Most of the nominations don't make sense. If the artistic award is for graphics, Then I've had many people complain about how Black Ops has worse graphics than Modern Warfare 2. As for it's story nomination, What the hell is wrong with these people?
Extra Punctuation: BAFTAs Are Bollocks
- Thread starter Yahtzee Croshaw
- Start date
Well, it's still up in the air whether or not Yahtzee is actually a massive and very skilful caricature of all the people on here. Also, since he's a professional game critic (on paper at least), one could dubiously argue that he's allowed to phrase his arguments objectively.jjboat said:
The people in this thread, however, are being decidedly unironic and treating their opinions as fact. Which is very arrogant.
Just when I'd started to believe the Escapist community was 90% great, this thread crushes my hopes and proves that actually it's only around 60%.
how the hell did blops get #1 for public option? i get it has a "decent" initial play value (online only, the story mode is a bunch of BS with no plot and just explosions, the video game equivalent of a micheal bay film), but seriously the multi-player gaming online drops off significantly after about the first 4 hours or so. the only reason i still have the garbage in my collection is because the zombie mode is fun-as-hell to play with friends.
They both have a rope!dunam said:
Just like every physics catapult game ever was obviously ripped off by angry birds because they both have catapults and things to launch at!
*throws up fist*
Innocents! All these flash games were innocent and the evil iPhone robbed them all!
*faints*
I can sort of see why Black Ops had a story nomination because it was slightly compelling for the incredibly short time that it lasted and it was different to what the previous games did.
It was really a copy of the twist in Fight Club though.
And best game of the year?
It wasn't even that good.
It didn't innovate anything or change anything. It was just the same game in a different setting.
It was really a copy of the twist in Fight Club though.
And best game of the year?
It wasn't even that good.
It didn't innovate anything or change anything. It was just the same game in a different setting.
cod black ops goot the award
its things like this that make me lose all faith in popular gaming
i mean seriously how many times can they re- skin call of duty while adding nothing, and ruining the multiplayer more with every installment
its things like this that make me lose all faith in popular gaming
i mean seriously how many times can they re- skin call of duty while adding nothing, and ruining the multiplayer more with every installment
Hmmm. Categorical hierarchy rather than a numeric one (apart from "Best" which would imply #1). Still skirting the edge of Objective->Subjective there Mr. Croshaw.
Nothing really of note here except the GAME Award.
It's absolutely pathetic that Call of Duty 4.3 (Black Ops) is that powerful, despite being the same motherfucking game for the third year in a row. It isn't bad on its own merits (in a vacuum, I wouldn't have many objective complaints), but this is the culmination of popularity triumphing over creativity.
This is the market throwing up their hands and saying "But who cares about creativity? That shit is for pretentious has-beens and assholes; I just want to shoot Nazis/Terrorists/Aliens in the face with an assault rifle!"
The problem is that it's a self-destructive trend in an industry based on a creative medium; yet we keep telling ourselves it isn't because it continues to churn out mega-hit after mega-hit.
Hell, I've heard people try to justify it as an "MMO-Like Game that updates itself yearly. It even costs less than 10/15 bucks a month!" If people are now willing to stretch reality that far to justify its existence (or rather, their purchase), then nothing I say matters anyway.
Eventually, the party has to end, and people will get tired of the Call of Duty model.
When it does, heads will roll.
Nothing really of note here except the GAME Award.
It's absolutely pathetic that Call of Duty 4.3 (Black Ops) is that powerful, despite being the same motherfucking game for the third year in a row. It isn't bad on its own merits (in a vacuum, I wouldn't have many objective complaints), but this is the culmination of popularity triumphing over creativity.
This is the market throwing up their hands and saying "But who cares about creativity? That shit is for pretentious has-beens and assholes; I just want to shoot Nazis/Terrorists/Aliens in the face with an assault rifle!"
The problem is that it's a self-destructive trend in an industry based on a creative medium; yet we keep telling ourselves it isn't because it continues to churn out mega-hit after mega-hit.
