• Log In | Sign Up

  • News
  • Reviews
  • Top Games
  • Search
  • New Releases
  • Daily Deals
  • Forums

Adventure Gamers - Forums

Welcome to Adventure Gamers. Please Sign In or Join Now to post.

You are here: HomeForum Home → Gaming → Adventure → Thread

Post Marker Legend:

  • New Topic New posts
  • Old Topic No new posts

Currently online

Jdawg445

Support us, by purchasing through these affiliate links

   

Community Playthrough Procedures

Avatar

Total Posts: 5035

Joined 2004-07-12

PM

1.  Is it necessary for a game to have a leader to qualify for a CP or should any game win with a simple majority?

Not having a leader should not disqualify a winning game from a CP.

2.  Do you personally prefer a CP with or without a leader?

Yes and no. I’ve seen games moderated by a leader that didn’t seem up to the task that would possibly have been better played in free-form. And yes, a good leader can carry a CP.

3.  In your opinion, what kind of games would do best without a leader?

I’m not sure I like the way the question is phrased. If the question is whether there is a type of game that could easily be played without a leader, the answer is yes. The game needs to be linear, and designed with easily recognizable break points. Sinking Island is an example of that type of game.

4.  Does the person nominating a game have to be the one who leads it or can anyone nominate a game?

Tough question. I nominated Shivers several times, but had no desire to lead it. I was lucky. A game I nominated and wanted to ply was matched with somebody who wanted to lead it. On the other hand, I think the person nominating a game should “normally” be expected to lead it if it wins.

5.  If a person is thinking about leading a game, should s/he state that during the voting process?

Why wouldn’t they?

6.  Is two weeks enough time for the nominations and voting or do we need more time?

Personally, I think three weeks would be a bit better. Two weeks for the nominating/voting. One week to tie up the loose ends such as allowing a winning leaderless game time to find a leader.

7.  It has been stated that in case of a tie, voting should be extended for another week and should be open to everyone who wants to play one of the tied games.  Do you agree with this?  If not, why not?

Not sure. This was never an issue before when some games would collect 10-15 votes each. Then a couple of stray votes were unlikely to make a difference. Today, when a game might be tied at five votes each, a couple of stray votes could have a decisive impact from people who expressed no prior interest in the outcome. The easiest route would be to limit voters to all voters that voted in the current PT whether or not they voted for either of the tied games.

8.  Should the list of games from the previous round of voting be brought forward to the next round or should nominations begin fresh each time?

When I ran the Casual Games Community Playthrough, I always posted the “losers” from the prior vote along with the people who nominated those games. They were not brought forward, but served as a reminder in case someone wanted to re-nominate a game.

     

For whom the games toll,
they toll for thee.

Avatar

Total Posts: 1350

Joined 2009-04-28

PM

1.  Is it necessary for a game to have a leader to qualify for a CP or should any game win with a simple majority?
Yes a leader is needed. Every game needs - at bare minimum - someone to make a thread for it and say ‘Go’. That still qualifies as a leader in my mind, even if participants can play at their own pace and the ‘leader’ does nothing else than start the thread and say ‘Go’.

2.  Do you personally prefer a CP with or without a leader?
With for sure.

3.  In your opinion, what kind of games would do best without a leader?
In my opinion part of the fun of the community playthrough is going at the same speed to share the experience. However other people think differently and that’s fine of course, so it’s less the game type and more the playthrough type for me (leader or no leader).

If there is no leader then perhaps it could be marked ‘leaderless’ and people can vote in the knowledge there is no leader and therefore if it wins we assume everyone who voted is happy with it proceeding that way. Anyone who is against a leaderless CPT can simply not vote for a game where there is no leader. Everyone is happy?

4.  Does the person nominating a game have to be the one who leads it or can anyone nominate a game?
Ideally perhaps they would be, but I don’t think they need to be

5.  If a person is thinking about leading a game, should s/he state that during the voting process?
Yes, or within a day or so of voting if a leaderless playthrough wins.

