Is their any evidence that this actually does anything beneficial? Outside of anecdotal of course. I bounce back and forth and have never felt anything different.
- Status
Honestly never felt the difference before/after. Might be more visible when using 120fps modes ? (which my tv can't do)
Hm, makes me wonder what 2022 games MS could by eyeing.
Dying Light 2? Has been in development hell for so long, and doesn't seem to be setting metrics alight. Perhaps Warner Bros would like the safety
Tiny Tina's Wonderlands? Similar to the above. Additionally co-op seems to really thrive on Gamepass
Digimon Survive? To appeal to the JRPG crowd.
Star Ocean?
The Callisto Protocol?
Kerbal Space Program 2?
Ellex 2?
Last edited:
I have always waited for the day to notice the diffference between my series 2 elite and my stock series x controller and its never happened. I still choose the elite for shooters and the normal controller for its dpad. I figured someone would have made a video by now breaking it down how much faster it is. Oh well.
Thing I'm also looking forward too are all the new indie games we'll be getting on gamepass next year.
Just to name a few of my most hyped ones
The trailer for Atomic Heart looked really good and was one of the more memorable ones from the E3 conference, imo.
I love the entire vibe of this game.
WB stopped being involved with DL in 2016.
Techland owned the IP while WB publishing rights, since 2016 Techland owns even publishing rights.
DL2 is fully funded by techland, kinda like Cyberpunk 2077 / CDPR
Coop is not gonna do a lot for them there anyways. It'll be all about the single player campaign if they're gonna hit 90%. If that delievers, it can hit those scores, if it's poor, it'll get some token score in the eighties for the multiplayer that reviewers aren't actually that interested in (Going by how difficult it is for a multiplayer focused game to hit 90% in comparison to single player titles).
Last edited:
I mean if this conversation about Halo Infinite on KF was anything to go by, seems some people in games media have already made their minds up about the game.
until they officially announce what this game actually is, no one knows?
I hope it isn't. Would rather it was something new like the rumored steampunk game or a new Wasteland, which would also feel more in line with what they would have done pre-acquisition.
EDIT: We also need a new Bard's Tale at some point.
Azerth UraMallas Shirkelton
However... February is surprisingly a historically very strong month for game sales. Probably a combination of tax returns, holiday games starting to get discounted, etc. etc. Having an award show in February wouldn't be the worst... but... it still wouldn't be AS big #1 and #2, we are getting more and more games releasing in the first part of the year, and so are we going to run into a situation where Dying Light 2, Elden Ring, Horizon FW, 20 other games are suddenly in the exact same unclear limbo whether they get included or get forgotten until the next show? [And yes, games certainly do get forgotten a year later. Recency bias is a well-documented phenomenon. It's not necessarily good for new games, but it's unmistakably bad for older games.]
To miss out on spotlighting some of the biggest games of a year, JUST AS THEY'RE GOING ON SALE, is antithetical to the true corporate capitalist raison d'etre of the show itself. Keep doing that and your partners (the ones who keep your show fed with new scoops and trailers and announcements) are going to be less happy to play ball. If for no other reason than the naked profit motive, IF this is really how the TGA is operating right now, it might behoove them to look carefully and make adjustments.
BobSaac2 arsene_P5
Generally, the people who don't fit this mold (oddly, probably similar to the WEIRD group that plagues medical science - Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic - and middle-aged, in this case) but are in games have probably ended up in mediums that haven't had so many institutional barriers (education, money, etc) gatekeeping their way - like YouTube, for example. And yet, the TGAs are not putting YouTubers on the same footing as the games media (though, in another way, they're also embracing influencer culture, so it's a mixed bag).
Due to no fault of anyone in particular (well, let's not get into about systemic institutional bias in media hiring..), you can see how the people who self-select to be in games media may also tend to have somewhat similar tastes and interests on a very broad scale. That's not to say there's no diversity, but simply that what these people say will sound very familiar to other people in this profession. And when they're listening to each other all day, it's not hard to see how "biases" and "trends" can develop within their bubble and then get reported on as objective global fact.
