u/RobbieJ4444

2014: Dragon Age Inquisition: This probably was the favourite to win GOTY. I’d argue just about every other game nominated was better, but considering this was the first year of at the time next gen consoles, I get why the jury would want to nominate something like this, and DQI was voted GOTY from a bunch of other sites.

2015: The Witcher III: Yeah, this was probably the favourite also.

2016: Overwatch: This was either the favourite or a very close second favourite.

2017: The Legend of Zelda Breath of the Wild: I think the only reason why people at the time thought this game wouldn’t win was “the bias against Japanese games” narrative going on around the time.

2018: God of War: Arguably the first true Game Awards upset. I, along with many people expected RDR2 to easily claim this award. Indeed it won most of the other awards, but God of War won the big prize.

2019: Sekiro: This one really surprised me, because I was fully expecting RE2 Remake to take this one, considering how highly it was rated on other sites at the time.

2020: The Last of Us Part II: As much as haters would like to believe otherwise, the likelihood of this game not winning GOTY was extremely unlikely,

2021: It Takes Two: Deathloop was unquestionably the favourite here, and the fact that it only went home with two awards was shocking. Granted IMO, it’s probably a good thing that it didn’t win GOTY, as for me at least, it was easily the weakest of the six nominees.

2022: Elden Ring: No surprises here.

2023: Baldur’s Gate 3: Before 2023 started, it was looking like an easy win for Tears of the Kingdom. Then awards season came along, and it would’ve been more of an upset if they actually did win the award over BG3.

2024: Astro Bot: Not as guaranteed as some of the other winners, but still a fairly predictable one. As much as Black Myth fanboys would like to believe otherwise (note that I said fanboys not fans) Astro Bot was unlikely to lose this year.

2025: Claire Obscure Expedition 33: If this game somehow didn’t win, it would’ve been the greatest upset since Buster Douglas beat Mike Tyson.

For a long time (less so nowadays) The Game Awards has been criticised as not being the "true" awards show, and that the BAFTAs were far more representetive. Regardless of the argument's merits, I thought it'd be interesting to go back to the past, and see what games both the BAFTAs and the Game Awards nominated and awarded GOTY to. The results were........interesting to say the least. As the BAFTAs lasted longer than the Game Awards, we'll be using the Spike Game Awards (the spritual predecessor of the Game Awards) to fill in that segment.

2003: Game Awards: Madden NFL 2004 (winner), Freedom Fighters, Grand Theft Auto Vice City, Legend of Zelda Wind Waker, SOCOM II, SSX 3, Star Wars Galaxies, Star Wars Knights of the Old Republic, Splinter Cell, Tony Hawk's Underground BAFTAs: Call of Duty (winner)

The BAFTAs only had one nominee for the category back then, but it is interesting to see how Call of Duty was so popular even back then. Also interesting to note that it didn't appear at all on the Game Awards list, but that might be a dating issue.

2004: Game Awards: Grand Theft Auto San Andreas (winner), Burnout 3, Halo 2, Half Life 2, Metal Gear Solid 3 BAFTAs: Half Life 2 (winner), Fifa 2005, Football Manager 2005, Grand Theft Auto San Andreas, Halo 2, Pro Evolution Soccer 4

Both winners are deserving, but can anyone tell my why BAFTA had three football games nominated for GOTY.

2005: Game Awards: Resident Evil 4 (winner), Call of Duty 2, Fear, God of War, World of Warcraft BAFTAs: Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter (winner), Black, Brain Training, Guitar Hero, Guitar Hero, Lego Star Wars II

For one of the strongest years in gaming ever, the BAFTAs chose some extremely odd picks.

2009: Game Awards: Uncharted 2 (winner), Assassins Creed 2, Batman Arkham Asylum, Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2, Left 4 Dead 2, BAFTAs: Batman Arkham Asylum (winner), Assassin's Creed 2, Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2, Fifa 10, Left 4 Dead 2, Uncharted 2

Why did I skip a few years? Because the way the dates for both shows lined up made direct one to one comparisons confusing, though the Spike Game Awards deserve some criticism for not nominating Super Mario Galaxy for GOTY. Both shows in 2009 have the exact same lineup, apart from BAFTA adding Fifa in for some reason. The rest are all classics though, and I think both games deserve their victories.

2010: Game Awards: Red Dead Redemption (winner), Call of Duty Black Ops, God of War III, Halo Reach, Mass Effect 2 BAFTAs: Mass Effect 2 (winner), Assassins Creed Brotherhood, Fifa 11, Heavy Rain, Limbo, Super Mario Galaxy 2

Frankly, I think both award shows have messed up their nominees this year. After screwing over Mario Galaxy 1 in 2007, Spike Game Awards also fail to nominate Super Mario Galaxy 2. Their entire list this year feels like the biggest games of the year rather than the best, and by this point in history, a lot of the "hardcore" gamers were already fed up with COD.

BAFTA does have Mario Galaxy 2, Limbo is a cool inclusion (the first indie GOTY nominee for either awards) and Mass Effect 2 is a deserved pick, but no Red Dead? I wouldn't mind so much, but Assassins Creed Brotherhood and Fifa again?

2011: Game Awards: Skyrim (winner), Batman Arkham City, Legend of Zelda Skyward Sword, Portal 2, Uncharted 3 BAFTAs: Portal 2 (winner), Batman Arkham City, Fifa 12, Skyrim, LA Noire, Legend of Zelda Skyward Sword

Nothing wrong with the Game Awards list, everything there seems fine. BAFTA chose a worthy winner in Portal 2, and LA Noire getting a shoutout is cool, but Fifa has been nominated for GOTY for a third time in a row.

