Do you feel the staff size increase has negatively impacted GOTY?

This year more than ever I felt that the top 10 list was a list of compromises rather than a solid top 10 that everyone could get behind. Now that the staff is at a size where it's harder to get everyone to agree (which is a good thing in general) it has lead to scenarios where each person could champion one game that no one else is very keen on and get it on the top ten for the sake of fairness (maybe that's the wrong word).

It seemed because of this there was a lot less arguing about the order of the list this year than years past. It makes me wonder if they should go back to the system of 2009 where there is one winner and then everything else takes second place.

Am I wrong? Probably.

Na, I think getting so far away from reviews, essentially being in a perpetual preview cycle means everyone's only sunk time into a few titles so no one can argue against anything with much validity.

size increase? they lost someone.

I think 2016 was kind of a lackluster year and that is why there wasn't a bunch of arguing, a lot of good games came out, but not a lot of remarkable games came out.

As a fan of the staff and the site in general, I think putting any sort of weight behind the Giant Bomb GOTY deliberations is already a step in the wrong direction.

@ripelivejam: pretty sure he means when it was just the four of em.

Among them, they barely even play the same games, so the entire process is flawed if you're looking for some kind of consensus across all possible contenders as the optimal method. But no list written by more than one person will be any better.

Totally. They should determine GOTY with science, like the fighting game rankings.

It's still an increase because they hired Dan and Jason but you're probably right. At some point, Drew was part of GB and not part of deliberations.

Not in the least. The fact that there are more people playing games the rest of the staff overlooked or never really got into is a plus in my book. If nothing else, less people means a more homogenous conversation. Less people play less games and therefore the coverage can suffer. You can lose people because they don't feel represented. For example, no one really got into stardew valley on the staff; dan did. That got me to look at it, and it was one of my favorite games last year. I feel like I would've totally missed out on something I thoroughly love if that voice wasn't here on the site.

Opportunities arise when there are more perspectives and opinions. And that applies to both the audience and the staff. Remember when Vinny got into the souls games? Over time that had a knock on effect in the staff, and eventually we got actual content from it. Jeff and Vinny were interested in Persona 4 and gave it a go, to what is now one of the most high profile series on the site. Patrick spearheaded a bunch of coverage of Spelunky (another game I would've overlooked if not for the voice of patrick on the site) Brad got really into Dota 2 and then we got a lot of coverage with that. Plenty of people benefit from the wide array of perspectives that come with more people on the site. So, I just can't see that as a negative.

They didn't really increased the staff size.

GOTY deliberations might give you that impression because they put all hands on deck, joining east and west in a single office and including Jason, Matt and Drew in some of the discussions, when they are not often in front of the cameras. Also, this year deliberations felt differently because they intentionally structured it differently, going for a less petty way to decide the list... (which I approve)

I don't think its the staff size increase so much as everyone is more playing what they want now (also there's a lot more games being released each year now) than it was in the old days. Even if you only pay attention to what Jeff, Brad, and Vinny said in the 2016 deliberations; I think there is still far less agreement than there was back in the early days. Sure they may hold differing opinions on Skyrim, Saints Row 3, Bioshock 2, and Mass Effect 2, but at least they all played them and all agreed that they were at least quite good games. Now I'm not sure there were any AAA games they all played in 2016 other than Hitman and Doom; which by the way took the #1 and #2 spots on the GOTY list.

I like that less top quality games are completely out of the discussion because of a small staff size. I think you're correct in that more interesting discussions can be had out of 3-4 people than an entire table where 3-4 people are silent for a long period of time. I think the GOTY deliberations are no better or worse, just different.

I still don't get why people care so much about end of the year too tens.

They got a week's worth of podcasts out of it. It was a success

No I don't,

I think it could be structured better for informational and entertainment purposes though. And the fix I think is a simple in theory one (although I know it's very hard to do in practice given the way they cover games during the year), which is to at least get most of everyone some meaningful playtime on the top contenders before going in.

TBF I haven't listened to this year's yet, so I might like it better now. Heard that they changed the discussion format a bit.