A big ramble lol. But, this is what I think about "media bias". It's 100% real, but it's not necessarily malicious - and it may not be worth trying to combat. Rather, we should be actively expanding the range and diversity of the media sources we listen to if we want to break the biases that exist in the industry. We're doing a REALLY SLOW and generally bad job of that so far. [But, one of the reasons I appreciate that this site has a limited global reach - though we certainly have our own deep, deep myopias here too.]
Anyway, in relation to GOTY, you can see how the possible space of nominations is constrained by so many invisible and subconscious factors. It's hard to get mad at anyone for being so influenced.
Praise the sun
I mean Shirkelton is right, the eyes are on gaming at the end of the year in a way that they are not for other industries. Doing it later when all that attention is elsewhere would not be as good for the primary purpose of the shows: to promote, market, and sell games. They want big bumps to the games shown that lead to more Holiday sales, which means January is right out.
However... February is surprisingly a historically very strong month for game sales. Probably a combination of tax returns, holiday games starting to get discounted, etc. etc. Having an award show in February wouldn't be the worst... but... it still wouldn't be AS big #1 and #2, we are getting more and more games releasing in the first part of the year, and so are we going to run into a situation where Dying Light 2, Elden Ring, Horizon FW, 20 other games are suddenly in the exact same unclear limbo whether they get included or get forgotten until the next show? [And yes, games certainly do get forgotten a year later. Recency bias is a well-documented phenomenon. It's not necessarily good for new games, but it's unmistakably bad for older games.]
Yea, I mean, I agree with the logistical concerns laid out here. I will, however, suggest that there is still something broken with this system here from the perspective of the people [publishers and advertisers] who are supporting this show. The idea that Forza Horizon 5, the unmistakable best reviewed racing game in calendar year 2021 and which will undoubtedly continue to have great player numbers and sales through this holiday season, will not win "Best Racing Game" at The Game Awards (forget GOTY convos) is straight up BAD BUSINESS imo. The Game Awards is an opportunity for the industry to market the best it has to offer to millions of people who don't follow the industry closely like we do.
To miss out on spotlighting some of the biggest games of a year, JUST AS THEY'RE GOING ON SALE, is antithetical to the true corporate capitalist raison d'etre of the show itself. Keep doing that and your partners (the ones who keep your show fed with new scoops and trailers and announcements) are going to be less happy to play ball. If for no other reason than the naked profit motive, IF this is really how the TGA is operating right now, it might behoove them to look carefully and make adjustments.
BobSaac2 arsene_P5
And it's not necessarily malicious at all. Remember: Who are the people who are working at MEDIA OUTLETS in 2021? Generally, they are somewhat older (30s-40s), especially the people who have any influence on the balloting particularly in big companies (and small indie companies tend to not get successful enough to get a ballot). Those people tend to be people who grew up playing certain games in specific regions of the world. Thus, they also tend to be of similar demographics. I don't know if the TGAs poll media outlets from Japan and give them equal weight, for example. I wonder how many media outlets polled are primarily minority or women led, or are writing for a similar audience.
Generally, the people who don't fit this mold (oddly, probably similar to the WEIRD group that plagues medical science - Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic - and middle-aged, in this case) but are in games have probably ended up in mediums that haven't had so many institutional barriers (education, money, etc) gatekeeping their way - like YouTube, for example. And yet, the TGAs are not putting YouTubers on the same footing as the games media (though, in another way, they're also embracing influencer culture, so it's a mixed bag).
Due to no fault of anyone in particular (well, let's not get into about systemic institutional bias in media hiring..), you can see how the people who self-select to be in games media may also tend to have somewhat similar tastes and interests on a very broad scale. That's not to say there's no diversity, but simply that what these people say will sound very familiar to other people in this profession. And when they're listening to each other all day, it's not hard to see how "biases" and "trends" can develop within their bubble and then get reported on as objective global fact.
