Why do they not take a count in GOTY?

As the title asks, what is the deal with them not wanting to take a count of people when trying to whittle down the lists (after they have had time to debate thoroughly of course)? Edit: and to be clear; when people are being stubborn and the discussion is going in circles.

Edit: Some people seem to be responding without reading the first sentence...

People brought it up multiple times and they (Jeff and Brad seeming most vocal) seemed to immediately go toxic at the idea of doing a poll of what should stay (or go). I would think with how angry they seem to get there would be a reason for it, but at the same time why are people bringing it up if there is a reason for it? This has also come up in years past but it has seemed like something that would have especially helped this year. I just finished watching "Best Surprise" and the last hour was a complete mess.

It also seems super hypocritical when they constantly give-in by saying things like "well I just don't see any support from anyone else" or they literally go around the table and say games that they think are top 3 (or they should cut) but just don't "count". When it is immediately apparent they are totally mentally counting and cutting things that aren't getting support. At some point people will have a position they will just not want to give up and the debates get really, really bad. It brings out the most toxic, nit-picky, straw-man arguments against whatever game the person things he/she is most likely to get support from the others to cut. Arguments are repeated in circles and it goes nowhere until they take a "mental" count and either A) The person who has the least support gives up, or B) The person(s) who is being really stubborn stomps their feet and demands their pick stays no-matter-what and they instead go to the next least supported game and make that person(s) give theirs up (which is a real bummer for the less combative and laid-back members like Vinny/Jason who almost always lets others have their picks).

Why not just cut the bull, take a poll, count up the games with the most support and start cutting the lowest after they've all said their piece on the games and people are being stubborn? And with a blind count, nothing worse than them going around the room and saying aloud what games they "support" and forcing the later people to be the tie-breakers (seems often at the expense of games they prefer). If you get a tie you can discuss some more and take another poll in 10-15 minutes.

The process has never been voting. The process, in its full masochistic glory, is to wear down the people who disagree with you. Sometimes it’s painful and sometimes it’s glorious. Austin getting Invisible Inc. on the top 10 list through sheer individual passion is one of the best examples. Maybe the GOTY podcasts aren’t for you.

I wouldn't be in favor of turning it into a pure poll, but some people REALLY need to be better about reading the temperature of the room next year. You can't dig your heels in on every category. Pick your battles.

Fight all the battles you want, talk until you are sick of talking or everyone else is sick of you talking and gives in.

No votes, just knives.

It's like Jeff/Brad said, voting doesn't leave people feeling good. Voting leaves things unresolved. With voting, you wouldn't have ended up with NieR:Automata being #3 on the list, or Skyrim being the best game of 2011. These maybe aren't great things to come out of it, but that process is definitely more interesting. GOTY Awards aren't about raw numbers; it's about compromise. The awards have always been about the interplay between, "I feel strong enough about this to drag this out for as long as I reasonably can" and "I don't actually care as much about this as I thought." With that dynamic, someone has to let go. Someone has to take "the dream" out back behind the shed and reenact the end of "Old Yeller." Pulling the trigger leads to acceptance. It won't always lead to the best outcome, and the people might regret it later, but there can be no doubt that you allowed it to happen.

You are 100% right that it usually leads to terrible arguments, and it can definitely be frustrating. I think this is the year that the illusion was broken for most people. Between the Early Access eligibility debate (FirePro, Dead Cells), not fully understanding a new category (Best World), and accidentally making a good category (Best Styyyyyyyyle) redundant (Best Looking Game), GOTY 2017 was maybe the most slapdash it's ever been. It's kind of hard to lay into the staff too hard for it though. A thousand GOOD games came out this year. Giant Bomb has the most staff members it has ever had. They split specific game coverage between two different coasts, and while I agree that's ultimately the right move it really hurts GOTY. But all those things have always been issues to some degree. A fantastic year for games and a bad year for deliberations. Voting isn't going to solve it.

I just don't see the difference between "reading the temperature of the room" and taking a poll. They are basically doing the same thing.

