Does an only multiplayer game as game of the year set a bad precedence for game of the year?

Does a multiplayer only game (like Overwatch or perhaps a future MMORPG.) set a bad precedence for what we as gamers should expect as a game of the year?

I don’t intend to start some kind of war of words here so hopefully things won’t get too unruly. The question posed is not whether Overwatch is the best game of the year or is even deserving of that auspicious title. Rather, the real question is does its ascent to the top of many game critics lists for 2016 send a message to developers that investing time, money, and effort in crafting an engaging narrative or single player experience be little more than an afterthought?

Personally speaking some of the most memorable experiences I have ever had in my gaming life have pertained to games where the narrative/story and character development were at the forefront of their respective genres. Whether you like them or not it’s hard to argue with anyone over the deep philosophical musings of war and loyalty in a game like metal gear solid or the impact of loss and love amidst survival in a game like The Last of Us. In fact, if it were not for this attention and focus on storytelling games like those (and many more.) might not have nearly had the impact they did on the gaming community. The other common thread among games like these are the single player experience.

Then there are other games that are almost 100% story based. The Tell Tale games are one example of this while Quantic dreams (Heavy rain/beyond 2 souls etc…) as well as a whole bevy of “Walking simulators” from Firewatch to Gone home, games explicitly developed on the premise of narrative and story being the “main sell” of the game, rely almost entirely on the single player experience to propel their respective stories.

And before anyone argues “Overwatch has a story” please… please… I know. Everyone knows it does, but it is undeniable that it takes a significant backseat to everything else. The lack of single player however is undeniable.

So the question stands? Does a predominantly multiplayer game, that has little to no story and absolutely no single player, winning gaming’s most prestigious award send a message to the developers, and furthermore the gaming industry at large, that story and narrative/singe player isn’t necessarily relevant.

P.S: And before anyone thinks I hate Overwatch, I don’t lol. I think it is actually a great game.

-VIDEOGAME NINJA APPROVED-

Good MP only game is equally eligible to GOTY as SP only game

If single player games can win the title of GOTY, then multiplayer games should qualify too, simple as that.

You can even argue that multiplayer only games are even more relevant since they are the biggest games around and actually has longer staying power whereas most single player games are forgotten in a month on average.

I think GOTY does not have that big impact on what studios decide to do.

I also don't think that a seperation between SP and MP is necessarily a bad thing. There are sooo many games out there that it makes sense to specialize and perfect one aspect rather than forcing two for games where they don't fit. Have only played a bit of OW but I don't see it working that well for SP tbh. I mean the hook is the roster and it would be kind of tough to turn it into a sensible narrative.

Personally prefer SP, but I don't really feel it being threatened.

Why do people think that a game needs a story to win GOTY? Forza Horizon 3 is my personal GOTY because it's FUN, and has little to no story.

It really depends on the game itself. I'm way more into single player games then MP, Witcher 3 was my personal GOTY due to it's singe player only, awesome storytelling, and the everything was great as a single player game should be. I too think with a great awesome single player game should be recognize over MP but I can tell you that I still enjoy playing Destiny despite no single player and I didn't need it to be my GOTY despite I was cool with the game.

I didn't care for Overwatch and I still haven't play the game myself so I cannot judge on it.

Well, if that's the case, single player only games shouldn't win either.

Really, this is a stupid question to ask, you likely already know the answer, you just don't like the answer.

I'm glad overwatch got GOTY over some overated tripe like Uncharted. a game actually recognised for its quality based on its core game loop alone, not how movie like to un-interactive elements play a part.

A PRIME game doesn't even need a narrative to be excellent, a game is a game period. There is a reason why MP games are more popular than SP games, the same reasons why games and sports have been dominant forms of entertainments forever.

Metal Gear Solid has a bad story... full of plot holes, exagurations and just plain padding to the point where its nonsensical, it also produces a product that in reality is only 5-8 hours long worth of PLAYTIME.

Last Of Us was a pretty bog standard Survival story, too many people are desperate to try and get GAmes to the level of narratives offered by books or films ,when in reality by the very nature and pacing of games it's next to impossible. I very well told story heavily relies on the right pace... you simply can't do that with a large game loop... really, if you like zombie stories there are HUNDREDS better told/read/shown than friggin LAST OF US.

The more open world RPG's get, the less effect the narrative has, because you can be disconnected from the plot for over 20 hours at a time if you so choose. Witcher 3 does a GOOD job of padding this all out into a believable "along the way" scenario, but most other big RPGs fail in that regard.

