Giant Bombcast Giant Bomb Game of the Year 2012: Day Three

These shorties bum me out.

There is no chosen one in Mass Effect. You can't diverge from being the savior of the universe, but it is not foretold. There is no prophecy that Shepard has to be the one. He just happens to be good enough to be the one who sorts it all out.

Desmond is mentioned by name. It has to be him. Don't put 'The One' on to Mass Effect as part of this 'One Story' stance. I think it's stupid to complain about this existing trope anyway but that part is not true of Mass Effect at all.

@Laivasse: I think it works perfectly fine for the sprites, but the full-scale character portraits look really Deviant-Art. That's a really bad thing. You can't be a jack of all trades, I suppose, and it's his game, but it's a flaw I couldn't get around.

When they mentioned curbing the discussion of games being broken because there will already be enough of that when they announce game of the year I got flashes of Brad somehow getting the crew to name Skyrim GotY again. Because I would much rather have a day one patch that fixes the game than a game that still has issues on 360 and PC, and will NEVER be fixed on the PS3.

i dont like the way jeff says 'map paintings'.. the skyboxes are so much more than that. theyre animated to fuck.. best skyboxes i ever seen. halo without a doubt imo wins this category.

we've seen the far cry jungles 1000x before. not impressive.

@Tarsier said:

i dont like the way jeff says 'map paintings'.. the skyboxes are so much more than that. theyre animated to fuck.. best skyboxes i ever seen. halo without a doubt imo wins this category.

we've seen the far cry jungles 1000x before. not impressive.

Not really only Far Cry 1 and Crysis and Far Cry 3 trumps them both.

@AlisterCat said:

There is no chosen one in Mass Effect. You can't diverge from being the savior of the universe, but it is not foretold. There is no prophecy that Shepard has to be the one. He just happens to be good enough to be the one who sorts it all out.

Desmond is mentioned by name. It has to be him. Don't put 'The One' on to Mass Effect as part of this 'One Story' stance. I think it's stupid to complain about this existing trope anyway but that part is not true of Mass Effect at all.

All Story refers more to precursor races than "chosen one". And regardless, it ends up being Shepard who can stop the evil, similarly to the others, even if it wasn't foretold that way.

@ArtisanBreads said:

@AlisterCat said:

There is no chosen one in Mass Effect. You can't diverge from being the savior of the universe, but it is not foretold. There is no prophecy that Shepard has to be the one. He just happens to be good enough to be the one who sorts it all out.

Desmond is mentioned by name. It has to be him. Don't put 'The One' on to Mass Effect as part of this 'One Story' stance. I think it's stupid to complain about this existing trope anyway but that part is not true of Mass Effect at all.

All Story refers more to precursor races than "chosen one". And regardless, it ends up being Shepard who can stop the evil, similarly to the others, even if it wasn't foretold that way.

There's a big difference between "chosen one," and "guy who just happens to be awesome enough to pull through when others couldn't," though. I feel like they've referred to Shepard as a "chosen one" on the podcast before, just because of that "The Shepard" nonsense at the end of ME3, which is ridiculous.

@Zuldim said:

@ArtisanBreads said:

@AlisterCat said:

There is no chosen one in Mass Effect. You can't diverge from being the savior of the universe, but it is not foretold. There is no prophecy that Shepard has to be the one. He just happens to be good enough to be the one who sorts it all out.

Desmond is mentioned by name. It has to be him. Don't put 'The One' on to Mass Effect as part of this 'One Story' stance. I think it's stupid to complain about this existing trope anyway but that part is not true of Mass Effect at all.

All Story refers more to precursor races than "chosen one". And regardless, it ends up being Shepard who can stop the evil, similarly to the others, even if it wasn't foretold that way.

There's a big difference between "chosen one," and "guy who just happens to be awesome enough to pull through when others couldn't," though. I feel like they've referred to Shepard as a "chosen one" on the podcast before, just because of that "The Shepard" nonsense at the end of ME3, which is ridiculous.

