Thank you so much to you for watching and engaging with this video! Thank you to my patrons for allowing me to create it. If you'd like to help promote this video, you can retweet it here: twitter.com/MRIXRT/status/1732822391095517687 Notes on this video: - First and foremost I want to reiterate the following from the video: I am not accusing any of the named individuals or their companies of engaging in any bad behavior, merely highlighting how their inclusion and lack of transparency lends itself to the potential for that behavior, and advocating for changes. - It's only after recording that I realized the words I most wanted to use with regards to the DBLTAP discussion, which is "cascading effect." Once one domino is accused of nefarious intent, it is exceptionally likely that their close connections will also fall under those same accusations, and in a network this tightly interwoven that is basically everyone.
Knowing everyone's names and who they voted for individually, would probably lead to harassment. But I think we should know the number/% of total votes from the jury and the public. Great video btw!
Personally my criticism with the beginning of your video was you saying that Hogwarts was snubbed. Tbh it really was not. Given all the awful problematic stuff surrounding that game, it definitely did not deserve any nominations. I’m honestly glad it wasn’t nominated for anything.
@@carlbloke8797 so if a game is excellent, but someone involved with the game is controversial the game doesn’t deserve accolades? Kind of black and white thinking. I’d say the doxxing of a streamer playing the game overshadowed any “problematic” things JK Rowling said.
My favorite part of this years Game Awards is how all the award winners were rushed off stage but celebrities got all the time in the world to ramble on. Oh, you're making a heartfelt speech and trying not to break down in tears? Sorry, but you need to gtfo the stage, we have to get Matthew McConaughey up here and play more Fortnite ads.
Yeah, Larian didnt even get a chance to announce the Xbox version of Baldurs Gate 3 being realeased that night! And They won game of the year! But didnt even get enough time to announce the release of their own game!
I have been wondering about this for so long, glad you are addressing it. In order for the shows validity this transparency is quite important. Especially since this show has become far too big and too influential.
There has been no year in the history of TGA where there weren't any questionable nominees. That made me wonder how voting worked. I found pretty much nothing of worth. It makes the whole system highly questionable. That this event seems to hold that much sway is even more problematic than the issue of the voting process etc. Hopefully more people will point this out and maybe it causes enough pressure to make the process more transparent.
Of course we can scratch our heads how the heck i.e. Destiny 2 appeared as a nominee but in my mind the answer is much simpler than we think. It is just a huge game with lots of buzz and yearly huge expansions. I would not necessarily look for conflict of interests in every case.
I’d be fine if Destiny 2 got replaced by Deep Rock Galactic or Blue Archive in terms of best community support. Those two games actually respect their playerbase and don’t treat them like idiots. The year where Half-Life Alyx got zero nominations while giving the subverting expectations game (where the writing falls apart when you think about it) all the awards was the straw that broke the camel’s back for me. That said, I’m mostly just looking forward to the game awards because of the game announcements.
Honestly, I feel like this year was a perfect demonstration that the awards are not the real reason for the event. At this point, I wouldn't be surprised if they don't disclose the jury just to protect them from the criticisms they knew the event was going to get. Because this is by not the 1st year people point out how little time is given to the awards and it keeps getting worse. At this point, I'm convinced they know what theyre doing, they know people font like it, but they keep at it for the cash, so they know that if the jury was named, their reputation would be damaged and the harrassment they would get would be horifying even if the the votes were all fair.
But nobody would be able to connect any specific voter to their vote. It's not a jury of 12 people wherein we know - they all voted this way & therefore all are culpable. If 1,000 people voted & 565 say "X" is game of the year, how can anyone reasonably assign blame to any individual? Your argument is not well founded - they keep it secret, as Mrixrt implied, to hide bias & agendas. Edit: and like you correctly pointed out, to advertise & promote their sponsors ad infinitum.
@S_raB The harassment does not need to be linked to specific votes. Just the general involvement with the event may be enough for some people. Plus, being mostly journalists, it wouldn't be hard to guess their votes from the work they produce, and it's not like the intermet needs absolute certainty and clear evidence to dogpile anyone. To be clear, I don't like the game awards, and I don't think jury should be exempt of criticism. However, I'm afraid they'd get a lot more than that if their identities were public.
I like watching it every year, but I get annoyed when they just quickly announce some of the "less important" winners, and others get to go on stage. Best RPG winners should have a stage presence! I still enjoy the show and the new announcements, even if the voters are sketch.
Not to mention that they let some people to very unfunny bits for 5 minutes straight, but had promoters telling the winners to "Wrap it up", which is very insidious!
This right here is why I don't care at all who wins game of the year ir any award in these kind of thing. Doesn't change how good or bad a game is. But I have a few friends who put a large amount of stock into them and it concerns me for how the industry will go
I knew this was crymore gaming. I tried to look for that channel because your voice sounded so familiar. I haven't been to this channel in forever but love what you are making now. I also need to thank you for my copy of bejeweled as you used to run raffles for games and I used to sign up for all of them. So excited to see how this channel has grown!
As much as I enjoy the glitz and glamor and WORLD PREMIEREs of the VGAs, it's become ever increasingly clear that the awards are less about celebrating the achievements of games and games development in the last year, and more about advertising; whether that be for the award nominees themselves or for the WORLD PREMIEREs to come. There might be something to be said about the awards being a dark reflection of an industry that's obsessed with pursing fame, legitimacy and the next big hit, while diminishing the work of the people who helped develop said industry - but that's another, completely different essay to tackle.
Thank you for making this video and doing thorough research on this topic. This is something I've been questioning for years now when I kept seeing certain games getting suspicious amounts of favor, nominations, and wins in The Game Awards show, despite other games having better sales in comparison and/or were more liked amongst the general gaming community.
When we need mrixrt most, they returned. Joke aside, looking forward to watching your Game Awards video. I do agree with you with the conflict of interest with the jury picking for The Game Awards. The Dave The Diver is nice, but shouldn't be in the Indie category. Nothing against Geoff Keighley, but when asked about Dave The Diver saying it was added "Because it has an indie feel.". Just because it has an indie feel, doesn't make it indie, there's a difference when you look at the other indie games. Also, I made a joke to a friend last night when we and some of friends were going over The Game Awards list and noticed the BEST VR/AR category was all PlayStation games and I said "PlayStation sending the envelope 📨 of money 💵 to The Game Awards.".
I was following you until that last bit. PlayStation has a new VR headset and many of the best games are on it, so I don't see an issue. VR currently is still not a massive industry and has slow adoption. RE Village was also easily the best VR game this year and it was a PS5 exclusive.
@@reallycoolThe nominees are decided by the jury, they are given categories and then told to write a game in. Dave the diver got in because enough judges didn't realize it wasn't actually an indie game when they answered. Rather than disregard their nominations, the game awards left it in because, well... thats what the judges voted for
@@reallycool Yea, because if they used the actual definition of "indie game", in that category should have won Baldur's Gate 3, that's an actual indie game. There is no reason to not put it in there too, why the winner of the game of the year is not even nominated in the indie game category, if it's an actual indie game? Wspecially when the previous year they actually put Stray in both the best indie and the game of the year category.
@@papabaddad And that's a big issue, if the judges that can vote for the game of the year can't even understand when a game actually belong into a category or not.
While I think the conflict of interest point is interesting I think it’s undercut by the way that the Academy Awards and other industry awards shows work which is just to have tbe developers themselves vote on it. While I know the example you gave was meant as an example of the ‘complexity’ of conflicts of interests in the jury, it really isn’t a conflict of interest at all when you consider the alternative. The solution is to have more total members of the jury overall, more clearly defined categories and perhaps more categories, and some limitations on which jury members can vote for which projects.
i was watching half of this right before the game awards this year (2023 for futureproofing) and was watching still very concerned but i was like "oh this only applies to the nominations, still pretty bad but it'll still the community who gets the final say!" but then i saw how pizza tower got completely robbed and then saw that the game awards are voted with a 90% to 10% jury to community voting ratio and everything clicked in my head for the past 5 years and oh my god. this is BAD. like theres SO much horrible, horrible stuff going on at the game awards (the 30 second limit for any acceptance speech this year comes to mind first) but this is just downright evil, i can't even lie.
I'll never forget 2020's TGA.... once the GOTY was announced and it was TLOU 2. Everyone in chat started saying "RIGGED" and they had to shut off the chat. Ha ha ha ha... everything that year was rigged....
Imagine people in actual positions to vote on games not being homophobes and choosing a game based only on its merit. What a novel concept. And how would that be an admission of guilt? If a bunch of people are being nasty, it makes sense to shut that down. Nasty comments spamming the chat would also make the stream not so advertiser-friendly.
@@joeykeilholz925 how is it an admission of guilt? They're a brand... They are trying to make money. Of course they'd want to avoid comments like that.
@@HorusDeathtouchHomophobes? People were OUTRAGED that a BIOLOGICAL MAN repeatedly beats up SMALL LESBIAN WOMEN and KILLED THE MAIN FATHER FIGURE. THAT was the entire controversy, a monster woman-beater and murderer hailed as a sad and sympathetic hero. The game made a transperson act like monster and then called people being upset and disliking the thing "homophobes" for pointing out the CLEARLY EVIL character.
As someone who also really enjoys The Game Awards, It truly is refreshing to see someone take this issue seriously instead of nonchalantly dismiss it because "it's just video games". Fantastic video, thank you for your work.
