Nico's 2008 Game of the Year!!!

[bmike818]

So who's cuisine will reign supreme?...errr wrong show. Cast your votes on your favorite game for 2008.

[hatchback240]

too close to call between GTA and Fallout, i loved them both, but GTA had me hooked like a mother for forever, so i threw a vote for it

[bmike818]

It was also a toss up for me between Fallout 3 and GTA IV. I picked GTA because it had multiplayer and whores....that's right I said it!

...LoL at the fact that if you don't get some from your date, it's considered a bad date just like in real life.

[MinisterofDOOM]

GTA is a contender but not a winner. The whole social tedium aspect of the single-player game killed it's chances of the first place spot.

I'm going to say...Chrono Trigger. Even though it's a re-release, it blows all the NEW games out of the water with it's awesomeness. And it's 13 years old. All the new games should hang their heads in shame.

[Axel Grungy]

i vote for fallout, gta was good but it only held my attention for a week or so

[marlin29311]

voted GOW2 - toss up with COD5,

I really really liked Lost Odyssey and Bf: Bad Company though....

[s13jus10]

hmm.. no MGS4? LittleBigPlanet? Resistance 2? Spore?

might as well call this "Xbox360 GOTY"..

edit:just added MGS4

[RCA]

This poll only contains games that were released in 2008 correct?

Because I played COD4 in 08 hardcore and I would like to add it...

[hatchback240]

lol, my first thought when i looked at the polls was "wheres cod4?" MGS4 was also a contender for me, but gta took the cake overall

[x240xdrifter]

GTA IV all the way, it just had so many epic gaming moments, and all the attention to detail, i love it, the city is so well designed too. I still play it like no other. COD4 gets game of the decade for sure

[Loki]

Who the hell put Force Unleashed on that list?!

[MinisterofDOOM]

Who the hell put Force Unleashed on that list?!

[Axel Grungy]

Who the hell put Force Unleashed on that list?!

LOL might as well put army of two on as well. GOd that was horrible game.

[bmike818]

Gears of War 2?

I guess I better finish the game so I can understand why some of you think it's the game of the year.

[hitbychance]

gears seemed like a repeat played out game, i vote cod 5 which didn't even get nominated this year in the vga's, any way game where u can blow arms and legs off is B.A

[s0m3th1ngAZ]

how the f is g.o.w. on top?I voted Fallout3, even if it did have a crappy ending and odd design elements.

[jdefelic]

IMO, Fallout 3 defiantly takes the cake. To bad *** a game to not get it. COD5 is second, good single player as well as multi-player . And GOW2, as someone said above, felt like the first all over again, but was still a decent game, so 3rd (because Spore is not on the list or it would have 3rd on my list).

There are other great games released this year. Spore (quite fun BTW), LittleBigPlanet, etc. Though all things considered, i still think Fallout was the all around best (probably because my two favorite genres are FPS and RPG, LOL).

[krimsonviper]

GOW2

[redtop91]

Definitely GOW2 despite the lame ending. I hated GTA IV. I actually traded it in for gas money.

[MinisterofDOOM]

hmm.. no MGS4? LittleBigPlanet? Resistance 2? Spore?

Spore sucked.LBP is too thin-premised to be worthy of GOTY.MGS4 is stupid.Resistance 2 I can't comment on.

[xekushnr]

CoD5 was okay, but it was still an obvious drop below CoD4 in the fun department that I dont think you can call it GotY.

Spore did suck. I was horrible disappointed about that. I guess a ****ton of hype will do that.

MGS4 was good but cant be GotY. A game is something that you play, but you end up WATCHING 3/4 of MGS4.

Fallout 3 was great, I love those sandbox RPGs. However, the lack of a main story that you follow in those games does hurt it IMO in GotY contention. For me it was GTA IV. The game was absolutely brilliant. I agree with MoD that the forced social aspect was kind of ****ty. If it was more of an optional thing than I would have been more happy but all the other features in the game completely overshadow that one con. They really did make a huge living city for you to rip the heart out of. My vote goes to GTA IV.

[s13jus10]

Spore sucked.LBP is too thin-premised to be worthy of GOTY.MGS4 is stupid.Resistance 2 I can't comment on.

Animal Crossing is gay.

To each his own.

[MinisterofDOOM]

I'm pretty sure I never nominated Animal Crossing for game of the year. I didn't say all those games were crap. I said they weren't worthy of game of the year. I OWN Spore. And it sucks. LBP looks like a lot of fun, but it's not game of the year material. Too little content. I hate MGS and always have. But even if I didn't, everything I hear about the game says it's too long, badly written, badly edited, and just too much unnecessary crap bogging down the package.

Game of the year has to be better than just good. It has to be the best. None of those are the best, even if they are good.

[s13jus10]

and a re-release of an NES game is the "best" of 2008??

No f'n way.

yeah, it's a good game, but in no way/shape/form is it the "best". this year was a HUGE year as far as games are concerned, and all of the titles I listed (and a couple already on the voting list) are what made it huge. (and that was my original concern - no nominations for them)... and LBP has "too little content"?

so you think Metal Gear Solid is stupid,I think Animal Crossing is gay.

like I said, to each his own.

