Hall of Greats Poll

i'd love this. if it effect the others retroactively, you could have a youtube playlist for all the hall of greats games, and have it build over time.

rrice64

Dude...Just saw this now, and it is an awesome idea! Not only does it add an extra "stake" to voting something in, but it gives it the respect it deserves (especially if it's an old often forgotten title).

drd7of14

I voted yes, but I hope it's more along the lines of a single stream/video, maybe 1 or 2 hours long, where the Ally plays through the beginning of the game while talking about what he likes (and dislikes) about it. Almost like a Spoiler Mode Live type thing.

Harrison Holt-McHale

I love this rule idea because 5th and 6th generation games don't get streamed nearly enough, nor do PC games. This is their chance.

TurboChickenMan

"Let's Play" is unfortunate wording. Just "stream" or "a stream" is what I suspect most of the yes votes are for.

TurboChickenMan

He could delegate.

TurboChickenMan

This is a great idea. I vote for this.

LeeLore

I feel like this weeks vote shouldn't have been a yes or no but two different 'rules' if the options were available. Feel like lots of people will just hit yes so they don't get nothing so to speak. Also hoping this doesn't influence nominations at all and that whatever game gets in that person actually wants to stream/make an LP and that it doesn't have to be a full playthrough.

Kristen Rogers

Alternately, write a review or highlight reel of the game to show case its strengths in the actual game play rather than just the speech used to convince of its quality.

Bokthand

Oh yeah, people have some good points why a slight alteration to the rule might be in order since for example Don doesn't normally steam if that would be a requirement.

I voted no because, while I think it would be cool, I wouldnt want it to influence nominations. Sure, you could make the the argument that whoever nominates the game must believe its good enough to play through it again, but I doubt Ben would nominate Xenoblade Chronicles again if he had to play through it a second time. There's probably a middle ground here somewhere. Maybe the winner has to just stream the game a few times or something?

I voted no since this would influence nominations, in that the ally might not be willing to nominate longer titles in fear that may have to find time to play it when there are already too many games to play/review/preview.

And Patreon won't load the earliest 25-30 comments at all. This is the second time this has happened to me. That will really suck if it happens in that game suggestion post for $2.

Ville Ranto

Voted "NO" because this would eat up so much time and possibly stop RPGs from getting nominated at all. And this whole "let's add a new rule" for the $2 tier seems kind of useless for the Hall of Greats evenings. Or too complicated in the long run. I mean in a year we will have five additional rules in the process. Do we really need that?

Ville Ranto

Maybe the Group Stream Selection Council could amend the rule to allow the nomination of a proxy streamer if the ally who nominates the winner does not normally stream or have the time.

lq

Because it's a fun way for us to participate.

lq

I voted 'No' because I can see how you can have a great game in mind while not being able to do a let's play in time. I'd hate it if the lack of a let's play would stand in the way of a great debate.

LukeW

why the need to suddenly add new rules to an already rule heavy stream?

For the record it doesn’t have to be a full play through of the game. Most of it as far as how much is played is left open so it can be adjusted as needed. Honestly, I am surprised my idea ended up for this vote, and honored.

Mr.V

The rule specified that it didn't have to be a full playthrough already.

MaxVSTheGames

I voted no, but since it seems to be headed towards yes, it shouldn't be a full playthrough, that is insane. Just something to show off the games top qualities.

Marcel "Giru017" Frohlich

bag of cats

Michal Dudic

This is a terrible rule IMO. I can't believe the 'for' category is winning by a long shot. I don't want their selections ruined based on having to do a Let's Play. Selections should be based on merit and opinion, not on length or how streamable it is. If Brandon wants to nominate WoW he should be able to without having to make an LP of the god damned game. What about big RPGs? What about people who don't stream or do LPs as much? I don't want it to add videos they may not even want to produce to their schedule that they feel they have to churn out as opposed to videos they're actually inspired to make. Please don't make this a thing... All around a horrible idea.

Completely agree, something to show off the quality is enough.

Axel Selhammar

Voting no cause I dont see the benefit from it

Jakob

voting no cause it’s poorly written

sam

Voted no, because I don't want people being put off voting games simply because they have to play it within the year. Some games I only play once in life, and just leave it at that. And they're great as is. Not all games need to be re-playable. On top of that, streams are generally boring vs. produced content. So I don't want to encourage that. How about instead of streaming it, the winner has to produce a video (not a stream) on the game. Could be a retrospective, could be commentary, etc. I'd prefer that rather than someone pour potentially 10's of hours into a stream. Although it doesn't say how long the stream needs to be, so it could be fine now that I think about it. As long as it's not a forced full play through, I'm fine with that.

Andrew Chalmers

I voted no because I think streaming these games is valuable time that be used creating new content and moreover I'm not part of the demographic that enjoys Let's Plays. Seeing as 70% of those who have voted have voted in favor of the streams I guess we'll be getting them.

