Posted Mar 9, 2011 2:40 pm GMT

Rock stars technology is mind bogeling. rag doll physics. npc interaction rain that creates puddles. awesome unscripted ai. the source code for gta4 did make this game a winner i guess it was up to the design team to make that master piece.

• agree 0
• disagree 0
• = 0
• Sign in to rate this comment

Posted Mar 9, 2011 2:06 pm GMT

If you're a pc gamer, then being a producer or developer or even reviewer suddenly blow out the door

You give a pc gamer a (console) for month and he/she would have felf imprisoned on why the hell all the 4 walls suddenly feel closed cheap and goey that's the problem all developers have lost their way while coding for pc market they PREFERE SLEEPING IN "consoles" "Valves successful mainly for sleeping in pc market" plus they know their own architecture. pc gamers are tough croud to please rather then a console gamers....

It also depends on the age too! younger gamers will play anything and will look back on that as best game ever when infact it was piece of ???? or just simply compare it as nothing then another version whith out looking at what makes the game a true master piece.

And plus the demands for games have become harder then ever when you dwell back too 80's not every ones the same nor will every one want the same game. conceptual ideas leak like a bad smell with developers But even if red dead redemption was an exclusive for pc market that wouldn't mean a god dam thing except that developer rock stars one good developer that's really true to their ART. Red dead redemption never had clue if this game was gonna survive but i felt like a child in candy store all over again. i rarely get that way with games that are at master piece status.

• agree 0
• disagree 0
• = 0
• Sign in to rate this comment

Posted Mar 6, 2011 4:17 am GMT

@Gelugon_baat
Well, OK. then.

I'll try to think about it from your perspective (though I still find the absence of famous developers because of some kind of prohibition to be an even larger stretch of imagination than just mere lack of interest).

Just to ilustrate the way I used to think about it:

I found the most important awards to be the players' ones simply because of the fact that one, regardless of his/her position, can't go wrong with them:

If you are a player, the chance that you will like what other players liked is quite high. At least higher than in case of any other game (in theory).

If you are a reviewer, the chance that you will like it as well is decent too, because a reviewer is player as well, though a special one.

If you are a developer, your game will have decent prospects of selling well too.

And if you are a producer, you can worry a little bit less.

No other group's award can give at least this level of certainty and if someone (let's media) really insists that it shouldn't be players' awards, than at least it should be the awards which are really big, famous and lot of people participate in them so the chance that they will be transparent and will take most of interests and opinions into account is high.

But like I said, I will think about your preference of actual knowledge over my preference of usefulness/aggregate opinion and maybe change my mind.So thanks for replies and see you in another debate

• agree 0
• disagree 0
• = 0
• Sign in to rate this comment

Posted Mar 6, 2011 12:03 am GMT

@SciFiRPGfan

I suppose that you are referring to famous developers like BioWare? Then I would remind you that such developers - owned by their publishers - are not their own bosses.

You suppose that they did not attend the GDC because they may not have respect for it, but I can also suggest that they did not attend because their corporate masters told them not to. After all, the GDC does not exactly have a very strong presence of publishing giants. Even if they are there, they are there for product promotion.

Yes, I am suggesting issues of industry politics. That is what you have inadvertently suggested too.

Like I have said before, awards that are decided by deep passion - and not of the superficial sort - of games and actual intimate knowledge (that goes beyond the profitability of a game) are awards that are more dignified.

• agree 1
• disagree 2
• = -1
• Sign in to rate this comment

Posted Mar 5, 2011 11:57 pm GMT

@SciFiRPGfan

Awards decided by consumers alone are essentially popularity contests. When such awards can be affected by vote-rallying activities like this, these awards are tainted with votes that are cast without considering the merits of the other contenders.

I don't find that suggestion of yours ironic; I find it disappointing if consumers' awards are to be considered the final say.

• agree 0
• disagree 2
• = -2
• Sign in to rate this comment

Posted Mar 5, 2011 11:44 pm GMT

@SciFiRPGfan

What game developers make, is ultimately for them to decide. If they want to copy what others have already done and endure the criticism of being copycats, that's for them to decide. If they want to use game mechanics that have been proven to be a hit and sell well among consumers, that's for them to decide.

