Community RPG Codex 2023 GOTY - POLL IS CLOSED!

[Lord_Potato]

So, let me throw a hypothetical scenario at you. Let's say that there's a person out there, we'll call him NotNotSweeper, and let's say that this person hasn't played any of the titles listed for Codex GOTY 2023, including BG3, but he has a burning desire to rate BG3 a 0. Would you consider it unethical to do so?

you will, ironically, help it win by doing so. the more people play something, even rating it low, increases the chance of it winning

Yeah, the way the results of GOTY voting are calculated is considetably edgelord-resistant.

That's why every year it causes so much butthurt in here.

 

[Sweeper]

You'd have to be a fucking retard to be upset by that, JA3 is fucking great

It seems like that Balkanigger is strongly opinionated about your opinions.

 

[Mr. Magniloquent]

The vote format is better than prior years. That said, I'll be abstaining from this one. Accordingly to this list, none of the CRPGs I played were released in 2023. I bought a few, but I am letting them idle for a year to be patch and content complete, as is customary among the prudent.

 

[notpl]

Hero's Adventure, Lies of P, and Jagged Alliance 3. Not the best year, but far from the worst.

 

[Viata]

Doubtful unless they're self-published on some obscure Thai website or something

Itch.io has a lot of games being released every day, how many of them have you ever heard about?

 

[flyingjohn]

I have too much of a backlog to even attempt to play any of these games. Maybe in 2050 I will play the codex 2023 top goty.

 

[harhar!]

So, let me throw a hypothetical scenario at you. Let's say that there's a person out there, we'll call him NotNotSweeper, and let's say that this person hasn't played any of the titles listed for Codex GOTY 2023, including BG3, but he has a burning desire to rate BG3 a 0. Would you consider it unethical to do so?

you will, ironically, help it win by doing so. the more people play something, even rating it low, increases the chance of it winning

That's not how Bayesian average works. For two games with the same (>3) average rating the game with more votes will generally have a higher Bayesian average. However, the critical condition is "same average". You obviously lower that average by giving a game the minimum rating. So, overall, you lower the Bayesian average by voting low, as you would expect. You can check previous polls and compare games with 2x 1/5 and 1x 5/5 with those receiving 1x 1/5 and 1x 5/5. The latter will have a higher Bayesian average than the former.

 

[jaekl]

I played 3 games on this whole list. Jagged alliance 3 was the best of the 3 but it has such atrocious artwork and writing that it doesn't deserve an award really.

Lies of P is so forgettable that I forgot it even existed.

Lords of the fallen was borderline criminal to charge $100 for.

I also voted 1 on the wrath of the righteous expansions because I paid for the base game and it was one of the worst things I've ever had the displeasure of reading in my whole life.

 

[Vyvian]

I love that it defaults on Didn't play because nobody here plays games anymore.
I know I don't!

 

[agris]

That's not how Bayesian average works. For two games with the same (>3) average rating the game with more votes will generally have a higher Bayesian average. However, the critical condition is "same average". You obviously lower that average by giving a game the minimum rating.

the underlined portion of what you wrote is exactly why i said what i said. it is true what you wrote, but it also my expectation that BG3 will be ranked 3-4 by many people, thus the few 1s do nothing to materially lower the aggregate score while increasing the number of votes recorded for the game - tipping BG3 over less played but similarly ranked games.

it's that expectation, that BG3 will field a high number of positive reviews, that gives rise to my advice

plus, voting for something you didn't play because you don't like it for philosophical reasons is weak. the fact that there's a quantitative justification for my moral position makes the position easier to advocate for

 

[Lord of Riva]

Since it's already come up repeatedly, i'm going to go ahead and confess: I voted on some games I watched greater than 3 hours of footage of (mostly livestreams) even though I didn't play them.

These games were Lies of P (5 stars, actually the best thing that came out this year and already familiar with the subgenre.)

BG3, and Starfield (0 stars, it doesn't take a genius to figure out these are some of the worst RPGs of '23, if not the decade. You can already smell and see shit, you don't have to bend down and taste it to figure out it's shit.)

And yes, as previously discussed, the negative ratings were motivated by a combination of "I'd rather sound my cock with rusty rebar than play this." and "This game doesn't deserve to be Top 3 ANYTHING."

I might have voted on a few others, I'm not sure. Perhaps we should do a recount, along with including more games in the vote. I'm also ok with having my votes nullified, if that's an option.

This has to be one of the weirdest phenomena's in modern society.

Watching other people play games online is still an odd concept to me, but to then rate games on what you're seeing is just baffling.

I remember seeing screens of Flicky in mags and thinking it looked garbage, but playing it was addictive as hell and it's still miles better than half the dross churned out now. Yet if I'd have rated it on just what I saw, both via those screens and in the arcades, I'd have given it a 1/5.

When the next Codex top 100 games list comes around, only votes with mini-reviews which display the player has actually played the game to a respectable degree should count.

I disagree, I think it's really odd to Vote something as good if you have not played it, without the context of gameplay it's impossible to understand if you would enjoy gameplay aspects like controls and all. So Voting a 5 on lies of P is not warranted, it's impossible to know. The best you can do this way is "this looks really interesting and enjoyable to me".

