How do you feel about a game being on your GOTY list without playing it?

This is in reference to the giant beast play dates of Contradiction and Until Dawn. I recently picked up Until Dawn thanks to black Friday, but haven't played through it myself yet and I doubt I will ever go back and play through contradiction on my own. They were definitely two of my favorite game experiences this year but there is something about it that makes me feel weird about including them.

I'm fine with that given how story based those games are.

Some games I think very highly of (for example FF7) I watched someone else play mostly. I also regard Persona 4 very highly but haven't played through it myself either from watching the ER.

Personally I doubt I give either one a spot considering I just watched them even if I enjoyed the video. But I get why someone would put them on their list.

First reaction, that's stupid and no.

But come to think of it... I remember Until Dawn and Contradiction as if I played them myself.

Mario Maker brought me much joy this year. And I don't own the game or a Wii U.

If you watched and enjoyed it enough to feel compelled to include it in your GOTY list, then it probably deserves that spot in your list.

You don't necessarily have to have played a game to understand what makes it a good game.

I could maybe vote Undertale as the best indie game of the year. I haven't played a second of it, but with how many comments I've read and heard about, I might as well have played the game myself.

I feel you on the Contradiction situation, loved watching the guys play through that. I couldn't and won't put it on my list though, I feel like I have to play a game to consider it. But that's just me. Do what feels right to you, it doesn't matter too much anyway. There is no wrong answer here.

That's fine.

Life is Strange is my GOTY for 2015 so far, and I watched the Beastcrew play half of it and then excitedly watched the remaining half on YouTube. Haven't spent a second playing it myself but that game had a profound effect on me, making me realize that is something that doesn't happen very often in gaming - which is why it's on my GOTY.

That said I think the type of game makes a big difference. Titles like Until Dawn or Life is Strange don't bring ALL that much to them from a pure gameplay perspective - it's more about experiencing a story unfold. I wouldn't put something like Tomb Raider or Halo on a GOTY list without having played them myself because in those cases I think the actual act of playing carries more weight than just experiencing the story.

You can do what you want. It's your list.

If you were doing this professionally I'd think less of you, but I don't care what you do personally.

I don't put games I haven't played on my personal GOTY lists.

As a personal game of the year list it makes sense, because you have the luxury of devising your own rules for what constitutes a potential game of the year candidate. It would also make sense if you were collaborating with a group of people and a game that you did not have the chance of playing was heavily supported as an addition to the list. In short, unless you care (as I kinda do for my own list), you should do whatever feels right for you.

Personally, I'd feel better about putting games from previous years on a GOTY list for this year than a game from this year I didn't play but it's your list man so you set the rules. Plus, I get where you're coming from. Really enjoying Life is Strange streams, I hope they do another soon!!

I think it's a tough call either way. Personally, I don't think I would include a game unless I played it myself, but I can certainly see why others would.

On the one hand, if you're not playing a game it's very hard to tell just how the controls and certain other elements feel even if the person playing tries to describe them; a good story and/or a combat system which is at least solid in concept can be largely ruined by a severe lack of polish in other areas. Plus, it's easy to ignore or otherwise not pay much attention to boring, frustrating, or just otherwise bad sections of a game if you're just a person watching and not the person who has to deal with them over and over.

On the other hand, video games were a very community-oriented experience back when arcades were still popular and the relatively new popularity of streaming has largely brought back that sense of sharing in the experience with a large group of others in a way that online multiplayer on its own usually does not. Thus, I think it is perfectly fair to give points towards a game being good if it is able to create a highly-enjoyable community experience (assuming said joy does not come from the game being astoundingly bad of course).

As others have said it's your GOTY list and you can do whatever you want with it. As an example, there is a good chance that Resident Evil HD Remaster will make my top ten since I never played REmake on the Gamecube so it was my first time experiencing it. However I'm pretty sure the GB crew wouldn't allow HD remasters of games to end up on their list.

If you feel uncomfortable then maybe put some other games in. If I were in your position, instead of putting Contradiction on the list, I'd put "GBEast Playthrough of Contradiction" on the list since it is a specific and separate product from Contradiction, but that's just my viewpoint. I feel like if I watched a straight playthrough of that game with no commentary I wouldn't have much of a positive reaction to it.

I personally wouldn't put a game I never played on my goty list. A lot of what made contradiction and until good was the commentary from the giant bomb guys. If I would have played them myself I would have never had as good of a time.

It's dumb, fun, but ultimately meaningless list. Do what you want.

I know I wouldn't feel right doing that. At least for me, that feels on par with reading a movie's plot on Wikipedia and then naming it your favourite movie...

I wouldn't do it personally.

I think watching a game all the way through still counts. Especially if what you saw stuck with you enough that you consider it one of the best gaming experiences of the year. That's what matters anyways right?

