I didn't submit anything as currently I don't have enough of willpower to browse through almost a thousand of titles then make some picks.
60 is not enough for a perfect list. A perfect list would be the one if all people on this planet voted so we're absolutely sure there is no statistical error.
Dunno if I said it before, I need an answer to a question acquaintances sometimes ask me "Just finished this and that RPG, what's also great to play next, any suggestion?".
We'll, hopefully, receive exactly the answer on that one as a list here, thus I can always pass it around.
Will a game that some would subjectivelly place at #1 be at #10 or some other spot on the list, doesn't matter as long as it's in there.
Heck, even 3 games are fine. I just merged all mentioned games in this thread and culled it from there. Don't overthink your picks either.But Joxer, surely the game on your best of the decade list would be ones that were very memorable. Ones that you smile when you think of playing them. If you look how others are voting all you need to do is think of somewhere between 1 and 20 games that you remember really enjoying and check if they were made after 2010.
Perhaps 'balance' was not the word I should have used. I don't mean to hijack the thread, and it's been years since I've played it, but… I took to making my own gear fairly early, maxing the skill, and was able to easily kill dragons barely halfway through the game. At the time I felt the challenge had disappeared and it became solely a story-driven game for me-- which is fine, but unfortunately the story didn't engage me enough to keep plodding along in depressing winterscape.
The only thing you get is a a better result for the rear positions in the final list which I'd argue aren't that important. This is a vote for the game of the decade, not for the top 100 of the decade.Because that will only work with many voters? With only 60 voters a more detailed list of games leads to a more accurate result I suppose.
I wouldn't call it a bias but rather wasted votes.Although the varying sizes of those lists between people could lead to bias. I'm sure lackblogger figured it all out
The only thing you get is a a better result for the rear positions in the final list which I'd argue aren't that important. This is a vote for the game of the decade, not for the top 100 of the decade.
I wouldn't call it a bias but rather wasted votes.
I assume lackblogger will give each voter the same voting weight. So if the first voter votes for two games, each game gets a weight of 0.5. If the second votes for 20 games without specifying weights, every game gets 0.05. So the actual favorite game of the second voter gets only 10% of the weight compared to the first voter.
That's why I guess long lists don't make sense from a voter's perspective.
I think we should leave that with lackblogger. I don't think a discussion on the process used is going to help as their will always be people with a better idea (or worst idea) on how to solve it.How do you weigh votes that had been given as a sorted list if no weighting had been specified?