GOTY Talks - signs of bad preparation

As these past two days of releasing the winners of their various award categories, the Giant Bomb crew have failed to make effective cases for a number of games simply by not playing enough of the games that they are debating.
 
I really have no opinions against their chosen winners, as their methods for making such a choice is quite flawed.  Not only do they concede to games of which some have not played themselves, but having to also debate the awards rules right next to making the list for potential nominees is nothing short of work I actually expect from amateurs.  I am surprised how badly prepared they actually were when it came to choosing nominees this year.
 
They could have made a short but solid preliminary list of games or so by November, and then all start playing those games including the new releases from that point as well in case late releases turn out to be potential nominees as well.  Then by the time they have to record and make a decision, they can debate with the confidence that all the staff involved have played these games long enough to have opinions worth listening to.
 
They should also make these rules and distinctions of the award categories a lot better.  Should they be able to consider an addon for a game which may have no direct influence to the world it was based on?  Can you go further to say an addon that has nothing to do with the core game can be given the same light as an addon that actually adds on content such as lore into an existing game?  Should best looking game be instead called most artistic game?  They hardly make any real effort to let us know before-hand what the rules will be for their nominations and that just damages the value that is supposed to be in their awards in the first place.
 
What do you guys think?  Should they change their format for the sake of having better arguments, instead of this current form of last minute distinction-making and list-changing?  I like hearing about the awards process as much as everyone else, and that is why I listen to the awards podcasts.  However these conversations can be done earlier, and then further talks about who actually wins can be separated to a main awards podcast.

Or you could just stop complaining about their choices.

" Or you could just stop complaining about their choices. "

" Or you could just stop complaining about their choices. "

" Or you could just stop complaining about their choices. "

It seems like they recorded a lot of the stuff you're asking of them for more content. I'm much happier with this format than having a single 3 hour bombcast at the end of the year. It sounds to me like they did do a good bit of preliminary work, but you also have to remember that they were churning out content for us up until they started recording these. It wouldn't surprise me if they spent most of their planning and play time getting ready for the major categories, GotY being the big one. 

In a perfect world, they would have started playing all the games on the lists in November, but November is also the climax of the gaming season. They had reviews and quick looks to get out the door.

I kinda like how it's all come about. Hearing them talk about the games on the podcasts, and the reasons for and against works quite well. The Bayonetta slip up was a bit silly, but  this isn't the worlds most serious site, so it's fine.

" Or you could just stop complaining about their choices. "

Its not their job to play every game. It goes without saying, they're not including games they didn't play in the discussion. And if they couldn't remember it and did play it, the clear lack of impression it left speaks for itself.

You can't play all of the games that may be considered for GOTY awards. That's how gaming review sites and magazines work. One guy plays this game while someone else plays another. The podcast where they have been hashing all this out have been really combative so far which is fun.

" @Vinchenzo said:

" Or you could just stop complaining about their choices. "

You haven't read the post at all it seems.  I am not complaining about their choices of winners at all, but the methods of which they do it.  If you mean something else, please clarify.  Or do you think that none of these highlighted problems such as the staff not playing all the games or making the distinctions clear well before-hand are problems to you?  Just wanting to understand where you are coming from. "

"

It seems like they recorded a lot of the stuff you're asking of them for more content. I'm much happier with this format than having a single 3 hour bombcast at the end of the year. It sounds to me like they did do a good bit of preliminary work, but you also have to remember that they were churning out content for us up until they started recording these. It wouldn't surprise me if they spent most of their planning and play time getting ready for the major categories, GotY being the big one. 

In a perfect world, they would have started playing all the games on the lists in November, but November is also the climax of the gaming season. They had reviews and quick looks to get out the door.

"

Considering they play games all year long and often times they have little to no free time to make playing every single game a priority they must rely on one another for opinions. 
 
It's nearly impossible to play every game that comes out along with every DLC and every arcade game. 

" Or you could just stop complaining about their choices. "

If you listen to the podcast Jeff mentions many times that they had a   preliminary list for each category. Also it's a small team, and with the amount of content they throw out to the community there's no way they all have the time to play all the games that are considered for the awards.

GOTY is not as big a deal as everyone is making it out to be. The fact that we are being given the deliberations as content is cool as it means we get more interesting podcasts. I'm happy enough with that and am pretty surprised by the level at which people have become upset about the choices and the way they are deciding them. Think of the man hours that have been spent producing the huge amount of GOTY content that most other sites are happy to post as just one list or video.

