Game of the Year (GotY) 2012 - nominations

[Adam Gillard]

In line with the format of the GotY 2011 poll, I'm setting up this thread for information and discussion about the nominations phase for GotY 2012. I was a bit overeager last year in accepting nominations before all of the GotW results for the year had been published. This time around, I'm planning to accept nominations for a one-month period after all of the GotW results for 2012 have been confirmed (probably some time around the third week of January 2013). At this stage, I'm just setting up this thread as a reminder that the GotY 2012 poll will soon be upon us and I haven't forgotten about it! There was much discussion about the nominations phase that I implemented last year, see the GotY 2010 thread for that.

In the end, I decided on the following rules for the nominations:

• 1) Each person may nominate up to 25 games.
  2) All nominees must have finished in the top 3 of GotW voting.
  3) Anyone can nominate a 2nd- or 3rd-placed finisher from GotW without nominating the higher-placed finishers, but for these nominations to make the final poll, the 1st place (and 2nd place in the case of 3rd places) from the same week need also to have received enough nominations to make the final poll.

In hindsight, the third point in particular was an improvised compromise that probably didn't satisfy anyone's opinion from the discussion. As I said, for now (before the nominations go 'live'), this thread is the forum for discussion of these rules and the general format of the nominations and the GotY 2012 poll. After nominations close (probably some time around the third week of February 2013), I'll post a new thread with the chosen nominees for the poll itself. I'm open to ideas; it's still the best part of a month before the nominations should begin, so hopefully we'll be able to construct a GotY 2012 format that pleases most people. Of course, you don't have to disagree with the existing framework, but I feel that there's room for improvement.

[Jon O'Neill]

How many games will be in the shortlist?

[Jon O'Neill]

I don't think rule three is a very good idea. I can't be arsed to read back at what people were saying but GotW voting may have changed over the course of the year. I would just get rid of the need for any GotW qualification at all because we've seen mistakes made in that.

[Gavin Chipper]

I don't think I'd limit the second and third places to only be included if the higher placed games also make it. Innis made a good post on a related note - http://www.c4countdown.co.uk/viewtopic. ... 10#p128389 - and I think if a game gets lots of nominations then it would be wrong to go against the nominations.

In fact, I wouldn't limit it to first, second and third places. I don't see the need. It's unlikely that other games will make it, but if people want to nominate and vote for them, I think it would be undemocratic to overrule them. Obviously it's easier if you only have to look at this page when deciding what to nominate, but allowing people to look beyong this doesn't force them to, so it's no inconvenience really. You might say that games that don't win GOTW or finish in the top three are unlikely to win or "shouldn't" win, but I think it's for the voters to decide rather than a predetermined rule.

The only thing I would suggest is that it might be worth mentioning in this thread if someone nominates a game outside the top three of GOTW, so that others can look at it and decide for themselves. There are top quality games that were completely overlooked by GOTW (although I think most maxes in the news feed has helped this to some extent now) and if someone finds one of these games to nominate, it's unlikely that others will nominate it without it being drawn to their attention.

[Gavin Chipper]

Also, does this have to be decided by a forum poll? I think score voting is better, so maybe we could PM Adam scores from 0-10 (a wider range for a wider project) for each of the nominated games, and Adam adds them all up.

[Jon O'Neill]

I don't think I'd limit the second and third places to only be included if the higher placed games also make it. Innis made a good post on a related note - http://www.c4countdown.co.uk/viewtopic. ... 10#p128389 - and I think if a game gets lots of nominations then it would be wrong to go against the nominations.

In fact, I wouldn't limit it to first, second and third places. I don't see the need. It's unlikely that other games will make it, but if people want to nominate and vote for them, I think it would be undemocratic to overrule them. Obviously it's easier if you only have to look at this page when deciding what to nominate, but allowing people to look beyong this doesn't force them to, so it's no inconvenience really. You might say that games that don't win GOTW or finish in the top three are unlikely to win or "shouldn't" win, but I think it's for the voters to decide rather than a predetermined rule.

The only thing I would suggest is that it might be worth mentioning in this thread if someone nominates a game outside the top three of GOTW, so that others can look at it and decide for themselves. There are top quality games that were completely overlooked by GOTW (although I think most maxes in the news feed has helped this to some extent now) and if someone finds one of these games to nominate, it's unlikely that others will nominate it without it being drawn to their attention.

