f13.net

f13.net General Forums => News => Topic started by: ForumBot 0.8 beta on January 01, 2010, 05:06:18 PM



Title: Game of the Year - 2009
Post by: ForumBot 0.8 beta on January 01, 2010, 05:06:18 PM
Game of the Year - 2009

2009 is too depressing for commentary. So, here we go:

» Read More


Title: Re: Game of the Year - 2009
Post by: Velorath on January 01, 2010, 05:21:04 PM
Don't own a Wii, but I think Punch-Out would be a solid Wii GOTY contender from what I've played of i.


Title: Re: Game of the Year - 2009
Post by: schild on January 01, 2010, 05:23:14 PM
It could've been if anyone had remembered it. Silence speaks louder than words though.


Title: Re: Game of the Year - 2009
Post by: Margalis on January 01, 2010, 06:40:46 PM
League of Legends deserves an award for most annoying and repetitive voice acting of the decade.


Title: Re: Game of the Year - 2009
Post by: schild on January 01, 2010, 06:48:33 PM
Ok.


Title: Re: Game of the Year - 2009
Post by: rk47 on January 01, 2010, 07:00:04 PM
You forgot modern warfail 2. :why_so_serious:  But Torchlight..Hmm now I want to try it out.


Title: Re: Game of the Year - 2009
Post by: stray on January 01, 2010, 07:09:08 PM
Trials HD is frustratingly fun as far as downloadable shit goes. Not sure if it's 2009 per se. Don't know when the original came out.

Also you play too many rhythm games, that's the problem. Unless you're just making a comment against Activision soaking Guitar Hero for all it's worth. Then I agree. But rhythm games in general? You know more than most how many ways you can go about it..  Rez, Lumines, GH, DDR, PaRappa!! They're all different enough.

[edit] Wait wtf am I talking about. Perhaps Rez and Lumines aren't rhythm.


Title: Re: Game of the Year - 2009
Post by: schild on January 01, 2010, 07:15:50 PM
Trials was early 2008.

Rez is nearly 10 years old, Lumines 4 years old, Parappa even older than Rez. I get the point you're trying to make, but it's 2010, not the turn of the century. The genre has been beaten to death. Audiosurf was OK if shallow.


Title: Re: Game of the Year - 2009
Post by: Aez on January 01, 2010, 08:00:20 PM
Torchlight :heart:


Title: Re: Game of the Year - 2009
Post by: Aez on January 01, 2010, 11:24:46 PM
What's up with the social site button a the end of the article?  Seems like this site is organised enough to submit good article by itself?  Would prefer to vote up an admin submission on Reddit that submit it myself.  Did I miss a protocol for social site?


Title: Re: Game of the Year - 2009
Post by: schild on January 01, 2010, 11:29:33 PM
We don't submit our own articles, not that I'd call it as such, really.


Title: Re: Game of the Year - 2009
Post by: Hawkbit on January 02, 2010, 04:49:37 AM
Maybe I've been hanging around too much, because that list was awfully succinct.  I'd love to argue on any of those points, but can't.  At best I could say I'm having fun with SMB Wii, but that's only when I'm playing it with my 4 year old. 

And yes, without question, Demon's Souls is game of the year.  I really hope the devs get the opportunity to do another game in the same genre. 


Title: Re: Game of the Year - 2009
Post by: stray on January 02, 2010, 08:33:37 AM
I hate to admit it, but I had a better time with Dragon Age. Preferably, I'd want a game with the best of both worlds, but when push comes to shove, I prefer dating sims over badass combat systems.  :why_so_serious:

Eh, it's not even that good of a dating sim either... :\

Seriously though, Game of the Year for me is Dragon Age. You give a nod to it being best single player game - but that's why I'd vote for it as GOTY actually. Having a bigger story, more characters/party members, etc.. trumps anything online play in Demon's Souls could do for me.


Title: Re: Game of the Year - 2009
Post by: Sky on January 02, 2010, 12:46:01 PM
I wouldn't call the year a disappointment, but I don't play as many games as the author. I agree with DA:O and Anno 1404, both great games, also agree with the disappointment over gearbox lies. I haven't gotten around to playing many more 2009 games. Burnout Paradise is a really fun racer, though. I'm probably the only one who wasn't moist about Torchlight, but I don't like click to attack, especially when combined with click to move  :uhrr:

Stray, no use debating the merits of the author's GOTY, we knew that long ago and nothing can change it. Most forum-based sites have a nomination thread and poll  :why_so_serious:


Title: Re: Game of the Year - 2009
Post by: Rasix on January 02, 2010, 01:01:38 PM
You seem to think we care about your input.   :roffle: 

This wasn't just schild, this was born of all the mods/admin.  There weren't any real vocal disagreements either (besides me ridiculing the Batman nods).   While my personal GOTY was Dragon Age, I can see where the award could and should go to Demon's Souls.  It was far more ambitious and a much greater achievement than DA.   Difficulty and platform may be issues for some, but other than that if you played it and weren't impressed; I'd say that you're crazy.  I loved DA, absolutely loved, but I can still see it for what it is: Baldur's Gate 3 with a stock Bioware plot and general lack of refinement/polish in certain areas.

It was a dull year.  The first quarter of 2010 will likely produce more serious GOTY candidates than we had this year.  Watch the editor's choice GOTY on Gamespot, not for validation, but for the sure amount of filler they had to lump into the category. 



Title: Re: Game of the Year - 2009
Post by: stray on January 02, 2010, 02:15:07 PM
I wouldn't call the year a disappointment, but I don't play as many games as the author. I agree with DA:O and Anno 1404, both great games, also agree with the disappointment over gearbox lies. I haven't gotten around to playing many more 2009 games. Burnout Paradise is a really fun racer, though. I'm probably the only one who wasn't moist about Torchlight, but I don't like click to attack, especially when combined with click to move  :uhrr:

Stray, no use debating the merits of the author's GOTY, we knew that long ago and nothing can change it. Most forum-based sites have a nomination thread and poll  :why_so_serious:

Oh, I'm not debating really.. Just voicing my (meaningless  :grin:) input.

I would agree that Dragon Age isn't as ambitious. It's an odd throwback compared to Mass Effect and to an extent, Jade Empire. But they are pretty good at what they do either way. It also might have come at the right time.. I'm not the biggest fan of western rpgs to be honest, but I was starving for one like that. Go ahead, remake Baldur's Gate! I'm fine. Could use one every so often.  :grin:


Title: Re: Game of the Year - 2009
Post by: schild on January 02, 2010, 02:31:25 PM
I hate to admit it, but I had a better time with Dragon Age. Preferably, I'd want a game with the best of both worlds, but when push comes to shove, I prefer dating sims over badass combat systems.  :why_so_serious:

Eh, it's not even that good of a dating sim either... :\

Seriously though, Game of the Year for me is Dragon Age. You give a nod to it being best single player game - but that's why I'd vote for it as GOTY actually. Having a bigger story, more characters/party members, etc.. trumps anything online play in Demon's Souls could do for me.
Actually, if Demon's Souls had no online play, it still would've been more ambitious than Dragon Age. But that's neither here nor there, Dragon Age was pretty much a sequel. It broke no new ground for Bioware, it just took them a long ass time to make it. It was Baldur's Gate 2.5. I wouldn't even call it 3 as I played in Tactical view the whole game and all the 3D added for me was better conversations. The gameplay was as dry as it was back in 2000 and the story was somehow worse. The dialogue and characters were fantastic, there's no question, but it wasn't GOTY material. It might've been if the story didn't suck wind through a garden hose or if the gameplay had improved even one bit. It was a great game, but nothing new. Vampire: Bloodlines was a better RPG and tried to do new things with combat, it got GOTY back in 04 or 05 (too lazy to look up).


