How to separate the Indie-RPGs ?

I agree with HiddenX here. And most of what DA is saying too.

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
I don't think the price you pay should be relevant either.

Think about it.

Let's say you got Skyrim at a bargain price of 10$.

Does that make the game inherently better because you didn't pay 50$?

No. And I didn't say that it would.
I would just put a $10 priced game in another category level than a $50 priced game.

I wouldn't have a rating component like "cost-benefit ratio". That indeed would rate a cheaper game better when its quality was the same as another game's quality. I wouldn't like this myself.

Price is relevant for the consumer, sure, but not for the quality of the game. I don't see it, and I don't like this concept of dividing cheap games and expensive games.
Games = entertainment, and the only relevant factor is how FUN they are. Price can and probably should be talked about - but not as a measure of quality.

You're right, the price shouldn't count when it comes to quality rating. A mediocre game won't win an award in a more general category. But it could win in low-price categories. And I think that's fine. The award woudn't mean that it's better than a game being 2nd in a general category.

I fundamentally agree with you DARt.

But it might be so that an indie company develops a great game but it lacks a lot of "polish", which makes people rank it lower. Because of that it'll not have any chance against a game with a bigger budget who has all that "polish" + a lot of extras.

I guess the thinking behind this category is to acknowledge that kind of game, it was a great effort, and if it is recognized and people buy it same developer could get a chance to make version 2 with a bigger budget were they add the necessary things making it a much greater game.

Originally Posted by GothicGothicness
I fundamentally agree with you DARt.

But it might be so that an indie company develops a great game but it lacks a lot of "polish", which makes people rank it lower. Because of that it'll not have any chance against a game with a bigger budget who has all that "polish" + a lot of extras.

I guess the thinking behind this category is to acknowledge that kind of game, it was a great effort, and if it is recognized and people buy it same developer could get a chance to make version 2 with a bigger budget were they add the necessary things making it a much greater game.

That's the nature of building something that's worth playing.

If you can't plan ahead and ensure reasonable polish given your means - then you will not be able to create a truly compelling experience.

It doesn't really matter if you're one man or ten men - you can still acknowledge your capacity and develop accordingly.

I don't think whether it's a great effort or not is relevant. What's relevant is the end result in the form of a game.

A game needs to be reasonably polished to be enjoyable - and you have to understand your own limitations no matter what the size of your team is.

If you're a small team pretending you have a bigger budget - you will invariably fail to create a wholesome product - and that's not something I think we should be particularly supportive of.

But that's just my opinion.

Ok, how about another situation, the game is great but the person behind it does not have enough budget to market it, so that a lot of people can play it and vote for it in the main game of the year category?

But if there is a smaller category for this kind of games, it might make game of the year in that category and gain the amount of attention it needs.

Originally Posted by GothicGothicness
Ok, how about another situation, the game is great but the person behind it does not have enough budget to market it, so that a lot of people can play it and vote for it in the main game of the year category?

But if there is a smaller category for this kind of games, it might make game of the year in that category and gain the amount of attention it needs.

But with games like Legend of Grimrock, Shadowrun and other indie titles that get a lot of attention, it's still going to be nigh impossible for one of those to end up at the top of such a list.

What's going on here? "Everybody agrees with Dart" - I bet that's a sign of the apocalypse.

I don't think there should be any separation either.
(Especially in such an unexciting year)

Originally Posted by Gorath
The problem with getting rid of the categories is that the results become predictable. As on most major gaming sites, the "biggest" game will win GOTY, simply because it has the biggest community behind. Small games have no chance.

I don't see why that's unfair when we're taking about GOTY though. If that's what the community wants shouldn't that get the top spot?
(Maybe there could be a fair way to subtract points with negative votes or merge "best" and "worst" game lists?)

Originally Posted by GothicGothicness
But if there is a smaller category for this kind of games, it might make game of the year in that category and gain the amount of attention it needs.

That's pretty much why to me the "best indie" category feels like a "most gracious loser" award - which I find very unfair. Treat them the same and they will get attention by being in the same "best" list with the big ones you've already played.

All games in one list

If we have establish winning-categories like

"RPG with most innovative game idea"
"RPG with most interesting story"

some indies will easily win such a category.

I think the RPGWatch community is mature enough to vote for smaller games, if they are interesting.

PS:
Forbid anonymous voting!
Maybe Postcount > 50 to make it a "real" RPGWatch vote.

Originally Posted by GothicGothicness
Ok, how about another situation, the game is great but the person behind it does not have enough budget to market it, so that a lot of people can play it and vote for it in the main game of the year category?

But if there is a smaller category for this kind of games, it might make game of the year in that category and gain the amount of attention it needs.

