Adventure Gamers - Forums
You are here: Home → Forum Home → Gaming → Adventure → Thread
Post Marker Legend:
-
New posts -
No new posts
Currently online
[Archived] Time for a new community playthrough?
The ‘rule’ is definitely not mine & I’m not sure of the origin but there is indication in a couple of posts made in 2012 that a game couldn’t win unless it had a leader.
Here we go:
https://adventuregamers.com/archive/forums/adventure/19024-time-new-community-playthrough-32.html
post #626 7th Jan 2012
https://adventuregamers.com/forums/viewthread/92/P75
post #79 (18th Jan 2013)
https://adventuregamers.com/forums/viewthread/92/P120
post #128 (20th Jan 2013)
If you click on these links, just a few from the archives, you can clearly glean that there was some expectation of a game needing a playthrough leader in order to win.
If games recently have been disqualified due to the lack of a playthrough leader then it has its roots here & so not fair to blame the voting host.
No, it doesn’t seem to be fair if a game with 7 votes loses to one with only 4 but I will ask again if that game with 7 votes wins who is going to set-up the thread? & organise the structure? because if it’s going to work someone has to even if it works between a couple of people.
And before you get back onto the business of whether it’s my business Karlok - I’ve participated in the playthrough threads for the last 8 years & feel like I have a right to express my opinion whether I vote for a game or not. YOU however poked you nose into a couple of playthroughs that I led which you didn’t actively participate in except in the case of Kathy Rain to turn up like a bad penny to insult the developer & on Unforeseen Incidents to post a load of spoilers so please do not preach to me about what’s my business or not.
The ‘rule’ is definitely not mine & I’m not sure of the origin but there is indication in a couple of posts made in 2012 that a game couldn’t win unless it had a leader.
Here we go:
Okay Gameboomer.
Butter my buns and call me a biscuit! - Agent A
Yes, I’m a member of GameBoomers as are some other members here - so what.
If you want to change the rules Karlok why not try approaching it in a more positive way & how it could work rather than being so hostile.
As I stated before, I thought, based on my previous experience with playthroughs, that a CP game was supposed to have a leader and that a game that didn’t have one wouldn’t qualify. If the majority of the voters feel differently about this, please let me know.
“Rainy days should be spent at home with a cup of tea and a good book.” -Bill Watterson
As I stated before, I thought, based on my previous experience with playthroughs, that a CP game was supposed to have a leader and that a game that didn’t have one wouldn’t qualify. If the majority of the voters feel differently about this, please let me know.
I’m one of those who feel differently about this. That should be expected re: Lighthouse.
There are options. One is to mandate that the person nominating a game must be willing to lead it. Perforce the tag “leader” will be affixed to that person for that game. Yes, there are problems with that. But no more problems than currently exist. Two: No winning game will be eliminated simply because it lacks a leader. If, at the end of the voting, Game A is the winner, but has no leader, the person who nominated the game has one week to either lead the game, or find someone who will. If the time expires, then, and only then, is it appropriate to go to the second place game. Assuming it has a leader.
That is my suggestion. It can be parsed and rephrased however you want.
For whom the games toll,
they toll for thee.
I think some games lend themselves to breaking points, and can easily be played in a community playthrough without the guidance of a leader. For example, Kentucky Route Zero or any episodic game can be divided into X parts where X is the number of episodes. Other games like Al Emmo or Technobabylon are divided into chapters, and each chapter (or 2 for games with lots of chapters) can be a good breaking point. The discussion about the game will organically happen as people are playing or finish a part.
I have to admit it gets trickier in open games like Shivers where you can go virtually anywhere. I remember in that playthrough, even with a leader it was hard to find breaking points, so for those types of games, it is preferable if someone who played the game joins the playthroughs to guide the players where the stopping points are.
I agree with SoccerDude about some games needing more guidance than others. Not just with respect to breaking the game into chapters, but by what to do if different actions or different conversation choices lead to different paths in the game.
