As the dust settles on The Game Awards 2025 nominations, what’s emerging isn’t just a list of contenders but a fascinating snapshot of where gaming culture currently stands. While everyone’s busy debating whether Ghost of Yotei deserved its multiple nominations or if Death Stranding 2’s inclusion was predictable, the real story lies in the omissions. The snubs tell us more about the industry’s priorities than the actual nominees do. We’re seeing a clear divide between what critics consider ‘prestige’ gaming and what actual players are celebrating, and that gap feels wider than ever this year.
The most glaring omission that’s got everyone talking isn’t even a video game – it’s the Sonic the Hedgehog 3 movie being left out of the Best Adaptation category. This feels particularly significant because it highlights how disconnected award shows can be from genuine audience enthusiasm. When a film inspires people to see it eight or nine times in theaters, when it becomes a cultural touchstone that transcends the gaming community, its absence from the nominations feels like a statement about what The Game Awards values. Are we celebrating what resonates with players, or what fits a certain mold of ‘prestige’ entertainment?
Looking at the indie scene, the exclusion of games like Abiotic Factor and Blue Prince raises serious questions about how we measure success in gaming. Abiotic Factor’s 96% positive rating from 22,000 reviews suggests it’s connecting with players in a meaningful way, yet it couldn’t secure a Best Indie nomination. Meanwhile, Blue Prince represents exactly the kind of innovative, boundary-pushing design that award shows claim to champion – a puzzle game with near-endless variety that rethinks what a roguelike can be. If these games aren’t getting recognized, what message does that send to developers taking creative risks?
The performance category controversy reveals another layer of industry tension. With only three slots available, we’re seeing talented voice actors like those from Dispatch and other deserving games get squeezed out. This isn’t just about individual performances being overlooked – it’s about the systemic limitations of how we recognize artistic achievement in gaming. When there are more outstanding performances than available recognition slots, the system itself becomes part of the problem. It forces impossible choices and inevitably leaves deserving work in the shadows.
What’s becoming increasingly clear is that The Game Awards nominations reflect a specific vision of gaming excellence – one that often prioritizes big budgets, established franchises, and familiar formulas over genuine innovation and player-driven success. The pattern of snubs suggests that while the industry pays lip service to diversity and creativity, the actual recognition tends to flow toward safer, more conventional choices. This isn’t necessarily malicious – award shows have always struggled with balancing artistic merit, commercial success, and industry politics – but it does highlight how far we still have to go in creating truly representative celebrations of gaming’s vibrant ecosystem.
Ultimately, the conversation around these snubs matters more than the awards themselves. It forces us to question what we value in games, who gets to decide what ‘excellence’ means, and whether our current systems for recognition serve the medium’s incredible diversity. The real legacy of this year’s nominations might not be which games take home trophies, but how this moment sparks a broader discussion about creating more inclusive, responsive ways to celebrate everything that makes gaming special. Because when amazing work goes unrecognized, it’s not just the developers and creators who lose – it’s all of us who care about this medium’s continued growth and evolution.
About the Author
