you have proved your salt. @BAMozzy can FGS join your team please?

@Th3solution Spot on. Thank you for writing that.

Forum Best Game of All Time Awards

PS3 Megathread 2019: The Last of Us
Multiplat 2018: Horizon Zero Dawn
Nintendo 2017: Super Mario Bros 3
Playstation 2016: Uncharted 2
Multiplat 2015: Final Fantasy 7

PSN: mc_noisy

Ralizah

I think @Jaz007 's veto is a good example of why having them makes sense. The people in our group have never played the game, barely discussed it, and basically chucked it in the trash as a result. He, on the other hand, actually has experience with the game, so I'm more inclined to trust his judgment on the matter. The whole point of the vetoes is to keep good games from unnecessarily being dunked on;

I guess people could troll and use the vetoes to elevate bad games, but even if everyone did, with only two vetoes per person, it'd only elevate a tiny portion of the library. Doesn't seem like a huge risk to the integrity of the project.

As to everyone voting on only 1/3 or so of the games, I think that's just a necessary restriction based on the limited resources (time and people) we have at hand.

Edited on by Ralizah

Currently Playing: Advance Wars 1 + 2: Re- Boot Camp (NS)

PSN: Ralizah

RogerRoger

This is supposed to be a fun, community-driven ranking where every individual has equal power and a backstop measure to champion lesser-known (or less-loved) games. This won't be "the definitive, immovable all-time ranking which everybody must accept as law" when complete; it'll be the "PushSquare Community Rankings", something we all built together and can refer to when curious about dipping back into the previous console generation.

So with respect, can everybody just lighten up about veto system, please? I think it's great.

"We want different things, Crosshair. That doesn't mean that we have to be enemies."

PSN: GDS_2421
Making It So Since 1987

themcnoisy

@BAMozzy I never gave you a job description. This isn't a job.

I assigned you the role of a team captain as I trust you with some loose rules to bracket games before we get into the meat of ranking them as a group. I also mentioned that it's meant to be fun so to assign a vice captain if you can't assist that week / few days. It's not meant to be work, that's not the point. We are all big gamers and I thought (maybe stupidly) this could be fun for all of us.

I like your input Bam but you have to understand theres a limiting scope to run this on a forum, if it was possible for everyone to rate every game we wouldn't be in teams. The project would take a Year and everyone would lose interest. just look at the majority of responses and everyone else is taking the veto idea in jest. All of your work won't go to waste and I don't think anyone would go crazy and start voting pointless games into the top bracket. Don't be like this mate please just roll with it. If you don't want to participate that's cool and I won't hold any bad feelings but would much prefer you to stay.

Forum Best Game of All Time Awards

PS3 Megathread 2019: The Last of Us
Multiplat 2018: Horizon Zero Dawn
Nintendo 2017: Super Mario Bros 3
Playstation 2016: Uncharted 2
Multiplat 2015: Final Fantasy 7

PSN: mc_noisy

BAMozzy

@Jaz007 Maybe only 1 person did look into that game and their findings were presented to us - we ALL agreed based on the evidence they had found. I am NOT saying that is 'right or wrong' but your 'Veto' is completely negating their findings and their opinion based on any evidence they were able to obtain. I am NOT saying your evidence is completely false here, I am also not saying that I don't trust my team and the research they put into the game and the trust we all showed by 'backing' their findings.

What I am saying is that 'mistakes' - particularly in games that are so niche that none of the 6 had heard of them before - can occur which is when people like yourself should have a Voice to speak up and present your evidence to the 'full group' the 18 who can then take your evidence onboard, as well as anyone else's evidence, and decide which, if any, group it needs to be moved into democratically.

As I said, I could very easily just decide that any pointless game should be Important, or even most important against the findings of 6 or even the opinions of 11 others who had NO say in the first place. The fact that the majority have no sat at all on the majority of games is ridiculous in a 'fair and democratic' situation. I could, after discussing AC3 with Leucocyte, after putting it to a vote with my team, go against ALL of them with a Veto, make the game even higher - How do you think the team would feel after that. I could very easily of made the game stick where it was instead of handling it democratically and then have the 'power' to move the game back up afterwards??

At most, if someone thinks that the 6 have come to the wrong conclusion, the wrong decision, then they should have a voice, should have a reason and should present that reason to everyone - all 17 others. Those 17, inc the 11 whose voice has never been heard or their opinions asked - considering they are also the majority - should take all the evidence, maybe even have some experience or knowledge to impart too, and a revote, a retrial take place to determine exactly where the 'majority' of the entire group believe it to be - whether that's the same as person asking for a retrial, the same as the initial findings or somewhere else - the games 'position' would be decided by the full group as a collaboration - not some individual who may want their 'favourite' game much higher than it should be - not saying you have done that but the system is in place to allow that to happen instead of letting the majority decide or at least the mathematical 'avg' of the group. It should be a 'group' decision and everyone should be able to have a say in every game.