6.  Is two weeks enough time for the nominations and voting or do we need more time?
Seems fine to me.

7.  It has been stated that in case of a tie, voting should be extended for another week and should be open to everyone who wants to play one of the tied games.  Do you agree with this?  If not, why not? 
There are too many rules already, to be honest I don’t care.

8.  Should the list of games from the previous round of voting be brought forward to the next round or should nominations begin fresh each time?
Fresh each time.

Luhr28 - 01 March 2020 07:13 PM

Many games are designed like this, to be leaderless, and I’d argue all games are designed to be played without a leader. Discussion, however, is an entirely different thing. Playthroughs can have discussion without the players being led.

Spoilers are the problem for me. If it’s the first time I’m playing the witness for example and people are talking about how they solved/got to a specific area that I haven’t even tried yet… basically I would have to avoid all spoilered comments until the end of the game to keep the exploration/first time experience unspoilt which would mean practically zero discussion for me. At least with set sections there comes a point when you can talk about some things from the last section without spoiler tags, because everybody’s played them.

I would agree that a structured playthrough limits your freedom of exploration as a player, but it gives you the chance to experience and discuss the game with others as you go through at roughly the same pace. That’s a big plus for me and worth a little limit on explorative freedom. YMMV obviously.

     

3.5 time winner of the “Really Annoying Caption Contest Saboteur” Award!

Avatar

Total Posts: 1353

Joined 2017-09-18

PM

Intense Degree - 02 March 2020 04:06 AM
Luhr28 - 01 March 2020 07:13 PM

Many games are designed like this, to be leaderless, and I’d argue all games are designed to be played without a leader. Discussion, however, is an entirely different thing. Playthroughs can have discussion without the players being led.

Spoilers are the problem for me. If it’s the first time I’m playing the witness for example and people are talking about how they solved/got to a specific area that I haven’t even tried yet… basically I would have to avoid all spoilered comments until the end of the game to keep the exploration/first time experience unspoilt which would mean practically zero discussion for me. At least with set sections there comes a point when you can talk about some things from the last section without spoiler tags, because everybody’s played them.

I would agree that a structured playthrough limits your freedom of exploration as a player, but it gives you the chance to experience and discuss the game with others as you go through at roughly the same pace. That’s a big plus for me and worth a little limit on explorative freedom. YMMV obviously.

I would be interested to see if that’s actually true. At the moment it’s only speculation. For example, why can’t you just avoid a spoiler which explains how they solved a puzzle in Area X?

But because some people have labeled certain types of games as ‘unsuitable’ for a CP we haven’t had a chance to test it out. I believe Obra Dinn was one of those games, with a few people in fear about spoilers, and the playthrough turned out perfectly.

I would love to try a game like The Witness or something like it as a playthrough. With or without a leader. I’m betting it would be a lot more fun and less problematic than everyone is suggesting.

     
Avatar

Total Posts: 7432

Joined 2013-08-26

PM

Luhr28 - 02 March 2020 06:35 AM
Intense Degree - 02 March 2020 04:06 AM

Spoilers are the problem for me.
[...]
I would agree that a structured playthrough limits your freedom of exploration as a player, but it gives you the chance to experience and discuss the game with others as you go through at roughly the same pace. That’s a big plus for me and worth a little limit on explorative freedom. YMMV obviously.

Both are a problem for me. I don’t want a CP to be either spoilerish or too restrictive, which is an important reason I don’t often participate in playthroughs. The Obra Dinn is a good example. I’m glad I decided to play it my own way and didn’t read the comments until later.

I would be interested to see if that’s actually true. At the moment it’s only speculation. For example, why can’t you just avoid a spoiler which explains how they solved a puzzle in Area X?

You can, but I’d hope the discussion would go far beyond the solutions to specific puzzles, especially in a layered game like The Witness with all the details, quotes, symbols, extras. So much to talk about! One example (in spoiler tags for those lucky people who can still play The Witness for the first time) how would you find out if other players have already discovered the environmental puzzles, so you can discuss them?

