Castle Paradox

Squall · Posted: Mon Dec 01, 2003 2:59 pm Post subject:

I think, since there are so many catagories already (none, surprizingly, I would wish to drop) people wouldn't want to put more than one game in each catagory. However, you should leave the option open. If you were able to vote one game in every catagory and that one gets 2 points, and have the option to put a 2nd and 3rd place with 1 and 1/2 points respectivly, then you'd get the best of both worlds.

RPGrealm5 · Posted: Mon Dec 01, 2003 3:16 pm Post subject:

I support this idea. I was going to suggest something just like this. The amount of award categories makes a variety of awards, and hey this could turn out pretty good.
_________________
Gyu, Doh!

Flamer · Posted: Mon Dec 01, 2003 6:00 pm Post subject:

seeing as i know some people would vote for old games that were crap (for prejudiced reasons) i'd say vote for currently "updated" games in 2003, but since CP is new and it'll be a bit hard to tell right now, i'd save this type of voting for next year when things settle down.

...

umm..."pick your top 3" per category would be most accurate, but imagine how much time is needed to count all those votes for all those categories.

"one vote per category" would be easier, but lose accuracy in the voting arena.

what to choose...?
i'd go with "pick your top 3" per category, just make sure to pick a honest person, who is willing to burn time to help out. anyone would be willing to help out, i'm sure of it. Big grin

_________________
If we were a pack of dogs, IM would be a grand Hound, CN would be a very ficious little pitball, and Giz...well, it doesn't matter breed he is, he'd still be a bitch Raspberry!

(no offense to anyone that was mentioned)

TMC · Posted: Mon Dec 01, 2003 7:49 pm Post subject:

I say go with Squalls idea, its the best. And I would help out on tallying the votes, I have little better to do during weeks of summer holidays. I might end up going on holiday though.

Anyway, I think it should be optional not to vote for all the categories, so that someone could just vote for the general categorys and not have to spend an hour voting. That ought to attact alot more votes.
_________________
"It is so great it is insanely great."

Shadowiii · **It's been real.** Joined: 14 Feb 2003 Posts: 2460

Oh yes...I like Squall's idea.

And please don't finalize your votes until the end of the year. Remember, we have Human Day contest games to be accounted for. Also I have a secret project due taht will certianly turn a few veterans heads (you'll have to see it to believe it Wink

)

Um...yeah. This kinda reminds me of OHR-Olympics, except with only one year. I remember holding a "Best of 2000 (or was it 2001?)" award on Zant a while back...I think Tao Mew: Cat Scratch City won as game of the year.
_________________
But enough talk, have at you!

LeRoy_Leo · Posted: Tue Dec 02, 2003 7:59 am Post subject:

The only thing I can't see happening is humbleness. I mean, it wouldn't be fair to some if the author of the most awsome game votes for his own game. Will you be able to do that? It seems reasonable, but mostly not reasonable at the same time. It is not being humble... (I aint gunna' vote fer any of mah games. How 'bout you?)

Also, I do like the idea of top 3. That way we don't have to think too hard about it. It seems to me that it would be the best idea if we all set ONE day beside just to look at other peoples' games. I will! Big grin

Have fun, till next time. Razz

_________________
Planning Project Blood Summons, an MMORPG which will incinerate all of the others with it's sheer brilliance...

---msw188 ---
"Seriously James, you keep rolling out the awesome like gingerbread men on a horror-movie assembly line. "

Shadowiii · **It's been real.** Joined: 14 Feb 2003 Posts: 2460

We'll need a list of all the games/updates/releases done in 2003 to correctly judge.
_________________
But enough talk, have at you!

JSH357 · Joined: 02 Feb 2003 Posts: 1705

But I still don't see the point of doing it by year... There are very little new games released every year, and it's abnormal that too many of them are considered exceptional. That's why I think that there should be an award for best of the year, but the remainder of the awards should count toward every OHR game.

RPGrealm5 · Posted: Tue Dec 02, 2003 3:26 pm Post subject:

Yes that sounds reasonable, but would the awards be taken from whoever earns them the next year by someone else if these are done again? Just a question...
_________________
Gyu, Doh!

