It doesn't have to be a 9.5, for a number of reasons. Yes, part of it is that at the end of the year, individual editors don't necessarily share enthusiasm equally for every game. I don't want to share the details of our GOTY discussions, but some things to consider:
1) How many many excuses do you have to make for it? Is it awesome, but also buggy? Has it developed online connection issues? Is the multiplayer awesome but the single-player not? Is it not an entire package?
2) Will you still be playing this game in a year? When you look back on 2009, what game defined the year? There's always a bit of fortunetelling involved.
3) Did it change the way you think about games? Did it do something unexpected and unique? Did it make you wonder why no game has done that before? Did it rethink a genre, or introduce one? When you play similar games, does this one make you say, if only this game were so-and-so?
4) Did it emotionally move you? Was it fun... but also more? Did you think about the game when you weren't playing, or dream about it?
5) When you think about it, does it get you excited to play it all over again? Do you talk about how wonderful it is with other people?
A score alone doesn't necessarily answer these questions. That isn't to say we question the original scores, but rather, take into account the intangibles. Let's say the best strategy game ever created came out this year (it didn't, btw), but let's say that. But let's say a game also came out that was flawed--but revolutionized games and brought us into the future. (Some folks have brought up Everquest, and that is an awesome example). This is the time when we get to go to our hearts and recognize what a game has done for our lives--and the game that thrills and moves us most isn't necessarily the one that got the highest score.
Does any of that make sense?
Log in to comment