Fallen London is the best free-to-play text based computer game ever made
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 2 votes and with 2 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 5,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
"Game" in this context: an electronic game that involves interaction with a user interface to generate visual feedback on a two- or three-dimensional video display device such as a touchscreen, virtual reality headset or monitor/TV set
Text-based: an electronic game that uses a text-based user interface, that is, the user interface employs a set of encodable characters such as ASCII instead of bitmap or vector graphics.
Free-to-play: Doesn't cost money to play
Burden of proof is shared
Sounds like a very good game. However, con was able to look at different metrics to compare it to other games, and they each won. I did not get a feeling of the comparative metrics placing it on balance at the top, merely it holds up being very good.
One key moment was pro countering con's rating of another game by pointing out the low number of reviews, to which con was able to point out the ratings for pro's option used even less.
When using the term "ever made" it does very much invite comparisons to games which inspired it, which can be defended by showing other games it in turn inspired, but I did not notice this happening.
On the metric of story I would say Fallen London sounds better, but too many out metrics such as legacy, ratings, player-base, overwhelm this.
Pro spent a little too much time talking about his own personal opinions. The value I get out of this is very limited because if the majority of the free-to-play text based computer game community disagrees then that opinion is practically meaningless.
This was highlighted when Pro's assertions were countered with reviews of gamers that clearly preferred the options Con brought up. I know Pro tried to counter Con's source but never provided links to the reviews of the games, and he never said that Fallen London had better scores on the sites he brought up. So, it seems pretty clear that Fallen London was liked much less than the alternatives Con brought up.
Moreover, Con finalized his victory by highlighting how his options had reached a wider audience and pioneered the genre. This proves that Con's options had a much stronger legacy, and although Pro had many strong opinions about the alternatives of Con, they were not backed up by much strong evidence.
In short, gamers seem to have reached a consensus that Fallen London is worse than games like Zork. Also, Con was able to prove how his alternatives had a much stronger legacy.