A big ramble lol. But, this is what I think about "media bias". It's 100% real, but it's not necessarily malicious - and it may not be worth trying to combat. Rather, we should be actively expanding the range and diversity of the media sources we listen to if we want to break the biases that exist in the industry. We're doing a REALLY SLOW and generally bad job of that so far. [But, one of the reasons I appreciate that this site has a limited global reach - though we certainly have our own deep, deep myopias here too.]
Anyway, in relation to GOTY, you can see how the possible space of nominations is constrained by so many invisible and subconscious factors. It's hard to get mad at anyone for being so influenced.
＼(￣▽￣)／
Praise the sun
Last edited:
Halo: Infinite isn't likely to get a 90 + metacritic because it's incredibly unlikely for any game to get a 90 + metacritic.
I recommend everyone reading my comment to watching the segment posted, because there are some positive comments made. But I know Dimple means... "Half assed release"? Is the guy on the left serious?
I understand it's a bummer coop, RT and some other stuff is missing. But the package itself still contains a lot of content, including a MP and SP. And that's ultimately a lot of content other games, either unintentionally or intentionally (BF 2024), are missing. I wonder what his opinion is for games that only got a SP or MP, when Halo in his opinion feels like a half assed release.
Don't get me wrong, games shouldn't get a lower score based on missing a SP or MP. Some games just don't need one or the other modes. But at the same time I think judging Halo on higher standards is unfair in the same vein.
Yes, stuff is missing. Yes that is annoying. Yes, waiting one year and still see missing stuff is slightly baffling. But I wouldn't call it half assed release and the game shouldn't be judged by Halo 3 standards like he mentioned. If he wants to judge Infinite by Halo 3 (content) standards, then judge every game by these standards.
I think it's silly how much it seems like people has already decided what they feel about the campaign even if it is the part that has had the least info shown. Like "oh, there's outposts, guess the game is a ubisoft game and that's concerning". That's the level of comments.
Yeah I didn't write that clearly enough. There are obviously some expectations for sequels every time, but I don't really agree that there's this consensus where sequels need to have a every single thing from the original or reception will take a hit without question. Of course having good stuff from the original only makes sense, but what I'm saying is that these expectations do not matter at all as long as the sequel is a great game in itself.
The notion that Infinite is going to get bad grades from press because one or two multiplayer modes are missing (but still coming later) is just kinda far-fetched imo. If Infinite gets bad reviews, the problems are almost certainly way bigger than whether co-op is ready at launch or not.
I mean, the narrative will shift as it needs to, right? This is the narrative at the moment. Honestly, the narrative shifted pretty hard again just a few days later when the campaign overview released. Yes, people still mentioned the missing features, but it was hardly anywhere as often. The reality is that if people enjoy what comes out on December 8th (or.. like a week or two earlier for reviewers), they will not care about the missing coop or forge much at all. If they have reasons to not like what they've played FOR ANY REASON, then you can guarantee those two factors will be trotted out to help explain that feeling. So often, the narrative is developed to explain something subjective but hard to convey, rather than being any objective fact, right?
It's really not worth agonizing over. Again, people will rationalize everything they've said (we all do) when the game comes out on the 8th. It may be a problem if the narrative sticks and there's even a kernel of truth to it all. But if people LIKE the game, none of that will matter whatsoever. The problem with Far Cry 6's "repetitive formula" isn't the formula. It's that people didn't like the game. Why? Who knows why! But the easy answer that developed afterward was good enough for people to repeat and then move on.