But because some people have labeled certain types of games as ‘unsuitable’ for a CP we haven’t had a chance to test it out. I believe Obra Dinn was one of those games, with a few people in fear about spoilers, and the playthrough turned out perfectly.

I am one of those people. The Obra Dinn leader came up with the creative and unusual solution to pace the game by the number of puzzles/fates solved. With hindsight, I don’t think that was a good decision. Stop when you’ve solved the first 18 fates (of a total of 60 fates) meant you had to play more than half of the game, which of course took many hours.

I would love to try a game like The Witness or something like it as a playthrough. With or without a leader. I’m betting it would be a lot more fun and less problematic than everyone is suggesting.

I disagree, imo it’s one of the most CP-proof games. Besides, it’s very very long, a CP would take months. But I’d love to participate in a playthrough of The Witness with people who’ve played it before.

     

See you around, wolf. Nerissa

Avatar

Total Posts: 2704

Joined 2004-08-02

PM

1.  Is it necessary for a game to have a leader to qualify for a CP or should any game win with a simple majority?
Majority rules. That’s the most democratic way.

2.  Do you personally prefer a CP with or without a leader? 
With leader, but I would still participate in a CP without one.

3.  In your opinion, what kind of games would do best without a leader?
Those with good stopping points, like games divided into chapters, acts, or episodes.

4.  Does the person nominating a game have to be the one who leads it or can anyone nominate a game?
Anyone can nominate.

5.  If a person is thinking about leading a game, should s/he state that during the voting process?
Well they should BUT they also should be allowed to state that later, if they want to. Sometimes people have real life commitments that might change during the voting process, so their availability to lead (or not lead) a game could change.

6.  Is two weeks enough time for the nominations and voting or do we need more time?
Two weeks feels short. Maybe 3?

7.  It has been stated that in case of a tie, voting should be extended for another week and should be open to everyone who wants to play one of the tied games.  Do you agree with this?  If not, why not? 

Yes.

8.  Should the list of games from the previous round of voting be brought forward to the next round or should nominations begin fresh each time?
Nominations should begin fresh. The reason being, suppose people who voted for game X this round for whatever reason do not have time to participate in the next round. Then bringing game X forward doesn’t make sense because none of the people who wanted to play it are available.

     
Avatar

Total Posts: 6584

Joined 2007-07-22

PM

1.  Is it necessary for a game to have a leader to qualify for a CP or should any game win with a simple majority?

There needs to be a leader.

2.  Do you personally prefer a CP with or without a leader? 

With a leader.

3.  In your opinion, what kind of games would do best without a leader?

None in a community playthrough. But there’re other threads where it can work (Community Challenge, Unofficial playthrough etc.)

4.  Does the person nominating a game have to be the one who leads it or can anyone nominate a game?

I would never nominate a game if I’m not ready to lead it at the same time, but that’s me.

5.  If a person is thinking about leading a game, should s/he state that during the voting process?

S/he should state it clearly - I WILL LEAD that game!, or shut up until eternity.

6.  Is two weeks enough time for the nominations and voting or do we need more time?

It’s enough.

7.  It has been stated that in case of a tie, voting should be extended for another week and should be open to everyone who wants to play one of the tied games.  Do you agree with this?  If not, why not? 

4-5 days extension is enough so anyone else can vote, or someone who already voted to change opinion.

8.  Should the list of games from the previous round of voting be brought forward to the next round or should nominations begin fresh each time?

This is the trickiest question - on one hand, bringing list of games right from the start makes it easy to get the things going, but it also favors certain games. I’m undecided, but if I have to make a decision then it’s a fresh start each time.

