He has a shitty opinion. Welcome to all games journalists everywhere.

@Milkman said:

@Subjugation said:

Dude is entitled to his opinion. I'm not sure what you're trying to do with this.

This thread does a bad job of showing it but it's his reasoning that is stupid. He says that The Walking Dead and Journey shouldn't be considered for GOTY because they're not as long as most "AAA games." Which, in the Walking Dead's case, is just straight up false.

Thanks for elucidating. Well, in that case I'll have to respectfully disagree with the man. When taken as a whole, the walking dead is just as long (longer?) than plenty of "AAA games", especially most campaigns of FPS games. And if length was his main sticking point, well that's just dumb. The quality of the content is great and I'd take a concentrated dose of genius over a large volume of mediocrity any day.

@Seppli said:

I don't hold Shane Satterfield's opinions in high regard. 'Nuff said. Same goes for Marcus Beer...

But the Annoyed Gamer! Who else is going to bitch and moan about much-agreed-upon and non-controversial topics like "the failure to market and support the Vita"? The Internet is severely lacking angry or irate video game fans to tell it like it is! (Sad thing: that feature probably gets more hits than anything else on GT).

The Walking Dead has a great story with complex characters and interesting and complicated choices. The game part sucks; it has performance issues; and losing saves is a bummer.

The Walking Dead won't be my game of the year either. 
 
I didn't play it. 
 
Faster Than Light is my game of the year. 55 hours later and it only cost me I think $10? I still have tons to do in it.

Nathaniel Rohr doesn't think it should be either.

EDIT: For better, more specific reasons.

@hidys said:

Out of curiosity the people on here who don't think it deserves game of the year what on that list does?

well it's on my list but it's not #1. Binary Domain, Crusader Kings 2, Hotline Miami and Sleeping Dogs all top it

Who cares?

Saying a game doesn't deserve a spot on a game of the year list because it's short and doesn't have multiplayer is pretty dumb, no question about that. It shouldn't be about which game checks the most boxes, otherwise you end up with only big budget AAA games on your list.

@Milkman said:

@Subjugation said:

Dude is entitled to his opinion. I'm not sure what you're trying to do with this.

This thread does a bad job of showing it but it's his reasoning that is stupid. He says that The Walking Dead and Journey shouldn't be considered for GOTY because they're not as long as most "AAA games." Which, in the Walking Dead's case, is just straight up false.

And even it wasn't, it's just an incredibly weak point. If the experience of playing TWD or Journey is better than some other top tier content rich AAA title, then why should its length stop it from being number 1?

I haven't watched the video because, well I'm just not interested enough to, but I'd like to think that if the quality of experience were high enough, length wouldn't matter.

...wait, what are we talking about again?

I can't stand that dude, and I'm not sure about his reasons for his opinion, but I agree with the end result.

I enjoyed my time with TWD from an entertainment point of view, but I have trouble calling it a game, and definitely wouldn't call it GAME of the year. It should be praised for it's development of characters, but that thing is barely anything more than an animated choose-your-own adventure book. The parts where it wanders from that path were generally pretty poor.

Don't really care what he says. It's top three for GOTY.

Who?

He is entitled to his opinion obviously. I don't think Walking Dead is GotY but I'm not going to throw any hissy fit if it wins.

*Shrugs*

*Points at Xenoblade*

"There's GOTY right there."

*Walks out.*

@Nightriff said:

He is entitled to his opinion obviously. I don't think Walking Dead is GotY but I'm not going to throw any hissy fit if it wins.

Same. I've been meaning to finish it (only got through the first 2 episodes) but those didn't impress or hook me enough for me to really anticipate the release of the next 3. I will finish it, mostly because of the response it's been getting, and it may pick up for the last 3, but so far I wouldn't call it anywhere close to my GOTY.

People can have there own opinions, for instance I don't think X-Com is as good as some other games released this year.

If people can look past the technical bugs of Skyrim and give that game of the year, then The Walking Dead at least deserves a chance. It's game of the year for me.

Also, fuck GT's video player hard.

I feel like threads like these absolutely typify the common joke of SOMEONE IS WRONG ON THE INTERNET and I AM GOING ON THE INTERNET TO FIND PEOPLE WHO AGREE WITH ME. The only purpose is the hopes that other people go FUCK YEAH and SCREW THAT GUY.

For the record, my goty is still Dishonored and fuck everyone who says otherwise.

I didn't care to read through this thread but it's a joke about the weird flippant illogical nature of the internet right?

OOh no, opinions.

Really, should we make a thread every time there is something we don't agree with?

I don't think The Walking Dead should win GOTY so go ahead and make an angry thread about me...