Gustavo

No, because Don doesn't stream games.

Alexander Zyryanov

Yes, because streaming the game once is not a full playthrough, they just need to show it off for a bit.

Ian Alexander

In a perfect world, this would be a great rule. But in a world where each Ally can realisitcally give only so much time to EZA, I feel this rule could skew allies into picking shorter games. Simply put, an ally might have strong feelings about a game, let's say, Monster hunter 4. Let's say there's an ally bound and determined to get that game in. That nomination now comes with, what, 100 hours of added time for the ally to budget? I just don't see this being a good thing to impose as a rule on an ally.

Kiraz

I voted no. But since it seems it’ll pass It shouldn’t be a whole game playthrough. That’s too much. You have 4 entries added each year

Greg Kettering

AS LONG AS IT'S not that it has to be a full play through otherwise games like FF7 etc though someone like me who never played the early mgs, final fantasy games, just going back to mgs3 is hard enough cause of the controls.

Michael James Hudson-kohlmeyer

I voted No because there is a chance that it will influence the games that will be nominated. If an ally doesn't have a lot of free time ahead of him, a big game that may take 80+hrs will not be chosen by them and instead will choose something that requires fewer hours.

Kenny Montenegro

Yes, unless the game is super rare/valuable that you don’t already have access to, and the allies would have to drop tons of cash to buy it.

I like the idea. Just let the ally decide how long they want to stream it for.. If they want to do a full playthrough then I'm sure that would be fun but if they just want to show it off for an hour or two and talk more about why they love it I think that would be great too.

I think this could have an impact on which games the allies choose to nominate.

Macka

With some games not being available or hard to get a hold of, let alone stream, I do not like this idea.

Sam Sorensen

Jones' "Red Dead Redemption" & "Final Fantasy VI" stream is why I voted yes. Those streams were like hugs. I want the other Allies to hug too.

Robert I.

I voted yes because I like the idea, but I agree that it needn't necessarily be the whole game. Also, I'd hope that the Allies would make sure that the length of the game and having to do a stream of it wouldn't influence their choice, because that's not really what Hall of Greats is about.

The next group stream night should include a 20-40min stream of the winning game highlighting why it won. Your group streams are mostly entertaining but a solo let's play is not worth doing.

While I voted no cause I think it's unnecessary, it seems it will win. So please don't make it more than one stream, maybe only an hour. Maybe it would work as part of a group stream, where everyone talks about the best bits as it's being played.

I like the idea but agree that more rules as to what the stream would entail need to be set out. A stream that highlights the game and what makes it great and maybe even goes in-depth on the arguments presented during the Hall of Greats discussion would be perfect, but forcing a full playthrough would probably result in almost no RPGs or other long games being nominated. It's also not like the Ally in question would have to stop streaming it if they didn't want to :P

Zack Carmichael

Voted „no“ because it‘s a bit of a waste of time. Those games are usually extremely well known and other games should be showcased if you have to do „let‘s play‘s“.

Andreas Köther

Sounds like a great idea if the purpose is a single stream/demonstration of why the game is great, and not an entire playthrough. I'm assuming it's more of the former than the latter.

balladofthegoddess

I think an amendment of "for at least 2 hours" would be fine.

TurboChickenMan

The ol' "vocal minority" in effect. For what it's worth, most of the comments aren't against the idea, just the potential of a full playthrough being required (hopefully not).

TurboChickenMan

I like the idea, so I'm voting Yes, but I wouldn't want the requirement to be a full playthrough. 1-2 streams would be good enough for me. Some games are just too long for a full playthrough to be reasonable.

Downtown

My initial reaction was "yes," but on further thought this rule sounds like it could create a lot of trouble depending on your reading of "let's play." A full play through of a JRPG could go upward of 80 hours, whereas a puzzle game like Tetris can be showcased in under 20 minutes. This may drastically influences the Allies' selection of games and/or impact their work schedule, especially with 4 inductees per year. The only way I would be comfortable with saying "yes" is if the Ally who wins can choose the duration of their let's play. It's an honor, not an obligation.

Looks at chat: "No it's not a good idea." Votes no: 75% of the vote is "yes." What?

Chris Leroux

I like the idea of an extra stream. Playing the game is one option. Another might be talking about the art, the music, the writing, the development, anything like that. It could be a deep dive or just nerding out over an awesome aspect/moment. Anything that ally chooses regarding the game that was inducted.

ThunderRazor

I feel like this would impact people's selections too much. There are some amazing games that I love, but that I wouldn't necessarily want to pick up and play again any time soon. Particularly some of the more difficult ones. If people are tempering their game nominations to ones that they would enjoy playing then we're not really doing the true Hall of Greats anymore.