     

Recently finished: Four Last Things 4/5, Edna & Harvey: The Breakout 5/5, Chains of Satinav 3,95/5, A Vampyre Story 88, Sam Peters 3/5, Broken Sword 1 4,5/5, Broken Sword 2 4,3/5, Broken Sword 3 85, Broken Sword 5 81, Gray Matter 4/5\nCurrently playing: Broken Sword 4, Keepsake (Let\‘s Play), Callahan\‘s Crosstime Saloon (post-Community Playthrough)\nLooking forward to: A Playwright’s Tale

Avatar

Total Posts: 1239

Joined 2016-04-08

PM

Too bad you had the great idea of asking people for their opinions. Now everything will be clear and controversies over, it was fun while it lasted…

Now, joking aside:


1.  Is it necessary for a game to have a leader to qualify for a CP or should any game win with a simple majority?

I think it is necessary.

2.  Do you personally prefer a CP with or without a leader?

I would prefer with a leader.

3.  In your opinion, what kind of games would do best without a leader?

Did I say I prefer with a leader?

4.  Does the person nominating a game have to be the one who leads it or can anyone nominate a game?

Anyone can nominate a game (and pray for a leader)

5.  If a person is thinking about leading a game, should s/he state that during the voting process?

S/he should so people can vote knowing there will be a leader.

6.  Is two weeks enough time for the nominations and voting or do we need more time?

I think it’s enough.

7.  It has been stated that in case of a tie, voting should be extended for another week and should be open to everyone who wants to play one of the tied games.  Do you agree with this?  If not, why not?

I think five says would be enough time.

8.  Should the list of games from the previous round of voting be brought forward to the next round or should nominations begin fresh each time?

Fresh start, although a list of previosly nominated games could be posted at the beginning as a reminder.

     

Currently translating Strangeland into Spanish. Wish me luck, or send me money to my Paypal haha

Avatar

Total Posts: 421

Joined 2007-08-13

PM

1.  Is it necessary for a game to have a leader to qualify for a CP or should any game win with a simple majority?

A leader is helpful in driving the playthrough forward in most cases. It needn’t be a requirement though. Perhaps all votes could be cast as “only with leader” or “regardless of leadership”?

2.  Do you personally prefer a CP with or without a leader?

I prefer an engaged leader over no leadership.

3.  In your opinion, what kind of games would do best without a leader?

I’m not sure if any games would necessarily be better without a leader.

4.  Does the person nominating a game have to be the one who leads it or can anyone nominate a game?

Anyone should be allowed to nominate.

5.  If a person is thinking about leading a game, should s/he state that during the voting process?

That would be helpful.

6.  Is two weeks enough time for the nominations and voting or do we need more time?

Two weeks seems about right.

7.  It has been stated that in case of a tie, voting should be extended for another week and should be open to everyone who wants to play one of the tied games.  Do you agree with this?  If not, why not?

I don’t have any opinion about this.

8.  Should the list of games from the previous round of voting be brought forward to the next round or should nominations begin fresh each time?

I think it’s easiest to keep starting from scratch.

     
Avatar

Total Posts: 291

Joined 2018-01-11

PM

I want to start by saying that I’m very new here, and I’ve never done CPT, and I don’t know if I will like it, but I’m willing to try anything twice, and also I just felt left out, and wanted to talk about whatever this is.  No one in my life particularly likes adventure games, or even reading.  And it kind of has the same appeal where, when I finish a book or game, I want to talk about it with someone!  (forgive me if my honesty tends to come before my politeness… it comes with the job).

1.  Is it necessary for a game to have a leader to qualify for a CP or should any game win with a simple majority?

Uh, I don’t really see what the big deal is.  A leader doesn’t necessarily have to a do a ton of heavy lifting right?  I mean you write a few sentence to get discussion started, and set parameters.  Yes have a leader.

2.  Do you personally prefer a CP with or without a leader?

IDK, I’ve never CPT’d

3.  In your opinion, what kind of games would do best without a leader?

IDK

4.  Does the person nominating a game have to be the one who leads it or can anyone nominate a game?

I don’t think there needs to be a rule like that, but the person who nominate need to at least be willing to lead in the event that others are too busy. 

5.  If a person is thinking about leading a game, should s/he state that during the voting process?

If you have interest in being a leader, that needs to be made clear.  I don’t care when it happens.  Earlier is better than later.  Later is better than never.