Also when a game wins the voting but has no leader (and needs one) I think there should be a delay of at least 2 or 3 days to call out for a leader and see if someone volunteers. That would have helped with Memoria, where Advie was willing to lead, and probably would have also helped with Lighthouse.
I like the.rules just fine as is. We always warn when the voting is going to close. Yes, a game with the most votes and a leader should be the winner.
I enjoy playing adventure games on my Alienware M17 r4 and my Nintendo Switch OLED.
Do you guys know or feel how intimidating are these conversations and debates to any newcomer or even old members who would wanna join in through any of these CPTs?
Come on, this thread is a very interesting read.
It’s usually more interesting and more fun than most of the playthroughs that ensue.
Everybody wants to be Cary Grant.
Even Me.
-Cary Grant
The most fascinating thread in the history of AG. Always has been, always will be.
Keep up the good work, people!
Meanwhile I’d like to add my vote to Memoria.
PC means personal computer
Memoria (4) - Advie (leader), Crabapple, DCast, Doom
Kentucky Route Zero, Ep. 1-5 (3) - Pegbiter, Karlok, Donuts McGee
Tormentum: Dark Sorrow (3) - Lady Kestrel (leader), Crabapple, Chrissie
The Journey Down, Ep. 1-3 (2) - Advie, Doom
Stasis (2) - Advie, DCast
Milkmaid of the Milky Way (1) - Mikekelly (leader)
Oknytt (1) - Crabapple
A Short Hike (1) - Advie
Thimbleweed Park (1) - Mikekelly (leader)
“Rainy days should be spent at home with a cup of tea and a good book.” -Bill Watterson
Come on, this thread is a very interesting read.
I notice you didn’t respond to LadyKestrel’s attempt to make you, Diego, and me at the very least partly responsible for her decision to annul votes. If you don’t mind being used and taken out of context you’re a better person than me. On the other hand, it was nice to be reminded of two of the best Unofficial Playthroughs.
It’s usually more interesting and more fun than most of the playthroughs that ensue.
That’s a bit harsh.
The most fascinating thread in the history of AG. Always has been, always will be.
Keep up the good work, people!
Yes. Touche and all that. But it’s not about KRZ or any other game, it’s about the principle, the anti-democratic “rules”. We don’t need no steenking rules!
Butter my buns and call me a biscuit! - Agent A
I have to admit it gets trickier in open games like Shivers where you can go virtually anywhere. I remember in that playthrough, even with a leader it was hard to find breaking points, so for those types of games, it is preferable if someone who played the game joins the playthroughs to guide the players where the stopping points are.
Absolutely correct. Using Lighthouse as an example: It won the vote, but didn’t have a leader. It didn’t need to have a leader. All it needed was for the nominator of the game to declare himself the leader. And then, ask the other two players who were familiar with the game, to help him lead the game. No brainer! But because there was no leader at the end of the vote. the game was disqualified. Not good procedure.
This is all the more annoying because it reminds me of something that occurred in recent US elections. Someone who lost the popular vote by more than 3.5 Million votes, was elected to office by virtue of the Electoral College which was enacted as part of the Constitution over 200 years ago. Most people of my political persuasion think it is time for the Electoral College to be put to bed. One person-One vote should be the rule of the land.
How that applies to the current situation is simple. Majority rules. Not majority with exceptions. MAJORITY.
For whom the games toll,
they toll for thee.
We NEED someone to WANT to lead the game. Not everyone wants to. So, no leader, no win. The leader must be a volunteer.
I may nominate a game I want to play in a CPT, but not have the qualifications to lead the CPT.
So, the game with a leader and the most votes wins.
I have NO interest in playing a game without a leader, kinda like playing DND without a Dungeon Master.
I enjoy playing adventure games on my Alienware M17 r4 and my Nintendo Switch OLED.
You are here: Home → Forum Home → Gaming → Adventure → Thread
