This criticism always comes across to me as incredibly naive. From the French Revolution to the Russian Revolution, and from the Taliban to Zimbabwe, the vast majority of violent revolutions and uprisings tend to end in the opposing faction becoming more and more radicalized until it ends up committing greater atrocities than the oppressor. Yet by recognizing this reality, Bioshock apparently offends people by upsetting their neat little world view where there's only black and white, wrong and right. Bioshock does not suggest that revolutions are inherently wrong, yet because it actually portrays a very common consequence of them it suddenly is supporting the oppressors? Again --- naive as hell.

I'm super shocked Killer Instinct didn't make number 10. Maybe that would have been too on the nose though.

Bioshock is an excellent example of a shooter, it's the full package, a story that's not disposable whether you agree it was a good idea or not, fantastic characters, interesting concepts executed on well (music, storyline, cycles, skylines, tears.) even good combat (skylines should frankly be a design nightmare as far as AI and design are concerned, but they aren't the hot mess they should be first run.)

Compared against almost any other shooter created in the last year, or even last few years it'd stand tall among the best or at very least most ambitious, which usually awards a grudging respect. If Bioshock Infinite was a new IP by an unknown developer I feel a lot of people's complaints would become muted.

It feels to me like hating it became a weird aversion fad. Most of the arguments are exactly the same and lack personal texture. Like people are reading similar critiques and just adopting it wholesale for social status reasons. Sorta like how very few people REALLY care about Justin beiber one way or another, but intentionally amplify their dislike.

That's probably not true in every case, just a thought. I'm probably talking crazy.

Never bleach your hair ever

Then you are not the person that message was directed at, so stop being so defensive.

Bioshock infinite bummed me. I reached a point (much like AC III) that the game just bored me and I couldn;t' continue on. Oh well, maybe I missed the best parts. I'm just now getting in to AC IV and liking iit (with some caveats) but I think I'll actually finish it. Antichamber- man what a mind-bender. Didn't finish it as it kind of broke my pea-brain. But loved what I did play of it.

Overall, I don't have much to play on my Xbox One, although from what I'm seeing from AC IV I think the future looks bright. Considering the publisher's comments regarding the next one in the series, I look forward to seeing what AC V looks like. And we wont have to wait soon, normally they seem to unveil and start pumping the next AC game in the first couple months of the year.

Saints Row IV! Easily the most fun I've had all year is on that game. Plus, that game is completely hilarious.

Audemus patria nostra [sic] defendere. 'Nuff said.

"I feel like the people who pick at BioShock Infinite's various paradoxes probably aren't much fun to be around. Those sorts of plot holes pop up in plenty of great multiverse and time-travel fiction. Did you sit outside a theater in 1989 to picket Back to the Future Part II, too?"

I think what Jeff is saying is... that Biff Tannen should have ruled Columbia and that game would have been way better...

@skytylz: I always said that these games should be kept in separate categories. You cannot judge a two hour experience like Gone Home on the same merits as Infinite or Last of Us. A shorter game of a much more, compact, if not to say limited scope simply doesn't deal with the same challenges that an 8-10 hour games face. If you stretched Gone Home or Brothers into a 10 hour story they would simply not hold up.

So I'm not saying they're bad games, but to keep them in the same category as full feature titles is wrong in my opinion and unfair to teams that built those much more complex and involved undertakings.

Maybe more games should be 2-3 hour experiences then since it seems like those are a lot more interesting. Also, I'm not going to be more forgiving of a games flaws because it is longer I'm going to be more critical.

I think you're not understanding the repercussions here. People don't want to pay $65 for 2-3 hour games, while at the same time they want more quality and quantity in their AAA releases than a $15 game can provide. Making a story last 8-10 hours without feeling drawn out or artificial is much harder than accomplishing the same in 2 hours time - this is something that you either are ignoring or don't understand? It's perfectly ok to be critical of storytelling but you understand the difference right?

I literally said "NO DUCKING WAY" out loud seeing the end of that list. ...but with an 'F'

Jeff and I's taste fall on opposite sides of the fence way more often than not but gosh he never fails to surprise me. That old friggin weirdo.

