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.
Log in to comment