2012: Game Awards: The Walking Dead (winner), Assassins Creed III, Dishonored, Journey, Mass Effect 3 BAFTAs: Dishonored (winner), Far Cry 3, Fifa 13, Journey, Mass Effect 3, The Walking Dead

I'm shocked that Mass Effect 3 got nominated for either of these awards, considering how much hate that game got at the time for its ending. Both winners are cool, but Fifa being nominating for the fourth year in a row is staggering. Somebody on the BAFTA jury clearly loves football games.

2013: Game Awards: Grand Theft Auto V (winner), Bioshock Infinite, Super Mario 3D World, The Last of Us, Tomb Raider BAFTAs: The Last of Us (winner), Assassins Creed IV, Grand Theft Auto V, Papers Please, Super Mario 3D World, Tearaway

This is when the BAFTAs are starting to go for really interesting picks for GOTY. Instead of Fifa 14, we got Papers Please and Tearaway. The Game Awards went for far more mainstream picks, but I think all games that are nominated here deserve to be there.

2014: Game Awards: Dragon Age Inquisition (winner), Bayonetta 2, Dark Souls II, Hearthstone, Shadow of Morodor, BAFTAs: Destiny (winner), Alien Isolation, Mario Kart 8, Shadow of Mordor, Monument Valley

I think Destiny winning the BAFTAs for this year is a bit silly, but I will acknowledge it is a very popular game, and Monument Valley getting a nomination is cool too. This is the first incarnation of the Game Awards as we know it today, and all the games here are deserved picks, even though I think in the passage of time, the game that won is arguably the least favourably looked backed on of the five.

2015: Game Awards: The Witcher III (winner), Bloodborne, Fallout 4, Metal Gear Solid V, Super Mario Maker BAFTAs: Fallout 4 (winner), Everybody's Gone to the Rapture, Life is Strange, Metal Gear Solid IV, Rocket League, The Witcher III

Shocking to see that Undertale didn't make a nomination in either of these lists, but I guess it took time for that game to build its reputation up amongst the mainstream. I think Mario Maker is an odd choice, but not as odd as BAFTA choosing Everybody's Gone to the Rapture over Bloodborne. I can only assume their jury never played that game, as Bloodborne wasn't nominated for anything. Also giving Fallout 4 the win over Witcher? That hasn't aged well.

2016: Game Awards: Overwatch (winner), Doom, Inside, Titanfall 2, Uncharted 4 BAFTAs: Uncharted 4 (winner), Firewatch, Inside, Overwatch, Stardew Valley, Titanfall 2

Interestingly Limbo was the first Indie to be nominated for BAFTA's GOTY, and its sequel Inside was the first indie to be nominated for the Game Awards'. All the nominees from both awards are deserved, and the winners appropriate.

2017: Game Awards: Legend of Zelda Breath of the Wild (winner), Horizon Zero Dawn, Persona 5, PUBG, Super Mario Odyssey BAFTAs: What Remains of Edith Finch (winner), Assassins Creed Origins, Hellblade Senuas Sacrifice, Horizon Zero Dawn, Legend of Zelda Breath of the Wild, Super Mario Odyssey

Persona 5 must be another game that the BAFTA jury never played, because like Bloodborne, it didn't get any nominations, not even for best art direction. Uncharted Lost Legacy got nominated for that, but not Persona 5. Assassins Creed Origins is a strange shoutout considering what a banger year 2017 was, but Game Awards nominating PUBG was ridiculous even at the time, let alone years after Fortnite took over.

2018: Game Awards: God of War (winner), Assassins Creed Odyssey, Celeste, Spider-Man, Monster Hunter World, Red Dead Redemption 2 BAFTAs: God of War (winner), Assassins Creed Odyssey, Astro Bot Rescue Mission, Celeste, Red Dead Redemption 2, Return of the Obra Dimm

Two very different lists, but very cool picks in both ceremonies. I especially appreciate how Astro Bot Rescue Mission got a BAFTA nod, as that game was amazing, and why I was super hyped for Astro's Playroom when that came out. Assassins Creed Odyssey however on both lists is confusing. For the Game Awards, you can argue that it came out close to picking the nominees, but with BAFTA you can't. Combined with AC Origins the year before, I can only assume someone on the jury loved the new style of Assassins Creed.

2019: Game Awards: Sekiro (winner), Control, Death Stranding, Resident Evil 2 Remake, The Outer Worlds BAFTAs: Outer Wilds (winner), Control, Disco Elysium, Luigi's Mansion 3, Sekiro, Untitled Goose Game

This is without question, the worst lineup in the modern incarnation of the Game Awards. In a year where Devil May Cry 5, Disco Elysium and Fire Emblem Three Houses came out, they chose Control, Death Stranding and The Outer Worlds? The BAFTAs have a couple of oddball noms, but they definitely win this year.

2020: Game Awards: Last of Us Part II (winner), Animal Crossing New Horizons, Doom Eternal, Final Fantasy VII Remake, Ghost of Tsushima, Hades BAFTAs: Hades (winner), Animal Crossing New Horizons, Ghost of Tsushima, Half Life Alyx, Last of Us Part II, Miles Morales

Miles Morales being nominated for GOTY is a bit weird, especially since the first Spider-Man wasn't, but other than that, everything here checks out. Deserved winners and nominations.

2021: Game Awards: It Takes Two (winner), Deathloop, Metroid Dread, Psychonauts 2, Ratchet and Clank Rift Apart, Resident Evil Village BAFTAs: Returnal (winner), Deathloop, Forza Horizon 5, Inscryption, It Takes Two, Ratchet and Clank Rift Apart

Can't complain about any of the choices here. The big elephant in the room though is Deathloop. A game that critics adored, but one that gamers as a whole are a bit more mixed upon.