Yeah, this is what I meant but couldn't be arsed to type.

[Adam Gillard]

I don't think rule three is a very good idea. I can't be arsed to read back at what people were saying but GotW voting may have changed over the course of the year. I would just get rid of the need for any GotW qualification at all because we've seen mistakes made in that.

I don't think I'd limit the second and third places to only be included if the higher placed games also make it. Innis made a good post on a related note - http://www.c4countdown.co.uk/viewtopic. ... 10#p128389 - and I think if a game gets lots of nominations then it would be wrong to go against the nominations.

In fact, I wouldn't limit it to first, second and third places. I don't see the need. It's unlikely that other games will make it, but if people want to nominate and vote for them, I think it would be undemocratic to overrule them. Obviously it's easier if you only have to look at this page when deciding what to nominate, but allowing people to look beyong this doesn't force them to, so it's no inconvenience really. You might say that games that don't win GOTW or finish in the top three are unlikely to win or "shouldn't" win, but I think it's for the voters to decide rather than a predetermined rule.

Thanks for your input, Jono and Gevin. This seems altogether more sensible than the existing system. In implementing this, I'd essentially be saying "you may nominate any game from 2012, the GotW archive would be a good place to start looking". In other words, Rules 2 and 3 would both be scrapped in favour of the simpler and more democratic "the games with the most nominations will make the final poll".

How many games will be in the shortlist?

Last year, I just chose a cut-off point in number of nominations received such that there was a decent number of candidates, but not too many. I was planning to do that again. So if the nominations came in thusly...

• 10 nominations - Game A
  9 nominations - Game B, C
  8 nominations - Game D, E, F
  7 nominations - Game G, H, I, J, K
  6 nominations - Game L, M, N, O, P, Q
  5 nominations - Game R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y
  4 nominations - Game Z etc.

...then the cut-off would probably be at ≥7 nominations (11 games), at ≥6 nominations (17 games) or at ≥5 nominations (25 games). This would depend on how many nominees would make sense for the final poll (this is open for discussion). Alternatively, I could fix the number of nominees for the final poll at say, 15 games, and then Games A-K from the example would automatically make it, leaving Games L-Q to fill the remaining 4 positions. The 4 candidates from these 6 would have to be decided on some criteria such as original GotW ranking or a random draw if necessary (again, ideas are welcome). Finally, the number of votes per person for the final poll (if indeed it is to be a forum poll again - see below) would be some sensible figure based on the number of nominees (also open to discussion). If I proceed with a ranked poll (see below), then this last point is irrelevant - all voters will have the opportunity to rank every nominee.

The only thing I would suggest is that it might be worth mentioning in this thread if someone nominates a game outside the top three of GOTW, so that others can look at it and decide for themselves. There are top quality games that were completely overlooked by GOTW (although I think most maxes in the news feed has helped this to some extent now) and if someone finds one of these games to nominate, it's unlikely that others will nominate it without it being drawn to their attention.

This also seems a good idea. Does anyone have an objection to this, in that it may give undue coverage to the outside-top-3 games (they would be singled out as potential nominees, whereas the top-3 games would simply be a part of the archive list)?

Also, does this have to be decided by a forum poll? I think score voting is better, so maybe we could PM Adam scores from 0-10 (a wider range for a wider project) for each of the nominated games, and Adam adds them all up.

I'm happy to do this if it's what people would prefer. I'd like to hear some more opinions on this - would you prefer a forum poll (the game with the most votes wins, as last year) or a ranked poll (based on Gevin's idea, games are ranked from 1-10 and the game with the highest average score wins*), or something else entirely?

*Would I be right to calculate the winner from a ranked poll by the highest average score or the highest aggregate score? In my mind, the actual options for voting would be Abstain, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 or 10 - abstentions could have an effect on the outcome by aggregate score, but not by average score, so I'm leaning towards average score for the final rankings, should this polling method be implemented.

[Gavin Chipper]

Also, does this have to be decided by a forum poll? I think score voting is better, so maybe we could PM Adam scores from 0-10 (a wider range for a wider project) for each of the nominated games, and Adam adds them all up.

I'm happy to do this if it's what people would prefer. I'd like to hear some more opinions on this - would you prefer a forum poll (the game with the most votes wins, as last year) or a ranked poll (based on Gevin's idea, games are ranked from 1-10 and the game with the highest average score wins*), or something else entirely?

