Talk:The Game Awards 2020

Audio Design

uhhhhhhhhh pretty sure TLOU PTII won best audio design not doom eternal.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.245.132.201 (talk) 01:42, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Mention of Death Stranding, Hideo Kojima, Review bombing and Crunch

"Similar to criticism over Death Stranding's predominance in the nominations and at the ceremony for the 2019 awards due to its creator's Hideo Kojima friendship with Keighley, a similar concern was raised by some viewers related to the success of The Last of Us Part II at the awards. The game itself had some polarizing reviews from critics, and was further the subject of review bombing from players dissatisfied with the game's narrative direction compared to the original game as well as being criticized for the use of "crunch time" by Naughty Dog to complete the game."

Why is any of this stuff being mentioned in this article? Like what does Hideo Kojima have to do with The Last of US Part II and The Game Awards? The Death Stranding controversy was over Geoff Keighly and Hideo Kojima's friendship possibly affecting the awards. There is no source indicating Geoff Keighly is friends with Neil Druckmann or has any relationship with Naughty Dog or any it's employees. The paragraph mentions the game being polarizing among critics when it currently sits at a 93 on metacritic indicating universal acclaim, and even if we go by Wikipedia's own article on the game it was only the narrative and the representation of a trans character that was polarizing to critics, while pretty much every other aspect of the game was from it's technical aspects to it's performances were universally acclaimed. 5 of the 7 awards the game won for example were technical and performance awards. The wording on this paragraph makes it seem like the entire game itself was polarizing to critics. The mention of review bombing and attributing it to only the narrative while ignoring the homophobia, transphobia and sexism that were also a significant and well reported part of the review bombing is also extremely disingenuous. This is epecially considering that The Game Awards is largely voted on by critics and has very little to do with players and the controversies surrounding them.

The mention of crunch also seems out of place since multiple games that have won awards in the past such as Red Dead Redemption 2 at The Game Awards don't have any mention of crunch in the articles covering the game awards of their respective years on wikipedia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Game_Awards_2018

Overall the whole paragraph seems like a mean spirited attempt at trying to frame the awards the game has won as being rigged or undeserved. Like since when does wikipedia use the words of conspiracy theorists as a source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheMassEffector (talk • contribs) 02:03, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Both after the 2019 and 2020 awards, there were rumblings in online forums about favoritism and the like; this didn't happen before, hence why they are added here, importantly, sourced to our RSes and not to user forums, so we're expressing the situation from quality report and none of the nonsense of the users. So if you read the source that was used for the situation on 2020, it is compared and contrasted to the 2019 situation (where Keighley's friendship with Kojima was questioned by online forums). Now, that said, we have to go by what the RS actually put in. Yes, I am very much aware that the situation around TLOU2's user reviews were the homophobic claims about the game, but this article, nor the sources we have over at TLOU2 itself, actually go into that level of detail, and simply call it a review bomb because the narrative focused on Abby over Ellie among other details, according to our RSes. (There was actually a coordinated effort after TLOU2 was leading in the Players Voice second round to push Ghost over it due to the percieved nature of the game) Yes, we know better but we can't go that way per WP:V. I suspect this was a lesson from Gamergate as to not give too much voice to these complaints but at least acknowledge them. In the same vien, the article does focus on the claims of crunch time which I do also know was a user complaint, though I would agree was minor compared to the homophobic complaints. (This is But again "verifyability, not truth". So the section is appropriate and written per the source, and not out of place since it addresses as best the source allows the user criticism of the game. The only thing that I agree on the concerns above and could be addressed better is accessing the critical reviews. The game was mostly positive, but there are a few noted reviews (as we have on our TLOU2 page) that took issue with some aspects of the game. But that's still a factor per the article used in the source, that TLOU2 wasn't a game that has universal praise like past GOTY winners. --Masem (t) 02:56, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Correcting myself on one thing: we can call that some of the reviews in the user review bomb were calling the game out on the "social justice warrior" stuff, but we can't go as far as calling them homophobic. --Masem (t) 03:04, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

The whole fiasco with favoritism was precisely because of Geoff Keighly and Hideo Kojima's friendship and the article for that years Game Awards ceremony on wikipedia mentions that, I don't see why something related to that is worth including in the article for this years ceremony. Geoff Keighly has said back then and still maintains that he has no influence over the Game Awards, and no credible source has come out to refute that. I don't see why wikipedia should give credence to bullshit rumors simply because a interviewer brought it up in an interview, and based on what? Online forums?

The mention of crunch I'm actually fine with since multiple reputable sites have mentioned it although it's largely in regards to the games Best Direction win. However it does set a double standard that crunch is mentioned here and not for any other games that were developed under crunch and won major awards at The Game Awards in their respective years like the aforemention Red Dead Redemption 2 along with games like Dragon Age Inquisition and The Witcher III.