It would be nice to have that transparency of who's actually voting, but the effect of it on who's nominated is not that clear. We know who votes at the Oscars and yet we get baffling nominations each year, specifically it's the case with Animated Features, Shorts and Documentaries, where in the first category people vote for the films they watched most with their kids and in the second and third they don't even bother watching and pick the one that's topically more appealing. But you also can't request everyone to act in good faith when it comes to voting. The best you can do is only include publications and journalists/reviewers which are responsible enough to take it seriously. That's where the transparency should be and that's where the public should push Geoff when there's a weird mysterious publication among the known ones. Not that it's not important, it's just ambiguous in public view and making clear what nominations mean first seems easier to push.
That is potentially already happening with The Game Awards as well, but with an added detraction: with less than 120 total jurists who are hidden behind a shroud, any "bad voters" represent nearly a full percent of the vote. Knowing who and how can only help.
@@reallycool Didn't do my research like you obviously did, but I have a feeling that if a publication or someone who represents one already has an opinion that leads them to believe Diablo 4 is a good multiplayer nominee, then these small percentages of bad actors who didn't play the games or are from obscure resources don't affect the outcome more than just people who aren't competent at their field (of which there are a tonn amongst gaming publications - film publications have at least settled over the decades and there is a reputation behind each reviewer). Having developers vote like with DICE awards isn't that great of an option. Developers don't have as much time as employees of professional gaming outlets do and they are more biased. Really appreciate the video as always, and it's important to push for these changes as early as possible, I just think something like vague nominations should be addressed first. Revealing people who vote might appear to be ethically incorrect for some and therefore isn't as easy of a change to push.
For me the obvious clue that the voting is skewed (only using this year. I will never forgive Ace Combat not winning best soundtrack) aside from destiny being there for "Community support" is Alan Wake 2 being so prevalent. It seemed weird for it to be in so many categories for getting so little coverage outside a few review sites. It's just strange that Geoff advertises it as "for the gamers" but it's reviewers that do the voting when for gaming it's well known and infamous that there's a huge disconnect between review sites and gamers. Seems like a lot of the unhappiness about the awards could be solved by, IMO: weighing fans more in the votes and giving us the argument and consensus for the reasoning behind the vote from the companies. Not only does telling us WHY things got voted for placate most of the people who could be upset but it also helps advertise the game to people who might not've considered playing it otherwise. WHY is the soundtrack good? WHY is this narrative the best? WHY is this the best community support? Then let the companies actually accept the award with their speech.
Ben Croshaw revealed what the TGA bias was in a Fully Ramblomatic video released sometime back. To summarize the award bias Ben found, the game awarded can't be based on an "old" gameplay style, can't be an expansion-sequel, independents have to kiss up to the industry (that's about selling indies as a "Scrappy-Doo"), the graphics have to look nice (read: pixel/2D art is snubbed) and can't have irreverence (Guess why Pizza Tower wasn't nominated?). The two obvious awards for 2023 was Hi-Fi Rush for "sound design" and Baldur's Gate winning almost everything.
Remedy and Sweet Baby paid them big bags to put Alan Wake 2 in so many categories and give it so many awards despite it being practically forgotten about at this point. The Deathloop Effect should be the name of the phenomenon. Deathloop got so much coverage and awards at the show and within like 2 weeks following the show, everybody had moved on and forgotten about it.
Yeah, I've lost fate in Geoff Keighley and his events when I learned about some of this and also how the event is structured like there was more ads than game footage and then political messages and swaying how some games are picked leading to games like Hogwarts Legacy being ignored. The fact that only 10% of the actual gamers has a say in the voting process (if that's still correct?) also defeats the purpose for me as they are indeed the largest pool of consumers so it would give a more accurate result. The drama around the "Wrap it up" thing also doesn't help thing, is it too much to give the GOTY award winners 2-5 extra minutes to pay tribute to the person who died while working on the BG3? But also have time to properly do an acceptance speech of the award?
you did very good to present a nuanced and reasonable discussion with solid and absolute valid questions, that need to be asked in any voting procedure. thx.
A very strong video raising an important question. I have one personal qualm with your argument - I personally would not include past employment in a conflict of interest map unless declared. I found the example where a possible voter had a position for 3 months at a publisher a little unconvincing. Of course, companies are made up of people and if he still has a link to those or feels he cannot give an impartial decision, he should recuse himself from that vote. However, I do not think they should automatically be assumed to have a conflict on these grounds. I appreciate this wasn't your intent but it is how it comes across with your node-map.
Thank you, your point is well-taken and highlights the nuance in discussions about conflicts of interest. My intention was to underscore the importance of transparency in the voting process of The Game Awards, particularly regarding the connections between jurors and entities in the gaming industry. I agree with your perspective that not all past employment should be viewed as an automatic conflict of interest. The example of a juror with a brief stint at a publisher was intended to illustrate the complexities in discerning potential biases, not to cast aspersions on any individual's integrity. The key issue, as you rightly pointed out, is the lack of clarity around whether such individuals vote and, if they do, what guidelines they follow to address potential conflicts. This situation underscores the need for The Game Awards to clearly communicate its voting process, including how it handles potential conflicts of interest. If there were transparent guidelines - for instance, stipulating recusal for jurors with recent employment history at a publisher or developer within a specified timeframe - it would alleviate concerns and provide a clearer framework for evaluating potential biases. My argument is not to accuse anyone of unethical behavior but to advocate for a system that preempts misunderstandings and ensures the integrity of the awards. By openly sharing who is voting, the processes they follow, and the measures taken to prevent conflicts of interest, The Game Awards can foster a more robust and trustworthy environment. I appreciate the opportunity to clarify my position. It's through these conversations that we can collectively work towards a more transparent and ethical framework in the gaming industry.
This isn’t like voting for a politician. At minimum, each source needs to give their reason as to why they voted. Even if their take is “to be honest I don’t really like amy of the options here, this one just had the most brand recognition to me.” Or “I’ve never played an MMORPG, so when I had to vote for that category, I just chose the one with the coolest box art”. Even “voting was almost done so I just voted randomly real quick and I don’t really know what I voted for” is better than nothing. At least then we have some sense to the madness. It sucks and we would complain about it to the people, but at least then it would explain some of the choices sometimes.
Great video! You are right, we really need more transparency and regulations. There is no reason to not treat TGA any more than a high budget top 10 list if they don't go out of there way to show and explain why their jury is where they are.
I'm starting to question how close Annapurna is to the people in this event. Stray's awards were one thing, but a basically unknown game from industry veterans backed by a known publisher beating a near-solo developer's first product for a breakout title is very concerning.
The game awards is run by the industry to benefit profit. They don't care about a open or logical voting system because that could allow votes that explicitly look down on games with anti-consumer practices like gameifying gambling, predatory cashshops, broken "fix it in post...maybe" releases, making everything a live service model, IP over innovation etc. The industry is full of money-grubbing at the expense of the developers and creatives who do the actual work. They have shown time and time again that they do not value anyone. Any award to the big players is a tool to feel prestiguous and make more sales. Beyond that, everything else is just a sham for show.
This reminds me so much of the Ratings Board for movies. I saw a documentary years ago where, at the time at least, the identity of those who decide what a movies rating is, was completely anonymous.
I forget what year it was but what made me question the votes was there was a game that literally *everyone* thought would win in the category, even people who didn't play it thought it deserved it. Then it suspiciously lost its award to a game that then went on to talk about its new elements that reeks of gatcha. I appreciate that the awards essicently is also an "e3" of sorts that we get new game premieres, but with how it was this year, it really needs to be worked at.
Ever since I discovered that people vote is only 10% I just dismissed the awards completely, since it's only done by some unknown faces on an unknown place that doesn't necessarily reflect reality... So, ever since 2020 I just watch it for the World Premieres.
You're misinformed. You can vote for any of the awards. The normal awards take the public votes only 10% into account. The players voice award is decided 100% by public votes
I suspect that the RUclipsrs selected were selected because their form of journalism is a lot closer to traditional gaming journalism than other popular channels - especially the ones you listed. Their primary content is in-depth reviews of new games to help the average consumer better understand if the game is right for them, and it's done in a relatively formal and professional manner. SkillUp and Gameranx are two of the largest channels that produce that style of content. I am a little more dubious as to why the channel with 40k subscribers was chosen.
The Game Awards are a multi-hour infomercial with a handful of awards sprinkled in that are determined by critics who are more out of touch with gamers than ever. If this is the best we can come up with to honour the biggest and most popular artistic medium in the world, it is in a sad state indeed. We all deserve better.
Just wanted to say my idea before I watch. I'd ask all the Devs (one per company) nominated for every award to vote on each individual award. Who would be better at judging than the game makers themselves.
“There is no reason why it should be so difficult to figure out who is voting” the only reason I can imagine we don’t have a list of voters is because of the community itself, there is so much toxicity online surrounding the Game Awards that there is a chance that parts of the community will target and harass these voters when “their” game doesn’t win. Criteria should be more transparent however.
If I was a jury member I wouldn't want my details to be released to avoid being harassed by the more extreme elements of our community.
10 месяцев назад+18
Details means name and position? That is not much information to base harrasment on. I think it's better to have it public since that incentivate a more critical and educated vote.
Seeing as there's a growing distrust in games journalism, it would be refreshing to know there's integrity in the process and what qualifies their selection. It's well known some journalists are buddy-buddy with some developers, I don't doubt there's been a huge numbers of conflicts of interest thus far. I personally don't give TGA much weight, the entire voting process is very questionable.
