I was thinking Jeff Vogel was gonna launch a brand new game award show. The article seemed to be leaning that way. ;)
Another potential reason for the lack of award shows for games: there are all these Top 10 videos/articles. E.g. watchmojo. They have no ceremony or authority, but there's a ton of them. Maybe they scratch the itch well enough to dampen demand for a larger thing.
It's a kind of stagflation. We get cheaper versions of things that aren't as good, but are good enough.
Would a computer game award show subjective or objective? I think that is a challenge that the Oscars, Tony's, Grammy's, etc. run into. They want to celebrate the artsy but have to contend with raw popularity.
If objective, then you have to look at the raw numbers. In how many ways did the game innovate or demonstrate best-in-class experiences? Do you go by raw sales? Even if the game is abysmal (not very fun), it may have sold a lot of copies and made a lot of money. Do you go by volume of content? Some games have huge amounts of text, hours of spoken dialog, hours of orchestral music, SSD-busting quantities of artwork.
If subjective, then it's entirely on the whim of the emotional impact on those who felt something when they played the game.
Consider that awards shows exist to make money. Your art being highlighted in an awards show either validates those who have spent money on your art, justify spending more money on future art, or is an advertisement for your art that will hopefully rake in more money.
If the latest Geneforge gets the "Best CRPG Developed by a Team of Less Than Ten Developers", then that highlights the game and you make more money! Though... then you run the risk of "award bloat" where you can have the award for "Best Tactical Puzzle Shooter with Slow-Mo Action and Cel-Shaded Polygons" (Superhot).
In the UK we've got the BAFTA Games awards, which is handled by the same organisation that does our local version of the Oscars. They've been doing it for a good while too.
I was lumping them in with the more serious, less known awards. I would not mind if the BAFTA game awards (or something like it) slowly grew to greater stature. It will, of course, be up to potential audiences to decide who to like.
I think it speaks to a fundamental difference in the culture that lead to the Oscars vs. what the video game industry is today.
Movies, for all the money behind them, still came from a far more artsy, fartsy background than video games. Movies are still shown in *theaters* after all. There is never a shortage of credit heaped upon the actors and directors who make them happen – indeed, names are baked into the very marketing. It is an industry, sure, but it’s one where people have always been at the center. The production company, the studio – they may get some fancy splash at the opening, but that’s rarely the point.
Video Games? … Games have been corporate and anonymous since day one. Sure, you may see a tiny smattering of names known to the public conscious if you squint really hard and expand the definition of “public” enough, but your Hideo Kojimas and John Romeros are the exception, not the rule. So games are known not for their actual flesh and blood developers, but the brand behind them.
Many have heard of God of War: Ragnarok, but how many would recognize the name Eric Williams Cory Barlog? He was the director. If you’re a die hard GoW fan, you might have already known that, but how many in the broader video gaming audience would? And this is another reason why we don’t have Oscar scale video game awards – Video Games don’t have Oscar scale celebrities.
Awards that celebrate people that people know and love are something other people want to watch. Seeing “who” gets an award is a huge part of the draw. But seeing someone you’ve never heard of get the award isn’t exciting. And when you’ve heard of none of the people up for a given award, how much can you bring yourself to care? How would an entire award show of “Best Sound Editing” type awards really fair?
It’s an awful catch-22. Until the *people* who actually make games get the credit and recognition they deserve, such that people know who they are and care to see them win, an Oscars class awards ceremony doesn’t really have a chance.
I'm pretty sure this isn't true, and here's why. People say, "I want Killers of the Flower Moon to win Best Picture. Not "I want Dan Friedkin to win Best Picture." Or, "I want The Holdovers to win Best Picture. Not "I want Mark Johnson to win Best Picture."
(Best Picture is not won by movies but by producers.)
Yes, people don't recognize individual developers much. But that is why game awards are given out not by role but by genre.
People care about games. You give awards to games (and thus the teams that make them). I don't see this as an argument why it can't work.
It was actually pretty transformative for me to go to the GDC awards in 2012 (in person). I walked into the room and was floored that like 10,000 people were surrounding me, all cheering for games, with professional quality staging/lighting and MCing by (I think?) Tim Schafer. It made me feel "wow, this was real, this was a real culture, this mattered."
I don't actually know what's going on with "award *shows*", I've never watched one. I'm not sure if GDC is still doing that or even exists anymore but the in person experience in 2012 had a kind of religious quality to it, for me. (Prior to that, I'd been a member of a "game designer religion" but basically on my own)
An award show is a celebration. If I watch, say, the Tonys, I am personally celebrating theatre and being reminded that I'm not alone in doing so.
Of course, if I do this, I'll be one of only 12 people doing it, because live theatre LOL. But that makes it more special, in a way, because I feel like a little less of a mutant.