I mean, you don't hear anyone complaining about how "Ubisoft" Horizon: Forbidden West is going to be 2 months after Halo, do you? "No, it's different, because the story is so important and there are dinosaurs and the gameplay is totally not the same!" Right. And all of that applies to Halo, too (well, maybe not dinosaurs. BUT IMAGINE). There's nothing we can do about this narrative now. If people don't like Infinite, we'll hear people repeat this complaint and others ad nauseum. If people end up liking it, nobody will remember the time when a section of the gaming community was afraid Halo **was going to play like Far Cry** (an absurd concern prima facie).
Last edited:
yeah a little over the top, and some reviewers will def feel this way and their scores will reflect this unfortunately
Isn't Square publishing in NA, while Techland Publishing does everywhere else?
I didn't know Grubb said that. Elden Ring came to my mind, but that would be unrealistic and if it happens a megaton. I still think MS will try to secure Ubisoft games.
I liked your "rambling" as you called it. There is definitely some genre bias imo, but as you very well said the issue could be much deeper and isn't malicious. I think realizing this and combating it is worth it, even though the priority isn't that high.
For me it's just sad some developers will never get the credit they deserve. Not because their games or bad or others simply better. Just because their game isn't in a genre that fits whatever bias journalist have. Maybe I am taking this to seriously, but I think a show that wants to be the Oscar of gaming, has 83 million views (aka enormous reach) and wants to celebrate the work of developers, should attempt to do better than this.
Sadly bias will always be there, but that doesn't mean nothing can improve. You mentioned YouTubers for example and with that bringing in new/other audience's and increasing who votes for these awards. You'll never get rid of bias and you'll never be able to ask everybody. But what can be done is increasing the pool of opinions and thus having more variety in terms of opinions.
Well the first Horizon was already a take on the Ubisoft formula, if you liked it you're waiting for Forbidden West which should be more of the same but hopefully better, if you didn't like it you simply don't care for the sequel; the fearmongering would have zero effect there.
In general, video game journalists tend to trip over themselves in order to show how worried or concerned they are about upcoming games and how skeptical they are about every piece of news brought forward by developers and publishers. Like the long-haired guy in Dimple's video produced an entirely incoherent and unintelligible bubble in an effort to show he's a high brow analyst of the gaming landscape.
Damn. Imagine getting paid to talk and write about games and calling a game a half assed release because the co-op isnt there at launch.
Saying they should just delay the entire singleplayer campaign as a solution sure is backwards lol.
The standards at which halo is held as a game has honestly been something to talk about. Even with ballooning game dev budgets halos supposed to have a full length campaign with a gripping story, fully co op campaign, engaging and cinematic story with top of the line graphics, a multiplayer mode with multiple different modes, a level creator, balance for tournaments and professional play. Meanwhile cod and battlefield can regularly not have a campaign or carry over so much shit from the last, tlou 2 got rid of its Announced multiplayer mode that they gonna try and sell u for $70 bucks later now and nobody batted a fucking eye. So where's the disconnect with halo where so much is expected
But nothing in terms of release is "objectively" good. It's all about tastes. If someone says they find the next year poor there's nothing to "call out". This type of behavior of "calling out" because "they're wrong" for saying that instead of talking about the releases or how Xbox could improve even more is exactly what being a cheerleader is.
I think next year will be a great year with lots of promising releases, but if someone says it'll be a poor year they're right too. It can be good for me and bad for someone else and both are right, you can't discuss taste as something that's "objectively" right.
TBH most of the kinda funny team except the xCast crew seem like they are stuck in 2017 when it comes to xbox.
It's not just about Halo. It's gaming discourse and its myopia/inconsistency.
Fully agreed. But even then, I am kinda glad Halo has to be this way. Games that launch with so much worthwhile content seem to get rarer and rarer, making their launch feel more like an event.
Correct. A large fraction of discussions online are based around misunderstandings on this front going in both directions. Either people getting mad at an opinion because it wasn't literally prefaced with "in my opinion" ("why did you say it's bad, that's just your opinion!"), or attempting to dismiss
someone else's opinion while expressing your own opinion by implying that yours is objective truth rather than opinion ("you don't like it, but objectively, it's a good game, you have to admit that" is something you'll frequently see about certain aaa games).
