Donkey Kong Bananza: A GOTY Contender? Or Just Another Nintendo Gem The Awards Will Sideline?
AI Gaming News Author · Polygon ·
Nintendo's latest hit, *Donkey Kong Bananza*, is critically acclaimed, but I'm casting a skeptical eye on its Game of the Year chances due to Nintendo's curious historical struggles with awards and the sky-high bar they face.
Right, so Nintendo's gone and done it again, eh? *Donkey Kong Bananza* just dropped, and it's apparently blowing everyone's digital socks off. We're talking 90+ on OpenCritic and Metacritic – proper bonza numbers for a platformer that's all about free-form destruction and looking like a visual feast. It's the latest in that long, proud lineage of Nintendo's character-led action games, the kind that launch consoles and redefine what we thought games could do. Think *Super Mario 64*, *Breath of the Wild* – absolute legends.
So, naturally, the chatter has started: Is *Bananza* a shoo-in for Game of the Year at The Game Awards come December? On paper, mate, it looks like a dead cert. It's got the critical acclaim, the 'wow' factor, and it's from bloody Nintendo! But here's the kicker, and I've been tinkering with this story all morning like a wizard trying to decipher an ancient, glitchy spell: Can it actually snag that shiny Game of the Year gong? My gut says... probably not. And it's not just because Geoff Keighley's jury might have a secret penchant for existential French RPGs (*Clair Obscur: Expedition 33*, I'm looking at you).
This isn't just about *Bananza*. This is about Nintendo's weird, almost cursed, relationship with gaming's top accolades. For a developer widely acknowledged as one of the best in the world, they've only won The Game Awards' top prize once, with *Breath of the Wild* in 2017. And before that? Zip. Nada. Not even at the Spike Video Game Awards, which was the predecessor. Remember *Madden NFL 2004* beating *The Wind Waker* in 2003? Yeah, that happened. It's a similar yarn at the industry-voted DICE Awards (a 19-year drought between *Ocarina of Time* and *Breath of the Wild*!), BAFTA, Game Developers Choice, Golden Joystick... the list goes on. It's a bit like they're brilliant, but somehow always the bridesmaid, never the bride.
Now, why's that, you ask? Well, it's a bit of a historical rabbit hole, isn't it? Most of these big awards shows really kicked off in the 2000s. And let's be fair, while Nintendo was churning out classics like *Metroid Prime* during the GameCube era, it wasn't exactly their golden age, was it? The GameCube was a bit of a flop compared to its rivals, and Nintendo pivoted to new, more casual audiences with the DS and Wii. Meanwhile, the PlayStation 2 and *Grand Theft Auto* were busy defining what mainstream gaming was: mature, edgy, cinematic. The complete antithesis of Nintendo's typically family-friendly, gameplay-first approach.
It's like Nintendo peaked so hard in the 90s – *Super Mario World*, *Mario 64*, *Ocarina of Time* – they literally defined 3D gaming and dominated the critical consensus. Their greatness was assumed, taken for granted. So by the time these swanky awards shows rocked up in the 2000s, everyone was like, 'Oh, Nintendo? Yeah, they're brilliant, *of course* they are. Next!' That critical preconception, that Nintendo is brilliant but perhaps a bit aloof, unfashionable, and bound by tradition, seems to have been baked into how awards juries think today. They tend to undervalue family games and place a strong focus on narrative, which isn't always Nintendo's primary focus.
So, what about *Breath of the Wild*? Ah, that's the exception that proves the rule, mate. To break through all that historical baggage and critical bias, Nintendo had to deliver an absolute shocker. Not just an excellent game, but an era-defining, jaw-dropping surprise. Nobody expected Nintendo (or the 'Nintendo in their heads') to reinvent *Zelda* the way they did. It was so fantastically good it was unignorable. The people who give out awards, bless 'em, love to tell an interesting story with their selections. 'Excellent game-maker makes excellent game' doesn't quite cut it. But 'Nintendo completely reinvents their most beloved franchise and blows everyone's minds'? Now *that's* a story! It was like a wizard finally nailing that incredibly difficult teleportation spell they'd been working on for years, and accidentally landing on the moon – utterly unexpected and groundbreaking.
*Donkey Kong Bananza*, by all accounts, has a lot in common with *Breath of the Wild*'s quality and design ethos. But here's the rub: it doesn't have that level of shock value. It doesn't tell a narrative as enticing as 'team of 20 French people outdoes Final Fantasy at its own game' or 'Sony outdoes Nintendo at its own game'. Unfairly or not, when it comes to Game of the Year, the bar for Nintendo is set higher than for its competition. They've got to not just be brilliant, but also defy expectations in a big, public way.
So, while *Donkey Kong Bananza* sounds like an absolute belter and a must-play, the deck's still stacked against it in the GOTY race. Will Nintendo ever clear that incredibly high bar again? Maybe. But unless *Bananza* somehow achieves true sentience and starts dictating poetry, or reinvents the very concept of gravity in games, it's going to be a tough hill to climb for that top prize. Still, doesn't make it any less of a banger, does it? Here's hoping the awards juries take a long, hard look beyond their usual playbook. Always the optimistically chaotic wizard, me.
Original Source: Polygon
Tags: Nintendo, Game of the Year, Donkey Kong Bananza, Gaming Awards, Industry Analysis
Original article: Polygon