6.  Is two weeks enough time for the nominations and voting or do we need more time?

I agree with aforementioned comment that I think that is too much time.  We’re not talking about like an act of congress, it’s casting a vote, and typing the letters of the game you want to nominate.  I understand that some people are very busy with work and family and so on, and I think it’s okay to have concurrent CPTs that cater to those needs.  I work 20 hours a week, and have no romantic interests or family.  So I’m a little biased I suppose.  how long does voting normally take!?!?!

7.  It has been stated that in case of a tie, voting should be extended for another week and should be open to everyone who wants to play one of the tied games.  Do you agree with this?  If not, why not?

No. I seriously have doubts that more time is the solution.  I think the majority of people interested will vote within the first window, and after that probably nothing.  Either have concurrent CPTs or just have a tie breaker, and play them both one after another.

EDIT:  I forgot to answer question 8:

Start fresh (fresh oats..).  Just because I would have loved to play one game last month, does not mean I want to play that game this month.  Some stuff is just fickle like that.

     
Avatar

Total Posts: 2648

Joined 2004-01-18

PM

1.  Is it necessary for a game to have a leader to qualify for a CP or should any game win with a simple majority?

- Majority should win no matter what. Prefer the name Host to Leader. If the majority doesn’t have a leader one of the nominees should step up.

2.  Do you personally prefer a CP with or without a leader?

- Prefere ones with a host. However what do you expect the host to do. Daily updates on progress or just cheerleading from the side.

3.  In your opinion, what kind of games would do best without a leader?

-Not evergame requires one. I would say yes to big main playthroughs where the game is pretty linear. Non linear games like Obra Dinn, Witness are harder to host. However smaller side plays with less players could easily not require one.

4.  Does the person nominating a game have to be the one who leads it or can anyone nominate a game?

- Anyone, but it should be one of the nominees who hosts

5.  If a person is thinking about leading a game, should s/he state that during the voting process?

- Certainly would be easier

6.  Is two weeks enough time for the nominations and voting or do we need more time?

- Maybe you should take the votes for more than one playthrough at a time or agree a side play at the same time.

7.  It has been stated that in case of a tie, voting should be extended for another week and should be open to everyone who wants to play one of the tied games.  Do you agree with this?  If not, why not?

- One week is too long for tiebreaker. Should just give a day to reallocate votes.

8.  Should the list of games from the previous round of voting be brought forward to the next round or should nominations begin fresh each time?

- As stated maybe vote for two or three at a time.

     

An adventure game is nothing more than a good story set with engaging puzzles that fit seamlessly in with the story and the characters, and looks and sounds beautiful.
Roberta Williams

Avatar

Total Posts: 1353

Joined 2017-09-18

PM

Karlok - 02 March 2020 10:43 AM
Luhr28 - 02 March 2020 06:35 AM
Intense Degree - 02 March 2020 04:06 AM

Spoilers are the problem for me.
[...]
I would agree that a structured playthrough limits your freedom of exploration as a player, but it gives you the chance to experience and discuss the game with others as you go through at roughly the same pace. That’s a big plus for me and worth a little limit on explorative freedom. YMMV obviously.

Both are a problem for me. I don’t want a CP to be either spoilerish or too restrictive, which is an important reason I don’t often participate in playthroughs. The Obra Dinn is a good example. I’m glad I decided to play it my own way and didn’t read the comments until later.

I actually think that anyone who doesn’t want a game spoiled (and that includes myself) should avoid community playthroughs altogether.

Take the latest Memoria playthrough - and this isn’t a criticism - where the first instruction is to stop when we reach a certain location, along with a screenshot. Now, if this is our first time playing the game, we already know our character will be alive, we will end up in a cave where we will meet another playable character.

Some people might like this, but I think part of the gaming experience is not knowing where we will end up, what will happen to us. Otherwise it’s just a series of journeys from A to B where we know what both A and B are. It’s just not very appealing to know in 3 hours I’ll be trapped in the witch’s house in the forest. Anything that happens in between becomes a boring chore.

