VideoGame_Discussion

Shane12m wrote:

Games thst don't get a ton of press don't get a ton of reviews. I think 11 reviews is plenty. Apogee has been doing some cool things lately to make themselves relevant again.

benstylus wrote:

11 reviews is definitely not enough in my opinion. You add 5 reviews to that game that are mixed in the 70s or 80s and that drastically changes the overall score

Shane12m wrote:

Those games are not games anyone would even have on their list though. So you don't have to worry about that. And there are only 3 games above 90 that have 11 or less that would be eligible for this. And there is no way anyone here knew they existed before their lists were submitted.

Archer wrote:

Fair point :)

Archer wrote:

I knew about Turbo Overkill since I'm on Apogee's discord. But my list this year was all games that hadn't even been announced at the time

benstylus wrote:

I'd wager even with you knowing about it, you still wouldn't have put it on your list.

Archer wrote:

Not this year, this year was for unannounced games that probably wouldn't happen (but surprisingly 3 of them were announced, although 2 of those are 2024 releases).

Missed the boat on Lego (2K drive came out but I had called for Comic book lego game).

Also missed out on Tetris because although MyArcade released a new handheld with a custom version of the game on there, I don't think it got any metacritic reviews.

But I think I did all right with predictions on what would be announced or released, all things considered.

Talos Principle 2 has an 87 wow. Loved the first game.

I remember really liking the first game. I think it was free on PS+ at some point on PS4, like 5-6 years ago. I'll have to check the second one out at some point.

Okay guys, OP has been updated with scores for Like a Dragon Gaiden (79 on Metacritic) and WarioWare: Move It! (75 on Metacritic). I think those are the last two games for the year, but I'll go through later on just to confirm that. If those are the last two then I'll do a final tally, add alternates to people's final score, and we can wrap things up for 2023!

I'm on the board!

Of the mainline WarioWare games (meaning not counting the two low effort spin-offs on DSiWare and WiiWare or Game & Wario which was more of just a tech demo for the Wii U GamePad than anything), this is the lowest rated game in the series now. I almost picked it up on Friday when I was at Walmart but talked myself out of it because I know from the previous game that once I've played all the mini-games I will probably never play it again.

I think part of the problem is that it feels like we just had WarioWare get it together releases not too long ago.

Looking at Wikipedia it was 2 years ago but it's not really a series we need refreshed very often IMO.

Also i was pulling for a new Wario platformer

Okay peeps. I've updated the OP and everything is now final. @Shane12m finished 1st, @Best1989 finished 2nd, and I just held off @PizzaTheHutt for 3rd place. Wild year and congrats to both Shane and Best. I'll send you guys PMs with your prizes in a few minutes.

Such a wild year. Everyone has gotten much better at this game and I think this has to be one of the best years in gaming history, at least as far as review scores are concerned. So many games scored over 90. @TalonJedi87 finished 10th with 863 points but that would have been enough to finish 1st last year!

Tears of the Kingdom and Baldur's Gate III both scored 96 and were the best reviewed games on our lists. Forspoken (64) and Redfall (56) were the two most disappointing high-profile games. Those two definitely killed a few lists.

Thanks for participating everyone! I'll have the 2024 edition up and running sometime in December.

@DemonAlcohol @PizzaTheHutt @EB @TalonJedi87 @benstylus @sailorneorune @Bleed_DukeBlue @HybridCRoW @Incubus421 @SwiftJAB @Roko @Thatfootballguy @SilverOwl @Shane12m @Frank @SupremeSarna @Cevil @BloodPuppetX @Sefjwm @Ryan @Bogo @Boss @Archer @Scott @Lunar @Tonymack21 @Mattyg00013 @Bonham2 @Metsfan718 @Best1989 @3hitcombo @Jbjz

Thanks so much @Heavyd814life ! I already have my tentative 2024 list ready and waiting!

Dang, really thought I had top 5 this year...missed it by 2 points!

It was a close one for sure. Alan Wake II dropping from 90 to 87 cost me 3rd place.

This was a fun year. Congrats to the top three.

Next year the winner will only have a score of 724, due to it being the worst year on record, lol.

How does this work? It's based off of predictions on what scores/ratings upcoming games will get?

Woo got to 7 in the end, not bad for an insane year

nonamesleft wrote:


Yup. Pick 10 games in January (with two alternates as a backup plan in case any of your 10 get delayed) that you expect will score high and by the end of the year the scores are added up.

@Heavyd814life Are you still considering switching to use opencritic next year?

Crazy year indeed, congrats to all!

Archer wrote:

Yeah definitely. They have a better overall system, imo.

Does anyone have any suggestions for changes/tweaks we could make? I think we have a pretty solid setup here, but I'm definitely open to suggestions.

I'm not sure if it's been suggested or done before but is it better to essentially have highest of the 12 picks instead of using the 2 back up in case of delay? Not sure if it's better but just a thought.

If you get a dud and can still have a chance and not eliminated on the spot.

Made it to the top 10. Not gonna complain about that.

Looking forward to 2024!