2022: Game Awards: Elden Ring (winner), A Plague Tale Requiem, God of War Ragnarok, Horizon Forbidden West, Stray, Xenoblade Chronicles 3 BAFTAs: Vampire Survivors (winner), Elden Ring, God of War Ragnarok, Marvel Snap, Stray, Cult of the Lamb

Some interesting choices here. I remember the cynasism of Xenoblade 3 even being nominated, so thankfully we avoided that controversy, but I think Neon White got robbed here. I like Stray, but Neon White was the indie game that the critics loved that year, so for it to get robbed by both award ceremonies is a bit odd. The BAFTAs picking Vampire Survivors to win GOTY over Elden Ring and GOW Ragnarok is a bit weird, but I applaude their daringness.

2023: Game Awards: Baldur's Gate 3 (winner), Alan Wake II, Legend of Zelda Tears of the Kingdom, Spider-Man 2, Super Mario Wonder, Resident Evil 4 Remake BAFTAs: Baldur's Gate 3 (winner), Alan Wake 3, Dave the Diver, Legend of Zelda Tears of the Kingdom, Super Mario Wonder

Almost identical between both ceremonies, including their GOTY. No complaints from me, all the games listed here are deserving.

2024: Game Awards: Astro Bot (winner), Balatro, Black Myth Whukong, Elden Ring DLC, Final Fantasy VII Rebirth, Metaphor ReFantazio BAFTAs: Astro Bot (winner), Balatro, Black Myth Whukong, Helldivers 2, Legend of Zelda Echoes of Wisdom, Thank Goodness You're Here

WHY DID THE GAME AWARDS ALLOW DLC TO BE NOMINATED? I know 2024 wasn't a great year for gaming, but really? I think BAFTA snubbing Metaphor deserves to be mentioned too, because unlike with Persona, the jury did play that game, and got nominated for a few awards, but it didn't get nominated for the big one. I've never even heard of Thank Goodness You're Here, does anyone know what this is about?

2025: Game Awards: Expedition 33 (winner), Death Stranding 2, Donkey Kong Bananza, Hades II, Hollow Knight Silksong, Kingdom Come Deliverance II BAFTAs: Expedition 33 (winner), Blue Prince, ARC Raiders, Dispatch, Ghost of Yotei, Indianna Jones and the Great Circle

All great games, all deserve to be nominated, Expedition was so acclaimed that I can't say it didn't deserve to win both shows.

Hi, I’m playing Wipeout 64 for the first time, and oh my goodness, this game is hard. Through where determination, I’ve beaten the race and time trial challenges with all golds, but I don’t know where to even start with the weapon challenges.

I’m on Weapon Challenge 2, and the 7 kills needed is ridiculous. The opponents don’t die. At least not consistently. Sometimes they die in one missile, otherwise they can go a whole lap without dying. I don’t understand it. Can anyone help?

Having just finished Saros today, I thought I’d see where this game stands with everyone else. I think it does some things better than Returnal but other things worse.

What Saros does better than Returnal:

Saros is a bigger game than Returnal. Length isn’t everything of course, but Saros finds a nice balance in that it adds more content without it feeling overly large.

I like how it does difficulty selects. Returnal only had one difficulty, really hard. Saros doesn’t really have a difficulty select, but it does have various difficulty modifiers which you can add on to increase or decrease the difficulty. This will also affect how much xp you earn, with easier modifiers removing your total whilst the harder ones increase it.

I was impressed with just how many different level variations there are, especially in the final two biomes.

If you die, you keep the weapon you had on you when in your last run. Far less annoying than the pistol you’re always forced to start with in Returnal.

You don’t need to go through the first biome over and over again.

I like how you can make health upgrades permanent thanks to the skill tree.

What Saros did worse than Returnal:

I think Returnal has the better atmosphere. Saros has its merits, but Returnal has a stronger starting point. A lone astronaut who is trapped on this planet, doomed to repeat the same cycle over and over again. The planet is so alien like, with the only human infrastructure being the spaceship and the house.

There are a few biomes where you need to repeat every objectives to get back to the boss again. The marsh and cathedral are especially guilty of this. Returnal didn’t suffer from his apart from arguably biome 5.

Although I do like the skill tree, there’s more of a purity to Retunal. You can beat the entire game without dying if you’re good enough. Though this is possible in Saros, it’s not really designed that way. It’s more designed like Hades, where you can improve yourself after every death.

I think Returnal has better biome variety. Saros likes its golden deserts a bit too much for my liking.

Returnal has the better guns. Saros has plenty of good ones, but it also has those which I don’t like.

Personally speaking, I prefer Returnal, but I understand anyone who prefers Saros.

Ganondorf is considered one of gaming’s greatest villains, but rarely do I hear about what makes him so effective. It’s easy to believe it’s because he’s from Zelda, but there’s definite more to him than that. To me the big thing that makes Ganondorf is his manipulation. He’s not just a formidable warrior, but a master tactician.

In Ocarina of Time, he doesn’t just invade the Temple of Time, he allows Link and Zelda to do the dirty work for him. He simply strolled right in the moment the door opened up. Even after he took over the world, instead of fighting for the remaing Triforce pieces, he sat back and waited for the hero to do his saving the world, just so that Zelda can reveal herself to him.

In Wind Waker, he knew that reclaiming the Master Sword would free up his powers, so he allowed Link and his little boat to claim it. Why do the hard work, when fhe hero does it for you. We even see this manipulative streak in Twilight Princess. Instead of doing the dirty work himself, he hid himself behind a puppet. Whilst Link was distracting himself with Zant, Ganondorf was plotting his schemes behind closed curtains.