Obviously its easier if 3 groups work on 3 separate groups of games to get through them quicker but then there should be a time when we can call into question a game (or 2) that would be better if the full 18 decide because the 6 may have missed some evidence, some detail or fact that another person has.

I don't want you to feel I am angry at you or your decision to veto a game from our group. It only highlights the issue and the major flaw in the system. At least 6 people 'thought' that the game deserved its placement based on the evidence provided. The Veto over rules any work that person did to try and collect any data, any evidence etc that may have persuaded them the game should be higher placed. Obviously, in your opinion, you think very differently and have the autonomy to completely negate all their efforts and without necessarily having a reason - other than you can exercise a Veto if you want. Regardless of who is 'right' or who is 'wrong', whether that game deserves to be in 'either' group, or somewhere in the middle is not up for debate with the rest of the people involved here, no-one else has any opportunity to agree with you, agree with my team or fall somewhere in the middle. 17 have absolutely no say at all and any say that 6 may have had is completely negated, a complete waste of their time.

Isn't this supposed to be a group decision? Not the decision of 1 person - 51 games can be moved to a position regardless of what ANYONE thinks, believes with no say whatsoever. and you can do the same with 3 games too. 2/3rds of the games you have no say, no opportunity to have your opinion heard. That's just ridiculous - its not a game or a competition - it invalidates any findings, any placement of any game. Any game 'could' be placed by a single person and ONLY them believe that is the right placement, 17 others could disagree completely. Any 1 game is only in position by the minority of the group - they could 'agree' with that but the majority may not. They may not speak out for fear of losing a precious veto they may need later on and certain games could very easily be much higher than the majority think because games cannot be moved back despite the fact the 'majority' disagree with it.

I cannot be part of something whilst these 'rules' are in place, whilst I (or anyone else) can have very little say, no voice at all in this, we are not 'helping' we are just grinding, just crunching through a third to get through the vast list with no voice or opinion, no contribution to the vast majority of games, potentially the majority of games that as an individual has the most knowledge and experience of because they weren't in your 'third'. Cannot question a 'fanboy' if they were to use a 'veto' to boost a game far beyond where it would merit had the group been consulted and all the evidence presented. I cannot be part of something where I back a teams decision, after much discussion and after a vote and then go completely against them with a Veto just to get my own way. A veto in its self is saying that you don't trust the 6 who positioned the game as lowly as they have where the system I suggested would say you don't believe the 6 had all the evidence to make the right decision and that, with the evidence you can provide as well as the decision of the full group (not just the separate subsections), a rightful and agreeable by all because ALL had a chance to have a say and vote - with clear and reasoned result - such as the avg score. Point is though that they ALL have a voice inc You and you can also provide evidence that I or the others in my team may agree with - inc the person who spent time doing the research in the first place. They won't feel like they wasted all their time, we as a team won't feel that our 'decision was completely undermined and the rest of the people will be involved and have their 'voice', their vote, their rating heard too.

Its far fairer and much more of a democratic system where we ALL feel involved, feel that the 1/3rd we are responsible are worthwhile and that, if we do feel we need to say something about the 2/3rds we are not responsible for, we can and we can ask the full group to decide which category a game should belong in if we feel a game is not being fairly assessed or that the team missed some vital evidence in their assessment. At the end, we can say we ALL participated and assessed all the games. We all had a voice - its only calling into question the odd game here and there that maybe wrong - its not like we will have 18 games being reassessed every week because it seems like its only a few that people were questioning. You may look at the two lists you didn't participate in and agree with every position - agree enough anyway that its not worth asking for a retrial.

Point is, I think we all should have a voice on ALL games. If we disagree with a group, the person disagreeing can put forward a case for a re-evaluation with the evidence they provide as to why its wrong and then everyone can vote with the avg score deciding its group position - everyone is at least content that they have had a voice, that they contributed to the every position - either by agreeing with all the findings of every group and free to question any too with the possibility of a re-evaluation by the full 18 to decide - not just 1 person, not having any say on 2/3rds of the titles...

A pessimist is just an optimist with experience!

Why can't life be like gaming? Why can't I restart from an earlier checkpoint??

Feel free to add me but please send a message so I know where you know me from...