I don't think so, but I was disappointed by this year's deliberations. I wanted to hear arguments and passion. Not 'I am ready to fall on my sword' -'Oh, really? Well, then I guess that game's in'.

... What? Come on. At least make the argument for it.

I really want them to not give up games so easily. And when they don't, make great cases for them.

I agree with basically what everyone is saying here. It's just a fact of life that the Giant Bomb staff will chill out as they get older. In fact, I would be worried if they didn't mature out of the style from 2009. It was a lot of fun to listen to the big arguments back then, but in retrospect they did a lot of talking past each other and not getting anywhere.

I also have a feeling that games are just less contentious than they were back then, because within any given genre things are getting more and more standardized and less risky. Things that were once "bad design" in one genre just get funneled into new subgenres that people feel OK about reading about instead of actually playing. That means discussions go like this:

Jeff: I really love X

Brad: I did not enjoy X, but I respect your love of X. X was not for me, but I understand why you love it.

Jeff: I understand why you didn't enjoy X. I am glad we can come to peaceful terms over this divide.

I believe they have said that in years past they would beat certain games that they didn't like, just to argue them with the people who were going to push for them. This was done out of some sense of justice, and to create more juicy conflict for our entertainment.

And this is where your theory comes in mercutio123, because two people in a group of four really pushing a game means it's going to be near the top, which means a sole dissenter NEEDS to finish a game they don't even like in order to successfully argue; whereas with 7+ people, two people are not going to push a game to the top when the rest of the group is "meh" on it.

So why go out of your way to finish a game you don't like, to argue it a more forcefully than maybe you would have otherwise if it weren't being recorded for entertainment purposes, which maybe makes the rest of the week more awkward for your team trying to produce tons of content under deadline, while you got a wife and or child at home, a holiday you have to plan a trip for, and oh god you're pushing 40, and seriously who gives a shit.

Hmm, I dunno, not really? Kinda see what you mean though.

But, more importantly, I just feel like GOTY is really small potatoes... or a cherry on top? Kinda of a nothing award that is really just a reason to give us hours and hours of games talk. From back in the day, I always felt what Jeff wanted to do was pull back the curtain on the hallowed GOTY awards and say "Look at this shit - it's just people in a room talking nonsense until everyone gives up and a winner is crowned". I feel sometimes people forget about this part... GB *knows* GOTY is just an arbitrary list, and they revel in that and let us join in on the fun.

All that said, I appreciate where you are coming from just in terms of numbers of people creating more issues, and I think that is undeniable (in the sense that it is more likely 3-4 COULD have anything interesting to say about 1 game than 10 people doing the same). Others pointed this out but, also, back in the day it seemed "everyone playing all the games" was more of a mission and today that is different, mostly to our benefit I think - and definitely to theirs.

Also... MGS4 GOTY! I'll never forgive that shit!

I'm glad this year was less of a melee and more of a celebration of what was good in 2016.

I do still wish @rorie was involved in these deliberations, but I can understand that he probably has a few dozen other plates spinning

Nope. Compromise is the point of a site wide list. It is supposed to represent Giant Bomb. I will say I think they should reflect a bit more on that part, and keep the personal pet peeves to the personal lists. It wouldn't have made sense for any other game than Hitman to be GOTY this year.

Looking back at how the main GOTY award arguments would go on for hours and hours when it was just the original 4 and in 2011 with just Patrick being the one addition, there was certainly a passion to the deliberations that has been missing ever since. But yeah, other poster also brought up a good point about the staff just mellowing out a little as they've gotten older and are quicker to concede things, which is fine and probably better for their psychological wellbeing!

Nah.

I feel the opposite. More opinions, more games, more variety. Plus, like Jeff said, it's their own thing and they make the rules.

Thanks to those discussions I'm addicted to Stardew Valley and looking forward to playing Hyperlight next. :-)

This is the only truly relevant statement regarding GB GOTY. It's silly fun.

I'd wager it wasn't too different to Gamespot, in terms of staff being spread thin. GB's staff has increased but more games garner attention.

