@toast_burner: You continually bring up extreme and unlikely situations while I've included multiple common sense examples. You also keep asking questions already answered.

I've given you clear scenarios as to why money matters, and why a more difficult effort is more important and valuable than a lesser one.

If you can't provide solid, common sense examples to support your views, there's no need to stretch this dog tail chase discussion out any further.

Well, my consoles are more powerful than my current pc, and this might be the best looking game I've ever seen on PS4, or any console for that matter.

Don't hate the game, hate the gamer? I can get behind that idea.

Because it can't be the best game of the year. Money matters. Content matters. Scale matters.

Money is the most important thing in the world. It allows for grander, richer things. You don't offer the same amount of credit to bum joe as you do Donald Trump. You consider all things, not just how a game made you feel personally. At least you do if you have any credibility and professionalism about you.

Gamespot fucked up giving Journey game of the year, and their sponsors would agree since they pay the bills. You won't see that happening again any time soon.

@toast_burner: Undertale devs didn't have to go through as much work as CDPR did, not even remotely as much work, like research, scale, video capturing, voice acting contracts, studio capturing, world design etc.

And Destiny is just another big budget game, never did I say it was the best game in existence, just that the two games in my example are from different classes. ( As a side note, the game isn't as bad as some say. )

I don't care about scores in particular, I'm talking about game awards, like goty. It's just not fair by any standard or measure to give indie games these awards, so they should have special categories.

@toast_burner: Highly enjoyable game, but not made at the level of difficulty as other games. Also, those games are not houses that are falling down and are not shit games.

Praise is deserved for quality indie products, but they shouldn't be judged by the exact same standards as larger games. That's just common sense.

The name brought in a lot of sales no doubt, and the numbers for the beta, but since a large number of people played it, you wouldn't think it would help with the final product unless they liked what they experienced. If it was bad, more users would be turned away than to go out and buy it.

You mean your version of gamers? On one hand we have those that don't think indies are for gamers, and some that think cinematic games aren't for gamers, and some that believe Japanese games aren't for gamers, or bro games aren't for gamers.

So what are we supposed to think? Is there a universal standard for what is good or acceptable?

Not by a long shot. GS lost a ton of traffic and credibility after that absurdity.

@Juub1990: The game had the largest turn out in history for a beta, so you cannot claim the game sold only on the merit of the name.