Jeff still insists on referring to mass effect 3 in terms of the chosen one though. He has mentioned it several times since they suddenly had this 'revelation' about all 3 games sharing similar tropes. I feel like Mass Effect has always been about precursor races from the beginning It is everything to that game's overall narrative/story, always has been, and that is OK and it doesn't share the chosen one aspect, as Zuldim and I have said.

The difference between shepard and desmond is that there is nothing remarkable about him outside of his accomplishments because he is a highly trained soldier, or diplomat depending on your playstyle. Desmond's name is spoke by an ancient race, and spoke to in history before he is even there to hear it. He is a prerequisite. Shepard just happens to be good.

Him being the catalyst is incidental, which I am thankful to say Vinny recognized and argued against shepard being chosen. He just happens to be the person who has to sacrifice himself, it could have been anyone else if they had been good enough and placed themselves that far in to the conflict. That isn't true for Desmond.

You could probably argue about the trope of self sacrifice for lead characters in all media but that's a totally seperate argument. Like Jeff said, Halo 4 implicated itself in this precursor stuff, it has always been essential to mass effect, and assassins creed worked its way there. I completely reject the staff pushing this 'all story' idea, because it's a bunch of very loose coincidences.

(feel free to completely ignore this, I am very ill right now and unable to actually enjoy playing games, or watching anything but find myself able to type, so I will type a lot)

So, I have a problem with them chewing out Silent Hill: Downpour. Okay, so the game is not as good as Silent Hill 2 - but join the queue, right?! SH2 is one of the best (if not the best) survival horror games ever made. It is no disgrace to not be as good as that game - it is however a disgrace to simply be a bad game, as many of the recent SH games have been.

But Downpour isn't anywhere near as bad as Homecoming etc. The story is actually very good (the best since SH2, IMO), the main character is surprisingly engaging and easy to root for, there's plenty of side quests and chances for exploration etc. Nobody is denying that the game is not scary, doesn't have that razor edged atmosphere that SH2 had etc, but it has its moments, and as I say, its a hell of a lot better than recent installments have been.

Its just all around better than they are saying it is. For Patrick to just dismiss it with a 'Its a really bad game' is just wrong. Homecoming and the like were terrible, but Downpour was a minor return to form IMO. Not a classic game, but good enough to remind you why Silent Hill ever mattered to you.

Patrick, once again, really annoying me with some of his arguments about the best looking games felt like him pushing his indie bias. It doesn't freaking matter if Far Cry is more technical than aesthetic, because Journey is easily more aesthetic than technical. I agree with Journey winning, but Patrick seems to be making some really dumb arguments. Far Cry 3 looks amazing, I wish he stopped trying to give bullshit excuses for his push for Journey.

Yeah, Far Cry 3 is about the technical side, but it's also a really colorful game with amazing characters. And Journey is a very simple looking game, and doesn't take much to render, but it looks amazing.

@KittyVonDoom said:

@chilibean_3 said:

Oh c'mon. I have no doubt that Mass Effect's DLC was made in an attempt to fix the mess they made.

Pretty much. To think, these are the same people who laughed at the folks who desperately clinged to their "indoctrination theory". Now they've concocted their own crazy excuse for the game finishing out on a whimper "man, if only they included that info dump in the main game... they must have cut it from the game it's the only possible reason!!!"

The difference is that indoctrination theory was a desparate grasping at invisible straws, whereas all of the Leviathan revelations fit with everything that the original hinted at but failed to explicity say.

I'm loving the smokey jazz version of the bombcast theme. Gets my foot tapping.

This is an award that is acceptable for Frog Fractions.

Such a shame that they retire the Northies before they release what will surely be Nolan North's greatest accomplishment: Dota 2.

@SmokePants said:

Complaining about DLC being well-integrated and relevant to the story is fucking ridiculous. I'm glad Brad liked ME3, but I liked it before all that added content and the assertion that that stuff was necessary is flat out wrong. I doubt its presence changed many people's minds, in any case.