Iblis · Posted: Tue Dec 02, 2003 3:33 pm Post subject:

I don't think they should. If a game wins something this year, it should get "voted best graphics in 2003" and next year a game would get "voted best graphics in 2004" or something like that.
_________________
Locked
OHR Piano

Fenrir-Lunaris · **WUT** Joined: 03 Feb 2003 Posts: 1747

If a game got best in EVERYTHING for a single year, then that means something. I'd think that a yearly awards ceremony SHOULD focus on the games released that year, and not the year before. It kind of makes the name 'yearly' not really matter count for all that much. I also think that there's been far too many 'best of OHR yearly' awards ceremonies where the same games are featured again and again. You include all previous games from previous years in this, then you can bet Arfenhouse is going to get 'most humorous' year after year. Magnus is going to get 'worst OHR game' again and again. Actually I'd point out that there are now WORSE games then Magnus.

If you include games from previous years, make their presence be listed as 'previous winners' in each category. Ie: Horgoth 2000, Walthros 2001, AH 2002, and so on.

Squall · Posted: Tue Dec 02, 2003 8:18 pm Post subject:

LOOPHOLE: Hardly any games are finished, and go through a phase where they get updated a little bit about every couple of months. By this logic, GAME X, which has the best graphics that the OHR has seen, could be released today; a sure candidate for best graphics of 2003. Say it wins; ok, it wins. Now it's 2004 and any game can win best graphics of the new year. But what's this? GAME X gets a major update that April and is now a candidate for best graphics of 2004.

A workaround would be that one game can't be nominated for the same catagory twice in a row, but you can't ignore the fact that the graphics are now even better than before and it's obvious that a lot of work has gone into it; you can't just ignore it.

Since this loophole exists, any game that decides to update itself next year can just be in the running again, and since it's that easy to qualify yourself again, there's really no point in having the rule at all.

Really, I see no reason why this, the first annual awards, should cover the games from this year only. Since it's the first one, I think that this voting period could cover all games released prior to the voting. Another thing to note is that some of the catagories (Author you'd like to see make more games, and such) aren't exclusive to 2003 games anyway. One more thing is that it's too crazy to find out which games were released in 2003 in the first place.

One last reason why I don't like the yearly voting, is that games made in 2003 SHOULD be better than games made prior. The OHR is more advanced and there are more resources. We need to be raising the bar, and the only way to do that is to compete against the greatest ever; not just the greatest of the year.

Fenrir-Lunaris · **WUT** Joined: 03 Feb 2003 Posts: 1747

There's just no way to discount the nostalgia factor in any kind of voting. I'll still say Arfenhouse is going to get #1 for most humorous game several years in a row, even though other games clearly have a degree of humor to them that rivals AH or perhaps even surpasses it. The fact is, for a long time people have gone on about how funny it is, seen the movies, and simply because of that fact it'll get high marks even though it's old hat and there's better stuff laying around. This is also the same reasoning that a lot of RPG 'vets' go absolutely berserk when someone makes even the slightest remark about FF4 not being as good as it's cracked up to be. It's that damned nostalgia factor.

Squall · Posted: Tue Dec 02, 2003 9:03 pm Post subject:

Even though Arfenhouse doesn't really have a lot of competition in the humor catagory, it's really up to the people. If we wanted to make sure that things were voted actually on what the catagory says and not nostalgia, then we'd have a panel of judges do it (like the Oscar acadamy). But that's not how this contest is being run. If people truly think that Arfenhouse is the funniest OHR game ever, then there's nothing that you can do to stop them, other then reminding people as they vote that you shouldn't vote on nostalgia. But also, keep in mind that there's a reason why Arfenhouse has such a nostalgic following; it clicked as hillarious for a lot of people. If a game were to come around that is truly more funny than Arfenhouse, then it WILL get the recognition it deserves. If it's funnier than Arfenhouse, then people will surely notice, it just that Arfenhouse is the clear leader for a reason, and so are those other games with the nostalgia factor.

Eggie · Joined: 12 May 2003 Posts: 904

I personally think that the Awards should count all games ever made, because: A) There are not that much games made anyway. B) Having a lot more topics while having al of the games allows greater chances that lots of different people will when, not just the top makers. C) Those people who do when will feel a little special. Happy