The Great Video Game Awards Discussion

So last year the GWJ GotY thread kept erupting in discussions of what does and doesn't or should or shouldn't count in regards to the arbitrary marketing gimmick of entertainment awards. I had intended to create a separate discussion thread for the logistics of gaming awards and award shows, but never had the time to do so. Whelp, today on my Tweeter feed I saw GamesRadar (I still follow them?) that they are letting readers vote on their Golden Joystick Award nominees already, which just seemed like the perfect time to spark this silly conversation.

Why discuss it at all? Why can't game awards just be a silly little thing? A few reasons, I think. We all grew up with the Oscars, and I think there's not only a sort of attraction to the pomp and circumstance of such an awards show, but something to be said of seeing something you enjoy being given recognition by a body of respected individuals.

Which is also why we ditched the Oscars and made our own award programs with blackjack and hookers because screw those guys.

For the developers and publishers, awards are theoretically a way of earning excellent marketing material. I say theoretically because, while oscar nominations and awards make for great incentive to get an audience to buy your movie or see the next one in theaters, I'm not sure anyone cares if your game got 200 awards at E3. Do they even know what E3 is? What significance does it have? If it's so special how come the cover has some grim looking soldier with a crew-cut turning his back to the consumer just like that other game with a grim looking soldier with a crew-cut turning his back to the consumer? These covers all look alike!

If you'd rather not think about the fact that awards are even more pointless than the review leading up to the arbitrary and pointless review score, then there's still plenty to bicker and debate about. For example, what the Hell even is an Action-Adventure game, and why does it seem to encapsulate everything from "Not a shooter" to "Not an RPG"? In fact, what is an RPG since half of these Action-Adventure games have RPG elements? Is Assassin's Creed: Origin's an Action-Adventure like its predecessors? Or is it an RPG now that it has loot boxes and stats on the gear? Is Destiny 2 an RPG or a first-person shooter?

Oddly enough, GamesRadar seems to have dealt with some of the troublesome categories by getting rid of them altogether. However, they also have several vague categories and even categories dedicated to things such as Streamers. I mean, Oscars never gave Roger Ebert an award for being a prolific critic, so why give a Streamer an award? Shouldn't Twitch have their own awards for that purpose?

Most interestingly, they created a category for one of the controversial topics that led to me wanting to make this thread in the first place: Still Playing. This is a category reserved for games that did not release within the year-long window, but through updates and maintenance continue to draw players in on the regular. A game like EVE Onine sparked a bit of discussion and debate regarding validity, and BOOM! GamesRadar (I swear the only interesting thing I've had to say about them until now was "Oh snap, Susan Arendt is taken the reigns there" followed surprisingly shortly by "Oh snap, Susan Arendt is leaving GamesRadar already") has us covered.

So if you're the sort to overthink and take everything too seriously – like me! – then this thread is the place to have the discussion. This way, even though the GWJ Community GotY will be handled by a new crew, we can leave the serious and sometimes heated conversation out of a thread dedicated to just plain fun and instead bicker and argue over here.

Ebert did get an "in memoriam" from the Oscars. Other than that, just some award from whoever "Pulitzer" is.

December 7th is the date for the commercial shindig disguised as an awards show. I'll probably watch it. Will update when there's news of nominees.

Nominations for The Video Game Awards are up, including the ability to vote.

When I have more time I plan to put in bets as to what I think will win what. For example, pretty sure PUBG is gonna get Game of the Year because it's just buggy and unpolished enough while still being popular enough.

Anyone else got predictions?

I'm surprised at how many nominations Destiny 2 received. Best Art Direction? NieR was robbed.

Aristophan wrote:

I'm surprised at how many nominations Destiny 2 received. Best Art Direction? NieR was robbed.

I have huge problems with Destiny 2 and think it is extremely overrated on the whole, but I don't have a problem with this nomination. The art and visual design in Destiny 1 was fantastic, and it's even better in Destiny 2, particularly if you can see it on a high end PC. Plus, Cuphead should win that category by a landslide anyways.

I love NieR, but I don't think it competes here. Fight for it in best narrative and best soundtrack

Can't really argue with the choices for GOTY, I feel, I think PUBG will probably win it, if not them, then Mario Odyssey.

Actually I think there's been a lot of argument over PUBG being included, one reason being that it's actually still Early Access and thus isn't even a completed game. And while I haven't played either, I did retweet this statement this morning because it kind of resonates.