30:23 Funny because all of the Best Game Direction nominees are also Game of the Year nominees, but what's even more funny is that this year it was two different winners, Alan Wake 2 for Best Game Direction and Baldur's Gate 3 for Game of the Year.
4:06 this is the best coverage of the game awards among all the other pearl-clutching RUclipsrs a la Asmongold, Charalanahzard aka Alanah Pearce and the rest. That show is for players and the press, not the developers. Like you said, that industry has no Academy Awards academy. It's sponsored by the advertizers. While I agree with most of your points, they don't really matter. It's somewhat of an empty award. It's just an advertizement for upcoming games, with awards sprinkled on top. It's on the developers and publishers to point this out and to not play along, not for the consumer aka us. We can vote on Steam, GameRadar, GameInformer etc. Either way it's all a sham anyway. 17:54 lol guilty 24:25 calling out gameranx. iiiii lllllike it -Creed Bratton 29:46 oooomg. I love your points. I thought I was a weirdo for not knowing what the captions of some categories mean. I made assumptions, like probably most, but that's where it starts and ends. The descriptions are very ethereal. 31:15 That's why Valve removed award logos from their thumbnails strip in late 2022. I think they are allowed to be listed below in the description. I wished you had known about this and mentioned it.
Jeff Gerstmann was one of the judges for the game awards and he has spoken about the process on his podcast before. In podcast 75 at 1:17:00 he briefly touches on the way nominations are made. He has spoken at more length but i'm not going to relisten to 10 episodes to find it, but if you are really that interested you should check it out. You could also reach out to him and see if he would be willing to answer some questions about it
Another great video on the industry. You have inspired me to create my own channel (not under this #). If transparency is lacking, validity is forfeit...although Elden Ring was amazing, how many actually agree that The Last of Us II deserved equal praise?
While I do 'care' about the awards, always nice to get that bias-verification that the thing you like is good and liked by other people, I know the results are hilariously weighted and curated in a way that means whenever it goes against my favourite pick, I don't feel bad about it. However, what I do think Geoff does is give the gaming industry something to look towards as a mutual celebration of our shared hobby, and at that it does a better job than any other event we have. That this is the best is obviously not ideal, but until someone does a better job I'll support the Doritos Pope all the way. He loves games, of that I have no doubt.
100+ outlets vote and for years there has always been 1 indie game nominated for GotY. Not 2, not 3, not 0, always 1 for years. What is the statistical chance of that happening, that exactly 1 indie game gets enough votes to get to the finals every time?
Of all the nominations and nominees I got angry with, I was angry that the RUclips channel PeopleMakeGames lost to the rest of the nominees who are just... streamers. No offense to streamers, but that RUclips channel actually did game journalism.
I think a good option is for each organization to have all of their editorial staff vote as individuals. Then send these votes labeled with their names to The Game Awards and have them throw out duplicate votes. Then Game Awards can publish a list of voters for each award and what organizations they are connected to. That would require Geoff to care though, I don’t think he does. I think he is too wrapped up in all of this to want the transparency or to deal with requesting this from organizations.
I've noticed a parallel between nominees and top streaming games on twitch. It's very much a popularity contest. Just forget all those popular games that had controversies! Mysteriously not nominated.
I don't think something like this could go on without Geoff Keighley being aware of this, if you are the face of something like this, you will want to know how it works behind... And in my opinion, that speaks more about him, then anything else. Because he has to be aware of this.
I already figured I knew what this video was about, and I wouldn't have watched it if not for the RUclips draught, but I didn't realize people took The Video Game Awards seriously. I feel no association to that advertisement being a gamer since childhood in the 80s. It just seems like some way for companies to market their products, so your video is very surprising to me. If it was legit, the things you point out wouldn't be problematic. Also, they wouldn't look at major news outlets (who are clearly in the bag) and would instead would pull votes from those who people see as representing the gaming media. For instance, someone who votes on best FPS would probably be a RUclipsr who typically deals with them (G-Man). If I was wondering about Roguelikes, then Northernlion or Retromation might be good picks. For RPGs, you'd wanna define what an RPG is because Cyberpunk is not whereas Baldur's Gate 3 is. But that's looking at Classic (or Computer or Western) RPG vs Action RPG. Gaming journalists today can't even play games (citing the Cuphead video review). At this point, I only have trust in people that actually play these games and give detailed reviews. You don't specifically review games, but I find you trustworthy on games media research. If I was going to give out an award for "best research into gaming media", you'd be one of the nominees. The Video Game Awards are a sham, and I don't care about them being here or going away, but I do care about people viewing them for more than an advertisement because they do not in any way represent most gamers; instead, they represent the interests of companies with deep pockets.
The problem is that so many bad and extemely shallow games gets so many awards. And that these game studios will just keep on pushing out these bad and shallow games Just because they get awards from people that got no idea what makes a good game. But i bet there is alot of money changeing hands to for sure.
Thanks for this, it was very interesting Now I know why a certain game series has been robbed off goty and probably gonna happen again And connected companies have gave them the exact same bad critic scores despite praise from alot of others For sure needs to be changed, for the benefit of all game nominations
An interesting question (voting rights in the VGAs) answered with detailed research, presented well. More, please.
10 месяцев назад+5
I started question the vality of criteria to say that Baldurs Gate 3 is the GOTY, just because the noise it made. I feel it was not that much of a data-based technical criteria. And well, it won as expected, but how it won, makes me wonder how realisticly you can say it's the "best" game. It's complexity is not equal to an obvious quality or perfection. Also, a journalist voting, can just think on social media based opinions. There should be programmers voting in order to consider the technical aspects too. I feel the japanese awards are more reliable since they have public data on how, what and who choses. Also it's 100% based on data and technical aspects such as performance and programming standards.
Look, dude. Your comment is an opinion and you're free to have it. However, it's obvious that BG3 won, not just because of the so-called "noise." It won because it was THAT good. It's the best game of the year because it was different experience compared to most mainstream AAA releases and it was appealing to a lot of gamers, just not you. You don't have to like the game, but I think you should understand why others do.
10 месяцев назад+2
@@theduck2970 I get what you say. But that is my point actually. I do like the game (bought it early) and I do see how and why it's different, and the OVERALL reasons on why it won. It required a titanic effort to make possible such complexity and enriched interactions, and they deserved the recognition. However, how you can say it has an objective criteria on which the decision was based? Not just drifted opinions of some guys from the same environment (even if we all agree). The problem I see is not the game at all, but the pretended community agreement on that it obviously was the winner. I think the community has a bigger influence on the decision, but we all fool ourselves thinking that the awards are always well executed.
@ I actually wanted to write a longer comment to discuss further but it keeps getting shadow banned for some reason. So, I'll just have to say that I get your point and I can agree with it. You make a lot of sense now.
Game Awards is just a industry created and funded "awards show" that primarily aims to prop up the main players (+ few indies to make it "fair", just like the 10% community "vote")
The actual reasoning for this is because the "main players" are the games that get played the most, so it makes sense that they get the most votes and nominations. If you want a list of indie darlings that came out this year, you'll want to look at a list made by one guy. Having a large panel of judges vote and expecting lesser known titles to somehow be known to the majority of them is stupid
Only just got the notification for this video now.. strange. Anyways woooohoooo!!! Another Moriarty video yay!!! Love your work thank you!! Cheers from Australia 🇦🇺 and yes just incase you're wondering I live 3 houses up from Fringy 😂
My theory for what makes you a voter (despite your size) is mainly based on reach and publicity in certain communities. SkillUp for example. I’ve been watching his channel for almost two years now. I’ve watched as he’s pulled himself up to be a rather prominent, well known, and respected member of the gaming news/discussion community. Same could apply to Gameranx, hell even more so. I’m not passing this off as fact tough, but more as a personal theory.
When you got games like Forza Motorsport 8 who is hated and being label as one of the worst racing games ever created winning 2 awards it said how much of a joke this thing is. The Game Awards better rename themselves to The VideoAds Awards. In my opinion if you gonna make this people vote and all this "experts" picking their games they should release the ballot of those votes and names for transparency. Just like any other events does. You don't need 10K people. People 3 people from the majors gaming outlets from US,Europe,Asia.
Honestly, never cared for am award that is just given based on some jury that does not disclose the scoring criteria, no matter the venue, for instance, figure skating, love watching it, but there was a time where the judges scored based on personal feelings rather on accuracy of completed figure/elements and how much they liked the choreography, which pissed me off, because some competitors, excuse, all competitors would be marked up or down depending on the country for which they compete for, for instance US judge would mark down the score of other competitors besides the US one, the way they tried to mitigate this was for the judge panel to be multi national, which really did not solve anything as the panel did not include judges of all countries competing, as the seats were only six. Same with Gymnastics etc. Recently I started watching more as the scoring system was changed substantially and the judges influence on the final score was reduced substantially, thanks to a computer assisted scoring which marks the accuracy of the elements completed and then the judges make final adjustments to the score based on that. Award ceremonies are usually mastorbatory for the industry they are set in. To quote Scott Eyman on why were the Oscars created: I found that the best way to handle [filmmakers] was to hang medals all over them. […] If I got them cups and awards they’d kill themselves to produce what I wanted. That’s why the Academy Award was created. An award doesn't have nothing to do with objective quality of the product, its made that some big wigs in the industry, get a hard on, and as a commercial venue.
I know this has nothing to do with the video but I had this video on in the background and I thought you were saberspark, amazing video though hope to see more content from you soon!
