So when the hell is this thing being compiled? I want to see what the best games ever according to a select handful of fanatic adventure gamers are. Come on, I can't wait any longer...

We need more people to contribute their list!

--Erwin

HI :)

I have played (full game)

Zork Nemesis
Broken Sword 1
Broken Sword 2
Legend of Kyrandia: Hand of Fate
Shivers 2
Myst
Space Quest 6
Torin's Passage (due to a bug I didn't get to finish this game :whine:)
King's Quest 6
King's Quest 7
Kings' Quest 8

I have played (demo, but plan to play full game one day)
Monkey Island: Le Chuck's revenge
Monkey Island 4:
Barrow Hill
Broken Sword 3
Broken Sword 4
Secret Files: Tunguska
Keepsake
Grim Fandango
Eulemberg-experiment (or Martin Mystere)
Secrets of da Vinci (currently I'm playing the demo in French :cool: )
Operation Wintersonne (winter's son)
Shivah
Remedy
Time Stand Still
Hope Springs Eternal

If I were to choose the best of the one I've played so far, it would definitely be Shivers 2 and King's Quest 6 I think. And the best of the demos I have played so far would either be Syberia 1 or SF: Tunguska.

EDIT:
Full Game
Shivers 2 + King's Quest 6 as # 1.

Demo:
Syberia + SF: Tunguska as # 1

aries323

That's what makes the system so good. If we're comparing different people's top ten lists in the "normal" way, we don't know how much of the differences are because of people having different taste, or if it is that people haven't played the games yet. If I look at my own top ten, it's quite possible - even likely - that GK1 and The Pandora Directive (for example) belong there. I don't know, because they're still in my pile of (mostly) unplayed games.

That was eleven, but that's ok. :)

Not yet for a while. People are still adding to this thread, and the more people adding to it, the better.

To those that haven't posted in this thread yet: Listing everything you've played is not a requirement, only encouraged. If all you want to say is "I like Grim Fandango better than Myst", "Myst pwns GF", "Simon 3d is better than Simon 1 and 2" or something like that, that's just as valid input as a list of 50 games. The later will influence the final results more, but your opinion will count just as much as everyone else's when it comes to comparing those two or three games you listed.

aries323: Just to make sure I don't misunderstand you: Is this how your list would be?

1. Shivers 2
2. King's Quest 6

3. (shared place) Zork Nemesis
Broken Sword 1
Broken Sword 2
Legend of Kyrandia: Hand of Fate
Myst
Space Quest 6
Torin's Passage
King's Quest 7
Kings' Quest 8

Ahhh!!! Post, dammit, post!

Wait a second, what was that stuff about Bioforge? How is one person's number 1 game higher than everyone else's? Is it because no one else has posted it to bring the ranking of their's down? Meaning, does this system find the medium number assigned to every game listed and rank them accordingly (a MI at number 4 and one at 6 balance out to a number 5 spot??)? I'm totally confused. Shouldn't the amount of times something has been listed contribute in some way to their rank?

I feel like changing my post to put some silly game that no one else has played at the top just to screw things up. Why? I dunno, spite.

This is what I'm thinking too. It seems possible that a game that only one person have put on the list and ranked number one will end up being the Number One Adventure Game although the game isn't popular to the majority of Adveture Gamers. Not that this is the most likely scenario, but still a possible one.

I'm just trying to understand this way of ranking/thinking. And I will post a list.
Soon.
Not tonight, perhaps tomorrow.

No, it wouldn't be...

I just fund out that I misunderstood the OP.
I thought we were to mention the best adventure game we have ever played.
I will repost this list in a day or two ---- adding the numbers.

Sorry guys :(

aries323

Good questions. I wish Trumgottist had, I dunno, posted a link or something about the vote counting method at the beginning of the thread. Hm... :P

*shrug* Every ranking algorithm can be easily abused in a similar way. But what would you gain from it? It's just for fun - nobody's pretending it will establish the objectively best adventure ever or something.

Trumgottist, assuming optimistically there ever is enough data to tally the votes, there will most certainly be a lot of ties during the listmaking. Two types of ties, really: between pairs (ie. A wins with B by a margin of seven votes, and also C wins with D by a margin of seven votes), and - more problematic - within pairs (X>Y gets as much votes as Y>X). Have you already planned how would you deal with them?

I know he posted a link. I even clicked on it. But then there were too many other links to click on and presumably too much reading and math involved so I stopped there. Yes, I know, I'm lazy. I was just hoping someone would explain the basic principals of this whole thing in plain English. I guess I'll just have to do some reading instead though.

I was joking. I have no intentions of sabotaging this thing. I was just trying to make a point of how silly it is that one person's vote for a rather unpopular title can hold so much sway.

Not unpopular: unknown. The algorithm assumes that people are listing all the adventure games they've played. So if only one person mentioned Bioforge, it assumes that only that person played it*, and if that person gave it a #1 spot, then it concludes that it must be an unknown gem, and the game gets a high rank in the final tally. Of course, if people only list their top-something instead of all the games they've played, or if they can't agree on what games should be included in the poll or not, then the final results are bound to look odd.

