Giant Bombcast Giant Bomb Game of the Year 2012: Day Four

Patrick's anti-Mass Effect 3 nonsense has gotten extremely annoying. From his constant sighing anytime it's mentioned, to the incorrect bullshit that he brings up all the time, they should've just muzzled him whenever it came up. It barely takes anytime at all to play through Mass Effect 3's multiplayer to get points and there are plenty of people who don't spend any money on points.

Even when I agree with their opinions, the times when they just talk about games like they're complete garbage always leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I hope the GOTY discussion is not such a bummer considering this year had a lot of great games.

The only bug I got with the Walking Dead in 2 playthroughs was right at the beginning of Ep.1 there was some framerate issues that were apparently related to ATI cards (which I think has since been fixed). What were these other supposedly game breaking bugs people are talking about because I didn't see them?

@byterunner: Agreed, the moment I saw Molyneux jump on the Kickstarter bandwagon was the moment I realised I would never donate to a kickstarter ever again.

@Undeadpool: It's all good. I wasn't angry or offended, sorry if it came across like that. Tone is hard for me to convey over the internet.

So basically there's only one of three games that can be Game of The Year...

The Walking Dead, XCOM or Far Cry 3.

I wonder what won? I guess we'll find out soon enough.

@dr_mantas said:

So basically there's only one of three games that can be Game of The Year...

The Walking Dead, XCOM or Far Cry 3.

I wonder what won? I guess we'll find out soon enough.

I'd be happy with either of the first two. FC3 was great, but was still just another open world FPS that didn't do anything new or innovative.

It's weird, back in the GameSpot days...I was never a huge fan of Ryan Davis because he seemed kind of pricky. Strangely, he's really starting to grow on me and I like him a lot now. We have pretty similar tastes in games and he's a funny dude.

I WANNA RIDE DUMBO

The walking dead of the year award!!!

too bad I have no interest in the subject material, and I really need to get started on Marks of the Ninja.

@Dylabaloo said:

Jeff was being awfully reductive about the Mass Effect multiplayer while Brad was being quite objective and reasonable.

Which means the world did end and we're all dead and in purgatory.

Just because it seems like there's quite a few people (including multiple podcasts) that don't know what Wadjet Eye means and think it's something made up:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wadjet

@Krystal_Sackful: Yeah, I was a fan of Max Payne 3, as well. It's definitely in my top 10.

It feels like I'm the only one who found those clues that Kristen Bell was a templar in AC.

@golguin said:

I finally took the time to get Dust and I'm currently playing it now and man it is a damn shame that more people didn't play that game. The game looks fantastic, the combat feels great, and the story is pretty damn depressing. I think it is freaking crime that people didn't play this game because "fuck furries". If I finish this game before the end of this year (I think I will) it will knock off Diablo III off my list and easily end up above Fez.

I need Dust and Fez to be released on PC! I don't have a Xbox, so I haven't been able to play either, yet. :(

@jwstephe2 said:

It feels like I'm the only one who found those clues that Kristen Bell was a templar in AC.

You're not the only one.

@Artso said:

Edit:

Brad saying that Mass Effect 3 is a better shooter than Gears of War 3 kind of blew my mind. It's his opinion but I've never heard that before.

Yep, that's why he is known every year as THE FILIBUSTER.

@GaspoweR: It could bet that he enjoys it more because its more a 3rd person class based multiplayer.

"That is the last outcome I expected to come out of that."

I don't usually come at anyone's opinion, but I mean, Brad didn't play ACIII. I feel that's the only reason he didn't see it coming, because I did from a mile away. You just knew ACIII and ME3 were going to be on that list, but I had no doubt in my mind that ACIII was going to win that coin toss.

Retail game: Product

D/L game: Service.

Sadly, this is how they'll shake out.

The reason that I don't read Jeff's reviews is that he's a smart guy, but he uses those smarts almost exclusively to rationalize his really arbitrary emotional reactions to things. I mean, yeah, it is a little convenient that ME3 is a reunion tour, but what were they supposed to do? Leave those characters out of the game? They have X number of resources, to make Y number of missions, with Z number of story threads and character arcs from previous games to close. You ran into past characters in almost every mission because it mathematically HAD to be that way.

And saying that it should have been another way is just stubbornness and not wanting to see the issue from all angles, which is another thing that Jeff doesn't do very well. Most of the things he damns games for are things that would damn them either way.

But really, Jacob is going to be in that hospital (which is a bug -- it should be obvious that that was not intentional), just like Jeff is going to come up with really "so what?" reasons to poo poo games. You can set your watch to it.