*Would I be right to calculate the winner from a ranked poll by the highest average score or the highest aggregate score? In my mind, the actual options for voting would be Abstain, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 or 10 - abstentions could have an effect on the outcome by aggregate score, but not by average score, so I'm leaning towards average score for the final rankings, should this polling method be implemented.

By the way, if we do this, I definitely think it should be 0-10 rather than 1-10. I know that on Apterous GOTW is 1-5, and that people often say "On a scale of 1 to 10...", but if you're giving a score out of something, there should be a 0. It's more symmetrical and logical. Not that people will be giving out too many 0s, but then I don't expect many 1s either, and that's no excuse to start at 2.

If we're allowing an abstain option rather than an assumed zero, then you'd have to go by average rather than total. But you could argue that a game should then have to get a minimum number of votes to qualify - i.e. more than 50% of voters cast a score for the game.

[Adam Gillard]

Also, does this have to be decided by a forum poll? I think score voting is better, so maybe we could PM Adam scores from 0-10 (a wider range for a wider project) for each of the nominated games, and Adam adds them all up.

I'm happy to do this if it's what people would prefer. I'd like to hear some more opinions on this - would you prefer a forum poll (the game with the most votes wins, as last year) or a ranked poll (based on Gevin's idea, games are ranked from 1-10 and the game with the highest average score wins*), or something else entirely?

*Would I be right to calculate the winner from a ranked poll by the highest average score or the highest aggregate score? In my mind, the actual options for voting would be Abstain, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 or 10 - abstentions could have an effect on the outcome by aggregate score, but not by average score, so I'm leaning towards average score for the final rankings, should this polling method be implemented.

By the way, if we do this, I definitely think it should be 0-10 rather than 1-10. I know that on Apterous GOTW is 1-5, and that people often say "On a scale of 1 to 10...", but if you're giving a score out of something, there should be a 0. It's more symmetrical and logical. Not that people will be giving out too many 0s, but then I don't expect many 1s either, and that's no excuse to start at 2.

If we're allowing an abstain option rather than an assumed zero, then you'd have to go by average rather than total. But you could argue that a game should then have to get a minimum number of votes to qualify - i.e. more than 50% of voters cast a score for the game.

OK then, we could go with A (Abstain), 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 as the voting options in this system, then the games would be ranked by the average score received from the 0-10 votes (excluding abstentions). I think 'Abstain' should be an option because people with a misplaced sense of humility or whatever might want to abstain from voting on their own games. I hope that "a minimum number of votes to qualify" will not come into play; the 'Abstain' option should be used as little as possible (not simply because you can't think of a number between 0 and 10).

I'm leaning towards this ranked poll / scored voting idea as well, because it allows people to rank every game, rather than having to pick a few from the list of nominees. It also makes more sense in the context of GotW voting. If there any advocates for the forum poll, or if you have any other ideas about the nominations or voting systems, please make yourself heard!

[JimBentley]

I'm leaning towards this ranked poll / scored voting idea as well, because it allows people to rank every game, rather than having to pick a few from the list of nominees. It also makes more sense in the context of GotW voting. If there any advocates for the forum poll, or if you have any other ideas about the nominations or voting systems, please make yourself heard!

This might be a really stupid idea, but how about Eurovision-style voting? You could keep 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2 and 1 as the votes (or use 12, 10, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 or something else). As I mentioned, this might not work at all well, but my problem with traditional 1-5 GOTW voting is that the games are usually so good that it seem churlish to give anything less than a 3. Some weeks I've given one game a 5 and everything else 4. In a 0-10 GOTY vote, the games are going to be of an even higher standard and I can see myself marking everything 8, 9 or 10, which doesn't differentiate much between them. I could just be more brutal, I suppose.

[Mark Deeks]

Frankly, Conor's bullet letter attack max is going to win, so don't debate the voting system too much.

[Gavin Chipper]

I'm leaning towards this ranked poll / scored voting idea as well, because it allows people to rank every game, rather than having to pick a few from the list of nominees. It also makes more sense in the context of GotW voting. If there any advocates for the forum poll, or if you have any other ideas about the nominations or voting systems, please make yourself heard!

