It's finally time to choose the best games of the year. It's always exciting for me. Not necesarily because I want my favorites to win, but because of the laughs I get when looking at what the "professionals" chose. I've been looking throug these award nominees and it all seems a like the people who chose these nominees were high on crack whilst choosing.
I mean, it's obvious that the staff have their favorites. It's proportional to the hype they created during On The Spot shows, wring previews, etc. Everybody was so excited about Little Big Planet, and there you go, it's been nominated in many categories. Same with the oh-so-overrated GTA4. Butchie as best new character? You gotta be kidding me. Sure, they can be fair when the category is Best Graphics, because that's not really something that can be subjective.
You look at the nominees and you can already tell which games will be the winners. Of course Little Big Planet will win in all it's categories, of course MGS4 will win the same way. What I'm trying to get across here is that the Game of the Year award doesn't really mean anything. A bunch of dudes went into a conference room, decided that these are the games THEY like best, so these will be the games of the year. What kind of bull is that? These are like what, 20 people deciding? What about the thousands of players who most likely will not agree with their choices? Editor's choice is a joke. This year we've seen like 3 or 4 game get a perfect score. The last game to get a perfect score before this year was Chrono Cross. And that was 8 years ago.
Isn't it kinda weird that for 8 years there hasn't been a game that the critics would give a perfect score and now all of a sudden they are so generous? I know many will agree that there is no way in hell GTA4 deserved a 10. Maybe I'm wrong, and there actually were no perfect games in the past 8 years. Or maybe the standards here wen't down the gutter. Gamespot's been lacking the quality it used to have for a while now. It's definitely not the same standards it used to be 2 years ago.
So what's the real point of this Game of the Year award? It's the emblem the publisher will put on the box. "X, awarded Game of the Year 2008 by Gamespot". That's it. Last year, when that Mario game won GotY, the explanation was, amongst others, "It's a Mario game, who doesn't like Mario". I don't. I mean, come on, what kind of a reason is that?? "It's a Mario game." SO WHAT? If the only real value the award carries is that sticker on the box, isn't it possible that the whole thing is just scam? Hey, wanna make some exta money? Give our game the award. This in turn means increased sales, increased profit and everybody's happy.
Except for us, the people who actually spend the money and play the games. Our votes should be the only ones that count in this competition. But we only get to pick the Reader's Choice award, which means virtually nothing. Yeah sure it's fun choosing that game which will get the award. But nobody pays attention, because apparently, we, the gamers and fans are not qualified to make such an important choice. Better leave it the 'pros'. Haha.
I swear on my mother's grave (she ain't dead yet, so what the hell...), if another Mario game wins any kinda award this year I'm gonna start my own site. GamesThatBlowButTheCriticsLoveThemAnywayCuzTheyreCritics.com.
Peace.
EDIT: After all the voting is done and the winner is revealed, if the staff award for Game of the Year is the same as Reader's Choice, I'll admit I was completely wrong about the whole thing. But I'm willing to bet good money that the Reader's Choice award will go something completely different.
A good read,thoughts?
