Why I Am Patient With The VGAs
- Thread starter Dennis Scimeca
- Start date
Agreed.Dennis Scimeca said:
People go to SpikeTV for a small number of things. Nuance, class, or respectable journalism are not among them. It was started to cater to a particular audience in a particular way, and they've made quite a bit of money doing so. They're not going to bite the hand that feeds them.
At the same time, we can expect that people who are looking at respectable outlets to provide information on forming a well-constructed opinion of the video game industry (and culture) are probably not looking for it on SpikeTV. When I want a good steak, I don't go to Burger King. At the same time, if Burger King started serving steak, I would be understandably skeptical of its quality.
But above all these concerns is the larger issue: There is no "gaming culture." That is to say, there is no single set of culture norms that define it. Gaming is a medium in the same way a hammer is a tool -- it can be used many different ways, none of which are (necessarily) more valid than the others.
Apply this logic to film, and let's assume there's a "movie culture." Do we really mean to group feature films, documentaries, kids' cartoons, and porn into one broad heading, and assume that all such headings are united simply by virtue of the medium they use? Even the Oscars divide things up quite a bit (and don't show all of the awards on TV). Interestingly, they also completely disregard certain uses of the film medium (still no "Best Screenplay in a Pornographic Film" caption, for instance).
And arguing against the Spike VGAs because it doesn't represent the "industry" or the "culture" in the right way would be like the folks behind the Academy Awards protesting the existence of an awards show specifically for porn. It may not represent out preferred view of the gaming industry, but it represents the views and values of a pretty large section.
"Gamer" is no longer a meaningful and unifying label any more than say, "vertebrates." You can't expect one show to be all things to all people.
You touch briefly on a point I'd like to see debated: Given the criticisms of the VGAs (which, as you say, may or may not be justified), how many of us would rather see these VGAs than none at all? That, I think, gets to the heart of how essential an awards show really is for the medium (and I don't mean just videogames, but any sort of awards show).
Another critique worth looking at, I think, is the counter-argument that the VGAs themselves don't change anyone's opinion. Rather, those who've already embraced the ridiculous stereotype will simply look at the VGAs as justification of their point. I don't think they will change anyone's mind. And yes, there are many people who will gleefully embrace even the most ridiculous stereotypes. We're no strangers on this site to the sort of panic-stricken verbal diarrhoea that tabloids like the Daily Mail push out to anyone willing to read it. And given the seeming plethora of people willing to believe anything they hear in "the media", whatever their "media" of choice are, would suggest that there could well be an effect.
Personally? I think there are so many awards shows, in general, for so many different forms of entertainment, that they've largely ceased to be relevant. I suspect that much of the public only pays attention when something "shocking" or "interesting" happens. Given that, I would suspect that the possibility of said "shocking" event is especially high for anything broadcast on Spike, let alone the VGAs, so I would suspect that they are, at best, an unnecessary distraction.
Another critique worth looking at, I think, is the counter-argument that the VGAs themselves don't change anyone's opinion. Rather, those who've already embraced the ridiculous stereotype will simply look at the VGAs as justification of their point. I don't think they will change anyone's mind. And yes, there are many people who will gleefully embrace even the most ridiculous stereotypes. We're no strangers on this site to the sort of panic-stricken verbal diarrhoea that tabloids like the Daily Mail push out to anyone willing to read it. And given the seeming plethora of people willing to believe anything they hear in "the media", whatever their "media" of choice are, would suggest that there could well be an effect.
Personally? I think there are so many awards shows, in general, for so many different forms of entertainment, that they've largely ceased to be relevant. I suspect that much of the public only pays attention when something "shocking" or "interesting" happens. Given that, I would suspect that the possibility of said "shocking" event is especially high for anything broadcast on Spike, let alone the VGAs, so I would suspect that they are, at best, an unnecessary distraction.
I agree that the people bashing the VGAs should do more to promote the much better awards that are out there, but to everything else...no. The VGAs aren't bad because they're shitty ambassadors for our hobby (which they are), they're bad by the objective measure of any program or awards. They're just bad. They're shit television and they're shit as awards. If I had no interest in gaming one way or the other, my opinion of them would be just as low as my opinion of them as a gamer. They're pathetic, and pretending otherwise just denigrates all the better things associated with them.
