There are a lot of great games there that have been given awards on their strengths and there is no RPG category but if there was, Skyrim possibly would have won there. To me that's a really good list of winners.

Audio Achievement: Battlefield 3

Online - Multiplayer: Battlefield 3

Performer: Mark Hamill, for The Joker in Batman: Arkham City

Don't see how these don't deserve their awards because they are spot on. Also Rayman Origins, artistically is stunning and LittleBigPlanet 2 is a innovative game.

Skyrim wins all by itself. No awards needed.

Wow, I would have thought something would have been in store for Skyrim. I'm surprised it didn't get awarded anything.

who cares about awards. The only game i played so far(out of the numerous PC and MMO games etc), skyrim is the only game that beats the 400 hour mark. In fact, i got the game on 12th november 2011 and its 18 march 2012 and i m still playing.

game awards only show what most people play, not what is best. I don't need someone else to tell me what I will enjoy playing

Whilst I'm not sure I'd have voted for Skyrim in any of those categories (maybe Best Original Soundtrack, though I don't play a lot of games and haven't heard LA Noire's) there are some clearly silly results there. There's nothing wrong with giving Portal 2 awards for Best Game and Design, but I can't see why it won the Story category (maybe I'm being pedantic here and it was awarded the Story category on the strength of its humour and characterisation, which were both good).

Skyrim deserves a lot of praise for its technical achievement in building such a detailed world. I personally think it's rather flawed as a game (and not just because of the number of bugs at release) but there are undoubtedly people working at Bethesda who deserve the industry pat-on-the-back as much as those working at the studios who put out Battlefield 3 and Rayman Origins.

The "pat on the back" is the fact the game got nominated several times. However imo it didnt deserve any awards due to the shoddy nature of the release version and the 1.2 patch fiasco. To me if a game cant do the basics right on release it doesnt even figure for an award no matter how much effort was put in it. Skyrims major problems on all platforms (ps3 especially) has obviously influenced the panel at the awards against it in some measure.

Though atm I am playing LA Noire but for the life of me cant understand how it won "best soundtrack" because its not that good at all and has a lot of 40's music that just plain crap ( "gonna get married" is particularly annoying to me ) Dont get me wrong the gameplay and story telling in it is top notch, but musically its pants and I think something a bit fishy is going on there tbh.

Maybe Bafta was trying to make a point that they don't just give awards out based on popularity contest? The fact that Skyrim HAS gotten awards in 99% of all gaming media outlets says a lot regardless of the fact that they did not get one from Bafta.

Yeah, doesn't matter to me.

And if Skyrim had won, you'd be singing the praises of those same game awards.

Awards are handed out based on a 10-20 minute play-through by each judge per game. Obviously that's far too low, and that's why most awards are an absolute joke. However Skyrim deserve to bring home some awards for PR purposes, because it's one of the better games around these days, and not the standard 4 hour junk.

They don't have a RPG category, so I wouldn't be suprised.

I watched bafta nominations and winners and to be honest, I also watched tons of other GOTYs from various magazines and websites. What I really disliked was the early on disscution on Batman Arkham City vs. Skyrim for best game. It was like there weren`t games like Shogun 2, Assassins Creed (or others beyond my own liking). So, to be honest, I am not so very dissapointed Skyrim OR Batman didn`t won best game. Although Portal 2 is not on my list for favorites, never appealed me, don`t know why really, maybe because its SF appearence.

But I would make a point into how games nowadays get their scorings from reviewers and users. No matter how good or bad a game is, more important is how BIG a game or series is. BIG comes of course from how many play that game, as that brings money and money buy power. Look, not even one reviewer pointed out the repetitivity of Skyrim`s quests, the lack of motivation to complete quests and so on (in an open world, I mean). The score was insanely high (see metacritic, it has 94) and is made ONLY from positive scores. Same goes for Batman Arkham City. And both still have some significant negative scores from users. This concludes that BIG games WILL always have high scores and got nominated for awards. Publicity in magazines and websites sort of buy these scores and nominations and probably BAFTA not beeing a magazine or website had an influence on overall results.