@Hizang said:

People can have there own opinions, for instance I don't think X-Com is as good as some other games released this year.

I feel the same way. X-Com never really clicked with me. On the other hand, I do think The Walking Dead deserves some recognition. That's the great thing about everyone having their own Game of the Year - it shows everyone else what your gaming tastes are and the things you thought deserved some recognition.

Oh God, Garnett Lee is fugly. I like him, but damn that man is ugly.

@l4wd0g said:

Oh God, Garnett Lee is fugly. I like him, but damn that man is ugly.

He kinda reminds me of the axe killer from Cobra.

@Animasta said:

@Spoonman671 said:

And he's right. What's your point?

that his reason is a shitty reason (I agree with this)

its still not worth a thread though

I love the idea of something being "worth a thread," like we're running out of Internet. Next time I read a thread, I'm just going to write "so worth it!" Ask worth what, so I can say, "the thread!"

I love that 90% of the answers are complaints about the thread existing. We're going on four pages now people, and it hasn't left the top of the recent answers list since it started.

I believe the argument he essentially made is that The Walking Dead and Journey shouldn't be on the list ahead of AAA games that had more people and money poured into them. He then tops himself by talking about the length of games. He's basically saying that Resident Evil 6 is better than The Walking Dead and Journey.

@Animasta said:

@hidys said:

Out of curiosity the people on here who don't think it deserves game of the year what on that list does?

well it's on my list but it's not #1. Binary Domain, Crusader Kings 2, Hotline Miami and Sleeping Dogs all top it

I should have clarified and said out of the Spike VGA list which is best as I think out of that list The Walking Dead is EASILY the best one.

It's his opinion, you are allowed to have a different opinion to everyone else.

That said, I can't stand that Invincible Walls show. GameTrailers is awful in general, especially the reviews.

Shane is an asshole, but not really for this. I think THe Walking Dead is awesome (I cried) but the actual gameplay side of it is lacking a bit IMO.

Shane is also the reason I stopped listening to Invisible Walls. He's a terrible "journalist".

@golguin said:

I believe the argument he essentially made is that The Walking Dead and Journey shouldn't be on the list ahead of AAA games that had more people and money poured into them. He then tops himself by talking about the length of games. He's basically saying that Resident Evil 6 is better than The Walking Dead and Journey.

This. People should really read/watch the relevant material to the thread, instead of just assuming what it's about from the title alone. This isn't a thread complaining about someone who doesn't like TWD, it's about a "games journalist" on a show watched by thousands of people saying that the only way games should be considered for GOTY is if they have a ton of money behind them and last 30+ hours. That is, of course, a ridiculously flawed argument, and I'm surprised to see people defending it.

@bushpusherr said:

I enjoyed my time with TWD from an entertainment point of view, but I have trouble calling it a game, and definitely wouldn't call it GAME of the year. It should be praised for it's development of characters, but that thing is barely anything more than an animated choose-your-own adventure book. The parts where it wanders from that path were generally pretty poor.

Point-and-click adventure games have been around forever. I find it funny that now one has become surprisingly relevant, with a focus on writing and characters which is far beyond nearly every game released this year, this entire genre is suddenly "not games". I think it's a fine argument to say it shouldn't be game of the year because the mechanics are shallow, I just find it funny how this mindset suddenly sprung up from nowhere.

@ADarkMatter said:

Who?

Exactly.

I haven't watched Bonus Round in a while, but damn is the echo in that room annoying. Holy shit.

Also, that dude's reason for not having multiplayer and 40-100 hours of game play is an awful reason to exclude games.

@Sackmanjones said:

That son of a bitch.

I actually laughed, Thank you for that.

I think Shane is a cool level-headed guy. I have a bigger problem with Marcus, who thinks Mass Effect 3 shoudln't be considered for Game of the Year. In the end though, they are both entitled to their opinion. So how about we just close this thread now?

If we're judging games not by how well produced they are, but how long they take to complete/how many man hours it took to make/how people worked on it, then Duke Nukem Forever is the greatest game of all time.

@rick_deckard said:

I think Shane is a cool level-headed guy. I have a bigger problem with Marcus, who thinks Mass Effect 3 shoudln't be considered for Game of the Year. In the end though, they are both entitled to their opinion. So how about we just close this thread now?

I don't believe the thread is about what the majority of the people commenting on it seem to think it's about. It's not about a difference of opinion on the quality of the game. It's about stating that games that do not have a AAA budget and that you can't play for a specific length of time should be excluded from being nominated. Let me repeat that since it seems to be passing over so many heads.