On their 2021 metacritic prediction episode Tim bet Halo to score sub 70 on MC lol they're mostly clueless on xbox.
It feels like we hear/read this at least once a year when it comes to KF 😅
Yeah he mentioned on Grubbsnax at the end of September that there seems to be a lot of money left for Game Pass this fiscal year.
This was brought to my attention only a few weeks ago, so I don't know how I missed it. If it is indeed true, it's almost certain that we will be seeing Xbox flashing that cash on games for Game Pass, because usually budgets don't roll over into the next fiscal year - so spend it, or lose it.
Ya, a 90+ seems really hard for Halo to do. Not because of its quality but because of the variety of expectations Halo has. Some reviewers are going to want Infinite to do what it's doing and go back to its roots to find its identity. Others are going to compare it to other shooters on criticizing it for being something it's not. Some will weigh the lack of co-op extremely given co-ops history with the franchise, some will not.
Halo appeals to a wide demographic of people with a variety of tastes. This makes it extremely difficult for it to land a 90+, especially in a shooter heavy market. What it does have going for it is that its a unique shooter that only really exists in one other title (splitgate) and even then I think infinite does it better. I think what's really going to matter is the quality of the campaign. If it can dodge the "ubisoft" criticisms and at least somewhat capture the 1-3 campaign feels, then it may have a chance.
We also know though that some outlets (like IGN) are reviewing it in segments. So campaign gets a score and multiplayer gets a score (given they are different packages). How all that adds up will be interesting to see
You have outlined pretty well here the racing bias in the GotY awards categories across the industry. Although your first sentence says there is no bias the entirety of the rest of your post outlines some of the major factors contributing to the bias.
Thanks for the link and that's interesting. If they really have a billion then that's a lot of money for these deals.
👀
Tiny Tina, I think, would be a smart get for GamePass. Borderlands games always sell better than Era thinks they will, which shows they're popular. The Tiny Tina DLC was excellent and popular. It's also a game that would be even better if a lot of friends played together, which makes it great for GP.
It's been a big break from halo 5 and people really hate on that game yet it got a 84. I feel like it'll get be really close.
Yeah, quite possibly.
Not talking about Halo 5 here, but I think it's pretty easy to predict that any upcoming game with sufficient pedigree will get at least 80 and usually in the mid-80s range.
That's just sort of how video game reviews work, for better or worse.
Racing games not being as popular as some other genres doesn't have anything to do with bias. Biased viewpoint can't mean the same thing as having a preference. Folks get more out of dramas than watching fast and furious, it's not a completely silly analogy to games. They get attached to the characters and enjoy the human performance. Racing games are by nature simpler than most other genres and will always be at a disadvantage at popularity contests. Driving a car just isn't something that's inherently interesting in itself to all and there's nothing that can be done about it.
Ubisoft have most of their 7th gen titles already working on One/Series through BC, the library would be giant
And I need to play Immortals hehe
That's pretty much it.
No action game this year has scored 90+ for a reason. It's very hard to do outside of niche titles that get 90+ for technical achievements (like Flight Sim). FH5 getting 90+ is possible because it's a 90+ for a racing game, and as a racing game, it's near perfect.
Action adventures/RPGs/Shooters have so many things to nail: storyline, graphics, animations, enemy variety and AI, loot, skills/RPG elements, gameplay loop, melee and ranged combat, balance, NPC interactions, voice acting, writing and dialogue, and so much more. To nail all of it is very hard. That's why 90+ games are so rare.
I believe Halo Infinite will score 85-87 MC. And that would be pretty good.
Wow. The disrespect. If racing game would be so easy to make why don't we have 300 GT or Forza Horizon?
I know game devs be reading this place like damn these mofo don't appreciate shit we do 🤣
- Status