If standalone side content is the only acceptable form of DLC moving forward, then I'm going to be saving a lot of money, because I'm not going to buy that crap. I want something that enhances my playthrough and future playthroughs of games that I enjoy. I think that's where the disconnect is -- most of the GB crew don't even consider replaying games that they've completed because they are inundated by other games. They can't possibly see the value of playthrough-in-progress DLC.

To be fair though I've played the previous ME games multiple times, but given the finality of ME3 I couldn't muster the energy to play the DLC's or make alternate playthroughs. As far as I'm concerned Shepard's story is done. Also From Ashes only being free for CE is bullshit, especially considering the importance of the Protheans.

I laughed really hard at Brad losing it at 12:03

@ModernMoriarty said:

So, I have a problem with them chewing out Silent Hill: Downpour. Okay, so the game is not as good as Silent Hill 2 - but join the queue, right?! SH2 is one of the best (if not the best) survival horror games ever made. It is no disgrace to not be as good as that game - it is however a disgrace to simply be a bad game, as many of the recent SH games have been.

But Downpour isn't anywhere near as bad as Homecoming etc. The story is actually very good (the best since SH2, IMO), the main character is surprisingly engaging and easy to root for, there's plenty of side quests and chances for exploration etc. Nobody is denying that the game is not scary, doesn't have that razor edged atmosphere that SH2 had etc, but it has its moments, and as I say, its a hell of a lot better than recent installments have been.

Its just all around better than they are saying it is. For Patrick to just dismiss it with a 'Its a really bad game' is just wrong. Homecoming and the like were terrible, but Downpour was a minor return to form IMO. Not a classic game, but good enough to remind you why Silent Hill ever mattered to you.

I'd argue that Shattered Memories is more Silent Hill like than Downpour or Homecoming... also I'd consider SM a waaaaayyyy better game.

"HOLY SHIT! My unicorn is UPSIDE DOWN!!!"

-Quote of the Year

@aktivity said:

To be fair though I've played the previous ME games multiple times, but given the finality of ME3 I couldn't muster the energy to play the DLC's or make alternate playthroughs. As far as I'm concerned Shepard's story is done. Also From Ashes only being free for CE is bullshit, especially considering the importance of the Protheans.

But you see what you're saying, don't you? You're saying that games that conclude with a sense of finality shouldn't have DLC. And since DLC has become such an important part of a development cycle -- keeping studios busy while pre-production of the next full game gets underway -- you're indirectly telling developers that all games have to be open-ended in order to accommodate DLC. And that is just a really shitty and gross message to send.

Personally, I think the whole line of thought is just convenient rationalization. I'm sure if you or Patrick or whoever else were to reel off a list of movies or games or whatever that they've gone back and re-experienced, we'd find plenty of examples of "finality" in there. I will agree that the idea of DLC in ME2 was more appealing than it is in 3, due to structure, but how much more? 10%? 20%? I think it's convenient to excuse oneself from having to devote time and money and reinvest in something that you weren't thrilled with in the first place, but not everyone looks at it the same way. I personally get excited when new DLC is announced for any BioWare game and even on the BSN forums, which were hijacked long ago, news of incoming DLC still managed to chase away the storm clouds. So obviously, SOME people are still being served here.

I really like Enslaved. I played it twice and I recommended it to people. But I didn't buy the DLC, because it had nothing to do with the story I was invested in and it didn't have the very human and expressive cut scenes of the main game. I'm sure I would have enjoyed it and if I see it on sale, I'll grab it, but I only ever would have played it once. I'm sure I'll play Enslaved again, but Pigsy's Perfect 10 not being integrated in the main story limits its value to me.

I'm sick in bed and this is the only thing from keeping me from going crazy.

Patrick: "Maybe the developer is like, 'We don't have any DLC ready,' so they have to slice out a part of the main game..."

And? As a consumer, I don't care about what they have to go through to deliver the product, only that the product is worth the money or not.

If I hear a billion things about kickstarter everytime I go to a video game website next year, Imma be soooo PO'd.