1. GOTY game requires X amount of money, development time, and a large studio full of hundreds of people.

2. GOTY game requires a specific length of gameplay through a combination of single player and/or multiplayer content.

Any game not fulfilling the aforementioned requirements cannot be nominated for GOTY.

See the problem?

@yinstarrunner said:

Point-and-click adventure games have been around forever. I find it funny that now one has become surprisingly relevant, with a focus on writing and characters which is far beyond nearly every game released this year, this entire genre is suddenly "not games". I think it's a fine argument to say it shouldn't be game of the year because the mechanics are shallow, I just find it funny how this mindset suddenly sprung up from nowhere.

When did I ever condemn adventure games as a whole? How many of those point-and-click adventure games that have been around forever are completely devoid of puzzles and challenge (you know, the game part)?

The shallowness of the mechanics is exactly what I was taking issue with in my post. And it's fine for it not to have any real gameplay, I enjoyed it for what it was, but that just means that the fact that it's a "game" is totally incidental to what's good about it.

@golguin: I've never mentioned the quality of the game. What I'm saying is that he is enitled to his opinion. In this case, his opinion is that it's unfair that a downloadable game that took much less time to develop and play through should be considered side by side with the likes of a Mass Effect. He said this was mostly regarding Journey though, and his biggest problem with The Walking Dead was that there is so little actual gameplay. Considering he always says he is a gameplay first kind of guy, it's easy to understad his reasoning.

In the end though, I think you just hear what you want to hear. It seems like you're trying to ridicule him for not having the same high opinion of a game that you do. And I don't think that's very cool. There's a reason this entire thread is against. It all comes down to opinion. And you're entitled to one too, just don't mock people who see it differently.

Of course it doesn't. TWD, Journey and Dishonored are like some oscar nominees. You'll get nominated but there is no way in hell you are winning the price.

@rick_deckard said:

@golguin: I've never mentioned the quality of the game. What I'm saying is that he is enitled to his opinion. In this case, his opinion is that it's unfair that a downloadable game that took much less time to develop and play through should be considered side by side with the likes of a Mass Effect. He said this was mostly regarding Journey though, and his biggest problem with The Walking Dead was that there is so little actual gameplay. Considering he always says he is a gameplay first kind of guy, it's easy to understad his reasoning.

In the end though, I think you just hear what you want to hear. It seems like you're trying to ridicule him for not having the same high opinion of a game that you do. And I don't think that's very cool. There's a reason this entire thread is against. It all comes down to opinion. And you're entitled to one too, just don't mock people who see it differently.

How is stating his position something "I just want to hear"? You yourself just wrote what he said. There is no miscommunication here. Games that took less money, time, and resources to develop than other games don't deserve to be on the list. There is no mention about quality of the games. He is judging a games worth by the money behind it. Brad himself has talked about eliminating the "Downloadable GOTY" category because the batch of downloadable games this year were that damn good.

Shane's line of thinking disqualifies all downloadable games despite their quality. There is no mistaking what he said.

I think it's totally wrong to discredit a game based on length. Especially when taking the season in as a whole, it's probably longer than a lot of other retail releases.

I like Satterfield. The guy speaks his opinion and I appreciate that (even though I often don't agree with him). I semi-regularly watch IW because of him and Marcus Beer basically.

It's a cool story with some cheap shots throwing in but there isn't enough GAME in it to be GOTY, if it wins it shows people care more about story than gameplay.

@ADarkMatter said:

Who?

@golguin: I think you hear what you want to hear, because you are only taking one of the things into the equation. And of course you take the thing that is easiest to poke fun at. He clearly states that his problem with The Walking Dead is that it's not enough game in there for his taste. He is gameplay first, and when there's barely any gameplay, it's gonna be tough for him to call it Game of the Year. You don't mention that at all, despite it being the most important thing he says about The Walking Dead.

I was going to come on here and say "Dude, it's just his opinion...chill." But then I watched the video. He actually says Indie games don't deserve a place on the list because it would be unfair to all the work larger teams put into the AAA titles. Fuck. This. Guy.

I loved Walking Dead but it's AC3, ME3 and Farcry3 for my top 3, would of had it at no1 before Episode 5 and Far Cry 3 came out.

It's weird that most people are shooting down the OP because "Who cares if someone has a different opinion than you?" when an internet forum is based around calling people out on their opinions.

@golguin: I think you hear what you want to hear, because you are only taking one of the things into the equation. And of course you take the thing that is easiest to poke fun at. He clearly states that his problem with The Walking Dead is that it's not enough game in there for his taste. He is gameplay first, and when there's barely any gameplay, it's gonna be tough for him to call it Game of the Year. You don't mention that at all, despite it being the most important thing he says about The Walking Dead.