Game of the Year

[Maniacal]

How much you enjoy something is subjective, but there are plenty of parts of a game which are definitely not subjective in their quality. Skyrim could very well be the best game someone did play that was from 2011, maybe they didn't play any of the better ones, but there were definitely several games that came out that year of much higher quality.

 

[Snerk]

I'd say that both definition and choice of game of the year is also as subjective as it gets.

 

[Mount Suribachi]

Skyrim. Yes, you're never going to mistake its main quest for Planescape: Torment, but it doesn't matter. Yes, it's been "simplified" since Morrowind, but that just means it more accessible for 99% of gamers. Skyrim is sprawling, addictive and epic.

 

[Maniacal]

And as shallow as a puddle.

It's not like Morrowind was difficult either, I figured out how to play it when I was like 14. Hadn't really played anything like it before and was immediately hooked.

Not that it couldn't have been improved upon, and there have been lots of improvements in general and for accessibility that have been good changes, but a lot of stuff that was left on the wayside, or half-baked, or changed has little to no effect on how accessible it is. It's not like having good writing or quest lines that make any sort of logical sense would scare people away or overload their brains.

I'd say that both definition and choice of game of the year is also as subjective as it gets.

It's really not, but that's partly why even any "game of the year" contest is a joke.

 

[Arakhor]

It's really not, but that's partly why even any "game of the year" contest is a joke.

Well, I was already told some time back not to take this entire thread seriously.

For my part, I'm only rating games I've actually played and it's only in the last five years or so that I started playing many more games than I used to. For that matter, whilst I have played Minecraft quite a lot and I know it's wildly popular, but it just isn't that fun on your own, I think. I can't spend more than an hour or so solo without getting bored.

 

[Evie]

The idea that the definition of game of the year is NOT subjective is one of the most frankly alien idea I've ever heard.

I mean, yes, it obviously means "best game of the year". But what does best means? Most artistically accomplished? Most successful? Most entertaining? All three are valid definitions, depending on what you consider games to be. If to you games are works of art, you want the first. If to you, they are entertainment sources, you want the third. If to you a game is primarily a commercial product meant to generate income, then the second is the actual most important criteria.

If you assume games are all three, you will, of course, weigh each criteria depending on how important you consider it to be.

 

[Quintillus]

I'm having a surprisingly hard games finding 2011 games which I've played. For now, I'll have to go with Sanctum, which I must say I enjoyed, despite some stability issues. Tower defence is boring; tower defencing + FPS = improved to a surprising degree.

Amongst the usual suspects, I have yet to try out Elder Scrolls (though I do have Oblivion on Steam and Arena on GOG), and have not tried Deus Ex: Human Revolution. I think in the case of the latter, it was in no small part due to the original being so good, that, especially with the poor reception of Invisible War, I was very much skeptical that a successor could surpass it, and thus never wound up trying the successor.

I thought I'd actually picked up Human Revolution on a sale sometime and just never got around to play it, but now that I check I don't see it in either my Steam or GOG catalogs. Maybe I never did pick it up .

 

[coanda]

Amongst the usual suspects, I have yet to try out Elder Scrolls (though I do have Oblivion on Steam and Arena on GOG), and have not tried Deus Ex: Human Revolution. I think in the case of the latter, it was in no small part due to the original being so good, that, especially with the poor reception of Invisible War, I was very much skeptical that a successor could surpass it, and thus never wound up trying the successor.

I wouldn't say that Deus Ex: Human Revolution surpassed the original, but I would say it was an excellent extension of the series and well worth playing.

 

[Mount Suribachi]

And as shallow as a puddle.

It's not like Morrowind was difficult either, I figured out how to play it when I was like 14. Hadn't really played anything like it before and was immediately hooked.

Not that it couldn't have been improved upon, and there have been lots of improvements in general and for accessibility that have been good changes, but a lot of stuff that was left on the wayside, or half-baked, or changed has little to no effect on how accessible it is. It's not like having good writing or quest lines that make any sort of logical sense would scare people away or overload their brains.

I don't want to turn this into a MW v Skyrim thread, so lets just agree to disagree

It's really not, but that's partly why even any "game of the year" contest is a joke.

It is subjective - unless you're going to insist that your opinion is right, and everyone else's is wrong. And ignore the effect that different demographics will have on the result depending on where the contest is performed. And ignore the fact that in these contests games from the past are always viewed more favourably as we look back with rose tinted spectacles at games from back in the day. And ignore that people have different tastes. etc etc

Anyway, I would also like to throw Forza 4 into the list for 2011. I'm not changing my vote from Skyrim, but Forza 4 was amazing and looked like a next gen game on the 360.

 

[CivCube]

I'm also partially judging games based on how they advanced the industry or gave rise to a particular company.

 

[GoodSarmatian]

I'm also partially judging games based on how they advanced the industry or gave rise to a particular company.

Oh, I'm not doing that. I would have to take points away from Skyrim for contributing to the shallow open world trend of the past years that turned Dragon Age: Inquisition into a single player MMO and has lead to the de-RPGfication of Fallout 4.

 

[cardgame]

I actually prefer F4 as it's more of a shooter. But it's definitely lacking as a shooter more than it would be lacking as an RPG.

 

[Zack]

I wouldn't say that Deus Ex: Human Revolution surpassed the original, but I would say it was an excellent extension of the series and well worth playing.

Link to video.

 

[Evie]

Shallow open-world trend my left foot. I vastly prefer open worlds to railroaded story-centric roleplaying games. Open world are actually focused on your role and how you want to play it, rather than forcing you into a pre-determined role as chosen by the developer.

 

[cardgame]

Both have their place.

 

[Zack]

yeah i like both

 

[Evie]

I have no problem with that. I prefer one over the other ; that doesn't mean the other sort is bad.

 

[Zack]

I have no problem with that. I prefer one over the other ; that doesn't mean the other sort is bad.

well #714 implied otherwise, but okay

 

[Akka]

Shallow open-world trend my left foot. I vastly prefer open worlds to railroaded story-centric roleplaying games. Open world are actually focused on your role and how you want to play it, rather than forcing you into a pre-determined role as chosen by the developer.

The problem with Skyrim is that, as I said about it, it's superficially open-world, but with nearly no actual player agency in the actual content (most egregious example : the Guilds). You can visit them in any order, but each part is totally linear. And even in the very rare cases you have a choice, often one aspect is comically bad (example : the Brotherhood) and the "real" one is obvious. It's just, as for most of the entirety of Skyrim, just fake.

 

[GoodSarmatian]

Shallow open-world trend my left foot. I vastly prefer open worlds to railroaded story-centric roleplaying games. Open world are actually focused on your role and how you want to play it, rather than forcing you into a pre-determined role as chosen by the developer.

What I meant is that after Skyrim many developers -or rather publishers- got it into their heads that open world = all the money. I have nothing against open world games per se if they offer real content and choice and interesting sidequests instead of padding the world with with semi-radomly generated mini-quests and enemies and pointless collectibles.
Fallout New Vegas gave you real choice and made the factions matter and Witcher 3 proved that you can succesfully combine a story centric RPG with an open world.

Dragon Age: Inquisition made large areas for the sake of it and bombarded the player with map icons. The enjoyable parts of the game are still linear and railroad the player. Bioware copied the Ubisoft way as much as the Bethesdaway, but they explicitly said that they did it because Skyrim sold so well and Skyrim is what most newcomers to the RPG genre now expect (and presumably that DA:I will also sell 20 million copies because of it). And they're threatening to do the same to the new Mass Effect.