If the choice is the VGAs or nothing, nothing would be preferable. If we ever get decent, televised awards, it won't be because the VGAs were working as some kind of proof of concept. It'll be set up on its own merits...or more likely, come about because of the exact same criticism and backlash you're saying we should stop. Nothing ever improved because people eased up and laid off. Settling for the best we've got when the best we've got is shit is completely wrong and it shows no demand for something better.
Unless Spike TV is engaged in some kind of Ozymandias-style plan to force people to create something better in response, they're not going to do any good and they don't deserve to be let off easy. Criticism is what leads to improvement, not giving shit a free pass.
If the choice is the VGAs or nothing, nothing would be preferable. If we ever get decent, televised awards, it won't be because the VGAs were working as some kind of proof of concept. It'll be set up on its own merits...or more likely, come about because of the exact same criticism and backlash you're saying we should stop. Nothing ever improved because people eased up and laid off. Settling for the best we've got when the best we've got is shit is completely wrong and it shows no demand for something better.
Unless Spike TV is engaged in some kind of Ozymandias-style plan to force people to create something better in response, they're not going to do any good and they don't deserve to be let off easy. Criticism is what leads to improvement, not giving shit a free pass.
I think your missing the point of a lot of the criticism.
The thing about the SPIKE VGA show is that it creates and reinforces what gamers are. The problem with the stereotype presented here is it's an accurate representation of the audience that plays video games already due to the mainstreaming of the medium. You don't see anyone's opinions changing based on the VGA because this is what they already thought to begin with.
The thing is that video games need to work on trying to improve it's audience and increase their capabilities, making games something people strive to improve themselves in order to play... to uplift the audience so to speak. The VGAs pretty much say "this is what games are" and then wallows gleefully in that cultural stye.
The problem is that serious games are substantial in number, but are outnumbered within their own medium. The thing that annoys us is that while this awards show is going on we know there are probably a bunch of Bros out their fist-pumping in joy over seeing their mentality and take on gaming reinforced, and encouraging more of the behavior.
When you watch a TV show and see some young man video gaming for example, like a drug dealer, or someone's kid, or whatever, what kind of game is usually on the TV screen? If you have a video game being played in the backround who is playing it? You see shooters, and typically "bros" for the most part respectively. You might occasionally see some bit with a nerd mention playing a real video game or an MMO, but rarely anything that gives a positive reinforcement of what gaming could be, and often badly presented. The issue here is that the VGAs reinforce an existing perception that needs to be overcome.
When it comes to how game developers are treated, again that says a lot about the audience. See, your typical gamer doesn't really give a crap about how the games are made, by who, or what they think. They just want to watch digital versions of their favorite athletes throw balls around, or blow crap up with guns or whatever. They are there to watch the games almost exclusively and see reinforcement of the kind of thing they want. There is little or no appreciation for the people BEHIND the games, in fact if they could do the awards show without needing to have people show up to collect the awards and fill out some space they probably wouldn't be there to begin with... and that's part of the problem with the audience. Movies at least uplifted the audience to the point where we recognize actors, directors, and creators and probably know something about each of them and what goes into their various roles. As such, who is going to win "Best Director" is as big a deal for most people watching the Oscars, as say Best Picture.
To be honest, I'd rather see no awards show at all than the VGA.
I think the biggest problem is that we don't really have an "Academy" or the equivilent to recognize the achievements and give awards. As a result we seem mostly the industry patting itself on the back as a promotional vehicle, or a focus on the lowest-common-denominator with the products which again comes down to money and promotional value.
In principle "The Academy" (as far as it goes) would probably be handing out awards whether it got on TV or not nowadays, and with them comes a lot of professional credit within the acting community. It works on TV and supports itself with advertising because enough people know enough about the medium and are invested enough in it to be interested and care about the stars and celebrties involved... especially seeing as this is the work that made them stars and celebrities to begin with.
Right now video gaming basically needs a central critical organization with little or no direct financial involvement with the product (heh, even The Oscars seem to have problems with that) to evaluate and rate the product and people in the industry without any real concern for what it might do to careers (again heh). SPIKE's VGAs are not that, it's a promotional/money making platform that doesn't even disguise what it is with no respect for gaming as a medium, and only how much money it makes and how many units it moves.
