Journey is IGN's Game of the Year. Now Gamespot GOTY too! What in the world.....

For the record, I love this game. The last chapter was mesmerizing, uplifting and simply one of the best experiences I've had in any medium.

But that's my problem with it, I consider it an experience... nothing more. It's hard for me to justify it as a video game. There is no challenge, no skill involved, it's just going from point A to B with no story or plot or any real conflict. Some might say it's THE definition of a pretentious indie game. And giving GOTY to a two hour game devoid of any challenge whatsoever sets a somewhat tricky precedent IMO.

What do you guys think? Is it deserving of this GOTY or is IGN simply trying to be edgy?

Well if a video game is supposed to be an interactive experience, then Journey succeeds at that. I have no problem with them awarding whatever game they felt best fit their definition of GOTY.

I see it as bad.

It shows that a game does not need innovation or great game play. The game just need a gimmick and a song & dance to be praised.

I don't see how it could set a bad precedent. Are games that dare to be different a bad thing now?

The same question was posed when The Walking Dead won Game of the Year at the VGAs (and a hundred other publications), and I don't see how that could set a bad precedent either (are great stories bad now, too?). Both are fantastic games in their own right, even though they differ greatly from the usual crop of "triple-A" games. Regardless of whether they should be considered "experiences" over "games" (I've never understood the distinction; aren't games experiences by default? Especially now with what games are capable of?), they're still fantastic examples of excellent game design. And really -- isn't that what the whole "game of the year" award is about?

I for one am glad to see smaller titles get GOTY recognition this year over the big-budget COD, Halo, etc rehashes

thats a good thing. it tells people that arcade games just has as much claim as a big budget AAA title.....dare to be different

aren't games experiences by default?c_rake

For the record, I love this game. The last chapter was mesmerizing, uplifting and simply one of the best experiences I've had in any medium.

But that's my problem with it, I consider it an experience... nothing more. It's hard for me to justify it as a video game. There is no challenge, no skill involved, it's just going from point A to B with no story or plot or any real conflict. Some might say it's THE definition of a pretentious indie game. And giving GOTY to a two hour game devoid of any challenge whatsoever sets a somewhat tricky precedent IMO.

What do you guys think? Is it deserving of this GOTY or is IGN simply trying to be edgy?

S0lidSnake

You say it's an experience, nothing more. But then, aren't all videogames experiences in one way or another. Journey might be a different experience from most games, but that isn't a bad thing. It was the most refreshing game I've played all year.

I see it as interesting, more than good or bad.

I don't think it was game of the year worthy, in fact it was one of my least favorite games of the year, not because it was a bad game by any means I just personally found it boring, you never really do anything, though it's soundtrack is excellent.

The reason I see it as interesting is that both this, and The Walking Dead are widely considered two of the best games of this year, yet both come from smaller developers, where as larger titles like Assassin's Creed III, and Mass Effect 3 have come under a lot of criticism from fans. I believe this might open the door for Developers and Publishers alike to finally start taking some risks again, both Journey and TWD are games that a lot of publishers wouldn't have touched (well maybe TWD, but they would have wanted it turned into an FPS), this will hopefully open there eyes and show there is a market for more than just mindless FPS and that people will buy new IP's.

For the record, I love this game. The last chapter was mesmerizing, uplifting and simply one of the best experiences I've had in any medium.

But that's my problem with it, I consider it an experience... nothing more. It's hard for me to justify it as a video game. There is no challenge, no skill involved, it's just going from point A to B with no story or plot or any real conflict. Some might say it's THE definition of a pretentious indie game. And giving GOTY to a two hour game devoid of any challenge whatsoever sets a somewhat tricky precedent IMO.

What do you guys think? Is it deserving of this GOTY or is IGN simply trying to be edgy?