PSN: TaimeDowne

BAMozzy

@themcnoisy Its not fun when 1 person can undermine a whole group, where the majority of people cannot have any input on the majority of games. I tried to ask you if we could carry on as we were but on a weekend, feel free to question and if necessary have ALL our voices heard as some groups may not have all the evidence, all the experience etc to have made the right judgement on a game. There are games that none of us have played in our little groups and it would be more fair, more accurate if people gave an opportunity to present more evidence and then allow the majority to position a game more accurately.

I wanted to help, I want to be part of this but I also want my voice to be heard if I have cause to. I also want everyone to have the opportunity to hear my opinion and then decide where a game belongs collaboratively. I also want that opportunity for ALL to have their say, to have their voice heard. Its not fun when someone can put their favourite game way higher than the other 17 people here believe it to be and have NO say at all.

I am NOT saying that @Jaz007 is wrong, their evidence is equally as valid as the team member who investigated that game and presented their evidence to the other 5 of us who all agreed. What I do think is wrong though is that they can undermine and over-rule the findings, the assessment and the decision to lock into place that game. I do think its wrong that when a 'game' is thought to be in a 'wrong' category, that the majority, at least 11 others, have had no say at all when the 'fairest' solution is to open it up for a collaborative vote and a unified solution found.

I see no reason that we cannot have a 'shorter' initial deadline for the 3 groups to get their games locked into place, and then have an opportunity to question, re-evaluation any game that people believe to be in the 'wrong' category. That doesn't mean this will take 'years' because its still assessing the same number of games in the same time span.

Another way to do it if you are 'concerned' that people won't have enough time if the initial vote 'deadline' is too short, is that you could run a 'parallel' vote in this thread where last weeks group results are open for anyone and all of us to have our say. The same 'deadlines' in place - in other words, on Monday/Tuesday, the previous weeks groups are open to be 'questioned' if people disagree with any position. Those games are pulled out and any evidence etc can be given as to why some one disagrees, then by Sunday 8pm, EVERYONE can rate those games based on any new, presented evidence to assess which group they should rightfully be. Anyone who chooses, or cannot for whatever reason vote in this will miss out in having their say and the rest will be averaged to determine the rightful group.

Whilst that is happening in this thread, the separate group threads can work through the 'new' week, the new unassigned games. That way, there is NO delay, no extra time taken, a chance for EVERYONE to have a Say on EVERY game (no questioning of a game means they are effectively saying they agree with the group) and thus we can get through the same number of games in the same time and feel like we have an opportunity to have our say. It will be a lot more fun, a lot fairer and hopefully we will get a much more fairer assessment without 1 persons opinion affecting anything - All I am saying is that those two (or more) games can be assessed by everyone and placed accordingly - not just the 6 that originally place or the 1 who disagreed. People won't feel scared to use a veto they may need later, something that is also stab in the back to others. What if I vetoed AC3 now? How would my team feel after I let them vote and decide - its almost 'petty' let them all decide and then stab them in the back too get my own way with a veto???

I am trying to make this fun and fair for all - and the games too. I don't have an issue per say with the reason that Jaz had, I do have in issue though that 1 person can undermine the findings of another to get their own way when the fairest way would be to say they think the 6 may have missed some aspect, some reason to have placed the game higher so they are asking if ALL 18 (inc themselves) can re-evaluate and rate the game based on new evidence. Majority rules - not the individual - that makes it fair, makes everyone feel valued that they can have an opinion and help decide where games belong. It can run alongside the new games, run here where everyone has an opportunity to question and re-evaluate any game from the previous week with the same or even earlier 'deadline' to ensure its finished before the new listings are due.

We could have been discussing last weeks here yesterday and today, decided which if any needed revaluating, asking everyone to rate the game on a '1-5' basis and the avg score determining which group any game in question belongs in and thus everyone feels a part of this, feels like they can have a say and contribute. They won't feel undermined or only able to have a voice on just 1/3rd and maybe not many games they actually played and have more knowledge of because if the group they are in.

