Game of the Year 2016: Day Five Deliberations

Haha, I agree.

Man I got excited, I really thought Zero Time Dilemma was gonna get its due as a runner-up, but oh well.

Hearing Vinny trying to muster an explanation was good enough, and it's such an immense writing accomplishment for how intricate it is, and not just for the sake of being intricate. The way its story proceeds, despite it being labyrinthine and crazy, is engaging, thought provoking, and somehow they tie it all together such that everything crazy about it is absolutely necessary.

I do think it's worth checking out, even if it isn't even the best in its trilogy. Sure you get more out of it if you play the other two, but if you were interested in what Vinny was saying, I do think you can play it on its own.

I guess I will check out Firewatch.

I'm calling it first. Tales of Berseria will be GB's GOTY 2017!

Joking of course. I can't picture any of these guys playing, let alone enjoying a "Tales of" game.

I, for one, can't wait to play it.

It was interesting to repeatedly hear, "Well this game isn't getting support so lets take it off the list," only to get a response from someone/multiple people, "I like this game." I wonder if the more positive format lead to less discussion/stating why they really liked certain games? When it was more hostile in the past there was a lot more discussion/debate which made it easier to understand which games had more backing.

@alistercat said:

Agreed 100%. I've said it before, but Steins;Gate is the sort of game I can see @vinny (and @austin_walker) loving, especially after watching them play Life is Strange. I wrote a review for anyone curious about what makes it so good.

I haven't got to that part yet, so maybe it's justified, but I'm shocked that ZTD was even mentioned in Best Story. Most Ambitious/Risky perhaps, but IMO it was a complete mess (full review). The final hour of Virtue's Last Reward was more or less a sequel hook for ZTD, yet ZTD completely ignores large parts of it and they are never even mentioned. The writing starts off strong, but rapidly declines towards the end of the game (and the post-game files are borderline insulting - they read like bad fan-fiction) and just feels rushed. The final scene of the game is a schlocky speech that resolves nothing, and feels like yet another damn sequel hook ("No, really, we'll ACTUALLY fix it next time. Honest.").

The pseudo-science concepts that were introduced in VLR (jumping between timelines) are treated haphazardly and change in behaviour as the plot demands. VLR portrayed it as an extremely rare ability that required the entire events of VLR to take place just for two characters to be able to accomplish it at will, yet in ZTD by the end of the game pretty much every character manages to do it easily, despite, in some cases, being completely unaware of it moments prior. It is used liberally, and with barely a care in the world by a number of the characters, in the latter stages of the game, except at the end where the characters suddenly have a crisis of morality about doing so (not to plug Steins;Gate more, but [spoilers for both games] worldlines being treated as mere possibilities, and there only being one "active" at a given time, rather than existing simultaneously and leading to the moral conflict at the end of ZTD of killing other versions of yourself is a much cleaner way to handle this).

Not only that, but the prior games (999/VLR) took their time to explain its pseudo-science, and made it feel like viable concepts that weren't just plucked out of the air. On the other hand, the explanation of piece of technology in ZTD? Aliens. 999 (and VLR for the most part) were so careful to explain their pseudo-science as an innate human/scientific ability, so the sudden and almost entirely unexplained introduction of alien tech. that mirrors these abilities (but in a somewhat different way) feels like the saving throw of a writer who has written himself into a corner. It feels lazy - instead of exploring how an innate human ability was transformed into a piece of technology, or exploring the implications of the fact that aliens have visited the Earth and left such power technology behind, it is just hand-waved away.

The biggest offence that the game commits, however, is that the reveal of the mastermind behind the events of the game is only possible because the game actively hides the existence of a character from the player, and stretches the suspension of disbelief well beyond breaking point. Abridged extract from my review (SPOILERS - vague as possible, but will reveal parts of the game):

For [the reveal] to make sense, the player must be willing to accept that there is an additional character present in about a third of the scenes in the game (but never shown), that the character is never referenced by the other members of the team except in ways that can be misinterpreted (and even then very infrequently), and that the team never uses the real name of a different character (as this would reveal an inconsistency and thus the presence of an additional person). [...] Instead of it being a grand reveal that enlightens the rest of the game [as in 999], the only thing I could think was "I guess that's technically possible, but really?! Come on...". [...]