S0lidSnake

I don't see why people have a hard time calling it a video game, especially considering how much many praise all those side scrolling 2D games drawn in paint a la Super Meat Boy and all that, just because Journey isn't difficult it's not a game or what? It's a 3d game with great music, comfortable and chill physics/controls, it delivers an original concept as well. Yes, it's short but it's also cheap and the length doesn't matter, it's about what it actually delivers and Journey got me more emotional than the majority of the games I've ever played.

What annoys me on the other hand is the opposite of Journey. Those indie side scrollers with 8-bit graphic and physics the same as the 90's, now that is pretentious indie gaming. As forums show, old school brings out a kind of elitism/pretentiousness in others. You know what I mean yeah, it's like that with everything in life; people that always has to go "Yeah but you know who's better, the Beatles, now that's proper music!" or the one that goes "You know what a real rpg is, try playing a MUD from 1972, now that's quality!" or in this case "I miss the golden age of gaming, Pong is the best game ever! Screw story, sound,graphic, physics, gameplay, Pong's the best!!!!".

It's the same here really, old games just immediately makes people go "yeah, look at how good taste I have, I like 8 bit graphic and very very hard difficulty because that makes me cool".

Now that's pretentious and to me, it looks like the opening post is kinda leaning towards that direction...

I'm going to be picking up a Playstation 3 very soon and Journey will be one of the first few games to pick up for it.

Needless to say, here's the thing; it's only a matter of opinion and what they say shouldn't have any effect on how you think or feel what the GOTY should really be. So IGN thinks Journey is their GOTY; that's fine. Let them have their cake and eat it too; we can and think differently without having to agree with it at all.

lol that piece of sh*t isn't even a game.

lol that piece of sh*t isn't even a game.Socijalisticka

Explain how.

[QUOTE="Socijalisticka"]lol that piece of sh*t isn't even a game.c_rake

Explain how.

It's a pretentious choice by pseudo-intellectuals vying for attention while simultaneously trying to infuse this medium with some semblance of artistic credibility, especially in light of recent events which have once again placed violent media into the spotlight.

That said, it's a good game but I wouldn't even classify it as the best downloadable software, with something like Mark of the Ninja being a far better interactive experience and employing a fantastic art style.

It's not a horrible choice but given how many truly fantastic games hit the shelves this year it is a relatively uninspired and obvious pick by the wannabe art house crowd.

It's a pretentious choice by pseudo-intellectuals vying for attention while simultaneously trying to infuse this medium with some semblance of artistic credibility, especially in light of recent events which have once again placed violent media into the spotlight.

That said, it's a good game but I wouldn't even classify it as the best downloadable software, with something like Mark of the Ninja being a far better interactive experience and employing a fantastic art style.

It's not a horrible choice but given how many truly fantastic games hit the shelves this year it is a relatively uninspired and obvious pick by the wannabe art house crowd.

Grammaton-Cleric

[QUOTE="Grammaton-Cleric"]

It's a pretentious choice by pseudo-intellectuals vying for attention while simultaneously trying to infuse this medium with some semblance of artistic credibility, especially in light of recent events which have once again placed violent media into the spotlight.

That said, it's a good game but I wouldn't even classify it as the best downloadable software, with something like Mark of the Ninja being a far better interactive experience and employing a fantastic art style.

It's not a horrible choice but given how many truly fantastic games hit the shelves this year it is a relatively uninspired and obvious pick by the wannabe art house crowd.

Allicrombie

Objectively, it's not even close to being the best game of this year.

And bear in mind, I own it and like it quite a bit.

And for the record, I felt the same way about The Walking Dead winning the VGA's.

There is clearly an agenda here beyond the objective analysis and deconstruction of quality games.

[QUOTE="Socijalisticka"]lol that piece of sh*t isn't even a game.c_rake

Explain how.

There's no antagonism, challenge, or tension whatsoever. You just wander from one waypoint to the next, with nothing impeding you and your passage. I imagine it's the aesthetics that people commend it for. If I desired exploration of landscape, I'd go hiking and experience something far greater. Strip out the aesthetics and what remains? Nothing.