@MordeaniisChaos said:

Patrick, once again, really annoying me with some of his arguments about the best looking games felt like him pushing his indie bias. It doesn't freaking matter if Far Cry is more technical than aesthetic, because Journey is easily more aesthetic than technical. I agree with Journey winning, but Patrick seems to be making some really dumb arguments. Far Cry 3 looks amazing, I wish he stopped trying to give bullshit excuses for his push for Journey.

Yeah, Far Cry 3 is about the technical side, but it's also a really colorful game with amazing characters. And Journey is a very simple looking game, and doesn't take much to render, but it looks amazing.

It's one of those tricky categories that should not have joined together because you cannot compare the two. You either lean more toward technical or artistic.

The argument that Far Cry 3 is going to look like butt in 5 years kind of prevents any similar game from winning over something like Journey or Okami all the time. A highly stylized, artistic-looking game is always going to beat a game that makes real-life objects look real. That's why some SNES from 20 years ago still look good while most Dreamcast games from 12 years ago look like dogshit.

Really a gigantic fucking bummer that halo is now stuck with the allstory trope like the guys are saying

@AlisterCat: Not only has Mass Effect been about "precursors" from the start, but it has THREE (or four, depending on how you count the events of ME3) LAYERS, thus making it the best example.

In Mass Effect 1 the galaxy believes Protheans created the Citadel and the Mass Relays, but in speaking with Sovereign Shepard learns that the Reapers built them as a way to speed up the process of galactic annihilation.

In Mass Effect 2, we find that not only were the Protheans not the "precursors" we thought they were at the beginning of 1, but they've actually been enslaved by the reapers for 50,000 years as the Collectors.

And finally in Mass Effect 3, not only were Protheans not the "wise precursors" we thought they were, but they all but enslaved every other species during their cycle, and had they successfully managed to survive into the current cycle would have done the same again.

BUT IT GETS BETTER. (Leviathan spoilers follow) So we learned in the very first game that the Protheans weren't the precursors, the Reapers were. NOT. Enter the Leviathan, the species responsible for all this insanity. Much like the Protheans, they were the dominant species of their time and enthralled other species with their mind control ability. They are either immortal or have lifespans of hundreds of thousands of years. During their time, they observed that other species would, without fail, eventually destroy themselves by way of artificial intelligence. So, in their infinite wisdom, the Leviathan created their own AI with the express purpose of preserving organic life. Obviously, hindsight is 20/20, and this turned out to be a terrible idea. The AI they created, the Catalyst, determined that the way to preserve organic life was to eliminate it before it reached the apex of artificial intelligence. It massacred the Leviathan, using their DNA to create Harbinger, and the rest is history.

So, in order from "not a precursor" to "the ultimate precursor", you have:

• Protheans
• Reapers
• Catalyst
• Leviathan

In summation: Mass Effect should be the example of how to make the "allstory" interesting, and not lumped in with Assassin's Creed and Halo.

I don't regret a single euro I spent on Mass Effect 3 or its DLC. Not a one.

@dr_mantas said:

I don't regret a single euro I spent on Mass Effect 3 or its DLC. Not a one.

Same here except... not euros. MS Points.

@LegendaryChopChop said:

@dr_mantas said:

I don't regret a single euro I spent on Mass Effect 3 or its DLC. Not a one.

Same here except... not euros. MS Points.

Sure, I guess it would be Bioware Points or whatever they're called. Origin points? Something...

@MordeaniisChaos said:

Patrick, once again, really annoying me with some of his arguments about the best looking games felt like him pushing his indie bias. It doesn't freaking matter if Far Cry is more technical than aesthetic, because Journey is easily more aesthetic than technical. I agree with Journey winning, but Patrick seems to be making some really dumb arguments. Far Cry 3 looks amazing, I wish he stopped trying to give bullshit excuses for his push for Journey.

Yeah, Far Cry 3 is about the technical side, but it's also a really colorful game with amazing characters. And Journey is a very simple looking game, and doesn't take much to render, but it looks amazing.

I actually agree with a lot of what Patrick said.

No iTunes yet? What's the deal?

I don't think I've ever posted on GB but just wanted to say that I've really liked the game of the year videos you guys have been doing!

