Totally agree with Overwatch even though i dont really play it. The quality and standards is just on another level. Its up there with a Pixar Movie to me. Pure class for what Blizzard aimed to do.
I dont agree with the separate Console GOTYs.
XB1 - Should have been Horizon 3
PS4 - Should have been Uncharted 4
Either way Overwatch was a better game. Its a new IP and the best in its genre. Blizzard is still the best in the gaming industry in my opinion. What they make is just pure masterpeices.

"Playing against a human player is totally 100% different from playing against an AI opponent. And humans can test my patience far, far more than the computer will. Playing with/against your friends in a casual party setting like a LAN or in customs is fun. But there's a lot of mean, nasty people out there who get off on giving other people a hard time, as well as people who have no idea how to play the game (they usually end up as my teammates) or who decide to just walk away and leave the game running, making their character stationary fodder for the other team. There is no shortage of assholes and idiots online. While MP can be a lot of fun, when it goes bad it can go horrifically, catastrophically bad simply because of bad behavior and/or the quirks of matchmaking systems that prioritize short search times over quality of the matches."

Cool 

"I do indeed like the structure of single-player games far more than the typical MP experience. It's what I grew up with. Back in the 80s & 90s single-player was the norm, and most MP experiences were cooperative, with competitive elements largely restricted to fighting, racing, and sports games. Super Mario. Mega Man. Final Fantasy. The Legend of Zelda. Sonic. That's the kind of stuff I grew up with. Of my top 50 games of all time, maybe ten have any kind of competitive multiplayer mode, and they all either have "Halo," "Mario Kart," or "Gears of War" in the title. Multiplayer-only games were effectively nonexistent until relatively recently in the history of video games. And like I said, I was almost 25 years old when I first played a game online. For all the fun I had playing Halo MP over the years, my favorite memories are of Campaign. I still have a blast blowing through hordes of Covenant. It's immensely satsifying. Even if Halo never had a competitive multiplayer component (the original one almost didn't), it would still have remained my favorite FPS series."

Uh...Ok??? I know you're trying to just explain why you have the preferences you do, but you almost have a way of passing it off as "because i'm old and the industry is shit now i'm right" or at least something along those lines lol. Believe it or not, I started with single player games or at least games centered around it. I grew up playing Spore, Mario Kart Wii, Mario Party 8, Super Smash Brothers Brawl, etc etc. And yes while most of those are better as couch multiplayer experiences on my down time I played them and enjoyed them. I didn't get into online gaming till about 7 years ago. I don't really see the point you're probably trying to make with your age. Doesn't really provide anything except your own bias's. 

But about Halo - there is no denying that if it wasn't for multiplayer, Halo wouldn't be what it is today. Was Halo 1 mostly centered around it's campaign? Yes. Is Halo a much more complete package than Overwatch? Yes. Is Halo better than Overwatch? That's subjective but I'd say that for 1-Reach a great argument could be made that yes, they are. Anything after that, you'd have to be kidding. The reality is that Halo got monumentally bigger with each entry in a way most exclusives don't. Let me give you an example. Halo 1 sold more than 6 million, Halo 2 sold more than 8 million on a dying platform. Halo 3 was announced to have sold ... 15 million I believe(including digital)? Halo has only gotten more support because each entry made big changes that got more and more people to buy it. Without multiplayer, Halo 3 wouldn't have gotten the proven sales of Halo 2 to support it. Multiplayer might not be important to you, or at least not as important as the campaign, but for most people it is just as important. 

"A multiplayer-only, online-only game that is fee-to-play receiving massive amounts of accolades helps normalize the existence of MP-only games, online-only games, and F2P elements in premium games. We've had several games this generation that could have had strong single-player mades either having a token single-player mode or having no real single-player component at all. Even series known for having single-player campaigns in the past have had entries this gen that were MP-only or had their single-player elements reduced to something that could not be considered a proper single-player campaign (see Battlefront and Rainbow Six: Siege). And some games could have, at least in principle, been made to where they could be played offline but lack an offline mode entirely in order to justify some sort of "persistent world" or quasi-MMO elements (Destiny and The Crew spring to mind). And microtransactions are becoming an ever-present factor in full-price games when they never should have left the free-to-play arena."

Okay, let me note something right here, right now. Your second or third(I'm having trouble counting) reply that I responded to, said NOTHING about microtransactions. All it had was talk about why you prefer single player games. THAT'S IT. So it's unfair that you're coming back with all this "well because microtransactions..." stuff. I thought we cleared that out of the way since you didn't bring it up at all. 

We already talked about microtransactions to death. I don't support them and I most likely never will. But that doesn't invalidate Overwatch for awards especially when it has more of a reason for microtransactions than any other game on the market. ANY OTHER GAME. Gears? Nope. Halo ? Nope. Even Siege is more flawed despite me enjoying siege. Also, multiple shooters back in the day were focused on multiplayer with tact on single player(Counter Strike, Quake 3 Arena and Unreal Tournament). But I guess because you didn't play those games that doesn't fit your narrative. 

"I can still play Super Mario Bros. 3, my favorite game ever, on my NES with the same copy I got for my tenth birthday back in 1990. How many online-only games will last 27-plus years? A game should be playable for a lifetime, and its functionality should not be contingent on some third party supporting it. Multiplayer-only is bad enough. Online-only is worse."

Some third party? I assume you mean some element aside from the game disk and console? Cause Overwatch is developed by a third party...so it's obviously going to be supported by one lol. The rest is just opinion, not really anything noteworthy. 

"Allow me to simply myself. My point with that comment is that even if a game's core gameplay mechanics, level design, etc., are very good, that doesn't absolve it from lacking a single-player component, or being online-only, or having microtransactions. Those other things automatically disqualify a game from being worthy of consideration as GOTY in my book. It's about being opposed to certain industry practices that I don't approve of. Does that clarify things?"

That was quite literally not your point at all. It seems to me like you just want to defend something you said that you know was wrong or at least something you didn't mean to say. You said, and I quote "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."  This was in reply to me saying that if you're looking at it objectively both games practically have the same value. If you're looking subjectively, than it doesn't matter because as you said yourself fun "doesn't matter". 

But if those things disqualify  it for you, fine, that don't mean shit. It doesn't mean your opinion is valid. I HATE microtransactions, but I don't get your hate for online only games and quite frankily I don't think that disqualifies the game when i've already explained why it's microtransactions aren't as offensive. Am I excusing it? Hell no but at least it makes more sense. 

"And even if it has a large variety of content, that doesn't absolve it from its lack of a single-player component. To reiterate, I believe that being MP-only should disqualify a game from being a GOTY candidate."

Funny because that is almost bigoted in nature, that does not show anything about the quality of the game just your personal preference. Microtransactions usually do indicate quality. In the case of overwatch, they don't. Online only never indicates quality, there's just a stigma that it's bad because a lot of online only games ARE bad. 

Ok lol. Oh by the way, "fee to play" is not correct. The microtransactions are just cosmetic, so you don't have to unlock levels or maps or loadouts with microtransactions.

I think you need to be a bit more reasonable old timer. Get off your high horse and play some fun games. Don't know about you but when I go to school acquaintances talk about overwatch, not Halo. I play Overwatch with friends online. I play it online. Do I think it sucks it's online only? Do I think it sucks it has microtransactions? Yes. Does it seem mostly logical to me? Yes. Does it seem game breaking to me? No. Does it ruin the idea of unlocks? Not really. Does it ruin a sense of reward? Not like GOW4 or Halo 5, no.