14th Annual Top 25 Pre-Discussion Thread (+ Poll)

[Nifty]

Firstly I'm going to mention that I won't be starting the vote process this year until February, since I'm going to be busy for the rest of this month. Otherwise, there's one discussion point brought up last year I'm going to look into further, which is the idea of an optional smaller ballot. The limitations would most likely run something like 15 games instead of 25, mildly reduced weighting and no option for HMs. The requirements for participation would remain the same, regardless of ballot size. Step one though is to see if there's really enough interest to warrant its inclusion if the first place, hence the poll. I won't set any hard targets but it'd be nice to know there's more than only a handful wanting it before I start fiddling with the format again.

[Mortificator]

I can barely fit in all the games I'd like with 25 spots, yet alone 15.

[TransatlanticFoe]

I don't think there's any reason to change it.

[Some-Mist]

nevermind - I changed my vote. top 25 is fine but I would reduce the size of my list (which wouldn't alter the rankings for the games I choose).

I like all the games in my list out of the infinite options, but I don't love all of them. I'd stick to what I love which is a smaller selection.

[Xyga]

I'd rather have 15 but most will probably want to stick to tradition.

[Shepardus]

nevermind - I changed my vote. top 25 is fine but I would reduce the size of my list (which wouldn't alter the rankings for the games I choose).

I like all the games in my list out of the infinite options, but I don't love all of them. I'd stick to what I love which is a smaller selection.

Same. I have fewer than 25 (around 15) that I feel very strongly about voting for, but more than 25 if you include games I kind of want to vote for. Limiting it to exactly 25 games per person forces me to choose some of those games but not others, which results in my lower picks being somewhat arbitrary choices that could be easily replaced with other games in my "kind of want to vote for" list since I don't have a clear order for those.

[Bydobasher]

I also have some games that I like more than others in my top 25, but that's why we have the points system: just give more points to your favourites.

[Shepardus]

My point is that my #16-35 are all roughly equal; if I'm limited to 25 I'd have to select ten of those but not the other ten, and that decision is largely arbitrary for me. If I'm allowed to cut it off at 15 choices I'd just do that instead.

[Lyv]

I might be able to find enough games to fill 15 spots.
For 25, I'd probably have to wait at least 3-4 more years.

[Sumez]

I've never voted in these because I can't in good conscience say that I have 1cc'ed enough shooters to pick out 25 of them as being clearly better than anything else. I guess I may be taking the individual polls a bit too seriously on that account though, which is why it's a collaborative effort.

Then again, there are several games that I've never 1cc'ed and still consider among the best, but I don't really feel like I can objectively express my opinion on them when I haven't seen all they have to offer. (for example, I really love Progear, but I know a lot of people are completely put off by the second loop)

[CStarFlare]

I like the idea of 15 - after a certain point I start browsing through my scores and trying to decide which of those games I liked enough to fill out my list with.

[Perikles]

While I'm grateful for the opportunity to pick 35 games via the HM (I can say with good conscience that I love each and all of those) I don't see a reason why someone else shouldn't be granted the option to select a smaller roster of games (except from the additional expenditure for Nifty when compiling the results which is of course no small consideration). There's no value in bulking up a list with titles that serve as filler. I'm also a bit skeptical of all this "voting for games I don't like yet respect" line of thought, it is an honourable decision for sure, but it ultimately seems like an euphemism for "I haven't played the game myself (enough), but since everyone espouses the view that it is magnificent I'm also going to vote for it I suppose". Maybe I'm just a trifle cynical.

[bikingjahuty]

While I'm grateful for the opportunity to pick 35 games via the HM (I can say with good conscience that I love each and all of those) I don't see a reason why someone else shouldn't be granted the option to select a smaller roster of games (except from the additional expenditure for Nifty when compiling the results which is of course no small consideration). There's no value in bulking up a list with titles that serve as filler. I'm also a bit skeptical of all this "voting for games I don't like yet respect" line of thought, it is an honourable decision for sure, but it ultimately seems like an euphemism for "I haven't played the game myself (enough), but since everyone espouses the view that it is magnificent I'm also going to vote for it I suppose". Maybe I'm just a trifle cynical.