Everyone has preferences, but your post about experiences mainly being based on story is yours... not a majorities/concensus.

Nintendo games have crap stories and are ultimately some of the best experiences available... especially their SP games.

Woeful content, microtransactions on launch, unoriginal TF2, PS3/Xbox360 level visuals and so on.,..

Incredibly shameful when measured against the quality. and quantity The Orange Box offered.

It'd be like saying Smash Bros could never win GOTY, which I think Melee deserved back in 2001. So no, it only depends on if the game is good or not.

Ah the ever persistent argument by a certain core of console gamers who believe that games not specifically catering to them don't count.

If story is your cup of tea, you've picked the wrong medium for it.

I don't really care for multiplayer either, but if it's a well made game and a lot of people enjoy it I don't see why it shouldn't be game of the year. You have people that spend easily 20-200+ hours on multiplayer.

@MBirdy88: life is full of plot holes. The best books ever written have secret plot holes , your just use to the generic narrow subpar nonsense that 98 percent of all other games do. Mgs's story is rivaled by none. Ppl can graduate college before truly understand the story. So im not surprised you dont like or get it

On topic tho i think goty should have "mp of the year" simply because overwatch loses all it quality once the internet isnt on

Why can a multiplayer game not win GotY, exactly?

@blue_hazy_basic: I think op is pointing that mp only games cant cater at all without internet. GOTY sound like a general award for a game so specfic and dependent being mp only

Its like if a movie was only seeable in 3d glasses and somhow wins ocars despite being intialy unwatchable

Wouldn't that same argument be applicable to an exclusive game winning GOTY? Besides how many people have a gaming platform and no internet in 2016?

Your 3d glasses analogy would be better served by a colour dependent film winning an oscar and not catering to people with black and white TV's

Just because a videogame's story was eye-opening to your feeble young mind doesn't mean it's some unparalleled masterpiece.

There's no rule that says a game should have any narrative. Its a GAME.

Overwatch is the best of the year bc it knows exactly what it is and doesn't try to do stupid shit LIKE shoe horn a narrative.

I don't find it to be a bad precedent because to be fair there are some multiplayer only games that outshine their Single player counterparts and this was the year where Overwatch did it. You may not like it but for a game that is strictly multiplayer it was the best game I've played this year and there were other games I liked like Quantum Break and Gears 4 but Overwatch was just in a league of it's own. Other than Overwatch being about 60 dollars there really isn't much else to hate about it. When updates come out they are all free and they keep the game fresh about ever three months or whenever a holiday comes up so to complain about the price point of Overwatch or how it should not be in the running for game of the year is ludicrous.

It's only bad when it wins over games like Titanfall 2 which had better multiplayer while still providing a solid single player campaign.

beat me to it

No, selecting a forced on one system disposable cinematic Game Of The Weekend would set bad precedent.

The amount of effort put into has been nice, so I actually think its a good value. If more devs would put as much effort into their game as blizzard to overwatch, I dont see why it couldnt win goty.

I don't buy competitive multiplayer only or primarily games so...

Did I say I didn't enjoy it? no. your pettyness is useless.

on-topic response - your criteria for game being linked to availability is ridiculous. you guys are up your own asses if you think a GAME is defined by its SP element.

I love how sp games only means "STORY" to some ppl.

Not different types of mission structure or variety...or anything like that.

Nope. Anyone who says otherwise is an idiot. Games should focus on what they do well rather than adding in needless aspects. Why add a shoddy SP to a great MP game or tacked on MP to a great SP game?

Nah it doesn't. My issue is that Overwatch just isn't THAT good to win GOTY.

It lacks content, it's unoriginal, and the game gets old pretty fast. I can see why some people like it but it's pretty damn overhyped, they were other games that deserved the GOTY award more. To be honest though, the awards are nothing but opinions and don't carry any weight for me though so in the end I don't give a shit. Blizzard can enjoy their success with the game and I'm sure it will spawn plenty of copy cats. I'm still sure plenty of great single player games will continue to be made.

So I have read a few of the comments here and it seems that the consensus among most who responded is that NO, it shouldn’t matter, and that’s perfectly fine. I personally TOTALLY understand where this is coming from. After all, it does make sense right? There are no strict guidelines on what a game should or shouldn’t have/be correct?