They should build a jury of trusted single reviewers, retired industry professionals and the like. Just asking some random media outlet not even related to games to come up with a vote for something is pretty ridiculous tbh. Really just proves video game journalism has always been a big joke.
I have come to a simple conclusion. The event outlived its usefulness. Meaning I don't care about it, don't take it seriously and caution people around me about it. In simpler terms as I don't trust game journalism I don't trust award shows it's a marketing ploy I refuse to be a part of and actively fight against.
Can't really take The Game Awards seriously when critics and media are the ones that judge the games. If it was like the Oscars, it would be and Academy of game developers themselves (one that would probably have to be exclusive to each major game developing contry). Any true award needs to be given by your peers, not by media and critics -- which is fine of course (eg. Critic's Choice Awards, The Golden Globes, etc.), but as long as there isn't a governing game development body, that states clear guidelines and criteria per category, then these "Game Awards" will continue to be a joke or just what it is -- an advertising show with some "awards" given to fill in the gaps.
Perhaps they don't actually vote, and that's how all the games are so balanced with awards. If it's big budget enough, it gets at least one award. No snubs. If there are any awards left over, then some games win more than one.
24:15 But that's not a government official, CBC is Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, it's just a news company in Canada it's not a government branch, he's just a regular journalist. Are you from the US? I think I see your confusion. In Canada The CBC is a "federal Crown corporation", which means it is owned by the government but operates at arm's length from the government (meaning they're structured like private or independent companies). As a Crown corporation, it is funded by the government through parliamentary appropriations and advertising revenue. But journalists who work at the CBC are not public servants of course.
It’s great to have diverse voices and perspectives voting in on something, but when that mandate is exploited by and for the sake of having authority over said thing merely to “have more bodies” involved…then you have some Bad Faith involved. It’s unsurprising that it has become so widespread in positions of power/authority due to how much legitimacy it brings to [Insert Cause Here]. The problem? You can’t really call it out for what it is without being a pariah.
Well, given how this tiny universe utterly refused to change and deflected, or defended its own corruption in a certain event that occured in 2014, we can be sure that the voting process is only as fair, honest, transparent and accountable as its voters: Not. A. Single. Bit. The Game Awards go *out of their way* to make their coting process and result opaque. These standards are not the one of an ethical event/company/system but or a systemicly corrupt one.
every gamer knows that the actual winners and nomines part of the game awards doesnt really matter. i personally watch it for cool new upcoming games, and indie games i woulndt have not know if it werent for the spotlight.
Regarding 24:16, why do you say that Jonathan Ore is a government official? Certainly he is a journalist for a national broadcaster, but it is perhaps not accurate to equate that to government official.
There's definitely a bias or incompetence at the game awards. Genre bias is certainly a thing. Something like Overwatch winning was a rare exception. Because this stuff is so closely linked to Hollywood, the voters (and reviewers in general) seem to be very easily impressed by games with good production values, story, with known voice actors, etc. and where the primary focus of the game is on the narrative and not the gameplay. These games also tend to be on the easier side, and it's not surprising that a person on the panel who is not skilled at games would like these more. Popularity (or news buzz) also pulls some weight. When a journalist doesn't know what to vote for, they will probably just pick games they've heard of. This one is not an overriding factor - if it was, we'd see a lot of games that sell 10-20 million copies get more awards - but it's a last resort for these panelists who have no idea what to pick, which I suspect is a fair number of them. This is why we see games like Destiny and what not continually win awards despite massive controversies, layoffs and other issues - they are winning on name recognition alone, and not on merit. Also, a game that checks DEI boxes does get a boost and can break tie-breakers between two equally deserving games (or sometimes not equally deserving). This stuff is important to panelists when I think it really shouldn't be all that important, just like it shouldn't be for the Oscars. I can definitely see how this would filter out historical games, or Japanese games while proping up stuff made in California. I can't think of any other reason a game like Last of Us 2 could actually win - the gameplay is pretty mediocre, and the story has a lot of plot holes and pacing issues. The ending is unsatisfying. The death of major characters is cheap and non-sensical. At least 50% of the target audience had major issues with it. And this was the best game of the year? Meanwhile, Animal Crossing brought joy to tens of millions of players, especially during a year that was marked by the pandemic. The game that divided people immensely and created so many culture war controversies won while the game that brought millions together lost. Makes zero sense for a game that is supposed to represent the very best of the year. Then you have games like Fire Emblem Three Houses that were nowhere to be found in the game awards when they were clearly one of the best games that year. Yes, the graphics are not impressive, even for the Switch, but the gameplay, replayability, and everything else is fantastic. Based on the panel, I'm not even sure why something like Baldur's Gate 3 could actually get Game of the Year. I'm not saying it's not deserving, but I am skeptical because I don't believe the voting panel is interested in a game that is in such a niche genre that is also far more intricate and complicated than the games the panel is used to playing. So when a game like this wins, I wonder what controls were in place to make it happen because I don't believe even 10-percent of the panel actually played the game, let alone beat it from start to finish (which I want to be clear, should be a requirement. In order to vote in the OSCARS, you can't just watch the first 10 minutes of every movie). If you're going to vote, you need to show your gamer tags - yes, we've gotten to that point! And if most of the panel isn't beating every game that is nominated and is only playing it for a few hours at best, I don't even know how these people are qualified to vote for it and they shouldn't be voting in the first place. That just incentivizes developers to frontload all the quality. A lot of games have this problem in fact - Diablo 4, Xenogears, Mass Effect 3, Final Fantasy XV, Anthem, Dragon Age II and many, many others.
Baldur's Gate 3 as GOTY despite game breaking bugs despite a massive amount of patches, disregard towards the whole of Steam playerbase as well as towards the core audience (D&D players)...
@@coltonwilkie241 Armored Core 6. I can't think about any other that peaked my interest in 2023. 2022 : Dwarf Fortress (new version) or Elden Ring. Both are great but widely different. 2021 : Tales of Arise 2020 : Death Stranding 2019 : Sekiro I tried Starfield, didn't enjoy it one bit. Wanted to stop in under 1h. Resident Evil 4 was good but it's a remake, same thing with Dead Space. Hogwarts Legacy bored me to death. The story was okay but gameplay was piss easy, itemization was retarded, the amount of collectibles was over 100 times too much, broom controls were all but intuitive... Atomic Heart was a ton of fun but first DLC had major performance issues, a puzzle near the end of it was bugged. Lord of the Rings Gollum (no need to say more). Diablo 4 : Dark patterns, monetization, battlepass, p2w, unstable... Jedi survivor (short version otherwise we'd be here a while): Controller support issues, remind not working, release time issues, problem downloading day one, launch minimized and can't alt+tab to it, "optimizes" settings each start to waste time, save issues, "not enough ram" (64go), unstable after reaching a certain point, should easily get 60fps but got under 30, lowering specs did nothing to improve that, 90€, crashes corrupt saves, some steam features that should have been there were not, Denuvo, stutter... not half of the problems up to 13 days after release. There's one i didn't get to play (i don't have a PS5 yet) and am not sure I'd like : Alan Wake 2. I'm going to stop it here. Do you have any suggestions ?
![VENEZUELA vs. ARGENTINA [1-1] | RESUMEN | ELIMINATORIAS SUDAMERICANAS | FECHA 9](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/SJfoPdeOPCQ/mqdefault.jpg)
Thank you so much to you for watching and engaging with this video! Thank you to my patrons for allowing me to create it. If you'd like to help promote this video, you can retweet it here: twitter.com/MRIXRT/status/1732822391095517687
Notes on this video:
- First and foremost I want to reiterate the following from the video: I am not accusing any of the named individuals or their companies of engaging in any bad behavior, merely highlighting how their inclusion and lack of transparency lends itself to the potential for that behavior, and advocating for changes.
- It's only after recording that I realized the words I most wanted to use with regards to the DBLTAP discussion, which is "cascading effect." Once one domino is accused of nefarious intent, it is exceptionally likely that their close connections will also fall under those same accusations, and in a network this tightly interwoven that is basically everyone.
Knowing everyone's names and who they voted for individually, would probably lead to harassment.
But I think we should know the number/% of total votes from the jury and the public.
Great video btw!
Personally my criticism with the beginning of your video was you saying that Hogwarts was snubbed. Tbh it really was not. Given all the awful problematic stuff surrounding that game, it definitely did not deserve any nominations. I’m honestly glad it wasn’t nominated for anything.
I didn't say it was snubbed.
@@carlbloke8797 so if a game is excellent, but someone involved with the game is controversial the game doesn’t deserve accolades? Kind of black and white thinking.
I’d say the doxxing of a streamer playing the game overshadowed any “problematic” things JK Rowling said.
My favorite part of this years Game Awards is how all the award winners were rushed off stage but celebrities got all the time in the world to ramble on. Oh, you're making a heartfelt speech and trying not to break down in tears? Sorry, but you need to gtfo the stage, we have to get Matthew McConaughey up here and play more Fortnite ads.
I like Mr "I keep getting older" but his role In the awards was to shill some movie game I've already completely forgotten.
95% advertisements
5% game awards
2% game awards we cared about
Yeah, Larian didnt even get a chance to announce the Xbox version of Baldurs Gate 3 being realeased that night! And They won game of the year! But didnt even get enough time to announce the release of their own game!
I have been wondering about this for so long, glad you are addressing it. In order for the shows validity this transparency is quite important. Especially since this show has become far too big and too influential.
Here's hoping people end up with the right takeaway from this:
WORLD PREMIERE
WORLD PREMIERE
@@reallycoolPlease Wrap It Up
There has been no year in the history of TGA where there weren't any questionable nominees.