Title: Re: Game of the Year - 2009
Post by: stray on January 02, 2010, 03:05:18 PM
Actually, if Demon's Souls had no online play, it still would've been more ambitious than Dragon Age. But that's neither here nor there,

Speaking strictly single player, it was more ambitious in combat, I agree. Otherwise, I don't. I complained about that before.. There was a less-is-more approach with the story there, and I can glean enough to appreciate it and all that, but I'd rather be beaten over the head with story and dialogue, like in Dragon Age. 144 voice actors! It's ambitious too, but in another way. In Demon's Souls, killing was primary.. and even the vendor NPCs basically told me to fuck off.  :grin:


Title: Re: Game of the Year - 2009
Post by: schild on January 02, 2010, 04:05:58 PM
Well then, I hope you enjoy SWTOR, but getting a bunch of people to record stuff doesn't net points at the end of the day. It can improve an experience, but it doesn't make an experience. Particularly when I'd rather it have been a movie and played it as such.


Title: Re: Game of the Year - 2009
Post by: stray on January 02, 2010, 05:30:10 PM
SWTOR's a neg. I know people say this stuff all the time, but I really have no faith in MMO's.

As far as cinematic goes, I look forward to Final Fantasy or Heavy Rain. It is very possible they'll both have less-than-revolutionary gameplay too.. I'm almost sure of it!  :grin: But I can't help from getting psyched up.


Title: Re: Game of the Year - 2009
Post by: Hoax on January 02, 2010, 10:14:49 PM
This was good front page content, to the point and hard to debate because it didn't add a bunch of fluff categories.


Title: Re: Game of the Year - 2009
Post by: AcidCat on January 04, 2010, 11:28:39 AM
I think the consoles had a good year, Red Faction, Batman, Demon's Souls, Assassin's Creed II, and of course Borderlands, which has been by far my best "bang for the buck" game of the year.

PC ... eh let's face it my PC still belongs to WoW. Torchlight and MW2 both kept my interest for a couple weeks, then back to the old standby.


Title: Re: Game of the Year - 2009
Post by: Megrim on January 04, 2010, 07:24:02 PM
I want to argue about LoL on that list, but i can't think of anything better for multiplayer.


Title: Re: Game of the Year - 2009
Post by: schild on January 04, 2010, 07:28:42 PM
I want to argue about LoL on that list, but i can't think of anything better for multiplayer.

Yea, 2009 was awesome.


Title: Re: Game of the Year - 2009
Post by: Triforcer on January 04, 2010, 10:36:28 PM
I don't get the Batman AA hate.  Sure, I understand that hating it was schtick because the site meme was to love Demon Souls, and liking anything else was a threat to schild.  But in reality, AA was actually GOTY quality. 


Title: Re: Game of the Year - 2009
Post by: schild on January 04, 2010, 10:38:15 PM
I don't get the Batman AA hate.  Sure, I understand that hating it was schtick because the site meme was to love Demon Souls, and liking anything else was a threat to schild.  But in reality, AA was actually GOTY quality. 

Oh man. Good call on that post.


Title: Re: Game of the Year - 2009
Post by: Rasix on January 04, 2010, 10:46:46 PM
I don't get the Batman AA hate.  Sure, I understand that hating it was schtick because the site meme was to love Demon Souls, and liking anything else was a threat to schild.  But in reality, AA was actually GOTY quality. 

After the whole Fall From Heaven back and forth last year, we don't consider mods for GOTY.

 :why_so_serious:



Title: Re: Game of the Year - 2009
Post by: Riggswolfe on January 04, 2010, 11:10:16 PM
Add me to the list of people who doesn't get the Demon Souls love. Everything about the game screams frustration in a box to me.

I'd have gone with DA:O as GOTY as well but eh, it's not my list. Still, if nothing else, it makes me look forward to some of the games coming this year.


Title: Re: Game of the Year - 2009
Post by: stray on January 05, 2010, 08:58:53 AM
Riggs: If you still own Demon's Souls, play a Royal.


Title: Re: Game of the Year - 2009
Post by: Yegolev on January 05, 2010, 12:57:55 PM
Most forum-based sites have a nomination thread and poll  :why_so_serious:

We all know how this would turn out.  F13 is the site where people ignore Festivus rules in order to bitch about shit, so a GOTY poll would spring forth from the head of Zeus as a fully-formed SWG thread.

I'd like to think I am objective in my analyses and am aware of my personal biases.  I could not formulate any strong opposition to Demon's Souls.  Dragon Age has flaws, like the storage shit and a somewhat Mass-Effecty inventory.  Also, Baldur's Gate 3: Return of (Not) Pissing Off Your Insipid Teammates.  Having classified Dragon Age as a highly-polished sequel with various irritating flaws, we are left with little to stand against Demon's Souls except "we don't want to seem like we agree with schild in order to maintain cred".

Batman... I liked it and Rasix did not.  I decided that I was more easily impressed with it because I like beat-em-ups and collecting things, and that he probably had a more objective (cynical) opinion.  Besides that, we didn't have any serious alternatives.


Title: Re: Game of the Year - 2009
Post by: Riggswolfe on January 05, 2010, 12:58:10 PM
Riggs: If you still own Demon's Souls, play a Royal.

Nah, I don't play games that are built to punch me in the cock while having a mockery of a story.


Title: Re: Game of the Year - 2009
Post by: Dtrain on January 05, 2010, 01:04:11 PM
Riggs: If you still own Demon's Souls, play a Royal.

This. Seriously.

I don't regret having started the game as the only naked class (which is also a melee class :uhrr:) - it did give me some solid melee skills, but there are most assuredly some classes that are better off than others at the game's outset. But still, GOTY all the way.


Title: Re: Game of the Year - 2009
Post by: Sky on January 05, 2010, 01:25:27 PM
we are left with little to stand against Demon's Souls except "we don't want to seem like we agree with schild in order to maintain cred".
Or, "not having a PS3"  :awesome_for_real:

As I said, I generally agree with the picks as far as my experience goes. I just felt, even with tardery in the nomination thread, it would've been fun to do a community-based GotY thing. Not a big deal.


Title: Re: Game of the Year - 2009
Post by: Yegolev on January 05, 2010, 01:32:23 PM
Sure.  The SWG threads were fun, too.  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Game of the Year - 2009
Post by: stray on January 05, 2010, 01:50:02 PM
Community?!  :ye_gods:  :grin:


Title: Re: Game of the Year - 2009
Post by: Sky on January 05, 2010, 03:01:14 PM
(http://www.kanyeuniversecity.com/client_images/kanyewest/3106_1cd7dddee1da777e945725df5eb0f3a9.jpg)


Title: Re: Game of the Year - 2009
Post by: Tebonas on January 05, 2010, 03:29:33 PM
I think the consoles had a good year, Red Faction, Batman, Demon's Souls, Assassin's Creed II, and of course Borderlands, which has been by far my best "bang for the buck" game of the year.

Your comment makes no sense, Demons Souls was the only console exclusive of the lot. It was a great year for PC gaming as well.


Title: Re: Game of the Year - 2009
Post by: schild on January 05, 2010, 04:49:49 PM
It was a terrible year for PCs and Consoles on the whole. Saying otherwise just means your standards are low. Having low standards isn't a bad thing, I wish I were more easily entertained, but it certainly does NOT mean it was a good year for gaming. That list above is what I'd expect on any given week in any given November, let alone the whole year. February 2010 is more impressive than all of 2009. That doesn't even include the fabulous end of January and March.


Title: Re: Game of the Year - 2009
Post by: 01101010 on January 05, 2010, 05:57:34 PM
(http://www.kanyeuniversecity.com/client_images/kanyewest/3106_1cd7dddee1da777e945725df5eb0f3a9.jpg)

God damn it, spoiler that stuff... Even with the chain, I still did not know...   :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Game of the Year - 2009
Post by: stray on January 05, 2010, 06:12:09 PM
It was a terrible year for PCs and Consoles on the whole. Saying otherwise just means your standards are low. Having low standards isn't a bad thing, I wish I were more easily entertained, but it certainly does NOT mean it was a good year for gaming. That list above is what I'd expect on any given week in any given November, let alone the whole year. February 2010 is more impressive than all of 2009. That doesn't even include the fabulous end of January and March.

It was a year of good sequels.. and zombies.

Actually some of these zombie games probably came out in 2008. That said, I never thought I'd see so many.



Title: Re: Game of the Year - 2009
Post by: AcidCat on January 06, 2010, 10:02:19 AM
Your comment makes no sense, Demons Souls was the only console exclusive of the lot. It was a great year for PC gaming as well.