That’s what makes Ganondorf so compelling, and something the movie really needs to get right. Ganondorf is a tactician, a manipulator, the sort of villain who would do extremely well in the pre season 8 Game of Thrones. Fingers crossed that the movie’s writers understand this.

Sixth place in The Apprentice is an interesting place to be, especially in the days where you’d get to be part of the final five special if you made it. Some of these guys got fired nicely, others less so. Let’s take a look at how softly of harshly sixth place has been fired in the years.

Series 1: Raj: He was fired sort of nicely. Lord Sugar seemed to like Raj, but decided that by this points he was out his depth. At least he said he would put Raj out of his misery.

Series 2: Tuan: Raj 2.0. Arguably a better candidate, but unlike Raj, he was completely at fault for the failure of the task, and was fired harshly.

Series 3: Naomi: The nicest thing Lord Sugar said to her was that she was a better presenter than Simon or Tre. Other than that, it wasn’t a sympathies firing in the slightest.

Series 4: Michael: An unusual one, because Lord Sugar kind of fired him softly in the episode, but afterwards in various specials, he was much more annoyed that Michael lasted as long as he did.

Series 5: Howard: Not the nicest, not the nastiest. Howard was praised for being an organisational person, which is better than nothing I guess.

Series 6: Liz: Very nice firing, and one Lord Sugar regretted. To be fair, Stuart should’ve gone, but he put up a defence of a lifetime.

Series 7: Melody: Very soft firing. You could tell that Lord Sugar wanted to keep Melody, but at this point, there was no other option to get rid of but her.

Series 8: Stephen: Much harsher firing that sixth place was accustomed to at this point. Though to be fair, Stephen was extremely lucky to have made it this far.

Series 9: Myles: Not quite as harsh as Stephen, but he still got it quite badly.

Series 10: Sanjay: Most of the final boardroom was Lord Sugar berating him for his admittedly underwhelming business idea. At least he got a “good luck Sanjay” from Karen.

Series 11: Brett: Softest firing in a long long time. After he was fired, Lord Sugar unusually congratulated him for his hard work, and that he left an honourable man. Even on You’re Fired, Lord Sugar said that he liked him.

Series 12: Trishna: Which contrasts sharply with Trishna, who got the big standard treatment.

Series 13: Jade: Another not very soft firing, which is kind of shocking considering her calibre.

Series 14: Sarah Anne: The third not very soft firing, which in this case wasn’t surprising at all, considering she floated her way to week 10.

Series 15: Dean: Weird one this. On the one hand, Lord Sugar told him to stay in touch, but on the other, he stated on numerous occasions that he was lucky to have made it this far. Not even Stephen got that.

Series 16: Aaron: Annoyingly brutal, considering it meant that Akeem got the final showdown treatment.

Series 17: Simba: A harsh firing for a candidate that many people wanted to win the series. Probably the poster child for Series 17’s complete lack of self awareness.

Series 18: Steve: Lord Sugar told him that it was an honour to be associated with him. A saying that’s usually reserved for candidates who reach the interviews, so it’s nice that series 18 had the self awareness to realise that Steve was a good candidate.

Series 19: Mia: In stark contrast to Mia, whose firing wasn’t sympathetic at all, which is especially shocking considering that she was the best candidate up to that point.

Series 20: Rothna: If I can give series 20 any credit, it would be that the show at least realised that Rothna and Conor were quality candidates.

In the most ideal circumstances, we get rid of all the fodder candidates by the halfway stage, and then we’re left with eight or nine series contenders. For reference, I am counting fodder candidates as ones who were so clearly behind everyone else still in the process by a massive margin.

Series 1: Week 9: Series 1 and 2 have a massive problem width only focussing on the top five candidates, and the one who’s getting fired that week. Several winning PMs weren’t even seen in the episodes they won. Anyway, Raj was easily the worst of the remaining six.

Series 2: Week 9: I was very tempted to put week 10 in this slot, because Syed was so much worse than Ansell, but Tuan was the best of everyone else in series 2. Though that’s kind of like saying that Breaking Dawn is the best Twilight film. It’s not much of an honour.

Series 3: Week 4: Series 3 had a lot of epic fails, many of which happened after week 4. However most of those disasters were caused by candidates that weren’t actually fodder candidates. Sophie was the last of the fodder, after being fired for having an ethical problem with selling sweets at a zoo.

Series 4: Week 10: You can thank Lord Sugar’s weird liking of Michael for this, as despite him showing incredibly limited potential, he survived far longer than he should’ve done. This is the first time, though not the last, where a fodder candidate made it all the way to week 10.

Series 5: Week 6: Regardless of how weak you think Ben, Howard, Mona or Philip are, you can’t ignore just how bad Noorul was.

Series 6: Week 4: Series 6 is probably The Apprentice at its most serious. Most of the candidates were very corporate and bland, however it gave us the iconic disaster trio of Dan, Shibby and Melissa. They were all gone by week 4, which was a shame, because they were some of the show’s more iconic disaster candidates.

Series 7: Week 2: Yeah, series 7 didn’t have that many bad candidates. Gavin was actually quite good in the first two weeks, and nobody fired after him were disastrous. So the only fodder this year were Edward and Alex.

Series 8: Week 10: To give Stephen is credit, he’s easily the best of what I define as the fodder candidates. With that said, he was easily the weakest candidate left by week 5, let alone week 10.

Series 9: Week 8: It feels so mean to call Jason fodder, but speaking purely on a candidate level, Myles and Francesca were a lot better than him.

Series 10: Week 5: With twenty candidates, I expected there to be a lot more fodder candidates in the later stages. There weren’t surprisingly. Not because series 10 lacked them, it’s just that Lord Sugar’s fired the. All very quickly.

