'Fallout' of the Year Award

 The battles rage

Quick disclaimer, I thought up the name of that title before I remembered there's actually a very famous games series, that I speak about a lot, named 'Fallout'. I was not referring to that game but rather the concept of a 'fallout', as in the consequential wake of an event. See it was a... not really a pun but more a... look just stick with me okay, it makes sense. I think. So the Game Awards went by in a flash and barring some controversy about the way that Geoff decided to run the show and shoe winners off stage with a broom for fear they would sully the time for the almighty advertisers- it was a decent showing. Somehow Hollow Knight Silksong did not make an appearance, and that is the only thing I care about so I consider the show an abject failure, but I have it on good authority that some people out there have other aspects of life they care about or something? Like eating and stuff? (Eh, I don't get the appeal.) But there has been one topic of conversation which keeps popping up again and again; the winner of the big award, and whether or not they deserved it.

Now you would be very hard pressed to call Baldur's Gate 3 a surprise winner of the award considering how everyone already raised the game on their shoulders and carried it off the pitch in slow motion like the final act of a coming-of-age sports movie, but that doesn't mean there was no other game this year with a swinging chance. Heck, back when a lot of us were still naïve believers in the peace there was a genuine belief that Bethesda's very own Starfield was going to be a shoe in. You know, until we actually played the thing and found out how underbaked it really was. (I try to get back into it every week and end up with 4 minute play sessions I just abandon.) In fact, this year was so strong there are several games that never even made the nomination list for Game of the Year that sent people a bit loopy, so of course the winning itself was going to be contentious, no matter how 'pre ordained' it felt.

Between the big five I think only Resident Evil 4 raised eyebrows about it's conclusion for merit of it being 'just a remake'. But I have to honestly call bull on that- Resident Evil 4 is so much of a remake that it takes the basic story beats, locations and characters and totally rebuilds them from the ground up. To call is a 'basic' remake is a total misnomer, it was a fresh game totally of it's own right. Now if a remaster was on the list, or maybe The Last of Us Part 1, then I'd understand the side-eye. Seriously, Resident Evil 4 is not a 'side by side' remake by any stretch of the imagination, it earnt it's aplomb purely by being a premier action adventure game. Just as Alan Wake 2 earned it's nomination. And Spiderman 2. (Disgrace the hyphen!) And Tears of the Kingdom.

Funnily enough, despite it's ravenous fanbase I haven't heard a lot of grumblings about Alan Wake 2 not winning Game of the Year. That audience seem happy enough winning Narrative game of the year, which makes sense given no other candidate really threw their narrative prowess to the test, now did they? At least we're not getting a 'Elden Ring' style controversy wherein people complain "I didn't pay attention to the story and I skipped all the dialogue, which means the game had no story and shouldn't be nominated!" Alan Wake 2 was lucky enough to avoid that crowd of 'geniuses'. The other big games on the list however? Yeah, their fans have had something to say- and it's building up into quite the shouting match. (It's like 'Football' over here, everyone's getting uppity like they're actual members of the team.)

There was a time early on in this year when organised queen-bashing title: Tears of the Kingdom was considered a shoe-in for game of the year for it's increadibly robust mechanics that breathed a new world of creativity into the base of Breath of the Wild. There's little doubt that Breath of the Wild was already a spectacular and wide game to conquer, and so to set a sequel on that exact same landmass yet have it be even more full of activity, non-standard world interactions and flexible gameplay systems built atop on another- it was astounding! It's nomination was a foregone conclusion and the fact that it didn't win was a testament to how incredible of a year for gaming this has been. It's fans seem at peace with the award it did win, and don't seem to complain too much.

Spiderman 2, on the otherhand. (Woah boy.) Apparently the 'honour of being nominated' doesn't rub off on Spiderman fans who are so indignant that they've declared active war on all things Baldur's Gate. Specifically for the loss of two awards, best actor (although I'm quite surprised people expected to win that, most of the pre-show buzz had Ben Starr as the favourite second pick, not Yuri) and the big award itself. For a time Twitter was writhe with 'comparison videos', pitting the combat of Baldur's Gate 3 against Spiderman and critiquing, what exactly? The speed? Of an action game next to a turn based game? Maybe they were championing the relatively mindless affair of thug punching next to the comparatively involved rigors of thinking your way through one of Larian's deviously designed encounters. Essentially fans were dead set on missing the forest through the trees and start a war where no one wanted one.

And then we have 'Super Mario Bros Wonder'. Honestly, I ain't heard jack about this game from the fanbase. It's as though Nintendo lovers have their own cubby-hole of reality that they enter from which no sound escapes, in which they love their little Mario game exclusively. I was genuinely surprised when the game was nominated for the Ultimate prize, and when it didn't win- no one seemed to be angry or aggrieved. The most I ever saw was a speculative article from a thought experiment that asked what Super Mario Bros Wonder might do which would qualify it for a game award. The best they could come up with? 4 player co-op. Baldur's Gate 3 has 4 player co-op! (Although Wonder does have 4 player local co-op, which does make it a bit of a unicorn in today's landscape. Game of the year worthy? That's debateable.)

What Baldur's Gate 3 brought to earn it's reward is bigger than the way it played, the complexity of it's narrative or the.. existence of co-op play. It brought a return to pushing the boundaries of gaming in a way that challenges to the confines of the medium, not just of the tech running the programs. Baldur's Gate 3 oozes with a weave of complex reactionary content that would make most Bethesda writer's heads spin, and consequence that would make DONTNOD and Telltale blush. They slapped in a complex and alive Role Playing heart with consequence, not the trite 'flat RPG building' architecture that so many other RPGs have- and what's more, it was accessible. That's the key to all of this, not just what it does but how it invited in everyone. Showing people that properly deep and complex games are actually worth the investment. Giving Baldur's Gate 3 Game of the Year was a testament to believing in the art of games and gaming, and that was what brought it into the very rare league of it's own.