Lunar wrote:

I disagree completely with this. It ads another layer to making your picks. Its part of the player strategy. We've actually had a lot of discussion about this in the past. And its usually a split down the middle on who thinks we should and who doesn't. But this is something I strongly believe should not be changed. It takes an element of strategy away from the game.

Oh wow I just realized I finished in the #10 spot. I’ll take it! Next year come on #9!

Heavyd814life wrote:

The less complicated the better, honestly.

Allowing remakes but not remasters is a confusing rule that could probably be dropped.

Heavyd814life wrote:

The less complicated the better, honestly.

Allowing remakes but not remasters is a confusing rule that could probably be dropped.

I understand the "no ports" rule but where would something like Mario 3D World + Bowser's Fury land, for example? Yes it's a port but it had a sizeable amount more added on to it. (Thankfully we're just about out of Wii U games that could be ported with little effort to switch). Then you look at something like Ghost Trick. Is that a port or a remaster? And would allowing ports skew the results that much?

I don't know, maybe require at least one Indie game in the ten

Time for the yearly remake-vs-remaster conversation!

I'm fine with the current setup.

No remakes/remasters. It's usually an easy, lazy high score and requires no strategy.

I don’t mind true remakes like Resident Evil 4 or the upcoming Silent Hill 2 for example but yeah like ported remasters can be omitted imo.

Kommie wrote:

I agree that if we ban remasters we should ban remakes.

I just don't see a need to ban any of it

I don’t think we should make any changes regarding remakes. A remake is still a game built from the ground up using new hardware and technology. I think that would be silly to disallow them.

@Heavyd814life I'm fine with the current rules, but I really wouldn't care if you made changes either. I just have fun participating, and don't take it too seriously. You do all the work and put up the prizes, so, while it's nice to gather some input, I think you should just go with whichever rules you like

Same I just enjoy guessing. I say leave it as is too.

Here I was hoping for new suggestions, but we are back to the same old arguments lol. I'm with @Archer on keeping alts. Just making it 10 or even 12 games would take all the strategy out of it and no one will ever take risks because one delay and you're cooked for the year. Someone who picks all the Q1 games, for example, could win by default if just one popular game gets delayed. Alts allow things to stay competitive all year, imo.

And the remake/remaster debate will never end lol. But we go over it every year and we end up just keeping things as they are. I think these full remakes are such a big part of modern gaming and I don't know if it makes much sense to remove them. And there are no guarantees. Who knows how Snake Eater and Silent Hill 2 will turn out. Sure Resident Evil 4 scored in the 90s, but let's not forget that Resident Evil 3 was in the 70s. When it's built from the ground up you never know. That's part of the beauty of it, imo.

Maybe we should just keep things as they are. Everyone is familiar with the rules and I think the rules are simple enough for newcomers to understand. Maybe just don't complicate things.

Thanks for hosting as always. Looking forward to another year.

As always thanks for hosting!

Thoughts on current rules:
-i like the 10 +2 format
-definitely support opencritic
-the current re make/master setup is fine...the yearly convos are just comedy at this point

New thoughts:
-Heavy mentioned it, but adding in some sort of mandatory listing (indie/sport/whatever) could be interesting
-possibly have a mid-year review where we can make minimal changes? (like: "everyone can make 1 change") its not enough to make a huge difference, but at least makes things a bit more interesting
-would love to figure out a way to limit how many lists a certain game can be on...just kinda boring when 28 of the 30 have the same game on it.

Would love to do a fantasy football draft style game one year but there's absolutely no way to do that with this many people lol

bogo wrote:

You could always do bonus points for games not picked by others.

Adds another risk/reward element.

Maybe +10 points if no one else picks it, +5 points if 1 or 2 other people pick it, and no bonus points if 3 or more other people pick it. With the caveat that a game that doesn't get a score due to not enough reviews, or gets delayed to 2025 does not get the bonus pointsl

The big name games still get big points, but if you are the only one to pick a particular 80 scoring game, that gets boosted to 90 and you are still in the mix for a potential overall win.

hmm, i do like that. maybe not as high as 10 points, but definitely some sort of incentive to branch out a bit away from just the biggest names

Thats gonna be no from me dawg.

We always to this on this site. We like to over complicate things we do on here. I'm not calling anyone out individually either. Its everyone, and I've been guilty of it myself. We do this to every event/game/thing we do on here. The beat a game for every system you own topic evolved into a mess of who can beat the most simple basic games in a year and collect hundreds of badges. People keep trying to change this with over the top suggestions every year as well. We also stopped doing the virtual box topics because everyone had an new hot take every month on how to make it better. And it just kept killing them and everyone eventually lost interest in them due to coins and rules about time and conditions and skips and all sorts of crap. We do this to everything. And it makes us lose interest in them because of it. Can we please just leave this one alone. Its simple and fun as is. It doesn't need to be overly complicated. It wont make it better. I promise you it will kill most peoples interest in it.

EDIT: And I'm not saying changes can't/shouldn't be made. I'm just saying lets not add over the top rules. Like bonus points, extra picks, swapping picks, rolling a dice to see who eats on Tuesdays, etc. Lets keep any changes simple. As the game is simple.