Daniel Rona

This is a really uninteresting idea. There needs to be some kind of twist, because seeing an old and likely widely beloved game being played for an hour or two isn't exactly exciting

Josh Bossie

It is a fun idea but unrealistic. Sure, we’d all love a Kyle vs FF9 full playthrough. But what if he doesn’t win? Is he not allowed to stream it? Or if Jones gets FF6 in, he’s forced to do a second run? I suppose additional details for the rules would have to be applied.

ZatVunDoot

Also voted no. I find myself wishing more allies had more time to play more cool games or make more cool content, not necessarily play older games we already know are great

VGJunky

Voted no because I assume a "let's play" is a full play-through. And while that would be fine for something like Goldeneye, Symphony of the Night, or Super Metroid I don't think full play-throughs of FFIX, Assassin's Creed, or Dragon Quest should be mandatory. Plus the thought of having to do a full play-through might influence an Ally's choice of nominee. They could nominate a game they really like but have to dedicate 60 hours to streaming it if it wins, or nominate a game they like a lot but maybe not as much that would only require 3 hours to stream.

Ehie Yovach

Just personally, I’d rather the follow up be something like an episode of Spoiled, Hall of Greats edition, or something along those lines, but obviously that’s not what the winner asked for. Also, I’m not sure how gone I am on the idea of continually adding new rules, it’s fine at first, but I could see it getting overly complicated after a while.

BeatenDownBrian

voted no, sounds like a huge commitment if you want to propose a long game that you already played but not streamed. Unless it's enough to stream it once

If it's not a full playthrough it's alright. Make it 1 hour long (minimum) and it will be more of a celebration instead of an obligation.

Eric Grynberg

Because they're low on time as is. Why would you want more pointless game streams when they could be working on original "content".

I'm against enforcing rules on what they should do. It's their choice and they should be free of these obligations. And I don't see Don streaming.

I think just a stream talking about the game and why it's " great " but not a full playthrough.

Sekiro505

Voted no because we don't need more game streams. The latest Easy Update proves what EZA is capable of if they had some more time to come up with stuff. I honestly wouldn't mind if every gamestream outside of the group stream would stop.

Within a Year ? Hell make it six months also I vote for them to be group streams like the old GT days full playthrough fridays vibes for the greats right? Its a celebration of that game so more allies should be there for commentary and discussion Rotate em through L&R.

John Wingate

I'm against this because there is only so much time that they can play games. If they keep going back to old games, delays on reviews or other obligations will increase. Time is always against them and I don't think it is in their best interest to take on activities that restrict their availability even further.

This text as it was written got the most votes, so I guess it will be up to us to interpret it should it become Rule

Easy Allies

The playthrough should be done on the Ally's time, not during group streams

Henry Ramirez

I think this restricts people into picking games that are easier to stream or games they own.

Ibrahim Sozer

Why would anyone say no?

I'll assume this means a single stream. That sentence is close to a "love lots" situation. Hall of Greats is stressful enough for the allies I'm sure. Don't want a full play through requirement. Great idea though!

ComboBreaker

when one year of it getting in?

Sebastián Fereira

what does this actually mean? Can we get clarification please

Matthew Leonard

I voted yes, but I propose a sub-rule. If the winner has already done a playthrough of their nominated game on Easy Allies in the past, then the rule is considered already fulfilled. Could you imagine Ben winning with Xenoblade Chronicles and having to play through the entire thing again by the end of 2018?

Doesn't have to be a full play through, but a decent length stream at least.

Parasitepaladin

I went with no out of the fear that longer games would no longer be nominated. Looking at you Persona V.

Dominíc Brown

I feel like you guys are just making more work for yourselves but sure.

klastical

This

I don't think they mean a full playthrough.

If it is a full playthrough the finale should be on group stream night. Cosy

Steven Beaumont

I voted Yes, but I am also slightly worried that some great games will not be nominated anymore on purpose because of this rule. For example World of Warcraft. Edit: After considering I changed my vote to No, because of my earlier reasoning. Also I think other games like DOS games, handheld games or games that are hard to come by might suffer from this rule.

Henk Groenendijk

Could this proposition be rephrased and clarified. I had to read it 5 times before (I think) I got it. Also it‘s very vague. Or maybe, maybe I‘m too dumb to read :)

Yes yes yes *jeff goldblum impression*

Steven Beaumont

Ditto this. If it's a full play-through I would vote no, if it's just a single stream or however long they'd want to stream it I'll stick with yes. (I'm hoping it's vague on purpose so that the allies have flexibility)

sirvorn

Great idea!

Castno

Can we propose that this rule, should it be ratified, also applies to the current HOG inductees?

To be clear, will this be a single stream or does it have to be a full playthrough?

Samuel Cardwell