What are your 2009 Game of the Year Awards.

[Savior20061]

Yeah but I'm never buying anything else that Orson Card has had involvement in. The man wrote the script for Advent Rising and I loved that game, it was so underrated. Beautiful fucking orchestra like you wouldn't believe (written by Tommy Tallarico from Judgement Day). Psionic powers. Space battles. The vehicles were nice and different from Halo. Decent story from Card too.
But then I saw this little number this year.
http://www.nauvoo.com/library/card-hypocrites.html
The man's a terrible bastard and as long as I'm breathing not one cent from me will ever slither into his arrogant pockets.

[Cronky]

It's hard to side with Uncharted 2 for GOTY...It's a good game, and I certainly enjoyed it, but I 100% agree with Yahtzee that it is a "safe" game. It's just thrown together a bunch of aspects that have been proven strong selling points and repackaged it into a "new" game.

GOTY is for an outstanding game that does everything it was set out to do and more. That being said I don't see why Uncharted 2 would be a bad choice. You say it's a good game yourself, that it takes aspects from games that are proven selling points (meaning... good aspects).

But that's only half the story. It took all those aspects... and did them well. Add on the jaw dropping visuals, solid virtual acting, and a story that actually is paced and keeps you immersed. I don't see why it taking good concepts and fleshing them out is a bad thing.

Stop voting for "NEW Super Mario Bros" on the Wii. Nintendo is just re-hashing the same old shit. Sorry, you don't get points for re-making a game from 1985 with prettier graphics.

But hey, I guess they should get points for getting people to spend $50 on the Wii version instead of $.05 on the NES version.

Now as for this little line. Unless you were joking. The point was to re-hash the old nostalgia of the games from yesteryear. Yes, they have moved on and made new strides to the 3D Mario since the N64 days, but at least when they decided to throw out a revamped version of what started it all, they didn't crap it up.

It's like saying Sonic wouldn't be praised if they made a 2D sidescroller now (Project Needlemouse) instead of all their crappy (from the general consensus I've read. I personally didn't actually play them) 3D iterations.

Or saying that any FPS after Doom (well really Wolfenstein 3D) is somehow lessened because they are just "Re-hashing the same old shit".

On a side note, Spekkio... I have no clue why half my little amount of posts are me talking against you. You just always seem to have the perfect thing to respond to.

[frvge]

Everyone just wuvs Spekkio  ;D :-*

[Spekkio]

I'm changing my GOTY vote to Infamous.

@Cronky,

A big part of a game's worth to me (and afterall, I'm the one casting my own vote) is originality in story, gameplay, or presentation.

Every game sets out to provide people with entertainment, which then results in enough sales to make the developers a profit. To that end, there are a plethora of games that satisfy that criteria. A "Game of the Year" has to go well beyond that simple criteria.

Uncharted 2 is a good game, but it's rather indistinct because it just copies everything that's already been done and throws it together. I know that you said "and more" in your comment, but where does Uncharted 2 accomplish "more?" When your goal is to throw together a bunch of elements that have been done so much they are starting to become cliche, it doesn't really leave a lot of room to exceed expectations.

Another conundrum with voting for GOTY in 2009: when PS3 and Xbox 360 share over 90% of their available games, and those games are almost exactly identical for both systems, which one do you give the nod to? What would make the PS3 version of Batman: AA different from the Xbox 360 version? The only thing that these two systems offer in terms of voting is to pick two different games for GOTY, since the platform is fairly interchangeable.

Another criteria I use to judge games is difficulty and length. Sadly, almost all games are lacking in both nowadays. I'm noticing that there is a new trend in using "infinite health" where if you manage to just not get hurt long enough, you'll automatically heal. This paired with a lack of any penalty whatsoever for dying makes games too easy to beat.

Now, I gave Infamous a nod because I die on average 5 times per story mission or more. The only thing that's disappointing is that you keep all the XP from your exploits even if you die, which makes me not really care so much about living. Hence I die a lot. A simple punishment of reducing your XP by 25-50% when dying would go a LONG way in motivating me to care more about survival. Then again, I also don't understand why game developers would  give the player auto-heal in a game that allows you to heal by sucking electricity from any number of close objects at any given time.

But ultimately games have to be judged next to their counterparts, and in the 2009 days where every game likes to give you cheats you used to have to earn or input via the Konami code once upon a time, Infamous definitely stands out above the rest.

