I love how goty nominations have to check certain boxes in order to be considered game of the year. An amazing game? Check. Oh wait no forced in shitty single player. Disqualified. Not enough man hours put into development. Double disqualified. Its funny because Overwatch has plenty of lore and story if you really care about that.
While I agree with this, Overwatch is offensive as well, it's one of the worst cases of cultural appropriation I have ever seen in the past few years (in entertainment at least).
You're gonna have to explain to me how optional skins are an example of a dominant culture stealing cultural capital of a minority culture to exploit it for their own gain and for the belittlement of that minority culture.
Perhaps you could make the argument that Blizzard is the dominant culture and Native Americans are the minority, but I don't see any claim that the Native designs are "theirs" or any use of them to mock Native culture. At a stretch you could say the fact that the skin can be acquired through purchasable loot boxes makes it a commercial transfer of power for which Native communities should be reimbursed or given the right to have the skin removed - but unless there's clear evidence of disrespect I couldn't argue that in good faith.
And, considering we're talking about the virtual equivalent of an action figure here, what's to stop a Native player from assuming Pharah's identity changes to Native American when that skin is applied, rather than it being a costume? When Torbjorn is a pirate, or Roadhog is a monster, they become that identity, there is no fixed canon to this, and anyone can believe any character is whatever they want it to be. The only fixed identities are in the cutscenes that exist outside the game, within the game any fixed identities are clearly eschewed.
Perhaps they should avoid skins that stray outside the character's original culture just to be safe, but that seems like an unnecessary restriction and given their gold-standard diversity (by AAA standards) in other respects, Blizzard have earned the benefit of the doubt that they're acting in good faith.
Sends a terrible message OverWatch winning goty The game is Barebones. Probably took 20% of the time and effort to make OW Compared to UC4. I'm all for it winning MP game of the year but Goty No way.
But why? RL is so full of content and perfect at what is does... It has a deserved 2nd place on my GOTY list, just after BB and it should have won much more. It's a remarkable piece of game design.
I'm forced to wonder how much Overwatch you've actually played. There's nothing "barebones" about it. 23 Heroes with wildly diverse playstyles, who synergize with each other in nearly endless ways. I've played nearly 200 hours of the game and no two matches have felt the same. It has amazing depth.
Sends a terrible message OverWatch winning goty The game is Barebones. Probably took 20% of the time and effort to make OW Compared to UC4. I'm all for it winning MP game of the year but Goty No way.
Because if fun is the only requirement for Goty. Tons of games have been robbed in the past. I'm not someone that's against MP only Games. No matter how fun you might find OW it's Bareboned as hell.
Because if fun is the only requirement for Goty. Tons of games have been robbed in the past. I'm not someone that's against MP only Games. No matter how fun you might find OW it's Bareboned as hell.
On the off-chance you read this even though you're banned:
I've read some of the criticism, and some I agree with, and much of it I disagree with. You're the one who made the claim though. You have to be able to substantiate or argue that claim or back down.
Because if fun is the only requirement for Goty. Tons of games have been robbed in the past. I'm not someone that's against MP only Games. No matter how fun you might find OW it's Bareboned as hell.
Because if fun is the only requirement for Goty. Tons of games have been robbed in the past. I'm not someone that's against MP only Games. No matter how fun you might find OW it's Bareboned as hell.
If a game does one thing so well it's the best experience of the year then why shouldn't it be game of the year? It's no different that The Walking Dead winning for its storytelling and choose your own adventure aspects, A bareboned game that does a few mechanics flawlessly can be better than a more fleshed out game that does many things well.
I'm forced to wonder how much Overwatch you've actually played. There's nothing "barebones" about it. 23 Heroes with wildly diverse playstyles, who synergize with each other in nearly endless ways. I've played nearly 200 hours of the game and no two matches have felt the same. It has amazing depth.
That people think type of game and amount of money / time spent on a game is what qualifies it to win certain awards is a really sad way to look at things.
I could remake the same game mechanic 1000 times and put a load of effort into it but it can still be absolutely crap. i shouldn't be getting some participation award just because i tried really hard.
That's really my Point I would have Furi ahead of OW on My Goty list. Yet a game like that would never be Considered. So if fun is the only requirement now. Not content,depth etc, I hope this extends to other games.
Much deserved. Glad to see it wasn't Uncharted even tho Uncharted deserved it just as much. Gotta love the dark horse even if it was the lightest of the dark horses
That's really my Point I would have Furi ahead of OW on My Goty list. Yet a game like that would never be Considered. So if fun is the only requirement now. Not content,depth etc, I hope this extends to other games.
That's really my Point I would have Furi ahead of OW on My Goty list. Yet a game like that would never be Considered. So if fun is the only requirement now. Not content,depth etc, I hope this extends to other games.
both fights with Nadine, as well as the final fight with Rafe had a similar effect on me
). I probably wouldn't consider it a set piece in the traditional sense because of its length, but there are actually quite a few of these short, but sweet moments.
