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!?
No comments:
Post a Comment