So what is there a leader can add that isn’t a spoiler? Very little, I would say. Some structure perhaps, but even that can be spoiler.

The idea of discussing a game with everyone as you go is nice, but from what I’ve seen the discussion is limited. It’s mostly “okay, I’ve reached area B, I enjoyed X Y and Z. Looking forward to the next part”. Most of the more interesting comments were from the replayers. And the first timers didn’t contribute much until the very end.

     
Avatar

Total Posts: 8720

Joined 2012-01-02

PM

The image for where to stop is in a link and not visible, for a reason,

what are you talking about ‘know our character will be alive’ i think you are in the wrong genre, man?

     
Avatar

Total Posts: 5035

Joined 2004-07-12

PM

Based on what I’ve seen, the title of the thread, Community Playthrough Procedures - Please Vote!, should have been better expressed as Community Playthrough Procedures - Express your opinion on these eight points. Because I don’t know that we actually voted on anything.

I also wonder whether anyone is going to compile this data. And how, and to what end it will be published. And I wonder what conclusions are drawn, if any, will have an impact on future AGCPT votes.

It was a fun exercise. It shows that lots of people have different opinions on a lot of different aspects of running a playthrough. Kudos to Lady K. I’m more than a bit surprised that this kind of survey was never run before.

     

For whom the games toll,
they toll for thee.

Avatar

Total Posts: 8720

Joined 2012-01-02

PM

THE VOTINGS RESULTS

I made a simple mechanism consisting of letters A and B as THE answers to the 8 questions, the letter A: expresses the positive answer to the form of the question how has it been laid out, B: is eventually representing the negative answer.

1.  Is it necessary for a game to have a leader to qualify for a CP or should any game win with a simple majority?

A: must have a leader       Votes:10
B: the majority will carry without   Votes:3

2.  Do you personally prefer a CP with or without a leader?

A: with a leader     Votes:5  
B: without a leader   Votes:6

3.  In your opinion, what kind of games would do best without a leader?

A: nonlinear and open-world game doesn’t need one   Votes:9
B: None, no game ever can be played without a leader   Votes:7

4.  Does the person nominating a game have to be the one who leads it or can anyone nominate a game?


A: he has to be willing to lead what he/she nominates Votes:5
B: no, anyone can nominate Votes:9

5.  If a person is thinking about leading a game, should s/he state that during the voting process?


A: yes, must, or prefer   Votes:9
B: Crabapple’S suggetion: a couple of days to be added. Votes:6

6.  Is two weeks enough time for the nominations and voting or do we need more time?


A: yes enough Votes:8
B: it is very long for some, or even short for others. Votes:5

7.  It has been stated that in case of a tie, voting should be extended for another week and should be open to everyone who wants to play one of the tied games.  Do you agree with this?  If not, why not?


A: yes, open for another week Votes:7
B: No it too long already     Votes: 5

8.  Should the list of games from the previous round of voting be brought forward to the next round or should nominations begin fresh each time?


A: start fresh Votes:14
B: bring forward the previous nominees Votes:0

 


P.S: some answers (a few) have not been A or B but they were disqualified as they were either not an answer to the question, or just stating they had no opinion on the matter.

 

     
Avatar

Total Posts: 7432

Joined 2013-08-26

PM

Advie - 06 March 2020 11:49 PM

THE VOTINGS RESULTS

ROTFL!!

If I’d voted I’d immediately demand a recount by someone else.

I don’t have to count anything to know from memory that more than just three (!) posters said a majority is enough for a game to win. Actually, I wouldn’t be surprised if you didn’t get even one of the eight results correct. And who is the Invisible Man or Woman in the 16 voters for question 3? Tongue

Advie Pan

     

See you around, wolf. Nerissa

You are here: HomeForum Home → Gaming → Adventure → Thread

Welcome to the Adventure Gamers forums!

Back to the top