While I don't always agree with them, at least on principle I think The Academy is right in how it tends look at serious films in most cases, while brushing the soulless popcorn fodder to the wayside. Things like "Modern Warfare 3" which are the video gaming equivilent of "The Expendables" might make a lot of money, but don't deserve any kind of critical recognition for being great, or even good, games even if they are entertaining to a lot of people. The VGA's however realizes that it can benefit from catering to all the FPS bros in screaming the praises of a game like that (I don't know how well it actually fared, I'm talking about a trend more than anything).
The thing about the SPIKE VGA show is that it creates and reinforces what gamers are. The problem with the stereotype presented here is it's an accurate representation of the audience that plays video games already due to the mainstreaming of the medium. You don't see anyone's opinions changing based on the VGA because this is what they already thought to begin with.
The thing is that video games need to work on trying to improve it's audience and increase their capabilities, making games something people strive to improve themselves in order to play... to uplift the audience so to speak. The VGAs pretty much say "this is what games are" and then wallows gleefully in that cultural stye.
The problem is that serious games are substantial in number, but are outnumbered within their own medium. The thing that annoys us is that while this awards show is going on we know there are probably a bunch of Bros out their fist-pumping in joy over seeing their mentality and take on gaming reinforced, and encouraging more of the behavior.
When you watch a TV show and see some young man video gaming for example, like a drug dealer, or someone's kid, or whatever, what kind of game is usually on the TV screen? If you have a video game being played in the backround who is playing it? You see shooters, and typically "bros" for the most part respectively. You might occasionally see some bit with a nerd mention playing a real video game or an MMO, but rarely anything that gives a positive reinforcement of what gaming could be, and often badly presented. The issue here is that the VGAs reinforce an existing perception that needs to be overcome.
When it comes to how game developers are treated, again that says a lot about the audience. See, your typical gamer doesn't really give a crap about how the games are made, by who, or what they think. They just want to watch digital versions of their favorite athletes throw balls around, or blow crap up with guns or whatever. They are there to watch the games almost exclusively and see reinforcement of the kind of thing they want. There is little or no appreciation for the people BEHIND the games, in fact if they could do the awards show without needing to have people show up to collect the awards and fill out some space they probably wouldn't be there to begin with... and that's part of the problem with the audience. Movies at least uplifted the audience to the point where we recognize actors, directors, and creators and probably know something about each of them and what goes into their various roles. As such, who is going to win "Best Director" is as big a deal for most people watching the Oscars, as say Best Picture.
To be honest, I'd rather see no awards show at all than the VGA.
I think the biggest problem is that we don't really have an "Academy" or the equivilent to recognize the achievements and give awards. As a result we seem mostly the industry patting itself on the back as a promotional vehicle, or a focus on the lowest-common-denominator with the products which again comes down to money and promotional value.
In principle "The Academy" (as far as it goes) would probably be handing out awards whether it got on TV or not nowadays, and with them comes a lot of professional credit within the acting community. It works on TV and supports itself with advertising because enough people know enough about the medium and are invested enough in it to be interested and care about the stars and celebrties involved... especially seeing as this is the work that made them stars and celebrities to begin with.
Right now video gaming basically needs a central critical organization with little or no direct financial involvement with the product (heh, even The Oscars seem to have problems with that) to evaluate and rate the product and people in the industry without any real concern for what it might do to careers (again heh). SPIKE's VGAs are not that, it's a promotional/money making platform that doesn't even disguise what it is with no respect for gaming as a medium, and only how much money it makes and how many units it moves.
While I don't always agree with them, at least on principle I think The Academy is right in how it tends look at serious films in most cases, while brushing the soulless popcorn fodder to the wayside. Things like "Modern Warfare 3" which are the video gaming equivilent of "The Expendables" might make a lot of money, but don't deserve any kind of critical recognition for being great, or even good, games even if they are entertaining to a lot of people. The VGA's however realizes that it can benefit from catering to all the FPS bros in screaming the praises of a game like that (I don't know how well it actually fared, I'm talking about a trend more than anything).
Well, if givin the choice between the Spike VGAs and nothing, Ill take nothing everytime. I know Spike does with the VGAs because they have to make money off of it, thus why I would perfer they didnt do the VGAs at all.