Please reconsider this because the Veto system could well cause more problems - like I said, how would my team feel after going through all that discussion and reasoning if at the end of the day I can use a veto to get my own way, go against them all. Its far fairer if I were to ask the rest of the people involved to rate the game - which may work in my favour or may work in others favour but the point is, the game will be placed in the correct group based on the majority verdict and not on 'my' opinion or just 1 other person's choice - it will be the majority verdict and no-one has reason to feel that they were right but a 'rule' let someone have their own way without question, without the rest of the people involved have their chance to speak. Maybe that game that Jaz believed to be important, ends up being 'important' because 18 people agree its 'important' (or at least the avg or majority). Maybe it remains pointless, maybe it falls into one of the 2 groups in between but you get a majority decision - not one or another's opinion - a fair and diplomatic decision. Its no different than trying to manage the small groups where one thought AC3 was Most important initially and another thought it was Not important at best - in the end, its position was decided fairly by the team so why not let everyone have a 'chance' to disagree with a 'teams' decision and, instead of giving that person total autonomy, let it be decided by the majority? I really don't see why you cannot see that? I really don't see why you are so against opening up 'contentious' games to the majority to decide and why you are giving 1 person total autonomy to over-rule and go against a majority decision 3 times instead of letting the majority decide if there are any contentious placements? That's the diplomatic and fair way - the same rule I apply in my group. If any game is 'contended', it is opened up for a vote with the vote deciding the group - not an individual.

There is still time to implement a fairer solution - although we have missed nearly 48hrs worth of potential time to have raised any questionable placements, provided additional information and reasoning, then allowed every one else a chance to rate and position the game so its a collaborative, fair and group decision - not an individual decision...

And yes FGS is very welcome to join....

A pessimist is just an optimist with experience!

Why can't life be like gaming? Why can't I restart from an earlier checkpoint??

Feel free to add me but please send a message so I know where you know me from...

PSN: TaimeDowne

BAMozzy

@themcnoisy - you could also limit the contentious games to just 1 per person per week - meaning that the total number of games is much smaller than the number of games we are looking it in our separate groups. That would mean a maximum of 18/19 games but could be 0 if no one has any issue with any game. You may find also that the same 3 or 4 games are cropping up - like Battlefield BC2 for example which may mean only 3 or 4 games need to be re-evaluated in this thread every week...

Its easy for some of us to make mistakes with a placement, maybe because the evidence wasn't easy to find and we had little/no actual experience or knowledge in our 'smaller' group. Therefore, its better that these get evaluated by a larger group and/or with more evidence provided by more knowledgeable people. People, like myself, may well change their initial opinion with the new evidence and as a larger group, categorise the game more accurately and more befitting of its importance...

A pessimist is just an optimist with experience!

Why can't life be like gaming? Why can't I restart from an earlier checkpoint??

Feel free to add me but please send a message so I know where you know me from...

PSN: TaimeDowne

themcnoisy

@BAMozzy Bam just look how much you have written and how much time that has taken. In the ideal world we're we all have time then yes every game should be democratically chosen to best represent all voices. But its unworkable.

I knew the issue with games being dismissed would come up prior to starting this thread. It's why the vetos are there. They are also extremely limited so not to be abused.


In the current situation;

Teams put 30-40 games into 1 of 5 groups over the course of 5 days. Once locked there is a limited chance to veto a decision before the next set of games are released.

That's 2 parts; team choice - vetos


In your proposed methodology there would be 4 parts; team choice - games up for discussion - games going to retrial* - final votes

*this is the part where it all falls down. We would inevitably relook at every games position and the prior team work would be a complete waste of time. Without limiting the capability to call a decision into question everyone would want to move preffered or disliked games around again.

Forum Best Game of All Time Awards

PS3 Megathread 2019: The Last of Us
Multiplat 2018: Horizon Zero Dawn
Nintendo 2017: Super Mario Bros 3
Playstation 2016: Uncharted 2
Multiplat 2015: Final Fantasy 7

PSN: mc_noisy

themcnoisy

@BAMozzy OK I see so a limited appeal system. Hmmmm that could actually work.

Forum Best Game of All Time Awards

PS3 Megathread 2019: The Last of Us
Multiplat 2018: Horizon Zero Dawn
Nintendo 2017: Super Mario Bros 3
Playstation 2016: Uncharted 2
Multiplat 2015: Final Fantasy 7

PSN: mc_noisy

BAMozzy

@themcnoisy The way I see it is that on a Sunday, at 8pm, ALL the weeks games are presented in their categories as designated by the separate groups. On a Tuesday, the new lists are given out.

EVERYONE can have a chance to look at ALL the lists, ALL the positions and, IF (and only IF) they disagree with any game - only 1 per person so pick the one they most disagree with - they MUST by Tuesday 8 PM (for example) - the first 48hrs after posting the group findings - make it known in THIS thread and ONLY this thread with a 'reason', with justification, with any evidence to back up their claim, for a re-evaluation.

A list can then be drawn up of 'every' questionable game - only a max of 19 and some may not have any reason to question a game or maybe even that multiple people are questioning 1 game - point is, there is a MAX of just 19 games.