Series 11: Week 9: Selina is probably the second best fodder candidate (arguably the first best) but she was so much worse than everyone else by the time of her firing.

Series 12: Week 6: Series 12 gave us Mukai, Natalie and Rebecca. Somehow none of them were fired week 1, but everyone fired after them were all right.

Series 13: Week 9: Miss the days when all the fodder by week 6? Well tough luck. We never got those days again. Series 13 was made up mostly of fodder candidates in the form of the boys team, but Bushra wasn’t much better.

Series 14: Week 10: Sarah Anne is arguably the most forgettable sixth place finisher of all time. Is she fodder exactly? Arguably not, but she wasn’t exactly quality either.

Series 15: Week 11: Lottie made it to the interviews.

Series 16: Week 10: The problem with series 16, is that of the first five weeks, only one of the fired candidates (Navid) came across as fodder. The fodder all made it to the later stages. Amy, Sophie, Akeem, arguably Nick were all massively out of their depth by week six.

Series 17: Week 12: If you don’t want to classify Rochelle as fodder, then consider week 9 with Avi as the actual roster. The series 17 roster is actually a lot better than it gives credit for. The problem is that Rochelle made the final despite in the edit, failing upwards all the way there.

Series 18: Week 8: Another reason why series 18 is the best post covid season. Once Noor was fired in week 8, we were left with nine genuinely good candidates.

Series 19: Week 10: This actually felt a lot like a series 1 or 2 cast, with only a minority of candidates getting any real attention. Not to say everyone else was bad per se, but most of them were on the lower to upper halves of ok. That said, had Liam been better in the edit (I suspect he was better in real life) I would’ve made week 3 the choice.

Series 20: Week 12: Oh series 20. It was looking so good. The most competent winner in a long long time, and unlike Harpreet, she actually had a strong lineup to contend with.

Just a shame that most of them didn’t even reach the interviews. Conor and Rothna were good enough that they couldve sneaked an upset victory at minimal controversy, but they didn’t even reach the final five. Kieran was probably the next most desired, but he didn’t make it either.

Lawrence and Dan were the next best options I suppose, but Priyesh and Pascha making the interviews. Hell, Pascha made the final, mainly because the only other option was either a man who didn’t want to share his current business, a man who clearly had no interest in winning, or Priyesh.

For reference, when Bluepoint Games were closed down, they abandoned it for three days. This is not a controversy that is going to die down any time soon, and no matter what Xbox supposedly does today, I cannot seeing it eclipsing this.

If there's one story that isn't going to go away anytime soon, it's going to be the question on what Red Bull does with Lawson and Tsolov. Lawson is doing a great job in his own right, but what Tsolov is doing right now is borderline unprescedented. Despite this, I keep on reading comments trying to downplay the accomplishment, so I wanted to address some of them here, and explain why Nikola's season is so special.

He won three races in a row: This is the first time in FIA Formula 2 where any driver on the grid has done this. The last time any driver has accomplished this faet at this sort of level, you have to go back to 2012 GP2 with Davide Valsecchi. Since then, we've seen all sorts of drivers compete in both GP2 and Formula 2, but none of them have gotten three in a row until Tsolov.

He is only one win away from matching the all time record: For reference, Leclerc and Russell hold that record. At the end of Silverstone, Leclerc and Russell had five and four wins respectively. Tsolov currently has six. Breaking the record is more than doable.

"He's simply driving for the best team": Campos have historically never been the best team in Formula 2. They've never won either the drivers nor the constructors championship. That's not to say that there aren't inbalances in how good each F2 team is from season to season, however I think I can say with reasonable certainty that there is not a single season of F2 where the car has been the be all and end all in terms of who wins the season. The driver behind it has always played a part in the championship.

"He's just got a weak teammate": Noel Leon isn't a driver that I expect to make it into F1 anytime soon, but he's still a pretty good driver all things considered. If you just look at his Wikipedia results, I can see why an uninformed person might be unimpressed, but that doesn't take into account that Formula 3 is much more of a team championship than F2 is. Only two, maybe three teams are ever going to compete at the top in F3, and in his first year, Leon left both his teammates in the dust. In his second year, Leon came very close to matching Ugo Ugochukwu, who is currently leading the F3 standings this year.

"This is a weak F2 grid": THAT IS FLAT OUT WRONG. Is it the best F2 grid of all time? No, but very few grids are going to match 2018. In terms of ranking the quality of the drivers, I'd put it in the upper half in terms of quality. You can't tell me that dominating a series with Camara, Dunne, Stenshorne, Beganoic, Herta and Mini isn't impressive.

"Tsolov had to spend three years in F3": He did, but that dismissal doesn't take into account just how little racing experience Tsolov had before making the jump. For reference, Kimi Antonelli skipped F3 entirely before doing a single season in F2 before making it to F1. Despite this, Kimi still completed more junior race than Tsolov has currently.

This is such an odd scenario. Usually, the racing at the front is dull, tepid, and the real action happens in the midfield. This year, the action at the front’s been quite good. We’ve had more action in this sprint amongst the top four teams than we had in most races last year. By contrast, the midfield action has been shockingly boring. The main culprit is that the gaps between the teams are way too high, the worst it’s been in a long time. Racing Bulls is clearly the best of the midfield pack. Alpine is clearly the second best. Haas and Audi seem to be in their own league, which isn’t honestly saying much. Williams is clearly behind all of those, but at least they’re better than the Cadillacs and Aston Martins.