In other words, in actually making games, game developers have to balance their convictions/policies/beliefs with the need to make money. However, awards - especially the GDC, their elitist club of sorts - give them the opportunity to examine games that they and others have made and then select the ones that pander to their convictions/policies/beliefs the most, without having to worry about any commercial/fiscal ramifications.

• agree 0
• disagree 2
• = -2
• Sign in to rate this comment

Posted Mar 5, 2011 10:46 pm GMT

@Gelugon_baat
Well, you are starting to convince me. But before I give up.

... and one of my issues is related to this. Based on my quick skim of winners, I see that sometimes they pick games (Katamari, Okami or even Limbo) the qualities or characteristics of which most of them do not even bother to follow or improve in their own games later.

I mean how many games like that will they make again? I bet most of them would again mimic or use mechanics/styles used in more popular/commercialy more successful games (i.e. the games which usually win various players' awards).

Don't they contradict themselves? I thought especially award like this, i.e. award from peers, should go to somebody who sets the best example to follow. Isn't it ironic than, that players' awards winners are probably better indicator of what the future games would look like?

But if GDCA is supposed to represent that passion, didn't it failed, if organizers could not even convince the "famous" developers (my previous post) to attend? How can I be sure that even developers themselves have the highest respect for these awards if they don't mind attending other events but not this one?

• agree 0
• disagree 0
• = 0
• Sign in to rate this comment

Posted Mar 5, 2011 5:16 pm GMT

@SciFiRPGfan

That refers to the commercial/proliferation success of a game - not the conferment of awards. What developers think of games would of course not immediately translate to commercial/proliferation success.

I would not consider publicity to be the main equivalent of prestige - especially when the AIAS has plenty of backing from huge corporations who happen to be members and industrial interest groups and affiliates.

I would instead consider an event/organization's adherence to the main theme of game awards to be more important in assessing its (perceived) prestige, and this theme is deep passion for games and intimate knowledge of them. No other stakeholder in the industry would have more of either than game developers themselves.

• agree 0
• disagree 2
• = -2
• Sign in to rate this comment

Posted Mar 5, 2011 12:11 pm GMT

Nope. Maybe I was not clear enough.

Out of these non public awards, I find the AIASA the most prestigious simply because most of medias said so. I do not feel competent to dispute such claim.

The 2nd indicator for me might be the positions of studios' representatives who attended the show. E.g. on AIAS the representatives of Mass Effect team were Bioware CEOs Greg Zeschuck and Ray Muzyka. On GDC on the other hand, it was some, for me as layman, unknown guy. The same applied for majority of studios, based on post awards interviews with famous developers or lack there of.

Moreover, if the current trend continues, I will probably consider the VGA awards more important than GDCA. I mean if developers themeselves (the famous representatives, usually CEOs) do not find it important enough to even attend the event (unlike AIAS or VGA), why should I care much about it. Not to mention the poor media coverage of the awards (not the conference) in medias other than GS.

• agree 0
• disagree 0
• = 0
• Sign in to rate this comment

Posted Mar 5, 2011 11:08 am GMT

@Gelugon_baat
Well, I couldn't find credible source too, just one sentence on IGDA's website, which is some kind of partner organization.The rest were dead links.

As for my scenario, I purposefully exaggerated it in order to find out how would you react to such situation.

Well, they have the best overal knowledge, that is for sure. OTOH, if all these activities are taken into account than result must be different from the process based solely on playing games.

However, playing games is all that matters for the players and even reviewers. And it is these two groups, who determine the success of games - future of developers. IMO very little of them would appreciate how difficult it is to make something available in a game. For them, far more important is whether it is enjoyable.

Than, from player/reviewer's perspective developer's assessment of game which should be based solely on assessment of enjoyability is also affected by additional assessment of quality of activities you mentioned. But that means developer's opinion is pretty unique and hardly can be used as general indicator, let alone the ultimate one.

• agree 0
• disagree 0
• = 0
• Sign in to rate this comment

Posted Mar 5, 2011 8:29 am GMT

Im so glad Blops Did not win a single award

• agree 0
• disagree 0
• = 0
• Sign in to rate this comment

Posted Mar 5, 2011 7:46 am GMT

@SciFiRPGfan
I doubt that a game that "failed with players completely", e.g. a game that was widely regarded by industry stakeholders to be a failure, would be selected by developers to win awards. I have yet to come across any such example.