Resident Evil 7: A tight and concise single player experience with excellent level design, bosses and overall direction.

PUBG: A meme multiplayer game that is a broken alpha and only has one map.

One of these got nominated for Game of the Year.

Now, casting aside the "only has one map" since I do think quantity equating quality is a bit of a stretch, there's actually a point that when RE7 released there was a lot of talk of it being a Game of the Year contender, and as the year has progressed I've been an observer to a lot of the critical response to it. It's a game I've spoiled for myself by watching thorough analyses of because I'm too much of a wimp for first-person horror, but I do feel like it being denied a seat at the table – as well as games like Hellblade – so that some incomplete Twitch-friendly jank-fest can be on the same level as Breath of the Wild, Mario Odyssey, Persona 5 or Horizon Zero Dawn...

But then comes the arguments of ultimate subjectivity in terms of "Yeah but it's still a lot of fun and I put hundreds of hours into it and yatta yatta". Okay, well, why isn't Friday the 13th anywhere on the list, then? People are still playing that, it's janky as Hell, and it's at least not in early access...

Not everything is going to be represented, but it does beg the question of whether PUBG should even be up there in an industry where the players keep accusing the AAA industry of releasing unfinished games and yet here's a game that is literally incomplete being treated no differently than games that are.

Of course, we can vote with our clicks as you can vote every day. So if you care about this inane silly bull-sh*ttery then do like I did and vote again!

I don't have a horse in this race at all (I don't care about PUBG or RE) but even the most cursory of Google searches shows that PUBG is a sales behemoth at 16 million sales on one platform and has been dominating Steam's "most currently active users" rankings for a while (dethroning both Dota 2 and CS:GO).

Capcom wishes any of their releases this year were doing that well.

Quality issues aside PUBG has been absolutely dominating much of the "conversation" this year. I don't know if a Game of the Year award is how you recognize that or not, but that game totally should be recognized in some form for its accomplishments.

Eh, it'll be recognized. As I said, I predict it'll win game of the year regardless of whether it's any good. Even if you eliminate the sales rankings (since when has that been a benchmark of quality?), people love it because it's a game in which you... do... stuff...

I mean, my pulse is far from that of the larger gaming community and things that are often beloved are trash to me, going all the way back to when I was a nerd for thinking Street Fighter was better than Mortal Kombat.

Spoiler:

And now that I'm older I know it was better! :D

It's just kind of sh*tty to see something listed as being "best" when it is merely popular.

EDIT: I guess I'm sounding very testy and judgmental of a game that a lot of folks here likely and no doubt enjoy while also not having played it. I've watched video and reviews of it and the gameplay itself looks to be the sort of experience that would have annoyed me at College LAN parties. Like Onslaught in UT2K4, everything about it seems janky and awkward and not particularly well-designed but because a bunch of (usually PC) gamers don't know anything else like it they flip out over it. The same sort that make Photoshops in which the Mona Lisa is cut up into smaller and smaller microtransactions chunks to represent how games are released incomplete these days.

Because I'm a contrarian, something about honoring a title like that bugs me, and selling a lot of copies of an incomplete game doesn't impress me. It's just the new version of ARK or whatever, and like ARK people will toss it aside for the next fad rather than it being a truly significant step forward in games as a medium.

And because I'm also a pretentious sh*t head that started this thread because I take inane bullsh*t like this too seriously, I very passionately voice my opinion in a manner that may hurt the feelings or incite the anger of others. To which I say: I'm sorry for being such a sh*t. Or sh*te, if you're from the UK. I'm just angry because my favorite anime-bopper games never get recognition.

PUBG has sold over 20 mil. copies, dethroned DOTA 2 (FTP, no less) in concurrent users, and is the most talked about game of the year. It's the only genuine gaming phenomena of the year that I can think of.

Not sure why it's even considered "not worthy" or unqualified for GOTY status. It's the Cinderella story of the year.

But as shoptroll mentioned above, I've got no horse in the race either. I haven't even played any of the 2017 GOTY nominees, unless Divinity: OS2 somehow magically gets a nod.

I didn't see Assassins Creed: Origins on the list anywhere. I can't believe in a year that a new Zelda and Mario have come out it may be my favorite game this year. It's pretty impressive considering it's a series I don't really like outside of AC2 and Blackflag.

Anyone else think it deserves some praise or is this just really hitting me at the right time for some reason?