As it is, even if you ignore the issues of crunch and favoritism, the paragraph isn't exactly the best written, and seems to make major implications such as it's awards including it's technical wins being possibly rigged all based on a single interviewer asking questions based on conspiracy theories. Not to mention, equating those wins in relation to review bombing and critical reception that the sourced article mentions nothing about. While the article does mention "subculture surrounding" the game, it doesn't necessarily mean it's referring to review bombing (players being upset with the game narrative) or critical reception but also could refer to the toixcity surrounding the game. TheMassEffector (talk) 03:56, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

The source article is the one that points out that it is likely those rumbling about the possible favoritism of the awards were also likely the ones in the review bombing. Our point should be to reassert what Keighley is saying: there is no favoritism and even if these people felt the game didn't reflect the players' view, that there was still a considerable numbers of votes for the game in the Players' Voice vote, so even that claim is bogus. And again, on the crunch aspect, Keighley specifically talks of crunch with respect to TLOU2 and not other games and the fact they can't account for that in the nomination process. We can work at wordsmithing this better. --Masem (t) 04:41, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Okay this new one actually reads much better and doesn't feel like an attack on the merits of the games wins itself, I'm actually okay with it. TheMassEffector (talk) 12:01, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

“The mention of crunch also seems out of place since multiple games that have won awards in the past such as Red Dead Redemption 2 at The Game Awards don't have any mention of crunch in the articles covering [The Game Awards] of their respective years on [Wikipedia].“

I’d imagine this is due to the The Last of Us Part 2’s considerably large amount of controversy, which is unique for a GotY title at The Game Awards. What players would not pay attention to in the slightest in the case of other winners (or other nominees, in the case of crunch Hades is a notable standout due to Supergiant’s anti-crunch routines) is instead used as reasoning as to why it doesn’t deserve GotY or other awards it was nominated for. It should be noted that The Last of Us Part 2 is in a unique position with the gaming community thanks to a) It being a sequel to a beloved game, b) It being a first-party exclusive for the PlayStation 4, c) It’s mixed fan reception and d) It’s phenomenal performance at The Game Awards this year, so a unique mention of crunch isn’t out of place. As a side note, I agree with what Masem said in the above replies. UGM9 (talk) 03:24, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Wording and sourcing of this line in the article

"It received a mixed reception from media publications, with praise directed at new game announcements, though some critics and viewers shared concerns over the success of The Last of Us Part II due to its polarizing narrative and developer's use of "crunch time"."

This sentence implies that the shows mixed reception is solely due to the success of The Last of Us Part II and the awards it won at the show, even though the sourcing below mentions that the mixed reception was due to a multitude of factors including not allowing more time for the developers to speak and discuss their artistic visions behind the games, Doom Eternal being nominated for Game of the Year despite being "messy, unfocused, and, well, just not as good" as its predecessor and the only mention of The Last of Us Part II being from a Kotaku article criticizing it's Best Game Direction Win because of it's crunch time practices.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Game_Awards_2020#Ratings_and_reception

Furthermore it says the ceremony received mixed reception from media publications, and yet goes on to mention the concerns of both critics and viewers, last time I checked viewers are not part of the media.

Not only is this whole sentence poorly written but makes implications that this page itself disproves further down. Either reword the sentence or remove it entirely, besides adding a line about the shows reception to the main paragraph (making it more bloated) seems pointless anyway when it's already mentioned in the Ratings and reception section and in much more detail. Also side note, I find it super disingenuous that this years ceremony (The year TLOUII was nominated) is the only one where reception is even mentioned, while none of the wikipedia pages on the previous years The Game Awards ceremonies mention it. It's almost like there are certain biased people with an agenda trying to discredit and tarnish the game and it's wins. TheMassEffector (talk) 17:04, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Do notice that this year's page is the only page with a more expanded format, which User:Rhain recently completed. I assume we will eventually go back and normalize this to the other awards at some point, so stating that this page is solitary in how it handles something is just a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS problem. --Masem (t) 17:17, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

That is not my only concern though, you completely failed to address the other issues (the actual important part) I pointed out. TheMassEffector (talk) 17:22, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

We have to go by what RSes say. TLOUII's wins got far more focus than Doom Eternal, and as the lede summarizes the body, it makes more sense that it would get lede coverage, particularly since its GOTY status also was there. The viewers concerns are only sourcable in context of the issues around TLOUII, we don't have sourcing about viewers' takes to any other part of the show, hence the structure of that sentence. So its all appropriate for what's there. --Masem (t) 17:38, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes the lead is used to summarize the body, the current lead doesn't do that. If someone were to only to read the lead, they would only assume TLOUII was the only reason the ceremony had mixed reception, the point of a summary is for the reader to get an idea of the entirety of the body's content without going into detail, not just a part of it. "The viewers concerns are only sourcable in context of the issues around TLOUII" That's not the issue though, the issue here is the viewers are not part of the media which the sentence uses as a source for the mixed reception of the awards ceremony. Media concerns and viewers concerns should not be conflated as if they're part of the same thing. TheMassEffector (talk) 18:07, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I can assure you that there are certainly no "biased people with an agenda trying to discredit and tarnish the game", at least not in the way you've suggested; I've worked on The Last of Us Part II articles here extensively, and it's one of my favourite games. Have faith that my edits come from an entirely encyclopedic standpoint, not a biased one. As for the sentence in question, I'm not sure where this mentioned "consensus" comes from, but it's worth workshopping the sentence anyway. I've rephrased it to add some criticism about the presentation in general, and split the TLOU2 criticism to a separate sentence (which feel like due weight, as it has an entire paragraph in the body). Let me know if you have any concerns. – Rhain ☔ 22:37, 11 January 2021 (UTC)