Damn so much wrong with this lol  

I don't know about the online-only thingy. I mean lots of games that rely on the online, seem to have the campaign for a tutorial for the online mode. I would remember this coming into surface every time a game that's online only have become popular in the last 15-20 years. Take Unreal Tournament for example, or any other Epic game that's supposed to work as a tech demo for their game engines.

Meh, I don't agree with GOTY but it is what it is. But how in the fuck is Dishonored 2 PS4 GOTY? The obvious choice is Uncharted 4, objectively, no debate here.

Another year where the most acclaimed game of the year is a game I don't even want to play. Oh well. Good for them.

Haha, yes I  do watch a lot of Jim's work(not all of it) and I definitely agree that microtransactions should not be in Overwatch. I'm not excusing it in any way, hell I think anyone who's seen me rant on Gears of War 4 knows that I bring up a lot of the same exact points Jim brought up with Gears of War 4. I'm going to give you the respect you deserve for clearly being intellectual and i'll give you a long detailed response to the problems I had with what you have said so far. 

The first thing I must bring up is that my biggest problem is your idea that Overwatch is less valuable because it's multiplayer only. You named it in your criticisms and then in the same paragraph said "so a game that represents everything I find wrong with the industry..." which implies multiplayer only is one of the things you find wrong in the industry. Yet I have to ask, how much better is Doom? Doom was released for 60$ on all platforms, got bashed for it's terrible multiplayer component before it released with it's beta form, and is virtually only looked upon as a single player experience. Yet, Gamers everywhere act like Doom, a game that is only known for it's single player experience, is exceptable as a single player centric experience for the GOTY award, but Overwatch isn't. Overwatch is a multiplayer title, it has more than 15 million players, it gets continous updates with new maps and characters, it has more replayability for most people than Doom, and unlike Doom there is more than one play style to it. So I have to ask again...how does Doom have more value than Overwatch?  Even if we're looking at it from a content perspective, Doom's campaign is the only content 99% of the community cares about, mostly because of how badly recieved it's multiplayer was. And it retailed for 60$ on ALL platforms. So I have to ask even if we're looking at this for how much content or value there is ... does Doom really win either of those categories? Not really. If you like the poorly recieved multiplayer, good for you, more content for you. But that hardly seems to justify the 20$ more you have to pay for Doom at launch then you had to for Overwatch on the PC platform. So a 12 hour campaign that has no story, no real replayability for MOST people, and no good multiplayer mode is worth more than a game that has a huge attach rate , different playstyles, and new content added every few months? Yea, ... doesn't really seem like a good argument. Both games rely entirely on fun, the difference is that on the PC overwatch came out at 40$ and got updated content, whereas Doom came out at 60$ with a 12 or so hour campaign with a multiplayer factor no one cared about. Hardly seems worth the value argument because, when you complained about overwatch being multiplayer only I can assure you were saying "Doom is better because it's a single player game" subconciously rather than "Doom is better because it's a complete game", unless you're one of the smallest of minorities that really believes the multiplayer is worth the extra 20$. 

About the microtransactions, I have to say that once again I agree and initially I was wishing I could get loot boxes much quicker in Overwatch. There's a few things worth mentioning though. Overwatch is not retailed at a full 60$ price on PC, admittadely the publisher did a scummything and put it at 60$ because they new that the console market would by a worthless 60$ edition with minor cosmetic packages and a few prizes that ironically can only be redeemed if you have a PC for other blizzard games. But I still think the  40$ price tag on Overwatch's most popular platform is worth mentioning, most Doom fans are on PC, most Blizzard fans are on PC, which one got access to the smaller price tag? Blizzard players. 

It's also worth mentioning that Overwatch's microtransaction system is much fairer. It takes too long to level up in the regular quick match mode, but as soon as you unlock competitive mode(it takes too long...took me around 11-13 hours) you get loot boxes in about 3 matches if you do good and 4 if you do bad. You get a loot box every time you level up which is a lot faster once you play competitive and it's much more fair than say Halo 5 and Gears of War 4(both retailed at 60$). And unlike most free dlc excuses that are terrible ... Overwatchs updates seem mostly worth it. Sombra and Ana as far as we know might or might not have been planned before the game came out and if they weren't that just shows how much time the team is putting into the game even after launch. But even if they were planned, the game would require an unnecessary 6 or 9 month delay to get them in their on release date. I"ve always talked about how games should just be delayed if developers plan content before they come out, but in the case of Overwatch this transaction system allows them to look at what is working and what isn't in the game, and design a character around it. And as much as I think they could have done this all without a microtransaction system, it is understandable why they'd want to  get money from people who already own the game. They'd have to rely on their new characters being popular enough to sell millions of more copies in order to justify doing so many updates, the reality is just having a great attach rate doesn't guarantee a return on investment. DO i like it? Hell no but it's certiainly more understandable than Gears 4 or Halo 5.