I guess that's true! Many games I feel are more at home on console so I frequently don't even consider the PC version and forget it even exists.

As far as standards, you could either say some people's are too low, or some too high. Or, maybe certain people just try to justify their personal preferences with sweeping generalizations.

And honestly, any list that wants to marginalize Batman AA for being a clone, then at the same time claim Dragon Age as best single player game (because it is so original, rite?) is a joke.


Title: Re: Game of the Year - 2009
Post by: Hoax on January 06, 2010, 10:34:17 AM
And honestly, any list that wants to marginalize Batman AA for being a clone, then at the same time claim Dragon Age as best single player game (because it is so original, rite?) is a joke.

 :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: Game of the Year - 2009
Post by: schild on January 06, 2010, 12:42:36 PM
And honestly, any list that wants to marginalize Batman AA for being a clone, then at the same time claim Dragon Age as best single player game (because it is so original, rite?) is a joke.

You might be on to something.
Quote
User: Is Batman just Sam Fisher with a cape?

Cleverbot: Oh lord, thats a difficult question.

User: Ok, well, if you take away the cape, is Batman just Sam Fisher?

Cleverbot: If I took over the industry, I would not have a boss.

User: Ok, but if you had a boss would it be Sam Fisher with a cape?

Cleverbot: Stop asking me these stupid questions, I'm not here for small talk.

User: Serious question: Is Batman just Sam Fisher with a cape? Yes or no?

Cleverbot: No.

User: Then who is the Batman?

Cleverbot: You.

User: Ok, let's say I'm not the Batman, is Sam Fisher?

Cleverbot: A clever computer program.

User: Yes, video games are clever computer programs. Now, answer the question: Is Sam Fisher the Batman?

Cleverbot: Yes. THE Batman.

User: Thanks for clearing that up, Cleverbot.


Title: Re: Game of the Year - 2009
Post by: Yegolev on January 06, 2010, 01:45:10 PM
Entertaining dialogs aside, I think the main difference is that I was never able to finish a Splinter Cell game.


Title: Re: Game of the Year - 2009
Post by: Triforcer on January 06, 2010, 07:45:47 PM
Entertaining dialogs aside, I think the main difference is that I was never able to finish a Splinter Cell game.

If Batman AA had button-mashing combat and thousands of items with a different color palette that were DEX 1 AGI 2 or AGI 2 DEX 1 ad ininfitum and less story to get in the way of the button mashing, everyone here would be all over it. 


Title: Re: Game of the Year - 2009
Post by: schild on January 06, 2010, 07:46:45 PM
Entertaining dialogs aside, I think the main difference is that I was never able to finish a Splinter Cell game.

If Batman AA had button-mashing combat and thousands of items with a different color palette that were DEX 1 AGI 2 or AGI 2 DEX 1 ad ininfitum and less story to get in the way of the button mashing, everyone here would be all over it. 
Awesome argument, dude.

If Batman AA were a completely different game everyone here...

Oh wait.

Don't be a retard.


Title: Re: Game of the Year - 2009
Post by: stray on January 06, 2010, 09:32:34 PM
I haven't played Batman AA, but I think a Batman game that plays like Splinter Cell is a long time coming. What more could you want? I mean it's kind of sad that many games like Splinter Cell have the Batman thing down, while Batman games don't. Might not be "innovative", but it fits the bill. That said, I don't know how well it's done to warrant "Best of the Year" type of listings. Just my 2c


Title: Re: Game of the Year - 2009
Post by: UnSub on January 07, 2010, 01:17:04 AM
Batman: AA is the best Batman game to date and has some great features to it. However, it is exactly three different types of gameplay (stealth, fighting, platform) repeated with slight variations, has some very annoying bits that just slow you down (e.g. any kind of 'detective' bit, Killer Croc's lair), is completely linear and you learn more in the Challenge sections outside of the game about what Batman can do than inside the game.

Haven't played Demon Souls since I don't own a PS3. Dragon Age is on my list to get. I didn't play enough games released in 2009 to have an opinion on GOTY other than I hoped it would be better than Batman: AA. 


Title: Re: Game of the Year - 2009
Post by: stray on January 07, 2010, 06:29:21 AM
From what I hear, Assassin's Creed 2 is also a good Batman game.  :grin:



Title: Re: Game of the Year - 2009
Post by: Murgos on January 07, 2010, 07:23:49 AM
From what I hear, Assassin's Creed 2 is also a good Batman game.  :grin:


And thus, by extension, just a crappy port of a Splinter Cell game.


Title: Re: Game of the Year - 2009
Post by: Sky on January 07, 2010, 08:26:18 AM
Garrett is just a Sam Fisher knockoff. Thief sucked.


Title: Re: Game of the Year - 2009
Post by: Rasix on January 07, 2010, 11:18:17 AM
Batman: AA is the best Batman game to date and has some great features to it. However, it is exactly three different types of gameplay (stealth, fighting, platform) repeated with slight variations, has some very annoying bits that just slow you down (e.g. any kind of 'detective' bit, Killer Croc's lair), is completely linear and you learn more in the Challenge sections outside of the game about what Batman can do than inside the game.

Haven't played Demon Souls since I don't own a PS3. Dragon Age is on my list to get. I didn't play enough games released in 2009 to have an opinion on GOTY other than I hoped it would be better than Batman: AA. 

Thank you for posting this.  It makes the last few posts hurt my brain less.

So, everyone else, what's your GOTY?  What sort of platform, special or "very special" award would you give?  Seriously, what made 2009 for you?  (Yes, now I actually care about your opinion.)


Title: Re: Game of the Year - 2009
Post by: Sky on January 07, 2010, 12:17:43 PM
Tough to say, I don't generally play too many games the same year they're released. Right now I'd be torn between DA:O and Anno 1404. DA:O is just a great Bioware rpg, maybe not groundbreaking, but as someone who enjoys the lore, it was a lot of fun (and I liked the Fade alot). Otoh, Anno 1404 pretty much perfected the formula of the Anno games and that's definitely something to celebrate.

Just started Batman:AA, it may be attributable to other titles for inspiration, but so far it's a very fun game. Maybe I need to try out Splinter Cell on the PC, I had a bad experience on a console and thumbsticks. Shoulda steamed it!

Borderlands blew it with the shitty port, the limited loot descriptions and wonky multiplayer.

Drakensang was great, but I'd give the nod to DA:O in the same category. Burnout: Paradise is a hell of a lot of fun, but I'm not sure it counts as this year's release (the complete edition I bought came out this year). King Arthur looks to have some potential, and maybe Armored Princess (really enjoy HoMaMalikes).

I guess I'd give the nod to DA:O with Anno 1404 a close second.


Title: Re: Game of the Year - 2009
Post by: Nonentity on January 07, 2010, 12:27:01 PM
I, um, not to shit up the thread with questions about the actual games, but what is Anno 1404? I saw pictures of buildings and pretty cities. I like buildings.


Title: Re: Game of the Year - 2009
Post by: schild on January 07, 2010, 12:28:25 PM
Dawn of Discovery in America. It's a resource management/empire building/light warfare game.


Title: Re: Game of the Year - 2009
Post by: Nonentity on January 07, 2010, 12:47:47 PM
Gotcha - yeah, I researched the website and saw that it kept referring to it as Dawn of Discovery, so I was able to find that on Steam.

I like building empires! I want to try this when it is not 50 dollars.


Title: Re: Game of the Year - 2009
Post by: Yegolev on January 07, 2010, 01:15:53 PM
If Batman AA had button-mashing combat and thousands of items with a different color palette that were DEX 1 AGI 2 or AGI 2 DEX 1 ad ininfitum and less story to get in the way of the button mashing, everyone here would be all over it. 

You just described Too Human, so... probably not.

Although I liked it.  Somewhat.


Title: Re: Game of the Year - 2009
Post by: Riggswolfe on January 07, 2010, 02:09:26 PM
So, everyone else, what's your GOTY?  What sort of platform, special or "very special" award would you give?  Seriously, what made 2009 for you?  (Yes, now I actually care about your opinion.)

Well, as Schild said, 2009 was kind of a shitty year for games.