Much love Bioshock!

The challenge in an 8-10 hour game is usually more to do with keeping the mechanics interesting as that is usually the reason the game is longer. Also, you don't have to worry about a story feeling drawn out if you write a story that is appropriate for the length that you are going to tell it. There are lots of great TV seasons that are probably 8-10 hours that don't feel drawn out and tell a single narrative. Therefore I'm going to be just as critical no matter the length and would rather have a great short experience than a drawn out ok one.

infinite was a fun game with a great story and even better ending. That said, the actual gameplay and shooting was a huge stepdown from bioshock1

definitely should be in everyones top 10, but numba 1? nahh

The shooting itself with the new powers wasn't as good as 1 or 2, but the skyhook blows both of the previous games out of the water, at least for me. It made it so much more exciting than the sort-of-clunky plasmid-gun combos of the first game, or the deliberate-and-kinda-boring trap setting of 2. It was faster, frenetic and a joy for someone who loves their shooters to be fast.

It's kind of a lose-lose situation here in a way if you want to be negative about it. Either you go with the "power corrupts" motif and people complain that is cliched or you go with the sappy "hooray we're free" route and that is an even bigger cliche. In a way it was somewhat bold of them to say "look at this working class struggle to fight their oppressors, and then become worse than they were" - it's not a story that is told very often.

As for race issues on a whole, I believe much like Columbia they were meant to be a mere backdrop to this story about as you say a man and a woman, although pointing out they're white is somewhat irrelevant. At one point you have to be realistic and can't nitpick every choice of "why is Booker white? Why is Elizabeth white? Why is the woman imprisoned? Why does the man have to save the woman?" etc etc. For the purpose of this story, it just so happened that the two main characters were white. In a way it might have been interesting if Elizabeth was in fact African-American which would make her first journey into Columbia an even more striking experience, but even then I'm certain detractors would point out that her race was simply used for shock value.

The first time around the game has quite a powerful effect, to the point where half the internet was excitedly talking about it, which is exactly why it was such a great game. If people want to really sit down and pick apart the plot of the game we can do likewise for anything, Last of Us, Gone Home, anything really and it instantly begins to fall apart.

@humanity: They're still video games. Every video game has its own unique context no matter how different or similar it is to any other game that's ever been released.

GTAV not even anywhere in the top 10. I'm finally done with GOTY's. Geoff was the last guy I related to. Now it's over. I'll never care again.

I can appreciate the 'shut up and have fun!' sentiment as a way to get more enjoyment out of Infinite. It's probably the best way to play it.

However, the game itself doesnt make adopting that mindset an easy thing to do for me. The Luteces are constantly intellectually taunting you and on the whole the game pats itself on the back a bit too much for being so clever. It's kinda like Inception in that way. It challenges you to wrap your mind around a concept, but when you actually put some effort into that, said concept doesnt hold up.

That's why I think comparing it to Back to the Future doesnt fly... that movie doesnt take itself anywhere near as seriously as Infinite seems to do.

It might not even be the game's own fault. I think a lot of the criticism is a reaction to the boatloads of praise the game's 'brilliant story' got from reviewers on release (again, much like Inception). That's gonna draw extra attention to it from the people who play it, and that added scrutiny doesnt necessarily do the game a lot of favors.

Fair play to @jeff for not letting that bother him.

This list was so dope no joke! I have even purchased Bioshock for friends during steam sales because I felt it is my number 1 game of the year and they should play it as well.

I like how Jeff stirred up a conversation that I felt was SUPER - DEAD.

I went through and found all but 1 voxophone recording, and… for a video game… thought that the story was extremely intriguing and I was one of few who actually liked the ending.

Sure killing Booker at the end doesn't solve the problems for all Elizabeths that exist in all the worlds, but then again, in another universe… Booker and Elizabeth are 2 gangsters cruising down the street in their six-fo' (cannot wait for that DLC).

A multiple worlds theory means anything is possible, and nothing has a bow on it. In saying that, I felt the story was bomb… a giant bomb (see what i did there haha)

@gokumane: You illustrated Jeff's point perfectly with your comment.