Hell, I've heard people try to justify it as an "MMO-Like Game that updates itself yearly. It even costs less than 10/15 bucks a month!" If people are now willing to stretch reality that far to justify its existence (or rather, their purchase), then nothing I say matters anyway.
Eventually, the party has to end, and people will get tired of the Call of Duty model.
When it does, heads will roll.
all of these are pathetically bad:
action: not a bad choice but the nomination of bioshock 2 is just plain wrong, and COD BlOps is identical to MW2, so it's kind of insulting that people think a generic copypasta series should be nominated for any sort of award
artistic achievement:
even going on just graphics, GoW3 is a shaky choice... i'd go with LIMBO or Heavy Rain myself, with maybe mass effect 2's sense of scale and epicness thrown in their or something. also, AC Bro? really? sure the city is pretty and all, but really? if AC BRO is nominated then the lack of red dead redemption is sorely lacking
story: didn't play it enough to comment on any plot holes he might have found, but a vaguely incomprehensible story seems to be the general consensus of reviewers. alan wake and mass effect 2 are clearly the front runners from the nomination list.
bioshock 2, COD BlOps, and Fallout: NV all had pedestrian at best stories, so i have no clue why they were even nominated
technical innovation:
what the hell is with these nominations?
heavy rain and kinectimals are the only ones on here who really deserve a nomination, since SMG2 is essentially SMG1, so you can't call that innovation... i suppose youcould make a case for reach because of the complete overhaul of the series, but still, really?
Handheld
yea sure fair enough
best game
i agree with this but i'm biased. Heavy Rain was barely even a game so if you're deciding this at least partially on gameplay that's a waste of a nomination. likewise with SMG2. AC:B is ACII with the ability to hurl assassins at people you don't like and a decent continuation of the story, so i understand the nomination.. notable missing games here include... well i suppose this is a console thing, so starcraft 2 and the latest WoW expansion weren't under review, but i'm kind of surprised GoW3 didn't get nominated... it seems like the shallow, weak character slashfest most forum-active gamers would love... also expected halo reach to get nominated purely on the fanboy contingent
where is red dead redemption in all this?
fan awarded:
my faith in humanity is gone. dance central and BOD BlOps are both average games, SMG2 doesn't deserve to be on this list, and is NFS included just so they can have a game from each genre or something? there really haven't been that many stellar releases this year, but the racing genre has better games to offer
action: not a bad choice but the nomination of bioshock 2 is just plain wrong, and COD BlOps is identical to MW2, so it's kind of insulting that people think a generic copypasta series should be nominated for any sort of award
artistic achievement:
even going on just graphics, GoW3 is a shaky choice... i'd go with LIMBO or Heavy Rain myself, with maybe mass effect 2's sense of scale and epicness thrown in their or something. also, AC Bro? really? sure the city is pretty and all, but really? if AC BRO is nominated then the lack of red dead redemption is sorely lacking
story: didn't play it enough to comment on any plot holes he might have found, but a vaguely incomprehensible story seems to be the general consensus of reviewers. alan wake and mass effect 2 are clearly the front runners from the nomination list.
bioshock 2, COD BlOps, and Fallout: NV all had pedestrian at best stories, so i have no clue why they were even nominated
technical innovation:
what the hell is with these nominations?
heavy rain and kinectimals are the only ones on here who really deserve a nomination, since SMG2 is essentially SMG1, so you can't call that innovation... i suppose youcould make a case for reach because of the complete overhaul of the series, but still, really?
Handheld
yea sure fair enough
best game
i agree with this but i'm biased. Heavy Rain was barely even a game so if you're deciding this at least partially on gameplay that's a waste of a nomination. likewise with SMG2. AC:B is ACII with the ability to hurl assassins at people you don't like and a decent continuation of the story, so i understand the nomination.. notable missing games here include... well i suppose this is a console thing, so starcraft 2 and the latest WoW expansion weren't under review, but i'm kind of surprised GoW3 didn't get nominated... it seems like the shallow, weak character slashfest most forum-active gamers would love... also expected halo reach to get nominated purely on the fanboy contingent
where is red dead redemption in all this?
fan awarded:
my faith in humanity is gone. dance central and BOD BlOps are both average games, SMG2 doesn't deserve to be on this list, and is NFS included just so they can have a game from each genre or something? there really haven't been that many stellar releases this year, but the racing genre has better games to offer
Sooo.. BLACK OPS gets a nomination for the story but Red Dead Redemption doesn't? BAH! Who the hell chooses these?