I'd much rather see games that people truly liked on the list than games everyone was meh on. It's supposed to be best games regardless of genre and not everyone can like the same genres or have the time to play every game.

As for the lack of salt? This year the main top 10 list was pretty diplomatic, but there were several categories (such as the Backwards Compatibility one) that has pretty heated arguments. I do find it funny that every year I've seen people complain that the deliberations are too angry and now it immediately becomes the opposite.

I think the size is just fine in terms of putting out interesting content for the GOTY podcast series. The old heated arguments made sense given who was there at the time, where they'd come from as a site, and the landscape of games at the time. Things have changed in such a way that the old fighting strategy just wouldn't be as good or broad.

Obviously I like it when something ridiculously funny is said but my favorite moments these days are when someone brings up a lot of positive things about a game that a lot of the other staff had overlooked and someone else critically (or jokingly) parses that out why those points are persuasive or not. What's less entertaining for me is listening to someone just saying they "really like this game and had a lot of fun" without really going into why or someone saying that a game did nothing for them without some additional details of why a game comes up short. Basically 'self-evident' arguments may as well be dead air when it comes to entertainment and insight.

Thankfully I think the crew gets it right most of the time and I think the size of the crew isn't hurting anything at all.

I honestly think that the staff's diversity of games is too low, especially for (what is perceived to be) what little work they have to do as a website (no required reviews, no preview coverage, no real write ups, etc) as everything is primarily video based content. I would honestly say that the 2016 Game of the Year category was the most tame and, dare I say it...boring? I felt that instead of good debate or contention it was everyone "vs" one guy, so the one guy (typically Alex or Vinnie) loses.

Also, as much as I love Hitman and most of the content they've delivered with the game on this site I would love for the second season of Hitman not come out this year so I can get a break from hearing about this game for a while.

Actually I disagree. I am 100% all for the GOTY list being made up of games championed by one member of the staff each. I'd rather have a list of personal No1's that might not have got much hype over the year than a list of generic games that everybody thinks are ok.

Not at all. GOTY talks are probably the most useless and dumb feature they do all year. Personally i pay no attention to where games rank or what becomes top of a category, i just like the road it takes them to get there because it sparks interesting conversations about games.

I think Jeff's sentiment when it came to taking off Uncharted 4 was spot on, that it's way better to have a game on there that someone is really passionate about than a game that all of them are just alright with.

That being said, the idea that people look to these GOTY deliberations as anything beyond pure entertainment and approaching some true metric of greatness and quality is absurd. The podcasts are fun and spark interesting discussion, don't take them too seriously.

No one liked the game the other did and the only consensus they could agree on was doom mp being bad. Really dont like the idea that giant bomb needs to safeguard the industry from "bad" trends and take every quick look for the site as a knight in shinning armor. This may be my preference to content being more lighthearted and entertaining rather then about taking everything dead serious. remember your opinion is wrong and your crazy for thinking it after all. Vinny should be their role model on how to be laid back.

I don't think so.

For one, I like the ordered list of 10, as opposed to a list where 2 through 5 or 2 through 9 are all tied for second. This year there were a lot of passion games, but I think the results were good. Hearing how people talked about it and how it appeared on people's lists, Uncharted 4 was a #8 through #10 kind of game. People liked it for story, but had issues with it as a game. And overall, people said it was a really good game, not Game of the Year level. It was kind of a compromise, but I think knocking off Uncharted 4 and adding all three of the passion games--Thumper, Stardew Valley, and Hyper Light Drifter--was a good end result, even if not everybody play those games. And even if those games were supported by a cheerleader, the list as it stands feels more representative of the site as a result.

The only possible issue I see is if let's say there were 10 people on staff and each person picked their personal GOTY, and that is what made up the top 10 list. As a site list, building it that way may be weird, especially for this year. That would mean games like Superhot or The Witness wouldn't be on there, even though those two are one of the site's games of 2016.

nah

Only thing that was worse was the lack of those parody bits that introduced the nominees and winners.

