At the time of writing, there are almost exactly 22 hours left until The Game Awards starts. At the somewhat unchristian time of 01:30 on Friday, the pre-show kicks off, which usually offers some interesting indie games, before the real event kicks off at 02:00.

In recent years, Geoff Keighly and various journalists and insiders have often tried to cut down on unrealistic expectations to avoid people being disappointed, but ahead of this year's edition, we have instead seen the exact opposite. Several big names in the industry have been fueling and talking about lead-heavy stuff, and Keighly himself has made no attempt to keep people's hopes in check.

Some things we already know will appear are Borderlands 4 and Mafia: The Old Country as well as Swedish Josef Fares who is on hand to show off his upcoming co-op adventure. Already there we have a great show for my own part. But... of course, there will be more than that and Jason Schreier has said that there are heavy announcements of things to be released for 2026 or later.

I know that many people think that it is too early to announce things like that, but there are so many people involved in games nowadays that things leak. That game developers and publishers prefer to present what they have in the pipeline instead of it being done via attention-hungry insiders is still understandable.

A reasonable guess is that Naughty Dog will show off its upcoming game – which is claimed to be something different from The Last of Us – and that it will look absolutely shockingly good. And from the Playstation side, wouldn't it be appropriate to via Wolverine as well, as well as the live service game based on Horizon that has been rumored so much?

A game many hope will appear is The Elder Scrolls VI, which actually doesn't feel entirely unreasonable at all if it also gets a release date in 2026. Starfield would then be three years old and there would definitely have been room. What possibly speaks against it is that Microsoft is reported to have a little less first party at The Game Awards since the last few years have had their own events early in the new year. If they are only going to show one game, it will probably be South of Midnight or Fable.

Wonder Woman is a game we haven't heard anything from in a very long time, which I would also like to see shown off now, not least because it was actually announced at The Game Awards four years ago. Another licensed game that we can realistically hope for is IO Interactive's James Bond title. It has been under development for many years and is a type of game the Danes are experts in, the development should not be unreasonably long.

More then? Half-Life 3 has been mentioned several times in this context, and sure. It would definitely live up to the hype, but of course it's probably not. Grand Theft Auto VI I think will go away because Take-Two is already going via Borderlands 4 and the new Mafia (for the same reason, I don't think we'll see the new Bioshock now – but of course I'm wrong). However, I would imagine Lara Croft appearing as well as Max Payne (with the remake of the first game). In addition, it makes sense that Capcom announces a new Resident Evil, either a remake of Code: Veronica or part nine.

What about Nintendo? They always do everything their own way, but Metroid Prime 4 would really fit in at The Game Awards, and surely it would be a great opportunity to show the Switch 2? But the latter would probably have hurt Switch sales so I don't really believe it. What about Microsoft and a portable device? No, I don't think they're ready yet, and they probably want to release the relatively close replacement to the Xbox Series S/X to make them feel more connected.

What do you believe and hope for?

In less than a day, we will know. At 02:00 on the night between Thursday and Friday, it bangs and we will of course monitor everything.

Now it's only a few hours left until The Game Awards kicks off, and it looks like we can look forward to a lot of excitement as several developers and publishers have invited us to check out the show, which of course means that they have something to show off. While there have been some leaks and several obvious hints, I suspect there are still some really exciting things left that we don't know about. 

I thought I'd take the opportunity to guess a little about what we'll see at the event. I've tried to tighten the bow a bit, so it should be things that would be at least a little exciting, without being pure wishful projects. Here we go! 

3. Josef Fares announces something new – It's now been almost three years since the blockbuster It Takes Two was announced, and there has been a lot of chatter and chatter about Hazelight's next title. Fares is always fun at the Game Awards and hopefully he'll be at Keighley's tonight to show what he's up to next. 

2. New Xbox console and controller – It was leaked earlier this fall that Microsoft is working on a slightly updated Xbox Series X with two terabytes of storage and a controller with several new features. In 2019, they announced the Xbox Series X at The Game Awards and four years later, I think it's time for the refresh, something that would also explain all the low price tags lately. 

1. Virtua Fighter is making a comeback – Virtua Fighter 5 was released back in 2006 in Japanese arcades, since then we haven't gotten a completely new installment in the series. At the same time, Street Fighter, Mortal Kombat, Tekken and Smash Bros have clearly shown that the genre is still scorching hot. Sega has been hyping this year's Game Awards and has posted hints that something Virtua Fighter-related could be in the works, and maybe it's an announcement tonight. 

