Does making Fallout NV GTYO irresponsible?

What do you think, if you were a publication like giantbomb deciding on GOTY. Would making Fallout NV GOTY tell developers and publishers that releasing a broken game is OK? 
 
For many of you who think Fallout NV IS the GOTY, do you ignore the many many problems that was associated with it's release? And is that a good thing?

It is not irresponsible for them to do so if it included all of the patches to fix the many issues that plague the game and as what Fallout 3 did, include all DLC packs with it. I would go and buy the GOTY version if they could do that and make it worth my purchase.

Its  not irresponsible at all, you you think its game of the year its your opinion. I dont think they reased a janky game on purpose, they just didnt test properly. 

Old engine, more of the same, bugs and glitches galore.
 
The game might be decent in the story and gameplay section, but it shouldn't have been released when it did.
I returned it the very next day since all the bad stuff made me lose interest fast.
 
Its no goty, not even fucking close, if anyone has a little brain.

I can't wrap my head around the title's grammar.

" Old engine, more of the same, bugs and glitches galore.  The game might be decent in the story and gameplay section, but it shouldn't have been released when it did. I returned it the very next day since all the bad stuff made me lose interest fast.  Its no goty, not even fucking close, if anyone has a little brain. "

" I can't wrap my head around the title's grammar. "

" I can't wrap my head around the title's grammar. "

Game of the Year is people opinions, You can disagree with their choice but it's still that persons choice.

I think it's a testament to how much they enjoyed the game to be willing to overlook ALL the problems that it has. As some one who absolutely despised Fallout 3 I can honestly say that I was surprised as hell at how much I enjoyed NV. Other then some crashes in the last half, and my companion disappearing for the last 3-4 hours, I had a completely bug free game and an awesome time with it. I played it on PC with a few mods and it ran perfectly. I could not imagine playing it on a console though. Those loads looked disgusting.

" I think it's a testament to how much they enjoyed the game to be willing to overlook ALL the problems that it has.  "

" I can't wrap my head around the title's grammar. "

It's a rehash of a 2008 game - it doesn't deserve GOTY for that reason alone. I don't think adding a Companion Command Wheel and Hardcore mode are enough to garner GOTY praise.

Nobody's gonna make New Vegas their GOTY, so there's no need to worry about this.

It was one of my top 5 games I enjoyed most this year but definitely not GOTY worthy even if it wasn't as buggy and broken as it was when it first came out.

" Old engine, more of the same, bugs and glitches galore.  The game might be decent in the story and gameplay section, but it shouldn't have been released when it did. I returned it the very next day since all the bad stuff made me lose interest fast.  Its no goty, not even fucking close, if anyone has a little brain. "

I can see the point, to be honest.
 
I at least hope that outlets consider the bug-problems with the game. If it's still goty for them, so be it. But I highly doubt it.

The game is a broken piece of shit. I wouldn't worry about it getting any game of the year awards anywhere. 

If this comprehensive patch fixes most of the game's big bugs, then it could very well be a strong contender for game of the year.  
 
Also, I can't fucking stand people who think their opinion is king, and insist that only people without brains could like this game.

" @Laketown:    Just wondering lake, would you continue to buy oblivions next game if you knew it was as buggy as new vegas was? "

Irresponsible?  No, because what real responsibility in any real world terms does Giant Bomb have legally.  I suppose if they choose that game and we all said, “Screw those guys…why am I even here if their standards are that low” then that might be an issue for them and us.  But if they choose that game I see very little actual harm (in a legal sense) that could be levied against what amounts to an opinion.  

 However, I think a much better point could be made by saying, "This could have been our GOTY, but we feel the glitches and instability of the product as released and after patching take it out of the running."  That puts the issue on the table for the developer and publisher while also giving some recognition for being more of the more notable releases.   Rather than outright leaving it off I think having it in contention would be more interesting.  Moreover, I rather doubt it will win anything.  This was a frightening good year for games and I think even without flaws Fallout would have not won. 