Black Ops deserved a victory in the last category, it is really good, arcade(ish) FPS and it is much fun to play whit friends.
Black Ops deserved a victory in the last category, it is really good, arcade(ish) FPS and it is much fun to play whit friends.
Aw, I was pushing for Reach to get the technical innovation one.
The new Reach engine was a massive boon for the gameplay and, like all the Halo games, always had great scenery.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LgjylRdDrIA&feature=mfu_in_order&list=UL
The new Reach engine was a massive boon for the gameplay and, like all the Halo games, always had great scenery.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LgjylRdDrIA&feature=mfu_in_order&list=UL
Considering you don't care about multiplayer nearly as much as alot of other people do, I don't really care what you believe should be the people's choice of best game. Half the people who own BlOps havn't even played the single player. But they're having fun playing it and isn't that how you do your own awards?
So we should replace the opinions of some organization with yours, Crenshaw? Doesn't Britain have some kind of Emmy where they people vote? I mean, complaining about it in what is basically a magazine article is pointless. As cathartic as it might be for you, it's a waste of space to me. If I wanted to read about peoples' complaints I'd join Facebook, Blogspot, or Twitter. I come here for interesting views. Not a two page article where a grown man complains about the fact that his games didn't win what is basically a contest he has no vote in. Yes, they're stupid. The Oscars aren't much better, but has them losing suddenly diminished or raised the value of the games in your eyes?
Well, the problem with awards is that it's impossible to make everyone happy. To put it bluntly, you either wind up with a bunch of experts who attempt to objectively evaluate the medium in question, with results that will frequently get the every man to scratch their heads while screaming about pretentiousness, or a kind of populist "what's cool at the moment" poll-a-thon dominated by the lowest human denominator. Increasingly, most awards systems wind up making nobody happy by trying to walk between the two extremes, with more of an increasing lean towards the lowest human denominator because in the end the point increasingly comes down to a show being put on, and looking to their approval.
Honestly I think for any kind of an awards system to be taken seriously, it needs to be divorced from the public spectacle. When this kind of thing becomes TOO public, it destroys any integrity that the awards had to begin with (with anything from movie, to music, to now games), which is what got people interested to begin with.
I honestly think awards systems are a good way to guide the progression of their respective industries, and acknowleged actual achievement when it happens. Of course I also think that as a part of this there should not be a definate aware being handed out in each catagory each year, only the potential for one, and entire catagories of acknowlegement should be skipped if nobody does anything meaningful to progress the medium as a whole. I think one of the problem with awards in general nowadays is that no matter the media, it typically comes down to deciding what piece of mass market consumer dog poop actually stinks less, when little is created that is going to have any kind of lasting impact.
See, I'm of the opinion that the guys doing the awards for video games should be similar to me, not so much in their actual opinion, but in having a depth of knowledge about gaming, and a willingness to put new creations into perspective. I'd have no problem not giving any awards if there were no games worthy of them in a given year. I also have no problem with sitting back and pointing out when I think a game doesn't deserve as much praise as it's getting because someone did the same basic thing, better, decades beforehand, but just didn't have as pretty graphics attached to it. I'd also think that any "toolbox" game that is developed by using a pre-made engine with new graphics stuck onto it and a frew tweaks should be omitted because there is little actual game design there at all. One of the reasons why so many games play the same way is because they use the same exact code. As far as I'm concerned you can pretty much review "game made with the Unreal engine" once, and award it fairly once. If I'm sitting down trying to compare 2-3 games all developed from the same toolbox, I'd pretty much just lob them all into the waste bin collectively.
