Is it Game of the Year if it's not even done?

I'm coming close to a reflection upon 2017, and while I might not continue to do a real GOTY list, I might do something similar. Either way, I tend to still set some system of rules for myself. Usually they include making sure a game was released that year, and I had to have played and loved it enough that year. That's basically my two main rules, but the first one is a major doozy. Sure at first you think it just eliminates backlog stuff I wait out and buy cheap from last year, but then you begin to realize there's late ports like Dust, Tomb Raider 2, and more recently a new wave that will be experiencing Okami for the first time on the PC (like a decade or close in age), not to mention just all the remasters people may be experiencing for the first time. I've had to shoo away from so many good games I loved in he year, because they didn't release then. However this system also works backwards, as if that makes any sense. Somehow we live in that awkward but awesome time where we can play games before they're out, through systems like extensive beta releases, or "early access". My personal rule would disqualify those, because even if they technically release, they are not the end-goal product they want you to see.

Unfortunately I have to step around eggshells to explain this, because some people don't understand that. People latch onto these words like "end-goal" and "finished" and "released" and start picking away at technicalities, or pretending that major award winning games are equal to broken betas because they might still have some free DLC or some serious patch changes to rebalance things. It's not "finished" anymore. While my rules are just my rules, and I shouldn't have to defend them, I would still like to talk about the principle of this topic and address it through arguments I've actually seen, especially as of recent drama around PUBG getting nominated in places like Destructoid.

"But nothing is ever finished today! It's all patches and stuff, and there's bugs everywhere!"

Fuck your pessimism, there are full functional and enjoyable games with no serious issues. Those that aren't, naturally don't become something amazing I love and gush over to the point where it's GOTY. The new Zelda was working pretty good. Horizon was a lot of fun from the cheers of it's launch week. People love the new Crash remakes. AC:O even escaped from any mass panic. On the other hand, Prey gave some people hell, so some people really took issues with it, and I don't hear it on a lot of GOTY lists. Sad, because it sure as hell is close on mine, but I understand that. But nobody with serious credibility gave AC:Unity or No Man's Sky a game of the year. Those are the seriously bugged or just flat out missing components of a game that make something truly bad, and worth putting more on the level of Early Access. Those games release, and they don't survive to become GOTY, because unlike an Early Access game they spent their true ideal release under controversy and angry costumers, fighting an uphill battle to even get an acceptable image.

"But Overwatch is still adding new characters and balances! It's not the same game anymore, so it was never 'finished' like you want!"

Oh, okay, I'm sorry developers aren't apparently allowed to use the internet with games anymore. This is conflating additions and rebalances with fucking beta or even alpha work! That is not the same damn thing. I can just go look at screenshots of something like PUBG and tell you it's not on the level of a finished product, or an Overwatch game with a good model of continuous content. So no, I don't consider beta and alpha work to be legit award winning material, unless that award was based on potential or hype. Even if the game is amazing, and fun, and it's brought a massive smile to your face all year long, if the devs say it's not good enough, it's not good enough for the awards. It can wait it's turn, it'll have it's release year (unless it's name is DayZ), there are other games out there that are actually ready for your final judgement. Adding additional content, or slowly transforming it, does not disqualify that, it just means it's an adapting and growing online game like... well, nearly every successful online game. Chances are, if you're early access game runs like that, it will continue post Early Access.

When people usually describe an award winning "finished" game, they don't mean one that is frozen in stone, nor one that has a tag that says Early Access on it's store page in massive letters, they are referring to a game released to the main public in ready 1.0 form. Games like Cortex Command or No Man's Sky that bullshit and fudge that 1.0 form don't live very healthy lives. You might have even just asked me what the hell "Cortex Command" even is, to which I say... exactly.

"But it's so good, and breaking records, and-"

Fantastic, but it's still not ready. All the reason you need is right on the store page, and in a separate category, under a different filter even, and it is perhaps even on the .Exe file name or folder, or even in the main menu every time it's booted up. Some might even watermark it in the corner of the screen as you play it. It probably says "BETA" or "0.8b2" which all point to, NOT READY YET. It was ready for you to test, and if it's incredible, then I hope you can say the same when it is ready as a product. Do you know how many finished releases are out there and ready as normal products though? Well you can help me, help you, because I won't write out this whole list, because it's a lot. So much in fact, that it would be a shame you neglected them for something that isn't even ready (though you can weed out re-releases it has).

"But this is just the nature of releases, get used to it!"

