March 8th 2024.
"Hey, have you seen the latest Bafta Game Awards nominations? It's quite a shocker. The Friday letters page is buzzing with discussions about whether Bafta may have overrated Spider-Man 2. One reader even pointed out the impressive new Fallout TV trailer. Want to join in on the debate? Just send us an email at the address provided.
Speaking of Bafta, I can't help but notice the trend of award losers. As a fan of gaming, I was excited to see the nominations but was left underwhelmed. How does a banner year for gaming result in such lackluster nominations? I mean, Spider-Man 2 received nine nominations, only one less than Baldur's Gate 3 and even more than Zelda: Tears Of The Kingdom. And don't get me started on how they snubbed Zelda - a sequel in its own right, just like Spider-Man 2 - with only eight nominations. Plus, Zelda has so many innovative game ideas, like the Ultrahand, never seen before in any game, let alone any other Zeldas.
On the other hand, what does Spider-Man 2 bring to the table? Amazing graphics? Yes, but was that ever a secret? It's disappointing to see that's all it takes to be considered a top nominee. The problem with game awards is that they are often biased, and let's be real, how can the judges possibly have played every game? I mean, at the Oscars, judges get a tape of every movie, and even if they haven't seen any of them, it's just a day's work. But at Bafta, it's impossible to expect judges to put in 60 hours for each game they're considering. It's a waste of time and energy.
Now, I must agree with GC on their views about Bafta's nominations for Spider-Man 2. I mean, I enjoyed the game myself, but I wouldn't consider it a classic or game of the year material. Not last year, at least. It's clear that Bafta has a bias against Japanese games, and they always seem to give British games more awards and nominations than they deserve. I know people complain about The Game Awards, but let's give them some credit. They at least try to do a video game Oscars, unlike Bafta, who are heavily biased.
I can't help but notice the stark difference between video game companies in the East and the West. If I were a video game developer, I'd prefer to work at a Japanese company over any in the US. Why? Because they offer major wage rises, no layoffs, and even appreciate their employees. It's a stark contrast to the "Land of the Free," where you can be laid off at a moment's notice for no reason. I hope Japanese companies can take advantage of this and maybe even headhunt top Western developers. But let's be real, that's probably too much hassle for a Japanese company.
Now, if I were an American developer, I'd definitely set up a union and demand better treatment like Square Enix or Capcom. But let's face it, that's not going to happen anytime soon.
Have any thoughts on the Bafta nominations or the state of video game companies? Email us at the address provided.
Moving on to some exciting news, have you seen the new Fallout TV show trailer? I wasn't paying much attention before, but it looks really good. Like, really good. Some people even say it looks better than the games, but I think it's more than just graphics. The cinematography is great, the acting looks top-notch, and there's proper humor and dialogue. It's already looking better than the games, but it still maintains that authentic Fallout feel. It's kind of weird, in a good way. If I were the creators of this show, I'd be proud to say that it's better than the games. Maybe Todd Howard should consider a career in TV production instead of video game directing lately.
I'm curious, though, how will this affect the way games are reviewed, especially if they are live service and constantly evolving? Will there be a possible release and sixth-month updated review? It must add more stress to an already time-pressured job. On the flip side, it would help new players see how the game has progressed since release. Have you considered going back to review No Man's Sky since all the updates?
We've had a lot of noteworthy gaming news, but I can't help but feel like we're missing something. Something that adds to the excitement and anticipation of new games. I'm talking about the E3-style reveals for big AAA games. It's been years since we've had one, and now all we get are pre-rendered trailers for indie games that may or may not be great. It's just not the same. I miss the hype and speculation that comes with big game reveals. Trying to replicate it with indie games just doesn't work, and it's not the games' fault.
Take Sleight Of Hand, for example. A game with a witch throwing playing cards at people? Is it a stealth game? An action game? A strategy game? Who knows? The trailer certainly didn't tell us. It could be amazing, or it could be terrible. We have no way of knowing since we don't even know the developer. I miss the good old days of exciting game reveals and the thrill of anticipation. It's just not the same with indie games, and it's not their fault.
Have any thoughts on this matter? We'd love to hear them. Email us at the address provided. Let's keep the discussion going."
Have you ever wondered if certain things are really worth anything? That's what one reader asked in the Friday letters page, where they discussed the recent Bafta Game Awards and whether or not certain games were overrated. Specifically, the reader mentioned Spider-Man 2 and how it received nine nominations, just one less than Baldur's Gate 3 and even surpassing Zelda: Tears Of The Kingdom.
The reader couldn't understand how Spider-Man 2, which was just a sequel set in the same map, could receive so much recognition while other games with more innovative ideas were overlooked. For example, Zelda had never-before-seen game ideas like the Ultrahand, while Spider-Man 2's main innovation seemed to be its impressive graphics. The reader questioned if the game was ever marketed as anything more than that.
This led to a broader discussion about the validity of game awards and the biases that may be present. After all, how can judges be expected to have played every single game? Unlike the Oscars, where judges receive a copy of every movie, it's impossible for game judges to play every single game, especially if they have a limited amount of time. This reader believed that the Bafta Game Awards were a waste of time and that there must be a better way to recognize and celebrate the best games.
Another reader chimed in, agreeing with the sentiment that Spider-Man 2 was overrated at the Baftas. They believed that the awards show had a bias against Japanese games and that British games were often given more recognition than they deserved. While they acknowledged that The Game Awards had its own issues, they still saw it as a more legitimate attempt at creating a video game Oscars.
The conversation then shifted towards the differences between working for a Japanese game company versus an American one. The reader expressed their belief that Japanese companies treated their employees better, with higher wages, job security, and appreciation from their bosses. They hoped that Japanese companies could take advantage of this and attract top Western developers, although they acknowledged that it may be a difficult task.
On the other hand, the reader felt that American developers should unionize and demand better treatment from their companies, similar to how Japanese companies like Square Enix and Capcom operate. However, they were skeptical that this would happen.
The topic then turned to the recent Fallout TV show trailer, which had caught the attention of one reader. They believed that the show looked even better than the games, with great cinematography, acting, and dialogue. They were impressed by how it captured the essence of the games while also feeling more professional. They even joked that Bethesda should take notes from the show and use its ideas in their future games.
The conversation then shifted towards game reviews and whether they should be updated for live service games that are constantly evolving. The reader wondered if it would be necessary to have a review at the game's release and then another one six months later to reflect any changes. The website clarified that they only update reviews if the game is especially noteworthy or if they are personally interested in it. They used the example of Helldivers 2, which they plan to review once the mechs are added. They also mentioned that they had reviewed No Man's Sky three times, including the recent VR version.
The discussion ended with a reader expressing their disappointment in the recent Xbox Partner Preview event. They felt that there was nothing exciting or noteworthy in the games that were shown, unlike a traditional E3 reveal for a big AAA game. They missed the hype and speculation that came with big game reveals and felt that trying to do the same with indie games just didn't work. They also mentioned that the lack of information in pre-rendered trailers made it difficult to get excited about the games. They used the example of a game called Sleight Of Hand, which had a witch throwing playing cards at people, but the trailer didn't give any indication of what type of game it was or who the developer was. They longed for the days of big game reveals and believed that indie games just couldn't replicate the same level of excitement.
[This article has been trending online recently and has been generated with AI. Your feed is customized.]
