Introduction to 2017 Game of the Year Contenders
2017 stands as one of the most consequential years in modern games history, marked by expansion of scope, genre hybridity, and industry defining conversations about live service, monetization, and creative risk. The cycle produced multiple legitimate Game of the Year contenders whose legacies extend well beyond seasonal awards coverage, shaping development practices, market expectations, and critical discourse for years. This evergreen breakdown examines the strongest candidates, criteria used by major outlets, and how the field resolved across major award bodies. Its intent is a durable reference that explains what made these contenders notable and why their design choices continue to matter.
Context: Why 2017 Mattered for Long Term Discourse
In legacy discussions of the industry, 2017 is often cited alongside benchmark years because it crystallized tensions between blockbuster ambition and service orientation. Games launched or expanded in ways that reframed how long term engagement, narrative delivery, and systemic depth were evaluated. The conversation extended beyond playtime hours toward systemic identity, moddability, and how live elements could coexist with authored experiences. This context ensures that any Game of the Year discussion for 2017 captures not just momentary critical reception but durable influence on development and player expectations.
How Major Outlets Define Game of the Year
While individual criteria vary, most professional outlets evaluate Game of the Year through overlapping lenses that privilege transformative impact, technical execution, and meaningful contribution to genre or medium. Common axes include innovation in systems or storytelling, long term engagement potential, coherence of vision, and the degree to which a game raises the bar for peers. Outlets also weigh cultural resonance, the robustness of post-launch support, and whether a game meaningfully alters industry conversation. Understanding these shared rubrics helps players and professionals see how seemingly divergent winners align around core principles of quality and influence.
Core Evaluation Axes
- Innovation and systemic originality in mechanics, structure, or narrative presentation.
- Execution quality including technical stability, usability, and performance across target platforms.
- Engagement depth and expected longevity of player investment.
- Coherence and identity, or how well design, narrative, and systems align toward a clear expressive goal.
- Cultural impact and influence on subsequent projects or genre conversations.
Notable 2017 Contenders and Their Profiles
Several titles from 2017 remain central to long term discourse, each representing distinct design philosophies and commercial outcomes. The list below captures the most frequently cited contenders in major year end summaries, reflecting both critical consensus and player discourse. Later sections compare how these contenders performed across specific awards bodies and how their design decisions aged over time.
Contender Profiles Overview
| Game | Primary Genre / Systems | Release Period | Awards Recognition | Reported Performance Metrics |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild | Action Adventure, Open World, Physics Systems | March 2017 (Switch/Wii U) | Multiple GOTY wins, including The Game Awards and DICE | High critical scores; strong sales longevity, long tail engagement |
| PlayerUnknown’s Battlegrounds (PUBG) | Battle Royale, Tactical Shoot | Early Access 2017, full release 2017 | Industry awards and nominations; noted influence on genre | Massive concurrent user peaks; defined the battle royale genre commercially |
| Cuphead | Run and Gun, Boss Focused, Hand Drawn Animation | September 2017 | Multiple nominations, wins at ceremonies focused on craft | Strong initial sales; established reputation for difficulty and art direction |
| Super Mario Odyssey | 3D Platformer, Level Based Exploration | October 2017 | Major platform awards; GOTY from several outlets | Strong attach rates on Switch; praised for creativity and polish |
| Destiny 2 | Shared World Shooter, Live Service | September 2017 | Industry nominations; recognized for live operations scale | Record entertainment launch; long term service roadmap and expansion model |
| Wolfenstein II: The New Colossus | First Person Shooter, Narrative Action | October 2017 | Story and technical nominations; strong critical reception | Commercial success; praised for set piece design and writing |
| Horizon Zero Dawn | Action RPG, Open World, Loot Systems | February 2017 (PS4) | Multiple GOTY nominations and wins | Strong mid tier performance; extended long tail through updates and DLC |
Key Design and Market Themes Across Contenders
Across these titles, several design and market themes emerge that defined 2017 and continue to inform development strategies. The balance between tightly authored experiences and systems driven longevity grew more prominent, as did expectations for robust post-launch support. Cross platform considerations, performance optimization, and accessibility became more central to evaluation. The year also highlighted the commercial viability of bold artistic visions, from hand crafted aesthetics to ambitious narratives, when paired with clear systemic goals.
How Awards and Organizations Compared
Different organizations weigh criteria differently, which explains why some titles accumulate more genre specific awards while others achieve broader consensus. Outlets focused on craft often highlight games like Cuphead for risk and execution, while industry awards emphasize live service scale and innovation. Consumer facing bodies tend to favor accessibility, onboarding, and clear long term value. Understanding these orientations clarifies why a single year can feature multiple legitimate Game of the Year conclusions without contradiction.
Legacy and Enduring Influence
The design choices validated in 2017 continue to echo through subsequent years, shaping expectations for systemic depth, live operations, and authorial clarity. Games that invested in coherent identity, moddability, and measurable long term goals tended to maintain relevance in discourse well beyond their launch windows. The year also influenced how platforms, monetization models, and cross platform strategies were discussed, setting precedents that informed policy and development roadmaps across the industry.
Frequently Asked Questions
- Why include both live service and authored experiences as contenders? The 2017 landscape showed that impact is not confined to a single model; both authored innovation and evolving service structures can deliver transformative player experiences worthy of consideration.
- How do critical consensus and player sentiment differ for these titles? Critical consensus often emphasizes craft and thematic coherence, while player discourse weighs longevity, accessibility, and ongoing content quality, sometimes leading to divergent emphasis around the same titles.
- What defines a lasting Game of the Year impact? Lasting impact is typically measured by how a game influences design trends, platform strategies, player expectations, and long term community engagement rather than short term sales or award volume.
Conclusion: What 2017 Established for Future Discourse
2017 established that Game of the Year evaluation must consider both immediate excellence and longitudinal impact across systems, services, and audiences. The contenders of that year demonstrated that coherent vision, robust execution, and thoughtful engagement models can coexist across different genres and business approaches. For ongoing reference, the year remains a useful benchmark for assessing how design ambition, operational discipline, and player partnership shape lasting industry legacy.