Thought I'd post my two cents on this issue, as reading through the article I couldn't help but think it was deliberately contrarian.
1) Firstly, your comment about alternatives. Like some have said, no, it's not necessarily the job of some, whilst criticising how a specific product is delivered, to show another product and how they do it better. Thats the entire purpose of the criticism - if you were to say "the spike VGAs spent too much time simply concentrating on getting money of various publishers to show their trailers exclusively a matter of hours before theycould be found on the web, rather then actually spending the time to award the work of many by honouring the devs/actors/etc in a true awards style" you ARE inherently offering an alternative/solution - that of having the show honour the people in the undustry more. And that's exactly what most criticism I have seen does (not to mention the vast majority I have seen DO mention the GDC games, DICE, etc as examples of how an awards show can work).
2) The perception of the "gaming culture" WILL be influenced by a show such as this. Its just a fact, just like those tuning in to watch the Academy Awards do have their perceptions over films changed. Ttake for example the year when Avatar (a film I find partcularly mediocre, but thats a topic for another time) lost out to the great (indie) film The Hurt Locker) - during the build up to the awards, and after the awards themselves, the reven ue the Hurt Locker got was WAY more than their revenue just from film being seen when itcame out. Why? Because there is the perception from the public that the only films they will ejoy is the big budget Hollywood popcorn flicks, be it with poorly written "romance ("Sex and the City"), mediocre comedy (anything with Adam Sandler/Eddie Murphy/Judd Apatow etc) or massive explosions (Michael Bay, most other Summer Blockbusters). This is because thats where all the big PR and marketing money goes, into getting mainstream media to show the ads, to hype them up, and people follow like sheep. yet every year, when the Oscars comes around, you get a more refined, intelligent discussion of films in general, and in specifically the films nominated, and it DOES drive the general public to go outside their usual media-driven "taste" and go out and watch these films they wouldn't have watched, and, shock horror, usually they like them. To pretend that gaming is somehow different, that a similiar movement towards the games intelligently discussed, is unfortunately just the attitude that will keep games from achieving a more mainstream "acceptance".
3) Which leads on to my 3rd point - that of cost, and why Spike "have" to do the style of show they do in order to make ends meet. Even if an awards show is as expensive as you seem to think it is to produce for a national audience, we're NOT talking about a small, niche interest anymore. Not when games like MW3 SHATTER "entertainment launches" (as inMW3 has made more money than any film, ever - FACT) - and even so-called "less mainstream/bro" games like Skyrim make more than a THIRD OF A BILLION DOLLARS!!! The money is clearly there, when you have 10 million people on the FIRST DAY something is out queueing to purchase it, you should have zero problems finding enough money, from sponsors and advertisers, to produce an 1-2 hour long telecast. Suggesting that people will only watch an Video Game Awarts show to see C-list celebraties acting stupidly/talking with no knowledge about an issue (see Hulk Hogan, Charlie Sheen, etc), or people who ,ake games get treated poorly. is just fallacious. Unless you really are being *that* insulting about the general public, and the SpikeTV audience. When you have devices like the Wii, DS, PS3 and XBox, between them with global sales (in units) of upwards of 200 MILLION, even if a fraction of these consider themselves as gamers, you know there *is* interest of a show talking about artistic achievement on them.
4) As some on here have said, the Spike VGAs are *not* a step in the right direction towards the mainstream more accepting of gaming - in fact, it couldn't be further from the truth. All "the mainstream" have to do is to turn it out, see some guy who worked for months, nay years, on bring his artistic vision to a wider audience, get tea bagged by some idiots, or just treated like members of a niche hobby who should be outcasts, and the appeal of games to the mainstream *instantly* takes a hit. It does nothing but reinforce negative stereotypes (ones which we as a community tend to speak out against when the likes of the Daily Mail, Fox News, etc come out with them - unless you are saying we shouldn't do that either). Someone who doesn't see the appeakl of games will switch over, see this, and think "oh, I was right to not take this seriously, and maybe look into it. I won't enjoy this form of entertainment, Fox News/Daily Mail were right, all gamers are ". Having nothing on Spike TV would be better. Another network WILL notice the gap in the market (which there currently isn't, thanks to the VGAs), and WILL realise there is money to be made by having an awards show - and honestly, save maybe Fox, there really isn't a network out there who could do a WORSE job than Spike.
