Nominees for Game of the Year
- Thread starter The Escapist Staff
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I know, I've already watched all of them more or less as soon as they were up. Still, there are some games released each year that have a pretty good chance of ending up on somebody's Best Of The Year list. And they usually do. I hardly get surprised by awards, that's kind of what I feel is missing. Like I don't know, giving GotY to Vanquish or Alpha Protocol (I'm not implying anything about either game's quality, just saying they're not widely recognized) or something. That'd be a sight to behold.Susan Arendt said:
I hear what you're saying, but it's going to be problematic if we call something "best game of the entire year" and it..you know..is kinda crappy.GeneticallyModifiedDucks said:
I'm going for Starcraft 2 for breathing new life into the RTS genre by going back to basics and building from there. It wasn't the most ambitious game of the year, and it wasn't the most polished. Indeed it had the terrible Battle.net integration.
Yet when the current tide of RTS games seems to go for sheer scale (Sins of a Solar Empire, Sup Com, Demigod etc.) Blizzard simply took the original game and brought it to the next generation. It's a highly competitive RTS that plays at breakneck speed, which anyone can get absorbed in. For its replay value alone I'd give it GOTY, even if it doesn't win GOTY, in ten years people will look back and call 2010 the year of Starcraft 2.
Yet when the current tide of RTS games seems to go for sheer scale (Sins of a Solar Empire, Sup Com, Demigod etc.) Blizzard simply took the original game and brought it to the next generation. It's a highly competitive RTS that plays at breakneck speed, which anyone can get absorbed in. For its replay value alone I'd give it GOTY, even if it doesn't win GOTY, in ten years people will look back and call 2010 the year of Starcraft 2.
My vote goes to Starcraft II. I've played over 100 hours probably, and I'm still addicted. Not only do I want to raise my rang, but I want to experience the different ways players think to defeat me, and how I will react to their attacks. It's a game that with so many possibilities opens up more at every match.
My honorable mention goes to Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood for perfecting the formula of stabbing (except for the combat, will somebody please fix the combat?) and building up suspense for the next game. Now what I really want to see is an Assassin's Creed 3 set in current day where everyone has guns and you have your hidden blade. Make this a true stealth game, Ubisoft.
My honorable mention goes to Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood for perfecting the formula of stabbing (except for the combat, will somebody please fix the combat?) and building up suspense for the next game. Now what I really want to see is an Assassin's Creed 3 set in current day where everyone has guns and you have your hidden blade. Make this a true stealth game, Ubisoft.
I vote for Halo:Reach- easily the most fun i've had in a game for a while.
Also, i LOVE how the "record smashing" black ops wasn't on the list.
Also, i LOVE how the "record smashing" black ops wasn't on the list.
Red Dead all the way.
I'm dissapointed that Black Ops wasn't on there.
Before you flame me, Halo: Reach was on there.
But... what?
[rant]
A campaign that doesn't live up to the Halo name, a very barebones plot with unmemorable missions, multiplayer with a surprising amount of unbalance (Living Dead, Armour Lock).
Firefight was cool, and so was Forge World, but Black Ops Campaign/MP > Reach's Campaign/MP.
I guess it's my opinion but it still riles me that a Dev with one hell of a name to live up to, and three years to make the game, ends up with a sub-par Campaign and Multiplayer with such blatant and easily fixable issues, then parades how much it playtested the maps when they are filled with camping spots, but they get the GOTY Nomination, and yet a developer that spent two years on a game that had to live up to MW 1's MP and still bettered it doesn't.
Don't pull that shit about CoD using the same game engine; Halo practically did too. Identical to 3 bar the AAs.
At least Blops made it very balanced, and Halo somehow got worse.
[/rant]
In other news, where is Minecraft on that Nominee list?
I'm dissapointed that Black Ops wasn't on there.
Before you flame me, Halo: Reach was on there.
But... what?
[rant]
A campaign that doesn't live up to the Halo name, a very barebones plot with unmemorable missions, multiplayer with a surprising amount of unbalance (Living Dead, Armour Lock).
Firefight was cool, and so was Forge World, but Black Ops Campaign/MP > Reach's Campaign/MP.
I guess it's my opinion but it still riles me that a Dev with one hell of a name to live up to, and three years to make the game, ends up with a sub-par Campaign and Multiplayer with such blatant and easily fixable issues, then parades how much it playtested the maps when they are filled with camping spots, but they get the GOTY Nomination, and yet a developer that spent two years on a game that had to live up to MW 1's MP and still bettered it doesn't.
Don't pull that shit about CoD using the same game engine; Halo practically did too. Identical to 3 bar the AAs.
At least Blops made it very balanced, and Halo somehow got worse.
[/rant]
In other news, where is Minecraft on that Nominee list?
I think Read Dead Redemption is easily the most overrated game of the year. It wasn't bad but it sure as hell wasn't the masterpiece so many people claim it is. I'd probably give it like a 7/10.
I guess I didn't get sucked into the game the same way so many others seem to have been. The middle wasn't bad but the beginning and end drove me nuts. Now let me say this. I liked the ending cutscene.
That was a good cutscene but the whole ending just drove me nuts.
That game began to wear on me. It was fun for a while but especially towards the end it began to feel like a chore and I just wanted to be done with it so I could move on to something else. It's no game of the year; not by a long shot.
I guess I didn't get sucked into the game the same way so many others seem to have been. The middle wasn't bad but the beginning and end drove me nuts. Now let me say this. I liked the ending cutscene.