This.

I also feel like it allows people who haven't played a ton of games in the genre or are relatively new to it to potentially throw their hat in the ring. However, if the polling thus far is any indication of what is going to happen this year, it looks like it is going to be the same format it has been. I don't nave anything against it, I just cannot in good conscious vote because I haven't played 25 shooters enough to definitely say, "these are the 25 best out there." Even 15 might be a stretch, but at least at 15 I'm pretty sure I could participate.

[chum]

You could do a separate list where people vote for 10 games instead of 25 (this used to happen at some point)

[Vludi]

Count me on the "I'd prefer to vote for fewer games". I think I could do 15.

[Mortificator]

I've never voted in these because I can't in good conscience say that I have 1cc'ed enough shooters to pick out 25 of them as being clearly better than anything else. I guess I may be taking the individual polls a bit too seriously on that account though, which is why it's a collaborative effort.

Then again, there are several games that I've never 1cc'ed and still consider among the best, but I don't really feel like I can objectively express my opinion on them when I haven't seen all they have to offer. (for example, I really love Progear, but I know a lot of people are completely put off by the second loop)

I've said in the past that I only consider individual lists worth looking at. Part of this is because I doubt the genre knowledge of many participants, a doubt this thread reinforces. There've been so many great shooters made, the idea that you could run out after a mere fifteen and need to resort to filler is laughable.

Another part is that every year, there are votes whose purpose is baldly just to boost pet games in the aggregate list. Replacing user-manipulated weighting with a universal method would probably cut down on strategic voting and make the results a little more respectable.

Concerning second loops, don't feel compelled not to vote over that. I have little interest in playing through the same shooter multiple times in one sitting myself, so my list will be different than the list of someone who loves looping. The objective strengths of a work are filtered by personal taste, which is part of what makes the personal rankings put together by knowledgeable players interesting.

This is different than having tunnel vision and only playing specific kinds of game. My vote from nine or so years ago was full of R-Type, and the aggregate list would only have been improved if such an ignorant contribution had been thrown out. But if you've shmuped broadly, shmuped deeply, and shmuped passonately, then I'd be happy to read your list.

[Vludi]

I've said in the past that I only consider individual lists worth looking at. Part of this is because I doubt the genre knowledge of many participants, a doubt this thread reinforces. There've been so many great shooters made, the idea that you could run out after a mere fifteen and need to resort to filler is laughable.

Have all people here put time in 25+ games though? The idea of liking or "respecting" a game is different to actually liking the game when you play it.

[Shepardus]

To be truly sure of your picks, you must justify not only why you chose the games you did, but also why you didn't choose the games you didn't. Thus, I propose that voters be disqualified if they haven't played every shmup in existence.

[Perikles]

There've been so many great shooters made, the idea that you could run out after a mere fifteen and need to resort to filler is laughable.

The question is not whether one might run out of worthy games before having to bolster the ranks with filler - that notion would be indeed laughable -, but whether one feels strongly about more than a handful of titles regardless of experience. Let's be frank: there is not even so much as a pretense of objectivity when it comes to those lists, I certainly wouldn't adhere to the belief that my list (or anyone else's for that matter) is capable of encapsulating the "best" games of the genre for one second. Those are either games I happen to really like or where I feel that they deserve a spot on the list for other reasons. Definitely not because I consider any list without game X, Y or Z to be incomplete or fallacious.

We also have some players here that prefer to spend a long time on one game or a small handful at best, and I don't see why you would want to restrict them for their inclination. There's no guarantee that one will collate a more interesting and/or balanced list just by virtue of having played more games, anyway.

[chum]

We also have some players here that prefer to spend a long time on one game or a small handful at best

raises hand

to be honest, the more I think about it the more it seems like 10 choices might be better, with the option of having up to 15 honorable mentions. That should please everybody, no? I mean, I don't think anyone really needs to name 25 games? I could combine the playtime of like 30 of my last years list games and it would be lower than my StB playtime. I think that kind of importance and effort speaks for itself. Do people feel they have to name games they've played for less than 10 hrs? At least with my idea, they're given the option to do so. The reasons to want to name fewer games could be many, it doesn't just have to mean that you're completely inexperienced. It could just be that you don't care all that much about most of them compared to your favourites. I mean it's really easy to just put in a few tries into tons of random games but that isn't really going to tell you that much about how good you'll find them eventually. Being around these communities for a while has taught me that some people need a lot of time before they can decide how much they like something.