My feeling is that a game that crashes, glitches, and loses data frequently, no matter how well in other respects, is not a game that should win awards.   It would be like saying the 2010 production of Hamlet by the Royal Shakespeare theater in-which half the actors misspoke their lines and the scenery fell on the audiences (killing 10) was the best rendition of Hamlet for the year.  No, that would be a catastrophe and would not win any awards even if all the other play that year were less remarkable then Hamlet.
   

Mm it's not irresponsible, but you really should make a big point that it won DESPITE being broken as hell and that it's no excuse, but also that at it's core it was a good game.

" @TaliciaDragonsong: You should try having no brain sometimes it really helps you enjoy some games which you might otherwise return to the shop.  Like some other users have said I think it is a testament to the strength of the story writing and world Bethesda created that a game run on a old as hell engine and with a large number of bugs can be so enjoyable and immersive.  It is one of my favourite games of the year, and although I'm not the sharpest tool in the box, last time I shook my head I was sure I could hear something rattling about. I would buy a 2nd hand copy now the patch is here and give it another try. "

I wonder how much reviews matter at this point given how well it sold?  I wish they could get a well tested product out the door the first try too, but I'm just glad they are still making fun games.

I doesn't thought it has become unresponsible because fallout nv being a best game of released in this year

" @Laketown:    Just wondering lake, would you continue to buy oblivions next game if you knew it was as buggy as new vegas was? "

" @leebmx said:

" @TaliciaDragonsong: You should try having no brain sometimes it really helps you enjoy some games which you might otherwise return to the shop.  Like some other users have said I think it is a testament to the strength of the story writing and world Bethesda created that a game run on a old as hell engine and with a large number of bugs can be so enjoyable and immersive.  It is one of my favourite games of the year, and although I'm not the sharpest tool in the box, last time I shook my head I was sure I could hear something rattling about. I would buy a 2nd hand copy now the patch is here and give it another try. "

As I said, its quite a great game in other areas.
I just lost all my interest in the game after it shutdown about 5 times, losing me progress.
A game shouldn't have me saving every 5 minutes to avoid losing progress due to glitches and errors.
I fully plan to buy this game when the price goes low or if its gets a special edition with the DLC and all that, I just didn't feel good paying 60 bucks for this glitchfest. 

Fair enough, I can understand how that many problems would be annoying. From your initial post it wasn't clear whether you returned it because of problems you were having or because of the bad noises around the game gener ally.  

It's irresponsible to purchase a broken game.

" I can't wrap my head around the title's grammar. "

It's an opinion. A game can fail to boot up 9/10 times, but if it's still more enjoyable than everything else that came out...then it's GOTY.

Instead of a site or publication making it a GOTY it should be an honorary mention stating it was decided to not be allowed a GOTY because of the state it shipped in, but that it is a very good game in a very bad engine. Giving it a GOTY thinking you're doing it right because patches fixed it is telling publishers straight up that it's okay to rush out piles of shit, as long as you patch things up within 2-3 months.

No, it's not. A game should be rated on the experience as a whole, not just the technical crap.

Well, I spent more time with New Vegas than almost any other game this year, and I enjoyed every minute of it. 
Everyone declaring this game to be broken are being really overdramatic.

Here's a thought, making a game with a six hour single player campaign the GOTY- is that any better?

" Mmm-hmm, mome people never got any problems, but some people never got red ring of death either, doesn't mean it doesn't happen) "

The thread title is hurting my brain.

It's better than Fallout 3, which was already pretty damn good, so I absolutely think it should be. 
@TaliciaDragonsong: The difference is that those aren't open-world games. Open-world games suffer from vastly higher amounts of jank because it's so much harder for the devs to get into every nook and cranny and still make a deadline. Even Rockstar's sandbox games are pretty glitchy if you put them up against something like Uncharted.

No.  If someone feels that it's the GOTY, then they should make it their GOTY.  There will be those developers that put out shovelware to make money, but the best developers will not purposely make janky games just because they saw some other people have success with a janky game.  They are going to make the best game they can.

Considering that this was the year that Mass Effect 2, Super Mario Galaxy 2, and Super Meat Boy came out, I would have to say yes, making Fallout New Vegas game of the year would be irresponsible.