Isn't it better to keep the talking seperated from the voting? vote in the other topic, chat here 8)

I don't mind the mix, but I can imagine some people do ^_^. Good idea to start a different thread about it!

While we are on the topic of gossip, the word on the street says this whole competition is fixed! It is also said COMPILE has paid muchos $$$ for getting Zanac on the 3rd place in last competition.

Hey Latok... are you cheating?

Just exposing my thoughts, Niles

Strong thoughts and iron hand, no mercy !...

Alright.....l'Affaire is hanging in there against Snatcher!! That's WAY COOL......There is something about l'Affaire which I appreciate VERY VERY much.....It's the vibe that game has.....And of course that great FOOKIN' music it has......

Quote:

Alright.....l'Affaire is hanging in there against Snatcher!! That's WAY COOL......There is something about l'Affaire which I appreciate VERY VERY much.....It's the vibe that game has.....And of course that great FOOKIN' music it has......

And the fact despite of how cool the story is, text-based adventures are not that popular, especially not when they are in Japanese

Is there really anyone who thinks Snatcher for MSX is cool? I mean, what if SD-Snatcher never appeared... Would there be anyone really interested in Snatcher then? The game is slow, the graphics are only so-so, most European players can't understand a thing...

I once completed the PSX-version of Snatcher and I was impressed. Being able to read Japanese, I could actually follow the story. The graphics were much better than the MSX version and the game was fast enough... In such a way, the game is really fun. But I wonder if there would be anyone interested in Snatcher when SD-Snatcher hadn't appeared.

Aaaaaaaaaaah Rikusu, come on! You know the answer. You don't wonder. Of course not!! Stupid Japanese textadventure...

Quote:

While we are on the topic of gossip, the word on the street says this whole competition is fixed! It is also said COMPILE has paid muchos $$$ for getting Zanac on the 3rd place in last competition.

Must be huge hoax, since Compile doesn't exist anymore.

I don't think Snatcher would be as popular as it is now without SD-Snatcher. We never knew about Snatcher without the Konami Game Collection Volumes, since these titles have support to use SCC when the Snatcher cartridge is inserted. And besides that we Europeans never really like(d) the game genre that much compared to action and RPG's, I think.

Ok, maybe we're getting a little bit too evil here. Somehow I have the feeling that this third round is the breaking point for many games. My suggestion is as following.

Normally we would move on from 108 games to 4 (frontpage poll) like this:

108 - 54 - 28 - 14 - 8 - 4

I suggest however that we let 32 games move on to round #4. Then we'll get

108 - 54 - 32 - 16 - 8 - 4

Strictly spoken the first method is the most 'fair' and accurate, but the second method might give games that got a bad randomization a second chance.

My question is.. Does it really matter. In the first method there are one or two lucky games each round, just because we need an even amount of games moving on. In the second method no game will have such luck after round number 3. Which one do you prefer?

Personnally I prefer the second methode, because it'll give a "last chance" to only 4 games : it's just a little correction for the unmerciful randomization !

I just noticed the rating system where you let the upper half pass (as used in this poll) is equivalent to letting all the pair winners pass.

Proof:

• A voter casts exactly 3 points per pair, so one game gets 1.5 - X points and the other 1.5 + X, where X = 0.5 or 1.5.
  
• If you average this for all voters, the same property holds for the average number of points: one game gets 1.5 - X, the other 1.5 + X (0 <= X <= 1.5). So for every pair, there is one game that has at most 1.5 points average and one game that has at least 1.5 points average.
  
• When looking at all pairs, the number of games with at most 1.5 points will be equal to the number of games with at least 1.5 points. So if half the games go through, games with less than 1.5 points will never belong to the upper half and are therefore eliminated in this round.
  
• So if a game gets more than 1.5 points, its pairwise opponent will be eliminated. A game gets more than 1.5 points average if it scores more points than its pairwise opponent. If they both score 1.5 points on average, it means they got exactly the same amount of points in the voting; this case is undecided.
  
• If you have a voting system where the pairwise winner goes through, it is also the games with more points than its pairwise opponent goes through. And if they score equal, it is undecided. This is always exactly the same result as the voting system used for this poll, so the voting systems are equivalent.
  

So what does this tell us? When the top half makes it to the next round:

• A strong opponent is a real threat, because only one of a pair goes through.
  
• Snout can just calculate the winners of each pair, no need to calculate a total ranking.
  

When passing more than half the games (as proposed) :

• A strong opponent is still a real threat, but if it's (almost) tied, both games can go through.
  
• It is necessary to calculate the total ranking. It is certain each pairwise winner will go through, but a few pairwise losers will go through as well (unless there are a lot of ties).
  

As NOP once wrote:

Quote:

Co-starring: mathematics as useful