When John gets shot.
That was a good cutscene but the whole ending just drove me nuts.
After I killed that guy I expected the game to be over. Maybe a mission to ride back to my farm, but then I wanted it to be done. I did not want to sit around and do those insufferable fucking farming missions from the beginning of the game that I hated so damn much, AGAIN. Also the REAL final mission with the son. You know, the one that they don't fucking tell you about, the one I knew about but couldn't find for my life, fuck that mission.
That game began to wear on me. It was fun for a while but especially towards the end it began to feel like a chore and I just wanted to be done with it so I could move on to something else. It's no game of the year; not by a long shot.
Oh Mass Effect, your awesomeness knows no bounds. Please shine your kick bootyness upon us
Totally dig Heavy Rain and Red Dead as a tie for 2nd place
Totally dig Heavy Rain and Red Dead as a tie for 2nd place
ME2, SC2, and Reach are my favourites.
The Reach vs Blops for me is simple, Blops bored me to death, and I still play Reach frequently.
I do think that Cataclysm shouldn't have been nominated. It was sold as a separate disc and all that, but it was technically just an expansion. Awakenings is arguably better.
The Reach vs Blops for me is simple, Blops bored me to death, and I still play Reach frequently.
I do think that Cataclysm shouldn't have been nominated. It was sold as a separate disc and all that, but it was technically just an expansion. Awakenings is arguably better.
I honestly don't understand how Civ V makes people lists of best games of . It was such a disappointment.
Yes, I've played through to the finish multiple times. Yes, there are a number of neat features in the game. But for me it is so badly flawed I've gone back to playing civ 4 instead.
Lets look at the good:
The city states in particular are a fun and exciting new mechanic. The combat is improved - although I disagree with all the people excitedly spraying their praises of it. It's better, but not *that much* better. I suspect part of the reason people feel like the new combat system adds so much is because turns in which you are not at war are *so dull*. The new and improved culture is also fun, although it doesn't feel particularly well balanced.
But so many aspects of the game are worse. Buildings all feel incredibly generic. City build trees are so mechanical it hurts. The tech tree has been pruned into what I am sure they intended as a beatifully crafted bonzai but appears to me as a fire-ravaged shrub. And - by design - having an actual, you know, empire is strongly discouraged.
And the game is an outrageously buggy beta version of itself. It crashes frequently. There are constant graphical glitches - both of the 'can't draw the terrain fast enough' kind and the 'oh look, the pyramids are under fucking water' kind.
And for all the talk of 'the combat is better' there is another major counterpoint: The AI is functionally retarded. It's incapable of making use of a navy. It can barely make use of the ranged units. It doesn't seem very good at upgrading its units. It makes combat decisions like it is drunk and can't take a city to save its fucking life. It surrenders at the slightest sign of danger (although that one may have been fixed in a patch).
And if you're making a game where one of the major improvements to a franchise is 'combat is more interesting'...and you can't do an AI that can even remotely deal with the combat, what is the fracking point??
In (not very) short: This is not the best game this year. It's probably not even the best strategy game.
edit: On the other hand, ME2 would get my nod. Fun gameplay (although not flawless), pretty worlds compared to the firsts grey mud and 3 buildings, amazing characters, excellent voice acting, great plot. But I'd give it the nod because the developers spent an outrageous amount of effort *finding out what was wrong with the first game* and trying to fix it. I didn't like 100% of the changes, but enough; they fixed most of the flaws very well and the ones they introduced were minor. A++.
Yes, I've played through to the finish multiple times. Yes, there are a number of neat features in the game. But for me it is so badly flawed I've gone back to playing civ 4 instead.
Lets look at the good:
The city states in particular are a fun and exciting new mechanic. The combat is improved - although I disagree with all the people excitedly spraying their praises of it. It's better, but not *that much* better. I suspect part of the reason people feel like the new combat system adds so much is because turns in which you are not at war are *so dull*. The new and improved culture is also fun, although it doesn't feel particularly well balanced.
But so many aspects of the game are worse. Buildings all feel incredibly generic. City build trees are so mechanical it hurts. The tech tree has been pruned into what I am sure they intended as a beatifully crafted bonzai but appears to me as a fire-ravaged shrub. And - by design - having an actual, you know, empire is strongly discouraged.
And the game is an outrageously buggy beta version of itself. It crashes frequently. There are constant graphical glitches - both of the 'can't draw the terrain fast enough' kind and the 'oh look, the pyramids are under fucking water' kind.
And for all the talk of 'the combat is better' there is another major counterpoint: The AI is functionally retarded. It's incapable of making use of a navy. It can barely make use of the ranged units. It doesn't seem very good at upgrading its units. It makes combat decisions like it is drunk and can't take a city to save its fucking life. It surrenders at the slightest sign of danger (although that one may have been fixed in a patch).
And if you're making a game where one of the major improvements to a franchise is 'combat is more interesting'...and you can't do an AI that can even remotely deal with the combat, what is the fracking point??
In (not very) short: This is not the best game this year. It's probably not even the best strategy game.
edit: On the other hand, ME2 would get my nod. Fun gameplay (although not flawless), pretty worlds compared to the firsts grey mud and 3 buildings, amazing characters, excellent voice acting, great plot. But I'd give it the nod because the developers spent an outrageous amount of effort *finding out what was wrong with the first game* and trying to fix it. I didn't like 100% of the changes, but enough; they fixed most of the flaws very well and the ones they introduced were minor. A++.