Editorial: On the SpikeTV Video Game Awards 635
That said, I think that an awards show is a good idea for the industry. At the very least, having an awards show with some gravitas would be a great way to put a public stamp of approval on the hard work that development houses put into their games. Games and movies can both take years to make, with certain games having development cycles longer than the lifespan of the average household pet. That kind of commitment by the artists, developers, designers, and producers should be rewarded in some way. If a game is good, I'm sure the big fat checks they get are plenty of reward. There's still something at work in an awards show, though. I bet if you asked a big name actor who's has been in a financially successful film and also won an award which he remembered more you're going to get "the awards ceremony" as an answer every time.
If an awards show in general is a good idea, I believe the debacle that SpikeTV broadcast last night was actually counter-productive for the gaming industry. As far as I could tell, the show had little to do with games, and everything to do with advertising. "Most Addictive Game Fueled by Mountain Dew"? Come on! If the Oscars had categories like "Best Comedy driven by Ford" or "Best Female in a Leading Role with makeup by Revlon" would you take them seriously? The night was a never-ending cascade of scantily clad women, rap, "extreme" stuff, rap, people who had nothing to do with games, and rap.
It's very interesting to me that, at least in my time zone, just after the awards show ended an episode of X-Play that I really wanted to see came on. Aside from the fact that the X-Play folks are (refreshingly) actual gamers, this particular episode had a piece with Morgan Webb covering the Child's Play charity auction from last week. Seeing Gabe and Tycho in tuxedos was excellent in and of itself. Above and beyond that, the disparity between the crass tenor of the awards show and the tone of the charity auction was striking. From what little I saw of the auction, it didn't seem somber at all. Jokes were cracked and everyone seemed to be having a good time. The difference is that the audience and organizers were there to celebrate games and children in a respectful manner.
And that, for me, is the biggest complaint I have about the awards last night. The show showed absolutely no respect to the games themselves. From the Video Game Ombudsman's commentary: "A selection of graphics adjectives used on the show - "slammin'," "great," "amazing," "hot visually," "so sick." That kind of shallow analysis is why games aren't art in the minds of a lot of people. Katamari Damacy is a very worthwhile game, but graphics and the "slammin-ness" of the game have nothing to do with that. Katamari is a good game because of a great (and simple) design, a development team that purposely looked for a unique style of gameplay, and a quirky and original soundtrack. I want an awards show that actually says things like that.
It could be great, too! The Oscars have a board that votes on the movies, and the Academy members are made of folks from the movie industry. I say the same style would be a useful format for games with some slight changes. The Oscars send around DVDs of all the nominee films to the Academy. Forcing a large group of people to play the number of games that would be required would be just cruel. That would mean hundreds of hours of gameplay just to be qualified to vote. It would be a much better idea to split up the field into bodies of relevant people. Have thirty or so folks involved in the RTS genre, say, from developers to producers to fan site owners review a set of five or six games and then vote accordingly. Have a Media Choice Award where game review organs like Gamespot, Game Informer, and X-Play, who have presumably played most of the field, can have their say. Have voting for the Game of the Year award be an industry-wide event, with everyone from an EA developer to a Sony Online Customer Service Rep to an IGDA member having a chance to say their piece. Voting via website is fine if you're taking a Slashdot poll -- making a representative, evaluative statement about a field of entertainment for an entire year should be slightly more involved.
I have enough problems in my day without having to explain to my family why a show honoring the entertainment I love is populated mostly by underdressed women in angel costumes. Once a year, wouldn't it be nice to put the scruffy, anti-social gamer stereotype behind us? To sit down and watch some very intelligent people in tuxedos and gowns get their due for providing us so much entertainment? Seriously, wouldn't it be great to see John Carmack present an award? Or get to listen to a Wil Wright acceptance speech? A gaming awards show taken seriously would be a sight to see. Even if that never happens, please -- enough with the Spike-style awards shows.
Torrent for the Charity Auction? (Score:1, Interesting)
Media (Score:4, Interesting)
This attitude will change when the media stops portraying gamers the same way they portray internet child predators -- weird, pasty white guys with no lives who cause trouble, e.g. Columbine. Games are a scapegoat for the media, why give them any credit?
Was it just me... (Score:3, Interesting)
I found it annoying, like an even worse interpretation of an awards show than MTV's typical fare.