"I feel like the people who pick at BioShock Infinite's various paradoxes probably aren't much fun to be around."

Nobody cares.

Never trust Geoff Jerstmann.

Nobody cares about a lot of opinions posted in these comments. Why single this one out? Just curious! You didn't make a very constructive comment and were needlessly rude for seemingly no reason simply because someone said something you disagree with, so I'm guessing there are reasons behind it that I just don't understand. Let me know when you get a chance!

Personally I would have pulled Bioshock Infinite off the top spot on the list and replaced it with The Last of Us.

GTA V was absolutely robbed! I don't see how the rocky release of GTA Online can detract from the single player experience. Nobody is going online just to play deathmatches with GTA's lock-on targeting, like Jeff always brings up. He does not seem to be aware of the vast amount of content in the multiplayer. There are hundreds of cooperative missions and there is actual progression aside from leveling. If you want to go online and randomly shoot people you can, but there is so much more to it than that. All that aside, the single player experience alone makes it a GOTY contender (and easy winner for me). It's a damn shame to see it snubbed.

Especially with games like Saints Row IV appearing in the list. That is the epitome of lazy game design. So much recycled content... what would have been a DLC made into a full-priced game. GTA V is light years ahead in every facet of open world game design. The sheer quality and scope is unmatched by any other contender this year.

But hey, GTA V is still the highest rated game of the year (and the best-selling to boot). Nothing can change that!

I would have gone with the XBox 360 version of Diablo III, but in the spirit of following the guidelines I had GTA and Bioshock on equal footing.

Best character for me was Trevor in GTA, and I hope to hell they bring him back (although unlikely due to a certain endgame decision players must make).

Awesome list Jeff!

Well....Bioshock Infinite was the game I actually cared about this year. So...yeah...

I'm surprised that GTA V isn't on Jeff's list. Not because it's 'the best' or anything like that, but because he really seemed to have enjoyed it. He seemed to really love the game. Granted, he was really sour on GTA Online. I guess GTA Online really made Jeff sour on the game.

Alrighty, I definitely have a lot of 2013 games to catch up on. Thanks (I think)!

@josephknows said:

I respectfully disagree with most of this.

1) Calling the "both sides are bad" (which in itself doesn't accurately describe what happened) gutless just isn't a very informed opinion. Gutless would've been the oppressed rising up and being benevolent, caring leaders who would never do terrible things to people because they know the pain of oppression, just like is seen in EVERY OTHER MEDIA that deals with this kind of thing. The reality of the world is that oppressed peoples typically rise up and inflict even more pain on their oppressors because they want them to know how much it hurt, revenge and all that junk. Then, without any checks on their power, they go on to do much of the same crap the oppressors did because people in general really aren't all that different. This has repeated itself over and over again, just look at the results of the Arab Spring revolutions for proof, or crack open a history book. Infinite pointing out this fact about people isn't gutless at all. It's just the opposite, in my opinion.

2) The background you describe was indeed there to prop up Booker and Elizabeth's story. That's why it's a background; the story was never about liberation, racism, or any of that. It was about Booker getting Elizabeth out of Columbia. Just because racism and jingoism are present in a story's setting doesn't mean they have to become part of the focal point, and they never were. The characters/groups who represented them did have some prominence, but the story was never ABOUT that stuff, nor was it obligated to be. It was always about Booker and Elizabeth leaving the city while all hell was breaking loose.

3) Race and revolution were NEVER integral parts of the story. They were background elements, plain and simple. I've kind of already addressed this one, but again, the revolution only became important to Booker when it forced him to rely on it for a way out of Columbia. For the greater story, it was there to reinforce the theme of cycles. People oppress people, the oppressed rise up and oppress other people, those oppressed rise up and oppress other people...etc. It happens everywhere.

Bioshock Infinite was my number 3 GOTY. It did not play well at all and felt super dated in that respect, but I enjoyed the story and world enough to overlook that. Jeff is Jeff. He is super definitive in his opinions and likes what he likes. Great list