This is especially highlighted during an scene where[, ...] in a three-way Mexican standoff[, the rest of the characters are freed if one more person dies]. That there is a fourth person just off-screen, and for none of the three characters to even suggest killing that person (who they believe to be deaf and blind), is just ridiculous.

There are other issues I have with the story of the game, but they involve more explicit discussion of specific plot points (I touch on them in my review), so I'll refrain from mentioning them here. It's a shame, because going in I was hoping it would be the proper ending to VLR and tie up the loose ends that were left behind (it's one of the few games this year for which I not only paid full price, but started playing immediately after the download finished [around 1am] and continued to do so for the next twelve or so hours). It could have been a great conclusion to a great series, but instead it felt like a game that was constantly trying to "out-twist" its predecessors, whether it made sense or not, and failed to address the crisis that was introduced in VLR and just punted it for a another game to deal with, just like VLR did.

It's doubly disappointing, as there are genuinely exceptional moments in ZTD (e.g. the way the initial scene sets up the ending is something that is so obvious in hindsight, and makes for a great reveal; some of the bad ends are well explored; the reveal that the three teams are actually not conscious at the same time, and that there is actually only one wing, is well done and foreshadowed [though I was hoping it was more extreme, similar to VLR, and that the three teams are massively separated in space and time -- thousands of miles and/or years between the events]), and there is some foreshadowing in the game mechanics that is well done (e.g. try entering Delta or Q as a name when prompted, and see how characters and the game respond), but they don't come together to form anything even approaching a coherent narrative as a whole.

If you haven't played it, play 999: 9 Hours, 9 Persons, 9 Doors. It's the first game (of three) in the series, and is (IMO) by far the best (play on the DS/3DS if you can - it makes the reveal at the end SO much better; see spoiler below if curious, but don't read if going to play - it spoils the entire twist and ending). Virtue's Last Reward is also pretty good, but really suffers from a poor ending. I found Zero Time Dilemma to be completely disappointing by comparison (I'm composing my own GotY categories at the moment, and it's currently leading Most Disappointing). It's not totally without merit (indeed, parts are exceptionally well written), but as

999's use of the DS: Throughout the entire game, you see various characters portrayed on the upper screen, with just text on the lower screen (mostly anyway, IIRC the puzzle sections diverge from that). It's subtly hinted at throughout the game (the prose is past tense and third person, Kurashiki Akane gets a fever when approaching a bad end etc.), but towards the end of the game it is revealed that the lower screen has been showing the point of view of Akane, trapped in an incinerator nine years prior. The entire game was her recreation of what she foresaw at that time, and the pseudo-science that 999 convincingly introduces allows Tenmyouji Junpei to gather information from multiple timelines (guided, unconsciously initially, by Akane), and reach the same situation as Akane. Then, in what is one of my favourite moments in games, you turn the DS upside down, and Junpei now guides Akane through her final puzzle, leading to a stable time loop -- Young Akane is saved by future Junpei, enabling her to set up the events of 999 that allowed Junpei to save her.

Edit: Mei and Chie are both ice casters, and @jeff likes both. Coincidence? :p

Edit 2: I really enjoyed Firewatch, but @brad's point about the conspiracy stuff being too convenient and the ending being somewhat abrupt is fair. I'm not sure how he is confused about the fake documents being planted though - you find drafts/versions with errors of them in the guy's bunker at the end of the game (I can't remember if they are mandatory pickups, but they are in an obvious location).

Edit 3: I kinda see what @vinny is saying about ZTD trying to tie everything up in a Metal Gear-esque way, but it'd be more similar if MGS4 had A) completely ignored the reveal at the end of MGS3 that Ocelot was a CIA double-agent, B) ended before the destruction of the AI and just "Well, we know what to do now", and C) "Oh by the way, Liquid Ocelot was five feet behind you for the entire game". MGS4 did an incredibly good job of tying up the series' loose ends, whereas ZTD just ignores those that are inconvenient (MGS4 probably does to some degree as well, but not with anything that was explicitly introduced as being important for the next part of the series story).

@brad's point about Firewatch, that the reveal should be enlightening not confusing, is pretty much how I felt about ZTD -- "I guess that's possible....but really? Why?" rather than a revelation that instantly reframes the narrative and answers pre-existing questions (which 999 accomplished with the young Akane link explaining how Junpei knew more than he shoud and VLR accomplished both with the fact that Sigma can jump between timelines (initially without realising) and explaining why other characters refer to him as being old).