All a person would need to do is to copy the list and re-post it with a rating of 1 - 5 (1 being Pointless, 5 being most important) - ALL VOTES MUST BE IN BY SATURDAY PM, then the scores are added up and divided by the number of people that opted to rate that game - if 10people vote and the score is 35, that means the average is 3.5, rounded to the closest whole number - 4 so therefore goes into the 'important' category.

Its fair, it takes very little time - and enough time that EVERYONE gets a chance to have their voice heard on just 1 game and the reason why they think its wrong for example - anything that they think has been missed and can support their 'claim' for everyone to see. Between say Tuesday and Saturday, it's not going to take a massive amount of time to rate upto a max of 19 games (no more but could be a LOT less) and, if they don't have an issue or speak up in the first 48hrs, they missed their chance to question positioning. All votes to be in by Saturday PM so last weeks 'group' results can be completely finished with, everyone had their chance to question and vote before the new lists are posted. Between Sat PM and Sunday PM, the results of ANY votes in this thread are tallied up and the games are placed in their appropriate category. You don't get 1 person deciding that an Alien: Colonial Marines (or equivalently bad game that deserves to be forgotten) having total autonomy to credit a game that does not deserve it - that the rest of us, the 18 (inc the 6 that originally decided) can prevent that from happening - on the flip side of course, a game that is 'overlooked' and/or 'mistakenly' placed due to lack of knowledge and/or evidence within the 'smaller' group, can, with the aid of new evidence provided by a 'contester', as well as the other 12, re-evaluate and give credit where it was actually due.

I think this would be much fairer, more fun and ultimately not upset anyone - those that originally deliberated, a team member using the power of veto to get their own way and annoy the rest etc. You cannot argue with the results of 19 people, in black and white, mathematically placing a game in its position. You can though get upset and angry over an individual using their autonomy to get their own way rather than to ask for a re-evaluation from the 'majority' by way of a vote.

All I am asking is if you can implement this, that way everyone has a chance to question 1 game but only have 48hrs to do so and to do so with a reason as to why its wrong and evidence to support their claim. From Tuesday to Saturday, everyone has an opportunity to visit this thread at least once, copy the list of contested games and paste it into their reply adding their rating of 1-5 by Saturday PM, This can run alongside the major bulk of games we as separate groups are deliberating over.

Everyone then will have had an opportunity to have their voice heard on ANY game, ANY categorisation and ANY additional rating that may (or may not) crop up in the first 48 hrs after results day. By Saturday, thus clearing this thread in readiness for the new groups, all voting has to be finished - if you miss it, you miss your chance for your voice to be heard — it needs to be cleared for the new results day.

If that isn't fairer, if that is taking up so much more time that this would go on indefinitely, then say. Its better in the long run as people can have a say on 1 game every week instead of being scared to speak out because they can only do so 3x. Maybe they will get the 'result' they hoped for, maybe not. Maybe the games will be better or worse off as a result of this but one thing is for certain is that everyone had a chance to have their say and their rating on ANY questionable placements.If they miss that chance, that's their fault - like missing their chance in the smaller groups too - but at least people will feel they can speak up and have their voice heard...

A pessimist is just an optimist with experience!

Why can't life be like gaming? Why can't I restart from an earlier checkpoint??

Feel free to add me but please send a message so I know where you know me from...

PSN: TaimeDowne

BAMozzy

@themcnoisy Essentially we are saying that everyone has an opportunity to question just 1 game a week and to have it re-evaluated by 'everyone' as opposed to giving 1 person the opportunity to dictate the category.

It maybe a game that only 1 person evaluated and came to a 'conclusion' that the rest of the small group agreed with based on the evidence presented but could be a game that a group of 6 took a lot of time deliberating over, a group vote taking place and the 6 all deciding the appropriate group only for 1 person to over-rule the majority.

As I said, there may well be weeks that no-one questions any game - maybe just 1 or 2 games - but no-one has the over all authority on any game - its always a 'group' decision - whether 'smaller' sub-group or everyone as one large group.

Sorry but I do feel very strongly on this and I wouldn't like 1 person over-ruling my team after much deliberation or to do that to some one else when it should be ALL of us. I can't put my name to something where I have had no say on 2/3rds of the games - and only the third that I was presented with to work through - even if I have more knowledge and experience of games in other groups may have been given - more insight etc - just like @Jaz007 has with the game he 'vetoed'. It does 'feel' like he is calling the person who researched this game as a 'liar' that influenced the other 5 members to agree with their findings - rather than ask for a re-evaluation and present evidence that may of been missed, may not be aware of etc and then allow 'everyone' to re-evaluate to determine the placement...