<bild>

What do you hope and believe that we will see at The Game Awards tonight at 02:00? We will of course live monitor.

It's rare to see Zelda II: The Adventure of Link very high up on the lists when the best Zelda games are chosen. For my own part, however, I remember it as one of the most mythical releases ever, where you had to sign up for lists to buy the game at the premiere. This was an era when there were no video game magazines and ten years before the internet, and the Nintendo club's little square blade was the closest you got.

I myself did not have an NES at the time, but played the Commodore 64. But luckily, one friend had a device, and together we explored Link's other adventures. It was very different from the first game – and any other game in the series at all – with a real level system, an overworld, the ability to talk to people in villages and much more.

It's no exaggeration to say that Zelda II: The Adventure of Link shaped me as a gamer and made me a fan of Japanese role-playing games, something that is still with me today. And every time a new Zelda is announced, I hope that Nintendo will dare to go the role-playing path again.

It has been many years since I last played through this classic and therefore there will be more of this during the Christmas holidays when the craving has crept up again. Too much better than this, Zelda will never be for me and I would say that for me it is a candidate to be the best game in the series.

What do you think of Zelda II: The Adventure of Link, and do you agree that it would be fun with a role-playing Zelda?

My partner and I often play bread games, but usually with good friends in larger groups. When it's just the two of us, it's more like video games. But... Quite recently, The Lord of the Rings: Duel for Middle-earth fell into the mailbox.

A game meant for two people, which looked really enticing, so we decided to check it out. This was a couple of days ago, and since then there has been a party every night. The premise isn't really complicated at all (it could just as easily have been called They're Taking the Hobbits to Isengard - The Game), but what makes the game so exciting is that there are three distinctly different paths to victory.

Either you run with Frodo (player two) and throw the ring into the volcano, or the Ringwrit (player one) catches up with the hobbits. Both of these things render profit, and quickly become exciting thanks to a rather unique way of moving the pieces that means that the hobbits can never pull away from the Ringwraith who is always hot on their heels. But... We rarely get as far as any ring-throwing, because whoever can first gather six characters from Middle-earth groups of inhabitants can also win. In addition, you have a game board with iconic areas from Tolkien's Univerum, and if you get a piece on each, you win.

This makes it difficult to bet on any single strategy, as it is quite easy for the opponent to stop it. It is therefore important to have all options open and act based on how the game develops. 

The basic principle is that each round you take a so-called chapter card (there are three chapters, represented by your own deck, and when a deck ends, it is a new chapter) that gives you money, pieces for the map, knowledge, followers and the like. In addition to this, there are some other simple features that together provide a both deep yet simple and charming game that well manages the Lord of the Rings legacy.

In other words, a warm buy recommendation.

The fact that The Lord of the Rings: Duel for Middle-earth is a nice game with high-quality components, with good printing and fancy design is further lifting.

Steam hardly needs any further introduction and is today almost synonymous with PC gaming. And there is a small problem baked in, because it also means that they have managed to create a monopoly situation for themselves.

And this is generally something that various competition authorities do not like. Large companies have been forced to split up in the past, or to divest things that are considered to be a contributing factor to their strong position.

In the case of Steam, however, there are competitors such as GOG and the Epic Games Store, where the latter will closest to actually being called a competitor. But even though Epic pays more money to those who actually make the games, most people still choose to buy from Steam. 

It's easy to see why. People are comfortable, it feels safe to have everything gathered in one place (which also happens to be the market leader) and far from everyone votes with their wallets and thus does not care.

But... They probably should. Steam fans tend to see red when it is implied that Valve is sitting on some kind of monopoly, and arguments are often heard that they should not be punished for being good or that the competition should try harder. 

The former is a completely insane thought that would have almost incalculable consequences if there were to be a new guiding star. Already today, competition is getting worse and worse in most things, and this affects consumers. And in the case of the latter, even Epic with Fortnite and incredible amounts of money behind it doesn't manage to make any difference, so how could anyone get a foot in the door?

I simply think it's time to start dividing up. Valve lives extremely well on the Steam money that is pouring in. They don't have to make any games, nor do they have to try to give more to the game developers, and a lack of competition makes everything more expensive for us gamers.

Exactly how Steam should be split I don't know, but maybe the entire game part should be disconnected from Steam. Had Half-Life and Counter-Strike been available for competing services, the situation would have been different, I think. Then Valve would have had to once again put in more effort to convince you to stick around, other than you do it for just convenience.

Steam needs some real competition for PC, but it's impossible without splitting up Valve.