As for Mario Bros, adding a 4 player mode to a 20 ish year old game does not constitute game of the year. I'm sorry you feel that you have to defend wasting your money on that. You can invoke nostalgia without completely re-packaging a 20 year old game. See Street Fighter 4.

Or saying that any FPS after Doom (well really Wolfenstein 3D) is somehow lessened because they are just "Re-hashing the same old shit".

Well, Doom didn't have free-look, so that gameplay element alone was easy to top. However, few games even today can measure up to Quake 2 for singpleayer campaign or Quake 3's multiplayer. Halo pales in comparison, but people go gaga over it anyway.  Really, the console market is just catching up to a genre that was perfected years ago on hte PC.

Edit: sorry for bad typing, these forums are bugged in IE.

[Farley4Fan]

Yeah but I'm never buying anything else that Orson Card has had involvement in. The man wrote the script for Advent Rising and I loved that game, it was so underrated. Beautiful fucking orchestra like you wouldn't believe (written by Tommy Tallarico from Judgement Day). Psionic powers. Space battles. The vehicles were nice and different from Halo. Decent story from Card too.
But then I saw this little number this year.
http://www.nauvoo.com/library/card-hypocrites.html
The man's a terrible bastard and as long as I'm breathing not one cent from me will ever slither into his arrogant pockets.

I read some of that (I'm a Christian), and I saw a bunch of it as junk.  Just throwin that out there.

Think of it this way:  he doesn't need your money, and you are missing out on an awesome game.  Would you give a penny to Hitler if it meant the ability to breathe in outer space?  (I know that's ridiculous but you see what I mean? Lol)


Speaking of outer space and GOTY's, I present to you all, my 2nd favorite game of all time.  Mass Effect 2.  I'm surprised at the lack of discussion about this amazing game.  I'll go create a thread.

[Cronky]

A Good Response

I by no means meant that you were making bad choices, just that the reasoning behind said choices were lacking; which you have explained quite nicely now.

For Uncharted 2 it was what wasn't part of of the Safe Gaming style that got me: Animation, Visuals, and Storytelling. They did those in such a way that set it apart from their safe gaming style. Don't get me wrong.. Gameplay was as cliche as you say, the story was pretty much straight from Indiana Jones, and Co-op has been in every game since they figured out that people that play games actually Do have friends, but at least they didn't do it horribly. Solid in all areas instead of just adding it, and hoping that the features alone would be enough to sell their game.

Also among all the onslaught of "Popular Choice" for GOTY titles I had forgotten about Infamous. That was a great game. Hearing the slew of people knocking it's Comic-style cut scenes as a cop-out much in the vein of Mirror's Edge, I couldn't disagree more. In presentation, I would definitely give the visuals to Infamous.

Though the Black and White moral choices in the game left a little to be desired. Then again, no one has popularized a way in which to leave everything in a shade of gray situation. Even companies like Bioware that are pretty much expected to have such choices in their game mandatory. Either good or bad, with no huge ramification towards the end. Which I blame in part to the need for games now to all be part of a "Series". You have to hit the same end cutscene to make the 2nd game work.

As for Mario. What you said was true, GOTY it may not be. A waste of money though, I believe it wasn't. Sure I could hook up my NES or SNES and play the same style of gameplay, but who hasn't found all the whistles in Super Mario 3. Conquered Star World countless times in Super Mario World. A breath of fresh air into a style that you already like, added with the ability to actually play with friends (which aside from FPS's, Mario Kart, and Wii Sports is surprisingly hard to come by... Easily. Finding a familiar face among a crowd is much handier than hoping that a stranger turns out alright) truly makes the money worth it in my eyes.

Lastly, Quake I did never play. Or at least not at the time it was made to see it's true colors. Being 7 when the 2nd one came out; I only saw it as another re-hashing of doom. Though then again in some respects, it is. Considering id Software made all the major FPSs of that decade. Can't knock them for improving upon their own formula.

PS. I do know there is a lot more Multiplayer games then what I mentioned >.> Just didn't want to spend all night typing them all out.

LESSENS my point too if I do that! ;)

[Spark Mandriller]

But ultimately games have to be judged next to their counterparts, and in the 2009 days where every game likes to give you cheats you used to have to earn or input via the Konami code once upon a time, Infamous definitely stands out above the rest.

Y'know how hard 2009's Touhou is? I get to the karakasa girl and already things are impossible. Every other game takes until like level 4 for that. Shit's ridiculous.