@indiana_jenkins: Someone put together a weighted list of the staff's top 10 lists and I think you'd be surprised about the results. Sure, it was after some people probably had some slight changes in heart about games (like Vinny and AC:O) but it is about the same top 10 games just in slightly different orders. The standout's being PUBG down at 5th, odyssey being 1st, and Tekken 7 down at 20th (Nier actually took 2nd!). I haven't watched the video yet so I'm not sure how it all goes down, but as most everyone around here says; it is their list and the "winners" don't really matter. I imagine most of us here watch for the debates, arguments, and discussions. And all of the above take a significant hit in quality when people start getting really stubborn, and normally it is in the categories where there can only be 3 "winners" and there is usually a "100% in the category" pick and then it is a matter of trying to find the other 2 from a list of 3-5. I think taking a poll when things aren't going anywhere the best solution for everyone involved (us as viewers and the crew) and can help keep the quality of the discussions high. No one wants to hear the same 2 arguments for each game they are trying to cut get repeated over and over and over and over and over. Again.

edit: Since the list included ALL the staff, if you include only the people debating in the room then the list still ends up looking pretty similar; mario/pubg tie for 1st, destiny is near the bottom, once again tekken is off the list, pyre is on the list, and AC:O bumps off dream daddy.

Because who cares what the list actually comes to? Maybe its just me, but I come to Giantbomb for the banter, not the rigid, cold outlook you get elsewhere. Hearing their passion for 'X' game is just as credible as hearing an arbitrary number placed before them. Emphasis on arbitrary.

Because voting discounts the amount that someone values a game at a certain spot. You said it yourself that you hear the staff speak about their value of a person caring enough about a game to get it raised, even though nobody else might agree. They explained it multiple times in GOTY. If you just want a vote, just read their GOTY lists and don’t listen to the podcast?

I really just want to hear them speak their piece about the games that they feel strongly about. The format can facilitate that, but this time around the crew was bad at it. IMO they should either mediate the discussion better, or get the list stuff out of the way by basing it on their personal top 10s, then talk about the games that did or didn't end up on it.

Is it time for GBW GOTY and GBE GOTY?

If it was purely a matter of voting, would we even need the Game of the Year discussions? They could just do an elimination vote in the office, through email, until the top three were chosen and then post it. And then really good games that people absolutely loved could be dumped from the ballot simply because the majority of people didn't play them. That's be great. Right?

Much as I got frustrated by a lot of the discussions/arguments that took place during the Game of the Year debates, and I freely admit that there were a few segments I just had to skip because the bullshit became too much, I like the fact that it often comes down to pure passion. Passion to fight for a game to make it on the list. Passion to convince others why it maybe deserves its spot, despite the fact that they never played it or initially didn't feel the game was anything special. Yeah, sometimes it sucks when shit like Stardew Valley or some cutesy Mario/Yoshi/Kirby/Rayman game takes a spot from a vastly superior game, but as much as that irks me, I still respect the passion behind the support for those games.

Voting would be simpler, sure, but it's shallow, and more than a little bit broken. And it's precisely how loathsome, unqualified, mind-bogglingly moronic, degenerate pieces of shit end up as president.

I prefer the banter and nuanced arguments, but this goty was different somehow. Contradictory, not standing your ground when big poppa bear speaks and selective arguments only supporting one's own case while dismissing the very same argument against it earlier. And then sexism? I'm sad the card was drawn but apparently it was ok to stare at Craig's crotch in boxers while bayonetta was bad to women and on top of that hear the same person say, I like sexy characters. A voting poll may have seemed the lesser evil this year and I hope for a change in methods next year.

Because then things get left to mob rule.

Because then you don't get DotA2, Destiny, Mass Effect 3, Invisible, Inc., Stardew Valley, Thumper, Dream Daddy or Hyperlight Drifter on the list, and everything winds up being what's most popular rather than most passionate.

And if they waned to take a poll, they'd just do that instead of debating for 5+ hours.

May I buy you a beer?

Maybe having a vote is too extreme but they seriously need to get some sort of structure for these things next year because god damn they went off the rails this year.

Maybe have someone forgo the GOTY deliberations and act as a facilitator and move the conversation along when it starts to go in circles, this person can change each year. I don't know, just find something to cut down the bullshit that made this years talks so hard to listen to.

Having 25 hours of video game arguments over the course of one week is too much for everyone.

I'd go a step further and say hearing passion for X game is even more credible that just an arbitrary list. The passion for one game, even if you don't "get your way" in the end, is what I feel makes Giantbomb's GOTY so unique.

Yes some of the arguments can be frustrating, or repetitive but they're fighting for their passions. I think that's great.

Have you seen the Eurogamer staff top 50? They poll all the site staff and compile the list statistically and you just get crappy data from it.