I didn't touch a controller during all of Until Dawwn, just sat on the couch with a group of friends and let them take care of it. RIP MATT YOU WERE THE ONLY SANE ONE. That may or may not go on my goty list.

I think GoTY lists are a very personal thing so to each their own. I think that doing that could still be a good jumping-off point to discuss certain games and the interesting things they do, but I definitely wouldn't do it myself. I think even in very story-focused games I find the experience of having to solve puzzles or make difficult narrative decisions is almost always an essential part of the game for me.

I personally don't put games I haven't played on my list.

Even if you didn't "play" them, you still experienced them. In that case I think it's fine to put it on the list, but not "Everyone says Witcher 3 is really good but I haven't had time to play it, so I'll put it on there," that will inevitably happen with some games.

That sounds like silly nonsense to me. Which is exactly what GOTY is all about! So go for it.

I wouldn't include anything I hadn't personally played. Regardless of how much I enjoyed watching the guys play Contradiction, I might fire it up myself and find I hate the act of playing it. Also I could discover that most of my enjoyment came from watching those dudes play it and not from the game itself.

I wouldn't... but, as others has said, it is just a dumb fun list, so go for it.

I'd say it's silly. But not just because of the knee jerk reaction of you haven't actually played said games.

If people keep bringing up the argument of "well it's as if I played it anyway" the instant counterpoint is how much of that enjoyment was actually derived from watching the Vinny+Alex+Austin play through it (or some other personalty), with their reactions and commentary vs. how much of it was due to the game itself? You might have said fuck it and dropped that game in the first 5 minutes, or issues that the crew had to experience got glossed over for you, maybe the game part of it wouldn't even have been fun to play/control, etcetera

At that point a more honest category (i would feel like) would be "top Let's Plays of the year"

(we have an entire small industry based around this very concept)

That's like saying you have a favorite film but you've never seen it. "Game of the Year" picks should be made by people who have actually played the game.

This is just the rub of that kind of game that gives roughly the same experience watching and playing. For example I think rather highly of 999 and VLR and while I technically own VLR for the Vita I don't have a Vita; but I've watched Supergreatfriend play through both and enjoyed the process immensely.

I wouldn't put them on my personal list for fairly obvious reasons, but I could see why someone would; I could also see why you could advocate not purchasing these kinds of games in most situations when you could get a similar or better experience watching someone else. I think Deadly Premonition is a fantastic game to watch and probably a pretty terrible one to play; so it is difficult to assess the actual quality of the game. Of course if you look at a game like Spec Ops: The Line not only is it amazing to watch it is also amazing to play, but that's not always the case. There's a very specific gravity to a game like the Last of Us that requires one playing it to really feel the experience, but if you're talking about a game with little or no gameplay then why not just watch it?

Back in the day I'd say no way. But in today's world? I think it's fine within reason for a multitude of reasons.

First of all, most gamers rarely finish games in the first place. Do you feel someone can pass judgement on a game without finishing it? I think you can and I suspect most people do it anyway without saying. I do think it's absolutely better and fairer to judge a game after completing it if you can. But does say a lousy second half necessarily or always completely invalidate a strong first half? especially if the first half is honestly what most gamers truly care about? I don't think so, although there are cases where it certainly can (e.g. Bravely Default).

Second if you think about it, to even have purchased ten AAA new release games on a list can be as much as a $600.00 investment or more. Unless you redbox of gamefly that stuff which less and less people are doing. That's no small chunk of change and can exclude low income gamers from participating. Realistically to even have ten games to meaningfully talk about, hopefully you have experience with 15 or more. Is it really that meaningful to read a top ten list from someone who has only even played 11 games and maybe only one platform? There's going to be some serious marketing/selection bias there.

Given those 2 factors it's not like these user lists were that exacting or sacrosanct in the first place.

Thirdly, let's plays and streams of their nature allow gamers to experience games meaningfully they have never played or purchased in a way previously that was impossible. Granted some genres it's more revealing than others (you'll experience a much higher % of the experience of Life is Strange through a Let's Play than say Rocket League) of the total experience. Just as Quick Looks are a pretty effective way to tell if you are going to like a game, I feel a Let's Play is nearly equally effective in evaluating their quality. I can't speak for others, but it's very rare for me to watch an hour of gameplay of a game and not know within a star how I'm going to feel about a game. Which makes sense, since if the format is going to be useful for purchasing advice I need to get a meaningful taste to evaluate if I want to spend money on it. It's not like I set out to buy 1-2 star games on purpose, well not at full price anyway. The other potential benefit of streams is that they allow gamers to experience a game they'll likely never touch if it's a say on a platform they don't intend to buy. In fact I'd say gamers today are much savvier about the quality general landscape of games than they have ever been in history as a result. I've had friends make recommendations to me before based of their opinions after watching a game being played, I don't dismiss those eventhough they don't have hands on experience with the game itself.

ideally in a perfect world, everybody plays dozens of major releases all the way through and then picks the 10 they like the best. But we don't live in that world, so I think there has to be willingness to recognize people can experience them in different ways and still have something valuable to say.