This might be a really stupid idea, but how about Eurovision-style voting? You could keep 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2 and 1 as the votes (or use 12, 10, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 or something else). As I mentioned, this might not work at all well, but my problem with traditional 1-5 GOTW voting is that the games are usually so good that it seem churlish to give anything less than a 3. Some weeks I've given one game a 5 and everything else 4. In a 0-10 GOTY vote, the games are going to be of an even higher standard and I can see myself marking everything 8, 9 or 10, which doesn't differentiate much between them. I could just be more brutal, I suppose.

Be more brutal. I'm not a big fan of Eurovision voting, at least in part because the points gaps are arbitrary and enforced, whereas in score voting, you get to decide the gaps between the games. It's more expressive.

[David Barnard]

Surely one of Conor's phenomenal games will win it, that 116 max mocktorun was tremendously good and also the nice letter attack was great.

[Rhys Benjamin]

I had an idea of Eurovision voting a few months ago, but I was absolutely stoned to pieces.

[Dan McColm]

?

I had an idea of Eurovision voting a few months ago, but I was absolutely stoned to pieces.

I thought you were strongly against cannabis use?

[Gavin Chipper]

Frankly, Conor's bullet letter attack max is going to win, so don't debate the voting system too much.

What about the mocktorun? Much as the bullet letters max was a great game, others have maxed the bullet 15-rounder, but seem (for some reason) just not to have bothered with the letters attack. I think if they had, there might have been some competition to get the first max. In the mocktorun, however, that game looks much more like being a cut above the opposition.

[Rhys Benjamin]

?

I had an idea of Eurovision voting a few months ago, but I was absolutely stoned to pieces.

I thought you were strongly against cannabis use?

I... I don't get it.

[Jon O'Neill]

?

I had an idea of Eurovision voting a few months ago, but I was absolutely stoned to pieces.

I thought you were strongly against cannabis use?

[Eoin Monaghan]

?

I had an idea of Eurovision voting a few months ago, but I was absolutely stoned to pieces.

I thought you were strongly against cannabis use?

It took me way too long to realise what Rhys actually meant here.

[Andy Platt]

The standard is so high this year, in large part due to the CoC.
Do you want us to suggest potential candidates to you here, or in apto chat or priv message or whatnot

Whatever I'm gonna do it here anyway.

[Adam Gillard]

The standard is so high this year, in large part due to the CoC.
Do you want us to suggest potential candidates to you here, or in apto chat or priv message or whatnot

Whatever I'm gonna do it here anyway.

Andy, nominations should be sent to me by private message on this forum, but please wait until I declare the nominations to be open (after the final GotW results for 2012 have been published). Feel free to begin compiling a list now if you're keen, but remember that you're limited to 25 nominations.

[Andy Platt]

OK cool. I've listed 20 in a draft message to myself. We'll see if any late entries from the end of the year are good enough but it doesn't really look like it at the moment.

The standard is so good compared to last year. There are things that would maybe creep in the top 3 or 5 last year that don't even make my 20. When going through them it felt like watching an EPL goal of the season highlight reel. Well done, guys. Well done.

[Adam Gillard]

So far, I think the most sensible system for nominations and voting is as follows:

Nominations

• 1) Each person may nominate up to 25 games.
  2) You may nominate any game from 2012, the GotW archive would be a good place to start looking (it lists the top 3 games from each GotW vote; you can see the other games that made it to the GotW vote by clicking on the date in the 'Week' column).
  3) If you nominate a game that didn't make the top 3 in GotW voting, then I'll mention it on this thread (one mention per game, regardless of how many nominations it receives).

I'm still undecided on how to select the nominees for the final poll. The options are:

• a) After nominations have closed and all nominations have been counted, I'll select a natural cut-off point at n nominations, such that all games with ≥n nominations make up the final poll.
  b) Decide the number of nominees for the final poll (k) in advance and then select the k games with the most nominations. Ties would be broken by the following criteria (whenever applicable, they will be used in this order):
  • i) Final placing in GotW vote
    ii) Number of GotW nominations received
    iii) Random selection

If people prefer option (b) here, then please let me know, otherwise I'll stick with option (a), which I used last year. I think that around 15 nominees would make sense for the final poll, please let me know if you agree or disagree - this is relevant both for option (a) and for option (b).