Generally, the game had me on edge mostly because
of the relative uncertainty concerning the characters' fates. At any point, there seemed to be real chance that one of the main characters might die (I was terrified something was going to happen to Elena for the sake of dramatic impact).
In the end, the fact that the narrative seems a lot more grounded helps to set A Thief's End apart from the earlier games (which, in a way, is just the natural evolution of the themes presented in Drake's Deception).
devs generally aren't this salty though and they are generally more open to criticism of the things they make. its fans that can't take criticism of why someone might not like a game that refuse to see things a different way.
Hey if this opens up the Floodgates for Fun being the only Requirement for Goty. I'm all for that Yet I suspect if OW was made by a small indie team and Not blizzard. I genuinely don't think it would have won.
Weirdest out by the Overwatch hate. I honestly rate Uncharted 4 more than Overwatch, but I can understand the latter getting GOTY because it still has a strong fanbase months after being released, and well it's just pure fun.
Sometimes people need to realise while you have your own personal GOTY, it's ok if most others have a different opinion about it.
Like me, mine is FFXV. Pretty inferior to most games on the list but I love it and make me believe in the future of FF again. You won't see me scratching and flaming another thread or the comments section of a site about it.
You're gonna have to explain to me how optional skins are an example of a dominant culture stealing cultural capital of a minority culture to exploit it for their own gain and for the belittlement of that minority culture.
Perhaps you could make the argument that Blizzard is the dominant culture and Native Americans are the minority, but I don't see any claim that the Native designs are "theirs" or any use of them to mock Native culture. At a stretch you could say the fact that the skin can be acquired through purchasable loot boxes makes it a commercial transfer of power for which Native communities should be reimbursed or given the right to have the skin removed - but unless there's clear evidence of disrespect I couldn't argue that in good faith.
And, considering we're talking about the virtual equivalent of an action figure here, what's to stop a Native player from assuming Pharah's identity changes to Native American when that skin is applied, rather than it being a costume? When Torbjorn is a pirate, or Roadhog is a monster, they become that identity, there is no fixed canon to this, and anyone can believe any character is whatever they want it to be. The only fixed identities are in the cutscenes that exist outside the game, within the game any fixed identities are clearly eschewed.
Perhaps they should avoid skins that stray outside the character's original culture just to be safe, but that seems like an unnecessary restriction and given their gold-standard diversity (by AAA standards) in other respects, Blizzard have earned the benefit of the doubt that they're acting in good faith.
They got banned and I dont really have much of a dog in the fight, but my understanding is the skin isnt based on real outfits from any tribe, so it can come off as inauthentic and insulting as a halloween store costume. The appropriation argument stems from using various cultures as cool imagery without actually paying proper respect to them, as well as the messy angle of having a poc character front for two minorities. Monsters and pirates arent exactly on the same level as a marginalized people so the latter can come off as insulting when its not handled right even if its in good faith. I guess it doesnt fully fit the ironclad definition as you've outlined it
This is just my understanding from people who have expressed a similar viewpoint, so Im afraid I cant really argue much further and might even have some of it wrong. I just think theres merit to what they were arguing for even if they werent presenting their position well.
both fights with Nadine, as well as the final fight with Rafe had a similar effect on me
). I probably wouldn't consider it a set piece in the traditional sense because of its length, but there are actually quite a few of these short, but sweet moments.
Generally, the game had me on edge mostly because
of the relative uncertainty concerning the characters' fates. At any point, there seemed to be real chance that one of the main characters might die (I was terrified something was going to happen to Elena for the sake of dramatic impact).
In the end, the fact that the narrative seems a lot more grounded helps to set A Thief's End apart from the earlier games (which, in a way, is just the natural evolution of the themes presented in Drake's Deception).
Yup. There were a lot of smaller, more grounded moments that this time around were actually gameplay and I guess that also had an effect on how people viewed the "action" parts of the game.
And I agree the more grounded story fit the whole "farewell" of the series that this game was going for and, for me, it worked amazingly well. Though again, I can understand how fans were upset as the way the story was told was quite different from the previous games due to being far more grounded.
They got banned and I dont really have much of a dog in the fight, but my understanding is the skin isnt based on real outfits from any tribe, so it can come off as inauthentic and insulting as a halloween store costume. The appropriation argument stems from using various cultures as cool imagery without actually paying proper respect to them, as well as the messy angle of having a poc character front for two minorities. Monsters and pirates arent exactly on the same level as a marginalized people so the latter can come off as insulting when its not handled right even if its in good faith. I guess it doesnt fully fit the ironclad definition as you've outlined it
This is just my understanding from people who have expressed a similar viewpoint, so Im afraid I cant really argue much further and might even have some of it wrong. I just think theres merit to what they were arguing for even if they werent presenting their position well.
yeah I think there is a discussion to be had there but the poster wasn't discussing in good faith and was being incendiary, I imagine they got banned for their tone rather than their position.