[QUOTE="c_rake"]

[QUOTE="Socijalisticka"]lol that piece of sh*t isn't even a game.Socijalisticka

Explain how.

There's no antagonism, challenge, or tension whatsoever. You just wander from one waypoint to the next, with nothing impeding you and your passage. I imagine it's the aesthetics that people commend it for. If I desired exploration of landscape, I'd go hiking and experience something far greater. Strip out the aesthetics and what remains? Nothing.

Objectively, it's not even close to being the best game of this year.

Grammaton-Cleric

There's nothing objective about game criticism, let alone inane "GOTY triple A+"categorizations.

There's nothing objective about game criticism, let alone inane "GOTY triple A+"categorizations.Socijalisticka

Yep.

And I wouldn't have it any other way (the criticism part, anyway).

[QUOTE="Grammaton-Cleric"]

Objectively, it's not even close to being the best game of this year.

Socijalisticka

There's nothing objective about game criticism, let alone inane "GOTY triple A+"categorizations.

Actually, there is plenty of room for objectivism in game criticism as many of the components of games can be objectively measured and analyzed.

As to the inane categorizations you mention, we are merely trafficking in an oft-used vernacular in regards to this particular medium and thus I use the terms accordingly.

It uses the equivalent of an action movie booms and boobs to cover the weak gameplay.

[QUOTE="Socijalisticka"]There's nothing objective about game criticism, let alone inane "GOTY triple A+"categorizations.c_rake

Yep.

And I wouldn't have it any other way (the criticism part, anyway).

If that were true then technical shortcomings or advancements would play absolutely no part in the analysis and critiquing of games, which of course is not the case with contemporary criticism.

People hide behind subjectivism because it requires no intellectual defense and promotes a dearth of logical thinking.

That isn't to suggest there isn't a hefty subjective component when critiquing a game but this notion that all opinions are valid by default is puerile nonsense.

Artsy fartsy crap banking on emotion and no gameplay winning GOTY. Yeah, I'd say that's pretty bad.

[QUOTE="Socijalisticka"]

[QUOTE="c_rake"]

Explain how.

Allicrombie

There's no antagonism, challenge, or tension whatsoever. You just wander from one waypoint to the next, with nothing impeding you and your passage. I imagine it's the aesthetics that people commend it for. If I desired exploration of landscape, I'd go hiking and experience something far greater. Strip out the aesthetics and what remains? Nothing.

I'm pessimistic about adaptations between different mediums. How can a work of literature ever fully manifest in a game? How can you impose the wonderful narrative of Half Life 2 onto paper? However important aesthetics are, it's not enough for a game to function without the "nuts & bolts" and its systems.

[QUOTE="Allicrombie"][QUOTE="Socijalisticka"]

There's no antagonism, challenge, or tension whatsoever. You just wander from one waypoint to the next, with nothing impeding you and your passage. I imagine it's the aesthetics that people commend it for. If I desired exploration of landscape, I'd go hiking and experience something far greater. Strip out the aesthetics and what remains? Nothing.

Socijalisticka

I'm pessimistic about adaptations between different mediums. How can a work of literature ever fully manifest in a game? How can you impose the wonderful narrative of Half Life 2 onto paper? However important aesthetics are, it's not enough for a game to function without the "nuts & bolts" and its systems.

I actually agree with you on this point and furthermore, Campbell's work is not a narrative but rather an anthropological and literary study, identification and classification of redundant myth constructs and paradigms that have been a common factor in various cultures throughout the ages.

If that were true then technical shortcomings or advancements would play absolutely no part in the analysis and critiquing of games, which of course is not the case with contemporary criticism.

People hide behind subjectivism because it requires no intellectual defense and promotes a dearth of logical thinking.

That isn't to suggest there isn't a hefty subjective component when critiquing a game but this notion that all opinions are valid by default is puerile nonsense.