Mass Effect Andromeda was higher than Nier, Nioh, Persona 5 and HZD because more people played it, even though the people that did play the good games rated them higher, when averaged out Mass Effect was apparently played by more people, though not as well liked, so got a higher place. It's dumb.

So if on one end of the spectrum you have voting and bad lists, is the other end then "argument of the year"?

It's a debate not a vote. Totally different things but I see where you are coming from. Sometimes you just want to get the argument out of the way.

I think this is a format that worked well for four people, but maybe not so much with eight. I don't know what the solution is, all I know is I listened to the first couple days, and then I found myself not wanting to listen to the rest. That's the first time that's happened and I've listened to GOTY podcasts since the beginning.

This is why, if it;s just a vote its all over and done in 30 minutes. It's the discussion that makes this great.

Voting is a really bad way to do that. It discourages discussion in which people can be subjected to arguments or examples reminding them of something, that change their minds. Voting also completely leaves nuance in the cold. Passion, resentment, any emotion really.

Think of it this way: if you and two other people had to decide where to eat, there is no way you'd let that exclusively come to a vote. If both of them want to eat somewhere you really do not want to eat, you'll put your foot down and say no, then either argue to go to the place you want to go to, or land on a compromise.

If you voted for GOTY games, all staff would be unsatisfied with what the list came down to. Games they felt super strongly about would not be on there, games they hated would. Democracy is OK on a large scale, mostly because no one knows anything strictly better. Because at its core it's a really bad system.

While I agree that discussion is important, some of it got really silly this year. Almost everyone started refusing to acknowledge serious flaws with games because they liked the game a whole bunch. A vote could have ended some of those hour long arguments were people were just repeating the same bad arguments over and over.

I came to echo the people who are encouraging a moderate approach to voting. No, I don't want them to just start the whole process off by voting. The early round of eliminations is usually pretty brief and agreeable; someone brings up a game they are sure won't make the cut, most people agree, and then the game is never heard from again.

Voting would greatly accelerate the process, though, in some places that desperately need it. I love Brad and Austin, but they truly mucked up these debates when in successive years they planted their feet stubbornly for games that either nobody liked or that nobody played. That caused the 10th spot to become an endless debate between people with vastly different passions trying to squeak in games that don't have a lot of sway with anyone but themselves. Had they voted this year, the two hour tug of war between Dream Daddy and Yakuza would have been solved in much less time. Let Abby make her pitch for Dream Daddy and Alex make his pitch for Yakuza once (not one thousand times), vote, and then be done with it.

What they do now is hardly better than a vote because I don't truly believe anyone picks a side based on which argument they think is better; I think they just pick the side that seems less likely to back down based on hours of evidence. Ben and Jeff both said that they were swayed by the arguments for Dream Daddy, but it seemed to me like they were more swayed by the fact that Alex and Dan are seasoned veterans and know when to give up the fight. That's not exactly the recipe for an authentic staff top ten.

Plus, the one time they did vote (but ignored the results by and large), Steamworld Dig 2 and maybe Uncharted would have made the top ten, which would have been a win for everybody! :)

Because proportional representation sucks. Say the crew had already decided on the top 3 for a category, and just needed to choose a winner. If they did it by voting you could get the following scenario: 4/9 vote for Game A, 2/9 vote for Game B, and 3/9 vote for Game C. In this scenario, Game A wins the category despite the majority of the room wanting a different game to win. And this ignores the scenario where one person really likes a small game that they think no-one else likes, so votes instead for their second choice because they think it has a better chance of winning! Because it can't be a blind vote, the last person to go gets a "deciding vote" and can ignore their original choice to make an acceptable alternative win. It'd be complete garbage.

I prefer the way they do it now compared to voting, as not everyone puts the same amount of time into all of the same games. This way it's possibly to decide whether a game that a minority ranked highly but the others didn't play is worth a spot. They probably just need a more structured way for the minority to convince the rest of the crew (and to select what games could drop out), so there is less wheel spinning. Deciding the structure early may lead to preparation, which could help with the arguments and reduce frustration.

If they did a pure vote I assume they would use some type of preferential voting scheme (which is kind of how they manage now during the discussions, after games get eliminated early). For instance in your example it would be possible for Game C to win if the 2 people who liked Game B preferred C over A.

