No, I’m already satisfied with The Game Awards and o▨𝓡ther awards that recognize and celebrate games with a greater capacity for interpretation, understanding, and connection with public opinion, as I mentioned above. Awards that do not intentionally disregard a significant portion of gaming enthusiasts for ideological reasons or to fuel a meaningless culture war.

They understand that ❀v꧑ideo games are not just art and a medium for storytelling but also high-tech products designed for entertainment and pure, simple fun.

In truth, it’s eno𝓡ugh to be able to connect with common sense—not to blindly obey or follow it, but simply to consider it an🅷d avoid being condescending.

But deep down, what would make me happy is just less pretentious, mora💙listic, and elitist language about what are supposedly the best games of the year. Texts without self-declared authority on the subject, belittling public opiniꦉon.

None of this is math or statistics, my friend—just the ability to read and understand the world around you, the conc✅ept of “popular,” without disdain. Basic journalistic practice.

The same problem as always. It’s an opinion piece, okay, I understand and respect the legitimacy of the author. But in the end, it’s one person, a single individual writing an article like this, with an authoritativ꧂e tone, trying to dictate what is the best path for a studio that has been not only successful in the artistic quality of the games it produces but also performing well commercially as a business. Because, at the end of the day, making and selling games is a business. Thinking otherwise is childish naïveté.

What 🔜truly baffles me is seeing the author of the article assume that their absolutely personal, subjective, and idiosyncꦜratic vision should dictate the production agenda of the studio in question, positioning themselves as a representative of the audience in this regard.

Well… if someone from FromSoftware happens to read my opinion, as an avid consumer of the company’s products, I’d like to make it clear that I want an Elden Ring 2. I’d buy it, just as I’d buy and play more expansions or products in the Elden Ring universe. For example, I played but absolutely despise Armored Core 6—but unlike the author, I fully respect those who enjoyed it and want to play an Armored Core 7.

The gaming press needs to un♔derstand that it’s perfectly possible to cater to both the audience’s desire for games that continue experiences many people love and want more of, and for new games with a greater focus on innovation and creativity. Both desires are legitimate. However, in the end, risk is a factor that all studios must consider. Because it’s a BUSINESS.

Let market studies, focus groups, and other methods of understanding what people who pay for 😼and consume games want dictate the trends that should be followed by the BUSI🧜NESS.

And le🍸t those who dedicate t𓆉hemselves to the artistic aspects of game production do so out of passion and find their spaces in the gaming agendas of players as well.

There is an immense need in your texts to convince the reader to do someꩲthing that is subjectively interesting to you and, therefore, the best or the right thing to do.

Moralism.

It’s not an informative article or even a 🀅partially opinionated one𒅌. It’s a pamphlet.

Which wouldn’t be a problem either if it weren’t for the constant need to validate one side by invalidating and discrediting♏ the other.

I want to play long, immersive games with plenty of content, I love open worlds, and my main focus is on the gameplay l🉐oop, in environments detailed enough to crඣeate an immersive illusion. And I don’t want to be judged as a better or worse person for it.

I also know that many of these games are terrible or fail miserably in aspects like innovation, narrative, etc. That’s fine. Politeness, sometimes—or often—is✨ enough.

I 🍸also play smaller, independent, and authorial games with a greater artistic focus. Many of them—really many—𝔍are fantastic. Others, not so much.

And that’s okay. That’s how it should be: having all options available for everyone🌳 to choose from.

What I don’t like iꦚs seeing someone tell me what I should like or want.

Moralism.

“‘Better’ is a concept that is highly rℱelative and subjective. Yet, in texts like this, it is treated𒁃 as absolute, as unquestionable truth. It does lack a ‘in my opinion’ or ‘to my taste.’ Because the tone of the writing is always the same: a claim to the truth about what is good and what is bad in video games.

In reality, it is treated much more from a 🦩biased perspective of what is good and bad, through a moral lens.

I don’t need to be educated when reading a site about video games; I want to be info🐓rmed. Reading a per🎐spective different from my own is fine. It’s legitimate and even good. Diversity of thought is excellent. But in an environment where there isn’t a constant effort to delegitimize the opinions and views of others.

There is room for both awards to exist, and it’s great, in fact, that they exist with the focuses they have today, which are different. That the Indie Awards prioritize the artistic aspect and authorial works, and that the TG🐬A prioritizes technology, scope, impact, and market vision. There’s nothing wrong with this diversity of recogn🌺ition and distinct perspectives.

If triple-A games have their issues for some people (generalizations are never accurate), indie games also fail to please everyone in the same ways, whether for being much smaller, being focused solely on narratives (remembering that they a🌊re games and not visual novels), or having moderate graphics, etc. Once again, I’m not generalizing—neither the quality of triple-As nor of indies.

This shouldn’t be🍌 an ide💫ological battleground over types and categories of games. A battle that is fueled by both sides of this closed dilemma between the triple-A industry (the evil) and indie creators (the saints).”

There’s widespread criticism of games like Ghost of Tsushima for having “open world filler” and a story that isn’t considered worthy of prime-time TV or leading a streaming platform (as if many of these mass-produced TV and film products have genius stories or scripts). However, like Days Gone, which saw recognition from players post-launch, Ghost of Tsushima delivers what a significant portion of people want: a well-built, beautiful, expansive open world, withꦛ lots to do, much content, and familiar elements that don’t make it overly exotic or purely artistic in appeal.

I might be wrong, but I see a huge disconnect between critics and the public, not just in terms of ratings, but in what inf🦩luences purchasing decisions. Maybe it’s because critics have a different perspec🦄tive, as reviewing games is just routine work for them, with easy access to copies. This undermines the value perception that comes when people spend their own money and expect a return on that investment.

For me, Ghost of Tsushima was wonderful because it proꦦvided a polished, well-executed space for me to enjoy what I love doing, without the pressure to play somethi💝ng that had to be innovative or artistically appealing. The gameplay elements worked perfectly, keeping me engaged and immersed—not because of historical realism, but simply because it was fun to play. That was enough.

I hope th🍒e sequel retains the same spirit and doesn’t t♑ry to force innovations by cutting content, distorting what the game is at its core: fun.