Grammaton-Cleric

I should clarify: I don't think objectivism should be abandoned entirely. I see the worth in it. It's just -- I see how the press and general game community have attempted to invoke it and just reel in disgust. No one seems to get it. As a writer, I don't find the idea of writing in a very dry, lifeless style appealing. It's dull and uninteresting. Subjectivity at least gives me an excuse to change styles in accordance to the game and make the writing interesting while still invoking objectivity wherever applicable. Maybe I'm just looking in the wrong spots -- but I've yet to see a perfect example of good, objective game critism. Whatever's there always seems to be under some thinly-veiled attempt that just results in boring writing, because I guess that's accepted form or something.

I don't know. Maybe I'm just looking at things too narrowly.

It's their opinion so it's perfectly fine. There isn't a rule that says award winners have to be retail mainstream blockbuster games.

[QUOTE="Socijalisticka"]

[QUOTE="Allicrombie"] it's actually the adaptation of Joseph Campbell's "The Hero's Journey" mythos in video game form.Grammaton-Cleric

I'm pessimistic about adaptations between different mediums. How can a work of literature ever fully manifest in a game? How can you impose the wonderful narrative of Half Life 2 onto paper? However important aesthetics are, it's not enough for a game to function without the "nuts & bolts" and its systems.

I actually agree with you on this point and furthermore, Campbell's work is not a narrative but rather an anthropological and literary study, identification and classification of redundant myth constructs and paradigms that have been a common factor in various cultures throughout the ages.

It's a pretentious choice by pseudo-intellectuals vying for attention while simultaneously trying to infuse this medium with some semblance of artistic credibility, especially in light of recent events which have once again placed violent media into the spotlight.

That said, it's a good game but I wouldn't even classify it as the best downloadable software, with something like Mark of the Ninja being a far better interactive experience and employing a fantastic art style.

It's not a horrible choice but given how many truly fantastic games hit the shelves this year it is a relatively uninspired and obvious pick by the wannabe art house crowd.

Grammaton-Cleric

Anyways, it's the impression i get from listening to the video game editors almost across the board regardless of website. Right now, i can't say if it's good or bad, i will say in hindsight if next year, and the following year that it's the games like Journey and Walking Dead that win the noms, then it'll have made a precedent. In that we now have our own Oscars. Often times the editors bemoan the fact that games don't delve into human issues deeper and better. well if Journey and Walking Dead are any indication we are getting there. and from then on the Game of the Year will be like films Oscars. Only a certain type of game can make it, doesn't matter how good the summer blockbuster is, the fact that it is a summer blockbuster will discount it from every category except technical.

but i'm just ruminating. --

Hell i can't pick a game of the year for me this year. each game had some drawback that would hold it back for me. Like i really enjoyed Spec Ops : The Line, Black Ops 2 story campaign (both of them for very different reasons), Mass Effect 3 and Assassin's Creed 3 i really enjoyed a lot, but there were story issues in both that held them back, and little compounding mechanical ones in AC3. As for the artsy stuff i really liked Journey, Papo Y Yo, Unfinished Swan, and Dear Esther. but for the record, Dear Esther can barely be called a game....

i don't know that it's much of a precedent. heavy rain got a lot of recognition and it has no challenge and there is no skill on the part of the player. long before that, i'm sure adventure games like the longest journey got attention as well. ultimately, i doubt any publishers are thinking "man, IGN/GS/whoever just declared our title game of the year. our investment was finally justified and we can make a sequel or copycat." they look at sales and profitability. when adventure games were profitable, we saw a lot of those regardless of critical praise (and it seems they are making a comeback). if a developer sets out to make a game in some way like journey, it will be because they were either inspired or looking for profit and not because a website gave it game of the year.

anyway, i don't agree with the notion that skill is a factor in whether or not a title is part of the video game medium. i could play a match of super smash bros brawl against 1 level 1 npc and there would be no skill involved. is it no longer a video game? likewise, there is a call of duty: black ops mission where the player never has fire a bullet (outside 2 qte's) or do much of anything to finish.

anyway, am i glad a solid video game is getting some praise? sure.

