#217 Game Awards 2020

Trotz der anhaltenden Pandemie gelang auch in diesem Jahr eine grundsolide Game Awards-Preisverleihung. Wir sprechen sowohl über die gekürten Titel und Personen als auch über die zahlreichen Ankündigungen.

Außerdem geht es um erste Impressionen zu Cyberpunk 2077, um die Frage, inwiefern Rezensionen den Produktionskontext berücksichtigen müssen, und das grassierende Phänomen FOMO.

avatar

Über Ramin Siegmund

Ramin Siegmund, M.A. Erziehungs- und Bildungswissenschaften, lehrt und forscht an der Philipps-Universität Marburg im Bereich der Erwachsenenbildung. Die Faszination von Videospielen begleitet ihn sein Leben lang und findet unter anderem Einzug in seine Lehre, bspw. zum Thema Gamification, Computerspielpädagogik und Game-based Learning.

6 comments

  1. Bio Ware ist doch schon lange tot. Das Personal wurde quasi komplett ausgetauscht. Deswegen sollte man auch immer den Menschen hinter den Spielen vertrauen und nicht irgend einem Firmen-Namen.

    1. Bezüglich BioWare hast du sicherlich Recht, ja. Wobei ich auch sagen muss, dass ich es gerade in der Gameskultur ganz nett finde, dass der Fokus oftmals weniger auf Einzelpersönlichkeiten liegt – Ausnahmen wie Hideo Kojima, David Cage, Tim Schafer etc. einmal beiseite gelassen – und eher auf Studio-Kollektiven.

  2. Moin,

    ich finde an eurem Podcast auch sehr angenehm, dass ihr gelegentlich Spiele diskutiert, die nicht aktuell sind. Man wird dadurch auch gerne mal an Titel erinnert, die aufgrund der Fülle des Neuen einfach hinten über gefallen sind.

    Eine kleine Anmerkung, die vielleicht etwas kleinlich ist: Geoff Keighleys Vorname wird Jeff ausgesprochen (So spricht er es zumindest selbst aus).^^

    1. Danke für die Anmerkung zur Aussprache! Leider bin ich ziemlich gut darin, alles mögliche falsch auszusprechen, wie man inzwischen wahrscheinlich schon bemerkt hat. Aber ich gelobe Besserung 🙂

  3. Servus,

    I will write in English, because I don’t feel comfortable writing in German, I just want to maybe add my thoughts about the „Crunch-Debatte“.
    I do think that the context of the production of a game – especially lately – really important for the reviews/articles are.
    Players should know what they are buying/supporting, especially when everything in the AAA industry is becoming so big and expensive – 70€ for a new game nowadays, that’s a lot – we all know that the larger the scope of a production is, the more problematic it gets. And we as community have to address these problems, do we really want that people have to crunch for weeks so the players are able to see the genitals of a horse? 
    Of course, it is alright to think that’s cool, but adoring things like that without talking about the process it went to be made is a mistake – in my opinion.
    The Last of Us 2 – that is actually my absolute favourite this year – just got the GOTY award. A game that put a lot of developers in an unbelievable crunch mode. (https://kotaku.com/as-naughty-dog-crunches-on-the-last-of-us-ii-developer-1842289962)
    Of course, we can celebrate the game, but as a gamer I got really sad that none of these problems were mentioned by Neil Druckmann in his speech. 
    The industry gave an award for that crunch, is this fair? Was this crunch justified? The industry giants have to see that is not OK, the crunch culture has to stop, we cannot just close our eyes to it.

    Off-topic: I discovered the podcast this year and in the first listen it became my favourite German podcast. 
    Thank you for speaking so clearly and in a good pacing that helps a lot for non-native speakers.

    1. Happy to hear from you and sure, English is perfectly fine!

      I do very much agree with you. It is of utmost importance to highlight the production context and to critically discuss it. We should have also done that when talking about The Last of Us 2 in this episode. And one award that was certainly not justified is Best Game Direction for Naughty Dog, considering that, regardless of the quality of the result, no direction should be rewarded for requiring crunch. You are absolutely right.

      Yet, I would still contend, that a review that mentions the crunch debate but explicitly focuses on the game itself and not primarily on the production context is also fair. It’s an intricate double-bind, because on the one hand we need to make a very clear point that crunch is neither appreciated nor ignored by people interested in gaming culture. On the other hand, we should not fail to acknowledge the effort and talent at work to make something fantastic with great dedication. Thus, I would come to the conclusion that the crunch debate must be adressed—most importantly in mainstream outlets of the video game press—but shouldn’t lead to the game itself being devalued. Just like boycotting a game might not be an effective means to protest crunch as it ultimately harms those that are suffering the most from it.

      And just a tiny addition: „we all know that the larger the scope of a production is, the more problematic it gets.“
      I would disagree with you here in light of indie studios and solo developers, which can be severly subjected to crunch. I wanted to highlight this primarily because we need to also gain awareness that many small creative studios exhaust themselves to make a game they truly care for. The working conditions in the entire field of video game production must significantly improve, for the sake of everyone involved.

      Offtopic: Thank you very much for listening to our show. I’m glad you can follow it sufficiently well, even though it is in German!

Schreibe einen Kommentar zu Matheus Luna Antworten abbrechen

Deine E-Mail-Adresse wird nicht veröffentlicht. Erforderliche Felder sind mit * markiert.