Should Minecraft be at least considered for PC Game of the year?

  • 66 results
  • 1
  • 2
#1 Posted by bennym6 (415 posts) -

Should it? It did come out this year technically.

#2 Posted by chrismafuchris (1088 posts) -

Why wouldn't it? If I recall, Dave but it on his Top 10 list last year, but that's just him.

#3 Posted by Milkman (16540 posts) -

"Game of the year." The keyword is "game."

#4 Posted by emergency (1193 posts) -

@Milkman said:

"Game of the year." The keyword is "game."

Feeble attempt at humour :(

#5 Posted by MaFoLu (1858 posts) -
@Milkman said:

"Game of the year." The keyword is "game."

So, yes then? 
Minecraft is a game, right?
#6 Posted by Bocam (3674 posts) -

@MaFoLu: It's a java program

#7 Posted by Jack268 (3387 posts) -
@Bocam: AND ALL PC GAMES ARE JUST EXZECUTABLES RITE
#8 Posted by Vexxan (4616 posts) -

Like it stands a chance against all the other games that have been released this year!

#9 Posted by mosespippy (4046 posts) -

Of course it should be considered for GotY. It came out this year and is a top quality product. I know ShackNews is considering it for GotY.

#10 Posted by ColinWright (741 posts) -

Yes, but it has no chance in hell since none of them have any interest in it. 

Online
#11 Posted by MikkaQ (10268 posts) -

No, it came out in 2009, just cause you slap a 1 on it, and develop it slower than molasses doesn't change that.

#12 Posted by BeachThunder (11713 posts) -

Yes; anyone that considered it a 2009 or 2010 game was seriously jumping the gun.

#13 Posted by BaneFireLord (2913 posts) -

...No, I don't think so. When you are asking people to pay for something that they can play right away, it's released. Anyway, what sort of chance does it have, really? Skyrim, Portal 2, Witcher 2...heck, even stuff like Battlefield are going to be prioritized over Minecraft.

#14 Posted by benjaebe (2783 posts) -

Even if it was it wouldn't get anywhere, and it's been more or less feature complete for a while now so I don't really think it should. Minecraft is great for what it is, but it's pointless to compare it to any other game on the market.

#15 Posted by I_smell (3925 posts) -

They're not doing platform-specific games of the year any more, because most games come out on everything anyway.

Also Minecraft isn't that great really:

#16 Posted by Dagbiker (6939 posts) -

No because they charged for it, and released it two years ago.

#17 Posted by AhmadMetallic (18955 posts) -

Depends on how different it is, really.... If it's just the enhanced version of the enhanced version of the same old 09 game, it's really an 09 game.

#18 Posted by GunslingerPanda (4643 posts) -

lolno.

#19 Posted by Marz (5645 posts) -

no

Online
#20 Posted by laserbolts (5314 posts) -

Yeah I don't see why not. It's a game that came out this year.

#21 Edited by zudthespud (3281 posts) -

@MikkaQ said:

No, it came out in 2009, just cause you slap a 1 on it, and develop it slower than molasses doesn't change that.

By that logic Diablo 3 can only be considered for this years GOTY.

Just for the record, it won't be considered. I love minecraft but alongside some of the other gems no way.

#22 Posted by MikkaQ (10268 posts) -

@zudthespud said:

@MikkaQ said:

No, it came out in 2009, just cause you slap a 1 on it, and develop it slower than molasses doesn't change that.

By that logic Diablo 3 can only be considered for this years GOTY.

Just for the record, it won't be considered. I love minecraft but alongside some of the other gems no way.

Why has Blizzard released it and is asking money for it, and I never heard of it?

#23 Edited by zudthespud (3281 posts) -

@MikkaQ said:

@zudthespud said:

@MikkaQ said:

No, it came out in 2009, just cause you slap a 1 on it, and develop it slower than molasses doesn't change that.

By that logic Diablo 3 can only be considered for this years GOTY.

Just for the record, it won't be considered. I love minecraft but alongside some of the other gems no way.

Why has Blizzard released it and is asking money for it, and I never heard of it?