However that is not true for the opposite: You can easily gauge from a video if you would not enjoy a game, by understanding it's themes, story, seeing it's graphics and all. That the gameplay might be better than the rest is irrelevant, nobody is going to play a game when everything but the gameplay is shit.

A "I'm never going to play it, because it's shit/looks disgusting/the content disgusts me or whatever" is a valid zero in such a Vote in my opinion.

 

[Falksi]

Since it's already come up repeatedly, i'm going to go ahead and confess: I voted on some games I watched greater than 3 hours of footage of (mostly livestreams) even though I didn't play them.

These games were Lies of P (5 stars, actually the best thing that came out this year and already familiar with the subgenre.)

BG3, and Starfield (0 stars, it doesn't take a genius to figure out these are some of the worst RPGs of '23, if not the decade. You can already smell and see shit, you don't have to bend down and taste it to figure out it's shit.)

And yes, as previously discussed, the negative ratings were motivated by a combination of "I'd rather sound my cock with rusty rebar than play this." and "This game doesn't deserve to be Top 3 ANYTHING."

I might have voted on a few others, I'm not sure. Perhaps we should do a recount, along with including more games in the vote. I'm also ok with having my votes nullified, if that's an option.

This has to be one of the weirdest phenomena's in modern society.

Watching other people play games online is still an odd concept to me, but to then rate games on what you're seeing is just baffling.

I remember seeing screens of Flicky in mags and thinking it looked garbage, but playing it was addictive as hell and it's still miles better than half the dross churned out now. Yet if I'd have rated it on just what I saw, both via those screens and in the arcades, I'd have given it a 1/5.

When the next Codex top 100 games list comes around, only votes with mini-reviews which display the player has actually played the game to a respectable degree should count.

I disagree, I think it's really odd to Vote something as good if you have not played it, without the context of gameplay it's impossible to understand if you would enjoy gameplay aspects like controls and all. So Voting a 5 on lies of P is not warranted, it's impossible to know. The best you can do this way is "this looks really interesting and enjoyable to me".

However that is not true for the opposite: You can easily gauge from a video if you would not enjoy a game, by understanding it's themes, story, seeing it's graphics and all. That the gameplay might be better than the rest is irrelevant, nobody is going to play a game when everything but the gameplay is shit.

A "I'm never going to play it, because it's shit/looks disgusting/the content disgusts me or whatever" is a valid zero in such a Vote in my opinion.

Yeah? You never tried a game which you thought looked, sounded and seemed shit only to thoroughly love it?

I've done that on numerous occasions (Flicky, Starflight, the Exile games etc.)

 

[Viata]

Which sums up to: it's rare to give 1 to a game because you wouldn't buy a game you decided it was shit thanks to gameplay videos. The only way to give 1/5 to a game is because you kickstarted it and when it was released, you found out it was shit.

 

[Lord of Riva]

Since it's already come up repeatedly, i'm going to go ahead and confess: I voted on some games I watched greater than 3 hours of footage of (mostly livestreams) even though I didn't play them.

These games were Lies of P (5 stars, actually the best thing that came out this year and already familiar with the subgenre.)

BG3, and Starfield (0 stars, it doesn't take a genius to figure out these are some of the worst RPGs of '23, if not the decade. You can already smell and see shit, you don't have to bend down and taste it to figure out it's shit.)

And yes, as previously discussed, the negative ratings were motivated by a combination of "I'd rather sound my cock with rusty rebar than play this." and "This game doesn't deserve to be Top 3 ANYTHING."

I might have voted on a few others, I'm not sure. Perhaps we should do a recount, along with including more games in the vote. I'm also ok with having my votes nullified, if that's an option.

This has to be one of the weirdest phenomena's in modern society.

Watching other people play games online is still an odd concept to me, but to then rate games on what you're seeing is just baffling.

I remember seeing screens of Flicky in mags and thinking it looked garbage, but playing it was addictive as hell and it's still miles better than half the dross churned out now. Yet if I'd have rated it on just what I saw, both via those screens and in the arcades, I'd have given it a 1/5.

When the next Codex top 100 games list comes around, only votes with mini-reviews which display the player has actually played the game to a respectable degree should count.

I disagree, I think it's really odd to Vote something as good if you have not played it, without the context of gameplay it's impossible to understand if you would enjoy gameplay aspects like controls and all. So Voting a 5 on lies of P is not warranted, it's impossible to know. The best you can do this way is "this looks really interesting and enjoyable to me".

However that is not true for the opposite: You can easily gauge from a video if you would not enjoy a game, by understanding it's themes, story, seeing it's graphics and all. That the gameplay might be better than the rest is irrelevant, nobody is going to play a game when everything but the gameplay is shit.

A "I'm never going to play it, because it's shit/looks disgusting/the content disgusts me or whatever" is a valid zero in such a Vote in my opinion.

Yeah? You never tried a game which you thought looked, sounded and seemed shit only to thoroughly love it?