*edit finally found it way down the list on Action / Adventure. Really still feel like it could be nominated in some of the graphical/art design noms. It feels so much more lived in and handcrafted then Zelda's empty fields.

There is an interesting conversation to be had about what constitutes GOTY contention status. But it feels best explored by leaving egos at the door. Feels like the minute you think “they’re doing it wrong”, you’ve got to much skin in the game.

Plus there’s the idea that GOTY can mean many things to many people. So many variables influencing selections, from the obvious (polish, production value) to the obscure (dev “sincerity”, takeaway feelings). None of which are wrong in any way.

It starts to feel like herding cats in the end.

I’m okay with that. The most you can hope for is that someone can speak clearly about their picks. Maybe offer some new insight. ‘Cause in the end critique of the arts is entirely subjective. There is no wrong answers but I do expect contrarian ones to at least have some logic and substance behind them. (These tend to be the most interesting reads of the year anyway.)

I’m still trying to figure out how to describe my projected #2 pick, Candice DeBebe. I know the impact it made, etc. But the world seems to have little patience for low-budget jank, as noted above. :p

I will say that it’s interesting to be outside of the circle when it comes to the Top 5 or so most likely candidates for 2017 GOTY. Having played none I can still see arguments for them all, each with something unique to bring to the table.

Think this is why I enjoy the 20+ odd hours of GOTY podcasting Giant Bomb does every year. I find their deliberations far more interesting than the final tally & placement itself.

Got my popcorn ready to go!

It's funny - most of the games I'm familiar with are either ones I've streamed or played with my kid. I realize my own "play time" has been taken up by either games not on the list or pile titles.

Also, I have zero idea who the best streamers or e-sports teams are. I'm so old and lame.

Hey guys, I want to apologize for my response to PUBG. I like to try and view games from a perspective a bit detached from myself, to think "Why did I like this, and would it hold true for others?" and have actually been in that mode a lot lately as I try and figure out my own favorites of the year pre-emptively. However, despite how much I try for this as-objective-as-possible approach, I still forget that my own preferences and attitude – and even this perspective of determining the quality of a game – are all subjective aspects of myself that I take for granted.

In some ways I sort of just accept that a lot of my tastes don't align with huge swaths of the modern game player, particularly on GWJ, but in regards to a game like PUBG I completely went on a rant of a game I've never played based on a lot of ideas and elements that, for a lot of people, have absolutely nothing to do with the hours spent playing it. For me, fun =/= good, nor does popular =/= good, but this is because I forget that the metrics by which I measure a game's quality and worth are not going to be shared by everyone.

So while I do think there is something to be debated about whether an early-access game – an incomplete game by its very definition – should be recognized no differently than feature complete titles. However, I attacked too strongly and took its presence there too personally. Even if, an hour later, my mind would have been on something else, in that moment I responded too emotionally.

I'm sorry for attacking the game and by extension attacking those that enjoyed it, and hope to continue a much more civil and intellectual discussion regarding the awards from here on out.

jdzappa wrote:

It's funny - most of the games I'm familiar with are either ones I've streamed or played with my kid. I realize my own "play time" has been taken up by either games not on the list or pile titles.

Also, I have zero idea who the best streamers or e-sports teams are. I'm so old and lame.

Don't worry, I pretty much skip over that content myself. The only thing that seems odd to me is seeing Andrea Rene in "Trending Gamer" since I've known her from working with The Escapist and GameStop, so it seems weird to see her in a category now. Then again, it could be that "Trending Gamer" is just a weird name to try and recognize someone that's making a greater mark that year.

To that end, I've seen a lot of people trying to make sure Steven Spohn gets it, because as part of AbleGamers he is helping to lead the charge towards better usabiity in games for those that are handicapped and less capable of using the traditional controls set-up. I'd say that's probably as good a reason as any to vote for someone and give them recognition.

Never even heard of the other three in the category, but I mean, maybe Game Maker's Toolkit will get recognized as a nomination one day?

I haven't played PUBG yet but I'm looking forward to trying it when it releases on the Xbox. From the outside it kinda gives me the vibe of being this years Rocket League. There might not be a ton of content to it but the basic mechanics and gameplay loops seem to have hooked a crapload of people.

ccesarano wrote:

So while I do think there is something to be debated about whether an early-access game – an incomplete game by its very definition – should be recognized no differently than feature complete titles

Funny enough, to me it seems like the other side of the coin to — or at least a close cousin of — the "still playing" debate about games as a service.