[CloudyMusic]

I would definitely prefer smaller lists, 10-15. I just don't feel that strongly about 25 games; my last list had a lot of 1-point "I really like some things about this game, but not enough to actually play it very much" votes to fill up the quota which I don't love doing.

[trap15]

to be honest, the more I think about it the more it seems like 10 choices might be better, with the option of having up to 15 honorable mentions. That should please everybody, no?

At first, I wasn't really feeling the idea of lowering to 15, but this is a great idea. Looking at my own list, I indeed only feel particularly strong about the first 10, and I highly doubt a significant amount of other people feel strongly about their order after 10. So I would second this idea.

[Nifty]

To get HMs to function in this manner rather than bonus extras they are currently would require a level of reworking I'm not game to get myself into, at least not right now. More to the point I really don't think it's necessary for what's essentially being described as a small amount of streamlining. There's nothing wrong with having games grouped near the lower end of a list, it's a flexibility the system specifically allows for. Like I said last year, if someone really wants 15 or so + HMs, they may as well just fill in the full 25 and change up the weights a little. There are other criteria too that can be useful when deciding which titles to round out a list with (e.g. something relatively underrated, or somewhat different/unique, or to replace another lower pick that's already been there a few times). The only meaningful purpose I see a flat 15 serving would be for those who make the reqs but really struggle to put the full amount together.

On that note, please don't vote based on an idea that isn't actually going to be pursued presently D:

[Shepardus]

I personally wouldn't be voting for 15 + 10 honorable mentions, I'd just cut off my list at 15.

[Mortificator]

We also have some players here that prefer to spend a long time on one game or a small handful at best, and I don't see why you would want to restrict them for their inclination. There's no guarantee that one will collate a more interesting and/or balanced list just by virtue of having played more games, anyway.

Being experienced with all of a set of things doesn't guarantee you can collate them meaningfully... but being experienced with only one or a small handful guarantees you can't.

Have all people here put time in 25+ games though? The idea of liking or "respecting" a game is different to actually liking the game when you play it.

Keep in mind that under the reqs Nifty mentioned, every voter needs to have significant play time with at least 57 of the listed shooters (up from last year due to four new games making the 13th annual aggregates: DariusBurst, Kamui, Salamander 2, and Thunder Dragon 2). This is independent of the size of the individual ballots.

[chum]

LOL what does "significant play time" or "Being experienced" even mean to you? WTF? There's noone on this board that fits this criteria you set up. What good would it do not allow a single person to vote? You don't need to be experienced with a game to vote for it, you only need to be familiar with it, dingus. What does "collating meaningfully" mean? You need to be evenly experienced with everything to do that? How is this supposed to work?

Lol I can clear some random ass game with a shitty score over and over, none of that is any meaningful to me whatsoever, but I guess Mortificator here thinks this is the ideal way to judge everything appropriately and then "collate them meaningfully" in the end

[Bananamatic]

14th annual get mad about half of the list being cave games discussion thread

[Shepardus]

14th annual get mad about half of the list being cave games discussion thread

That's the results thread. This is the thread where we discuss how to prevent people from voting for games I don't like.

[Bananamatic]

first we ban anyone with an anime avatar

[Mortificator]

This is the thread where we discuss how to prevent people from voting for games I don't like.

You must have a pretty terrible position if you need to argue against a strawman.

what does "significant play time" or "Being experienced" even mean to you? WTF? There's noone on this board that fits this criteria you set up.

You think I established the criteria? Being "widely and deeply experienced" has been part of it for years. There are plenty of posters who meet (and surpass) them, which is why the shooter knowledge displayed on this forum is so far beyond what you see on others.

The intent is not to make voting for a top 25 some elitist function; at the same time, the value of such a list is diminished as those lacking adequate experience participate in the voting process.