That made me wonder how voting worked.
I found pretty much nothing of worth.
It makes the whole system highly questionable.
That this event seems to hold that much sway is even more problematic than the issue of the voting process etc.
Hopefully more people will point this out and maybe it causes enough pressure to make the process more transparent.
That is the hope
@@reallycool It could help to improve the reputation in the ''gaming community'' too. As of now the event is treated largely as a source for memes.
“No year” Uh huh. Totally none in the past 4 years were there questionable choices or lack of choices.
Of course we can scratch our heads how the heck i.e. Destiny 2 appeared as a nominee but in my mind the answer is much simpler than we think. It is just a huge game with lots of buzz and yearly huge expansions. I would not necessarily look for conflict of interests in every case.
@@inanimatesum4945 Put on your reading spectacles
I’d be fine if Destiny 2 got replaced by Deep Rock Galactic or Blue Archive in terms of best community support. Those two games actually respect their playerbase and don’t treat them like idiots.
The year where Half-Life Alyx got zero nominations while giving the subverting expectations game (where the writing falls apart when you think about it) all the awards was the straw that broke the camel’s back for me. That said, I’m mostly just looking forward to the game awards because of the game announcements.
Honestly, I feel like this year was a perfect demonstration that the awards are not the real reason for the event. At this point, I wouldn't be surprised if they don't disclose the jury just to protect them from the criticisms they knew the event was going to get. Because this is by not the 1st year people point out how little time is given to the awards and it keeps getting worse. At this point, I'm convinced they know what theyre doing, they know people font like it, but they keep at it for the cash, so they know that if the jury was named, their reputation would be damaged and the harrassment they would get would be horifying even if the the votes were all fair.
But nobody would be able to connect any specific voter to their vote. It's not a jury of 12 people wherein we know - they all voted this way & therefore all are culpable. If 1,000 people voted & 565 say "X" is game of the year, how can anyone reasonably assign blame to any individual? Your argument is not well founded - they keep it secret, as Mrixrt implied, to hide bias & agendas.
Edit: and like you correctly pointed out, to advertise & promote their sponsors ad infinitum.
@S_raB The harassment does not need to be linked to specific votes. Just the general involvement with the event may be enough for some people. Plus, being mostly journalists, it wouldn't be hard to guess their votes from the work they produce, and it's not like the intermet needs absolute certainty and clear evidence to dogpile anyone.
To be clear, I don't like the game awards, and I don't think jury should be exempt of criticism. However, I'm afraid they'd get a lot more than that if their identities were public.
Same as the Grammys. It’s just a popularity and money contest
I like watching it every year, but I get annoyed when they just quickly announce some of the "less important" winners, and others get to go on stage. Best RPG winners should have a stage presence! I still enjoy the show and the new announcements, even if the voters are sketch.
You should be ashamed of yourself for enjoying The Game Awards.
Not to mention that they let some people to very unfunny bits for 5 minutes straight, but had promoters telling the winners to "Wrap it up", which is very insidious!
This right here is why I don't care at all who wins game of the year ir any award in these kind of thing. Doesn't change how good or bad a game is. But I have a few friends who put a large amount of stock into them and it concerns me for how the industry will go
I knew this was crymore gaming. I tried to look for that channel because your voice sounded so familiar. I haven't been to this channel in forever but love what you are making now. I also need to thank you for my copy of bejeweled as you used to run raffles for games and I used to sign up for all of them. So excited to see how this channel has grown!
Thank you for the very kind words
As much as I enjoy the glitz and glamor and WORLD PREMIEREs of the VGAs, it's become ever increasingly clear that the awards are less about celebrating the achievements of games and games development in the last year, and more about advertising; whether that be for the award nominees themselves or for the WORLD PREMIEREs to come. There might be something to be said about the awards being a dark reflection of an industry that's obsessed with pursing fame, legitimacy and the next big hit, while diminishing the work of the people who helped develop said industry - but that's another, completely different essay to tackle.
Yes exactly, all I really hoped was to start a conversation
Thank you for making this video and doing thorough research on this topic. This is something I've been questioning for years now when I kept seeing certain games getting suspicious amounts of favor, nominations, and wins in The Game Awards show, despite other games having better sales in comparison and/or were more liked amongst the general gaming community.
When we need mrixrt most, they returned. Joke aside, looking forward to watching your Game Awards video.
I do agree with you with the conflict of interest with the jury picking for The Game Awards.
The Dave The Diver is nice, but shouldn't be in the Indie category.
Nothing against Geoff Keighley, but when asked about Dave The Diver saying it was added "Because it has an indie feel.".
Just because it has an indie feel, doesn't make it indie, there's a difference when you look at the other indie games.
Also, I made a joke to a friend last night when we and some of friends were going over The Game Awards list and noticed the BEST VR/AR category was all PlayStation games and I said "PlayStation sending the envelope 📨 of money 💵 to The Game Awards.".
"Indie" seems to just mean "pixel artstyle"
I was following you until that last bit. PlayStation has a new VR headset and many of the best games are on it, so I don't see an issue. VR currently is still not a massive industry and has slow adoption. RE Village was also easily the best VR game this year and it was a PS5 exclusive.
@@reallycoolThe nominees are decided by the jury, they are given categories and then told to write a game in. Dave the diver got in because enough judges didn't realize it wasn't actually an indie game when they answered. Rather than disregard their nominations, the game awards left it in because, well... thats what the judges voted for
@@reallycool Yea, because if they used the actual definition of "indie game", in that category should have won Baldur's Gate 3, that's an actual indie game.
There is no reason to not put it in there too, why the winner of the game of the year is not even nominated in the indie game category, if it's an actual indie game? Wspecially when the previous year they actually put Stray in both the best indie and the game of the year category.
@@papabaddad And that's a big issue, if the judges that can vote for the game of the year can't even understand when a game actually belong into a category or not.
While I think the conflict of interest point is interesting I think it’s undercut by the way that the Academy Awards and other industry awards shows work which is just to have tbe developers themselves vote on it. While I know the example you gave was meant as an example of the ‘complexity’ of conflicts of interests in the jury, it really isn’t a conflict of interest at all when you consider the alternative. The solution is to have more total members of the jury overall, more clearly defined categories and perhaps more categories, and some limitations on which jury members can vote for which projects.
i was watching half of this right before the game awards this year (2023 for futureproofing) and was watching still very concerned but i was like "oh this only applies to the nominations, still pretty bad but it'll still the community who gets the final say!" but then i saw how pizza tower got completely robbed and then saw that the game awards are voted with a 90% to 10% jury to community voting ratio and everything clicked in my head for the past 5 years and oh my god. this is BAD. like theres SO much horrible, horrible stuff going on at the game awards (the 30 second limit for any acceptance speech this year comes to mind first) but this is just downright evil, i can't even lie.
I'll never forget 2020's TGA.... once the GOTY was announced and it was TLOU 2. Everyone in chat started saying "RIGGED" and they had to shut off the chat. Ha ha ha ha... everything that year was rigged....
Haha wokewokewoke am I rite typical librul media didn’t make big titty anime GOTY
Shutting off chat is an admission of guilt
Imagine people in actual positions to vote on games not being homophobes and choosing a game based only on its merit. What a novel concept.
And how would that be an admission of guilt? If a bunch of people are being nasty, it makes sense to shut that down. Nasty comments spamming the chat would also make the stream not so advertiser-friendly.
@@joeykeilholz925 how is it an admission of guilt? They're a brand... They are trying to make money. Of course they'd want to avoid comments like that.
@@HorusDeathtouchHomophobes? People were OUTRAGED that a BIOLOGICAL MAN repeatedly beats up SMALL LESBIAN WOMEN and KILLED THE MAIN FATHER FIGURE.
THAT was the entire controversy, a monster woman-beater and murderer hailed as a sad and sympathetic hero. The game made a transperson act like monster and then called people being upset and disliking the thing "homophobes" for pointing out the CLEARLY EVIL character.
As someone who also really enjoys The Game Awards, It truly is refreshing to see someone take this issue seriously instead of nonchalantly dismiss it because "it's just video games". Fantastic video, thank you for your work.
"The gaming industry is now bigger than movies these days".
That should pretty much explain everything for you my guy. Sad but true.
It would be nice to have that transparency of who's actually voting, but the effect of it on who's nominated is not that clear. We know who votes at the Oscars and yet we get baffling nominations each year, specifically it's the case with Animated Features, Shorts and Documentaries, where in the first category people vote for the films they watched most with their kids and in the second and third they don't even bother watching and pick the one that's topically more appealing.
But you also can't request everyone to act in good faith when it comes to voting. The best you can do is only include publications and journalists/reviewers which are responsible enough to take it seriously. That's where the transparency should be and that's where the public should push Geoff when there's a weird mysterious publication among the known ones.
Not that it's not important, it's just ambiguous in public view and making clear what nominations mean first seems easier to push.
That is potentially already happening with The Game Awards as well, but with an added detraction: with less than 120 total jurists who are hidden behind a shroud, any "bad voters" represent nearly a full percent of the vote. Knowing who and how can only help.
@@reallycool Didn't do my research like you obviously did, but I have a feeling that if a publication or someone who represents one already has an opinion that leads them to believe Diablo 4 is a good multiplayer nominee, then these small percentages of bad actors who didn't play the games or are from obscure resources don't affect the outcome more than just people who aren't competent at their field (of which there are a tonn amongst gaming publications - film publications have at least settled over the decades and there is a reputation behind each reviewer).
