List of the best games of all time

[felipepepe]

Question is, should everybody be able to vote, or only people who've been on this site for at least a year?

Also, how long do we keep this open, 1 month, 2 weeks?

Minimum 1 year at the Codex, and it should be open just for like 1 week, maybe 2. In all the polls I've done we get like 70% of the votes in the first 3 days.

BTW, thinking of:

5 games for 5 points
5 games for 3 points
10 games for 1 point

Just to get more interesting results. And no sub-genres at first, it's easier to add them later than to remove them.

 

[DJOGamer PT]

What's your thing with small numbers? 10 is too little.
I can nominate 10 great games in the brawler subgenre alone.
The limit should be 50 games.

 

[samuraigaiden]

I nominate Minecraft for best action adventure game!

 

[felipepepe]

What's your thing with small numbers? 10 is too little.
I can nominate 10 great games in the brawler subgenre alone.
The limit should be at least 50 games.

We're doing a best games of all time list, not "games that I played once and liked it a lot a few years ago" list.

 

[Reality]

The only thing that matters is whether coin-op games get represented by more than one game

 

[Zboj Lamignat]

Question is, should everybody be able to vote, or only people who've been on this site for at least a year?

Also, how long do we keep this open, 1 month, 2 weeks?

Minimum 1 year at the Codex, and it should be open just for like 1 week, maybe 2. In all the polls I've done we get like 70% of the votes in the first 3 days.

BTW, thinking of:

5 games for 5 points
5 games for 3 points
10 games for 1 point

Just to get more interesting results. And no sub-genres at first, it's easier to add them later than to remove them.

Naming 20 games is cool, but I don't think I would be able to even semi-objectively decide what deserves #4 vs #6 or whatever. The only thing I know is that I would put HoMM3 at #1, because I've wasted so much of my goddamned life on that gaem there is no other option.

 

[DJOGamer PT]

What's your thing with small numbers? 10 is too little.
I can nominate 10 great games in the brawler subgenre alone.
The limit should be at least 50 games.

We're doing a best games of all time list, not "games that I played once and liked it a lot a few years ago" list.

Exactely, best games of multiple genres, not just one. When you did the best RPG's list last year, we could vote up to 25 games. But now that there's a much bigger pool of game to choose from we're suposed to be severely more limited to the point we can't even choose 1 game for each sub-genre.

 

[Citizen]

Igavania over a Classicvania?

Welcome to iggy-bin-vania

 

[Dramart]

Minimum 1 year at the Codex

Minimum three months

 

[DalekFlay]

All platforms should be included. Computers, consoles and arcade.
I should be possible to vote for pong, mega man 2, street fighter 2 or nba jam

Can't wait for some fucking Nintendo game to be the Codex's best game of all time. The decline will be complete.

 

[Alphard]

Minimum 1 year at the Codex

Minimum three months

i'd say 6 months , but 3 is good too

 

[Reality]

What is the record for number of responses for polls outside of General RPGs and Site Feedback? - I see that the top JRPG poll couldn't even get 6 pages, and obviously polls that aren't in the WRPG forum on a WRPG website get low response numbers in general.

 

[Valky]

I see absolutely no way this idea could possibly go wrong.

 

[fantadomat]

But shouldn't all the best games of time be rpgs,thus making such a list redundant when we have the best rpg one?

 

[HarveyBirdman]

A ranked list is pointless. It's already a dubious structure for rating RPGs.
What's the use of a top 10? What makes the top 10 better than the top 11? Why not the top 7? It's totally arbitrary.
It'll be even more ridiculous when you bring every other genre into the mix.

I suggest a tiered ranking.
Tiered rankings allow us to stop jostling over who gets into the arbitrary top 10 list, and instead lets us focus on whether something is good.

An example of a tiered ranking:
- Masterpiece Tier
- Excellent Tier
- Great Tier
- Good Tier
- Decent Tier

Let people put whatever games they want into those tiers.
Assign a point value to each tier. Maybe...
- Masterpiece = 5 points
- Excellent = 4 points
- Great = 3 points
- Good = 2 points
- Decent = 1 point

Add up all the points for each title, and then order them by totals.
Like this:
- Game de la Perfección = 590 points
- Game A = 562 points
- Game B = 501 points
- Game C = 498 points
...
- Game X = 25 points
- Game Y = 19 points
- Game Z = 3 points

In this example, we have a range of 3 - 590; a 587 point differential.
To place the games into their respective tiers (there are 5 tiers), divide by 5 to find where we separate the tiers.
587 / 5 = 117.4
Round down = 117.

