Iâm sure the Elden Ring DLC is great, and while it can be considered a game, apparently it really still is an expansion, DLC. They couldnât have given that spot to Like a Dragon?
Infinite Wealth was really great. I know YungYeah is a bit douchey IRL but I legitimately felt moved by this game. It was a nostalgic existential trip down Yakuza memory lane that didnât feel cheap. It still sits with me. Obviously you need to be a gamer of a certain age to relate to some of the themes, as well as having come of age alongside the series but man that game can hit hard.
Elden ring has this easy
While Elden Ring is absolutely one of the best things released this year, it is a DLC. You canât play it without the base game or without making a fair amount of progress in the base game.
Sure, it is bigger/has more content than most full games, but still.
Not to sound like a broken record, but I think the Game Awards is a dumb show and itâs designed not to celebrate gaming or game creators, but to sell advertising and make money for Geoff. The fact that there are no actual rules or guidelines for these awards makes them meaningless to me and reading games journos twist themselves into a pretzel to justify some of this stuff has been endlessly amusing for me.
The reason admitting a DLC is stupid is not that a DLC canât be a great, full fledged game even on its own, but because its tied to the base game and requires it to function. If it was made a standalone expansion, I would absolutely be fine with it.
The âGame of the Yearâ award is still complete nonsense when it doesnât include the full year IMO.
They need to move it to January!!
Yep, because then Indiana Jones would have been included. But even then I have my doubts if TGA would even have that in any category, no matter how good it is.
Donât like the Game Award or Geoff
Just noticed something.
If you remove the word âwarâ from The Game Awards, it becomes âThe Game Adsâ which honestly is a more fitting name for it.
Content Creator section will forever have me reacting withâŚ
Some information that many people seem to either be unaware of or refuse to believe:
- Keighley has zero say in who gets nominated. Nominees are picked by âan international jury of over 100 global media and influencer outlets.â
- Keighley has nearly zero say in who wins. Winners are picked by the above-mentioned jury and the public. The vote split between the jury and the public is 90/10.
- The jury is selected by an Advisory Board, which is made up of members from the gaming industry. Phil Spencer is one of 13 members of this board, Activisionâs Rob Kostich is another member. This effectively makes Microsoft overrepresented on the board, as other gaming companies like Sony, Nintendo, Valve, EA, Rockstar, Ubisoft, etc, all have one member each. Keighley is not a member of the board.
While I agree the awards would be more appropriately held in January, each yearâs awards do technically cover almost one full year, because any game released since November 18th of last year is eligible for this yearâs award.
Thatâs still flawed though, because any game released in between the end of the nomination window last year and the 18th, isnât eligible for either year. Which means thereâs about a two week window thatâs an eligibility dead zone. Itâs weird, I donât know why they do it that way, when itâs such an easy fix.
True, but realistically what game has a chance of releasing after November 18th and still ranking high in a years time?
The whole thing doesnât make much sense really, especially the voting process.
Well, I think that would be true even if the show was in January and focused on the past calendar year. Recency bias is very much a big thing when it comes to awards shows. Thereâs a reason award bait movies are often released very late in the year.
The only way to fix it that I can think of, is to increase the list of nominees, and have maybe three nomination windows. So for a January show it would work like this:
In April the jury has to put forth their nominees for the first third of the year, and then again in August for all games released in the intervening months, and then again in December. Then come voting time in early January they have fifteen nominees to choose from, instead of five.
That wouldnât solve the entire recency bias problem, but at least people would get a reminder of all the good games released in the past year and it would give the early releases a fighting chance to stand out.
I agree, the more recent titles will always be more favourable.
The â2024â game awards doesnât make people think about titles that released in November & December 2023 though 
.
For sure. I would very much prefer the show being aired in February 2025. I understand the commercial reasons behind it being aired when it is, but I wish it wasnât the case.
Appreciate the detailed explanation but I donât know how this disputes the simple reality that most of the people of the jury are effectively the same media types that mostly play only Playstation & or Nintendo, if we want to be in good faith that is, without mention the lot of them that have been openly fanboy-ish and still get to vote in.
It doesnât. Itâs meant as a (probably futile) pre-emptive response to the posts I see each year questioning/criticising Keighley for things that arenât his doing.