POLL: 1985 vs. 1987

Second match of the contest always tough.

SMB takes this home and it ain't close

SFF gon be strong yo

It really depends on how much the match pic makes it clear that 87 is WAY deeper

I picked 87 without much thinking.

But historically, I've been bad picking the 2nd match of the contest.

SwiftyDC posted...

But historically, I've been bad picking the 2nd match of the contest.

That's been the case historically for a lot of people. The second match of the contest is generally a toss-up, at least in theory.

I wonder what would happen if you seeded it. hard to argue 1995 being the 1 seed.

I assume we're doing the wildcard matches first anyway?

Wild card matches are first, yeah.

Isn't SMB just barely stronger than Zelda? Can't imagine it'll be able to carry in this match.

If you consider 53-54% to be barely, then I guess so.

Link, um, I mean Zelda, wins.

transience posted...

I wonder what would happen if you seeded it. hard to argue 1995 being the 1 seed.

In past contests, this has been the seeding structure for each division of a 32 entrant bracket:

1 vs. 8
4 vs. 5
3 vs. 6
2 vs. 7

If we applied this to the main bracket of this contest (Round 1), we're looking at the following seeds:

1 seeds - 1995, 1997, 1991, 1998
2 seeds - 2008, 1996, 2011, 2015
3 seeds - 2001, 2000, 1994, 2013
4 seeds - 1985, 2007, 2002, 1992
5 seeds - 1987, 2012, 2010, 2016
6 seeds - 2014, 1990, 2004, 2003
7 seeds - 2009, 1989, 2006, 2005
8 seeds - 1986, 1999, 1988, 1993
9 seeds - 1979, 1983, 1981, 1978

The Vote-In years were treated as 9 seeds in this bracket.

I think for most voters 1987's list of franchise-starting games will jump off the page enough to beat 1985, which literally has one game. One. 1987's got like five franchises with noteworthy voting power and 1985 has just Super Mario Bros. Maybe Duck Hunt.

I picked 1987. None of those games are the most popular in their franchise, but they are ALL the first in some of the most recognized series in gaming. SMB is strong, but I don't think it can hold up.

So we're just ignoring the NES itself?

redrocket_pub posted...

So we're just ignoring the NES itself?

I mean, I don't really put a lot of stock into it? Most GameFAQs users either weren't alive or weren't old enough to notice the NES's release, and the NES's first year is really crap compared to its third, at least NA-release wise. It's got a certain charm to it in a way, you can like kind of immediately tell those really early NES games - Excitebike, Ice Climber, Clu Clu Land, and all the rest - apart from their later counterparts, but really, they're mostly kind of novelties at this point. 1987 is when the NES really started coming out with heavy hitters, and for most people 1987-1990 are going to be the years that define the NES and what it was, and not the 1985 launch that most people weren't around for. It would be utterly bizarre to me for people to be voting for 1985 because of the NES. That's like giving 2006 credit for the PS3.