The Game Awards Jury is More Diverse Than My Spellbook, So Why Are the Nominees So... Familiar?
AI Gaming News Author · Polygon ·
The Game Awards jury is growing more diverse and international, yet paradoxically, the nominated games are becoming less varied, favouring big-budget AAA titles over indie innovation, sparking questions about why a broader voting body leads to narrower choices.
Right, so I've been tinkering with some data from The Game Awards, and bloody hell, it's wilder than a rogue teleportation spell. On the one hand, we've got a jury that's getting bigger, broader, and more international than ever before – a truly global gathering of gaming minds, you'd think. But then, when you peek at the nominated games, it's like someone cast a 'Deja Vu' charm on the whole process. They're getting *less* diverse. What in the digital ether is going on, mate?
This curious conundrum, a paradox wrapped in an enigma and seasoned with a dash of industry head-scratching, was brilliantly brought to light by Oli Welsh over at Polygon. And fair dinkum, it's a topic that genuinely makes you wonder if our collective taste buds are evolving or just stubbornly sticking to what they know best. You can find the original deep dive by Oli Welsh at Polygon: Original Article Link.
Let's break down the wizardry behind the curtain, shall we? The Game Awards, bless its ever-growing heart, publishes a full list of its jury members each year. For 2025, that list has swelled to 154 organisations, up a respectable 14% from 2024. This isn't just a bigger party; it's a more geographically varied one. We're seeing Latin American and European outlets significantly bumping up their representation, with France practically doubling its presence – sacré bleu! Countries like Brazil, Mexico, and the U.K. are getting more votes, too. Even Hungary, Hong Kong, and Taiwan are making their debut on the jury, which is pretty neat. The inclusion of Hong Kong and Taiwan, in particular, could meaningfully broaden the Chinese-language voting bloc, though as a casual observer of cultural nuances, I'd wager their tastes might differ a touch from mainland China, which didn't see an increase.
Fascinatingly, while the U.S. still holds the largest single-country chunk of the vote (16% with 24 outlets), its influence has actually shrunk relatively, as it didn't grow its presence at all. Couple that with other English-language powerhouses like the U.K., Canada, and Australia, and you've still got the largest overall bloc at 30.5%. But Europe is nipping at its heels with 26.6% and rapidly closing the gap. It's like watching an international esports tournament for influence, only way less dramatic and with fewer energy drinks.
Even mobile gaming, a sector often seen as the red-headed stepchild of 'hardcore' awards, seems to be getting a tiny bit more love, with Pocket Gamer and Pocket Tactics joining the ranks. Though, rather ironically, Touch Arcade bowed out. It’s a bit of a two-steps-forward, one-step-back situation, isn't it? The grand vision here, as it appears, is an earnest, almost magical attempt to build a truly globally representative jury, expanding its reach year after year.
So, with all this beautiful, bustling diversity in the voting body, you'd logically expect a corresponding explosion of variety in the nominees, right? More voices, more perspectives, more unexpected gems unearthed from across the gaming landscape. Like, if I bring a dozen new spell ingredients to my lab, I expect to cook up something wild, not just a slightly different fireball. But here's where the plot thickens, the potion fizzes unexpectedly, and the logic goes a bit sideways.
According to Oli's astute observations, it's quite the opposite. Pre-2019, before the jury really started its international growth spurt, The Game Awards were noticeably more open to smaller, creatively risk-taking games. Think about the Art Direction category: we saw indie darlings like *Ori and the Blind Forest*, *Inside*, *Cuphead*, and *Return of the Obra Dinn* taking home the gold. Proper unique, visually distinctive experiences that dared to be different. The Narrative category also celebrated unique storytelling, with winners like *Her Story*, *What Remains of Edith Finch*, and the utterly brilliant *Disco Elysium*.
Fast-forward to the post-2019 era, with our shiny, diverse jury, and what do we see? Art Direction awards going to the undeniably gorgeous but decidedly AAA productions like *Ghost of Tsushima*, *Elden Ring*, and *Alan Wake 2*. And Narrative? It's been all about the big hitters: *The Last of Us Part 2*, *God of War Ragnarök*, *Guardians of the Galaxy*. Now, don't get me wrong, these are all fantastic games with incredible craft. No arguments there. But the shift is palpable, like going from an indie music festival to a stadium rock concert – both great, but very different vibes.
What’s more, the analysis points out that variety in the *nominees* themselves is getting squeezed. For 2025, three games – *Clair Obscur: Expedition 33*, *Death Stranding 2: On the Beach*, and *Ghost of Yōtei* – are hogging three of the five nomination spots across *all* the major craft categories (Direction, Narrative, Art, Music, Audio). That doesn't leave much room for anyone else, does it? It’s like turning up to a magical tournament and finding three wizards have already claimed all the prime artifact slots.
So, why the disconnect? Why does a jury that's trying so hard to be global and inclusive end up seemingly aggregating to a more mainstream, homogenized taste? It's a proper head-scratcher. One theory: perhaps sheer size makes it harder for smaller, less-marketed games to penetrate the collective consciousness of so many disparate voters. Or maybe, when you get a vast array of voices, they tend to coalesce around the most universally recognisable and acclaimed productions – which, by their nature, are often the big-budget, AAA titles. It's the digital equivalent of a massive crowd always agreeing on the most popular flavour of ice cream, even if there are hundreds of artisanal options available.
It certainly wasn't the intention of The Game Awards organisers, I'd reckon. They're clearly trying to make the awards more representative. But intentions, much like my attempts at portal magic, don't always lead to the expected outcome. The original article wisely suggests a potential solution: perhaps a new nomination process, leaning more on smaller, specialist juries for specific categories, much like they do for esports and accessibility awards. That might just be the incantation needed to bring back some of that delightful, chaotic variety.
Because at the end of the day, mate, what we gamers truly want is to celebrate the *breadth* of this incredible medium. The big, shiny blockbusters are important, absolutely. But so are the quirky, the experimental, the indie darlings that push boundaries and make us look at games in a new light. If The Game Awards wants to truly be the 'Oscars of Gaming,' it needs to reflect the entire dazzling spectrum, not just the brightest stars. Otherwise, we'll keep seeing a diverse jury choosing an increasingly familiar set of games, and that, my friends, is a magic trick that's starting to lose its sparkle.
Tags: TheGameAwards, GamingIndustry, IndieGames, AAA, GameAwardsAnalysis
Original article: Polygon