I'm sure publishers are telling you that about lootboxes to. Anyway, like I tell them, that won't omit you from being criticized. Plus this just flat out isn't an argument, and you look silly. If a website has different rules from me and decides to nominate broken farm survival V0.64b instead of a game that's actually optimized for more than their lucky office team, so be it. But in general, I'll still join the people angry at that decision, and we'll still fuss about how you dodged real and awesome great games that were more worthy of your attention, and unlike those Early Access games, won't have a second "release" party to celebrate in. They launched this year, and their chance to be game of the year is only once in this year. I'm not going down this broken logic of handing it out to ever game that decides to patch itself, or released beta version 7 which was better than version 6, and then give it to them again when it's actually done... or vice versa, rob it of it's chance to glorify it when it's done, because I wasted my breath on praising it before it even had showed it's best card. So I'll "get used to" criticizing people with shallow principles rather than declaring a game the best of it's year before it's even had its year.

At the end of the day, it's a hollowing thing to declare anyway, but I can't take it seriously by it's own rules and logic, because it lost what little it had. There are no rules or award ideas when you begin bending it to mean anything you can touch. I guess Doritos are the best drink now because they both feel good on your tongue? No, that's stupid, and so is saying a game that loudly boasts it's "EARLY ACCESS" status (before you can even read what it's about), is a game on par with titles actively competing to be known as good and ready for anyone of it's target market to buy for fun. Games like PUBG are more for testing, reporting, and experimenting, and are not ready for such privileged places. It will be one day, and I hope all you emotionally invested fans making up weird excuses for its praise will be there for it when it's ready, and I hope it's still fun for you and a blast, but that time isn't here yet. It's not there yet. Go play Divinity, Nier, Zelda, Mario, Hat in Time, Horizon, Prey, Evil Within 2, and a plethora of other stuff instead. Hell, I'll even rather give you credit for even putting a remaster on there if you really loved it THAT much, because at least that product was in a ready state and ready to be appreciated by everyone. PUBG isn't even optimized well yet... and before you say "But X you mentioned is also broke", yeah then fuck that, and don't put it on the list either, it doesn't make the other suddenly okay. What backwards logic is that!?

A hat that fits just right

I remember hearing about A Hat in Time long ago. I took a glance at it, but was skeptical. It just wasn't too interesting at the time. A cell shaded girl in a funny hat walked around a gray town, talking to guys who mumbled stuff, and you jumped around on balloons and stuff. It wasn't so appealing in the slightest, aside from just the vague murmurings that it was a "3D platformer guys!" by an indie team. It quickly got overshadowed by news of stuff like R&C remake, Yoolka-laylee, and even other 3D platformers that are now far more obscure that I can't even tell you their name at the moment (sadly among them, one never even happened). Heck, I think Tinker was even more interesting for a little bit, and then I realized you couldn't even freakin' jump. Point is this game didn't have my attention, until the high flying praise of it's very recent launch. I stood there, looking at it on the store page, irked by the price, but I did the math and took a plunge. ...then the game started off with a plunge into a monster pillow pile on a space craft, and everything from the first few seconds of the intro has been nothing short of a constant grin on my face. I adore this game, and it's brought back not only a complete thrill in this lost sub-genre, but it's the first time in perhaps a decade I found this much joy in a totally unexpected new IP type. No mario, no familiar animal pals, and no medicre wreck of meh like Yoolka-laylee (we'll get to that later), but it was a totally new universe that somehow captured and added to the sheer childish fantasy delight that is the 3D platformer genre, infecting you with bliss from the TV screen at every new turn and level. I don't even know what's going on a piece of the time, but that just adds to the crazy adventure of constant amusement and wonder.

I can't emphasize enough just how fast it all took off. From that ugly gray lifeless town on a youtube video years ago, to somehow transforming into this game of constant cheers and positivity. It starts you off on this ship ran and made for essentially a little kid, and the whole thing reeks of a child's fantasy wonderland in space mixed with new and old tech wonders and goofy descriptions. A little TV in the lobby has a pillow for a chair in the floor, there's a giant pillow pile with a secret cubby in your bedroom, and one of the first things you can do is try attacking, bouncing on, or hitching a ride on an automatic vacuum robot with expressive digital eyes and quirky animations. As the main room fills up and you wander, you'll see him goofily bump into stuff and bounce around. Goofy little details persist like a microwave description being "a thing you use to punish bad food". As the plot kicks off you go from mafia town where dumb broken-english-speaking russian chef mobsters (that's a mouthful) pretend to own and bully everything with hilarious slogans, to a dual between a fancily dressed penguin and a Scrooge McD-like guy who are trying to make the better movie. The game oozes with charm and personality, despite the stuff I saw in the early beta builds. Everything is full of quirks and sillyness, with some of it directly carrying into the game itself, like a stealth level where you're building up silly fines for everything you do to sneak around a movie set... including "cactus assault" for knocking over a cardboard cactus prop. I could go on and on, but I've honestly already probably spoiled too many charming surprises.