People like to take the staff lists and do weighted averaging, but has anyone done a preferential voting scheme to see how the results turn out.

@bollard: How is that any different then how it is now? I mean, most of the "winners" just have 1-2 people that really back them and they either get really combative and stubborn about their pick until they "win" or they talk enough shade at their competition until they can sway some of the "no-horse" staffers to back them.

Also, the round-robin "temperature reads" are the complete garbage. It puts a whole lot of sway and importance on the first couple of people listing their picks and influences the "no-horse" people that come after them to agree with them to "find" a winner.

Very few of the categories I've watched have managed to trim it down to the last 3 w/o some great deal of time spent arguing in circles about which 2 of the last 3-4 games should go forward. Very little insightful points are made, the discussion repeats in circles, people get really childish, and more often than not the more "combative" members of the team get their way. I think it's equally bad when a game only wins because someone is being childish and stubborn about it, especially when they don't have a great argument to back it up (like Austin did with Invisible Inc).

A poll comes down to numbers only whereas taking the temperature of the room is more subjective. You could have two really passionate people vs three who are all kinda meh. The "kinda meh" people should give in, notwithstanding their numbers, if they are able to read the temperature of the room and recognize how strongly the other people feel.

That said, pick your battles and only go in hard for the things that you really love in the categories that you feel strongly about. You aren't going to get your choice in every category. By way of example, I feel super strongly that Horizon Zero Dawn was the best looking game out there this year. I also feel like it had the best story. But I feel stronger about the looks so that's where I would have gone hard.

Because its far more entertaining the way they do it.

Let me try and tackle this from a different angle. Just my read of Jeff/Brad's reactions and no evidence for this but whatever..

How about "They have done the 'vote for it' thing before, decided they like what they do now better, and so stick too it?" Re:Everyone elses answers for 'why its bad" I would guess, again based on the bits and pieces Brad and Jeff said this year. But would it really shock anyone if they came from a place pre-giant bomb, or perhaps GB before Goty podcasts, where 'lets vote on it' was how it was done..and they are absolutely aware of how it leaves certain people feeling?

It certainly came off too me as a "Been there, tried that, doing this now cause we didn't like that" response. Even if they didn't sit down and detail out 'back in 1998 we.." I'd bet there is a story behind it.

I know ultimately that this has nothing at all to do with me and has no effect on my life beyond the hours that I spend listening to the individual podcasts. That said, I am almost the way through the five and have found myself becoming increasingly frustrated with the structure of the procession and some of the staff in particular. I understand that each of the staff have their passions and that is good and necessary to allow for legitimate conversation and debate. What I cannot stand is the constant talking in never ending circles and the practice of simply saying 'let's not cut it yet' when a game is looking like being cut. What inevitably happens is someone will repeatedly push a game down from the conversation and out-talk the opposition such that their game gets on the list.

More specifically, I have not played a single second of Dream Daddy and never will. Nothing that I have heard or seen of the game appeals or interests me and yet the amount of times I have heard of it's value without making many strong points (in comparison to other games) has made me actively dislike it. I also strongly believe that even though games are impacted by the context in which they are created, they should not be elevated because they embrace popular ideology. Regardless of a persons stance on gender issues, I do not think for a second that a game should be valued moreso because it incorporates transgender characters. If this whole aim is to normalise/downplay gender then why champion behaviour that highlights it? I recognise that this will be an unpopular opinion which perhaps shows my ignorance of America but I have been so irked by this during these podcasts.

Eh it doesn't really matter the GotY discussions to me were always just an excuse to hear them talk about some specific games more than actually mattering who got what number.

What is more useful is their personal top ten list combined with knowing their personalities and video game interests. Because actually game of the year final list often ends up just being some weird overly compromised mess with a few games few played but one person was "passionate" about so it must be on there [talking about Invisible Inc here.. it had some serious problems not brought up in their game of the year stream that year, not even mentioned...and I only bought it to try after hearing the passion towards it and it getting on the list... total regret purchase on that one, and I like the genre too!]

Plus then you get into games that are there more for social or political reasons that go way up on the list through this arbitration [as someone else previously talked about in this thread]. While on the flip side with the personal lists you can generally tell who is going to have those games up there by their general personality and vocalness on the site [for purely the social and political reasons] and can ignore those lists due to tastes... or focus on them if that is what truly matters to you in a game, and sift through which person speaks to you best for the lists.