I used to like IGN back in the early 2000s.

Dishonoured II for PS4?!?! IGN has been a joke for years.

Ok that doesn't mean anything lol. 

Uh....cool??? 

Dude are you  going anywhere with your paragraphs that's three paragraphs that didn't have any point to them. But you do kind of say something funny. You don't like fighting against random people but you do like fighting against NPC's? Why? Why not just treat other people like A.I.? Is it because the skill ceiling is  too high for you? Or do you just like the structure of single player games? 

Then don't buy the product. What does that have to do with the legitmiacy of a game getting awarded game of the year? If this was Halo and a new Overwatch was being released in 3 years - I ... guess that would add more legitimicay. But this is a Blizzard game, and for better or for worse you're going to see servers running probably all the way until the Playstation 5 is like 3 years old(assuming they do release an Overwatch 2 sooner  than most of their other projects...it is a shooter after all). You're guaranteed at least 5 years to play the game, but it will probably last longer. And the question becomes, if you don't like the idea of a 60$ Overwatch, why buy it for 60$? On PC it starts at 40$ and it goes on sale more than any other game I know. It's had like 4 separate sales just AROUND christmas month alone, and on christmas it had another sale. I don't like the 60$ price tag either but it's not such a rip off that it makes it invalid for an award. 

"Because "value" is a subjective concept that cannot be quantified. You can have all the content updates and variety you want, but that in and of itself doesn't make a game a better value."

You  literally just said you don't care about how "fun" it is a few responses ago. So how can you make the switch from how much value a game holds objectively to subjectively? I forgot to add this part in my previous response, basically what I was going to say is that if you're looking at this from a "value is subjective" standpoint than fun is pratically all that matters. Yet you didn't play the game, you aren't going to buy the game, and you're measuring it's legitimacy on it's offline capabilities alone. So what is it, are you looking at it subjectively or objectively? Because saying that something should be disqualified for being multiplayer only, then saying "oh but value is just subjective" doesn't make sense. Why are you using an objective marker(offline and online capabilities) and then saying that value is subjective? Then don't say it shouldn't count. I recommend you at least try it. It's extremely fun and I wouldn't give it a chance if it wasn't. 

"The amount of content in a game is not in and of itself a measure of a game's worth to me. "

Bruh..that's exactly my point. YOU were the one who said that Doom is more worthy of the award because it has a single player component. My response wasn't that Overwatch necessarily has more content and is thus better, but that it's variety of content matches Doom in terms of importance. I WAS SAYING THAT THE IMPORTANCE OF THE CONTENT IN OVERWATCH MATCHES DOOM. It's like you're arguing with your own previous responses lol. 

" It can enhance the replay value of a game that is already highly replayable, but "Game A" simply having more content than "Game B" does not make "Game A" have more replay value. "

"and since the core gameplay is engaging and addicting and the games relatively short I can play them quite regularly"

...You just said a few responses ago that how fun Overwatch was doesn't matter if it is multiplayer only.... but Overwatch's entire emphasis is it's replayability because of how fun the core mechanics are. You've made it sound like you haven't played Overwatch....and it seems kind of clear just by your own arguments. This is the exact argument that makes Overwatch outstanding. I don't know how you can't see that you're not helping your case like ... at all. Oh also at launch Halo 5 DID NOT have more content than other Halo games, it tooks more than 3 months for them to even match the previous games. 

" The $60 asking price (well, I didn't buy all of them at full price because I don't have that kind of money) was reasonable enough to me even if they had been single-player only. Even if Doom was single-player only, I still would have paid the $60 I did. The quality of the MP component was quite frankly irrelevant because it held precisely zero value to me. It was superfluous. As far as I'm concerned, it may as well not exist, because I never had any intention of touching it. The fact that those bits that make up the MP mode do exist on the disc has absolutely no impact on my assessment of the game's single-player component, which I found to be one of the most entertaining and enjoyable gaming experiences I've had this generation."

So...why does none of this apply to Overwatch and multiplayer only games? Lol this same argument has been made for Battlefield for years. And the fact that you'd probably be alright with Battlefield winning GOTY makes this even cringier. Yes I get it, Battlefield 1 has a better campaign than the previous ones. That doesn't mean diddly squat. 

This is about the same feels I have. I figure the only reason #FE wasn't picked was either they didn't play it, or didn't really dig the game (the RPG elements or the Japanese-vibes). Either way, Color Splash was indeed another great game that came out on the Wii U 2016.

Never played Inside but I think that Gears of War 4 should have been the Xbox GOTY. It is easily one of the best games this year.