For those who don’t know, PlayStation Access is the official YouTube channel for PlayStation UK. Every Friday, they post a comedy list video known as a Friday Feature. This week, they completely skipped Friday, likely because they don’t want to open themselves up to an angry mob (bear in mind that unless I’m mistaken, there’s been nothing that indicated that Rob Pearson or other Access members are unavailable this week). The last video they posted was about this month’s PlayStation Plus catalogue, and the comments are exactly what you expect them to be.

For record, we'll only be counting captains who were named, and who we actually saw compete in a quidditch match, so no Charlie Weasley or James Potter.

Number 9: Uruqhuart: The Slytherin captain during Half Blood Prince, and he was an absolute shambles. The team finished dead last in the quidditch standings, a far cry from the days when they were favourites for the quidditch cup. The only thing Uruqhuart has going for him is that the entire Slytherin team was new in Half Blood Prince, so the team was clearly lacking in experience.

On a side note, I think him being captain should've set Harry's alarm bells off. Why is a guy who never completed a full quidditch season captain over Draco Malfoy?

Number 8: Marcus Flint: The Slytherin captain from Philosopher's Stone to Prisoner of Azkaban, and is also the biggest under achiever in all of quidditch. His captain skills were fine in PS and COS. They lost the Gryffindor match, but that wasn't his fault. Slytherin were winning both times before Harry caught the snitch, and to his credit, he brought on Draco Malfoy into the team in order to gain access to significantly better brooms.

What can't be forgiven was his diabolical performance in the POA Gryffindor game. He replaced the team's most professional player, Adrian Pucey, with the mediocre and thuggish Cassius Warrington, and the entire match turned into a complete shambles, with the team conceding stupid penalties, when all they needed to do was not be losing when the snitch was caught.

Number 7: Harry Potter: Now we're getting to the genuinely good captains. Harry did a great job in rebuilding the Gryffindor team, considering that only Katie Bell remained from the team's golden years, and that the OOTP's squad was simply poor. Harry's job was made even harder from the fact that both Katie Bell and Ron Weasley were out of action for months, and that he needed to fill in reserve players.

However Harry also stupidly used dark magic against Draco Malfoy, banning him from the Ravenclaw match. This meant that the team was leaderless during the final game, which could've cost him the cup.

Number 6: Cedric Diggory: A pretty good captain, and certainly a radical improvement from his predecessor. Hufflepuff were basically the San Marino of quidditch until Diggory came along, and transformed the team into an efficient and talented quidditch team. Granted, he only won one match, which is a shame because his efforts in getting Hufflepuff on their feet shouldn't be ignored.

Number 5: Roger Davies: A good quidditch captain, given that he beat an excellent Hufflepuff side in OOTP, and have always been tournament contenders under his leadership. I'm not convinced that he brought Cho Chang in solely for her talent though. Part of me reckons he dreams of snogging her if they won the cup. To be fair, it worked for Harry.

Number 4: Graham Montague: Considering the mess that Marcus Flint left the team, Montague did a fantastic job in transforming the quidditch team into an efficient team that relied on their skill to win matches, and not having to rely on foul play. Montague brought Adrian Pucey back into the squad, and recruited Crabbe and Goyle as beaters in order to replace Derrick and Bole.

Slytherin were extremely unlucky that Harry was riding a firebolt, as they were by far the better team in the Gryffindor match, and the team suffered a huge blow when Montague was out of action for the reainder of the season, as his leadership was declared to be the main reason why his team lost to Hufflepuff.

Number 3: Summerby: Finished the job that Cedric had started. Under Summerby's command, he transformed Hufflepuff from whipping boys to major tournament threats. His team successfully defeated Potter's Gryffindor, Johnson's Gryffindor and even Montague's Slytherin (ok maybe not Montagues, but... hang on, did Uruqhuart captain that match? Whoever captained it really bottled it).

Number 2: Angelina Johnson: You've got to give Angelina credit for sticking through her team durin an extremely difficult stint, that saw three of her star players being banned for life, as well as training being both extremely limited and extremely difficult. Partly due to Umbridge, partly due to the Weasleys acting like prats. But to her credit, she stuck through her team through all the difficulties, and helped win the quidditch cup.

Number 1: Oliver Wood: A little overbearing, but did a great job in building up a team that was easily the best in the league for three straight years. The only fault I can give to him, is that the Ravenclaw match in PS went catostrophically wrong.

The PS5 was announced with a lot of hype behind it, however ever since then, it’s been suffering from bad PR from all over the place. Let’s take a look back at everything Sony did to destroy the trust of its fanbase.

We won’t start pre-orders on a whim, we’ll let you know when you can preorder*: A relatively minor one in the grand scheme of things, but this was a complete lie. PS5 preorders were just started out of nowhere, and it was a complete free for all. In the UK, this happened at the dead of night, so everyone who was asleep at that time were completely screwed.

We believe in generations: This was a quote that was used specifically to diss Xbox for being incredibly crossgen in their strategy. The problem was that this ended up being a complete lie. The PS5 hadn’t even launched yet, and we already knew that Horizon Forbidden West, Sackboy a Big Adventure and Spider-Man Miles Morales had PS4 versions too. His was followed up with PS4 versions of Gran Turismo 7 and God of War Ragnarok. Gran Turismo 7 reportedly had its PS4 port planned at the last minute, but this isn’t the case for Ragnarok. This blatant lie caused a lot of distrust within the fanbase.

*Closing down Japan Studio:* This was a studio that was responsible for some of the hardcore PlayStation fans’ favourite games. Ape Escape, Ico, Shadow of the Colossus, Gravity Rush, Locoroco and Puppeteer. Yet they were essentially dissolved, with only Team Asobi escaping out alive.