[MinisterofDOOM]

Right, but you miss my point. Personal taste of content doesn't necessarily even matter as far as my comments. And Animal Crossing is irrelevant to this whole discussion because no one ever mistook it for game of the year material. And yeah, it probably is kind of gay, but it's a fun relaxing game, especially the DS version that can be played on the go.

I very very strongly disagree that this year was huge for gaming. For me, it was crap. I bought and/or was interested in fewer games this year than any year I can ever remember. Like you said, "to each their own." That was my whole point with choosing Chrono Trigger. Every else has been garbage in my opinion.

As your your adamant defense of MGS4, my comments weren't personal. Stop taking them personally. Insult Animal Crossing all you want, it won't change my views. I'm well aware AC is not a "cool" game. My point with MGS4, as I already clarified, was that even if it WAS a fun series and a fun game to play, the devs/writers/everyone else involved didn't know when to stop and took it too far. Even my hardcore MGS friends got annoyed with the game in the last 1/3 or so. Games that annoy are not GOTY material. That was my point. Not that your tastes suck, not that you suck, but that MGS4 is simply not worthy of GOTY for the above reasons.

LBP is a SIMPLE SIMPLE game. It's a super-basic platformer with phsyics stuff. It sounds (again, as I've already said) like a LOT of fun. But how long is it really going to hold your attention? How long before you get tired of hopping Sackboy around? I think not long. It'll be one of those games you get the urge to play every once in a while but kind of forget about amidst all the "bigger" games out there. Doesn't make it a bad game. I own many games that I only play occasionally like that. But it doesn't make it game of the year material either. Too thin-premised.

Any legitimate Game of the Year must be a game you can see yourself still wanting to play in 10 years. Still really wanting to play. Still enjoying it. Still admiring it. In 10 years. The only game mentioned in this thread that's going to achieve (or rather, in this case has achieved) that is Chrono Trigger. Nothing else has that much life in it. All these throwaway multiplayer games that are forgotten the minute a newer one hits shelves and the like are NOT game of the year content, no matter how fun they are. "Game of the Year" goes deeper than on-the-surface enjoyment of the game. That's why it's "Game of the Year" and not just "this fun game I played." And just for clarification, this has ALWAYS been my standard for "game of the year" picks, I didn't invent it now because it suits Chrono Trigger. If you were to read my gaming posts here and on other gaming forums, you'd find it's something I've mentioned many times over the years.

All my original post was meant to say was that those games weren't ignore because they're PS3 games (except spore, which is multiplatform) but because they're not worthy of consideration.

[s13jus10]

dude... it's Game of the YEAR. not Game of the DECADE. we're voting for the Best Game of 2008, not the Best Game of 1995. yes, I know, it's a "remake" of the original, yada-yada... it's still the same game. GOTY does NOT have to be a game that you "would want to play in 10 years". It simply has to be what it's title entails: the best game of the year. you're putting the title too high up on a "holy grail" pedestal.

so how do you know LittleBigPlanet won't be fun 10 years from now? you don't. the mere fact that Chrono Trigger came out 13 years ago and is "still fun to play" today, doesn't make it a better game than all the blockbusters that came out this year. it doesn't give the game any kind of edge or advantage that it's old and has proven to be still fun to play. and for the record, LBP is already being called an "instant classic" by many MANY reviewers and consumers. to say that it's not "worthy of consideration" (along with MGS4 & R2), especially when you haven't even PLAYED any of them, is ignorant and prejudice.

the only reason you think this year was a crap year was because nothing came out on any of the systems that you own (360/DS/Wii). maybe the best thing that came out for all of those systems was Chrono Trigger DS. but don't be making judgments on other games, calling them "stupid" & "unworthy" because of the he-said-she-said factor. go play the games yourself and build a valid, unbiased opinion. you even said yourself LBP looks like a LOT of fun. who knows, maybe if you actually try it, you may put it somewhere close to this pedestal that Chrono Trigger is on.

only reason I mention Animal Crossing is because it shows others your perception of "good games". you think Animal Crossing is awesome, and you think the entire Metal Gear Solid series sucks. Just saying.

I've never played this new version of Chrono Trigger on the DS. When you mentioned it as your GOTY choice, I didn't knock it and call it "stupid" or "unworthy". But that's exactly what you did when I mentioned MY choices for GOTY. and that's why I took it personally.

[MinisterofDOOM]

Eh, our definitions of "good game" simply differ. I'm very very picky. And yeah, you're right, game of the year is just game of the year and not best game ever. But perhaps that reaffirms what I'm saying. In the past, we've had massively powerful classics like Diablo II and Half Life to choose from. This year we have...GOW2 and COD5. The scale is totally different. The former are industry-shattering games. The latter are blockbusters big-budget titles that do NOTHING new and will be hardly remembered in 3 years.

And I guess by that standard, for it's uniqueness alone, LBP might be the best choice. But even it isn't THAT unique. (My bitterness toward LBP, by the way, comes from admiring the game from afar during it's development and being very excited for it until finding the final product highly underwhelming...another case of overhype before launch killing the actual game experience.)