That can cause upset, anger etc where as asking for a re-evaluation and a full group rating isn't siding with one or another - its a group decision rather than an individual.

A pessimist is just an optimist with experience!

Why can't life be like gaming? Why can't I restart from an earlier checkpoint??

Feel free to add me but please send a message so I know where you know me from...

PSN: TaimeDowne

themcnoisy

@BAMozzy so you could have 1 appeal per team. So a max of 3 games per round. That's even easier to manage actually.

Edited on by themcnoisy

Forum Best Game of All Time Awards

PS3 Megathread 2019: The Last of Us
Multiplat 2018: Horizon Zero Dawn
Nintendo 2017: Super Mario Bros 3
Playstation 2016: Uncharted 2
Multiplat 2015: Final Fantasy 7

PSN: mc_noisy

themcnoisy

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

Team Micro Transactions
@BAMozzy @ZeD @Ralizah @leucocyte @LieutenantFatman @Rudy_Manchego @Foxy-Goddess-Scotchy

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


The absolutely end last rule on the Veto thingy ever.... (I hope)

OK after much back and forth the last and final way we will run the thread is as follows.

In teams put the ganes into the five groups by Saturday Midnight.

From Sunday to Monday in our teams we can bring 1 game per team up into a discussion which is worthy of of a retrial. Ie) a game sticks out like a sore thumb that it's in the wrong group. We will then have a maximum of 3 games (1 per team) which we can chat about and if needs be vote on.

As I am in work most Sundays and Mondays I am going to ask either @Ralizah @Fight_Sora_Fight @RogerRoger (or all 3) if they can chair those discussions. That's one person from each team as the Captains have their work cut out in the week.


With that I would also like to designate some other positions going forward.

Team Captains
@Jaz007 @BAMozzy @AdamNovice

Vice Captains
@Th3solution @zed @KALofKRYPTON

Judges of Appeal
@Ralizah @RogerRoger and @Fight_Sora_Fight


@LieutenantFatman @Rudy_Manchego
@Gremio108 @Octane @Frigate @TowaHerschel7 @leucocyte @mookysam @Foxy-Goddess-Scotchy @themcnoisy

At the very end of the process as long as everyone's still involved you will all have an important role to play especially @Kidfried who will be chair on the Very Important games. But I will let you know about that in 9 weeks or so.

Edited on by themcnoisy

Forum Best Game of All Time Awards

PS3 Megathread 2019: The Last of Us
Multiplat 2018: Horizon Zero Dawn
Nintendo 2017: Super Mario Bros 3
Playstation 2016: Uncharted 2
Multiplat 2015: Final Fantasy 7

PSN: mc_noisy

HallowMoonshadow

... I'm on a team?! I don't understand how I've proved my salt exactly @themcnoisy ?!

I'm honoured though truly... Just hope I do @BAMozzy and his writing prowess proud 😅

Previously known as Foxy-Goddess-Scotchy
.
.
.

"You don't have to save the world to find meaning in life. Sometimes all you need is something simple, like someone to take care of"

BAMozzy

@themcnoisy Why 1 per team? why not 1 per person then everyone has an equal opportunity. Some weeks, you may not have any or maybe just a few anyway because more the 1 person may question the same game. At worst, the amount of games being re-evaluated will only be 19, at best none because no body has any issue with any game - they are all satisfied that the groups placed the games in the correct category - its ONLY games that people feel they need to be re-evaluated because the original team hasn't placed them in the correct category. They can ONLY pick games from the other 2 groups as they had to agree that their group had placed the game in the right category - they have had their chance to have their say about the games in their group. For example, I cannot question Assassins Creed 3 because my team, my group had to have discussed and placed the game according to any evidence we could provide. I cannot then go against the rest of my team to ask the other members of the other groups to get involved and re-evaluate - the ONLY games I can question are games from the other 2 groups, the groups that I have not had any opportunity to have my say and ONLY 1 game out of the 60+ that the other two teams have placed.

I would have just 48hrs after the deadline to question a games placement - just 1 game from either of the two groups. If I am happy with their results, then there is NO action to take, no calls for a revaluation from me. If, however I am unhappy with any game in either group, I can only pick 1 game for re-evaluation and MUST provide a valid reason and justify why I think it should be in what ever group I believe it should be.