A good list, but it does seem strange that the top half of the list has become the consensus games of the year, while the bottom half are just avoiding conflict and making everyone happy with their personal picks making it on. Not that you need a knife fight to make this interesting, but it does seem like the trend is everyone demanding a personal favorite gets it on the list if they are passionate enough about it, even if everyone else is indifferent or dislikes the game, then there's a fight over the top game which Jeff usually dominates.

It's also strange that people end up pushing or discussing a ton of games that almost nobody has played or finished, over games that more people played and had impressions of. Things like Obduction got a ton of discussion for a game Brad didn't even finish, compared to a bunch of other great, high-profile games that didn't even get brought up. Would make sense if this was a weaker year, but this year was insane overall in terms of game quality and there's no need to dig for random games that someone played half of and kind of liked.

I really dislike how Brad's most significant knock against uncharted stems from him being bad at the combat. I know this is a list based on their experiences but that excuse in particular seems cheap.

P.S. Invisible Inc Is a bad game

All bad decisions made by Jeff in previous years are forgiven for pushing SUPERHOT, also Dan is just barking mad crazy, but that's not the news, so overall great job guys!

Man I have been with Dan with Stardew Valley since day one! There is something in that game that makes you feel gooooooodddd!

Everything argument Dan makes for Stardew, except for the cave stuff, are all virtually identical arguments you would make for Harvest Moon. Except Harvest Moon does all those things better.

If we're going to have arguments about Overwatch characters I'd like to put it out there that D.va is a super lame "hey come play our game we added a character you all probably want to bang" cop out character that's also super obnoxious and 76 is the best because he's basically future Clint Eastwood.

I came into this video knowing already who had won, (people on Brad's Extra Life stream ruined it for me), and firmly on the side of DOOM, having never played this Hitman. But, I can see how it went Hitman's way by the end. There's a difference between ignoring a whole section of a game - Doom's multiplayer - verses looking past some glitches and some of the lesser maps of Hitman.

Awkward moment the deliberations 2016 award goes to: Brad saying [Paraphrased] 'This is the kind of thing I need to hear about Hitman to convince me, not constantly shitting on Doom's multiplayer'.

Because it was so directly aimed at Jeff, as he was the one constantly shitting on the multiplayer, and his little seat shuffle as Brad was saying it.

Why does Brad keep saying 'best story' in that funny voice?

Glad Jeff is keeping up the "Inside is a terrible game" fight because I'm right there with him. That game is pretty and vacant. A series of well-drawn setpieces with no overarching narrative to tie it together just, "oh we made an arty game, look."

Jeff calling infinite warfare's story is the best one in the series is probably the most insane thing I think i've heard through all the deliberations. That story is the flattest most bland contrived thing ever. The deaths of characters are so throw away and meaningless that it just feels lazy.

I appreciate the more laid back, relaxed take on game of the year discussions. What's less awesome is the reminder that there's no Austin or Patrick on board. Giant Bomb does not have the widest range of interests in video games. Some pretty massive gaps in the medium, from handhelds and japanese design tendencies, to PC and harder edged strategy and competitive games.

I feel I've reached my widest point between my interests and those of the GB crew.

Jason loves Hyper Light Drifter but not enough to finish it, its like a 4 hour game thats been out for months and months..

Just saying..

I find it interesting that they give so much credence to positive individual passion but dismiss Jeff's passionate dislike of Inside out of hand. I don't really see a way to reconcile the two (because putting Inside below the individual favourites at Number 10 also kinda doesn't make sense), it's just an interesting thing to think about - building a collaborative list like this must be incredibly difficult to be a part of.

On another note, it surprises me how often I find myself on Jeff's side of the battle over the Number 1 spot when it comes down to the final two. I'm a huge fan of Jeff & I have a lot of respect for his opinions, but broadly speaking I'm aware our taste in games isn't a close match (He likes fighting games and the current crop of CoD 4 derived competitive multiplayer shooters and I've only fleetingly enjoyed either, for example). But time and again, when it gets to the final two, I almost always find Jeff is on the side I am (Saints Row The Third, Suoer Mario Maker & Hitman being the most prominent examples).