* which is different from a top-10, -20, etc., where not listing a game can either mean that you liked it least than all those you listed, or that you haven't played it, which of course induces a strong bias towards games everybody has played, which is probably why all the top spots always end up going to Sierra/LucasArts games in that sort of polls; and that's one of the problems Trumgottist's method tries to address.

I've been working on my list for a while now. This is as good as it gets. I'll probably change my mind on some detail the minute I've posted it, but nevermind.

Riven
TLJ
Grim Fandango
URU Ages beyond Myst+The Path of the Shell
Myst Revelation
Still Life
The Black Mirror
Scratches
Broken Sword TSotT
Syberia2
The Dig
Dreamfall
Syberia
Broken Sword TSM
Broken Sword TSD
Real Myst
Myst End of Ages
Myst Exile
Aura
The Curse of Moneky Island
Full Throttle
CSI Dark Motives
Return to Mysterious Island

Then that is the desired result. Even if only one person of those bothering to post in this thread has played The Best Game Ever, it still deserves the top spot. (Note that a list that only says "1. Unknown Game - 2. Badly Ranked Game" won't place Unknown Game at the top. It'll only place it just above Badly Ranked Game. For Unknown Game to place in the top, the person ranking it must also be ranking the game that would have been number one.) The idea is not to find the game most people have played. (Though such statistics could also be compiled from this thread, and might also be interesting...)

No, I haven't given this much thought yet, but the AB, CD thing shouldn't be a problem. A ranks above B and C above D. There should be other pairs to sort out the rest.

My initial reaction to the XY thing is to let those rankings cancel each other out and disregard the XY pair. If doing that leaves too little data to compile a list than so be it. Then we get no list.

Yes and no. I'm specifically thinking of a situation where A>B or C>D are mutually exclusive because of the already "locked" pairs. Let's say that (in a totally made up example), Myst beats Zork by two votes, and Zork beats Monkey Island also by two votes. However, it's already been determined at an earlier stage that Monkey Island must rank above Myst. Thus, we can only work either Myst>Zork or Zork>MI, but not both, into the existing list.

Of course, the algorithm could just pick the tied pairs in random order, but it's not very elegant, since it would mean different lists could be compiled from the same data. I'd prefer an objective criterion, even if a silly one. For example, the age difference. (The tied pairs where the difference between the release dates is the smallest have priority. I'd rationalize it this way: the comparisons between games more distant in time are less reliable, as nostalgia may unfairly sway the balance in favour of the older game, and technological advancements in favour of the newer one.)
Good point, probably. But now that I think of it, the same criterion (not necessarily the same which I proposed, but the same that would be used to fix the first problem) could be used here - we would only have to accept that the final list could also end up having some ties.

Sorry for overanalyzing things. :D

I still think that the popularity of a game should have a direct impact on its ranking, for better or for worse. It's hard to imagine that a group of hardcore adventure gamers have somehow all overlooked the best game ever. It's probably more likely that it was overlooked because it looks like crap or never got decent enough reviews to make it onto our radars in the first place. If one crazy guy with horrible taste was desperately in love with a movie called Biker Zombie Chicks From Mars that was in such limited release that no one else actually saw it, should that rank higher than Citizen Kane and the Godfather because he's the only person to list it? Something doesn't quite add up.

And on the other end of things, if one person has played something that they felt was really horrible, shouldn't a game that several people felt was equally horrible place lower on the list since it is more universally considered to be rubbish?

Maybe we should compile several lists from the ones posted here. That way we could at least get a feel for how these things compare (I know, I know "well, why don't you do it, Mr. Flyboy??" - I'll come up with an excuse later).

This is where I admit my limited experience. Nobody makes the kind of game I want to play (so I am making my own!). So I tend to start games but not finish them.

Played, enjoyed, and finished:

1.Zak mcKracken - the closest thing to my ideal game.
2. Loom
3. MI1
4. MI2
5. Day of the Tentacle
6. Maniac Mansion
7. MI3
8. Zak 2 (freeware fan game: quite pleasant if you are a Zak fan, or if you start with low expectations)

Played but not finished:

1. Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (actually I enjoyed this, but was only stoped by the fight sequence in the castle. I am useless at fighting. I am told there is another way round, but by then I had move on to other things)
2. Pink Panther Passport to Peril
3. Five go something or other (rubbish but very cheap Famous Five adventure)
4. Discworld Noir
5. The Dig
6. Full Throttle
7. MI4
8. Sam and Max
9. Myst
10. Carmen Sandiego
11+ Five or ten others that I have forgotten

You've just (re)discovered why the method only makes sense when there is a lot of lists to work with (which minimizes the occurences like this).

(On a side note, this would be a beautiful world if indeed only horrible movies were getting limited releases.)
It should, and it does. Have you read the link? (Actually just the first chapter will suffice.)

Alright, you got me there. I'll shut up and do my homework.

Good for you, it's about time.