I rather enjoy the spontaneous nature of it. This isn't the VGAs or the Oscars. It's the GB crew hashing it out on the podcast which tends to have a very stream of conscious nature in the first place.

" @ShiftyMagician said:

" @Vinchenzo said:

" Or you could just stop complaining about their choices. "

You haven't read the post at all it seems.  I am not complaining about their choices of winners at all, but the methods of which they do it.  If you mean something else, please clarify.  Or do you think that none of these highlighted problems such as the staff not playing all the games or making the distinctions clear well before-hand are problems to you?  Just wanting to understand where you are coming from. "

I want to know what the fuck you think these awards are. This isn't the Oscar academy, its the foreign press and its a joke by design. "

" If you listen to the podcast Jeff mentions many times that they had a   preliminary list for each category. Also it's a small team, and with the amount of content they throw out to the community there's no way they all have the time to play all the games that are considered for the awards. "

" @animathias said:

"

It seems like they recorded a lot of the stuff you're asking of them for more content. I'm much happier with this format than having a single 3 hour bombcast at the end of the year. It sounds to me like they did do a good bit of preliminary work, but you also have to remember that they were churning out content for us up until they started recording these. It wouldn't surprise me if they spent most of their planning and play time getting ready for the major categories, GotY being the big one. 

In a perfect world, they would have started playing all the games on the lists in November, but November is also the climax of the gaming season. They had reviews and quick looks to get out the door.

"

That is definitely true, yet it also means that because of them churning out a lot of stuff, they seemed to perhaps not leave enough time to get their main awards process up to snuff.  Of course reviews are the exceptions here as they have to be done no matter what, however that just indicates that they are getting big enough that they may need to get more writers.  As much as we just want to hear from the main four, it looks as though there is too much work for them that this will not be as feasible as the years before. As a personal side-note, I love the personal top 10 lists for each staff member.  Great to actually see how the diverse tastes of the staff are reflected on their lists. "

I think you hit the nail right on the head there. Their staff simply isn't that large, and when you consider the hours of content they're constantly releasing, it's kind of mind boggling. Hopefully in the new year, they can take some more folks on staff (especially now they're getting paid for the website.)

But then again, this is mostly what I love GB for - off the cuff discussions. I think I might not like it as much if it was way professional. The Friday Live Shows and TNT wouldn't be nearly as good if Vinny could (or had to) control himself.

You are hilariously stupid if you think any publication has their editors playing all the games for things like this.

Well any all GOTY awards from any website is lierally pulled out of their asses. It's pure opinion, and there's no objective metric for these kind of things, so it's nothing worth complaining about. 

They are choosing their games in the various categories based off what they have played, EXACTLY the same way that anyone else would do it. 
 
The difference is that they expose what they are doing (and that they are just like us when it comes to this stuff), rather than trying to dress it up and hide it behind pseudo-'professional' bullshit.  
 
OP, you're taking this WAY too seriously.

" They are choosing their games in the various categories based off what they have played, EXACTLY the same way that anyone else would do it.  The difference is that they expose what they are doing (and that they are just like us when it comes to this stuff), rather than trying to dress it up and hide it behind pseudo-'professional' bullshit.   OP, you're taking this WAY too seriously. "

People are taking this stuff too seriously. If they had a bunch of rules and stuff to these deliberations, it would take the fun out of it.

Last-minute decision making means the stuff they really care about comes out naturally without prepared speeches or anything. I think this is the best way to be doing this.

These awards aren't super serious anyways, and I think the method of weighing other arguments for or against anything not personally played is probably the best way to go when there just aren't enough hours to get through everything that deserves consideration yourself. I'd also rather continue to see the staff pump out unique content on GB like day long Kinect or old school marathons than have them holed up at their desks for a month, playing through required GOTY lists as preparation. Plus it's more raw this way, with all the semantics getting squashed on tape - I like that we get all of that and not just a reading of what won and why.

 I think one of the major reasons it's been formatted the way it has is down to scheduling. Back in November games were still coming out that needed to be covered and the guys were still producing content for the site. Once we get towards late December the guys then have a short period to put together the categories for the awards, attempt to draw up nominations and try and play as much as possible; not ideal for a well run GOTY process, but I'll soak up the content all the same.