Voting

I think the 0-10 scale makes more sense than the Eurovision-style voting, as it's more consistent with the GotW voting method, everyone has the opportunity to vote on every game, and there is more freedom in the voting (with the Eurovision-style voting you'd have to stick to a set points distribution). The voting would work as follows:

• Each person should submit one of 12 options for each game when voting: A (Abstain), 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 or 10. The games will be ranked by the average score received from the 0-10 votes (abstentions excluded), with the highest average score declared as the winner (i.e., 0 is worst and 10 is best). A no-vote will be counted as 'Abstain' (please submit a vote for every game). Any game which receives ≥50% abstentions will not be ranked and therefore will not be eligible to win (please refrain from abstaining unless you have good reason to).

Any thoughts, especially on selecting the nominees for the final poll (option (a) or (b); how many nominees there should be) are welcome. To reiterate, I'm planning on opening nominations for a month after the final GotW results from 2012 have been published (probably in the third week of January) and then running the GotY 2012 poll itself for a further month after that (final results should be published around the third week of March).

[Andy Platt]

Doesn't need to be so complicated IMO - the cream will always rise to the top.

I'd suggest the 10 to 15 games that are most frequently put forward by everyone who suggested, go into the final pot, regardless of any rules previously set out.
We then vote on these games from 1 to 10 or some such. I don't think abstaining is practical, but I realise I sound like a tyrannical Nazi saying that... (the only true freedom of choice is forcing people to vote?)

[Adam Gillard]

It won't be complicated in the end really - you can nominate up to 25 games and then vote 0-10 on each game in the final poll. Everything else I've written is for full disclosure and fairness and so that people can have their say on the more fiddly aspects that come along with it (like how the final list of nominees will be compiled).

[Innis Carson]

All sounds good to me. Can't see any problem with allowing abstentions, as long as it's not overdone like you say. Perhaps to be safe you could have a rule that you're only allowed to abstain on games you were involved in?

[Gavin Chipper]

I'm still undecided on how to select the nominees for the final poll. The options are:

• a) After nominations have closed and all nominations have been counted, I'll select a natural cut-off point at n nominations, such that all games with ≥n nominations make up the final poll.
  b) Decide the number of nominees for the final poll (k) in advance and then select the k games with the most nominations. Ties would be broken by the following criteria (whenever applicable, they will be used in this order):
  • i) Final placing in GotW vote
    ii) Number of GotW nominations received
    iii) Random selection

Selecting a natural cut-off point is probably fine. If not, then for b, I would probably say the top k plus any ties taking it beyond k. So if k is 10 and there's a tie for 10th place, you include all those in the tie.

The advantage of the natural cut-off is that you don't know how many nominations you'll get and if you pick 10 for k, you might get nine games with 10+ nominations and then another 50 with just one. It's unlikely to be that extreme but you get the point.

Obviously the disadvantage of the natural cut-off is that people might think you're making it up as you go along and might think you've made the wrong choice. I mean, you probably could define the natural cut-off if you put enough effort in, but it would be more complicated than it's worth.

The other option would be to list the number of games on each number of nominations (without naming games) and let people take a vote on where the cut-off should be. As for the voting system for that, because the options would all lie in a line, get people to pick their favourite and pick the median choice. If there's a draw, you could err on the side of inclusivity - i.e. the choice that has more games to vote for. There probably wouldn't be a draw though.

[Adam Gillard]

I was planning on opening nominations next Tuesday, but seeing as none of the games in the current GotW vote took place in 2012, I may as well bring it forward by a week. The rules for the nominations are as follows:

• 1) Each person may nominate up to 25 games.
  2) You may nominate any game from 2012. The GotW archive would be a good place to start looking (it lists the top 3 games from each GotW vote; you can see the other games that made it to the GotW vote by clicking on the date in the 'Week' column).
  3) If you nominate a game that didn't make the top 3 in GotW results, then I'll mention it on this thread so that others will be able to see it (one mention per game, regardless of how many nominations it receives).

I'll make a new post below this one for listing the games that didn't make the top 3 of GotW results. If you've already submitted your full complement of 25 nominations and then you see a game posted on here that you hadn't noticed initially but want to nominate, then you will be allowed to nominate that game in place of a game that you had already nominated (i.e., you'll have to discard one of your nominations - the limit will remain at 25). I've added this facility to change a nomination purely so that people who get their nominations in early won't miss out on the games that are posted in this thread. I'm going to stick with the natural cut-off point for choosing the number of nominees for the final poll, hopefully it'll be somewhere around 15. The poll itself will be opened shortly after nominations have closed.