So, short list:

GOTY: Dragon Age
Sequel of the Year: Assassin's Creed 2. It's an improvement over the original in almost every way.
Sports Game of the Year: Fight Night Round 4

Shittiest Sequel of the Year: Super Mario Bros Wii. In my defense I got it purely to play with my daughter but damn is Nintendo getting lazy and just shitting out retreads!
Shittiest RPG of the Year: Sacred 2. My wife got it for me so we'd have a co-op game to play. *sigh* Thankfully it was recent so she only spent $20 on it instead of $60. And honestly, the price ended up being a major factor for her.


Title: Re: Game of the Year - 2009
Post by: Ingmar on January 07, 2010, 04:30:28 PM
My ability to make lists ilke these is always compromised by the fact that half the games or more that I play came out in prior years. So, for example, its hard for me to think of 'this year's games' without thinking of Mount & Blade, because I first played it this year and it was new to me.

Dragon Age is pretty easily my GOTY winner.

I enjoyed Batman, maybe because I don't play a lot of games in that genre so things that felt lame to people were fairly fresh mechanics for me. Also I'm pretty sure I like being Batman more than I'd like being some dude with a gun and nightvision goggles. Borderlands and Torchlight have their good points but too many flaws. Torchlight's character powers/trees are just way too shallow, Borderlands has some console port issues and isn't too exciting single player. I was ultimately a bit disappointed by Dawn of Discovery (I went into it hoping for a more historical sort of game, oops) and Majesty 2 (it just lacks a lot of the character of the original.)

I think the new Monkey Island episodes deserve some mention since they're pretty funny, the voice acting is good, and it is nice to see someone still working in that genre at all.

Hearts of Iron 3 gets the Gives Me a Headache Victoria Memorial award.

Alpha Protocol gets my Most Annoying Ship Date Slip award, because I really want to know whether Obsidian is going to be able to put everything together in the same title.


Title: Re: Game of the Year - 2009
Post by: stray on January 07, 2010, 05:06:22 PM
There were a lot of "servicable" games in 2009, so it's not so bad that I feel like I'm out of options. There were only two games I felt really compelled to play - Demon's Souls and Dragon Age, but then a bunch of stuff that's good once you're in the mood for it. Killzone 2, Forza 3, SFIV, BlazBlue, Uncharted 2, Skate 2.. Hell, even Need for Speed. Not to mention the other good looking stuff I haven't bought yet, like Assassin's Creed 2, LFD 2, and Crack in Time. Not really a bad year, unless you're an RPG fan. [edit] That's without mentioning all of these PC titles some of you guys list off.  


Title: Re: Game of the Year - 2009
Post by: schild on January 07, 2010, 05:09:08 PM
I'm not sure why there's even discussion as to whether or not it's a bad year. Particularly given that most people here are arguing about either 1. The Lack of Dragon Age as GOTY, 2. AA being called a reskin, or 3. Thinking I Just Pulled the List Out of Thin Air.


Title: Re: Game of the Year - 2009
Post by: Rasix on January 07, 2010, 05:15:06 PM
skate 2 was really disappointing for me.  Hard to put my finger on why, but it just didn't have the same magic as the first did.   My top sports title for 2009 oddly would have to be the UFC 2009.  Not much of a sports gamer though.

I think the new Monkey Island episodes deserve some mention since they're pretty funny, the voice acting is good, and it is nice to see someone still working in that genre at all.

I completely forgot about them.  I finished the first chapter, but the rest are still waiting for me.  They were multi-platform, which would have made them a hard fit into what we did here.  Would this year's Heavy Rain fit into the genre?  I'm not sure; never played Indigo Prophecy.

Quote
Alpha Protocol gets my Most Annoying Ship Date Slip award, because I really want to know whether Obsidian is going to be able to put everything together in the same title.

That's more optimism than I can manage for Obsidian.  Maybe they'll bother to do an ending this time.


Title: Re: Game of the Year - 2009
Post by: schild on January 07, 2010, 05:16:43 PM
Indigo Prophecy and Heavy Rain are most certainly Adventure titles.

The new Monkey Island had terrible art. Absolutely zero of the charm of the original character art.


Title: Re: Game of the Year - 2009
Post by: stray on January 07, 2010, 05:20:59 PM
I know you didn't pull the list out of thin air.. It was a staff/contributor thing, right?

If we're talking about Batman though, the reason I haven't bought it yet isn't because of mechanics.. it just seems claustrophobic. "Arkam Asylum". That shit should be a level or two. Not an entire game. Someone convince me otherwise. The idea of Splinter Cell is quite alright with me. It's the idea of not whooping ass throughout Gotham that seems unappealing. And I'm fairly consistent about that gripe. While I didn't hate it, I started getting bored with Bioshock for similar reasons too.


Title: Re: Game of the Year - 2009
Post by: Rasix on January 07, 2010, 05:45:36 PM
I know you didn't pull the list out of thin air.. It was a staff/contributor thing, right?

We established this earlier, but it was staff.

AA could have benefited from a more varied setting, but the expanse of Arkham was rather impressive.  Ditching the detective vision would be a massive upgrade for any sequel and would probably liven the spirits of the poor art staff.



Title: Re: Game of the Year - 2009
Post by: Yoru on January 07, 2010, 06:27:17 PM
I played through the Tales of Monkey Island stuff and I didn't think it warranted a mention; the writing was largely bland with a few good cracks here and there. It certainly wasn't as clever or witty as the old stuff, largely because it's trying to walk a tightrope with the rabid MI1/MI2 fans on one side and People Younger Than Dirt on the other. They keep making so many nods and references back to the puzzles and plots of the original games that they simply cannot break new, interesting ground.

Having had a few weeks' distance from DA:O, I also agree with our decision to not give it GOTY; while it's a good PC RPG, and it's a nice revival of that particular type of game, it just seems to lack the vibrance that the BIS/Bioware collaborations had. The world and plots feel more dead and flat to me, for some reason. It's a good game, but I couldn't argue in good faith for the top spot.

My only gripe has been and remains the disinclusion of L4D2, but I don't think I'll ever see eye-to-eye on that with anyone who doesn't regularly play Versus in a LAN setting.


Title: Re: Game of the Year - 2009
Post by: Ingmar on January 07, 2010, 07:09:34 PM
That's more optimism than I can manage for Obsidian.  Maybe they'll bother to do an ending this time.

NWN2 had an ending, but the game itself was mostly just OK; KOTOR2 had the screwed up ending but was otherwise a great game, better than KOTOR1. The first NWN2 expansion had great characters but was short, etc. I still have enough goodwill towards Avellone & co. that I'm looking forward to AP still, if just to see if they manage to get things together. My main worry is actually that I'm going to find the game politically unpalatable, being a left wing sort of guy.


Title: Re: Game of the Year - 2009
Post by: Yegolev on January 07, 2010, 07:26:29 PM
I didn't nominate Crack in Time mostly because of that intangible lack-of-charm that is mentioned here.  Although I considered that I might just be jaded as shit.  In any case, CiT was better than ToD but I still didn't feel like they gave 100% in the design.  90%, sure, but that's not GOTY-level when compared to Demon's Souls, especially in light of From Software's track record.  Cinderella story if I ever saw one.


Title: Re: Game of the Year - 2009
Post by: schild on January 07, 2010, 07:29:34 PM
90%, sure, but that's not GOTY-level when compared to Demon's Souls, especially in light of From Software's track record.  Cinderella story if I ever saw one.

(http://dl.dropbox.com/u/39720/games/3D%20Dot%20Heroes/hero.png)


Title: Re: Game of the Year - 2009
Post by: stray on January 07, 2010, 07:30:09 PM
Oh, i haven't played through it all, but I still didn't mean to construe that CiT was GOTY material either. I just think 2009 was ok, if a bit heavy on sequels.


Title: Re: Game of the Year - 2009
Post by: schild on January 07, 2010, 07:32:21 PM
2009 really, really wasn't OK. Not for people that live and breathe games as their primary hobby. It was fucking dreadful. Months and months of nothing and then.... Demon's Souls, Dragon Age, Uncharted 2, Assassin's Creed 2 and Modern Warfare 2. That's a terrible year, not because these games are bad but because the rest of the year was so, so bad. Only people that imported Demon's Souls got any sort of reprieve from 2009 being the worst year since who knows when.