That was a bad example, a better example would be C.A.R.S., a new racing sim by the guys who made NFS Shift. It basically uses a crowd sourced funding, like Minecraft. Unlike Minecraft it has varying levels of membership starting at 10 Euro, going up to thousands. Members get regular alpha builds, more frequent depending on how much they paid. Since it's still in Alpha, like Minecraft was this time last year, it would be extremely unfair to review it and consider it for GOTY if that meant ruling it out of future GOTY deliberations while it's not feature complete and there is still a lot of jank.

Another example is Overgrowth, a game where you are a rabbit that fights other rabbits. Currently in alpha but accepting payments to try out these builds. It looks really cool from videos but it would be extremely unfair to consider it released when it is still so bare.

My point is, this time last year Minecraft wasn't a game, there was no aim and it was basically a play thing. Now there is a start and a finish and specific goals to achieve. I think when a company says "Yep, this is the final released product" and people start reviewing it, then it is considered to be released. Considering alpha versions of games is unfair to those games.

I've gone off Minecraft a bit but if you were ever going to consider it for GOTY this is the only year I think it would be fair to.

#24 Posted by Mikemcn (6958 posts) -

There isn't a single person on the GB crew who has spent more than a few hours playing it, and besides, Skyrim.

#25 Posted by MikkaQ (10268 posts) -

@zudthespud: The problem with those games is that if you tier out the release like that, pretty much no one will consider them for GOTY. The release of Minecraft had barely any fanfare besides the insular minecon they held. People were tired of it before it was even out. If you're a developer who even cares about that stuff, then you shouldn't tier it out like that.

Luckily not that many people actually think GOTY holds that much weight. Any game that wants to slap that title on it already does, so it's not like it exactly matters.

#26 Posted by zudthespud (3281 posts) -

@MikkaQ: Yeah, Minecraft got so massive so early that a year later people (including me) had started to lose interest by the release. The only games that have this kind of funding are indie games anyway and they don't usually get considered for GOTY by anyone.

#27 Posted by Jimbo (9775 posts) -

No, a game is 'out' as soon as they're taking money for a playable version of it.

#28 Posted by Sackmanjones (4652 posts) -

I really like minecraft, but no it does not.

#29 Posted by EthanML (451 posts) -

Of course it shouldn't, and that has nothing to do with when it "came out".

#30 Posted by Driadon (2995 posts) -

Yeah, because it's now officially what the bomb crew would call a "game" as it does have an ultimate goal as of 1.0

Prior to this they never could have considered it a game, no matter how many people enjoyed what they played.

#31 Posted by Agent47 (1894 posts) -

@I_smell:The review was good except for the weird picture that shows Notch's twitter saying "We let niggers vote so why not?" what kind of stupid dumb shit is that?Are they trying to be funny?

#32 Posted by bennym6 (415 posts) -

@BaneFireLord: PC GAME OF THE YEAR

#33 Posted by Xeiphyer (5597 posts) -

Its officially out now, so sure.  
 
Just because it was available last year in alpha and beta form doesn't mean that it should have been considered last year and not this one upon release. Its not like the act of being able to pay money for something is the requirement for reviewability and therefore GotY considerations.
 
 If I pay for a preorder of an MMO that comes out next year to get beta access this year, that doesn't mean I get to consider that MMO for GotY this year because the game isn't out yet. I just have early access to an unfinished product.
 
Games are reviewed upon being officially released, and when a game is out, we can consider it for GotY during the year which it came out. Its not rocket science guys.
 
On topic though: It wouldn't make it into deliberations for GotY, because none of them care about the game. It can certainly try and make it into the User listings though. But lets be serious, Skyrim.

#34 Posted by Humanity (8846 posts) -

@Agent47 said:

@I_smell:The review was good except for the weird picture that shows Notch's twitter saying "We let niggers vote so why not?" what kind of stupid dumb shit is that?Are they trying to be funny?

Was Notch trying to be funny with that tweet?

#35 Posted by chrismafuchris (1088 posts) -

Why are people saying "well you could pay to play it, so no"? Paid beta's happen all the fucking time, just look at the EA Gun Club stuff, with Medal of Honor and Battlefield 3. No one was saying "Well now you can pay to play an unfinished version of Medal of Honor so I guess it's out now", so why are they saying the same for Minecraft?

#36 Posted by awesomeusername (4154 posts) -

It's being considered on the Spike VGA's.