NOMINATIONS FOR GotY 2012 ARE NOW OPEN AND WILL CLOSE ON FRIDAY 8 FEBRUARY 2013 AT 9.25am. NOMINATIONS SHOULD BE SUBMITTED TO ME BY PRIVATE MESSAGE ON THIS FORUM. PLEASE PROVIDE THE DATE AND FULL SCORE OF EACH GAME THAT YOU NOMINATE, PREFERABLY WITH A LINK TO THE GAME LOG (e.g. The Duellist 0 - 37 Liam Tiernan, 1 January 2012).


Please let me know if you have any questions. Happy nominating!

[Adam Gillard]

List of games nominated that didn't make the top 3 of GotW results

Apterous Prune 0 - 162 Chris Davies
Adam Gillard 110 - 0 Apterous Prune
Jen Steadman 131 - 0 Apterous Prune
Innis Carson 138 - 75 James Nguyen
Apterous Prune 0 - 118 Kevin Stoba
Bob De Caux 165 - 0 Apterous Prune

[Andy Platt]

List of games nominated that didn't make the top 3 of GotW results

Wot

[Adam Gillard]

List of games nominated that didn't make the top 3 of GotW results

Wot

Read what I wrote in the previous post! There aren't any yet, but I will edit that post to add them as they are nominated.

[Adam Gillard]

The nominations are starting to roll in now - 70 nominations so far, comprising 42 different games. Remember to check here to see games that people have nominated that you might not have noticed otherwise.

[Adam Gillard]

No more nominations received since my last post . The more nominations I receive, the more likely that the cream will rise to the top and the natural cut-off point will be useful. But don't panic! There's still plenty of time to send in your nominations - the deadline is Friday 8 February 2013 at 9.25am.

[Gavin Chipper]

The nominations are starting to roll in now - 70 nominations so far, comprising 42 different games. Remember to check here to see games that people have nominated that you might not have noticed otherwise.

It's worth pointing out that if you think any of those are worth nominating, don't think that because someone else has nominated them, you don't have to! They need enough nominations to get through!

[Adam Gillard]

Less than a week left of nominations now; the final poll will be published soon after.

[Adam Gillard]

As it stands, 12 games have ≥n nominations, and a further 10 games have (n-1) nominations. In total, there are 49 games with at least one nomination. As it stands, the final poll would consist of 12 nominees; however, if one or two more people send me nominations by Friday morning, it could all change! I'm planning on giving an 'honourable mention' again to those games that only miss out on the poll by one nomination.

I think it's a good idea at this point to explain how the voting will work. I've tweaked it slightly to incorporate Innis's suggestion that abstentions should only be allowed on games you were involved in. I'm assuming that more than 4 people will send me their votes, so I've also scrapped the ≥50% abstentions rule that was stipulated before. The poll will run for a month and the top 3 will be announced shortly after it closes (I can publish the full results for all of the nominees if people want me to). Again, any comments and suggestions are welcome, but remember that the poll will be published soon after nominations have closed (probably on Friday), so please make your suggestion now if you have one. Here's the gist of it:

• Each person should submit one of 12 options for each game when voting: A (Abstain), 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 or 10. The games will be ranked by the average score received from the 0-10 votes (abstentions excluded), with the highest average score declared as the winner (i.e., 0 is worst and 10 is best). You should submit a vote for every game, and abstentions are only allowed for games you were involved in.

Interested to see if there's any late drama with last-gasp nominations!

[Adam Gillard]

Nominations for GotY 2012 have now closed. A big thanks to everyone who sent me their nominations, and once again to those who participated in the initial discussion to make this the most sensible and democratic GotY poll yet! A late flurry of nominations shook things up a bit! In total, there were 132 nominations comprising 61 different games. There were 13 games with ≥n nominations and a further 5 with (n-1) nominations. As discussed previously, I was aiming for a natural cut-off for the final poll at around 15 games, so I've decided to go with 13 as it's the closest cut-off to that target of 15 (also, it happens to be the same number as last year). The 5 games that missed out by a single nomination have been given an honourable mention. Please refer to the new thread for GotY 2012 voting.