Jan/Feb 2010 is more impressive than all of 2009. Not even counting March, which is monstrous, which I've already said.


Title: Re: Game of the Year - 2009
Post by: bhodi on January 07, 2010, 08:27:52 PM
Basically, there were a ton of "almosts" - including games that I personally enjoyed. However, there are defining games that you will look back upon and remember fondly - of all the games that came out last year (of which I played many), Anno 1404 is really the only one that stood above the pile. But don't get me wrong - it didn't stand far above it, just enough to get noticed. Any other year, it would have probably been buried.

Batman AA was a fun game - it was not exceptional, game breaking nor did it introduce any new innovation. I played it and then discarded it. Anno didn't really have any of those either, but Anno had the "Oh god, it's 4am" factor, which caught me personally several times. That was why it got my mention.


Title: Re: Game of the Year - 2009
Post by: UnSub on January 08, 2010, 01:06:15 AM
If we're talking about Batman though, the reason I haven't bought it yet isn't because of mechanics.. it just seems claustrophobic. "Arkam Asylum". That shit should be a level or two. Not an entire game. Someone convince me otherwise.

The worst place in the Batman universe has just gone to shit with Batman locked inside and the Joker at the helm. It's pretty much one man against an army of psychos. If Batman could drive around Gotham looking for power-ups the impact would be less.

The claustrophobia (and running commentary from the Joker) added to the game imo.

Batman: AA 2 (hmm, Batman: Alcoholics Anonymous does have a ring to it) will have more things around Gotham - personally I think this will just make the game run flabby, but we'll see.


Title: Re: Game of the Year - 2009
Post by: stray on January 08, 2010, 01:27:54 AM
Well, I'm not exactly talking about power ups.. Err, like Crackdown? That's too much combat for Batman imho.

Not that I'm in the business of making Batman games, but now that you mention it, a wider scale ninja detective story would be cool. Perhaps that's more suitable for a Riddler game, I guess.


Title: Re: Game of the Year - 2009
Post by: Samwise on January 08, 2010, 01:34:07 AM
If we're talking about Batman though, the reason I haven't bought it yet isn't because of mechanics.. it just seems claustrophobic. "Arkam Asylum". That shit should be a level or two. Not an entire game. Someone convince me otherwise.

You're not stuck in a single building; in the game Arkham is an island that's maybe a little bigger than Alcatraz.  There are several large buildings, a system of sewers and caves, and a lot of outdoor space.  It's not quite as sprawling as a GTA game, but it's by no means cramped.


Title: Re: Game of the Year - 2009
Post by: Sky on January 08, 2010, 08:52:46 AM
2009 really, really wasn't OK. Not for people that live and breathe games as their primary hobby.
And there we have it.


Title: Re: Game of the Year - 2009
Post by: schild on January 08, 2010, 09:29:36 AM
There we have what Sky? This IS a gaming website, you know.


Title: Re: Game of the Year - 2009
Post by: Yegolev on January 08, 2010, 10:18:53 AM
I think Sky is defecting.


Title: Re: Game of the Year - 2009
Post by: Margalis on January 09, 2010, 05:08:12 AM
Demon's Souls, Dragon Age, Uncharted 2, Assassin's Creed 2 and Modern Warfare 2. That's a terrible year, not because these games are bad but because the rest of the year was so, so bad.

Can taste in games get more generic?


Title: Re: Game of the Year - 2009
Post by: Rasix on January 09, 2010, 07:31:10 AM
Can your reading comprehension get much worse?


Title: Re: Game of the Year - 2009
Post by: schild on January 09, 2010, 08:22:27 AM
I think this is the first time I've ever been accused of having generic taste in anything.


Title: Re: Game of the Year - 2009
Post by: Mosesandstick on January 09, 2010, 09:16:47 AM
Maybe he was referring to the public.


Title: Re: Game of the Year - 2009
Post by: Rasix on January 09, 2010, 09:23:25 AM
Maybe he was referring to the public.

Sure would make more sense than the inferred pronoun omission.   If so, my bad, but given the tone of the thread, it's easy to assume the worst.


Title: Re: Game of the Year - 2009
Post by: Venkman on January 09, 2010, 11:58:41 AM
Just got here.

I agree with most of what you voted for, and definitely on your write-categories at the end. Except for two:

  • Best multiplayer. Actually going with MW2 for this one, just personally. I'm biased by the type of game though. I like DoTA and all, but not more than online FPS with XP and unlocks.
  • Best PC game. Going Dragon Age here. In my opinion, this was a PC game that was effectively ported very well to consoles, a nice break from the usual way ports go. It just has too much of that old school feel in my mind. It isn't the usual style of RPG you find on consoles, and the whole control scheme just seems to work much better on PC. Torchlight is my #2 though for sure.

I'd also have voted for Super Mario Brothers Wii for a "only Wii title worth mentioning" category. It's a very solid and fun game. Sorta does to Mario what MW2 did for MW1: took an established popular thing and figured out how to actually make it better, not just rewrap it and call it new.


Title: Re: Game of the Year - 2009
Post by: Strazos on January 09, 2010, 12:19:20 PM
Really...MW2? I'd rather vote for a fucking TF2 update than that pile of trash.


Title: Re: Game of the Year - 2009
Post by: Venkman on January 09, 2010, 05:28:13 PM
I'll guess we have different opinions about that then :-)

Do you not like it because you protest the gimping (wouldn't blame ya) or because you don't think it's any good at all? I ask because if it's the latter, you may just not be a fan of the CoD series. And if you are but didn't like MW2, I'm really curious why. It's basically more of the same with emphasis on more. So if you don't like the source, you won't like it no matter how they polish it.

For me, I've liked the formula since CoD2 (really snappy UI) and very much like the later addition of XP and unlocks. And that snappy UI is why L4D and TF2 were never for me anything more than a passing fad for a few weeks.


Title: Re: Game of the Year - 2009
Post by: stray on January 09, 2010, 05:52:10 PM
I've only played MW2 multiplayer, and don't own it.. But I'm not sure what's so different about it. Maps feel a bit small and frantic like shooters of the past. I'm bored of it, because it's just.. unrealistic. I see that there's all the ranking shit too, but that's been there before in other games.


Title: Re: Game of the Year - 2009
Post by: Strazos on January 09, 2010, 07:54:43 PM
I dislike the gimping of the game. I had the previous one. I even wasted money on WaW.

But what is this "snappy UI" you speak of? Do you mean flashy?


Title: Re: Game of the Year - 2009
Post by: Margalis on January 09, 2010, 08:47:35 PM
Can your reading comprehension get much worse?

Care to explain how I misread something?

This should be entertaining.

Quote
Maybe he was referring to the public.

Out of Demon's Souls, Dragon Age, Uncharted 2, Assassin's Creed 2 and Modern Warfare 2 Demon's Souls is the only game on that list that is even remotely different from the tastes of the general public and that list is basically a list of most hyped games. I don't see how anyone can claim that it isn't extremely generic.

Sorry to call a spade a spade.


Title: Re: Game of the Year - 2009
Post by: Rasix on January 09, 2010, 09:04:12 PM
Who exactly are you calling a spade?  How are you even responding to that second quote?

 :headscratch:


Title: Re: Game of the Year - 2009
Post by: schild on January 09, 2010, 09:17:27 PM
There's a good chance he's gone full-retard, as far as I can tell. Hell, I have no idea what he's talking about now.


Title: Re: Game of the Year - 2009
Post by: Margalis on January 09, 2010, 09:28:49 PM
Who fails at reading comprehension here?


Title: Re: Game of the Year - 2009
Post by: schild on January 09, 2010, 09:29:50 PM
If we're still talking about the first post in this chain, you.

If we're talking about anything else, apparently you.

Make your fucking point in non-grunk already.


Title: Re: Game of the Year - 2009
Post by: Margalis on January 10, 2010, 12:01:53 AM
Demon's Souls, Dragon Age, Uncharted 2, Assassin's Creed 2 and Modern Warfare 2 represents an extremely generic list, it reads as an aggregation more than any sort of expression of personal taste.

