While I wouldn't go so far to say as Titanfall looks like a bad game, I simply cannot understand what about the game makes it worthy enough to win best PC game, best console game, best original game and best game overall, amongst the many other awards it's got.
I simply do not see what is so unique, so original about the game that critics feel the need to adorn it with every prize they've got. Destiny, The Division, even Battlefield 4 all brought things that at least looke interesting (bored of shooters though I am). What did Titanfall have? Mechs? Other shooters have already included mech combat in online multiplayer. Jetpacks? Halo and Killzone did those years ago. Double jumping and wall-running? Oh, hello there Brink.
For something to garner so many awards, I would assume it would be a game that really does standalone in its uniqueness, something like Journey, or Dark Souls, or Mario Galaxy. Something which looks utterly unlike everything else out there. For a game that looks like Call Of Duty but in space to break records for awards won not only says bad things about the critics who judged the game, but about the industry itself.
This was an E3 where for once, everyone made an actual effort, and showed off original games with something we hadn't seen before. Microsoft at least showed off Project Spark, which for all the hate they got looks like a genuinely creative new game. Even Nintendo had two exclusive Platinum games to show off, one of them being an original strategy-beat 'em up where you defeat giant alien robot dragons with a collective horde of superheroes, and the other being the sequel to one of the most insane, creative, critically acclaimed action games ever. Ubisoft were showing off the likes of Watch Dogs. Sony had the likes of Tearaway and Rain... what the fuck does it say when amidst all this creativity, the winner of nearly all the awards is fucking COD with mechs?
