I like big games. Maybe it came from the habit of only buying lengthy games and renting the rest but that fact remains: I like big games. Not games full of filler but awesome games with a lot of content. I would take a great, somewhat iterative giant game over the great new innovative indy game any day of the week. I like to get lost in a world and soak it in. I don't think most indy releases can provide that.
I feel like even if I enjoyed papers please, gone home and rogue legacy quite a lot this year, they were still fleeting and limited experiences compared to their AAA counterparts. But that's not a fair comparison because those are 10-20$ games vs 60$ games. Comparing the 2 is just like saying that if I thought an indy game was better than a AAA release I thought was well worth the price of entry I would have no problem paying 60$ for it. Maybe it's just me but I can probably count on one hand the number of indy games ever I would've paid 60$ to play with the forknowledge of their subjective quality.
With all that in mind, I don't know if anyone on the GB staff shares my perspective anymore. I don't even know if they ever shared that opinion or if the biggest games just used to be the only worthwhile GotY candidats. Anyway, the fact that they can't seem to get as excited about most of the biggest games of the year as they were about a frisbee game from 20 years ago has made it harder and harder for me to relate.
Am I crazy for having scope as one of my primary metrics for judging the quality of a game? Am I crazy for thinking the crew used to enjoy great expensive games over any other and don't anymore? Is this real life taking away video game time from people who comment on video games for a living? Is this jaddedness? Or should I get with the times and proclaim that divekick is a better game than GTA5?