Awards mean nothing for the industry. As long as it didn't generate higher profits than all the trash they re-package every year, the industry barely even knows what it is.

TWD winning the VGAs is a bigger concern, but the same sentiment still holds; publishers aren't going to suddenly divert funds into point and click adventure games now that one somehow managed to get some recognition.

I think the one thing Journey really has going for it is originality, and that in itself allows it to win GOTY regardless of the fact there are objectively better games that were released this year.

Journey was a highlight to me because it didn't feel like anything else. The end of the generation is here, so we're left with sequels that are improvements over their predecessors but don't necessarily feel any different. Borderlands 2, Halo 4, Assassin's Creed III, Xcom, and Far Cry 3 (my personal favorite of the year) all felt familiar despite the innovation and excellence each one provided. Even new IPs that were fresh and interesting still had that feeling of familiarity to it such as Dishonored or Sound Shapes.

Now I haven't played everything, of course. I never got around to Fez, Spelunky, or Hotline Miami which could very well be just as unique experiences. As for now, though, I can understand why publications might give the award to Journey.

It's a pretentious choice by pseudo-intellectuals vying for attention while simultaneously trying to infuse this medium with some semblance of artistic credibility, especially in light of recent events which have once again placed violent media into the spotlight.

That said, it's a good game but I wouldn't even classify it as the best downloadable software, with something like Mark of the Ninja being a far better interactive experience and employing a fantastic art style.

It's not a horrible choice but given how many truly fantastic games hit the shelves this year it is a relatively uninspired and obvious pick by the wannabe art house crowd.

Grammaton-Cleric

There is a difference between being interested in games which dare to be different and being a 'psuedo-intellectual'. Journey is a masterpiece. The most revolutionary aspect is the way it handles online play. People tend to act like @ssholes when playing online, but Journey (which rewards coorperation and doesn't allow for the hurtling on insults) shows that doesn't have to be the case.

Journey was a fascinating, unique game. Cooperating with other players to get to high up places, avoiding the stone dragons, surfing on the seas of sifting sand (all the crazy stuff they did with sand was fascinating), it was unlike anything else out there. That is no small thing given how much many videogames take all of their design cues from other videogames and movies (Kingdoms of Amalur was an original game which was well done, but contained nothing really original).

[QUOTE="Allicrombie"][QUOTE="Grammaton-Cleric"]

It's a pretentious choice by pseudo-intellectuals vying for attention while simultaneously trying to infuse this medium with some semblance of artistic credibility, especially in light of recent events which have once again placed violent media into the spotlight.

That said, it's a good game but I wouldn't even classify it as the best downloadable software, with something like Mark of the Ninja being a far better interactive experience and employing a fantastic art style.

It's not a horrible choice but given how many truly fantastic games hit the shelves this year it is a relatively uninspired and obvious pick by the wannabe art house crowd.

Grammaton-Cleric

Objectively, it's not even close to being the best game of this year.

And bear in mind, I own it and like it quite a bit.

And for the record, I felt the same way about The Walking Dead winning the VGA's.

There is clearly an agenda here beyond the objective analysis and deconstruction of quality games.

I've been playing survival horror games since the original Alone in the Dark, and in my opinion the Walking Dead is the best survival horror game ever made. The player is one of a desperate band of survivors and is forced to make ugly choices. People remember the choices you make (those who survive them) and that impacts your dealings with them.

Some people think the death of Aeris was the saddest, scene of its era, I thought it was the (non-cannon) death of Meryl in MGS1. I couldn't save Aeris no matter what I did, but I could have saved Meryl if I'd successfully resisted the torture (aka mashed the button :P ).

I agree there is an agenda, the agenda is recognizing games that doing things more interesting than doing what has been done before 10% better. Don't get me wrong, I love linear improvement in games, but games which do things differently and do them well are always nice.