Having developers vote like with DICE awards isn't that great of an option. Developers don't have as much time as employees of professional gaming outlets do and they are more biased. Really appreciate the video as always, and it's important to push for these changes as early as possible, I just think something like vague nominations should be addressed first. Revealing people who vote might appear to be ethically incorrect for some and therefore isn't as easy of a change to push.
you also can't expect every judge to have played every game. These are people with regular jobs like me and you
For me the obvious clue that the voting is skewed (only using this year. I will never forgive Ace Combat not winning best soundtrack) aside from destiny being there for "Community support" is Alan Wake 2 being so prevalent. It seemed weird for it to be in so many categories for getting so little coverage outside a few review sites.
It's just strange that Geoff advertises it as "for the gamers" but it's reviewers that do the voting when for gaming it's well known and infamous that there's a huge disconnect between review sites and gamers.
Seems like a lot of the unhappiness about the awards could be solved by, IMO: weighing fans more in the votes and giving us the argument and consensus for the reasoning behind the vote from the companies. Not only does telling us WHY things got voted for placate most of the people who could be upset but it also helps advertise the game to people who might not've considered playing it otherwise. WHY is the soundtrack good? WHY is this narrative the best? WHY is this the best community support? Then let the companies actually accept the award with their speech.
Ben Croshaw revealed what the TGA bias was in a Fully Ramblomatic video released sometime back.
To summarize the award bias Ben found, the game awarded can't be based on an "old" gameplay style, can't be an expansion-sequel, independents have to kiss up to the industry (that's about selling indies as a "Scrappy-Doo"), the graphics have to look nice (read: pixel/2D art is snubbed) and can't have irreverence (Guess why Pizza Tower wasn't nominated?). The two obvious awards for 2023 was Hi-Fi Rush for "sound design" and Baldur's Gate winning almost everything.
Remedy and Sweet Baby paid them big bags to put Alan Wake 2 in so many categories and give it so many awards despite it being practically forgotten about at this point. The Deathloop Effect should be the name of the phenomenon. Deathloop got so much coverage and awards at the show and within like 2 weeks following the show, everybody had moved on and forgotten about it.
At this point they should just become Winter E3 or Winter Game Fest.
Is it not what it already kinda is anyway? The award itself smacks of fluff.
Yeah, I've lost fate in Geoff Keighley and his events when I learned about some of this and also how the event is structured like there was more ads than game footage and then political messages and swaying how some games are picked leading to games like Hogwarts Legacy being ignored. The fact that only 10% of the actual gamers has a say in the voting process (if that's still correct?) also defeats the purpose for me as they are indeed the largest pool of consumers so it would give a more accurate result. The drama around the "Wrap it up" thing also doesn't help thing, is it too much to give the GOTY award winners 2-5 extra minutes to pay tribute to the person who died while working on the BG3? But also have time to properly do an acceptance speech of the award?
you did very good to present a nuanced and reasonable discussion with solid and absolute valid questions, that need to be asked in any voting procedure.
thx.
A very strong video raising an important question. I have one personal qualm with your argument - I personally would not include past employment in a conflict of interest map unless declared. I found the example where a possible voter had a position for 3 months at a publisher a little unconvincing. Of course, companies are made up of people and if he still has a link to those or feels he cannot give an impartial decision, he should recuse himself from that vote. However, I do not think they should automatically be assumed to have a conflict on these grounds. I appreciate this wasn't your intent but it is how it comes across with your node-map.
Thank you, your point is well-taken and highlights the nuance in discussions about conflicts of interest. My intention was to underscore the importance of transparency in the voting process of The Game Awards, particularly regarding the connections between jurors and entities in the gaming industry.
I agree with your perspective that not all past employment should be viewed as an automatic conflict of interest. The example of a juror with a brief stint at a publisher was intended to illustrate the complexities in discerning potential biases, not to cast aspersions on any individual's integrity. The key issue, as you rightly pointed out, is the lack of clarity around whether such individuals vote and, if they do, what guidelines they follow to address potential conflicts.
This situation underscores the need for The Game Awards to clearly communicate its voting process, including how it handles potential conflicts of interest. If there were transparent guidelines - for instance, stipulating recusal for jurors with recent employment history at a publisher or developer within a specified timeframe - it would alleviate concerns and provide a clearer framework for evaluating potential biases.
My argument is not to accuse anyone of unethical behavior but to advocate for a system that preempts misunderstandings and ensures the integrity of the awards. By openly sharing who is voting, the processes they follow, and the measures taken to prevent conflicts of interest, The Game Awards can foster a more robust and trustworthy environment.
I appreciate the opportunity to clarify my position. It's through these conversations that we can collectively work towards a more transparent and ethical framework in the gaming industry.
Really enjoyed the video!
Reminded me of RLM’s Jack and Jill video from a few years back, on how incestious these productions can get.
It's very insular, and some very reasonable steps towards transparency would lessen the impact of that. Thanks for enjoying ☺️
This isn’t like voting for a politician. At minimum, each source needs to give their reason as to why they voted. Even if their take is “to be honest I don’t really like amy of the options here, this one just had the most brand recognition to me.” Or “I’ve never played an MMORPG, so when I had to vote for that category, I just chose the one with the coolest box art”. Even “voting was almost done so I just voted randomly real quick and I don’t really know what I voted for” is better than nothing. At least then we have some sense to the madness. It sucks and we would complain about it to the people, but at least then it would explain some of the choices sometimes.
Great video! You are right, we really need more transparency and regulations. There is no reason to not treat TGA any more than a high budget top 10 list if they don't go out of there way to show and explain why their jury is where they are.
Yes, exactly. It's not a small effort podcast, it's bigger than all the other awards shows, and it should act like it.
I'm starting to question how close Annapurna is to the people in this event. Stray's awards were one thing, but a basically unknown game from industry veterans backed by a known publisher beating a near-solo developer's first product for a breakout title is very concerning.
The game awards is run by the industry to benefit profit. They don't care about a open or logical voting system because that could allow votes that explicitly look down on games with anti-consumer practices like gameifying gambling, predatory cashshops, broken "fix it in post...maybe" releases, making everything a live service model, IP over innovation etc.
The industry is full of money-grubbing at the expense of the developers and creatives who do the actual work. They have shown time and time again that they do not value anyone. Any award to the big players is a tool to feel prestiguous and make more sales. Beyond that, everything else is just a sham for show.
This reminds me so much of the Ratings Board for movies. I saw a documentary years ago where, at the time at least, the identity of those who decide what a movies rating is, was completely anonymous.
I forget what year it was but what made me question the votes was there was a game that literally *everyone* thought would win in the category, even people who didn't play it thought it deserved it. Then it suspiciously lost its award to a game that then went on to talk about its new elements that reeks of gatcha.
I appreciate that the awards essicently is also an "e3" of sorts that we get new game premieres, but with how it was this year, it really needs to be worked at.
Ever since I discovered that people vote is only 10% I just dismissed the awards completely, since it's only done by some unknown faces on an unknown place that doesn't necessarily reflect reality... So, ever since 2020 I just watch it for the World Premieres.
Same
You're misinformed. You can vote for any of the awards. The normal awards take the public votes only 10% into account. The players voice award is decided 100% by public votes
Great video. Never thought or cared much about this before, but these are really interesting questions, feels nice to learn about this confusion
I suspect that the RUclipsrs selected were selected because their form of journalism is a lot closer to traditional gaming journalism than other popular channels - especially the ones you listed. Their primary content is in-depth reviews of new games to help the average consumer better understand if the game is right for them, and it's done in a relatively formal and professional manner. SkillUp and Gameranx are two of the largest channels that produce that style of content. I am a little more dubious as to why the channel with 40k subscribers was chosen.
Concentration of "opinions" same as concentration of power that we face everywhere we go
The Game Awards are a multi-hour infomercial with a handful of awards sprinkled in that are determined by critics who are more out of touch with gamers than ever. If this is the best we can come up with to honour the biggest and most popular artistic medium in the world, it is in a sad state indeed. We all deserve better.
Just wanted to say my idea before I watch.
I'd ask all the Devs (one per company) nominated for every award to vote on each individual award.
Who would be better at judging than the game makers themselves.
The biggest issue with this suggestion is the overwhelming potential for bias
“There is no reason why it should be so difficult to figure out who is voting” the only reason I can imagine we don’t have a list of voters is because of the community itself, there is so much toxicity online surrounding the Game Awards that there is a chance that parts of the community will target and harass these voters when “their” game doesn’t win. Criteria should be more transparent however.
If I was a jury member I wouldn't want my details to be released to avoid being harassed by the more extreme elements of our community.
Details means name and position? That is not much information to base harrasment on. I think it's better to have it public since that incentivate a more critical and educated vote.
Nah, this is why gaming is in the state it is. Gamers give them free passes
The Oscars dont have that problem strange
But nobody would know what you voted for so why would they harass you?
@@KevTheGalaxybender it’s a video game it’s nothing important or serious of course they get a free pass
Seeing as there's a growing distrust in games journalism, it would be refreshing to know there's integrity in the process and what qualifies their selection. It's well known some journalists are buddy-buddy with some developers, I don't doubt there's been a huge numbers of conflicts of interest thus far. I personally don't give TGA much weight, the entire voting process is very questionable.
30:23 Funny because all of the Best Game Direction nominees are also Game of the Year nominees, but what's even more funny is that this year it was two different winners, Alan Wake 2 for Best Game Direction and Baldur's Gate 3 for Game of the Year.
