Should Giant Bomb do away with the "Best Game" category?

Yes, if only because it would make a fantastic pun.

I would really like it if they did something more robust with the personal top 10s in the future but I think the process of them beating each other up to determine that list is too fascinating to witness. It's rare you see that kind of content in the context of GOTY and I consider it a staple of their approach. I would rather we honestly start hashing out the way they do the categories and awards earlier. I would be down for a week of the site, on a slow week, focusing on experimenting with awards and ideas for the end of the year.

No

No, but this year was kind of a bummer. I liked it better when they straight-up cut games instead of the circle-jerk they had this year. Even Jeff thought it was a little dumb.

The most dramatic part of the whole process was "WHAT GAME IS GOING TO BE #8?!"

Eh, whatever.

The bargaining was a bit much. I blame Dota.

Don't care bout that. As long as they make silly game of the year podcast I'm ok with it either way. Its not like the official best game of the year has any meaning to me.

I think they should all walk into a room armed with a giant purple dildo bat and the person who walks/limps/crawls out/is still conscious/is still alive afterwards gets to make the top 10 GotY list. And of course it should be streamed. That way we can all see how much they really care about their Game of the Year. I think Brad woulda taken it this year.

They should skip the list format and just do one winner and two runners up. That's way better than the circle jerk that @wjb mentioned.

No but they should not allow Brad to put games on the list...

Yes but only because their arguments about it are hysterical (even if at least one oddball item makes the top 10 list every year because one person fights for it tooth and nail, like Syndicate last year thanks to Jeff). And no I don't consider DOTA that game even though I don't care for it because it had a big enough impact it did need to be in the top 10.

There are instances where the "deliberations" are pretty useless because they're all friends and won't really speak their minds not to hurt someone's feelings.

I don't mind Dota 2 being on the list so much as i do mind greatly the arguments Brad used in favor of it. At some point he was speaking so much nonsense and being so stubborn about it that i just can't imagine any way anyone else in that room could have called him out on a lot of that without killing the mood completely.

An overall best game with 2 runners-up would be better than a top 10 for sure but it's mostly the format of how they reach a consensus that i'd want to see them change.

Jeff said his own top 10 was a lot of 5 to 15 kinda games. That's just one guy's list filled with a lot of "good but not all that memorable" stuff. Multiply that by 6 and it just becomes ridiculous. In most really great years there are at most 3 or 4 games that really stand out well over everything else with the rest of the games that could be at number 5 or 10 or 20 and it wouldn't really matter.

@pyromagnestir: giant purple dildo bat > knife.

My favorite part of the whole debate was Jeff's total disgust with the system they came up with.

"And we somehow have a game of the year list without BioShock Infinite on it."

No, I think it works as a category. I really think they need to iron out the specifics on their system. Like@wjb said in his post, it really became a circle-jerk.

lol

That line right there is why they should never do it that way again.

At least with the initial cutting process like they did in the past, they consider each one individually and make definitive decisions. The way they did it, all they're doing is "We picked 2/3 of the list and the rest can fuck off, like BioShock Infinite." Why bother even doing it like that? Why bother making a huge list in the first place?

Then it just led to bargaining and something like Divekick gets in even though later, no one except Jeff put it in their personal lists.

I want blood, damn it.

Yes, because I think Giant Bomb should throw away all conventional Game of the Year categories and stick with the obscure ones.

the debate makes for AWESOME podcast for over the past 4 years

It is possible that there could be a tie for Game of the Year.

No, the whole point is to pick a game of the year.

Neeehhhhhhhhh... Neh.

"Best Debut" needs to be exiled from ever being a category again. If they don't do a better job at properly defining it, it's just going to keep being super dumb. Either:

A. Change the name to "Best Original Game".

B. Define what a "debut" is. When I think of a debut, I think of something from a new creator. For example, do you describe Inception (the film) as a debut? I wouldn't. Christopher Nolan had made several movies before, and most of the cast already had well-accomplished careers. A debut should be deserved for something truly new.

I found this year's debate in this category got real grating to listen to.

No. It's such a beautiful trainwreck that every year I can't look away. The other categories are definitely way more fun to listen to, though.

Jeff answered this

I don't know why they do this whole debate nonsense. Just take the staffs top 10, point it out... a 1 spot is 10 and down the line until 10 spot is 1. Total all the games they picked, if there is somehow a draw then they can debate those two games. But to get rid of a game of the year entirely? Hell no.

What, why? It's so much fun! Yeah it's dumb, and they know it, but it is a good way to recognize some of the better games released in a given year, and have a more in depth conversation about them than on any other podcast.

It's fun to listen to! Why would you want to deny us fun?

I think Brad's nonsense spewing about Dota 2 was crazy and Jeff's hatred of Brothers got annoying after the 12th time he suggested taking it off the list, but I loved every second of their arguing. This year was definitely different as they didn't feel as strongly about as many games as they did last year. In a way, you can kind of look at their Game of the Year category as "Who can get the most games they like on the list?" category. (I mean, Divekick? Really?)

Sure you could just have personal Top 10's and nothing else...but how boring is that?

God no.

I don't care about GOTY, but I do care about GOTY deliberations. So I'm going to say no, if purely because I would miss the conversation. Also, since Giantbomb is the only gaming site I visit, their GOTY list is pretty much a "hey dude play this game" list.

Naw, if anything they should double down on it, I learned my lesson after 2011's the community really loves GotY. But Maybe just have more of a method on how to decide and then let the fists fly. Let the discussions be about the games, instead of how they are going to eliminate what.