I haven't even gotten close to a 1cc on hard. :(


2008 was like fuck yeah but 2009 is just nooooooooooooooo

[Spekkio]

Though the Black and White moral choices in the game left a little to be desired. Then again, no one has popularized a way in which to leave everything in a shade of gray situation. Even companies like Bioware that are pretty much expected to have such choices in their game mandatory. Either good or bad, with no huge ramification towards the end. Which I blame in part to the need for games now to all be part of a "Series". You have to hit the same end cutscene to make the 2nd game work.

Yea, the game does have flaws similar to all games with "choices," although I've never played Bioware. Ultimately, the story plays out almost exactly the same, although in the case of Infamous there are a few cutscenes that go differently and a different ending depending on if you go the heroic or evil route.

What separates Infamous is that the way you play the game is quite different depending on whether you are playing to be heroic or infamous (I hate their use of the word Evil because the word itself is rather ambiguous). You use an entirely different skillset to maintain or build your reputation and unlock different abilities, albeit the infamous ones are cooler. That is enough of a significant difference in my mind to overcome the cheesiness of making extreme choices between good and evil. Most games I've played with moral choices usually boiled down to pick option A or B, which results in 1-2 lines of different dialogue before progressing with the exact same story, and you go about your business the rest of the game the exact same way regardless of your choice.

I also think the comic cut scenes were a nice touch and fit the atmosphere of the game well.

For Uncharted 2 it was what wasn't part of of the Safe Gaming style that got me: Animation, Visuals, and Storytelling. They did those in such a way that set it apart from their safe gaming style. Don't get me wrong.. Gameplay was as cliche as you say, the story was pretty much straight from Indiana Jones, and Co-op has been in every game since they figured out that people that play games actually Do have friends, but at least they didn't do it horribly.

That's it?You think it's worthy o GOTY because they didn't do all these elements horribly? I just expect more for a game with that title, that's all.

[Cronky]

What separates Infamous is that the way you play the game is quite different depending on whether you are playing to be heroic or infamous (I hate their use of the word Evil because the word itself is rather ambiguous). You use an entirely different skillset to maintain or build your reputation and unlock different abilities, albeit the infamous ones are cooler. That is enough of a significant difference in my mind to overcome the cheesiness of making extreme choices between good and evil. Most games I've played with moral choices usually boiled down to pick option A or B, which results in 1-2 lines of different dialogue before progressing with the exact same story, and you go about your business the rest of the game the exact same way regardless of your choice.

I also think the comic cut scenes were a nice touch and fit the atmosphere of the game well.

Yeah, the choices to me were just too easy to pick. Take the food or leave the food. Save the train or leave the train. While it got you a different skill set it all boiled down into a, "How am I going to play this game? Good or 'Evil'?". There were no choices that you really had to think about (Except for the BIG choice close to the end with the two buildings. That even then only one outcome was possible. Give or take the couple lines of dialogue).

That's it?You think it's worthy o GOTY because they didn't do all these elements horribly? I just expect more for a game with that title, that's all.

No no no, I believe that it deserves at least a chance at a GOTY spot because of all the extra flare that I mentioned before (Graphics, Storytelling, Animation) ADDED to the fact that they didn't mess up popular standards.

Many companies add things like the cover system, but not many can do it RIGHT. They add it in as a feature so they can tout it on the box. Not bothering with actually making it work with their game. Putting in platforming, but making it a pain to even climb simple things (Infamous is actually a candidate for this in a sense. Slightly wonky climbing mechanics). Putting in an assortment of weapons, but they all play exactly the same (Too many games). Giving the player the choice of Co-op, but the 2nd person isn't thought of when it comes to the story (Halo 1 comes to mind).

Are those features unique to the game? No, but they are well executed and enhance the gameplay rather than hamper it.

[Spekkio]

There were no choices that you really had to think about (Except for the BIG choice close to the end with the two buildings. That even then only one outcome was possible. Give or take the couple lines of dialogue).

Yea, but you really don't have to think about ANY moral choices in a video game. After all, it's a fantasy universe comprised of people who don't actually exist. If you feel "bad" about killing NPCs in a video game, you need to get your head checked.

The only tough choices would be having to sacrifice item A to get item B with both items being useful to have around. And that's really what the moral choices in Infamous boil down to -- which skillset would you rather have, and how do you want to play through the game? Other than that, it's a poor exercise in mental masturbation no matter how games try to make moral choices seem "tough."

[Cronky]

You don't have to think about the choices, but some like to.

Take Mass Effect 1. Nearing the end of the game you have to pick between two characters that have been built from the start. You grow to like these characters cause they are unique. Not just NPC's spouting out repeating lines till the end of the game when you killed the big baddie by yourself (they of course get KO'd first thing) and they come running in yelling, "Yeah! WE did it!".