How much TWD spoilers are there? Just picked the game up on the Steam sale, seems like the kind of game that loses most of its appeal if its story gets spoiled.

@Feanor: No spoilers in this episode. In fact I can't even remember them talking about TWD in any capacity here.

But I listened to this like 18 hours ago, so maybe take what I say with a grain of salt.

Why get rid of the Northies?? It was one of the few categories I actually cared about! I mean deciding the best performance from a guy whose in like 20 games a year! Awesome...but no more :(

@Feanor said:

How much TWD spoilers are there? Just picked the game up on the Steam sale, seems like the kind of game that loses most of its appeal if its story gets spoiled.

TWD spoilers were yesterday. There's pretty much none today.

Has there been, or is there going to be "best sounding game"?

@atomic_dumpling said:

@NTM said:

Has there been, or is there going to be "best sounding game"?

Well, we have several awards regarding music, so what do you propose? Best sound effects? I think that would be a very nitpicky and subjective category. "This gunshot sound in Halo 4 is RAD!" "Doesn't hold a candle against Mark of The Ninjas alert sound." "That's from Metal Gear dude." "I hate the compression artefact in the Journey jump sound effect." "Aight peace, I'm out" *leaves*

Haha. Sound peolpe are THE WORST!

It would be a goddamn crime against humanity if Journey didn't win best looking game of 2012.

Short but sweet, great episode

@SmokePants said:

@aktivity said:

To be fair though I've played the previous ME games multiple times, but given the finality of ME3 I couldn't muster the energy to play the DLC's or make alternate playthroughs. As far as I'm concerned Shepard's story is done. Also From Ashes only being free for CE is bullshit, especially considering the importance of the Protheans.

But you see what you're saying, don't you? You're saying that games that conclude with a sense of finality shouldn't have DLC. And since DLC has become such an important part of a development cycle -- keeping studios busy while pre-production of the next full game gets underway -- you're indirectly telling developers that all games have to be open-ended in order to accommodate DLC. And that is just a really shitty and gross message to send.

Personally, I think the whole line of thought is just convenient rationalization. I'm sure if you or Patrick or whoever else were to reel off a list of movies or games or whatever that they've gone back and re-experienced, we'd find plenty of examples of "finality" in there. I will agree that the idea of DLC in ME2 was more appealing than it is in 3, due to structure, but how much more? 10%? 20%? I think it's convenient to excuse oneself from having to devote time and money and reinvest in something that you weren't thrilled with in the first place, but not everyone looks at it the same way. I personally get excited when new DLC is announced for any BioWare game and even on the BSN forums, which were hijacked long ago, news of incoming DLC still managed to chase away the storm clouds. So obviously, SOME people are still being served here.

I really like Enslaved. I played it twice and I recommended it to people. But I didn't buy the DLC, because it had nothing to do with the story I was invested in and it didn't have the very human and expressive cut scenes of the main game. I'm sure I would have enjoyed it and if I see it on sale, I'll grab it, but I only ever would have played it once. I'm sure I'll play Enslaved again, but Pigsy's Perfect 10 not being integrated in the main story limits its value to me.

I'm not really trying to impose my thoughts about DLC on anyone. All I'm saying is once *I* finish a story, I generally have no interest in going back. They can do what they want with DLC, I just personally don't care, as long as the DLC doesn't push the timeline past the ending I have no interest in playing it. The story of my Shepeard ended with such finality, that I have no reason to go back. Also I didn't play Pigsy's DLC, because I already knew how things end up. It's the same reason I generally don't watch prequel movies, once I know how the story ends I just can't muster any interest.

@atomic_dumpling: You think sound effects is nitpicky? The atmospheric sounds of a game is very important I believe, and it's not "nitpicky". I'm talking about sound design.

Patrick must have a special PS3 because I played Sleeping Dogs on there and thought it looked just okay, not even good.

The worst offender of don't ship broken games, for me, was NBA 2k13.

Even worse is they Ieft the QA process up to the community and then ignored

what the community said and released a patch a month later and it's still broken.