4:06 this is the best coverage of the game awards among all the other pearl-clutching RUclipsrs a la Asmongold, Charalanahzard aka Alanah Pearce and the rest.
That show is for players and the press, not the developers. Like you said, that industry has no Academy Awards academy. It's sponsored by the advertizers.
While I agree with most of your points, they don't really matter. It's somewhat of an empty award. It's just an advertizement for upcoming games, with awards sprinkled on top.
It's on the developers and publishers to point this out and to not play along, not for the consumer aka us.
We can vote on Steam, GameRadar, GameInformer etc. Either way it's all a sham anyway.
17:54 lol guilty
24:25 calling out gameranx. iiiii lllllike it -Creed Bratton
29:46 oooomg. I love your points. I thought I was a weirdo for not knowing what the captions of some categories mean. I made assumptions, like probably most, but that's where it starts and ends. The descriptions are very ethereal.
31:15 That's why Valve removed award logos from their thumbnails strip in late 2022. I think they are allowed to be listed below in the description. I wished you had known about this and mentioned it.
who would've thought that a nepotistic industry tends to act and appear corrupt and nepotistic.
Jeff Gerstmann was one of the judges for the game awards and he has spoken about the process on his podcast before.
In podcast 75 at 1:17:00 he briefly touches on the way nominations are made. He has spoken at more length but i'm not going to relisten to 10 episodes to find it, but if you are really that interested you should check it out. You could also reach out to him and see if he would be willing to answer some questions about it
Another great video on the industry. You have inspired me to create my own channel (not under this #). If transparency is lacking, validity is forfeit...although Elden Ring was amazing, how many actually agree that The Last of Us II deserved equal praise?
While I do 'care' about the awards, always nice to get that bias-verification that the thing you like is good and liked by other people, I know the results are hilariously weighted and curated in a way that means whenever it goes against my favourite pick, I don't feel bad about it.
However, what I do think Geoff does is give the gaming industry something to look towards as a mutual celebration of our shared hobby, and at that it does a better job than any other event we have. That this is the best is obviously not ideal, but until someone does a better job I'll support the Doritos Pope all the way. He loves games, of that I have no doubt.
That's along the same path as my opinion
100+ outlets vote and for years there has always been 1 indie game nominated for GotY.
Not 2, not 3, not 0, always 1 for years. What is the statistical chance of that happening, that exactly 1 indie game gets enough votes to get to the finals every time?
Of all the nominations and nominees I got angry with, I was angry that the RUclips channel PeopleMakeGames lost to the rest of the nominees who are just... streamers. No offense to streamers, but that RUclips channel actually did game journalism.
They deserved to win so very much.
I think a good option is for each organization to have all of their editorial staff vote as individuals. Then send these votes labeled with their names to The Game Awards and have them throw out duplicate votes. Then Game Awards can publish a list of voters for each award and what organizations they are connected to.
That would require Geoff to care though, I don’t think he does. I think he is too wrapped up in all of this to want the transparency or to deal with requesting this from organizations.
I've noticed a parallel between nominees and top streaming games on twitch. It's very much a popularity contest. Just forget all those popular games that had controversies! Mysteriously not nominated.
Transparency would be nice, but the huge corporate monopoly will probably not appreciate that 😂
Good points througout the video. Also, why all the fanfare to vote on the website, if it's decided by people on the inside?
It's now just ads show with some announcements , probably solded rewards
I don't think something like this could go on without Geoff Keighley being aware of this, if you are the face of something like this, you will want to know how it works behind... And in my opinion, that speaks more about him, then anything else. Because he has to be aware of this.
I already figured I knew what this video was about, and I wouldn't have watched it if not for the RUclips draught, but I didn't realize people took The Video Game Awards seriously.
I feel no association to that advertisement being a gamer since childhood in the 80s. It just seems like some way for companies to market their products, so your video is very surprising to me. If it was legit, the things you point out wouldn't be problematic.
Also, they wouldn't look at major news outlets (who are clearly in the bag) and would instead would pull votes from those who people see as representing the gaming media. For instance, someone who votes on best FPS would probably be a RUclipsr who typically deals with them (G-Man). If I was wondering about Roguelikes, then Northernlion or Retromation might be good picks. For RPGs, you'd wanna define what an RPG is because Cyberpunk is not whereas Baldur's Gate 3 is. But that's looking at Classic (or Computer or Western) RPG vs Action RPG.
Gaming journalists today can't even play games (citing the Cuphead video review). At this point, I only have trust in people that actually play these games and give detailed reviews. You don't specifically review games, but I find you trustworthy on games media research. If I was going to give out an award for "best research into gaming media", you'd be one of the nominees.
The Video Game Awards are a sham, and I don't care about them being here or going away, but I do care about people viewing them for more than an advertisement because they do not in any way represent most gamers; instead, they represent the interests of companies with deep pockets.
The problem is that so many bad and extemely shallow games gets so many awards. And that these game studios will just keep on pushing out these bad and shallow games Just because they get awards from people that got no idea what makes a good game. But i bet there is alot of money changeing hands to for sure.
"Bad and extremely shallow" is an inherently subjective thing.
The Last of Us 2. Nuff said.
Thanks for this, it was very interesting
Now I know why a certain game series has been robbed off goty and probably gonna happen again
And connected companies have gave them the exact same bad critic scores despite praise from alot of others
For sure needs to be changed, for the benefit of all game nominations
An interesting question (voting rights in the VGAs) answered with detailed research, presented well. More, please.
I started question the vality of criteria to say that Baldurs Gate 3 is the GOTY, just because the noise it made. I feel it was not that much of a data-based technical criteria. And well, it won as expected, but how it won, makes me wonder how realisticly you can say it's the "best" game. It's complexity is not equal to an obvious quality or perfection. Also, a journalist voting, can just think on social media based opinions. There should be programmers voting in order to consider the technical aspects too.
I feel the japanese awards are more reliable since they have public data on how, what and who choses. Also it's 100% based on data and technical aspects such as performance and programming standards.
Look, dude. Your comment is an opinion and you're free to have it. However, it's obvious that BG3 won, not just because of the so-called "noise." It won because it was THAT good. It's the best game of the year because it was different experience compared to most mainstream AAA releases and it was appealing to a lot of gamers, just not you.
You don't have to like the game, but I think you should understand why others do.
@@theduck2970 I get what you say. But that is my point actually. I do like the game (bought it early) and I do see how and why it's different, and the OVERALL reasons on why it won. It required a titanic effort to make possible such complexity and enriched interactions, and they deserved the recognition. However, how you can say it has an objective criteria on which the decision was based? Not just drifted opinions of some guys from the same environment (even if we all agree). The problem I see is not the game at all, but the pretended community agreement on that it obviously was the winner. I think the community has a bigger influence on the decision, but we all fool ourselves thinking that the awards are always well executed.
@ I actually wanted to write a longer comment to discuss further but it keeps getting shadow banned for some reason. So, I'll just have to say that I get your point and I can agree with it. You make a lot of sense now.
@@theduck2970
Thanks. We agree then :)
Game Awards is just a industry created and funded "awards show" that primarily aims to prop up the main players (+ few indies to make it "fair", just like the 10% community "vote")
The actual reasoning for this is because the "main players" are the games that get played the most, so it makes sense that they get the most votes and nominations. If you want a list of indie darlings that came out this year, you'll want to look at a list made by one guy. Having a large panel of judges vote and expecting lesser known titles to somehow be known to the majority of them is stupid
Perfect vídeo! GREAT questions!
Jeeeeezus. It’s all so damned convoluted, my brain hurts. Makes The Game Awards even less appealing than it already was.
Only just got the notification for this video now.. strange. Anyways woooohoooo!!! Another Moriarty video yay!!! Love your work thank you!! Cheers from Australia 🇦🇺 and yes just incase you're wondering I live 3 houses up from Fringy 😂
Well Said and well Done, hopefully it will help in providing transparency. Or TGA will become an execise in self-congratulation like the Oscars.
My theory for what makes you a voter (despite your size) is mainly based on reach and publicity in certain communities. SkillUp for example. I’ve been watching his channel for almost two years now. I’ve watched as he’s pulled himself up to be a rather prominent, well known, and respected member of the gaming news/discussion community. Same could apply to Gameranx, hell even more so.
I’m not passing this off as fact tough, but more as a personal theory.
The fact that so many of them are so closely related to each other shows it's clearly a good ol boys system
Of course this video finds its way to me while I’m wondering why Motorfest got robbed for best racing/sports game…
Gamergate was about this. But all those organizations said it was about harassing a girl
When you got games like Forza Motorsport 8 who is hated and being label as one of the worst racing games ever created winning 2 awards it said how much of a joke this thing is.
The Game Awards better rename themselves to The VideoAds Awards.
In my opinion if you gonna make this people vote and all this "experts" picking their games they should release the ballot of those votes and names for transparency. Just like any other events does. You don't need 10K people. People 3 people from the majors gaming outlets from US,Europe,Asia.
