I not sure how I should review the story of BOTW.Big love for a lot of these games, but, it kinda sucks that, if you want to win big at these awards, you better make a 3rd person story-driven game.
I not sure how I should review the story of BOTW.Big love for a lot of these games, but, it kinda sucks that, if you want to win big at these awards, you better make a 3rd person story-driven game.
I think it has more to do with Gears 5 being great, but not remarkable. Very few people had faults with it, but no one loved it enough to go to bat for it. Death Stranding has some reviewers that clearly don't like it, but for everyone of those people there's at least 1 that think it's incredible.Gears 5 ingnored for the most part yet Death Stranding gets more nominations? Geoff's friendship with Kojima definitely shows how biased the Video Game Awards have become.
Given that online is a substantial part of the multiplayer experience, Smash failing there completely would probably disqualify it from the running.
The indie list is hard pick to choose from. Outer wilds could win but Goose game could steal it.
Smash came out the day of the vgas last year.I know it's the game of forever but didn't Smash come out like a year or two ago?
Also, I'm surprised if DS really turned out good. The reviewers who didn't like it made it sound like an absolute chore and I can't see getting passed that.
My pick for GOTY is Resident Evil 2.
I think the problem is assuming the there can't be any deviation from the stated process if Geoff really wants to Behind the scenes, especially depending on how the jury decides (if it's a blind voting process then Geoff could for instance rig the vote and nobody would be able to know for sure unless all participants shared their votes)Geoff has no say in the nominees or the winners of the Game Awards though.
He's created a committee of major game companies, that committee assembles a list of news outlets to serve as the jury. Then that jury inputs lists of major games for each category which is assembled into the nominee list. And then finally that same jury votes on those nominees. Unless there is additional unacknowledged influence that Geoff has then he effectively is completely cut out of that process. I feel like the only damage to his image from this would be purely from misunderstanding about how the show works.
Geoff has no say in the nominees or the winners of the Game Awards though.
He's created a committee of major game companies, that committee assembles a list of news outlets to serve as the jury. Then that jury inputs lists of major games for each category which is assembled into the nominee list. And then finally that same jury votes on those nominees. Unless there is additional unacknowledged influence that Geoff has then he effectively is completely cut out of that process. I feel like the only damage to his image from this would be purely from misunderstanding about how the show works.
Don't know or care if it had anything to do with the nominations, but saying we should ban anyone questioning how many nominations a game that *has the head of TGA in it* seems a bit suspectAll the conspiracy theory bullshit should be bannable. Why is it tolerated to spread fake news about how nominees are chosen?
Given that online is a substantial part of the multiplayer experience, Smash failing there completely would probably disqualify it from the running.
Outlets probably don't even remember it came out this year.
Power Rangers got shifted hard. Could have been a decent list otherwise but alas need to have bigger names instead.
I guess my post is really poorly worded as I've seen people respond with this a lot. Even if the games are produced in Japan, they're mostly designed for the western market and the western taste. Death Stranding, Resident Evil 2 and Sekiro are what comes to mind when I think about it
But anyway I'm just gonna stop replying as I'm not enjoying getting dogpiled
I guess I missed when "Multiplayer" was redefined as "online multiplayer."
Depending on how the vote is conducted he could easily misrepresent the actual votes without anyone necessarily knowingExactly what influence is he really putting off, though? Do you think he's personally calling each juror and threatening that they better vote Death Stranding, or they might... be barred from voting in an awards show?
Which means it's not good lolTo be fair, it has a good online multiplayer system. The problem is that said system doesn't fucking work.
I've enjoyed several smaller games like Katana Zero, My Friend Pedro and Sayonara Wild Hearts but for AAA type games, it's been a year of disappointment for me. Games like Control, KH3 and Days Gone were the biggest shame for me.
Cool that you've enjoyed it though, not taking away from that.
Fair enough. I say stick this in the OP to avoid a lot of coming discussions over Geoff/DS.Geoff has no say in the nominees or the winners of the Game Awards though.
He's created a committee of major game companies, that committee assembles a list of news outlets to serve as the jury. Then that jury inputs lists of major games for each category which is assembled into the nominee list. And then finally that same jury votes on those nominees. Unless there is additional unacknowledged influence that Geoff has then he effectively is completely cut out of that process. I feel like the only damage to his image from this would be purely from misunderstanding about how the show works.
Keighley isn't literally counting these votes in his basement, dude.Depending on how the vote is conducted he could easily misrepresent the actual votes without anyone necessarily knowing
Hot damn Shadowbringers made it in but LOL didn't get nominated for best narrative and OST. It's literally the two best things about the expansion. Devil May Cry V not being nominated for game of the year is a crime.
Lol, yes.I know, I'm just saying that if Nintendo didn't spend $20 on their online service, it actually would be a great online multiplayer game.
People's intense defense of it here is what's doing that for me, but from where I stand it's really hard to tell if it's just Kojima bias. Why? Reviews were polarizing as hell and after watching a couple hours of gameplay, it just looks....boring and aimless. Like people said about BOTW: "Would people be as hyped on this if it weren't a Zelda title?" - I have to ask "would people be defending this as much if it weren't a Kojima title?"I want DS to win, just to tilt the people who had no interest in playing it.
Are you only in here to complain about Control?Control:
Boring main character
Does nothing new gameplay wise
Horrible performance issues
Mediocre story
No replay value
Gets goty nomination over at least 10 games that deserved it more.
I think the problem is assuming the there can't be any deviation from the stated process if Geoff really wants to Behind the scenes, especially depending on how the jury decides (if it's a blind voting process then Geoff could for instance rig the vote and nobody would be able to know for sure unless all participants shared their votes)
I called a Death Stranding nomination in all of these categories.Game of the Year:
Best Game Direction
Best Narrative
Best Art Direction
Best Score/Music
Best Audio Design
Best Performance
Control:
Boring main character
Does nothing new gameplay wise
Horrible performance issues
Mediocre story
No replay value
Gets goty nomination over at least 10 games that deserved it more.
Wow. You're actually suggesting this as remotely possible. Jesus.I think the problem is assuming the there can't be any deviation from the stated process if Geoff really wants to Behind the scenes, especially depending on how the jury decides (if it's a blind voting process then Geoff could for instance rig the vote and nobody would be able to know for sure unless all participants shared their votes)