Therefore, games in each tier have a point range.
- Masterpiece = 473-590 points
- Excellent = 356-472 points
- Great = 239-355 points
- Good = 122-239 points
- Decent = 3-122 points

It's not an exact science, but I think this a pretty good way to do things.
And if you think the ranges (especially at top levels) don't make much sense, than just weight them differently.
Here's one way to play with it.

Say we want to split the masterpiece range into two levels -- the upper 1/3 might be "God Tier" and then the remaining 2/3 might be "Masterpiece Tier."
So we would see...
- God Tier= 551-590
- Masterpiece Tier = 473-550 points
- Excellent Tier = 356-472 points
- Great Tier = 239-355 points
- Good Tier = 122-239 points
- Decent Tier = 3-122 points

Or let's say there's a huge gap between games in the 238 (thus missing the "Great Tier" by 1 point) and 355 point range.
Well, we could just drop the "Great Tier" range down a point to reflect reality instead of forcing our preferences to fit a number system.

A tiered ranking system gives us both the flexibility and specificity we need to group games into categories that make sense.

 

[felipepepe]

It's totally arbitrary.

I like how you say that, then proceed to create a system that's 10 times more arbitrary.

 

[Grauken]

It's totally arbitrary.

I like how you say that, then proceed to create a system that's 10 times more arbitrary.

His system has fake complexity to hide its arbitrariness, that's a good way to convince sheep that his system is more useful when its everything but

 

[Beggar]

Kings Field 4 belongs in that list as a top tier video game among the greatest of them

 

[Dramart]

Spoiler

A ranked list is pointless. It's already a dubious structure for rating RPGs.
What's the use of a top 10? What makes the top 10 better than the top 11? Why not the top 7? It's totally arbitrary.
It'll be even more ridiculous when you bring every other genre into the mix.

I suggest a tiered ranking.
Tiered rankings allow us to stop jostling over who gets into the arbitrary top 10 list, and instead lets us focus on whether something is good.

An example of a tiered ranking:
- Masterpiece Tier
- Excellent Tier
- Great Tier
- Good Tier
- Decent Tier

Let people put whatever games they want into those tiers.
Assign a point value to each tier. Maybe...
- Masterpiece = 5 points
- Excellent = 4 points
- Great = 3 points
- Good = 2 points
- Decent = 1 point

Add up all the points for each title, and then order them by totals.
Like this:
- Game de la Perfección = 590 points
- Game A = 562 points
- Game B = 501 points
- Game C = 498 points
...
- Game X = 25 points
- Game Y = 19 points
- Game Z = 3 points

In this example, we have a range of 3 - 590; a 587 point differential.
To place the games into their respective tiers (there are 5 tiers), divide by 5 to find where we separate the tiers.
587 / 5 = 117.4
Round down = 117.

Therefore, games in each tier have a point range.
- Masterpiece = 473-590 points
- Excellent = 356-472 points
- Great = 239-355 points
- Good = 122-239 points
- Decent = 3-122 points

It's not an exact science, but I think this a pretty good way to do things.
And if you think the ranges (especially at top levels) don't make much sense, than just weight them differently.
Here's one way to play with it.

Say we want to split the masterpiece range into two levels -- the upper 1/3 might be "God Tier" and then the remaining 2/3 might be "Masterpiece Tier."
So we would see...
- God Tier= 551-590
- Masterpiece Tier = 473-550 points
- Excellent Tier = 356-472 points
- Great Tier = 239-355 points
- Good Tier = 122-239 points
- Decent Tier = 3-122 points

Or let's say there's a huge gap between games in the 238 (thus missing the "Great Tier" by 1 point) and 355 point range.
Well, we could just drop the "Great Tier" range down a point to reflect reality instead of forcing our preferences to fit a number system.

A tiered ranking system gives us both the flexibility and specificity we need to group games into categories that make sense.

Your method is also ranked and it's too complicated. Besides, the winner is going to be Zelda or Mario or something like that, or an jrpg like FFVII or Chrono Trigger. You opened my eyes, this list is a foolish thing to do.

 

[DJOGamer PT]

It's totally arbitrary.

I like how you say that, then proceed to create a system that's 10 times more arbitrary.

Just give 50 points to each person with the limitation that they can only use up to 5 points for each game.

 

[HarveyBirdman]

It's totally arbitrary.