5) As some have said, maybe gaming is hampered by the fact that there isn't an industry wide academy, like there is in Film, which the mainstream media as a whole can get behind. Or at least, not in America. Over here in the UK, BAFTA (the British equivalent of the Academy in the States, who do an annual Film and TV awards show, again much like the Oscars, and ARE taking as seriously as the Academy, doing much good for film) realised a few years ago that gaming was an industry that they felt should be represented, and set up a subsidiary of themselves specifically for the promotion of, and judging of games. The result? The BAFTAs do each year award a series of awards, in much the same way as they do for film, and the mainstream press *do* cover these in much the same way as they cover the Oscards/BAFTAs ifor films. They don't feel like they need to play up the stereotypes, or spend more time advertising for companies their newest products, but they cover the awards, they note what excellence has meant to people. And as a result gaming gains more mainstream acceptance. What the VGAs do is both exactly the opposite of this, they discourage a body, whether it be the Academy, or not, to set up such a critical cross-industry panel, and they do set gaming acceptance as a result. Are what the Gaming BAFTAs do/arte perfect? No. but nor are the Oscars (especially with the move to 10 film shortlist for Best Picture, which has simply resulted in more mainstream, lowest common denominator films, like Avatar, being recognised in the nominees). But its a step in the right direction.
6) Looking at the content of the show - the absence of the awards themselves, save 1/2; the roping of celebs that clearly look disinterested; the pandering to the worstof stereotypes; the fact thaT 80% of the coverage is ADVERTS for gaming companies newest and biggest products, acting as hype generators - is this really what we want the public to think of when they think of games, and how the gaming industry *treats* the products they put out and their customers? Because thats what the VGAs do, and thats what the average Joe *will* think, when seeing such a charade. We instead *should* be criticising the awards for the sham they are, and showing that gaming should be taken more seriously, more artistically. We had a stpe forward with the Supreme Court's agreement with their take on whether Games are works of art, and as such artistic freedom given to (usually considered) more serious artforms should also be given to games. Let's embrace this, not shackle ourselves with the attitude of "gaming isn't seen by the mainstream to be artistically interesting enough to promote as a serious artform, and having it portrayed on tv as infantile and crass is therefore better then no coverage, which we would get if these stopped happening".
Thats it, rant over, sorry for the length.
1) Firstly, your comment about alternatives. Like some have said, no, it's not necessarily the job of some, whilst criticising how a specific product is delivered, to show another product and how they do it better. Thats the entire purpose of the criticism - if you were to say "the spike VGAs spent too much time simply concentrating on getting money of various publishers to show their trailers exclusively a matter of hours before theycould be found on the web, rather then actually spending the time to award the work of many by honouring the devs/actors/etc in a true awards style" you ARE inherently offering an alternative/solution - that of having the show honour the people in the undustry more. And that's exactly what most criticism I have seen does (not to mention the vast majority I have seen DO mention the GDC games, DICE, etc as examples of how an awards show can work).
2) The perception of the "gaming culture" WILL be influenced by a show such as this. Its just a fact, just like those tuning in to watch the Academy Awards do have their perceptions over films changed. Ttake for example the year when Avatar (a film I find partcularly mediocre, but thats a topic for another time) lost out to the great (indie) film The Hurt Locker) - during the build up to the awards, and after the awards themselves, the reven ue the Hurt Locker got was WAY more than their revenue just from film being seen when itcame out. Why? Because there is the perception from the public that the only films they will ejoy is the big budget Hollywood popcorn flicks, be it with poorly written "romance ("Sex and the City"), mediocre comedy (anything with Adam Sandler/Eddie Murphy/Judd Apatow etc) or massive explosions (Michael Bay, most other Summer Blockbusters). This is because thats where all the big PR and marketing money goes, into getting mainstream media to show the ads, to hype them up, and people follow like sheep. yet every year, when the Oscars comes around, you get a more refined, intelligent discussion of films in general, and in specifically the films nominated, and it DOES drive the general public to go outside their usual media-driven "taste" and go out and watch these films they wouldn't have watched, and, shock horror, usually they like them. To pretend that gaming is somehow different, that a similiar movement towards the games intelligently discussed, is unfortunately just the attitude that will keep games from achieving a more mainstream "acceptance".