Some have even responded with gaming isn’t the appropriate medium to expect a strong story/narrative or at least for it to be a requirement in selection of a game of the year nod. Others have argued that what matters is the replay value and how long one is playing said game after its release. Then there are others who may say that the impact the game has had on the gaming community is a huge factor that cannot go unnoticed and that it alone should out-eclipse anything else.

ALL VALID POINTS!!! Especially when considering game of the year.

With that said, playing Devil’s advocate, could we then make a plausible and valid argument for Pokemon Go being game of the year?

1) What it does it does best (It has already started a trend in mobile games; Mario run.).

2) Correct me if I’m wrong (I haven’t played it so…) but I imagine there is little to no story or single player, but that is not its purpose right (just like an exclusively multiplayer game.)?

3) Has had a HUGE impact not just on the gaming community but in mainstream media which is a big deal. (We’ve all heard the ridiculous news stories about Pokemon go players doing stupid things.)

4) Has probably outsold everything else (Once again, I’m not sure of this but I vaguely remember reading an article about it having a ridiculous amount of downloads.).

5) Seems to have amassed a legion of fans/followers. To believe anything contrary to the fact would be ludicrous (As much as I personally cringe at the thought.).

THOUGHTS?

-VIDEOGAME NINJA APPROVED-

So the BUTTHURT for Overwatch being the GOTY continues, huh ?

It's like 1/32 of an inch deep but fun as hell, and what are games for ? To have fun !

All I know is GS GOTY 2016 is a great choice, congrats Overwatch!

Not upset at all my good fellow, Overwatch can definitely be considered of deserving the title handed down upon it. Rather the real question is what is the criteria for choosing a game of the year? Is there a a set of "boxes" that need to be checked off? If so what are they?

You bring up the point of "fun." Is that the single most defining characteristic of a game of the year nominee/winner or is there something more? Has there been any kind of consensus among the "powers that be" in the gaming community (The critics.) as to what exactly entails their own respective game of the year winners?

-VIDEOGAME NINJA APPROVED-

Although I have zero interest in MP gaming, any game should be eligible for GOTY.

Did it when World of Warcraft won?

Great counterpoint.

-VIDEOGAME NINJA APPROVED-

No it doesn't. One of the best playing games of the year won.

Does it really matter? As long as the game's fun, then it really doesn't matter if it's single-player or multiplayer.

I'm actually glad it won, because it's a game focused on actual gameplay, and not "narrative" or "exposition" or "character development". It's a goddamned video game.

I remember when The Walking Dead won game of the year (think it was 2012.) and everyone was saying that due to lack of gameplay it shouldn’t have won. I can see where people are coming from with this stance. It also seems to me that the game critics flip flop from year to year even in regards to their own criteria, whatever it may be. Guess that’s the “great” thing about choosing nominees let alone a candidate for game of the year… it’s all opinion.

-VIDEOGAME NINJA APPROVED-

I think Journey won Gamespot's 2012 GOTY. I thought Far Cry 3 should've won. But, in the wake of the Sandy Hook massacre which was THE news at the time, most of the reviewers wanted something cute to win.

That's just my view though.

I'm all for games that want to push for being artistic or having story, and have enjoyed these aspects of games before. That being said I ultimately want my games to be fun and engaging, and Overwatch is definitely both of those things, and is one of my most played games this gen. I think Overwatch is easily deserving of the accolades and praise it has received.

multiplayer-only doesn't disqualify it at all. i thought uncharted 4 deserved GOTY the most but it's hard to argue another uncharted game deserved recognition over the game that's literally taken over the online FPS landscape. overwatch is the next big thing

No, it has every right to win goty since it is a game. but i think the game would have been way better if we got to see these charcters in action in a campaign/story mode setting. I would have gotten it if it had a campaign, but i don't touch multiplayer cause i find them repetitive and boring.

There is good news though at least and the truth is this game can't win goty in twice. So at least Overwatch can't be allowed into the awards this year or any of the following to come.

No they deserve their chance at the spotlight as well. A game like Overwatch is extremely difficult to produce. The balance, all the different characters, the online system etc. It's not every year we get a game like that.

If devs want to capitalize on this win, they can try......but it's tough to compete in that space. And now story driven game may need to try harder to get the attention of these award shows/customers. Healthy competition the way I see.

Never saw this thread before buts it's been resurrected!

My thoughts: MP only can win since it's a game.

That said the growing and relentless movement on the internet to attack narrative based games as not being games is stupid. Movie game blah blah, walking simulator blah blah. It gets old.