Archer wrote:

lol that is true, and I've definitely been guilty of it myself.

Congrats to the Winners. I didn't expect Starfield to drop so much after initial review.
From 86 to 83 (the PC still has 86). Those 3 extra points would of put me in 3rd.

PizzaTheHutt wrote:
Thanks. Interesting. I wonder what people make their guesses based on. Gut feeling? Reputation of a studio's past games?

Yes and yes.

I'm always fine with the "yes to remakes, no to remasters" rule. I'm also fine with switching to OpenCritic and seeing how that goes. The only thing I'd change is a suggestion that gets brought up almost every year, but we never go with it, and that's the ability to maybe make one or two adjustments to our list, maybe over the summer. For example, Super Mario Bros. Wonder scored very high and Super Mario RPG likely will too, but nobody knew they were even coming until 6 or 7 months after our lists had to be submitted, and this has been happening pretty much every year since the pandemic which basically made E3 obsolete and now nobody waits until just June to announce their games. Yes you could have potentially wasted a guess on a vague "New Mario game" because the movie released this year, but still nobody saw the RPG remake coming,

PizzaTheHutt wrote:

I’m also of the mindset of keeping things simple and sticking to how it is now.

I do like your idea, but I would think if you made it change it would have to replace a game not reviewed yet and it would have to be a game that was announced after submission.

However I can see the issue of the user who just wants to submit the list to start the year and check in and the end to see how they did. They would be at a disadvantage potentially

With this remaster vs remake nonsense I may need to message you early with some of my picks to see how you would quantify them.

PizzaTheHutt wrote:

I don't hate this idea because it could be a good way to keep people engaged year round. We tend to have a bit of a lull in the middle of the year while we wait for the fall games and this would definitely liven things up a bit, but I feel it adds a layer of complexity just so we can accomodate the 2-3 Nintendo games that get announced in the spring and summer. I'd have to put a deadline or something on when changes need to be submitted and PM a bunch of people who maybe don't check the thread often to see if they'd like to make changes which is a hassle. And say everyone gets 1 swap, odds are we'll all wait until E3 and just swap in the hottest Nintendo announcement. I don't know if that really makes the game much better. What do you think?

I think everything @Archer said is spot on. And I'm as guilty of it as anyone because I want to take feedback and make things better, but we have a simple and fun setup here so I don't think we should make wholesale changes to something that already works.

Even if you don't make any changes this year, you could always ask people mid year if they would have picked anything different from their back half picks if they had know it was going to be announced.

You can then use that info to calculate the theoretical score changes if it had been implemented and use that as a basis for determining whether it would really make any difference or not.

Heavyd814life wrote:

Ultimately, it's your event that you host. If people want it a different way, they're welcome to set up a similar event.

It would be kind of cool if someone did though, just to see how different the results would be.

Fine with how it is. Not a fan of remakes/remasters but don't really mind that they are allowed either. I would love a real draft style contest but it's a pain in the butt to run and definitely won't work with how many people we have. I would not have changed my picks halfway if given the option and this is despite having a game I learned would not release in time and knowing Wonder would have been a smash hit.

Frank wrote:

Prima's Totally Unauthorized GameTZ Fantasy League has a nice ring to it LOL

I would consider doing it but I don't want to take away from the original. I think having two would dilute the experience and make both of them less enjoyable, unless the focus was truly different.

Maybe run one only for remasters and ports

Long as the rules are simple and not complicated to understand, and everyone can have fun with this, I don't see any issues how it is.

How about every game starts at 100% but then for every person beyond the first it's score gets auto reduced by a set %. Now you can purposefully pick a popular game to screw over other people or gamble that everyone will get scared to pick Last of Us 2 Remaster and you'll be the only one. Then everyone's lists will have obscure indie games no one has heard of and benstylus wins by default.

I'm joking of course, I'm fine with how it is.

Though I do kind of like the suggestion to do a couple slots with a requirement. Game title has to start with Z or star a cat or is a wave runner game or is a MidnightWorks SEO word salad game.

Heavyd814life wrote:

first of all, hey lol. not around that much these days, irl busy and into lots of stuff. agree on not over complicating it, agree no remasters as always.

i do like the idea of being able to make a swap somewhere mid year, someone else also brought up that these days there is so much we just dont know about.

hope everyone is well.

tonymack21 wrote:

Good to hear from you, man! Thought I was going to have to chase you down to get your list for 2024 lol.

@Heavyd814life hey dude when do you want our 2024 lists by? I’m almost done with mine.

I still need to create my list

Still plenty of time, guys. The first "big" release of 2024 from what I see is Alone in the Dark which drops on the 16th of January. So I'll have the new thread up early December and set the deadline for a couple of days before Alone in the Dark drops.

TalonJedi87 wrote:

Hey! I need more time to bask in the glory lol. I was in the 20s all season haha

Haha oh I’m sure my 2024 list is going to wind up in the 20s in the end but it’s all good. Also I tend to vote with my heart and not my head so that’s prob why I never end up winning but it’s all good I just like guessing!

Heavyd814life wrote:

haha.. hope you're doing well. i'll start looking at upcoming stuff when the new topic is up. ping me!