I'm not sure I get your meaning.

If a game is good - I will call it a good game. I don't see why knowing about it matters.

We can only review games we know about - and if a game doesn't make it into known space - that doesn't make the game better or worse.

I don't see how making a different category for unknown games can make them known. If there's just one category called "games" - all games we know of that qualify as RPGs should make the list, regardless of whether we've all played them or not.

If we do like this, we'll get the same top lists as more or less every other site and nothing else. Which would be kind of pointless just like Gorath said.

No other game would get recognized.

A toplists category it doesn't have to be indie game, maybe less known games vote or something like that?

To me a main point of reading awards and such is finding good games to play, as well as bringing attention to good developers who can keep making great games.

Originally Posted by GothicGothicness
If we do like this, we'll get the same top lists as more or less every other site and nothing else. Which would be kind of pointless just like Gorath said.

No other game would get recognized.

A toplists category it doesn't have to be indie game, maybe less known games vote or something like that?

To me a main point of reading awards and such is finding good games to play, as well as bringing attention to good developers who can keep making great games.

I don't agree. We're different here, and lots of people value low profile titles more than high profile titles.

Games like Grimrock, Shadowrun, Eschalon and so on would likely get more love than the latest Bioware travesty.

Nah, I don't think the Watch will rate high profile titles like other sites.

But I could be wrong, of course.

Still, if a high profile title is better - it SHOULD rate higher.

That's just my opinion, though.

A mathematical trick would be:

Everyone votes for a game from a big list
For each game in the list every voter have to say:

a) I have played that game or
b) I have NOT played that game

then you have two lists:

First List:
Absolute votes:

90 votes for Game A
80 votes for Game B
60 votes for Game C
20 votes for Game D
…

Second List:
Relative votes:

#Votes/#Count of gamers who played the game

20 / 20 = 1.00 rel. votes for Game D
80/100 = 0.80 rel. votes for Game B
90/180 = 0.50 rel. votes for Game A
60/180 = 0.33 rel. votes for Game C

Just wanted to upvote both HiddenX's ideas. A min post threshold will deal with an influx of various fanboys and a weighted system, as hard and imperfect construct it may be, is the one step away from simplification that's worth working on and implementing.

Like Kostas I also agree with HidenX's proposition.

HiddenX's idea sounds great. I upvote this one as well.

I'm for simplicity. The amount of categories should be limited, the voting should be simple and (especially for me) publishing the results should be easy as well

I am for 2 categories (like last year): 'Best RPG' and 'Most anticipated' and in contrast to last year I would like not to separate the indie from the non-indie games/developers.
This also has the advantage that voting can be quick. I do see that when we have multiple page voting, the number of votes cast reduces after the first page.
Note that we use a system where you can vote for 3 games in each category (best, runner up and third place).

As far as voting goes. Up to now we have always allowed non-registered users to vote. The advantage is that we get more votes. The disadvantage is that fans sometimes rallied to vote for a specific game, which skewed the results.
Limiting the votes to registered users only can be an option.

I agree with Myrthos - and I still don't see any need to enforce some kind of extra attention on games people don't care that much about.

I firmly believe that a good game gets noticed, no matter how much money went behind it.

Obviously, the mainstream will overlook a ton of indies - but that's as it should be. Indie games are not meant for the mainstream.

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
I firmly believe that a good game gets noticed, no matter how much money went behind it.

Obviously, the mainstream will overlook a ton of indies - but that's as it should be. Indie games are not meant for the mainstream.

I disagree.

RPGWatch is a site that supports Indie games and makes them known.

A lesser known good Indie-game, that get many votes by RPGWatch-veterans, is more important for me, than well known popamole games that gets votes from anonymous masses.

Originally Posted by HiddenX
I disagree.

RPGWatch is a site that supports Indie games and makes them known.

A lesser known good Indie-game, that get many votes by RPGWatch-veterans, is more important for me, than well known popamole games that gets votes from anonymous masses.

Are you saying that people here rate popamole games higher than good indie games?

I don't understand what you're disagreeing with. I'm not saying we should not include indie games. I'm saying we shouldn't give them more attention than they deserve.

I'm saying we here at the Watch WILL rate good indie games highly - and the results will reflect that.

We talk about indie games a lot, so a good indie RPG will definitely get noticed by us - and be mentioned in a list of good RPGs.

We don't go crazy over Call of Duty around here.

I just don't understand the logic of your point.

If you're saying that just because a game is an indie, it deserves more attention than a commercial game - I don't agree. All games that are worth playing deserve attention, no matter what.

One of the things I really enjoy about RPGWatch is that there's room for all kinds of RPGs and RPG fans.

I would hate it if it turned into some kind of indie favoritism site.