Before my ongoing obsession with Elite Dangerous began, I probably would have been more in the camp to the effect of "only games officially released within a given calendar year should count." And, that was even after spending several years as an avid WoW player; after all, each time I cared to re-recognize WoW, there was always an officially released, purchasable at retail expansion pack to point to.

But, that's just not how many games are made any more, and it's certainly not how they are enjoyed, as the huge numbers of players engaged with various MOBAs and other ongoing games as services will attest.

Anyway, with respect to the GWJ community awards specifically, I think the spirit and criteria from recent years was pretty close to right on. If I can rephrase and tweak it a little bit, to me it seems like the idea is as follows:

We want to identify and recognize the games that provided the most important, new experiences to our community as a whole each year.

"Important" is a subjective term; to some it might simply mean the most fun, to others the most impactful or engaging or engrossing, to others still the most artistically meritful. But that's okay — we're interested in the aggregated idea of what the community thinks was important, and so that necessarily means aggregating people's subjective understanding to the term at the same time.

"New" seems like it should be less subjective, but I think trying to get too rigid about that is just asking for trouble given the ever broadening nature of how games are made and played. To me, though, it feels like putting the word next to "experiences" makes the problem easier. If a person feels like they got a significantly new experience from a game this year, it counts. This allows for our long standing tradition of allowing people to recognize and vote for games that were released in a previous year that they only got around to playing this year, and it creates room for both games as services and early access style games to be recognized by people who care about them. (EDIT: Also, games that aren't quite games as services, but which provided significant updates that allowed for "new experiences" to be had.)

Anyway, I'd love to type a lot more on this subject (shocking, I know) but sadly I don't have time at the moment (I've been trying find time to organize even this much though on the subject for a few weeks now). But, I just wanted to get that basic idea out there now before we get around to having our community thread for the year.

I'd add that if the TGA had existed 10+ years ago, there probably would've been a similar controversy over Defense of the Ancients getting a GOTY nod. How dare they nominate a mod!

Or Minecraft back when it was still in alpha/beta and being sold.

Or League of Legends when it felt like MOBAs were taking over the world. How dare they nominate a F2P multiplayer only title!

Thanks for linking this thread, CCesarano, I'd totally missed it! Looks like I have some catching up to do!

So the Video Game Awards is next week and despite all my rage I'm still just a rat in a cage snark and insults towards how the show is typically done I continue to be excited for it every year. I don't know why, to be honest, but I am.

I'm wondering if it's the same reason I love E3. Despite knowing it's a big marketing gimmick that costs way more money than it is worth for most of the companies participating, I'm always willing to get suckered into the flash and glamour of it all.

I'm curious if I'm alone in this or not.

In the meantime: was anyone else aware the Golden Joystick Awards actually get streamed? Their timeline seems to be within November of the prior year to October or so, as does the Video Game Awards as Final Fantasy XV is in the running but Xenoblade Chronicles 2 is not.

In any event, here are all the winners and here's a link to Twitch because YouTube doesn't have a good version after all. Just skip to about 1 hour to skip the pre-awards show stuff.

Actually, here's something to spark a debate:

Watching the Golden Joysticks and Cuphead won best visual design. Now, I've been voting for it for the Game Awards because I'd agree, because nothing quite looks like it... in video games.

But in the end, is Cuphead truly the best in visual design or is it merely pastiche? Sure, nothing looks like it in games but it is very clearly aping someone else's style rather than finding a style and aesthetic of its own.

Or should we consider the amount of work that went into the hand-drawn animation? Because that most certainly is impressive, but that's not the exact same thing as "best visual design", is it?

I don't want to say one way or the other, but I think it is a question worth asking.

Yeah, seems like another question of subjective semantics; that is, just what the hell does "best" mean?

When talking about awards that are voted on, you're talking about an aggregated opinion, and thus I'm not too bothered about aggregated subjective understandings of the concept of best. Whether 30% voted for something because it was the most novel, or new, or interesting, and 30% voted because it showed overwhelming artistic merit, or craftsmanship, or merit, and another 40% just because they liked it better than other choices for some nebulous reason they aren't able to quantify, they still ultimately found it to be "the best" overall.

Of course, most of the time that sort of approach can result in awards that are a bit shallow and not terribly useful, but there is a place for that even still. It's often much more interesting when awards get a bit more technical and specific about the thing they are evaluating and the criteria by which they are evaluating it, but looking for that in big, general, and especially aggregated awards is usually going to be unsatisfying due to their very nature.

