If you listen to the Games Awards podcast, the explanation for that actually makes a lot of sense. This is the episode in question:
In a nutshell, it boils down to the way publications do reviews and internal nominations for what to submit as their official nominees. A lot of the time, any given game may have only been played by one or two people, and therefore will have only one or two advocates on that publication’s jury, while another game may have had half the staff playing it, and then will receive more votes.
This explains the discrepancy in meta critic review scores, and why a publication who rated a game 10/10 may not even include that game on their submissions to TGA.
Honestly, I don’t care about their lame excuses, it screams all over the rooftops “a car game doesn’t deserve that nomination” , like Jez said, that decision disqualified the awards and the whole industry, the best game of the year not even nominated. Honestly it is significantly superior than any of the other nominated games, by any objective measure.
Everything but 2019 (Sekiro was the rightful overall victor) is pretty good, although 2016 I’d say Inside for me personally and also IGN themselves gave it a 10, but Overwatch was a proper phenomenon so I understand.
Yeah I would’ve easily given it to Sekiro too, but Control isn’t egregious enough where I’d judge their decisions going forward. Maybe just because Sekiro was a tough game
Yeaah you’re prolly right, but I mean it’s not like IGN didn’t review that game very well, I think the score was 9.2 or something like that, but maybe due to its difficulty factor not as many gravitated to it compared to Control, which was a good game too (albeit on the shorter end with an abrupt ending).