I like how you say that, then proceed to create a system that's 10 times more arbitrary.

Not an argument.

This is an argument:

At its core, the ranking system fundamentally mischaracterizes how good a game is, rendering the whole system arbitrary.
Is PST really 2,000% better than Wizardry 8?
Is Dragon's Dogma really 4,000% better than Diablo 2?
The proposition is absurd, because rankings are absurd in this context. What the hell do those comparisons even mean? Good question, but that's exactly what our current Top 101 results say.

For a ranking to make any sense whatsoever, we would all need to judge games based on a controlled set of criteria. This is how sports work: first place in a race runs fastest, the Kansas City Chiefs won the Super Bowl, and Tyson Fury put Deontay Wilder into the dirt.
What if we voted to determine the placement results for college basketball teams in the NCAA tournament? It wouldn't work. It would be insane. It would be, dare I say, arbitrary.

Placing games into tiers is an infinitely better alternative to a ranking system for lots of reasons, but primarily because a tiered system lets us more adequately compare games of a certain caliber.

 

[HarveyBirdman]

Spoiler

A ranked list is pointless. It's already a dubious structure for rating RPGs.
What's the use of a top 10? What makes the top 10 better than the top 11? Why not the top 7? It's totally arbitrary.
It'll be even more ridiculous when you bring every other genre into the mix.

I suggest a tiered ranking.
Tiered rankings allow us to stop jostling over who gets into the arbitrary top 10 list, and instead lets us focus on whether something is good.

An example of a tiered ranking:
- Masterpiece Tier
- Excellent Tier
- Great Tier
- Good Tier
- Decent Tier

Let people put whatever games they want into those tiers.
Assign a point value to each tier. Maybe...
- Masterpiece = 5 points
- Excellent = 4 points
- Great = 3 points
- Good = 2 points
- Decent = 1 point

Add up all the points for each title, and then order them by totals.
Like this:
- Game de la Perfección = 590 points
- Game A = 562 points
- Game B = 501 points
- Game C = 498 points
...
- Game X = 25 points
- Game Y = 19 points
- Game Z = 3 points

In this example, we have a range of 3 - 590; a 587 point differential.
To place the games into their respective tiers (there are 5 tiers), divide by 5 to find where we separate the tiers.
587 / 5 = 117.4
Round down = 117.

Therefore, games in each tier have a point range.
- Masterpiece = 473-590 points
- Excellent = 356-472 points
- Great = 239-355 points
- Good = 122-239 points
- Decent = 3-122 points

It's not an exact science, but I think this a pretty good way to do things.
And if you think the ranges (especially at top levels) don't make much sense, than just weight them differently.
Here's one way to play with it.

Say we want to split the masterpiece range into two levels -- the upper 1/3 might be "God Tier" and then the remaining 2/3 might be "Masterpiece Tier."
So we would see...
- God Tier= 551-590
- Masterpiece Tier = 473-550 points
- Excellent Tier = 356-472 points
- Great Tier = 239-355 points
- Good Tier = 122-239 points
- Decent Tier = 3-122 points

Or let's say there's a huge gap between games in the 238 (thus missing the "Great Tier" by 1 point) and 355 point range.
Well, we could just drop the "Great Tier" range down a point to reflect reality instead of forcing our preferences to fit a number system.

A tiered ranking system gives us both the flexibility and specificity we need to group games into categories that make sense.

Your method is also ranked and it's too complicated. Besides, the winner is going to be Zelda or Mario or something like that, or an jrpg like FFVII or Chrono Trigger. You opened my eyes, this list is a foolish thing to do.

Ranked by tiers, not by discrete numerical slots. It lets us compare a class of games instead of a Top Whatever of games.

Maybe my specific proposal isn't the best method. I think it's pretty good, and honestly don't see how it's complicated. You only have to do addition and then a single, simple division problem.
But regardless, a tiered system is definitely the way to go if we go at all.

 

[Jason Liang]

Look. Do you guys really want to do this?

I'm making the thread.

for chrissakes

 

[Lemming42]

Yes, let's do it. I don't even care about what kind of batshit mental rating system we end up using at this point.

 

[Gregz]

Look. Do you guys really want to do this?

I'm making the thread.

for chrissakes

felipepepe are you planning on doing it? I think it would be useful. We'd each discover a few games that we haven't played that have the KKK seal of approval. Ignore these edgelords and use your best methodology. I trust you with this more than anyone else on the board.

If you don't have time please let us know.