No word fail, just different voting methods. I only voted for the games I thought should win "game of the decade". So I voted for Witcher 3 with a couple honorable mentions. I did not l vote for my top 20-50 list.
However, the results came out as top 50. So I didn't vote for conquistadors to win game of the decade because while good its wasn't quite in that category. It would however make my personal top 20, maybe even top 10
Yes, that seemed to be a very common personal decision made by a number of voters, to really big-up 1-3 specific games rather than just provide a list of games they particularly enjoyed.
I'm not entirely sure why this happened for these people nor how you classify GOTD worthy games as being somehow significantly more worthy than "I really enjoyed that one"
Only games that made you physically orgasm perhaps?
The vast majority of people just sent a list, either top 10 or 20 or a list of games they particularly enjoyed.
I mean, if you particularly enjoyed a game why would you not like it being no.1? Or be offended if it was? That's a very fine line that I'm not sure I personally can conceptualise.
From a historical perspective, the annual Game of the Year at RPGWatch asks that you vote for 3 games and we are then provided with a top 10, wouldn't it be obvious that a game of the decade vote would be a process of voting for 10x that with a 10x resulting list?
To which voting for even just 10 games for a resulting list of 50 is already a greatly shortened process than normal.
But I'm guessing that also by historical perspective maybe people assumed they'd just be voting for 3 games with a resultant top 10 as if it was a Game of the Year poll? I dunno, I thought the instructions tried to do their best to say it wasn't going to be like that ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
In what universe would you think an Expeditions game would even get no.1 anyway?