Plus at some point if you are going down the line of pure votes, the issue of not everyone playing every game does become a more important question.

@rahf: that got super annoying omfg!

@rahf:

Ben saying “We know, Abby” was maybe the most satisfying moment of the podcasts for me. It had a good reboot effect on the discussion in my mind.

^ This.

The psychology of why only Jeff and Brad would have to tell you. But, I think it comes from sitting in a GameSpot conference room with too many of 'editors' back in the early aughts voting for poor choices.

There is a saying on motivational posters, "None of us is as dumb as all of us". The GB SYSTEM ©®™ is to reach consensus, even if the consensus is followed by rolled-eyes and toss up of hands. Best of all, there is no recriminations of "well, I never voted for that," because if anyone disagreed - they could've gone on arguming.

Ben was the standout speaker for me throughout the GOTY discussions. I felt overall he made the best arguments, the best discussions, and his idea of how the categories are defined best matched my definition of them (I was 100% with Ben that PUBG did not deserve "best debut" and should have never even made the top 20).

@ev77 said:

I'm not saying what they do is better, but I'm just saying how voting could be worse.

It doesn't matter because they still need a consensus, it's like a jury. They still take counts occasionally but you have to get everyone on the same page or its a no go.

It's the 12 Angry Men of Videogames.

Personally I love the format, and I love that they actively avoid settling things with votes. I turn up every year for the debates; it’s glorious.

Only slight thing I’d tweak would be a clearer definition of the spirit of some categories....but with all my heart I don’t really care.

Either:

1) There should either be a one-hour time limit per category (at which point a vote is instigated if consensus has not been reached)...

Or:

2) There should be the option for anyone to enact a filibuster-buster that gives the "stubborn" party x minutes to make their case. If consensus is not reached by the time limit, a vote is cast.

I totally get wanting consensus. I absolutely adore the knives coming out. But this year there were so many voices. This year there were so many games. Building consensus was just too difficult. For the first time, the end product was a little rough.

It's either that or trim the deliberations to a smaller group of 4-5 folks, which I assume isn't something they want to do.

@nutter:

Yeah I def agree on the too many voices part. It is one of those things that wouldn't happen but I wouldn't mind some trimming on the GotY stuff because at some point there are too many people to reach an effective conclusion this way... this year's result was a bit of a messy set of choices at parts because of that

@nutter:

I think those are good ideas if you’re in the camp of not wanting the long podcasts for GOTY. For me personally, I loved how long the podcasts were this year. I hope next year some more interesting categories get introduced and we get 30+ hours of GOTY podcasts. So, I definitely wouldn’t want rules like that introduced.

May I propose another take on the GOTY problem? I have a firm believe that "voting" wouldn't be consider at all, if this year discussions weren't such a disappointment for so many people. And that's the result of the staffs played less and less game as years gone by.

I heard people argue against game they didn't played. I heard people stay quiet 'cause of the same reason and vice versa.

P.S. I haven't got back to 2008's GOTY podcast yet but my recollection was they played most of games that matter.

@htr10: I'm more concerned with quality than quantity, actually. I generally love the length of the recordings, too. The GOTY and Best World categories this year were the worst end of year content the site has produced.

I was on the road for about 12 hours this holiday, so the amount of content was welcome, but when I'm driving around at 2am, bored out of my skull (and occasionally frustrated) listening to Jeff rightfully propose scrapping Best World, or the absolute nightmare that was the GOTY debate (the less said about that one, the better)...it's a sign, I guess.

I'd hope that controls (limiting the number of folks in the room or their time to argue) would put pressure on staff to construct quicker and more persuasive arguements, rather than shouting the same point into the abyss ad nauseam, hoping for a different result this time.

After any other year, I'd say to leave it alone. I generally like the chaos and rough and tumble natre of it. This year went off the rails in a bad way and you could hear in folks voices (and sometimes in their words), that they were aware of it.

@alavapenguin: Personally, I'd be all for just keeping it to the most senior staff. Jeff, Vinny, Brad, and Alex. Maybe Dan could be a fifth voice, MAYBE Jason as a sixth? Nothing against anyone, it just that more voices feels like a key component of what bungled-up this years' recordings.

Maybe they pre-select who covers which categories based on how much folks care about them, and just default GOTY to the most senior 4-6?

Hell, six folks would still probably get too chaotic...it's a tough nut to crack.