Never heard of the VGAs outside of the video game community complaining about them, so... do a lot of people watch these? Does anyone outside of the video game community care? And consider it's Spike TV, so how many, and what demographics, are watching that anyway? [Not that I watch Spike TV either, I'm not American.]
Basically, while they may be terrible... do they have any public impact?
Basically, while they may be terrible... do they have any public impact?
I like this article. You make some very good points although I think that some of your criticisms may be misguided.
For one, this year I think the Felicia Day segments may have been stereotypical (and funny... let's face it, real life Fruit Ninja with a sword is awesome) but I think that much of the humour was done as satirical and making fun of the stereotypes. Whether or not these reinforce others misconceptions about it are another matter altogether.
Personally I love the VGAs. Yes, I think that their selections may be absolutely wrong in many cases and I have no idea how Madden 04 beat KOTOR and Wind Waker in 2003, but I believe this is a necessary step in the right direction. Spike TV should be applauded for going through with this undertaking.
It's story time boys and girls...
I hope most of you know what the UFC is. For those that do, I saw an interview with Dana White (the president of the UFC) and he said that they had almost shut down when they decided to do a reality show on Spike TV called The Ultimate Fighter. That single-handedly introduced thousands of people to mixed martial arts and saved the UFC.
While we may not think much of Spike TV, we have to give them credit for their role in the grand scheme of things.
For one, this year I think the Felicia Day segments may have been stereotypical (and funny... let's face it, real life Fruit Ninja with a sword is awesome) but I think that much of the humour was done as satirical and making fun of the stereotypes. Whether or not these reinforce others misconceptions about it are another matter altogether.
Personally I love the VGAs. Yes, I think that their selections may be absolutely wrong in many cases and I have no idea how Madden 04 beat KOTOR and Wind Waker in 2003, but I believe this is a necessary step in the right direction. Spike TV should be applauded for going through with this undertaking.
It's story time boys and girls...
I hope most of you know what the UFC is. For those that do, I saw an interview with Dana White (the president of the UFC) and he said that they had almost shut down when they decided to do a reality show on Spike TV called The Ultimate Fighter. That single-handedly introduced thousands of people to mixed martial arts and saved the UFC.
While we may not think much of Spike TV, we have to give them credit for their role in the grand scheme of things.
While I agree with everything you said, the sad state of affairs would be that this medium even lacks a decent amount of critics.Therumancer said:
We've got a lot of reviewers who tend to write the shopping guides for us, but when was the last time you saw someone dissect the gameplay systems, artistry or sound design and comment on it in a more meaningful way than "meh." or "compelling!".
There is a reason why media outlets are exactly that and called "enthusiast press" for a reason. It is very hard to find a critic amongst all the reviewers.
An academy would have to consist of critics for all different aspects of video games.
The problem might even run deeper with the issue of evaluating an "achievement" or giving value to certain properties of a game. Reviewers are pretty much off the hook and are always free to say "I did/didn't like it and a review is an opinion", where a critic will always be able to deconstruct the relevant aspects and explain in great detail why something is not working.
For that to happen, it would require some standards in understanding the integral parts of a game.
If you look across all different publications, one has to notice that there is not even a general consensus on the genres that games fall under, not even mentioning a truly common vocabulary.
Those things are still shaping up and events like GDC are a pretty good place to look for such agreements upon standards. I'll have to agree with Mr. Scimeca that it will take time, but it might be a good idea to ignore and forget the VGA's as they are now until some of those prerequisites are met.
The guys at GWJ suggested in their podcast that PennyArcade might be able to organize something like an honest award show for developers and games and I have to agree with them.
Not because they belong to the "webcomic creator pair", but because they have shown the ability to handle gamers and the industry with respect and from the perspective of a gamer, while also being able to step into the background when necessary.
But coming back to the article, I just want to add that it is perfectly fine to say "I do not like this" without offering a detailed description to the problem. This counts even double for "not offering a solution/alternative".
It is ridiculous to expect such knowledge and to require it in order to complain about something. I mean, that is like not being allowed to complain about the taste of a certain food if you are not able to explain the exact molecular changes required to make it better.
In fact, this is not even our job as an audience. It is their job to come up with a decent offering and we get to say if we like it or not - it's that simple.