I did not get Jeff's negative focus on Doom's multiplayer and snap map. Sure, on paper, if you say 2/3s of a games modes are worthless, it sounds like a bad game. However, I think we should be looking at games on a deeper level besides them being checklists for features.

finally finished this. the top 2 deliberation was great. Brad really tried to take Hitman down making the server a big issue while the Doom multiplayer a non essential part of discussion.

My favorite six seconds out of the entire 8+ hours of podcasts is Dan reading McDonald's twitter account :D

Somebody's doing something they shouldn't!

Dan saying Zarya was bad got to me lol. Zarya is one of the best characters imo. But yeah Reinhardt is almost essential in most cases.

I'm with you @alex on Zenyatta, he does a ton of damage, gives a damage boost against an enemy, and can spot heal really well. Also since 2 supports is pretty much standard at this point, he is amazing in combination with Lucio or Mercy. Zenyatta is my favorite support and probably my favorite overall character. The only bad thing is he has no real escape options, but that doesn't matter too much if you're team is at all competent and can watch your back.

"Overcooked and Firewatch got their due in other categories, we should remove them from the list."

<Brad says nothing, they are removed>

"Uncharted 4 got its due in Best Story, which is the game's main strength, so we should remove it."

Brad: "No no you can't do that, that's not how this works, other categories have no bearing on this."

I don't have a dog in any of those fights, but I found that discrepancy amusing.

Widowmaker, McCree, and Mercy would be my top 3 Overwatch characters, based mainly on playstyles. None of them were even in the discussion, feels bad.

Absolutely fantastic list.

Aww. That was a little too diplomatic for mine. Every year I look forward to the verbal knife fights you have with the "knock-out" system. Oh well. Still a fantastic round of deliberation podcasts. Thank you Giant Bomb gang. All the best for 2017. Go Bombers!

I like hitman but I'm with @brad on this one.....

@oldsurly: I thought it was a great pure single player FPS but I thought they got carried away with it in some categories, especially story.

@themagicmoose: Dishonored 2 came out pretty late in the year and it sounded like Jason was the only one who played it. Him and Drew never really pushed hard like the others.

Why is Doom coming up for story of the year? If I have someone who only plays 3 games a year and they only care about interesting stories, the last game I'm going to point them to is Doom. Also, Uncharted 1-3's story sucks now? Asinine. They hated Uncharted 3 for some damn reason and willfully play dumb to the story of it which is the reason UC4 while great was wholly unnecessary. They attained the same level of storytelling in UC4 that they had already achieved prior. And it was already openly inferred that Drake wasn't his real last name in, you guessed it, Uncharted 3, the game none of them paid attention to. I don't know how much more of this I can take. Every day listening to has caused dry heaving; it's that bad. We get it; everybody likes Doom. Doesn't mean it should win every category including ones it's not even eligible for like story. Just make a Campaign of the year category so we can stop the desecration of Story of the year.

EDIT: Finished Day Five, Jeff pretty much says exactly this. GB needs a campaign of the year. Something like Doom is not the story of the year.

There are some salt in these comments...wooooowwweeeeeee! Settle peeps! take that passion into the community voting or personal top ten lists...This is entertainment, not science.

The last segment is usually my favourite but this year it fell flat and I think it's because of the format change. Instead of having a big list of 50 games and whittling it down to 10, starting with no games and building it to 21 before cutting it down just means a tonne of games don't get discussed. And as @brad said towards the end it felt like much more time was spent discussing what place the games get on the list as opposed to why those games get on the list and what makes them so good, why they deserve to get there etc.

While the old method does lead to people cutting into other games flaws and weaknesses I think it promotes a better and more passionate discussion.

Bad entertainment.

Wholly agreed.

I completely enjoyed the last segment with them not tearing down games. I do think they could have started with a much longer list, but I guess they wanted to keep it short.

The game of the year segment was really sloppy.

AGREEEED! I think what I really like about the "cut" approach is that every single decent game that came out that year gets at least something said about it.

And yeah every year I think "stfu Brad, the way you're doing it is fine", but I guess he got his way :((((

We need a petition.

Couldn't agree more. This is exactly how I felt after listening to the deliberations.

The "cut" format is so much more interesting and such a nice summary of the year.

And it seems like the crew is forgetting the point of personal lists.

Last Guardian was robbed. What an amazing game. There's nothing like it.