We don't have to think about it, but that's what they are selling us. Infamous isn't popular because you got Lightning Powers. If that was the case, why not just play a star wars game? They sold people on the choices that affect the game and an original story to go along with it. Whereas in Infamous it's all pretty cosmetic the choices you should be choosing should actually have a reaction other than, "I do the bad deed enough times and I can get mini electrical nukes shooting out of my palms".

It's just what I would personally like to see. I do like the feeling of maybe one of the choices I make isn't actually the right one. That by the end of the game you are neither perfectly good or evil, cause some choices just made you want to go in the other direction.

[Spekkio]

Take Mass Effect 1. Nearing the end of the game you have to pick between two characters that have been built from the start. You grow to like these characters cause they are unique. Not just NPC's spouting out repeating lines till the end of the game when you killed the big baddie by yourself (they of course get KO'd first thing) and they come running in yelling, "Yeah! WE did it!".

I have not played Mass Effect, but what you describe is what I was talking about before. The choice isn't difficult because you have the moral question of whether or not you should kill a fictitious person; the choice is difficult because this particular fictional character is a character that is playable and who you spent time and resources building up. It's akin to the item choice I mentioned before.

Shit, deciding to get the Ragnorok Esper or Ragnorok sword in FF3 is a tougher choice than trying to decide if you should kill Trish at the end of Infamous.

Infamous isn't popular because you got Lightning Powers. If that was the case, why not just play a star wars game?

Cuz Star Wars games suck.

Everyone has their own reasons for liking or buying a game. I think it's a bit of an exaggeration to base its popularity solely on the basic moral choices it gives players throughout the game.

[Cronky]

Shit, deciding to get the Ragnorok Esper or Ragnorok sword in FF3 is a tougher choice than trying to decide if you should kill Trish at the end of Infamous.

See I've never played FF3 (to that extent) so I have no clue as to why that would be a tough choice. Though in seemingly both our cases there is an actual thought put into. Trish wasn't tough because of  what kind of character you were playing. Though if you were like me, you would have been at least a little curious as to what the other option held in terms of the story.

In a more thought provoking way they should have had something like... Cole's family instead of scientists. Sure you've never seen them in the game. Sure you're not going to for the rest of it. The connection is instant though (And Kessler would have obviously had access to their whereabouts... unless they were dead). Save your family on one side... Save your woman on the other. Some people might have to take a second to actually think about that one initially. Since immersion is part of the gameplay experience. You care about killing an NPC because the story makes you feel like YOU are the character, that their choices are your choices, not that you are just going along for the ride.

Everyone has their own reasons for liking or buying a game. I think it's a bit of an exaggeration to base its popularity solely on the basic moral choices it gives players throughout the game.

I meant to edit that and put more than Lighting Powers. Since that is indeed stupid to suggest that the game only had two things going for it.

Lighting Powers, Free-Running, Sandbox Gameplay, Platforming, Moral Story Changing Choices... There are probably a few others that you can think of. In that list though there are many alternatives you can choose to get the same experience in any single category, but the last of which I said is only starting to get popular and widespread among video games. There isn't a LOT of games you can pick and choose in. Thus my belief that it is a bigger game selling reason than any of the others.

[Spekkio]

See I've never played FF3 (to that extent) so I have no clue as to why that would be a tough choice.

If you get the esper, it teaches you ultima (the most powerful spell in the game) and the esper can be used to turn enemies into items, sometimes rare ones.

The sword is, well, a sword...but the 2nd most powerful in the game and can be traded for the most powerful later on.

But ultima can also be learned as a spell by getting the Paladin shield, but that requires of 1 1/2 hours of just building up 255 fights...and that's with an emulator on turbo mode.

So hmmm, what to do?

Since immersion is part of the gameplay experience. You care about killing an NPC because the story makes you feel like YOU are the character, that their choices are your choices, not that you are just going along for the ride.

I really don't get that level of immersion from video games. If I did, I'd start to become emotionally distressed from murdering people, even if they are "the bad guys."

[frvge]

I'm playing renegade in ME2.
For example, there's a situation where a clumsy 18 year old boy without any combat training is going on a mission that will probably get him killed. You can do the 'good' thing by interfering, or the neutral by ignoring him. I ignored him and he was killed. No fancy overly dramatic cutscenes: he just dies. I heard that if you safe him, you get a message later in which he thanks you.