Top 100 is meaningless, a farce and irrelevant:

Growing tired of the complete joke that the supposed Pinside top 100 has become. It is somewhat irrelevant and serves no real purpose. It needs overhauling badly. Boils down to an owners and haters list. Owners pumping up the ratings and haters trying to bring ratings down on great games. Jurassic Park for example debuted at #1 until the haters started rating it 3’s and 4’s. Same thing happened to POTC and on and on.

That’s why the top 100 should be renamed to “Owners & Haters top 100 bragging & bashing list”. The way it’s setup is near meaningless. Old games and new games should not be on the same list, imo. It is a popularity contest, with new games always being bashed in favor of the old nostalgic games.

It appears to not be based on how good a game is, rather, people hating on Stern, JJP, American Pinball or Spooky.

True top 100 games should be listed in order of sales figures, which we will never know, unless any current pinball company went out of business. Doubt B/W sales figures come any where close to the current day HUO market, as there are so many more potential sales in this market than the old location based regimes of the past.

How do you feel? How should the supposed Top 100 be overhauled? Or are you fine the way it is?

Lol, you that are picking on Munsters rating. Exactly the point.

The game is a great layout, then choosing through many characters that only change the game slightly and then no reference to the characters again, seems average...hence average score.

Cut and paste when they blur into similar layout, game play and rule sets. Why write difference if it is all similar?

This is the point of this post. Hence why top 100 seems frivolous...

LOL

Nice point.

Makes the most sense...

Lol, you looked them all up! That many!!

Good point and if only everyone did that.

Thanks all (except for the nasties...lol), you’ve made some good points that will maybe help fix it in the future, if Pinside were to consider a change.

1. Possibly have two top 100s like separate categories for music industry genres. They don’t try to lump country and rock together. Old games (older than 15 years) and new games of the past 15 years. Hopefully that would cut down on people attempting to sabotage new titles in favor of old titles? This could be a simple but meaningful change and make it more relevant.

Old beloved games and the new modern games. Simple and more harmonious solution imo. Could even be games made before the year 2000 and games created after 2000.

Why some of you feel like you have to be a nasty mean spirited person here on Pinside is beyond my comprehension.

Good example of why Pinside Top 100 is a farce and not very relevant the way that it is. This is exactly what I’m talking about. I realize STH is a matter of what one likes or dislikes (like they are all), but it is now the unfair poster child of people bashing it, because Stern made it. Just like Munsters has been bashed over and over unfairly and was that same poster child last year. Your idea to wait a year, along with splitting into 2 eras, all games created before 2000, from games created after might help to improve and make it more relevant.

Could also have a top 100 EM games era.

People will less likely boast or bash the games this way. Throw out the top and bottom 5%, as another good idea as well.

Thanks everyone for giving these ideas. Will compile and send to Pinside as a suggestion, but they will probably leave it as is and numerous of us will continue to ignore it as a failed attempt at rating games. Glad they don’t rate movies, music, etc this way. It would be an unnecessary disaster for those industries.

Thanks for your kindness again (“not sure you know how top anything works”).

We all know it is subjective. Not attempting to get people to agree, just attempting to help the way it is done to become more fair to the machines that are created. Lots of labor and work go into these machines, by all the designers, coders, engineers, artist and on and on. Dumping on them in the current iteration that is the Pinside Top 100 is very unfair to all those people and their work.

If it can be made more fair, why wouldn’t Pinside change it? We can all say, “who cares”, but people actually do care.

This is not just a thread to complain in, it is about improving the system. What is wrong with that???

Again, this is not a rant and not about what you or I want. This is about how the system can be made more fair and improved.

Yes, know these numbers and what does that prove (think your numbers are off some)? We don’t know the numbers of current day manufacturers, but the current day home market is many times that of location based arcades of the past.

What is incorrect and I’ll correct it.

Have you actually played STH and seen the projector and upside down UV kit work? None of us have, so how can it be fairly rated???

Neither one of us know current day numbers (or will ever know), so this argument is futile.

...but you rated a game that you’ve not played nor seen first hand work? That’s like rating a car without driving it or seeing it first hand.

With the upside down UV kit in it? That’s impossible, no one has. Point taken how silly and irrelevant Top 100 has become. People are rating games they have no idea about the completed product. Thanks for again proving the point of this thread.

You’re reaching on that one. We all know the UV kit is not a mod. It was printed into the completed play field from day one.

The talk and ratings of STH is a great example of bashing and why the Pinside Top 100 needs to be fixed badly. A game created by the designer and owner of two of the games in the top 3 spots.

When he was Brian Eddy with B/W as a designer, he could do no wrong, because B/W is a company long gone and did not have the internet to bash the stuffing out of them long ago.

Now the same guy puts out a very similar game to those top 2 ranked games on the Pinside Top 100 and most everyone is blasting his work because he is now designing for Stern. Case closed on this one.

Again STH is a great example of what’s wrong with the current Pinside Top 100 rating system. Haters of Stern are making sure to blast the efforts of the same guy (Brian Eddie) they claim to love and adore from his design work of more than 2 decades ago and yet his newest iteration is nearly the same as AFM and MM. BTW, Brian said that he was trying to emulate those 2 beloved machines designs when he did Stranger Things.

(Haters are going to hate to face the facts...Stern haters, start your down voting frenzy)

I don’t own STH and haven’t played it yet. My real intent is nothing more than to help fix the system, that’s it. Don’t care where any game rating ends up, once the structure is made into a more fair and level rating system.

This discussion with you is turning silly, don’t you think?

You’ve taken it seriously enough that you’ve made quite an few posts here, lol.

Really trying to justify your post of it being a mod. It is not a mod and any reasonable person knows that. It’s a coded part of the game. Mods are not ever coded into a game.

How is this incorrect? Are there not many more potential home sales than arcades? Most every city has thousands and thousands of homes and maybe 1 arcade.

2020’s by in large market place is the home, not the quite small and dwindling arcade market.

The point of this thread is not about a discussion of what is a mod or what isn’t. (We all know the coding in the upside down aspect of STH is incredibly different and inclusive of the UV kit, not a mod by any stretch of the definition, as it was planned and part of the game from the beginning. The example you’re using is an actual mod of a light showing on BF, not considered nor part of the original game and planning. Be reasonable, please.

Please read all earlier ideas and suggestions in this thread from myself and different people.