For me, besides scores and awards, one fact is disturbin me: every year that passes, games look better and play worse. there is a sort of simplification and superficiality that games provide contrary to how games were only few years ago: Morrowind was more deeper than Oblivion and Skyrim. Games come now on 2 dual layered DVDs but offer less in terms of satisfaction. Gameplay and substances didn`t improved at same pace as graphics did or didn`t improved at all.

Compared to old titles, like Max Payne 2, action games today, with all the technicall fuss, are worse and actually shoudn`t win awards. Strategy games comes in either to complicated learning curve or to simplified sistems that doesn`t match old titles like Age of Empires or Empire Earth. Car simulations delivered nothing enjoyable in the last years, RPG is a genre un-defineable today, so really, compare todays games (of todays technology) with old games (of old technology) and tell me I am wrong...

Sounds like BAFTA got it right.

After a few hours (or weeks) the illusion wears off and Skyrim shows its true colours. I think BAFTA noticed this to.

Is it just me or is it awfully butthurt in here? Personally I think it is refreshing to finally see an award show with some integrity that actually rates games based on the quality of their content rather than the quantity. Skyrim winning best game would be like giving the All you can eat Hobo Soup kitchen the award for best resturaunt, the soup may taste like dirt but by god there is a lot of it. Portal 2 is a far more worthy candidate for GOTY than Skyrim could ever hope to be, sure it may be short but pretty much all of it is top notch quality, it is so unfortunate that the kids of today cant recognise quality when they see it and instead look for the biggest timesink to waste away their lives with, more = better eh kids?


Unless of course they pick the game that you wanted to win that is, eh champ?


I dont think the game is amazing.


Or Saints Row.


Even if they did Skyrim doesnt deserve to win in that catagory either.

Doesn't surprise me, It didn't excel at anything in those categories.

Nah, that's not it, I'm just saying gaming awards have no real value. I think some of those BAFTA-awards are deserved, but that doesn't mean it has any real meaning behind it. I could care less if Skyrim appears on every single GOTY-award list, it is still the same game to me. These BAFTA things are like the Oscars, people give a lot of meaning to it but in the end they don't mean anything.

For the record, my favourite game of 2011, besides Skyrim, was inFamous 2, and that didn't even get any nominations. I'm not mad about that, I still like the game a lot.

I find it funny how people go 'Derp, those awards are BS anyway!' when Skyrim lost when it would be a whole another story if it won.
I'm glad it didn't won anything because it didn't deserve it.

That's actually pretty idiotic.
One should buy a game only if it's good.

Yup, Skyrim got the awards it did via the same process.

Now Skyrim has been fully beta tested by us gamers, the reviews can be more accurate so getting nominated is credible and not getting an award, understandable and pretty much spot on.

Look in any of the awards threads in these forums. People go "Those awards are bull" when Skyrim loses, and people go "Those awards are bull" when Skyrim wins.

Exactly.

Awards? who cares...i remember a lot of people complaints months ago about the awards won by Skyrim "unjustly"..and now is the opposite..very strange...

I wonder who is still playing portal 2 or has put in even 10% of the time into any of those games offline as they have put into Skyrim. Skyrim is my game of the year I love it and thats all that really matters.

Glad that modern warfare 3 didn't win any awards, and im 10th prestige

Bethesda should of had a better launch for this game, the bugs where so incredibly bad it actually started effecting reviews, and cost it a lot of goty awards, I'm not surprised it lost, this game could of been better... way better.

IF the Bafta awards actually rated games on the quality of their content, then Skyrim obviously would have won something because it's awesome, but it didn't. I don't really care why because it's GOTY at my house and that's what matters to me. Portal2 is a great game too, no doubt about that at all. Also, there's honor for Skyrim in being nominated. Without an RPG category, the Bafta's are lacking something though. It's not like RPG is something new that just started...it's been around forever so what's up with that?

I do.



If other game awards happened later, I think Skyrim would of lost a few of the ones it did win. Todd Howard designed Skyrim for the first 30hrs of the first run through and basically pulled the wool over the eyes of a lot of reviewers and buyers too. Todd misses the big picture when it comes to things like Attributes and Spellmaking and doesn't understand that what make for fun gameplay with fighters [swinging a weapon or two and blocking and just slogging it out] is repetitive and dull for mages.

I would sell Skyrim if I could... if only this shallow piece of crap wasn't tied to my Steam account.