Of course this pretty much makes me similar to what "The Academy" has been for movies for a long time (though that has been changing as time goes on). A perfectly entertaining popcorn flick that is popular with the everyman, getting trashed or not even considered because in the big picture (going back to probably before a lot of people watching the current movies were born) they objectively weren't anything special.
Maybe at some point my opinion will change, but honestly I think the problem with almost all video game awards systems right now is that it's pretty much a bunch of promotion and backpatting, there isn't really anyone evaluating video games as an art form or holding what's being made now up against what has been made before. In looking at games one has to look at the gameplay, writing, and actual mechanics of the thing, not nessicarly at how pretty the game is graphically. It's sort of like how with movies The Academy tends not to be heavily swayed by special FX, which might wow audience, but have little to do with the actual quality of the film, how it's put together, or the performances within it. Simply put if you can take a game made now and put it up against a game that was made for the Commodore 64 and find that it has inferior gameplay, design, pacing, etc... it deserves to get panned because it's simply very pretty... and just as there are catagories for looking good for movies, doubtlessly graphics and art direction would be it's own singular catagory.
A lot of rambling, but such are my thoughts.
Honestly I think for any kind of an awards system to be taken seriously, it needs to be divorced from the public spectacle. When this kind of thing becomes TOO public, it destroys any integrity that the awards had to begin with (with anything from movie, to music, to now games), which is what got people interested to begin with.
I honestly think awards systems are a good way to guide the progression of their respective industries, and acknowleged actual achievement when it happens. Of course I also think that as a part of this there should not be a definate aware being handed out in each catagory each year, only the potential for one, and entire catagories of acknowlegement should be skipped if nobody does anything meaningful to progress the medium as a whole. I think one of the problem with awards in general nowadays is that no matter the media, it typically comes down to deciding what piece of mass market consumer dog poop actually stinks less, when little is created that is going to have any kind of lasting impact.
See, I'm of the opinion that the guys doing the awards for video games should be similar to me, not so much in their actual opinion, but in having a depth of knowledge about gaming, and a willingness to put new creations into perspective. I'd have no problem not giving any awards if there were no games worthy of them in a given year. I also have no problem with sitting back and pointing out when I think a game doesn't deserve as much praise as it's getting because someone did the same basic thing, better, decades beforehand, but just didn't have as pretty graphics attached to it. I'd also think that any "toolbox" game that is developed by using a pre-made engine with new graphics stuck onto it and a frew tweaks should be omitted because there is little actual game design there at all. One of the reasons why so many games play the same way is because they use the same exact code. As far as I'm concerned you can pretty much review "game made with the Unreal engine" once, and award it fairly once. If I'm sitting down trying to compare 2-3 games all developed from the same toolbox, I'd pretty much just lob them all into the waste bin collectively.
Of course this pretty much makes me similar to what "The Academy" has been for movies for a long time (though that has been changing as time goes on). A perfectly entertaining popcorn flick that is popular with the everyman, getting trashed or not even considered because in the big picture (going back to probably before a lot of people watching the current movies were born) they objectively weren't anything special.
Maybe at some point my opinion will change, but honestly I think the problem with almost all video game awards systems right now is that it's pretty much a bunch of promotion and backpatting, there isn't really anyone evaluating video games as an art form or holding what's being made now up against what has been made before. In looking at games one has to look at the gameplay, writing, and actual mechanics of the thing, not nessicarly at how pretty the game is graphically. It's sort of like how with movies The Academy tends not to be heavily swayed by special FX, which might wow audience, but have little to do with the actual quality of the film, how it's put together, or the performances within it. Simply put if you can take a game made now and put it up against a game that was made for the Commodore 64 and find that it has inferior gameplay, design, pacing, etc... it deserves to get panned because it's simply very pretty... and just as there are catagories for looking good for movies, doubtlessly graphics and art direction would be it's own singular catagory.
A lot of rambling, but such are my thoughts.