I was thinking Jeff Vogel was gonna launch a brand new game award show. The article seemed to be leaning that way. ;)
Another potential reason for the lack of award shows for games: there are all these Top 10 videos/articles. E.g. watchmojo. They have no ceremony or authority, but there's a ton of them. Maybe they scratch the itch well enough to dampen demand for a larger thing.
It's a kind of stagflation. We get cheaper versions of things that aren't as good, but are good enough.
Would a computer game award show subjective or objective? I think that is a challenge that the Oscars, Tony's, Grammy's, etc. run into. They want to celebrate the artsy but have to contend with raw popularity.
If objective, then you have to look at the raw numbers. In how many ways did the game innovate or demonstrate best-in-class experiences? Do you go by raw sales? Even if the game is abysmal (not very fun), it may have sold a lot of copies and made a lot of money. Do you go by volume of content? Some games have huge amounts of text, hours of spoken dialog, hours of orchestral music, SSD-busting quantities of artwork.
If subjective, then it's entirely on the whim of the emotional impact on those who felt something when they played the game.
Consider that awards shows exist to make money. Your art being highlighted in an awards show either validates those who have spent money on your art, justify spending more money on future art, or is an advertisement for your art that will hopefully rake in more money.
If the latest Geneforge gets the "Best CRPG Developed by a Team of Less Than Ten Developers", then that highlights the game and you make more money! Though... then you run the risk of "award bloat" where you can have the award for "Best Tactical Puzzle Shooter with Slow-Mo Action and Cel-Shaded Polygons" (Superhot).
Any award that purports to declare the "Best Game" will always ALWAYS be subjective. Objective success (as in cash) is its own reward.
In the UK we've got the BAFTA Games awards, which is handled by the same organisation that does our local version of the Oscars. They've been doing it for a good while too.
I was lumping them in with the more serious, less known awards. I would not mind if the BAFTA game awards (or something like it) slowly grew to greater stature. It will, of course, be up to potential audiences to decide who to like.
I think it speaks to a fundamental difference in the culture that lead to the Oscars vs. what the video game industry is today.
Movies, for all the money behind them, still came from a far more artsy, fartsy background than video games. Movies are still shown in *theaters* after all. There is never a shortage of credit heaped upon the actors and directors who make them happen – indeed, names are baked into the very marketing. It is an industry, sure, but it’s one where people have always been at the center. The production company, the studio – they may get some fancy splash at the opening, but that’s rarely the point.
Video Games? … Games have been corporate and anonymous since day one. Sure, you may see a tiny smattering of names known to the public conscious if you squint really hard and expand the definition of “public” enough, but your Hideo Kojimas and John Romeros are the exception, not the rule. So games are known not for their actual flesh and blood developers, but the brand behind them.
Many have heard of God of War: Ragnarok, but how many would recognize the name Eric Williams Cory Barlog? He was the director. If you’re a die hard GoW fan, you might have already known that, but how many in the broader video gaming audience would? And this is another reason why we don’t have Oscar scale video game awards – Video Games don’t have Oscar scale celebrities.
Awards that celebrate people that people know and love are something other people want to watch. Seeing “who” gets an award is a huge part of the draw. But seeing someone you’ve never heard of get the award isn’t exciting. And when you’ve heard of none of the people up for a given award, how much can you bring yourself to care? How would an entire award show of “Best Sound Editing” type awards really fair?
It’s an awful catch-22. Until the *people* who actually make games get the credit and recognition they deserve, such that people know who they are and care to see them win, an Oscars class awards ceremony doesn’t really have a chance.
I'm pretty sure this isn't true, and here's why. People say, "I want Killers of the Flower Moon to win Best Picture. Not "I want Dan Friedkin to win Best Picture." Or, "I want The Holdovers to win Best Picture. Not "I want Mark Johnson to win Best Picture."
(Best Picture is not won by movies but by producers.)
Yes, people don't recognize individual developers much. But that is why game awards are given out not by role but by genre.
People care about games. You give awards to games (and thus the teams that make them). I don't see this as an argument why it can't work.
It was actually pretty transformative for me to go to the GDC awards in 2012 (in person). I walked into the room and was floored that like 10,000 people were surrounding me, all cheering for games, with professional quality staging/lighting and MCing by (I think?) Tim Schafer. It made me feel "wow, this was real, this was a real culture, this mattered."
I don't actually know what's going on with "award *shows*", I've never watched one. I'm not sure if GDC is still doing that or even exists anymore but the in person experience in 2012 had a kind of religious quality to it, for me. (Prior to that, I'd been a member of a "game designer religion" but basically on my own)
An award show is a celebration. If I watch, say, the Tonys, I am personally celebrating theatre and being reminded that I'm not alone in doing so.
Of course, if I do this, I'll be one of only 12 people doing it, because live theatre LOL. But that makes it more special, in a way, because I feel like a little less of a mutant.