AngryLittleAlchemist said:
So? It pretty much is in this industry. This is what people don't understand. The market makes the definitions a reality. If they don't follow the commonly held definitions, then those definitions are irrelevant. Not to bring in politics, but the same thing can be said for movements for example. A movement is constantly changing it's form and the dictionary definition of it is not going to dictate what is literally happening in a movement. That being said, I don't mind not allowing a game to enter a top 10 because of it's early access status (though I think it's obvious that for most people this just a way to censor a game on a list that most people don't want to be there). The thing is : It's just going to show up next year anyways. It's too popular of a game to see such a dramatic drop off that it wouldn't show up next year. And if it did have a huge drop off and wouldn't be a nominee next year, in this alternate dimension where it isn't considered because it's early access, that would be unfair since it would have been out for a year and most video games(even great ones) suffer from recency bias. Hell, that's why it's "of the year". In conclusion, there is no real logical reason for us to wait other than it's glitchy, but as someone who instantly regretted buying Arma 3 because of bugs and glitches, I can say PUBG works enough to be a contender. It's one of the most memorable games this year and that shouldn't change because of title, it's still an experience millions have played, this year. Edit: Here's a better question. Instead of picking on a game that's already beloved by millions and one of the most successful games of the generation, what about early access titles that become much better after an official release? Because ... I don't think PUBG is one of those, and if it is was it's already nominated this year. Say for example Divinity Original Sin 3. What if that sucked for two years and then was amazing the 3rd year? Would it be up for a nomination or not? I guess these questions are interesting, sparking consistency is hard. |
The problem I have with an early access game being nominated is that early access is a great way to shield a game from criticism. Because it's still in early access the bad parts are overlooked, or forgiven. There's no review scores for early access games, since it'd be unfair for a publication to do a review for a game that is still being worked on. This has an effect of driving the discussion of a game towards only the positive things about the game.
Meanwhile traditional releases are put under the microscope warts and all from the get go.
