It's not about trying one or two games, is that you *have* to vote them as your favourites, even if you have only played a few of the games and have no idea if there are better ones. Many people download the pack of games, ordered with foldered games first. Most people start at the top, and not everybody plays them all, therefore the games in folders are more likely to get SSE votes, making them more likely to win.
I agree with Nocturne here, saying "bad games might get votes" isn't really a valid argument against the SSE system, it's an argument against lazy people who won't take their time to at least try one or two games before voting, changing the system won't change people's voting habits.
It's an issue, I accept that. There are ways to weight voting so to limit this (such as giving higher weight to votes that are similar to the average), but that's a reasonably complicated system to set up so it probably wont be an option. I'm happy to discuss other options, I just think we should use a system where games are voted independently of each other.
Under your new system DD, I could very easily give a game above me a very low score to lower it's average and give myself an advantage over it. SSE cancels out this possibility for tactical voting.
Think about it like this: 1000 games are made, 100 people vote, but they only have time to play one game each. They choose at random, each choosing a different game. The games are ok, and since they have to either vote for them or not vote, they all choose to just vote for the game they played. We end up with 100 people coming 1st equal, and 900 people coming 2nd/last equal. Rating systems generally lead to very few joint placements.
Edited by Dangerous_Dave, 19 May 2012 - 12:52 PM.