Re:wow (Score:2, Interesting)
Not academy equivalent (Score:3, Interesting)
Culture (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Are you Serious (Score:1, Interesting)
It's in poor, fucking taste because it has nothing to do with video games. There's a little thing called context that makes certain things appropriate for certain venues and inapproporate for others. Christ, if the Spike TV's and Maxim's of the world would just curl up in to a little ball and die, we could hold American culture up with a little dignity.
I don't know about you, but I spend a lot more money on games than movies and can continue to enjoy them over and over for years. The people that put all of that talent and hard work into making them deserve a more dignified awards show than a mockery.
Re:They're only video games! (Score:1, Interesting)
Been there... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:They're only video games! (Score:3, Interesting)
If I was to say a mouse is not a dog and a mouse is not a cat would I be comparing a dog and a cat?
No. But neither is that what he said. What he did was state a property on one subject, and then state that two other objects were not [similar to] that object. The implication is that the stated property was the way in which they are differentiated from it, hence they are similar in that they do not share that property.
A closer comparison would be:
These are mice, they are small. It's not a dog, it's not a cat.
The above sentence implies (but does not state) that dogs and cats are not small, they are large as compared to mice. You will note, I did not state that what the original poster implied was something he stated. I asked if that was what he was trying to say.
No surprise (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:They're only video games! (Score:3, Interesting)
Have you SEEN Ocean's 12?
Nope.
but Ocean's 12 is as great as Ocean's 11
...and that does not exactly motivate me. I did see Ocean's Eleven and it was a passable remake, although I was not exactly blown away by the acting. Now the sequel to a remake, of a movie I thought was clever, and moderately entertaining does not exactly make me want to spend good money on it. Maybe I'll see it at the cheap theater, if it is convenient. The choice quote from Mr. Cranky is "It's not unlike watching the monkeys at the zoo. The monkeys are entertaining as long as they're playing with the tires and swinging from the ropes, but once they start throwing their own feces at the window, it's time to move on to another exhibit." which is really not too bad of a review from him. Did this movie really contain something truly artistic on the level of a great orchestral work? Were you moved by it in a meaningful way? Was it great art, or just fun entertainment?
Re:They're only video games! (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't know why you are being so pedantic. You actually think that if someone says cats and dog are bigger than mice, it is not appropriate ask if they are implying that cats are really big, or nearly as big as dogs?
This person made the trollish claim that blockbuster movies are more artistic than video games and are attended for artistic value not for fun. I incredulously questioned their judgment and asked for clarification. And you, well you decided to start a semantic argument about what was or was not implied by the original statement, something about which I had just asked a question. What exactly are you trying to say here? Do you have a point or are you just really, really bored?
rebuttal (Score:3, Interesting)
Allow me to respond with Vampire Raiders: Ninja Queen [imdb.com]!!! OK, your point is taken, some video games are just as bad as some movies. I highly recommend watching the referenced movie, however. It is sort of like a painting done by a mentally retarded elephant. You should see it just to see what a mentally retarded elephant can paint.
Re:zonk (Score:3, Interesting)
Wrong. Women who look as flawless as Victoria's Secret models don't exist in the first place.
Sorry to burst your fantasy bubbles dudes but my girlfriend is a designer in the advertising industry. Do you have any notion of how much airbrushing goes on? They spend countless hours on an area of skin about 5cm^2. ALL flaws (no matter how small... 1 hair off is not acceptable) are airbrushed out. Women are given hour-glass figures and perfect skin, etc by artists/designers.
Probably about 40% of what you see is just artwork, not real. You'd be shocked to see the before and after pics.
My mum is a psychologist and is dealing with some young women with eating disorders influenced partly by this bs. It's frightening how people think that these women are actually real. I got my girlfriend to provide my mum with a folio of evidence (don't worry she asked the company first: to their credit they were very accomodating).
Suckers.
Cheers
Stor
Re:Woah, wait. (Score:3, Interesting)
It may have been funny at some point, but the prevalance of these roles has reshaped the definition of man from a competent and capable individual to a blithering buffoon who, despite his deficiencies, manages to fuck scores of vapid women. He has the intellectual and emotional maturity of a teenager. He is considered successful if, in addition to women, he has pointless material things of status.
Truly, this is what we should all strive to emulate.
Re:Award shows (Score:3, Interesting)
Personally, I feel as soon as real writers realise the power of the medium, computer games will become a respected art form in themselves distinct from more traditional modes of expression. If not, it'll be a huge disappointment.