*Days Gone 2 not greenlit:* Days Gone wasn’t a critical hit, but it did find a fanbase for itself. Unfortunately it was revealed early on in 2021 that Days Gone 2 wouldn’t be happening.

*Shutting down the PS3 and handheld online stores:* Sony were very eager to close down support for the PS3 online shop, which didn’t go down well with gamers. Now there are various good reasons to do this, primarily to do with financial security, but to most gamers, it struck of Sony hating its past. Jim Ryan publicly stated that he didn’t understand why people are interested in PS1 and PS2 games. He would later go back on this statement, but the damage was already done.

Unwanted remakes/remasters: Sony’s hardcore fans were begging Sony to remake some of their older titles, however the remasters that Sony invested in were of games that were significantly older, and which already had recent entries. To a lot of gamers, The Last of Us Part One felt like a waste of time.

*The first price hike:* August 2022 was the first time any of the current consoles increased in price from launch. Bear in mind that at this point, neither the Nintendo Switch nor the Xbox Series X had done this.

*The 2023 showcase:* This was a showcase that was hyped massively beforehand. They had a massive timer, counting down to the event. People were incredibly excited on what we were going to see, and the showcase we got was diabolical. The first party live service games looked incredibly bland, Spider-Man 2 was so expected that it failed as a “one last thing” reveal, MGS3 Delta was leaked so much beforehand that it’s completely nothing reveal trailer disappointed, and with the exception of Phantom Blade Zero, none of the new game reveals landed with audiences. Foamstars especially was subject to plenty of online ridicule.

*The Last of Us Faction’s cancellation:* This was a title that many expected to be shown off in the 2023 showcase, with most expecting it to be a slam dunk. Instead it was officially cancelled mere days after the showcase. Of all of PlayStation’s live service offerings, this was easily the most hyped one, and for it to be cancelled whilst Fairgames still existed left a rotten taste in the mouths of fans.

*Concord:* 2024 was a quiet release for first party studio games, with almost none being announced. The State of Play in June was where we first got a glimpse of Sony’s offerings for the year. Astro Bot, which was easily Sony’s biggest PR win of the generation, and Concord. A live service game that was inspired by Guardians of the Galaxy. Both its gameplay and characters were accused of being creatively bankrupt, and Concord bombed in a way that almost no triple AAA game has previously. In an unpretentious move, Sony removed the game from sale just days after launch.

PS5 Pro: The Pro was already a difficult sell, considering that so many games were still getting PS4 ports, but the reveal went down like a lead balloon, ended off nicely with an enormous price reveal, and it not even including a disc drive.

*Closing down Bluepoint:* Sony took a serious PR nosedive after it shut down Bluepoint Games. The management of the studio was rightfully lambasted, as instead of working on a remake of a beloved classic, they were developing a God of War live service game. The studio never released a project whilst under Sony’s leadership.

*Ending physical games:* I think we all know the story by now. It was an appalling, seemingly tone deaf announcement which ignited the fury in a way that I haven’t seen since the Xbox One reveal. Sony isn’t going to sweep this under the carpet easily, and the damage they caused themselves this generation will resonate with fans for a long time

One of the biggest requests I've seen from fans is the desire for the Slytherin students to be less one dimensionally evil. The problem is that Slytherin was very antagonistic to Harry during the books (though mostly that was relegated to Draco Malfoy). However I agree that I'd like to see more humanity in the Slytherins, but there has to be a middle ground as to how to keep them not evil, yet true to the books at the same time.

Marcus Flint: Really play up how stupid and incopetent a captain the guy really is. Maybe he can forget who even plays for his own team.

Marcus: It's perfect, Adrian. With our team this year, nothing can stop us.

Adrian: We don't have a complete team yet. We have no seeker.

Marcus: What!?!? What happened to Higgs.

Adrian: You got rid of him last year after losing to Potter.

Maybe even give him a redemption arc where he owns up to his poor leadership after losing to a Gryffindor side they should've beaten at the end of Prisoner of Azkaban.

Adrian Pucey: The best player on the Slytherin side. He doesn't cheat, and gets really annoyed with his friends, Marcus and Graham whenever they give away pointless penalties. He is also snobbish and has a major rivalry with the Weasley twins, due to his dislike for their mischief.

Adrian: Can you two please stop acting like buffoons. I'm not losing to those Weasley imbeciles, just because you can't read the rule book.

I'd also have him be friends with Percy Weasley, just to make the Weasley twins hate him more.

Grahm Montague: I'd have him be incredibly serious and army like, to the point that when he becomes captain, he treats his training sessions more like boot camp. I have an idea that when Crabbe and Goyle are tucking into a large desert, Montague transfigures it into a couple of small carrots.

Graham: You need to lose weight in order to lower resistence.

Apart from Pucey, the rest of the team hate him, because he forces them to do pull ups on their broomsticks, and makes them jog laps around the quidditch pitch. This brutal training regime pays off in OotP though, as Slytherin were by far the better side (it should be noted in the book, Slytherin didn't cheat once during the Gryffindor game under his leadership).

Draco Malfoy: You have to keep Draco Malfoy the same, but I think what the series can do is show how he gets more influence and becomes more dangerous as the years progress. At the start of the series in PS and CoS, Malfoy can be put down by Flint or Pucey. However when he gets older, he becomes more and more influential with the younger Slytherins, which in turn makes the house more unpleasant. That's when Slytherin can act as the muggleborn racists that Slytherins are stereotyped as, and it would help build great atmosphere of dread as Voldemort slowly regains his power.

One more detail I'd add is that after Montague gets hospitalised in OotP, Adrian Pucey quits the team, leaving an overconfident Malfoy to captain the team for the Hufflepuff match. In the books, they lose that match, and Malfoy losing to a side that have historically been so poor can help justify why Ron and Hermione are so reluctant to believe that Voldemort instructed him with anything in Half Blood Prince.