It is simply an embarrassment to put a game as bad as Journey anywhere near GOTY. Did Flower (which is a better game) win GOTY? How about Seaman back in the day? How about any number if odd experimental games that simply are terrible as actual games but are interesting enough for people to like it. The game is beautiful to look at, seems like graphics still have that effect to completely overshadow the total lack of any good gameplay. I actually feel bad for anyone that really feels Journey was the best game they played this year. It shows you have lost all interest on games that attempt to actually be deep complex and rewarding games. dvader654

You're comparing Journey to a poorly made virtual pet game who only distinguishing feature was the repulsiveness of the pet? Fair enough. I feel really bad for anyone who played Seaman and didn't scrub the experience from their memory :P.

[QUOTE="c_rake"]

[QUOTE="Socijalisticka"]lol that piece of sh*t isn't even a game.Socijalisticka

Explain how.

There's no antagonism, challenge, or tension whatsoever. You just wander from one waypoint to the next, with nothing impeding you and your passage. I imagine it's the aesthetics that people commend it for. If I desired exploration of landscape, I'd go hiking and experience something far greater. Strip out the aesthetics and what remains? Nothing.

I actually feel bad for anyone that really feels Journey was the best game they played this year. It shows you have lost all interest on games that attempt to actually be deep complex and rewarding games. dvader654

Nonsense. XCOM was one of the most deep and rewarding games of the year (really hope Enemy Unknown did well enough to revive the series; it was so good) and I still loved it immensely despite also enjoying Journey just as much. They're equals as far as I'm concerned. This idea that you can somehow only enjoy one of the other is just plain idiotic.

[QUOTE="CarnageHeart"]

[QUOTE="Grammaton-Cleric"]

It's a pretentious choice by pseudo-intellectuals vying for attention while simultaneously trying to infuse this medium with some semblance of artistic credibility, especially in light of recent events which have once again placed violent media into the spotlight.

That said, it's a good game but I wouldn't even classify it as the best downloadable software, with something like Mark of the Ninja being a far better interactive experience and employing a fantastic art style.

It's not a horrible choice but given how many truly fantastic games hit the shelves this year it is a relatively uninspired and obvious pick by the wannabe art house crowd.

dvader654

There is a difference between being interested in games which dare to be different and being a 'psuedo-intellectual'. Journey is a masterpiece. The most revolutionary aspect is the way it handles online play. People tend to act like @ssholes when playing online, but Journey (which rewards coorperation and doesn't allow for the hurtling on insults) shows that doesn't have to be the case.

Journey was a fascinating, unique game. Cooperating with other players to get to high up places, avoiding the stone dragons, surfing on the seas of sifting sand (all the crazy stuff they did with sand was fascinating), it was unlike anything else out there. That is no small thing given how much many videogames take all of their design cues from other videogames and movies (Kingdoms of Amalur was an original game which was well done, but contained nothing really original).

Who said people magically work together? One can work with other players or do one's own thing. Cooperation makes things easier, but it isn't forced. Players who want can do their own thing and ignore the other guy. Some of your claims are demonstrably false.

For one, there are collectibles (specifically, runes) in Journey. Some people prefer to scour the world looking for them (one hops from area to area, each of which can be freely explored), some people (particularly those playing for the first time) focus on just moving forwards, towards and later, up the mountain.

*Shrugs* If its any consolation, your point that player A can't ruin the experience of player B is true.

[QUOTE="dvader654"]I actually feel bad for anyone that really feels Journey was the best game they played this year. It shows you have lost all interest on games that attempt to actually be deep complex and rewarding games. c_rake

Nonsense. XCOM was one of the most deep and rewarding games of the year (really hope Enemy Unknown did well enough to revive the series; it was so good) and I still loved it immensely despite also enjoying Journey just as much. They're equals as far as I'm concerned. This idea that you can somehow only enjoy one of the other is just plain idiotic.

As the guy who created the PGD Xcom thread, loved the game and has hyped it since the beginning (as a massive fan of the original, I was thrilled that it was going to get a follow up that wasn't a shooter), I agree with this sentiment.