I was about to write a similar thing as @turbopubx16 and @bojackhorseman but they've beaten me to it. Great summary.

Personally I loved Austins "fite me IRL" Inivisble inc. discussion during GOTY 2015, which was a game nobody else spend more than maybe a few hours on. These sort of discussion I think are partially because everyone brings such diverse tastes to the table in the first place. Less chance for it to happen with less than a handful of people around.

No, and personally I thought this was a fantastic GOTY and much more enjoyable to listen to than the more fighty ones of the past.

As much as I do miss the Saints Row The Third v Skyrim style deathmatch arguments, you can't really hold it against the staff that nothing has grabbed them enough to really go to bat for in that way.

I don't even think they've mellowed especially and that when a game comes out that somebody really truly falls for in that way, that we'll see a huge debate brew up again. The games in this years top ten were all great and all consistent but nobody seemed to have that single serving passion that fueled those old arguments to make game X the NUMBER ONE MOTHERFUCKING GAME OF THE YEAR! Like the closest was Brad skirting around Doom and even he was pretty hard on the Hitman bandwagon before the conversation even began.

Why isn't this a poll?

You are very wrong. It's always a compromise.

In fact, I would perfer more talk from some people (Jason and Drew in particular). I know personalities vary and one might not be all that comfortable making a case for something if they haven't played a tonne of video games but I do want everyone on GB to be well-represented.

he he he... staff size

The GOTY Deliberation with Austin and Dan were different than years before with Patrick and Ryan. The GOTY dynamic changes as people change too and by what games really "Click" with people.

What I think is excellent, is that Jeff has emphasized -repeatedly - that these GOTY deliberations are the Giant Bomb Staff as a whole. They do have their individual lists, the community member have their individual lists, and celebrity guest have their lists. However, when the staff comes together to its deliberation that "IS ITS OWN LIST".

I actually think they system is very unique in that there are no points awarded. It not how often a game shows up on a staff members list, or any other method. The deliberations that "give & take" molded by Type A and Type B personality theory at work, makes for an interesting list because of how arguments go and how the lists form.

I don't love the 'I will die on this hill' type stuff, which sees less popular games getting over-represented due to one duder putting all their eggs in one basket. But I actually felt there was less of that this year.

Here's a thing; the types of statements that Alex and Dan came with regarding their top games, like "I will argue until you accept this game as a top ten" is super lame. I think they should get the opportunity to argue their case, but if they don't win the staff over, then that is also fine. Don't go ahead like a kid saying it's this or die.

Alternatively: If someone has a game they love, make that clear way ahead of the deliberations, so that the other guys can at least play it some. I get that they are busy people, but if someone has a game they love, I don't think it is too much to ask to get the rest of the guys to play that game for an hour. If it clicks, great. If not, then that's fine too.

So this feels weird to mention but the overall feel of GOTY is so different with Ryan gone the past few years. There was a real, "This is it" kind of feel to the whole thing with him. People would fight so hard and have incredibly drawn out discussions and drill down with personal passion. He would bring that out of them. The person arguing would not back down until their case was heard and a good counter argument was put forth. This year we heard a lot of "If you feel that strongly I guess we'll go with that". Not apathetic but strangely muted.

I understand the yearly urge to collate and tabulate less and less as I grow older. It feels like an anachronism in some regards, and yet most online publications persist with year-end lists. I prefer sites that offer up a collection of explanations as to why certain pieces of media of the year that was are good and worthy of merit, and leave it at that. Honestly, hearing Jeff and co. debate why something is #5 and not #6 sounds nonsensical and petty. Selecting a #1 is rational, but comparing and contrasting something like Stardew Valley and DOOM merely perpetuates the (in)validity of arguments between hypothetical, anonymous forumites campaigning for which one is 'best' of the two.

Not the overall size as much as the general diversity of tastes and opinions.

I completely agree. The past few years have been fairly negative. I'm really glad they realized that and changed the way they approached that final top 10. It felt a lot less mean, and more like what you said, "a celebration of the good" last year.