Why "Game of the Year" doesn't work.
By DrRandle 16 Comments
Trying to brand one game the best game that came out this year is akin to trying to pin down the best fruit. In the end you're arguing apples against oranges, and while it's clear that there are a few rotten fruits, video games are far to broad of a medium for only one to be recognized so prominently.
Of all the video game publications and websites I frequent, only Game Informer has ever figured out how it should be done. Do not try splitting hairs; there are valid arguments to be made on many fronts. Instead, just celebrate all of the games that did something right. A list of the best 30 or 50 games, in no particular order, is the best way to go. It's the only way to ensure that you are celebrating all of the big titles that of course were good, but also a lot of smaller ones that might be otherwise ignored. Indy titles and downloadable titles will likely never see the spotlight outside of their independent categories.
If you're looking at a best music game, of course everyone's going to say Beatles: Rock Band. It's hard to argue against the musical juggernaut, regardless of your opinion of them. (I know because I've tried.) And it's a well crafted game. But that means nobody is going to be acknowledging Rhythm Heaven, a fresh approach to the genre with original tunes and gameplay. It's different, and that will put off a large majority of people, but that doesn't mean it's not clever in it's own right. Only through a grouping of awesome games that came out in the previous year will that work.
Scribblenauts is another example of a game that everyone should at least play and marvel at it's concept, even if the execution was blundered a little. In the end, however, there's a good chance that even the "best of" grouping won't be able to cover every great idea. That's why it's great that more personalized lists exist. Last year's Alone in the Dark was a game that had more than enough problems, but it also had more innovative concepts in a game than I have ever seen. They just didn't have the know-how and backing to finish it off properly (I never got around to the PS3 version which I hear improved a lot of the issues. Any word on that, readers?) You'll never see it on a list, and most people won't even put it on their personal games, but I think it's a game everyone should play and I really wish I could explain that to more people.
The problem with user-ballots, however, is that readers don't have to go through everything, or they just can't. If I only got one game a year, it would be my game of the year by default. While thumbing through IGN's reader submissions, I came across a few more issues. The first of which is not allowing for typed submissions. Sure it's easier to catalog, but how was Borderlands not in the running for Best Artistic Direction or Game of the Year? Already, as a reader, I couldn't make my voice heard: making the voting illegitimate. Secondly, I haven't played Silent Hill: Shattered Memories, but I've made the assumption I'm going to love it when I finally do get to play it. I try not to vote like this, but the simple fact remains that many people will, making things illegitimate from our end. That's two ends of a bridge that are broken, and that means the bridge falls into a river.
But returning to the original premise, Adam Sessler has argued that it's almost impossible to decide which is the better of games like Uncharted 2 and Borderlands, and I think he's right. They provide very different games that do very different things. Uncharted 2 has a great single player, and Borderlands has a spectacular multi-player. But just because Borderlands and New Super Mario Bros. Wii both have 4 player co-op doesn't mean they're both the same game, so trying to put them in a "Best multi-player" category isn't helpful either. They suit very different moods.
So how do you split those hairs? Personal preference? If that's the case, how is Final Fantasy 13 ever going to win in the eyes of a bunch of action-preferred gamers? And how is Borderlands ever going to matter to story-heavy fanatics of the Persona series? If you want to know what the best game this year was by score break downs, go look at the scores, and in that case, what's the point of any of this "debate," when it's already been decided?
The only clear answer is to let all of those people have a say and compile them in a list of 20 or 30 (maybe even upwards of 50 if you want to really start letting any game with important merits on). Oh sure, there's still going to be an argument or three over what one person wants on the list over another, but it makes a lot more sense than nominating games that aren't even all that good just because there were only 2 other good fighting games this year.
While I have you on the subject of Game of the Year presentations, can we agree that it's a terrible idea to hold your ceremony before the year is even over? That doesn't count fair for games like Final Fantasy: The Crystal Bearers which comes out on December 26th, and will be primarily ignored on all fronts. I doubt anyone will remember it for next years awards. "Oh no," they might say. "That game came out last year," and the conversation will be over.
What say you, valued reader? Do you prefer a fight to the death between games? Is there really only one game that clearly stood ahead of the others? Or does this sound like a reasonable idea more sites and publications should start looking into? Feel free to comment below, and please look forward to my own selections early next year.
As always, feel free to stalk me on Facebook or Twitter. Also, you can subscribe to my ramblings on The Examiner where I post these articles and more.
16 Comments