Games that some consumers find "completely failed" them, on the other hand, are a different matter. They don't like these games, but that doesn't mean others don't like it either - that includes game developers too.

Again, I would repeat that game developers are the ones who make games, play them, promote them and provide support after release. They are the ones who know games best - hence my assertion that their votes are the most valuable, even if the weight of these votes is the same as those of others if the awarding process also considers votes not from game developers, e.g. the AIAS Awards, which also receives votes from publishers (who are not likely to know games better).

If you would check the official source, the first AIAS Awards were in 1998. If there were some in 1997, I cannot find any official source.

Like you said, it should not matter who dished out awards earlier - but if you are considering an organization to be as prestigious as it is old (as your first response to me suggests), then the GDC is older.

• agree 0
• disagree 2
• = -2
• Sign in to rate this comment

Posted Mar 5, 2011 6:23 am GMT

@Gelugon_baat
Wow thank you for a nice post. Just few remarks.

You mentioned that GDCC started in 1988, but were there any awards too? I am sorry to refer to wiki, but it says that even the predecessor of GDC Awards, the Spotlight Awards started in 1997 which is still one year later than AIASA, not that it matters anyway, I am just curious.

As for the readers' complaining - I have to agree with you. It would be better not to asses these awards. Maybe it's GS's come here and discuss the merits and demerits of... that provokes so many people to express their opinions on everything. But I agree anyway.

What I still don't agree though, is the: Just as I outlined the scenario in my previous post: What if there was a game which attracted many developers for whatever reason (originality, technical brilliance,...) but failed with players completely? Would it still be the best game -since it, according to you, has won the most valuable award? Should the players still remain quiet when somebody presented such game as the best (not just best according to devs) in front of them?

• agree 0
• disagree 0
• = 0
• Sign in to rate this comment

Posted Mar 5, 2011 4:18 am GMT

@Gelugon_baat Wooooooww that is the longest quote i have ever seen on a news story on GameSpot.

• agree 0
• disagree 0
• = 0
• Sign in to rate this comment

Posted Mar 4, 2011 5:36 pm GMT

@SciFiRPGfan

That the Academy of Interactive Arts and Sciences Awards are likened to Oscars by experienced industry watchers like Ricardo Torres meant that the AIAS awards are more representative of the industry as a whole, that I would concede.

However, I would not say that such wider representation means better-deserved awards; to me, it just means that more opinions went into giving these awards - opinions that may not be as well-versed as those of game developers themselves.

The AIAS is founded in 1996. The GDC has been around since 1988, when it was known as "CGDC" before it made a formal name change in 1999.

Game consumers should know that the GDC Awards are voted on by game developers themselves and mainly so for their own appeasement. They are not meant to make anyone else, including game consumers, feel good about themselves.

True, then they are best off expressing their opinions about games by writing reviews or putting money where their mouth is. Criticizing awards in which they are not supposed to have any clout is just unfair complaining.

• agree 0
• disagree 3
• = -3
• Sign in to rate this comment

Posted Mar 4, 2011 4:13 pm GMT

The ppl who continue to spam that RDR is just GTA in the old west obviously have never spent any serious time with the game....and thus: should not be posting opinions about it. I played both ME2 and RDR, and RDR is the only one of the two I continue to put into my machine from time to time to revisit. Now, ME2 was an amazing game.....and an amazing experience. But it was a one or two playthough game for me......a great cinematic experience, but not one that encouraged me to experiment and experience every little detail. The story was amazing, but it glazed over the importance of the gameplay. RDR did something similar while keeping the gameplay at the forefront. THAT'S why I preferred it.

• agree 2
• disagree 1
• = +1
• Sign in to rate this comment

Posted Mar 4, 2011 3:38 pm GMT

Go Indie!

• agree 1
• disagree 0
• = +1
• Sign in to rate this comment

Posted Mar 4, 2011 7:43 am GMT

@cdoggmaximus973 just because it had the same controls and was a sandbox doesn't mean it was exactly alike just because its a sand box and they use controls that work and have won them many awards twice they should not be penalized for that and weather you like it or not it is the game of the year so the people at rockstar obviously made a good choice. and even if people keep believing its exactly like gta4 so what it works people love it and it will keep winning them awards

• agree 4
• disagree 0
• = +4
• Sign in to rate this comment