EVERYONE would also have the same opportunity to have their OWN voice - not a 'team' voice but their OWN voice and with the same reason and justification they believe its incorrectly placed. EVERYONE has the same time to look at the 'other' 2 groups and if unhappy with any decision, the right to ask for a re-evaluation of just 1 game. Even if they are unhappy with all 60+, they can only pick the one they feel most strongly about and ask for a re-evaluation of that 1 game with the reasons they believe the game needs to be moved.

Some people may well not be unhappy at all, may well have an issue with the same game as another person - therefore, the list of games in this thread to re-evaluate could well be a lot lower than 19. That's a worst case scenario. People have to feel very strongly about 1 game to ask for a re-evaluation, feel strongly enough that what ever reason they have outweighs the voice of a whole group, they must also provide a reason to be considered by EVERYONE as they will ALL have an opportunity to rate the game in question - if the 18 rate the game to be in the group it was originally, then it will stay, they could also rate the game lower or higher - but the point is, EVERYONE gets a chance to re-evaluate games in question and people can ONLY call into question 1 game from either group they were not a part of. They had their chance to have their say on games in their group already so its only the placement of 1 game from the other 2 groups and only of they feel so strongly enough too provide a reason and within the first 48hrs.

If they can't provide a reason, can't pick 1 game, not questioning any game from either group, can't do this within 48hrs of the results being posted, then there is no game to be revaluated from that individual BUT that individual can rate any other game(s) that may be up for re-evaluation.

At most, you will have 19 games being re-evaluated BUT the 'best' situation may well be no games up for re-evaluation because people are 'content' with the findings of the other groups and/or cannot provide a valid reason why they feel its incorrectly positioned.

I wouldn't be surprised if you get half a dozen games being re-evaluated with some weeks perhaps 0-2 games. For one person to overturn a whole 'group' decision, they have to feel strongly enough and provide their reasoning for wanting it re-evaluated. Its only going to be games that they have had no say and feel the group who decided its position were wrong.

You only have 48hrs to ask for a re-evaluation and the reason why - miss that and miss out! You can ONLY ask for a re-evaluation of games from the 2 groups you were not involved with and therefore didn't have an opportunity to speak out. You only have until Saturday to 'rate' any games that are up for re-evaluation. The results of the re-evaluation are FINAL - whether that means the game moves up, down or stays where it was. Re-evaluation does NOT mean the game will move, or move in the direction the person asking for re-evaluation wanted - the results are 'fair' because the results are based on the entire group of us.

48hrs after results day is plenty of time for people to ask for a re-evaluation and provide reasons, that includes a Monday when there are NO other evaluation taking place. Its not going to take someone 'hours' to drop into this thread to evaluate and rate any (if there are any) games and its literally just 1 visit before Saturday PM to copy the list and put their rating down.

If people are happy with ALL the games, ALL the categories they are placed in from either of the groups they were not in, then there is no need to ask for a re-evaluation or provide any reasons. If they don't check in the first 48hrs, its assumed they were happy and miss out on any chance to ask for a re-evaluation. They only need to pop in once, I assume they will be visiting more than that to participate in their groups, just too rate ANY (if there are any) games that have been questioned.

The purposes is to allow EVERYONE a chance to have their say on ANY of the games they had not been given the chance to - ie the other two groups. The purpose of the 're-evaluation' isn't to side with 1 person or another, but to have a bigger pool of people that can have their say and to try and position the game more accurately - if 6 haven't got it right in the eyes of 1, then 18/19 people will decide its place - not 1 person.

The reason it runs alongside and that individuals can ask is to give everyone an equal and fair opportunity to have their voice heard, not be out-voted by a 'team' and not be heard at all, get upset etc. The reason it runs alongside is to ensure that this does not run on and on. People only have 48hrs to register their reason they want a game re-evaluated and only until Saturday to rate any games in question. Is not interfering with the overall time this will run because this runs alongside - just 1 week behind.

If people can't find a reason to ask for a re-evaluation on any game from the two other groups, then its effectively them saying they are content with the decisions those groups came to. That's also 1 less game that could potentially be up for re-evaluation. Some games may well have more than 1 person asking for a re-evaluation, therefore that will reduce the number that are up for re-evaluation. At most, in a worst case scenario, all 19 of us can find fault with the placement of 19 different games. At best, EVERYONE is satisfied and cannot find enough fault to ask for an evaluation so NO games will need to be re-assessed. Most likely though is that we will see a handful of games that need revaluating - something that everyone can spend a few minutes rating so that these few games ends up in the group that we as a collective determined.

