AGS Awards 2013! - Wieners (and winners)

[Snarky]

Maybe because with 3.000.000$ even a mountain gorilla would be able to do one of the best AGS game of the year?

No, a $3 mill. mountain gorilla might be able to fund one of the best AGS games. Talented people would still have to do the work.

Let's make an example to make my point more clear. A graduation / degree thesis for your Physics degree. You can pay Stephen Hawking 1.000.000$ to do that for you, or you can do that by yourself. If you choose the first option, and then the University is so happy with the resulting thesis that decides to publish it instead of another one did by a single student with his hard work, can you be proud of yourself? This is what I call being "unfairly good".

I might not have much to be proud of, but Stephen Hawking would. The analogy is inexact: It's more like I used the money to found a research institute, hire Stephen Hawking, and then the work he does gets published instead of other, less good work. There's nothing unfair about it whatsoever.

The AGS awards are awarded for the work. If a mountain gorilla or physics student hired talented people to do good work, then the credit properly goes to them. Even if I hired the best artists, writers, coders and game designers in the world to make a game for me, any AGS awards it won would not say "Winner: Snarky"; they would go to the game. A game that, in the end, I did not actually make.

But again, this discussion is besides the point, because we're not actually competing against million-dollar projects made by ringers. Even our professionals are indies. If some people or teams have an advantage (besides natural talent), it's mostly one they've made for themselves by just working hard and taking a chance on adventure game making as a real career.

Is there an adventure-game engine that has produced more games than AGS so far, anyway?

Games in general? Almost certainly not, there are more than a thousand known AGS games. Commercial games? Well, all told there's a fair number of commercial AGS games so far (a couple of dozen, maybe?), but it seems likely that some companies' proprietary engines exceed it. There's SCUMM (used by LucasArts and Humongous) and AGI/SCI (the Sierra engines), obviously. Probably whatever the Nancy Drew games use. In terms of publicly available engines, a number of commercial games (like Deponia) use Visionaire. And if you count Japanese-style games like Phoenix Wright, there are probably hundreds made in the most popular visual novel engines (I only know Ren'Py).

[Snarky]

(Ooops, sorry for the double-post!)

Could Bicilotti and Dualnames please confirm this is the case, because their earlier remarks in this thread don't mention this? As far as I'm aware no public statements have been made about this a year ago.

For example, check out this post, where bicilotti says "Patchwork and Cosmos Quest will have to wait until next year." (my emphasis): http://www.adventuregamestudio.co.uk/forums/index.php?topic=47401.msg636444154#msg636444154

(I didn't remember the bit about the Bake Sale games having been exempt from the restriction. Which just seems like a needless complication, and changes the rule from a technical requirement to something like a subjective judgment on whether games have a good excuse for not being in the database.)

See, the issue I have with the database entry date is that people have been known to make mistakes with that in the past, whereas the release date is a plain and simple fact. If anything, we sometimes adjust the database date to match the release date; clearly it's not possible to change a game's release date afterwards. So the release date is the most straightforward approach; everything else is bookkeeping. And bookkeeping is important, mind you, but bookkeeping keeps track of the facts, not the other way around.

I don't mean this as sophistry, but is the release date a plain and simple fact? I know at least one well-known AGS game (No-Action Jackson) that was never officially released: the version everyone plays was labeled a beta. Other games are released in a pretty unplayable state and then patched later. (Or for another example, what if you had released Heroine's Quest without voices in 2013, and then added a voice pack later on in 2014? For the VO category, how should the game be counted? ... Not that going by db dates makes that any simpler, of course.)

Unless you post an announcement on the forums, there's no real independent way to verify in retrospect when a game was released, either. (If you just put it up on your website, for example.)

[Radiant]

(I didn't remember the bit about the Bake Sale games having been exempt from the restriction. Which just seems like a needless complication, and changes the rule from a technical requirement to something like a subjective judgment on whether games have a good excuse for not being in the database.)

That's not subjective though, that means that for these games (as with Space Quest IIv), the eligibility criterion used was its release date (and, as per the poll above, a clear supermajority of the community supports this).

Indeed, it strikes me that in the past, whenever going by database date has been problematic, the issue was resolved by using release date instead! So based on that, I would say it's a good plan to use release date as the official criterion in the first place.

I don't mean this as sophistry, but is the release date a plain and simple fact? I know at least one well-known AGS game (No-Action Jackson) that was never officially released: the version everyone plays was labeled a beta.