Which is why I asked "Can taste in games get more generic?"

It's like someone saying "man the movies sucked this year outside of Transformers, Star Trek, Twilight and Avatar!" It reads to me as a list of "big" games, rather than a list of good games or games that any particular person would personally enjoy.


Title: Re: Game of the Year - 2009
Post by: schild on January 10, 2010, 12:03:50 AM
No shit it's a generic list. 2009 sucked. Read that post again and again until it sinks in.


Title: Re: Game of the Year - 2009
Post by: Venkman on January 10, 2010, 07:16:16 AM
I've only played MW2 multiplayer, and don't own it.. But I'm not sure what's so different about it.

It's really just a bunch of little tiny improvements.The maps don't have as many obvious-best spots as MW1 did, the weapons can be further customized (double-attachments are awesome), all of the Perks now have sub-levels within them (and there's more variety of them), death streaks are interesting, you can shoot down UAVs, and so on. Like I said though, if you don't like the source or are bored with it, MW2 doesn't bring anything really new to the party.

I'm not missing dedicated servers as much as I thought I would. Can't say the same about lean though. That I miss. And it's a lot more gametic than immersive, with all the micro-win popups.

But what is this "snappy UI" you speak of? Do you mean flashy?

"Snappy" may not be the right term. For me it's really two parts:

  • TF2 and L4D type games pidgeon-holed me into roles I felt were too restrictive. That's fine for an MMO because I expect that. And it was fine for old-school FPSes because it's what we had. But the recent CoD mp series let me customize things enough I felt like there was some choice.
  • L4D felt more like Tabula Rasa (or even Hellgate) than an FPS for me. I can't get past the feeling that these wanted to be FPSes but weren't really coded to act like them.

I don't want realistic. Because honestly that's usually lying in a sniper perch for three hours waiting for the one opportunity that day to take a shot :-) I just prefer the style of FPS the CoD series offers over others. Eventually when they don't make these for PCs anymore, I suspect I'll be completely done with the genre.


Title: Re: Game of the Year - 2009
Post by: Strazos on January 10, 2010, 10:50:02 AM
Your beef isn't really with the UI then, and your second point...well, I'm not sure what to make of it.

And the pigeon-holing? What roles can you make for yourself in MW2 besides sniper and guys with guns? At least TF2 has medics and engineers, and now demo-knights.


Title: Re: Game of the Year - 2009
Post by: Venkman on January 10, 2010, 02:51:48 PM
I'm not articulating right. But it really doesn't matter. This is so far within YMMV land that it's not like I'm out to convince anyone :-)

I haven't kept up with TF2. Back in the day, I'd join a match, choose a class, do that one or two things, then when I died, choose another class, along the way getting achievements that gave me buffs (or were they actual abilities? Been that long...). Based on that description alone, the CoD series is the same, except you're building your own templates by combining stuff you unlocked. TF2 like that nowadays or is it still the weapons your class have are the only weapons you can use during that turn?


Title: Re: Game of the Year - 2009
Post by: stray on January 10, 2010, 04:00:34 PM
Like I said though, if you don't like the source or are bored with it, MW2 doesn't bring anything really new to the party.

Not sure what you mean about the source. I'm not caught up in some hate against the Modern Warfare series if that's what you're asking. I know next to nothing about it. I just don't like the maps I played. Some feel tight and overcrowded, some had openings and holes everywhere which just makes for kill streaks from cheap ass angles. Living and dying feels sort of... random and not up to me. Granted, I didn't play a bunch. But that's my impression. That I can customize a "character" is sort of cool, I guess, but not something I'd miss. I mean umm.. actually I don't give a fuck. FPS's are about maps, not characters.


Title: Re: Game of the Year - 2009
Post by: Mosesandstick on January 10, 2010, 04:05:20 PM
I don't think you're alone in that experience Stray. Maybe it's also because I didn't play MW mp, but I just kept 'randomly' dying. My survival rate did go up once I started learning the maps, but by then I was sick of the game  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Game of the Year - 2009
Post by: Margalis on January 10, 2010, 06:58:25 PM
That the maps are too small and dense in MW2 appears to be a very common complaint.


Title: Re: Game of the Year - 2009
Post by: Murgos on January 11, 2010, 10:31:49 AM
Demon's Souls, Dragon Age, Uncharted 2, Assassin's Creed 2 and Modern Warfare 2 represents an extremely generic list, it reads as an aggregation more than any sort of expression of personal taste.

Which is why I asked "Can taste in games get more generic?"

It's like someone saying "man the movies sucked this year outside of Transformers, Star Trek, Twilight and Avatar!" It reads to me as a list of "big" games, rather than a list of good games or games that any particular person would personally enjoy.

There seems to be a large logical fallacy in your thinking.

It is true that just because something is popular doesn't mean it's good but it's also true that just because something is popular doesn't mean it's bad or unoriginal or not worthy of applause.


Title: Re: Game of the Year - 2009
Post by: stray on January 11, 2010, 05:25:26 PM
I think a game with a fairly big scale and high production values is a necessary qualifier for being considered GOTY material. More than likely, that means it'll be from some big publisher or something. Which in turn means it'll be popular somewhat. That isn't to say some clever indy idea isn't a good game, but for the most part, those are sort of "core" type of gameplay experiences. While better funded games, when done well, can do that and more.

[edit] I don't think comparing it to movies is a good idea. Barrier to entry and tools to make movies are different. I mean, like Robert Rodriguez for example can make a Blockbuster family movie under $40 mill. There's no such thing like that in gaming.


Title: Re: Game of the Year - 2009
Post by: schild on January 11, 2010, 05:32:46 PM
Quote
I think a game with a fairly big scale and high production values is a necessary qualifier for being considered GOTY material.

I am not willing to apply the Titanic Theorem to gaming. Sorry.


Title: Re: Game of the Year - 2009
Post by: Velorath on January 11, 2010, 05:36:54 PM
Quote
I think a game with a fairly big scale and high production values is a necessary qualifier for being considered GOTY material.

I am not willing to apply the Titanic Theorem to gaming. Sorry.

Especially considering most of the games on this GOTY list didn't have a ton of money thrown into development (Dragon Age and Uncharted 2 pretty much being the only exceptions).


Title: Re: Game of the Year - 2009
Post by: stray on January 11, 2010, 05:42:07 PM
Relatively speaking, these games being mentioned still have a shitload of money compared to what Braid probably had (under 200k I'm reading). We don't need to scale it up to Titanic. Just about every game you buy at the store, packaged neatly in a box, with a recognizable publisher's name on it, are all big budget.

edit: I don't know.. Just seems like Margalis is wanting something virtually unknown to be considered for GOTY. Which to me would mean some indy thing. I could be misreading, granted.


Title: Re: Game of the Year - 2009
Post by: schild on January 11, 2010, 05:43:36 PM
Braid was a pretentious piece of trash though, so I'm not quite understanding your point.


Title: Re: Game of the Year - 2009
Post by: Velorath on January 11, 2010, 05:49:30 PM
Relatively speaking, these games being mentioned still have a shitload of money compared to what Braid probably had (under 200k I'm reading). We don't need to scale it up to Titanic. Just about every game you buy at the store, packaged neatly in a box, with a recognizable publisher's name on it, are all big budget.

edit: I don't know.. Just seems like Margalis is wanting something virtually unknown to be considered for GOTY. Which to me would mean some indy thing. I could be misreading, granted.

So then it just sounds like all you're saying is that a GOTY needs to be a retail product


Title: Re: Game of the Year - 2009
Post by: eldaec on January 11, 2010, 06:00:51 PM
If we're talking about Batman though, the reason I haven't bought it yet isn't because of mechanics.. it just seems claustrophobic. "Arkam Asylum". That shit should be a level or two. Not an entire game. Someone convince me otherwise.


If the setting were any bigger it would need levels, and would feel even more linear and claustrophobic.

That said, I do think having to visit most of the buildings twice or more after they get transformed by <plot device> is what drove the plot to descend further and further into camp sillyness by the end.

The game is good but not great and we'd just be talking about it as a neat thing to rent if it didn't have batman in it.