This is something I never got in the first book. The main reason why Gryffindor didn't win the quidditch cup was because they lost to Ravenclaw. Future books would indicate that Harry not being able to play was the main reason, but I don't really get that.

Gryffindor didn't just lose the Ravenclaw match, they suffered their worst defeat in three hundred years. How exactly did that happen. Harry being the seeker can only be responsible for 150 points. But I refuse to believe that the worst Gryffindor did in three centuries was failing to catch the snitch. Surely they must've had games when they were losing AND failed to catch the snitch.

So surely the rest of the Gryffindor team were completely incompetent too in order to sustain a loss that bad. Angelina Johnson, Katie Bell and Alicia Spinnet must've all missed all their shots, the Weasleys must've hit each other with the bludgers, and Oliver Wood must've been a worse keeper than the average San Marinese keeper.

I can only assume that the team were in a terrible headspace beforehand, likely due to Harry losing 150 house points, because it doesn't make logical sense otherwise that the team would lose by such a huge margin.

Getting through to the final five without being in the bottom three once is an accomplishment, and one that very few candidates have ever managed. Still, some of these guys came closer than others, so let's take a look at which ones are which.

Number 6: Courtney: Courtney was good in The Apprentice, but nowhere close to perfect. He wasn't a good seller, and was somehow an even worse presenter. There were tasks he could've justifiably been in the boardroom had he lost, and he should've been there in week 7, but survived due to bizarre circumstances.

Number 5: Karishma: It's surprising to see a ranking list where Karishma almost finished dead last, but she for sure should've been in the boardroom in week 5. She was a big reason as to why the team lost that task, and only avoided the boardroom because Vanessa didn't fancy her chances up against her.

Fun fact, Pryesh and Pascha came devilishly close to not being in the final boardroom at all too.

Number 4: Tre (series 18): He had a few wobbly moments in weeks 9 and 10, but his team won those tasks. He did come close to being brought back in during week 8, and only survived because Lord Sugar fired Noor before she had the chance to do it. He didn't deserve to be in the boardroom that week anyway, but that wouldn't have stopped Noor from doing it.

Number 3: Carina: She only lost one task, but that was a task she was partly to blame for. She didn’t deserve to be in the boardroom, but that’s because there were other people on the same team who were even worse.

Number 2: Lee: A near faultless performance from Lee, with him only being on the losing team three times, with him being responsible for exactly none of the losses. His big stumbling block was week 9 when he performed a poor pitch, but that’s really about it.

Number 1: Paul (series 2): The man who basically did nothing wrong. Seven times on the winning team, and was responsible for most of those wins, and in the three tasks he lost, he was a star performer on two of them. It’s shocking in hindsight how hard he bombed in the interviews.

For reference, I won't be talking about the Virtual Boy or the Color TV Game Six, as I don't own one, and it'd be unfair for me to talk about them.

NES: The NES had an unreliable cartridge mechanism. Inserting the cartridge in a standard NES (not the top loader) tends to wear out the connecting pins a lot more than other consoles

GameBoy/GameBoy Color: It has no backlight. I understand the lack of colour means that the batteries last longer, but playing an original GameBoy in the dark is rather painful

SNES: The SNES had far too many high profile games not get localised to Europe. Chrono Trigger, Final Fantasy, Super Mario RPG, none of them made it to Europe. Other consoles had this issue too, but those were mainly cult classic games, not the highest acclaimed games on the system. Bear in mind that the Sega Mega Drive RPGs mostly did make it to Europe.

N64: It still uses cartridges. An obvious answer, yes, but you can't ignore how much third party support Nintendo lost with this move. Even on a gaming level, a lot of the music was low quality in comparison to what we got on PS1.

GBA: The sound chip in the GBA isn't that great. It can run a lot of SNES games great, except for the music. Dare I say it, out of all the Nintendo consoles, the GBA is the one where I'm least impressed with the games' soundtracks.

GameCube: The online capabilities were way behind Xbox and even PlayStation. This was during a time where everyone knew that online gaming was going to be the big thing, but in order to get third party games working online, they'd have to do a bunch of stuff that Xbox Live and PS2 Online did by themselves, and publishers were reluctant to go through all that effort to put their games out on a struggling system.

DS: The hinges on the original model were awful. I love the design of the original DS, but they break really easily. For all the other models though, I dislike how they all require different chargers. At least with the DS standard and DSi, those chargers work on the GBA and 3DS, but the DS Lite charger is unique to itself.

Wii: Another obvious one, but it was woefully underpowered in comparison to everything else. Developers couldn't port their games to it, even before you take into account the controller, which is nothing like the Xbox 360 or PS3.

3DS: It's region locked, the only major handheld to suffer from this. Now that the eShop is closed down, if you're European, and you're in the mood for Shin Megami Tensei 4, well tough luck.

Wii U: Many people will say the GamePad, but I actually quite like it. It does have a couple of neat features that I like. What drives me mad about the Wii U is how slow it is. Even Nintendo's own games like Donkey Kong Tropical Freeze took ages to load up, never mind games that weren't targeting the Wii U.

Switch: JoyCon drift. It's ridiculous how my N64 and GamCube controllers still work perfectly, but my modern JoyCon controllers freak out. Doesn't matter if they're first party or from Hori, JoyCon Drift is terrible.

Switch 2: Game Keys. They were probably made with good intentions, and were most likely designed with games like Star Wars Outlaws in mind. That games like Adventures of Elliott and Sonic Frontiers Definitive Edition are using them are diabolical.