#37 Posted by Ravenlight (8040 posts) -

I'm not sure. I hope the Bombsquad talks about this topic, I'd like to hear their final verdict on the matter.

#38 Edited by Little_Socrates (5675 posts) -

At Giant Bomb, they established that they're considering it the year it's actually released during last year's GOTY deliberations. So it's eligible now. None of them are playing it, though; I'd say Terraria seems more likely.

@Mikemcn: Almost every single one of them is playing Skyrim on an Xbox still.

#39 Posted by coakroach (2488 posts) -

Oh god no.

The game is unfinished and totally unplayable without a wiki or the advice of someone who has played the game before.

#40 Posted by FreakAche (2950 posts) -

No

#41 Posted by benpicko (2001 posts) -

@Milkman said:

"Game of the year." The keyword is "game."

Have you even played it?

#42 Posted by Paulus (174 posts) -

No, I got excited when I first noticed minecraft it had incredible potential.

But it wasted it, if you just look at what got added to minecraft recently and compare it to some of the things the mod community have done...

#43 Posted by Dagbiker (6939 posts) -

@zudthespud said:

@MikkaQ said:

@zudthespud said:

@MikkaQ said:

No, it came out in 2009, just cause you slap a 1 on it, and develop it slower than molasses doesn't change that.

By that logic Diablo 3 can only be considered for this years GOTY.

Just for the record, it won't be considered. I love minecraft but alongside some of the other gems no way.

Why has Blizzard released it and is asking money for it, and I never heard of it?

That was a bad example, a better example would be C.A.R.S., a new racing sim by the guys who made NFS Shift. It basically uses a crowd sourced funding, like Minecraft. Unlike Minecraft it has varying levels of membership starting at 10 Euro, going up to thousands. Members get regular alpha builds, more frequent depending on how much they paid. Since it's still in Alpha, like Minecraft was this time last year, it would be extremely unfair to review it and consider it for GOTY if that meant ruling it out of future GOTY deliberations while it's not feature complete and there is still a lot of jank.

Another example is Overgrowth, a game where you are a rabbit that fights other rabbits. Currently in alpha but accepting payments to try out these builds. It looks really cool from videos but it would be extremely unfair to consider it released when it is still so bare.

My point is, this time last year Minecraft wasn't a game, there was no aim and it was basically a play thing. Now there is a start and a finish and specific goals to achieve. I think when a company says "Yep, this is the final released product" and people start reviewing it, then it is considered to be released. Considering alpha versions of games is unfair to those games.

I've gone off Minecraft a bit but if you were ever going to consider it for GOTY this is the only year I think it would be fair to.

Thats just as fair as asking some one to pay not knowing what the final build will look like, or if there will ever be a final build.

#44 Posted by MysteriousBob (6272 posts) -

I like Minecraft, but no. A game is 'released' when the public can buy it.

Besides, even if it could be considered as a GOTY 2011... there were better PC games.

I still hate the fact that you can't play Minecraft without an external guide. Reminds me of games like Simon's Quest.

#45 Posted by BaneFireLord (2913 posts) -
@bennym6 said:

@BaneFireLord: PC GAME OF THE YEAR

Yes, I know. I only chose multiplatform that are best played on PC, because there very few PC exclusives that I can think of that would warrant being in the category. Also, Minecraft would be disqualified as well, because it's technically on iOS and is coming to 360. 
#46 Edited by WildFire (93 posts) -

Minecraft hasn't done anything better than the other Game of The Year nominations and hasn't sold nearly as many copies due to it's niche market. I say no, regardless of when it was "Released".

#47 Posted by sirdesmond (1234 posts) -

It was released this year. Of course, it would be eligible.

#48 Posted by Lukeweizer (2611 posts) -

They could differentiate between "Minecraft" and "Minecraft Beta".

#49 Posted by Hot_Karl (3309 posts) -

@laserbolts said:

Yeah I don't see why not. It's a game that came out this year.

This. Even if I don't get Minecraft whatsoever, it's definitely eligible.

@I_smell: Don't they do "PC-Only" game of the year awards? StarCraft II won last year.

#50 Posted by Liber (648 posts) -

No.

Its 2009 game.

People and websites who give it 9.0/10 are fucking dumb.

This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.