" Last-minute decision making means the stuff they really care about comes out naturally without prepared speeches or anything. I think this is the best way to be doing this. "

" @Vinchenzo said:

" Or you could just stop complaining about their choices. "

That, and this year sucked in gaming with the notable exception of Starcraft 2. "

How dare you criticize Giant Bomb! Uh, not really, but expect many more similar replies.  
 
Also, I have no opinion on the subject matter. 

FWIW, I like hearing the discussion between them; I'm always in favor of one person being able to convince another of their viewpoint

I think you, and many others, are taking this GOTY thing way to seriously. There's no standard set of rules they are required to abide by. Thus, if the format works for them - that's what counts.
 
Unless your IGN or GameSpot, a sites GOTY award isn't going on any future box art for the winner. Right now, all the award really serves for GiantBomb is fan service to readers of the site/listeners of the bombast.
 
Is it okay to disagree with their pick? Sure. It's opinion after all. Is it okay to disagree with how they come to their selection? Not really and it's kind of pointless in the grander scheme of things.

" I rather enjoy the spontaneous nature of it.

Yo, these are games.  They had an informal, largely unstructured conversation about games.  This isn't such serious business that they need to take notes and debate into great artistic depths.  They could and I'm sure there are plenty of people who do that.  That isn't exactly what I would call fun though.  This isn't a decisive list that determines what were in fact the best games/characters/whatever, this is just a bunch of guys sitting around talking about games and their opinions based on their experience.  I personally think their 'method' as it were is perfect.

" They are choosing their games in the various categories based off what they have played, EXACTLY the same way that anyone else would do it.  The difference is that they expose what they are doing (and that they are just like us when it comes to this stuff), rather than trying to dress it up and hide it behind pseudo-'professional' bullshit.   OP, you're taking this WAY too seriously. "

I love the debates. 
 The ones last year (for the sub-categories) were kinda dull because they did have it down before hand. 
 
"We have this category, the nominees are, and the winner is. Moving on" 

"Also cmon dude, this websites mascot is a Deer in a luchador mask. You really expect it to be not silly and totally off the cuff? "

  @ShiftyMagician: I really think you're taking the wrong perspective here, it's not that their awards process is poorly planned out, it's that they're giving us a window into their planning earlier than everyone else.  All of the arguments and discussions that they've had over these awards are conversations that have to occur.  You can't give out GotY awards without talking about the lists, the rules and everything else.
 
You're already getting almost exactly what you're asking for, and I think splitting up the process the way you're describing (finalize all lists, choose all winners) would only detract from the clarity of their process.  In many of the categories, the list wasn't even finalized before they had an extremely clear idea of where the award was going.  Arguments for adding a game to the list led directly into arguments for why that game should win.  By splitting it up, we'd at best end up with a slightly disjointed and inconsistent conversation.  At worst we'd end up with an inauthentic forced dialogue regurgitating a decision they had already made.
 
If you want clear and concise, watch the video and read the article.  You don't need to ruin the podcast for that.

Of course they aren't anything special compared to more professional people in their field of work, however that doesn't mean they shouldn't at least try to make as much sense as possible about the things they do.

" @ShiftyMagician said:

Of course they aren't anything special compared to more professional people in their field of work, however that doesn't mean they shouldn't at least try to make as much sense as possible about the things they do.

I see this come up a lot in threads like these and I don't understand the source of this argument. Just because the Giant Bomb crew have a more apparent sense of humor and are much more involved with their audience, community and viewers than other sites does not in any way make them less professional. Jeff and everyone else worked at Gamespot for a long time and, arguably, ended up at Giant Bomb because they were more professional. There's no doubt in my mind that developers and other journalists in the (relatively small) industry have a lot of respect for Giant Bomb, despite it's appearance of being kind of goofy sometimes. "

I missed the part where it actually matters what the crew's opinion on anything is.

everyone just wanted punch brad and move on

" I missed the part where it actually matters what the crew's opinion on anything is. "

One thing I will say, though. Dear god the best DLC discussion was painful to listen to. Brad was basically talking to a brick wall. And Jeff, using the transitive property to determine some shit he hasn't even played is better, what a joke. Yeah, der, everything sounds shitty when you use pejoratives. His cynicism is starting to grate me honestly. Shut the fuck up when people are talking about things you haven't played maybe.

" @Aus_azn said:

" @Vinchenzo said:

" Or you could just stop complaining about their choices. "

That, and this year sucked in gaming with the notable exception of Starcraft 2. "

100% disagree. Are you just a pc gamer or what? "