@aktivity said:

@SmokePants said:

@aktivity said:

To be fair though I've played the previous ME games multiple times, but given the finality of ME3 I couldn't muster the energy to play the DLC's or make alternate playthroughs. As far as I'm concerned Shepard's story is done. Also From Ashes only being free for CE is bullshit, especially considering the importance of the Protheans.

But you see what you're saying, don't you? You're saying that games that conclude with a sense of finality shouldn't have DLC. And since DLC has become such an important part of a development cycle -- keeping studios busy while pre-production of the next full game gets underway -- you're indirectly telling developers that all games have to be open-ended in order to accommodate DLC. And that is just a really shitty and gross message to send.

Personally, I think the whole line of thought is just convenient rationalization. I'm sure if you or Patrick or whoever else were to reel off a list of movies or games or whatever that they've gone back and re-experienced, we'd find plenty of examples of "finality" in there. I will agree that the idea of DLC in ME2 was more appealing than it is in 3, due to structure, but how much more? 10%? 20%? I think it's convenient to excuse oneself from having to devote time and money and reinvest in something that you weren't thrilled with in the first place, but not everyone looks at it the same way. I personally get excited when new DLC is announced for any BioWare game and even on the BSN forums, which were hijacked long ago, news of incoming DLC still managed to chase away the storm clouds. So obviously, SOME people are still being served here.

I really like Enslaved. I played it twice and I recommended it to people. But I didn't buy the DLC, because it had nothing to do with the story I was invested in and it didn't have the very human and expressive cut scenes of the main game. I'm sure I would have enjoyed it and if I see it on sale, I'll grab it, but I only ever would have played it once. I'm sure I'll play Enslaved again, but Pigsy's Perfect 10 not being integrated in the main story limits its value to me.

I'm not really trying to impose my thoughts about DLC on anyone. All I'm saying is once *I* finish a story, I generally have no interest in going back. They can do what they want with DLC, I just personally don't care, as long as the DLC doesn't push the timeline past the ending I have no interest in playing it. The story of my Shepeard ended with such finality, that I have no reason to go back. Also I didn't play Pigsy's DLC, because I already knew how things end up. It's the same reason I generally don't watch prequel movies, once I know how the story ends I just can't muster any interest.

I'm in a similar boat, I've beaten ME1 three times, and 2...I think five, but my first playthrough of ME3 felt...sufficient. I couldn't even finish my alt-Shep playthrough. Though I'm solving this problem by going for an Insane playthrough (with the DLC) with my "canon-Shepard."

@Laivasse: Wait, you aren't sure if a game with the 'furry' art style would be maligned on the internet? Especially by the 360's primary user base? They're not exactly known for being delicate with people's feelings in general, much less when fetishes are involved. C'mon man even daytime TV knows about the way people on the internet dump on furries.

Whether you're being disingenuous or not, here's a funny thing http://xkcd.com/471/

@Shingro: Where did I say I wasn't sure it was maligned? I maligned it myself; I don't like the art style. Neither does Patrick and that was apparently enough to disqualify it from Best Looking Game. If someone just says 'I hate that "furry" art style', then short of telepathy you won't be able to tell whether their reaction boils down to a matter of creative preference or arbitrary prejudice. It's therefore self-serving to wax righteous about perceived bigotry, if you also grudgingly acknowledge that the game is flawed in the area in question.

Skullgirls not one of the best looking games of the year? I mean I understand not liking the goofy amount of cleavage or whatever, but the combination of the look of Batman: The Animated Series, Gurren Lagann, and classic animation like Loony Toons or Tex Avery is fucking incredible, and the detail, resolution, frames of animation, et cetera is staggering. Finally a fighting game has topped Street Fighter 3 and Mark of the Wolves in those things (not saying it plays better or I like every single thing about the look more or anything, but on a technical level, it trumps even characters like Elena which had a ludicrous amount in its day.)

Dust isn't furry it's anthropomorphic! asdfasdfasdfasdfasdf

It's weird, 2012 was not a good year for "Best Looking Game", sure, on average, most games of 2012 look slightly better than most games of 2011, but there are no "Stand-Outs", you know?