Braid was a pretentious piece of trash

Never a truer word spoken.


I think a game with a fairly big scale and high production values is a necessary qualifier for being considered GOTY material. More than likely, that means it'll be from some big publisher or something. Which in turn means it'll be popular somewhat. That isn't to say some clever indy idea isn't a good game, but for the most part, those are sort of "core" type of gameplay experiences. While better funded games, when done well, can do that and more.

I would like to hope that when we're pointing to the best of the year, we'd be able to find something that has both the production values *and* the innovation.


But I spent most of 2009 playing Steam weekend deals and EVE so can't really argue with the general point that almost everything is shit now, with the exceptions everyone noted earlier.





Title: Re: Game of the Year - 2009
Post by: stray on January 11, 2010, 06:06:17 PM
Relatively speaking, these games being mentioned still have a shitload of money compared to what Braid probably had (under 200k I'm reading). We don't need to scale it up to Titanic. Just about every game you buy at the store, packaged neatly in a box, with a recognizable publisher's name on it, are all big budget.

edit: I don't know.. Just seems like Margalis is wanting something virtually unknown to be considered for GOTY. Which to me would mean some indy thing. I could be misreading, granted.

So then it just sounds like all you're saying is that a GOTY needs to be a retail product

More than likely.

Games with these budgets have more to offer than a core gaming experience. I'm not saying being retail means is necessarily good - let me make that clear - but when they are on, they are really on. The good retail game not only offers a great core gameplay experience just like the great indy game, but it has all the luxuries of dazzling visuals, sounds, full time writing teams, or whatever that a bit more cash can buy. And for the final point, these games tend to be fairly popular. Kind of hard to think of many that aren't.

edit: slimmed that


Title: Re: Game of the Year - 2009
Post by: Venkman on January 11, 2010, 07:14:11 PM
Not sure what you mean about the source. I'm not caught up in some hate against the Modern Warfare series if that's what you're asking. I know next to nothing about it. I just don't like the maps I played. Some feel tight and overcrowded, some had openings and holes everywhere which just makes for kill streaks from cheap ass angles. Living and dying feels sort of... random and not up to me. Granted, I didn't play a bunch. But that's my impression. That I can customize a "character" is sort of cool, I guess, but not something I'd miss. I mean umm.. actually I don't give a fuck. FPS's are about maps, not characters.

Ah, I see where our difference is. Without going too much into, I basically skipped FPS games from the original UT on through CoD1 (no CS: Source, no clans, no ladders, etc). CoD2 really drew me in though at the office. I skipped 3, loved 4 and 5, and enjoy MW2 as much as 4. It's less about the maps than what I unlock. It gives me the MMO vibe, basically feels like WoW BGs in an FPS.

I enjoy the BF series as well, though only the PC ones, and more for the vehicles than the weapons.

Otherwise, I'm really not what anyone would call an FPS "gamer". I'm basically just an obsessive dabbler, and MW2 scratches my MMO itches well without the monthly fee and abject predictability of the PvE game.


Title: Re: Game of the Year - 2009
Post by: MournelitheCalix on January 11, 2010, 08:04:55 PM
Dragon Age: Origins was the only game that has stood out to me in 2009.  I have to admit I have never played Demon Souls and I can't comment on whether or not it was deserving of the best of title.  With DA: O however I am knowledgeable and can state that I was really heartened to see Bioware "get back to its roots." After seeing the lackluster stories supplied to the customer in NWN and Jade Empire it was nice to see Bioware develop another RPG with depth. My one complaint with it is that I am finding myself more than mildly annoyed with the obtuse toolset.  After hours of pouring over it and scouring the internet for people who have found success with it, I have come to the conclusion that either Bioware didn't want people to be able to make quality mods with the toolset or they have intentionally decided to make the most unfriendly interface imaginable and hid its functionality behind an overly cumbersome, obfuscating interface.

I also want to reiterate what some people have expressed here.  I also don't understand the hate towards Batman: AA.  For a console game, I found AA quite entertaining.  I thought Mark Hamill turned in an excellent performance voicing the joker.  Honestly I thought half of the fun of the game was listening to the joker's banter.  They story was crap, but what really were you expecting?!?  Between periods of listening to the joker, inverted takedown, explosive gelly and swooping kept me entertained.

One game I wonder about though was King Arthur: The Roleplaying-Wargame.  This is a title that is clearly not in the same league as DA: O; however, for a title that to me came out of nowhere, I enjoyed it greatly.  In my opinion there are only a few flaws that keep this game from being a masterpiece, was it given any consideration???  I ask because I thought it was damn impressive for a title I hadn't heard one thing about.


Title: Re: Game of the Year - 2009
Post by: stray on January 11, 2010, 08:43:25 PM
Ah, I see where our difference is. Without going too much into, I basically skipped FPS games from the original UT on through CoD1 (no CS: Source, no clans, no ladders, etc). CoD2 really drew me in though at the office. I skipped 3, loved 4 and 5, and enjoy MW2 as much as 4. It's less about the maps than what I unlock. It gives me the MMO vibe, basically feels like WoW BGs in an FPS.

I enjoy the BF series as well, though only the PC ones, and more for the vehicles than the weapons.

Otherwise, I'm really not what anyone would call an FPS "gamer". I'm basically just an obsessive dabbler, and MW2 scratches my MMO itches well without the monthly fee and abject predictability of the PvE game.

I'm not even an FPS gamer either. Not anymore really. Just don't like some of the designs there. I would apply the same reasoning about maps to WoW BG's too. And I don't find MW2 and WoW comparable, regardless of the "character building".. WoW BG's had some clear chokepoints, for one. They weren't nearly as intricate and full of holes to the point where people died randomly from backshots.

Just my 2c though. If you like it, that's cool. :)


Title: Re: Game of the Year - 2009
Post by: Margalis on January 12, 2010, 02:21:59 AM
edit: I don't know.. Just seems like Margalis is wanting something virtually unknown to be considered for GOTY. Which to me would mean some indy thing. I could be misreading, granted.

I was just reacting to the list of Modern Warfare 2, Dragon Age, Assassin's Creed 2 and Uncharted 2 in schild's post. All those are games that appeared on most "most anticipated games of 2009" lists and were generally hyped to hell and back. They're all the kind of game that if you bought 3 games this year you probably bought at least one or two of them. It just seemed like a generic list of "blockbuster" games to me.

If I was going to list the games I most enjoyed in 2009 that list would include Might and Magic for DS and Punch Out for Wii. Those aren't indie games or even particularly off the beaten path, they're just titles I really enjoyed as opposed to "objectively great" titles.

Quote
I think a game with a fairly big scale and high production values is a necessary qualifier for being considered GOTY material. More than likely, that means it'll be from some big publisher or something.

RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARGH!

This is my number one pet peeve in gaming. Last year the Giant Bomb guys put Fallout 3 on their "top ten games of the year" list even though none of them put it in their personal top ten and most of them made fun of the game. Their reasoning was that it was "obviously a good game."

The point of a game is to be enjoyable, I don't think it makes any sense to claim that because a game is well-constructed in some ways or looks expensive that it is objectively good. No matter how well crafted a game appears to be or how expensive it looks if it isn't enjoyable then it isn't a good game.

And beyond that looking at production value as a measure of craft is just lazy. A cheap looking game that is fun as hell demonstrates just as much craft as a dull expensive game. In fact significantly more craft in that it doesn't have production values to fall back on and wow people with, it has to live and die based on core gameplay.

Game of the year should be what you enjoy the most - period. There's no point in an attempt at faux-objective measurement.


Title: Re: Game of the Year - 2009
Post by: Velorath on January 12, 2010, 02:55:02 AM
The list of games in schild's post wasn't a list of his favorite games of the year, which should be obvious to anyone who spends any amount of time.  He was expressing disappointment in the short list of big holiday releases after a long drought of good games in the months prior.

And stray already backpedaled on that part of the post you quoted, admitting that virtually any retail product would satisfy his criteria of having high production values.

In other words, I'm getting the idea here that you aren't really reading the thread in it's entirety since you seem to be missing stuff that has already been clearly spelled out.