I guess my issue is that for me to vote a game game of the year it needs to stand out as something special to me. And nothing this year really has. Kane's Wrath was the closest thing to a new game that really wowed me, but even it is a rehash of old formulas with nothing really new to offer.

I didn't knock it and call it "stupid" or "unworthy". But that's exactly what you did when I mentioned MY choices for GOTY. and that's why I took it personally.

Yeah, that's my mistake. I do that a lot. I'm a "say what I think" kind of guy and my meaning is often mistaken. When people hear me say "[x item] is stupid" they assume I mean it's stupid for anyone to disagree with me. That's not the case. I just don't sugarcoat my opinions of things because that's how I think.

As for Animal Crossing, you have to realize that a "good game" for me is a game I genuinely enjoy playing. AC IS a good game. It's polished, well-realized, and does what it does masterfully. Just because it's not your style doesn't make it bad. And I certainly don't hold AC to the same level of praise that I hold Chrono Trigger, Half Life, etc.

The reason I bring up the questionable longevity of newer titles is that I've bought SO MANY games in the last few years that have seemed awesome at first, then shortly grown entirely uninteresting. I won't be playing through Bioshock in years and years like I still play System Shock 2. I won't still be playing GOW2 in years. I do still play lots of older games, though. Something's changing in games that's making them more temporary and forgettable.

[redtop91]

Something's changing in games that's making them more temporary and forgettable.

Standards are increasing so games as a whole are getting better. The reason why the classics you mentioned became classics was because they were groundbreaking. There's not much left in gaming that hasn't been done already so games now are more of a repackaging and in the case of the few standout games refinement of an idea that has been realized before. But nothing new. Basically what you said here:

But perhaps that reaffirms what I'm saying. In the past, we've had massively powerful classics like Diablo II and Half Life to choose from. This year we have...GOW2 and COD5. The scale is totally different. The former are industry-shattering games. The latter are blockbusters big-budget titles that do NOTHING new and will be hardly remembered in 3 years.

The problem is games always progressed in the past so GOTY was synonymous for best game ever. Now GOTY is just that, GOTY.

[MinisterofDOOM]

Standards are increasing so games as a whole are getting better.

Again, I definitely don't agree. We've disagreed on this many times, and again it's nothing personal. But I don't think games have gotten better. I think they've gotten more "epic" but not better. Because, again, my criteria for "good" and "better" is enjoyment. And I rarely enjoy new games on the same scale as I did the old massive classics. There aren't any new massive classics.

I don't think it's that there's nothing new to do. That's always what people say about every medium of art or storytelling. There's more to do. We're just stuck in a rut. It's just easier to stick with what's already popular, what's already proven. And even "same old" can be done in a way that is more fun than all-new. I mean Diablo II was hardly groundbreaking in it's component nature. But it's effects on the industry were nothing short of groundbreaking. It's the "whole package" deal I mentioned. More than the sum of it's parts. But most modern games are ONLY at most the sum of their parts. Sometimes much less than. That's the problem with games today as I see them. They've stopped becoming grand masterpieces and have simply become temporary offerings until the dev can crank out the next one. They're INTENDED to be temporary. They want you to tire of it so you buy the sequel or prequel or spinoff or expansion. The industry has gotten to the point where there are a lot of powerhouse devs and publishers who can just crank out game after game after game. Why would they go to the effort/time/money of making a Half Life when they can make a GOW2? Gow2 will sell massively because (A) gaming is "cool" right now (B) media will pump it up as it's an A-lister and (C) MS (or in the case of other A-list games, some other big backer) is throwing their weight behind it.

Half Life and Diablo (and DII), System Shock, CT, etc. were passionate products of passionate developers doing what they love. Most new games are volume product to make money and rarely anything more. Of course the older ones were made to make money, too. But they weren't JUST product. They were "the game we want to play" from the developer's own standpoint. That's entirely lost anymore. Now it's all about the "next big thing" and the next breakthrough, the next cool trend, then pushing it and pushing it. Oftentimes the "next big thing" is forced into a game in a way that doesn't fit and lessens the overall package. Sometimes it works great. Sometimes it takes a few tries to get it right. Today, game design takes backseat to street date. In the "good old days" street date took backseat to design. The game was done when it was done. There are maybe a handful of developers who do that anymore, and the media actually faults them for it!

I think your second statement is spot-on, though.

[redtop91]

Again, I definitely don't agree. We've disagreed on this many times, and again it's nothing personal. But I don't think games have gotten better. I think they've gotten more "epic" but not better. Because, again, my criteria for "good" and "better" is enjoyment. And I rarely enjoy new games on the same scale as I did the old massive classics. There aren't any new massive classics.

Disagreement is more fun than agreement You are right new games aren't better than the old classics but I said games as a whole for that reason. Not better than the classics but the distance between the mega games and the mediocre games isn't as expansive as it formerly was. Outside of the classics there were few standout games so IMO it made the classics seem that much more so.