Not to get too off topic, but it's reasons like the above (politics primarily, and campaigning) that we end up with Oscar snubs. These snubs can have a major impact for years, For example, Paul Newman didn't win for The Hustler, so when he reprised his role in The Color of Money he was given an Oscar win that many felt was undeserved. Ripples like that can have an affect on awards for years afterwards, as the Acadamy ends up playing catch up (Pacino in Scent of a Women), or outright snubs (Peter Sellers in Being There, Citizen Kane, and The Maltese Falcon losing to How Green Was my Vally).
Multiple sources granting awards helps get rid of that one aspect. There are still the major outlets, who have voices that are farther reaching, and more well-respected. That said, any reviewer, or review site worth their salt will list a game of the year. Adding them up, and compiling the list, like is done with the big winner is the ideal system (other that a purely objective review based on genre, or tailored to the individual, both of which are never going to happen). As I said, I may not enjoy every game on that list, and I think some are better than others, but all of them are what I consider good games. I don't agree with the choices, but no game on there would I rate lower than a low-medium 8/10, personally.





Retour en haut