The real problem I see going forward is outside of Jeff and Brad I'm not sure the other guys get to play enough of the contenders to really participate fully in the voting. So they could use a better way to handle that. I think maybe Vinny should take over Ryan's old conversational role and kinds steer the agenda. Everyone respects his opinion, the listeners love him and that will give him something more to do conversationally when he runs into a title he hasn't played.

No way. Far too entertaining to listen to the guys argue over.

No, I enjoy the process too much. It's not perfect by any stretch of the imagination, and I could totally see some improvements over how games get cut, but I wouldn't want it to see it go entirely.

I don't understand what you'd gain for getting rid of one category and not changing anything else.

This. I don't get why Patrick was so against the 'go around in a circle and cut a game' approach, I thought it worked fantastically the year they did it. Forcing them to cut games with low support but maybe 1 person really likes is much better than having them choose to keep games with low support but the person choosing really likes it. As the list is that of the site's, I think it makes sense to have them think politically when making it.

Reading all these lists this year made me wonder "what those 'Top 10' or 'Best Game' actually mean"?

I've been gaming since the 80s but in the last two years I've been paying more attention to "the gaming press". I used to look at these lists in the past as "what did I miss in the last one, two, three years that maybe I should have a look at; it used them to find some gems I missed. Listening to the deliberation I can't help but feel that the reasons to put games on these lists are many; the game is fun, the game pushed the genre, the game has a really memorable and original set of moments, the game was just a well crafted game on a technical and story telling level, etc. Considering all these potential reasons, it does seem a tad silly to try ordering them, but I guess that's the game you have to play if you want to make a list. I think Jeff once said that he wouldn't be happy buying all ten games from a year's top ten list. The subtext is that some games just aren't his style of games, and the same goes for all the readers. So... I guess it goes back to the way I used to use these list, which is "you might like these games that came out in 2013; they're really good games in their genre". So, yea, keep making em.

What makes a Game of the Year? Did they ever discuss that? Answering that would give their discussions/arguments better context when they're championing their game. As it stands, the GOTY is a list of compromises that nobody seems particularly jazzed about one way or the other. Sounds a bit boring, but a set of criteria would at least put them all on the same page before going to war.

Anyway it was a good time this year – always fun listening to these dudes fight about things they love.

Aw, heck no. Their Best Game discussion was the most entertaining part of this year's podcasts. (And every year's, for that matter)

No. What's up with people wanting everyone to get a trophy and no losers. There has to be one winner. This year it was Zelda dammit.

This was just a weird year where a whole lot of fantastic games came out and there weren't a couple that really stood out from the rest. It was probably the best year for games ever but no one will say that because it just happened.

No. What the fuck? Why would you want that?

Hell i'm actually EXTREMELY disappointed with this years podcasts because they didnt fight enough. None of them seemed to care. So why should i?

Next year there better be god damn blood.

No.

I love Jeff's passive aggressive bullshit.

No, they shouldn't. And any issues with "oh this game made the top ten but not individual lists" are because they are the games they could come to a consensus on to put in the top 10. this involves things like them respecting opinions of games that they are told are good, etc.

I wouldn't mind. I also wouldn't mind if they dispensed with the numerical ranking of the top 10. Or actually, if they did a top 9 in no particular order + #1 game of the year, that would be fun.

The bickering over what is number 3 or 7 or whatever, that I don't care about whatsoever. No value to me in that discussion. These are all good games.

No, I like the nonsense bickering and completely irrational outcomes.

Also when Jeff knows he is right, the listener knows he is right, but somehow no one else does.

I thought best game of the year was honest, though I have not played it (The Last of Us), and I favored Bio shock. it's not going to end my life, and now perhaps I should try The Last of Us.

Idk, zombies and humans, always a bad combo. They tend to bring out the worst in each other. But this, without straying from that formula, is supposed to have true depth.

Some ridiculous political meandering went on this year but I wouldn't have it any other way. Nearly every other category is kinda a joke category, they take them all fairly seriously but no other category has as much invested in it than Best Game. Its the most entertaining discussion to listen to and since they've eliminated their multi-platform and platform exclusive categories all the weight is now behind this one category.

it's cutting the list, but in a different way. By naming "keepers" they're essentially naming games that they would have discussions about and saving them for later, so the remainder of the list (minus games that everyone liked but weren't the most passionate about like Bioshock) are easy cuts. If they did it the old way by naming games to cut first you'd get the same results, everyone would cut the games that they knew weren't going to make the list first and after a few rounds they'd realize it got contentious and "locked" games, just like they did this year.

I really don't see why so many community members are up in arms about the way they did it this year cause it achieved the exact same thing, they "cut the fat".

Divekick made it because although it was in only 1 person's top 10 most of the staff really liked it, so if it's outside their top 10 they still recognize its merits. The point of "best game" isn't to aggregate the staff's top 10 lists, it's to be a more general representation of the best games as viewed by the whole staff. It's why Dota is on the list even though Brad is the only one that played it- they recognized it did something cool and even if it wasn't a personal favorite, it was still really good. The whole point of personal lists is that they can be personal- they can recognize "hey this game has a really niche appeal that only really caught only me on the staff" (something like the Swapper, for instance). The point of the general list is to be a general representation of the staff's top 10 best games, so even if it is only in Jeff's top 10 it could be in, say, the top 15 list of the whole staff, so it edges out games that made say 2 people on the staff's top 10 but no one else's top 15 or 20 or whatever at all.