3) Which leads on to my 3rd point - that of cost, and why Spike "have" to do the style of show they do in order to make ends meet. Even if an awards show is as expensive as you seem to think it is to produce for a national audience, we're NOT talking about a small, niche interest anymore. Not when games like MW3 SHATTER "entertainment launches" (as inMW3 has made more money than any film, ever - FACT) - and even so-called "less mainstream/bro" games like Skyrim make more than a THIRD OF A BILLION DOLLARS!!! The money is clearly there, when you have 10 million people on the FIRST DAY something is out queueing to purchase it, you should have zero problems finding enough money, from sponsors and advertisers, to produce an 1-2 hour long telecast. Suggesting that people will only watch an Video Game Awarts show to see C-list celebraties acting stupidly/talking with no knowledge about an issue (see Hulk Hogan, Charlie Sheen, etc), or people who ,ake games get treated poorly. is just fallacious. Unless you really are being *that* insulting about the general public, and the SpikeTV audience. When you have devices like the Wii, DS, PS3 and XBox, between them with global sales (in units) of upwards of 200 MILLION, even if a fraction of these consider themselves as gamers, you know there *is* interest of a show talking about artistic achievement on them.
4) As some on here have said, the Spike VGAs are *not* a step in the right direction towards the mainstream more accepting of gaming - in fact, it couldn't be further from the truth. All "the mainstream" have to do is to turn it out, see some guy who worked for months, nay years, on bring his artistic vision to a wider audience, get tea bagged by some idiots, or just treated like members of a niche hobby who should be outcasts, and the appeal of games to the mainstream *instantly* takes a hit. It does nothing but reinforce negative stereotypes (ones which we as a community tend to speak out against when the likes of the Daily Mail, Fox News, etc come out with them - unless you are saying we shouldn't do that either). Someone who doesn't see the appeakl of games will switch over, see this, and think "oh, I was right to not take this seriously, and maybe look into it. I won't enjoy this form of entertainment, Fox News/Daily Mail were right, all gamers are ". Having nothing on Spike TV would be better. Another network WILL notice the gap in the market (which there currently isn't, thanks to the VGAs), and WILL realise there is money to be made by having an awards show - and honestly, save maybe Fox, there really isn't a network out there who could do a WORSE job than Spike.
5) As some have said, maybe gaming is hampered by the fact that there isn't an industry wide academy, like there is in Film, which the mainstream media as a whole can get behind. Or at least, not in America. Over here in the UK, BAFTA (the British equivalent of the Academy in the States, who do an annual Film and TV awards show, again much like the Oscars, and ARE taking as seriously as the Academy, doing much good for film) realised a few years ago that gaming was an industry that they felt should be represented, and set up a subsidiary of themselves specifically for the promotion of, and judging of games. The result? The BAFTAs do each year award a series of awards, in much the same way as they do for film, and the mainstream press *do* cover these in much the same way as they cover the Oscards/BAFTAs ifor films. They don't feel like they need to play up the stereotypes, or spend more time advertising for companies their newest products, but they cover the awards, they note what excellence has meant to people. And as a result gaming gains more mainstream acceptance. What the VGAs do is both exactly the opposite of this, they discourage a body, whether it be the Academy, or not, to set up such a critical cross-industry panel, and they do set gaming acceptance as a result. Are what the Gaming BAFTAs do/arte perfect? No. but nor are the Oscars (especially with the move to 10 film shortlist for Best Picture, which has simply resulted in more mainstream, lowest common denominator films, like Avatar, being recognised in the nominees). But its a step in the right direction.
6) Looking at the content of the show - the absence of the awards themselves, save 1/2; the roping of celebs that clearly look disinterested; the pandering to the worstof stereotypes; the fact thaT 80% of the coverage is ADVERTS for gaming companies newest and biggest products, acting as hype generators - is this really what we want the public to think of when they think of games, and how the gaming industry *treats* the products they put out and their customers? Because thats what the VGAs do, and thats what the average Joe *will* think, when seeing such a charade. We instead *should* be criticising the awards for the sham they are, and showing that gaming should be taken more seriously, more artistically. We had a stpe forward with the Supreme Court's agreement with their take on whether Games are works of art, and as such artistic freedom given to (usually considered) more serious artforms should also be given to games. Let's embrace this, not shackle ourselves with the attitude of "gaming isn't seen by the mainstream to be artistically interesting enough to promote as a serious artform, and having it portrayed on tv as infantile and crass is therefore better then no coverage, which we would get if these stopped happening".
Thats it, rant over, sorry for the length.