While you individually have good points about the commentary, your premise is wrong. One need not provide an alternative. Sometimes things are just bad and should not be. For instance, I will argue that rape is wrong. I do not need to provide an alternative to rape to argue this. The alternative is clear: DO NOT RAPE. That's an extreme example but sometimes it's fine to realize that something is just bad and shouldn't be. Whether that's true of the VGAs or not is another question, but not all criticism requires one provide an alternative. Case-in-point: Hans shooting first. It just shouldn't be.
This article seems rather purposefully wrong in some aspects(the audience does nto have to give reasons to criticism. if the community does not like it, they have the job to change it to our liking, or not if they dont care about us, and teabagging in front of an audience, as well as reprsenting Felicia Day as just another whore is and always will be unnacceptable, by any human standards). This segment and your previous seem very...Kotaku-ish for some reason.
This is only somewhat tangentially related, but what the hell happened with Felicia Day? I keep hearing booth babe stuff but when I tried to google it, I didn't find anything related to happening at the VGAs. I have no idea what's going on. Can someone tell me what happened?
She had to do a couple of real-life games that were partially adapted from video games (i.e. Fruit Ninja with a real katana). It's nothing horrible per se, but it didn't really fit into the context of an award show, even if they did it to raise money for Child's Play.Eri said:
The whole thing just was awkward to watch and felt a bit unnecessary.
Stuff like that would have worked on Club Disney maybe, but not at a show that is supposed to award people for the work that they have poured into their craft over the last 2-3 years.
On the contrary, she had one of the most honest sounding and best introductions when it came to handing out the award to Blizzard (I think it was Blizzard and the "Gaming God" award - oh my ... "Gaming God" award...)
First:Dennis Scimeca said:
Do I think the average person watches the VGAs? Nope. None what so ever.
Do I think that people who don't play video games have seen the VGAs as they flip to other channels? Definitely.
Second:
What about the controversy surrounding the stunts EA pulled for marketing their games(Sin to win and Your mom will hate this game)? Does the average person look down on gamers because of the actions of a single company?
HELL YES!
The same goes for the VGAs. A person doesn't have to actively watch something like this to develop a point of view on the subject. A person only has to hear about the stupid and immature things they do on the show to develop a perspective about video games in general.
Yes, award shows like Spike TV's and the thankfully extinct GPhoria do harm to the public appearance of "gamers", now more than ever. While I agree that the more extreme examples of any field WILL be ignored by the majority because they are blatantly ridiculous you have to keep in mind that that also relys on there being a counter-example. Given that there is no tastefully organized and televised video game award show Spike TV is all the public has.
Well not only would I rather have no awards show than the VGAs, but I've also seen firsthand some of the utter crap that gamers get shackled with because of the VGAs. Thanks to this "awards show" many people have considered me a "man-child", been unable to take me seriously simply because I'm a gamer, and have actually shot me down for potential opportunities because "gamers can't handle responsibility". I've even had employers say that they won't hire me because, and I quote, "I've seen what people who play video games are like from that Spike TV awards thingy. Your kind are definitely not the image we want to have here." This is all simply because I play games and they've seen the VGAs, nothing more. They do nothing but reinforce the negative stigma so many people have about video games, and you don't need to watch the VGAs to have them color your opinion on games.
The VGAs do more harm than good, and I would rather our medium be banished into obscurity again than have to put up with the image and stereotypes that utter drivel paints us as. If we had another awards show for the VGAs to be a counter to then things would be different, but with only an awards show of that caliber being available to the general public it's a miracle that anyone takes video games seriously as a medium.
The VGAs do more harm than good, and I would rather our medium be banished into obscurity again than have to put up with the image and stereotypes that utter drivel paints us as. If we had another awards show for the VGAs to be a counter to then things would be different, but with only an awards show of that caliber being available to the general public it's a miracle that anyone takes video games seriously as a medium.
What happened during the awards was ridiculous and demeaning. As much as I support the idea of having a video game award show, they need, NEED, to be more sophisticated than the VGAs. They also need to not be on Spike TV. I mean, on-stage teabagging is freaking stupid and immature. Is that what people think of gamers? Is that what they see? A person could only use the Spike TV VGAs as evidence to support claims of gamer culture being immature and childish.
