Oh, the end of the year. I love the holidays and Christmas, I really do...but I do not like the end of the year. I feel like I've blogged about this before, so if you remember reading something from me on the topic, well this is my latest perspective on the matter. With the end of the year comes the churn about movie of the year, game of the year and perhaps arguably the most common award, Time magazine's Person of the Year.  Meh, it's almost noxious thinking about it all. But I'll at least narrow this blog down to focus on video games...and who knows...maybe I'll be able to hold your interest.

Like many of you, I recently participated in Game Informer's online poll currently collecting ballots for Game of the Year and the various other categories. I bet many of you, like me, only played a handful of the games listed in each of the different categories.

How do I vote against other games that I've never played; what if they're better?

In some of the instances I don't know that I played any of the games listed on the poll question, and I resulted to picking ones where I favored the game's leading character, like Sackboy's LBP Karting - dang he's so adorable I'd vote for him everytime. Or worse, I used the very technical method of eeny, meeny, miny, moe... and yes that is how you spell it. I looked it up. The other element I find baffling is - if only 10% of gamers actually finish a game, are they really qualified to vote for it to be the Game of the Year? I suppose the same is often true for people who vote for politicians they know absolutely nothing about, so in that sense I guess I shouldn't be surprised over it being done with a video game poll (and yes, I've been guilty of it too).

Anyway...when I consider the games I've played this year and which of them deserves the prestigious title of Game of the Year, I have to be honest...I'm torn between what measure to use to quantify the selection.

Can sales indicate popularity and should number of units shipped decide the Game of the Year?

One could argue that a game that makes a billion dollars (yes, billion with a "b") in two weeks time is a popular game. I don't know how many gamers that translates to, but I'm guessing it's a couple of hundreds of thousands. My math isn't that good, so I can't say for certain. Do I think Black Ops II is worthy of Game of the Year? Certainly not, and I've played it and finished it so I'm at least making an informed decision about that declaration. Yes, it was a money maker and yes, it's topping the Xbox Live chart as one of the most played games, but thankfully the Game of the Year isn't just a popularity contest based on dollar signs and number of units sold. I didn't vote for Black Ops II for GOTY, and doubt many others did too. Doesn't mean I don't like it...I just don't think it's a Game of the Year contender.

Can commitment influence popularity and should being a fanboy decide Game of the Year?

There are two games released this year that I was extremely excited about, and I'm very disappointed I haven't even played one of them yet (I played the demo which was enough to know the game was good).

Halo 4 - I am a Halo fanboy in every sense of the word. I've been following Halo ever since it was being developed for the PC, before it became an exclusive on the Xbox. I've played every game, read every book and have the t-shirt. Well, a couple t-shirts actually. I love love love Halo. And yes, I've written numerous blogs on it, with two of the latest ones being the one about the midnight release of Halo 4 and one of my personal favorites, Things We'll Probably Never Hear Cortana Say To Masterchief. I'm satisfied with the outcome of Halo 4. I thought it was a great game. Maybe not the best I played this year, but as a fanboy I almost feel obligated to vote for it to be my Game of the Year for that reason alone. I wouldn't even consider it if the game was subpar - but it's not. So, should I vote for a game to be Game of the Year that is easily a contender by most standards because I'm fanboy? Maybe. I don't know. I guess I would be happy if it got it, but I wouldn't be disappointed if it didn't (which I'm fairly confident it won't).

X-COM - Another game I am a huge fan of (and according to this blog - a game I consider myself to be an expert at) is X-COM, the remake of the classic turn based strategy game that I played heavily in the 90s. I am ecstatic it is a solid contender with many of the Game Informer staff members picking it as their Game of the Year. That is very encouraging. I've only played the demo, but even that was enough to know the game is a gem and worthy of this recognition. It couples all the elements of the original with current generation graphics and a few tweaks and upgrades resulting in a spectacular game. Even though I haven't played the full game, I'm torn between whether I should pick X-COM as my Game of the Year or something else that I played and finish. If I were to pick it, obviously since I haven't played it then much of the reason would be simply because I am a fanboy of the game. Is that a fair way to decide?

When I consider picking a game for Game of the Year simply because I'm a fanboy, I can't help but consider another factor in the equation.

Can hours in a game influence the choice and should your time investment decide Game of the Year?

I played many of the big games released this year...and finished nearly all of them (I'm in the process of playing Far Cry 3 and the Walking Dead). Most of them had relatively short single player campaigns. We're talking hours of game play. Even Walking Dead, which has already won the nod from some and scored very well at the VGAs is a fairly short game...five episodes that take about an hour or two per shot results in 5-10 hours' worth of game play. Can a game that I play for five or ten or even twenty hours compete with a game that I've invested hundreds of hours in? Clearly if you devote hundreds of hours on a game it's safe to say you at least like it a little bit. Was there a game released this year that you've sunk hundreds of hours into? I know I have. Two games I've sunk a ton of hours into from the past are Team Fortress 2 and Battlefield 2. Not since then have I devoted so much time to a game, until...

Minecraft.

If Game of the Year was decided on hours spent playing the game...hands down, not even close...don't even start the race, just hand the trophy to Minecraft.

I have online sessions of Minecraft that are nearly as long as the single player campaigns of some of the fellow games I've played this year that are also under consideration. Can a game as simple and rudimentary yet so complex and game changing as Minecraft win Game of the Year?

Some could argue no, that there is no way an indie game with a budget the fraction of what is spent to produce most of the other contenders could compete. But we already know that's not true because the Walking Dead game which released in five short (and cheap) episodes is at the top of many industry pundits and gamers lists. Could an indie game win Game of the Year? I think so and this could be the year we see it. Will Minecraft win it? I doubt it...but if time expended playing the game was a factor in the calculation, I think we might see very different results. Minecraft, in a single year...probably ranks third on the most hours I've spent playing a game. And for that fact alone, I am tempted to pick it for my Game of the Year. But...then I think about the story and characters - there are none really. And I realize the game will only appeal to a specific audience - certainly not everybody will "get" Minecraft.

I guess what Game of the Year really comes down to...at least for me...is the totality of the experience.

Can the enjoyment factor and overall experience decide Game of the Year?

I say yes.

We can play games and finish them...and forget about them the next day. Every now and then a game will come along that changes who you are as a gamer and how you look at video games. They are trend setters and game changers. They set the bar for others to emulate. They cause you to think about them long after you've powered down and gone to bed. They invade your thoughts at the most inopportune time as you consider the events that have transpired and when the next opportunity you will get to play it. They cause you to feel a wide gambit of emotion - joy, fear, sadness, pride. The characters feel real; like you know them...and you care about them and don't want anything bad to happen to them. You feel a connection to them and your surroundings, as you make decisions that ultimately affect the outcome, or at least you feel like they do. You finish the game and you are both satisfied and disappointed - satisfied it's finished; but disappointed it's over.

Far Cry 3 might be one such game, but it was released so late in the year I'm not entirely convinced yet, so that's not it. About the only game left that it can be is...

Mass Effect 3.

My favorite episode in the series, Mass Effect 3 had it all. I was engrossed in the story, in love with the characters and regardless of how some criticized the ending, it had a compelling story full of side quests and missions contributing to the overall feel of the central theme. It continued with a proven game play mechanic and refined the experience to make it even more enjoyable. I truly felt like I was the Captain of the Normandy and I took pride in that ship. Games like Mass Effect 3 are few and far in between. It does everything right and for that reason I have no problem acknowledging I picked it for my 2012 Game of the Year.

P.S. A new Staff Herding blog inbound tomorrow!