Honestly, never cared for am award that is just given based on some jury that does not disclose the scoring criteria, no matter the venue, for instance, figure skating, love watching it, but there was a time where the judges scored based on personal feelings rather on accuracy of completed figure/elements and how much they liked the choreography, which pissed me off, because some competitors, excuse, all competitors would be marked up or down depending on the country for which they compete for, for instance US judge would mark down the score of other competitors besides the US one, the way they tried to mitigate this was for the judge panel to be multi national, which really did not solve anything as the panel did not include judges of all countries competing, as the seats were only six. Same with Gymnastics etc. Recently I started watching more as the scoring system was changed substantially and the judges influence on the final score was reduced substantially, thanks to a computer assisted scoring which marks the accuracy of the elements completed and then the judges make final adjustments to the score based on that. Award ceremonies are usually mastorbatory for the industry they are set in. To quote Scott Eyman on why were the Oscars created:
I found that the best way to handle [filmmakers] was to hang medals all over them. […] If I got them cups and awards they’d kill themselves to produce what I wanted. That’s why the Academy Award was created.
An award doesn't have nothing to do with objective quality of the product, its made that some big wigs in the industry, get a hard on, and as a commercial venue.
I know this has nothing to do with the video but I had this video on in the background and I thought you were saberspark, amazing video though hope to see more content from you soon!
Yes, soon
They should build a jury of trusted single reviewers, retired industry professionals and the like. Just asking some random media outlet not even related to games to come up with a vote for something is pretty ridiculous tbh. Really just proves video game journalism has always been a big joke.
Will NEVER watch this show again. Absolutely terrible experience. Absolutely terrible.
The Game Awards are wack and people should stop taking it seriously. Nice video dude!
Well, their arguments for the anti-transparancy is death threats, constant harassments, etc
If you wonder how it is with the Video Game Awards, imagine all the other award shows, and super delegates.
I have come to a simple conclusion. The event outlived its usefulness. Meaning I don't care about it, don't take it seriously and caution people around me about it. In simpler terms as I don't trust game journalism I don't trust award shows it's a marketing ploy I refuse to be a part of and actively fight against.
It's no less useful than it was in 2014
Random Christoph Waltz
Everything was confirmed when Overwatch won... And again when The Last Of Ass 2 won
Can't really take The Game Awards seriously when critics and media are the ones that judge the games. If it was like the Oscars, it would be and Academy of game developers themselves (one that would probably have to be exclusive to each major game developing contry). Any true award needs to be given by your peers, not by media and critics -- which is fine of course (eg. Critic's Choice Awards, The Golden Globes, etc.), but as long as there isn't a governing game development body, that states clear guidelines and criteria per category, then these "Game Awards" will continue to be a joke or just what it is -- an advertising show with some "awards" given to fill in the gaps.
"ethics in video game journalism"
Perhaps they don't actually vote, and that's how all the games are so balanced with awards. If it's big budget enough, it gets at least one award. No snubs. If there are any awards left over, then some games win more than one.
Last time people demanded transparency in game journalism books were written about it, you could be labeled "gamergater" for this (or worse).
I always found the DICE awards more relevant since all its votes are from the developers themselves.
24:15 But that's not a government official, CBC is Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, it's just a news company in Canada it's not a government branch, he's just a regular journalist. Are you from the US? I think I see your confusion. In Canada The CBC is a "federal Crown corporation", which means it is owned by the government but operates at arm's length from the government (meaning they're structured like private or independent companies). As a Crown corporation, it is funded by the government through parliamentary appropriations and advertising revenue. But journalists who work at the CBC are not public servants of course.
It’s great to have diverse voices and perspectives voting in on something, but when that mandate is exploited by and for the sake of having authority over said thing merely to “have more bodies” involved…then you have some Bad Faith involved.
It’s unsurprising that it has become so widespread in positions of power/authority due to how much legitimacy it brings to [Insert Cause Here]. The problem?
You can’t really call it out for what it is without being a pariah.
Well, given how this tiny universe utterly refused to change and deflected, or defended its own corruption in a certain event that occured in 2014, we can be sure that the voting process is only as fair, honest, transparent and accountable as its voters: Not. A. Single. Bit.
The Game Awards go *out of their way* to make their coting process and result opaque. These standards are not the one of an ethical event/company/system but or a systemicly corrupt one.
The truth is nobody cares about the awards other than the publishers everyone just watches to see the new trailers.
Really wonder how the hell these people got invovled with it to begin with given how dismissive these places are of gaming in general.
every gamer knows that the actual winners and nomines part of the game awards doesnt really matter.
i personally watch it for cool new upcoming games, and indie games i woulndt have not know if it werent for the spotlight.
TGA is like Oscars.. Popularity contest.
Regarding 24:16, why do you say that Jonathan Ore is a government official? Certainly he is a journalist for a national broadcaster, but it is perhaps not accurate to equate that to government official.
Fantastic video and investigation into the subject. Great work.
Thank you
There's definitely a bias or incompetence at the game awards. Genre bias is certainly a thing. Something like Overwatch winning was a rare exception. Because this stuff is so closely linked to Hollywood, the voters (and reviewers in general) seem to be very easily impressed by games with good production values, story, with known voice actors, etc. and where the primary focus of the game is on the narrative and not the gameplay. These games also tend to be on the easier side, and it's not surprising that a person on the panel who is not skilled at games would like these more.
Popularity (or news buzz) also pulls some weight. When a journalist doesn't know what to vote for, they will probably just pick games they've heard of. This one is not an overriding factor - if it was, we'd see a lot of games that sell 10-20 million copies get more awards - but it's a last resort for these panelists who have no idea what to pick, which I suspect is a fair number of them. This is why we see games like Destiny and what not continually win awards despite massive controversies, layoffs and other issues - they are winning on name recognition alone, and not on merit.
Also, a game that checks DEI boxes does get a boost and can break tie-breakers between two equally deserving games (or sometimes not equally deserving). This stuff is important to panelists when I think it really shouldn't be all that important, just like it shouldn't be for the Oscars. I can definitely see how this would filter out historical games, or Japanese games while proping up stuff made in California.
I can't think of any other reason a game like Last of Us 2 could actually win - the gameplay is pretty mediocre, and the story has a lot of plot holes and pacing issues. The ending is unsatisfying. The death of major characters is cheap and non-sensical. At least 50% of the target audience had major issues with it. And this was the best game of the year? Meanwhile, Animal Crossing brought joy to tens of millions of players, especially during a year that was marked by the pandemic. The game that divided people immensely and created so many culture war controversies won while the game that brought millions together lost. Makes zero sense for a game that is supposed to represent the very best of the year.
Then you have games like Fire Emblem Three Houses that were nowhere to be found in the game awards when they were clearly one of the best games that year. Yes, the graphics are not impressive, even for the Switch, but the gameplay, replayability, and everything else is fantastic.
Based on the panel, I'm not even sure why something like Baldur's Gate 3 could actually get Game of the Year. I'm not saying it's not deserving, but I am skeptical because I don't believe the voting panel is interested in a game that is in such a niche genre that is also far more intricate and complicated than the games the panel is used to playing. So when a game like this wins, I wonder what controls were in place to make it happen because I don't believe even 10-percent of the panel actually played the game, let alone beat it from start to finish (which I want to be clear, should be a requirement. In order to vote in the OSCARS, you can't just watch the first 10 minutes of every movie). If you're going to vote, you need to show your gamer tags - yes, we've gotten to that point!
And if most of the panel isn't beating every game that is nominated and is only playing it for a few hours at best, I don't even know how these people are qualified to vote for it and they shouldn't be voting in the first place. That just incentivizes developers to frontload all the quality. A lot of games have this problem in fact - Diablo 4, Xenogears, Mass Effect 3, Final Fantasy XV, Anthem, Dragon Age II and many, many others.
Good video. Interesting points but trusting "Gaming media" in any way is dumb. Let alone trusting them to pick a goty
Baldur's Gate 3 as GOTY despite game breaking bugs despite a massive amount of patches, disregard towards the whole of Steam playerbase as well as towards the core audience (D&D players)...
What would you have picked?
@@coltonwilkie241 Armored Core 6. I can't think about any other that peaked my interest in 2023.
2022 : Dwarf Fortress (new version) or Elden Ring. Both are great but widely different.
2021 : Tales of Arise
2020 : Death Stranding
2019 : Sekiro
I tried Starfield, didn't enjoy it one bit. Wanted to stop in under 1h.
Resident Evil 4 was good but it's a remake, same thing with Dead Space.
Hogwarts Legacy bored me to death. The story was okay but gameplay was piss easy, itemization was retarded, the amount of collectibles was over 100 times too much, broom controls were all but intuitive...
Atomic Heart was a ton of fun but first DLC had major performance issues, a puzzle near the end of it was bugged.
Lord of the Rings Gollum (no need to say more).
Diablo 4 : Dark patterns, monetization, battlepass, p2w, unstable...
Jedi survivor (short version otherwise we'd be here a while):
Controller support issues, remind not working, release time issues, problem downloading day one, launch minimized and can't alt+tab to it, "optimizes" settings each start to waste time, save issues, "not enough ram" (64go), unstable after reaching a certain point, should easily get 60fps but got under 30, lowering specs did nothing to improve that, 90€, crashes corrupt saves, some steam features that should have been there were not, Denuvo, stutter... not half of the problems up to 13 days after release.
There's one i didn't get to play (i don't have a PS5 yet) and am not sure I'd like : Alan Wake 2.
I'm going to stop it here.
Do you have any suggestions ?
Such a shame that DDLC never won the Best Adventure Game of the Year.
I feel if the Gaming Awards disappears, I'll move on and keep gaming 😊😊😊
You don't want to be hyped after watching a trailer with zero gameplay for a game that may or may not come out in the next three years?
At this point it’s pretty much whatever corporation can pay more. This years ad awards was pretty bad