However it's easy to be charming and still fail at doing the medium justice. Thankfully from right out of the gates, it's got what it needs to be a blast. As soon as it started, I loved the jumping, and that was a huge part of my near instant smile. It's not just your basic jump and double, plus running and a gimmick (in this case, hat powers). Nope, you get the extra stuff. The kind of thing that honestly divides great platformers from... well, we'll get to that. You can vault over walls for a bit, trying to either gain the extra height before you bounce off, or try to reach the top. You can also dive, which is kind of like a nice little long jump. It sounds small when writing about it, but trust me these two additions to the generic are amazing. Like Spyro's gliding, or mario's complicated flip jumps, these moves build upon a feeling of momentum and freedom that make the rest of the entire experience shine and feel like exploring and running through. It's a key component of making a game like this feel just wonderful to pick and play. Almost nothing is locked away except for the gimmicks, and the main attack function requires you to beat level 1. That's it. No slow tutorials, you don't have to buy basic crap, and it's just liberating to run across the first world and just poke around at things. It's true 3D platformer glory!

The only major negative thing that runs through my head when playing this game, is it puts down the perspective of how much more wrong Yoolka-Laylee did, and... simultaneously smacks some of its haters by being the 3D platformer of amazing glory they think was only in our rose-tinted heads, or made up some other dumbass excuse to dismiss things without real thought. Yoolka-Laylee was a trip south for the genre. It was still okay, and had it's great moments and call backs, but let's begin to tear down all that went wrong. The tutorial was slow and painful, too afraid to let you be free until you slowly picked up all the pieces to start the game. The worlds followed a similar pattern, limiting themselves and then making the excuse that there only needed to be like 5 worlds because they all could be unlocked a tad bit more, and then on top of that some of the worlds were gimmicks to begin with and just kinda... bad. Then there was arbitrary limits, and even as you unlock mundane powers, and spend currency towards them, you were trapped by a dumb system that even stunted your sprint with a "charge bar" that drained, punishing you for certain movements that should have been basic. Oh and then we can slap on those awful mini-games, the repetitive side quests, the convoluted and unpleasant hub world, the fact there was no voice acting, a $10 higher asking price, and then the fact they burned some good will in a fire by making a pretentious political move.

Despite publisher backing, veteran development, and a super funded kickstarter, Yoolka-laylee looks like garbage by comparison to A Hat in Time. I'm not just ragging on it for the heck of it, but rather these games should be compared side by side as a lesson in a genre that's very difficult to pin down other than emotional feelings of acclaim or scorn. ...oh and Hat in Time even has Jontron, with actual voice acting. Regardless of your views on his controversy, this felt like the major point that sealed this rant and said "fuck you" to Playtonic, before just as easily slipping back into the comfort that is Hat in Time. I know, Rare inspired these guys, and I'm still thankful for all their effort, it's just... it sure feels like a lot didn't go into Yoolka-Laylee when thinking back in retrospect, and this inspired game stole the reigns from those that were once masters completely. Yoolka Laylee was still alright, but it's among the many B-grade guilty pleasures people seem to forget Rare made plenty of, rather than being major B&K successor it was hyped to be. Hat in Time on the other hand, is currently on track to be in leagues with the grand classics of this sub-genre. It feels so perfectly in between the sort of love, charm, quality, and game stylings that were to be had if you fused Psychonauts with Mario 64 (honestly I feel more of that there than any Rare game), and it's just soooo good.

Hat in Time has just been a blast so far. My only two concerns now essentially include "is there another massively open level like Mafia town?" and "Does it conclude at a good pace?". After Wolfenstein this year, I can't say it'll be good until it's over, it could easily drop the credits so fast it breaks the teeth that were once smiling. However I seriously doubt that, and so far this is honest and serious GOTY contender at this rate. Perhaps the first from an indie. I can't seriously express enough just how fun it's been, even the more heavily scripted pieces of the game. Moments like the mystery case just had me thinking real fast and quick, feeling fantastic as I made it through, and still keeping a keen eye out for exploration bits. Still I'd love to see another Mafia town, where most of the level is open. I have a good feeling though there's still plenty left to see, do, and love about this game. It continues to constantly surprise me, and even turn things I'd usually hate on their head and make it great. This is just such a good game, and I seriously encourage others to go and buy it right now.