And I somewhat disagree with the notion that GOTY has to be the game that you personally enjoyed the most.  Certainly that's one thing to consider, but there's nothing wrong with appreciating a game as a technical achievement, or for innovation either.


Title: Re: Game of the Year - 2009
Post by: stray on January 12, 2010, 03:00:34 AM
RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARGH!

If it makes you feel better, I didn't like Fallout 3. :P


Title: Re: Game of the Year - 2009
Post by: Margalis on January 12, 2010, 04:00:57 AM
Quote from: Velorath
He was expressing disappointment in the short list of big holiday releases after a long drought of good games in the months prior.

To belabor this silliness even more who cares what the "big" releases are unless there is some implied correlation between big and good?

If I enjoy a game I could not care less whether it's "big" or not and conversely there's nothing exciting about a big game I don't enjoy. Case in point: Modern Warfare 2, not my bag. It's a big release in terms of sales and revenue but in personal terms it's the smallest of small - I have absolutely zero desire to ever play a Call of Duty game again.

I just don't get why the number of big releases would matter to anyone unless they're a retailer.

It's one thing to say that the holidays lacked games you enjoyed - that's an expression of personal taste. But to say that big releases were lacking - who cares?

I'm not trying to be obstinate, I just don't get it.


Title: Re: Game of the Year - 2009
Post by: schild on January 12, 2010, 08:42:31 AM
Quote
If I was going to list the games I most enjoyed in 2009 that list would include Might and Magic for DS and Punch Out for Wii. Those aren't indie games or even particularly off the beaten path, they're just titles I really enjoyed as opposed to "objectively great" titles.

Once again, that's NOT what the post was. Jesus, English, man.


Title: Re: Game of the Year - 2009
Post by: Yegolev on January 12, 2010, 01:52:25 PM
I would like to simply state that I do not - in any circumstance - factor popularity into deciding what a GOTY might be, except in that I think I may have missed out on something.  American Idol is pretty damn popular.  Being a dickbag on forums is also popular.  I do not recommend either.


Title: Re: Game of the Year - 2009
Post by: Teleku on January 14, 2010, 07:00:13 PM
Demon's Souls, Dragon Age, Uncharted 2, Assassin's Creed 2 and Modern Warfare 2 represents an extremely generic list, it reads as an aggregation more than any sort of expression of personal taste.

Which is why I asked "Can taste in games get more generic?"

It's like someone saying "man the movies sucked this year outside of Transformers, Star Trek, Twilight and Avatar!" It reads to me as a list of "big" games, rather than a list of good games or games that any particular person would personally enjoy.
Out of curiosity, what games this year do you consider better than the ones listed (and also aren't "generic" I guess)?


Title: Re: Game of the Year - 2009
Post by: stray on January 14, 2010, 08:15:11 PM
He mentioned Punch Out, but I was gonna say that it's still successful enough to sell a million copies. And umm.. well..  it's fucking Punch Out!  :uhrr: I can't think of a title more perennially loved than Punch Out, other than.... other things Nintendo makes. It is "objectively great" and easy to understand why it's liked in the same way any of these others are.

[edit] Hmm a DS game and a Wii game. I see what you did.  :oh_i_see:


Title: Re: Game of the Year - 2009
Post by: Strazos on January 14, 2010, 10:08:06 PM
Punch Out was fun for about 2 hours.


Title: Re: Game of the Year - 2009
Post by: Teleku on January 15, 2010, 10:19:08 AM
Arg, I'm an idiot and only thought the bottom of page 3 was the end of the thread when I made that post.


Title: Re: Game of the Year - 2009
Post by: Vision on January 19, 2010, 01:19:46 AM
In the way of being depressing, check out the nominees for best written videogame....
http://gamerant.com/writers-guild-announces-wga-video-game-nominees-trung-6420/



Title: Re: Game of the Year - 2009
Post by: Velorath on January 19, 2010, 01:39:06 AM
In the way of being depressing, check out the nominees for best written videogame....
http://gamerant.com/writers-guild-announces-wga-video-game-nominees-trung-6420/



Not really depressing as I'm guessing the selections have a lot to do with the nomination process.  Specifically, that in order to be nominated either the writer, or the developer/publisher has to submit the script for nomination, as well as the fact that "At the time the script is submitted, the credited writer(s) of the game must be, or apply to become, a member of the WGA's New Media Caucus".

Edit:  Dragon Age lead writer David Gaider for instance had this to say: (http://social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/9/index/627784/3#638730)

Quote
I don't believe any writer at Bioware is a member of the WGA (with the possible exception of those who have worked in the television industry previously), not because we're anti-union but simply because the need has never come up. The purpose for a video game writer to be part of the WGA appears to be dubious at best, as far as I can tell, unless one simply wishes to be eligible for an award. We participate in other groups such as the IGDA, which are a little more focused on our industry.


Title: Re: Game of the Year - 2009
Post by: Sky on January 19, 2010, 08:46:07 AM
BIOWARE HATES GUILDS

You heard it here first. SWTOR is a single player game!


Title: Re: Game of the Year - 2009
Post by: Bunk on January 19, 2010, 08:47:24 AM
Looking through this thread, I went back and looked at what games I bought this year...

Dragon Age, Sims 3, Borderlands, CO, Fallen Earth, Torchlight. Yea, I guess Dragon Age gets my award by default. I was going to give it to Banjoe-Kazooie:N&B, but it turns out that was released Nov 08.

Nothing really stood out. To be fair, I really enjoyed Borderlands (especially multiplayer), but it's tough to give a game with that many UI and networking issues a GoY nod. Gave Demon Souls a quick try on a friend's machine - I can see the appeal and won't argue it's popularity, but it's just not a game I would enjoy beyond a few sittings.


Title: Re: Game of the Year - 2009
Post by: MisterNoisy on January 23, 2010, 01:35:06 AM
My Personal GotY's:

PC:  Dragon Age.  Thank Christ that this was dropped day and date on PC with all of the BG trappings mostly intact.  Bioware still loves PC gamers.

X360:  Forza Motorsport 3.  I get to paint cars again, but this time they really look good (http://i49.tinypic.com/ojlcfa.jpg) in-game, and I can sell the designs without having to micromanage the process - the community features are what separates this from everything else in the genre.  The physics and playability still feel better than any GT game ever has, while rewind means I don't have to do the same race ten times ever again to boot.

PS3:  Shatter.  A perfectly executed variation on a tried and tested gameplay mechanic that hearkens back to the earliest days of gaming but is definitely 21st century in gameplay and presentation.  Well worth the cash, and the soundtrack is worth twice that on its own.  Sidhe deserves your monies!

Wii:  Umm...  I bought Blast Works last year for $10 and love that game so that's what's going here.  Note:  Blast Works, Like all (actually) good Wii games, is best played with the Classic Controller.

DS:  Professor Layton and the Diabolical Box.  Next verse, same as the first, and that's just great.

PSP:  Pangya Fantasy Golf.  Hot Shots Golf but CRAZY J/KRPG style.  Either that or Monster Hunter Freedom Unite, but I like retarded fantasy-themed golf more than grinding retarded survival equipment.

Multi:  Assassin's Creed 2.  Holy shit, they really turned this into a great open-world game.  The pacing, the mission variety and the ability for you to decide how to go about all of it was just right, which fixes everything that was wrong about the first AC.  It's as deep as you want it to be, and just a great playthrough from start to finish.

Honorable Mention:  Red Faction: Guerilla.  You and your sledge/ostrich hammer against Mars.  Mars is fucked.  Great destruction physics as a hook to hang an entire game on marred solely by the omission of co-op play.  The best multiplat game that isn't DA:O or Assassin's Creed 2.


Title: Re: Game of the Year - 2009
Post by: JWIV on January 23, 2010, 12:52:04 PM
Just as a side note, I suppose if I had to nominate a GoTY for the Wii, I'd go with World of Goo (and yes, I know it was also on PC).



Title: Re: Game of the Year - 2009
Post by: Yegolev on January 25, 2010, 12:36:24 PM
I'd have gone with New Super Mario Bros. Wii, but I haven't really explored the depth and breadth of the 2010 Wii releases.

snicker