It certainly shouldn't impact massively on the individual groups and would make people feel more included in the 'full list' of games, feel that they do have a voice if necessary to speak out if they feel strongly enough rather than feel they can't because their voice can only be heard a few times.

I am only saying all of this to you as a mate, to try and make everyone feel included in every decision, a chance to have their say on any 'contentious' decisions so that at the end, they don't feel like they have been undermined or not able to have spoken out. You know me, I am all about making sure that everyone has an opportunity to have their say and look for a solution to make sure that they will be heard if they need to be. Also that if they do have a voice, that its not undermining or affecting others without at least a chance for everyone else to assess and find the correct answer. I am not questioning Jaz or their reasoning but I do think that they should be able to ask for a re-evaluation for EVERYONE to decide on which group it should be. Its not fair that 1 voice can carry more weight than 6. I am not saying that their 1 voice shouldn't be heard either but that 1 voice to provide a reason and ask that more voices are needed to evaluate the placement. Maybe with the evidence, everyone's rating determines that the 1 was right, maybe both were wrong and the real place is some where in between but the point is, that people can feel free to have their voice heard but in doing so, they are also asking for 'everyone' to reassess not dictating and making the efforts of one (or more) people, 1 or more persons opinion and evaluation pointless. I feel I cannot offer any opinion, cannot back my team on any findings they come to etc if 1 person can make all of that effort pointless and without reason. That 1 voice carrying more weight than 6 (again not referring to ANY veto - just the principal). I would and do feel undervalued that someone can, without any reason, decide that me and my team are incapable of coming to the right results and that there 1 voice carries much more weight to over rule a team of 6. Again not saying Jaz wasn't right or shouldn't be allowed to ask for a re-evaluation, just that they should be able to say and provide 'evidence' that my team, as well as both the other teams can take on board and collaborate to determine the rightful category. The argument that 1 person determined the category in the first place is no less valid than the group they decided it should be in was determined by just 1 person too. Essentially its 1 person vs 1 person so why not allow the others to get involved and decide? If everyone agrees with one of the two people, great - at least it was decided by a group. If people fall somewhere between 'so be it' at least it was a 'group decision...

This is going in circles so I will just say that EVERYONE should have 48hrs to look at the positioning of games in the 2 groups they were not involved in, decide if there is any 1 game in a category they are strongly disagreeing with, to then ask for a re-evaluation by everyone and the reasons why they believe it needs re-evaluating. If there are any games up for re-evaluation, everyone has a chance to decide which group the game(s) in question should belong to and to do so by Saturday.

If everyone is happy with the positioning of the games in the 2 groups they were not involved or don't ask for a re-evaluation with reasons why within 48hrs, then its too late. At most, 19 people will be unhappy with 19 different games (very unlikely) and at best everyone will be content with the categorisation of the games. Everyone can have a vote on any game up for re-evaluation so no 1 person has the total authority to position ANY game.

A pessimist is just an optimist with experience!

Why can't life be like gaming? Why can't I restart from an earlier checkpoint??

Feel free to add me but please send a message so I know where you know me from...

PSN: TaimeDowne

BAMozzy

@themcnoisy There are 7 people in my team yet only 1 'game' per round for ALL of us??? You are almost there - just need to allow EVERYONE an equal opportunity to have their opinion heard. Its not fair on those that feel very strongly on a certain game they have the most knowledge and experience on to be out-voted by the others

You have to allow everyone a chance, 48 hours to ask for a re-evaluation. If that's too much for you to handle or to organise I am more than willing and able to run this side - more than willing and able to do all the maths to determine the results - I can handle up to 19 games IF there are 19 unhappy people all unhappy with a different game!! I can run this no problem and think that this actually easier than trying to get a whole team to decide which if any game they wish to contest - that only annoys some people who don't get to have their 'choice' put forward, get outvoted on - how will you handle a tie? 6 (or 7 in my team), 2 or 3 different games meaning that 6x1, 3x2, 2x3 different votes, instead of letting all 6, maybe just 3 or even 2 different games being up for re-evaluation...

Having a Team Vote on this is just going to split teams up as they try and come to an agreement between 6/7 people which game they feel they need to contest - instead of letting everyone have a chance (if they want to - not saying everyone will every round - if that is the case then the whole situation is completely wrong and failing - you can't have 19 people unhappy with 19 different games every week!!) to put any game they felt needed to be re-assessed.

A pessimist is just an optimist with experience!

Why can't life be like gaming? Why can't I restart from an earlier checkpoint??

Feel free to add me but please send a message so I know where you know me from...

PSN: TaimeDowne

This topic has been archived, no further posts can be added.