And the ME3 multiplayer was more than just another horde mode. Again, blinded by emotions and reaching for any convenient excuse to dismiss something.

I still don't understand how so many well-rated games can be betrayed by the very same people who gave them the high score to begin with. Assassin's Creed III- 4/5 Mass Effect 3- 4/5 Max Payne 3- 4/5

Really... Journey for Multi-player, I know for a runner-up...?

What?

@BigDaddy81 said:

In reference to the discussion about the ending of Dragon's Dogma, I thought the act of killing yourself is what breaks the cycle. It was implied that there has always been a "God" in one form or another kinda manipulating things and that your character was the first to kill themselves leaving no "God" at all for the first time.The various reincarnations of the Arisen that have reached the end but failed to defeat "God" wind up getting reincarnated as the titular Dragon.

And the "God" that you kill at the end is the same character you played in the prologue.

Of course, it has been a while since I played it so I may be misremembering some things. Anyone else want to chime in to try to clarify this?

No this was my impression as well, though I never got to the part where you apparently walked around as the Seneschal as I tried killing myself during various steps of the final encounter in order to break the cycle (it worked once I had slain the previous Seneschal, before seating myself on the throne). The name of the achievement Closure -Put an end to all things- also suggests that this was the way to end the cycle, though it might also suggest that this act dooms the world...

The whole thing about your pawn waking up to be you is confusing though. The only theory I have is that they were going for some sort of Pinocchio angle where the pawn gets the ultimate reward of becoming "real" in the end, but I dunno.

No NS2 even on the list of best multiplayer? That sucks. I haven't even heard them ever talk about this game other than the quick look EX.

They probably won't see this comment but the AC 3 Kristin Bell bit was in a Revelations DLC. Which through me for a loop when the off hand comment happened in the game because I didn't play the DLC. So I searched the internet to find out what the heck they were talking about.

It's so sad how they dismiss Spec Ops on such shallow reasons.

Extra Credits give a full explanation on just how much especially Patrick missed about the story,

http://www.penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/spec-ops-the-line-part-1

http://www.penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/spec-ops-the-line-part-2

but in summary points it is:

1. The level design always putting you up high and making you descend, which ties in with the protagonists fall into crazy town

2. A deliberate differentiation of fading either to black or to white depending on a scene happening in real life or in the mind of the protagonist

3. The main character commenting on repetition for the sake of action.

4. Loading screens that speak directly to the player and challenges their motivations for playing games focusing on the horrors of war.

And a thing not mentioned in the videos is how your Xbox Live/PSN ID/Steam name is listed as a special guest in the opening credits.

There are tons of clues to the fact that this game makes a statement about our motivation for playing this type of game, but it seems like the game is dismissed because they only pick up on the theme of PTS.

So did Giant Bomb collectively forget that Borderlands 2 exists? I wasn't too too hot on Borderlands 1. But 2 was some of the best co-op i'd played in a long time. *shrug* :/

@revel: Funny I had the opposite experience. I had tons of coop fun in Borderlands 1, went to play 2 with mates and we were all bored in about 2 hours. I really found the shooting a little weird, and hated most of the UI elements, particular the inventory and shop interfaces.

Man, they always just shit on stealth games. Always pissing on Splinter Cell and Metal Gear.

They kinda lose the right bitch about how "action packed" and un-stealthy something like Splinter Cell Blacklist looks, don't they? That's a series that's being changed to suit gamers like Patrick and Jeff that hate stealth games. I'm not hating on their opinions, but I think it's interesting a game like that is being made with the attempt to win over people that will probably still not like it anyway.

@Kimozabi said:

It's so sad how they dismiss Spec Ops on such shallow reasons.

Extra Credits give a full explanation on just how much especially Patrick missed about the story,

http://www.penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/spec-ops-the-line-part-1

http://www.penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/spec-ops-the-line-part-2

but in summary points it is:

1. The level design always putting you up high and making you descend, which ties in with the protagonists fall into crazy town

2. A deliberate differentiation of fading either to black or to white depending on a scene happening in real life or in the mind of the protagonist

3. The main character commenting on repetition for the sake of action.

4. Loading screens that speak directly to the player and challenges their motivations for playing games focusing on the horrors of war.

And a thing not mentioned in the videos is how your Xbox Live/PSN ID/Steam name is listed as a special guest in the opening credits.

There are tons of clues to the fact that this game makes a statement about our motivation for playing this type of game, but it seems like the game is dismissed because they only pick up on the theme of PTS.

Late to the party on these podcasts, but yeh I agree with this comment completely. It's sad that a truly special and important game like Spec Ops, that surprises and subverts expectations on so many levels, didn't get the recognition it honestly deserves.