Maybe the solution is for the list makers to include things like rough completion % and time spent into their lists, so that readers can make their own decisions as to whether to value that particular person's opinion on a game.

I think you should have to play it. Just watching it isn't good enough.

Garnett Lee gave the Witcher 2 his game of the year even though he had only played like 7 hours of it.

It's your list. You set the rules.

For a lot of games, the story is the main hook. Whether you or someone else presses the A button at certain objects doesn't change the product.

Persona 4 is on my top 5 of all time and I never played it.

Nope, I think you gotta play it.

Watching a game and playing a game are two different things. Literally.

I guess the first part is true. But I would never give any credence to a list made by someone who hadn't played the games included.

The second part I completely disagree with. Obviously it does otherwise story based games wouldn't be games, they would be movies.

@bluefish:

As always , context matters i guess.

When you're an prolific person and you're making a list that will be seen by a lot of people, you want to make sure that you played the games. It would look bad if Giant bomb decided to put Xenoblade Chronicles X on nr 1 because everyone watched the quick look and decided that that game is rad. I wouldn't take that list serious.

However, when you're just casually asking your friend, hey what did you enjoy in 2015 and he lists games that he didn't finish / or play at all, i don't see a problem with that.

I watched 2 full playthroughs of Until Dawn and the GB playthrough of Contradiction. Now i could go through those games myself and try to save everyone in Until dawn, which might unlock a few different scenes, but overall i would be getting the same experience. There is a minor kick in being able to save everyone, but that appeal varies from person to person.

Contradiction is an even more extreme case since it's a fairly linear story line. As a player, you're finding the triggers to advance the story. Once the solution is seen, the game is solved. I see little reason to play that game for myself, unless i I'm in a nostalgic mood and forgot about the story line or i'm doing it to support the creators.

Games differ from movies because of the interactive nature of them, but there's very clearly a range of interactivity between games. For me, games like A Bird Story, Contradiction, Press X to Continue and Missing fall on the low end of interactivity and don't benefit much from you interacting with it after you've seen the content of the game in a video. Games like Cities Skylines, Super Meat Boy, Starcraft and Quake 3 are on the other end of the spectrum and require the interactivity to be enjoyed.

@onemanarmyy:

It's true that interactivity varies, but interactivity is a/the core engagement and manipulation tool used by developers that differentiates games.

You could easily tell me about all the content and mechanics in Papers Please from some lets plays. But engaging with the mechanics is %100 central to the emotional effect of the whole game. Feeling the tension, responsibility and guilt for those peoples lives IS the game and is truly not the same experience should you have watched it on Youtube.

A sense of 'what is unknown' is central to Until Dawn. The question of 'what is going to happen next and will it kill me' is essential to playing it. Their lives in your hands and not knowing what turn of fate is around the corner is the essence of the game.

Halo is the on the fly mental reflexes to solve combat puzzles with the tools available and the satisfaction gained from it. Obviously doubly so for strategy games.

Games are distinct because of their interactivity and what it makes the player think and feel. Watching a game is like being told about a movie. If someone tells me they watched Until Dawn and "it looks really cool", that's one thing. If someone puts together a list, suggesting thorough knowledge truly representing opinion I will wholeheartedly dismiss it if they haven't actually played those games.

A game of the year list is meaningless. You can put whatever you want on it. Like a grocery list.

My grocery item of the year is Oatmeal, followed closely by Toilet Paper

wow that's bullshit here let me send you a long and boring email explaining in excruciating detail why your opinion is incorrect regarding oatmeal being slightly superior in any way to toilet paper because i have nothing better to do and am brain deficient.

I don't make my own GOTY lists, but if I did there would be several games on it that I didn't play myself:

Contradiction
Life Is Strange
Super Mario Maker
Until Dawn

I think those are fine because they're mostly story-based games without a whole lot of actual gameplay mechanics. Who is physically holding the controller seems mostly irrelevant. Super Mario Maker is the obvious exception, but I've played a ton of Mario games in my day and I know how they play. I don't need to play this particular game to appreciate it for what it is.

I think it's fine for Telltale-style games, which are essentially interactive TV shows anyway so you really aren't going to get anything additional from playing them yourself. This year, I would put until dawn, tales from the borderlands, life is strange and game of thrones in that group (along with a few others).

I think it's kinda weird to include something like Super Mario Maker which is entirely gameplay focused and involves no story at all -- without playing it. But you do you.

As long as the game is more about the story/non-gameplay elements or that you can properly justify your reasoning for putting it on the list, I think it's fine.

Begs the question, are the GBEAST crew's reactions your Experience of the Year or is the game itself your GOTY?