(Personally, I've been most blown away by the visual design in Destiny 2 this year -- especially on the PC, if you turn off the UI it quite often feels like you are walking though a gorgeous sci-fi watercolor painting -- but I also haven't had a chance to check out Cuphead yet.)

ccesarano wrote:

But in the end, is Cuphead truly the best in visual design or is it merely pastiche? Sure, nothing looks like it in games but it is very clearly aping someone else's style rather than finding a style and aesthetic of its own.

Or should we consider the amount of work that went into the hand-drawn animation? Because that most certainly is impressive, but that's not the exact same thing as "best visual design", is it?

It is obviously reminiscent of cartoons from the past, but I think there's something to be said for translating that visual style effectively into a medium that allows for player control and potential variance in animation at any moment. It's astonishing that it both looks and plays (and sounds) as well as it does.

Also, the category isn't "most original visual design". Perhaps there'd be an argument for other games there, but Cuphead nails visual design better than any other game this year, pastiche or otherwise. I've mentioned it in the past, but I think the video game community generally assigns too much importance to originality and not enough to execution.

Dyni wrote:

Also, the category isn't "most original visual design". Perhaps there'd be an argument for other games there, but Cuphead nails visual design better than any other game this year, pastiche or otherwise. I've mentioned it in the past, but I think the video game community generally assigns too much importance to originality and not enough to execution.

Oh? Does this include clarity of UI design? Because in some cases I might actually take umbrage with that!

I get what you mean though. I just think it's something curious to ponder over that I think probably is looked at in more superficial ways than it deserves. But alas, what can ya do?

You have to log in to Facebook to vote. f*ck The Game Awards.

ccesarano wrote:

To which I say: I'm sorry for being such a sh*t. Or sh*te, if you're from the UK.

sh*t or sh*te... Really depends on which UK region you're in. I for example would say sh*t

If you're talking video game awards in the mainstream, the BAFTA Video Game Awards have been running since 2004.

Last year's BAFTA nominees and winners if you're interested.

Edit. As with movie awards the 2017 games won't get their ceremony until a ways into 2018. A good chunk into it, April for game awards by the looks.

Double edit. HZD for the GWJ win! Go Aloy!

I'm actually waiting to play Frozen Wilds DLC until 2018 so I can vote for HZD again next year.

ccesarano wrote:

I'm wondering if it's the same reason I love E3. Despite knowing it's a big marketing gimmick that costs way more money than it is worth for most of the companies participating, I'm always willing to get suckered into the flash and glamour of it all.

I'm curious if I'm alone in this or not.

I think the main draw of the show for a lot of people is the game reveals which makes the event a little bit like a mini-E3 press event. The awards show itself is pretty garish and not something I'm planning on watching.

On the other hand, I absolutely love the Game Developer's Choice Awards and Independent Games Festival Awards at GDC each year. It's a smaller production and consequently has a lot less hype and exposure, but it also doesn't feel like I'm being aggressively advertised to like a consumer event.

Yeah, I prefer how both BAFTA and the Game Developer Awards are into 2018 and wish they somehow had more of the attention, but alas, I guess they'd feature fewer trailers and therefore no one cares.

As promised over in the goty thread I have a query regarding Witcher 3, thought I'd drop it here, rather than over there. That was the idea CC?

Ok...

I played Witcher 3 (goty edition) for the first time in 2017.

It will not be making my goty list this year.

Shocker.

However, this is because I only played 90 minutes at most before deciding it just wasn't the right time to dedicate 200+ (?) hours over say a 6 month period. Not because I don't think I'll enjoy it enough to stick it on a list at some point, maybe next year even.

So this year no Witcher 3, next year maybe. I'm ok with that because I don't think playing what, less than 1% of the game? Gives me enough to go on.

I think that's in the right spirit of the voting and don't want to clog up the other thread with what is more of a musing. Just wondering if I'm right in my ponderings, interested if others have done the same and with which games?

Ta.

I agree with your assessment. I played a bit of Final Fantasy XII years ago, but I really played a ton of it this year with the PS4 remaster. It may end up on my list, even though I technically played a bit of it before.

I’m with ariatophan, I completely agree with your assessment. Even though you feel it seems like a great game, it’s not fair to make it a GOTY when you’ve only scratched the surface. That’s vastly different from the “you can rank even if you haven’t finished” guideline. I don’t want to seem facetious, but it’s be like ranking a game because you think the box art is pretty.