I've done that on numerous occasions (Flicky, Starflight, the Exile games etc.)

If that were the case, I would not have such a opinion now, would I?

No, if a game plays good but it looked sounded and seemed shit it was always played with disdain as in "Why is that gameplay in this shit game".
Devil may cry 2 was such a game, coming from 1 it was a huge improvement, gameplay wise but it was so incredible shit, looking back I would say it's a really shit game, even If the gameplay was good.

 

[harhar!]

That's not how Bayesian average works. For two games with the same (>3) average rating the game with more votes will generally have a higher Bayesian average. However, the critical condition is "same average". You obviously lower that average by giving a game the minimum rating.

the underlined portion of what you wrote is exactly why i said what i said. it is true what you wrote, but it also my expectation that BG3 will be ranked 3-4 by many people, thus the few 1s do nothing to materially lower the aggregate score while increasing the number of votes recorded for the game - tipping BG3 over less played but similarly ranked games.

it's that expectation, that BG3 will field a high number of positive reviews, that gives rise to my advice

plus, voting for something you didn't play because you don't like it for philosophical reasons is weak. the fact that there's a quantitative justification for my moral position makes the position easier to advocate for

By the same token, if already a lot of people have voted for a particular game, the marginal vote does not strongly impact the precision of the estimate. So, overall, the rating should drop.

 

[Mebrilia the Viera Queen]

Spoiler

And they're both really fucking good holy shit the incline is reeeeaaaaall

ftfy

Ftfy

She is baiting you, probably Mebrilia the Viera Queen alt or her transbian (((GF))). Ignore thots.

I've no relation to her at all, though I'll admit to a wee bit of baiting.

Like if i need an alt to bait people. Even only existing in the codex is a reason enough for people to get triggered.

 

[raeven]

Spoiler

And they're both really fucking good holy shit the incline is reeeeaaaaall

ftfy

Ftfy

She is baiting you, probably Mebrilia the Viera Queen alt or her transbian (((GF))). Ignore thots.

I've no relation to her at all, though I'll admit to a wee bit of baiting.

Like if i need an alt to bait people. Even only existing in the codex is a reason enough for people to get triggered.

Or to cause them to research your post history and make conjectures about its implications, apparently.

 

[Mebrilia the Viera Queen]

Spoiler

And they're both really fucking good holy shit the incline is reeeeaaaaall

ftfy

Ftfy

She is baiting you, probably Mebrilia the Viera Queen alt or her transbian (((GF))). Ignore thots.

I've no relation to her at all, though I'll admit to a wee bit of baiting.

Like if i need an alt to bait people. Even only existing in the codex is a reason enough for people to get triggered.

Or to cause them to research your post history and make conjectures about its implications, apparently.

Look if this is how they want to spend their free time perfectly alright for me it is their time after all. If i post or not is not important seems i live rent free in this people mind.

 

[Cohesion]

Coincidence
Grats on learning how to use VPN.

 

[OSK]

Is Baldur's Gate 3 actually bad gameplay-wise? I haven't paid any attention to it and only know about the bear memes.

Is it hated because it's mainstream? Because it's shallow/dumbed down? Because it has nothing to do with the first two? Because it's woke? Because it's not made in some former soviet shithole? All of the above?

 

[Mebrilia the Viera Queen]

Is Baldur's Gate 3 actually bad gameplay-wise? I haven't paid any attention to it and only know about the bear memes.

Is it hated because it's mainstream? Because it's shallow/dumbed down? Because it has nothing to do with the first two? Because it's woke? Because it's not made in some former soviet shithole? All of the above?

It is hated because is an old codex tradition to shit on things new that are not made up of pixel art or 20 years outdated concepts. There is also politimonger culture war nutjobs of course that get triggered by their own shadow but in the end like it or not the BG3 thread is very active and there are a lot of people in the codex that enjoyed the game. Is a well crafted game. Way better than autism low bar project like Solasta or Knight of the Chalice (that don't allow you even to biclass)

 

[Mebrilia the Viera Queen]

View attachment 46725
Coincidence
Grats on learning how to use VPN.

You know that if you quote an answer that contains more quotes you get alerts right? I mean... is not rocket science.

 

[raeven]

View attachment 46725
Coincidence
Grats on learning how to use VPN.

It's called notifications. Fucking chill, dude.

 

[Strange Fellow]

Is Baldur's Gate 3 actually bad gameplay-wise?

No.

Is it hated because it's mainstream?

Yes.

Because it's shallow/dumbed down?

No.

Because it has nothing to do with the first two?

Yes.

Because it's woke?

Yes.

Because it's not made in some former soviet shithole?

I'm pretty sure Belgium counts, so no.

 

[raeven]

Is Baldur's Gate 3 actually bad gameplay-wise?

No.

Is it hated because it's mainstream?

Yes.

Because it's shallow/dumbed down?

No.

Because it has nothing to do with the first two?

Yes.

Because it's woke?

Yes.

Because it's not made in some former soviet shithole?

I'm pretty sure Belgium counts, so no.

What this guy said.

Uh, except for the belgium thing, idk what that was all about