Sorry, but NAJ was posted in the Completed Game Announcements forum by its author, so there's a clear timestamp from that. I don't see how a post in CGA wouldn't count as a release. I'm sure there might be an exception or two, but generally speaking a game's release date is an easily provable fact. We're not looking for big granularity here, we just want to know the year; the question is not whether this system is perfect, but whether it's preferable to going by database date.

(Or for another example, what if you had released Heroine's Quest without voices in 2013, and then added a voice pack later on in 2014?

There is actually precedent for this: the game would be eligible for most awards in 2013, and for "best voice acting" in 2014. That doesn't strike me as problematic as long as we're going by release date (in this case it's not even possible to go by database date, since the db doesn't keep dates for voice packs).

[Dualnames]

This is a silly discussion, frankly. Basically, we should let WHOEVER is the nice guy around and hosts the AGS awards to decide. Imagine if we had the same discussion about MAGS when I took it to its great game-frenzy making form. MAGS would still be about making a game a month, wait for the next month to vote, then make another. And that gave the ability to increase deadlines.

So, if we could please end this. Like the MAGS, the AGS awards should have one ruler, that should decide on all the bets, and that's the host, and there has been no respect towards that.
The host of the awards is what makes the awards what they are. If it wasn't bici, there wouldn't be an AGS irc ceremony game, the awards wouldn't be so organized and bicilotti wouldn't feel so drained. He has done a terrific job trying to keep controversy and be a just coordinator of the awards. I know putting Primordia may have been a wrong choice, but the team felt really stupid, when we forgot to last year, so I put it up and thought why not put it for nominations. It's not an attempt to get awards, it's an attempt to let people vote for it. If I cared about awards, the game would have been added to the database already, and I wouldn't bother spending time to fix bugs and go through feedback along with Wormwood studios.

Me, Mark Yohalem and Victor Pflug, along with Dave Gilbert, Nathaniel Chambers, and everyone that worked on this, worked hard to get a game done. I spent 2.5 years of my life coding. I didn't do it to get AGS awards.

[ThreeOhFour]

I foresee the classic "Janitor walks in and solves the problematic equation on the scientist's board" scenario occurring any day now.

[kconan]

  I posted a gentle reminder in the main Primordia game thread back in January; should have put that in the FYC thread instead.

[Andail]

This is a silly discussion, frankly. Basically, we should let WHOEVER is the nice guy around and hosts the AGS awards to decide. Imagine if we had the same discussion about MAGS when I took it to its great game-frenzy making form. MAGS would still be about making a game a month, wait for the next month to vote, then make another. And that gave the ability to increase deadlines.

So, if we could please end this. Like the MAGS, the AGS awards should have one ruler, that should decide on all the bets, and that's the host, and there has been no respect towards that.

It's fine that Bici can have the final say on a few things, and we're all thankful for his efforts, but why is it so odd that the community can help discuss the format and the rules?

These are prestigious awards, let's not pretend they don't matter.

"One ruler", with some sort of indisputable power to decide things, never works! this isn't North Korea!

And you can't compare this with Mags for vey obvious reasons. All this said, Dualnames, I think most people here, including me, have said that Primorida should be allowed to run this year, since you didn't think release dates mattered back then.

PS:
There's a rumpus thread over here, so let's keep this thread non-rumpus!

[dactylopus]

If the makers of Primordia and other games were told that they would be eligible this year, I see no reason to exclude them.  That said, I think that the release date should take precedence in the future, but that entry to the database could still be a requirement.

I see the reason for having a good number of categories, and I understand why Sound Effects, Music, and Voice should not be in the same category.  I only proposed that in reaction to the proposed removal of SFX and VO, which left only a Music category.  I thought it preferable in that case to combine them into a Sound category rather than scrap two of the three.  Either way, I don't think we're at risk of losing these categories anymore.

I have rethought my position on Commercial and Free games.  I now think Commercial games should be eligible for all awards, however I believe that there should be a Best Commercial Game, Best Freeware Game, and possibly even a Best Overall Game award.  I find this preferable to a complete split, and I'll credit Snarky's arguments for the persuasion.

In the end, bicilotti runs the show, and obviously gets the final say.  I'd like to say now that I appreciate all of the work that goes into arranging and hosting the awards.

[Snarky]

DB submission vs. Release date

That's not subjective though, that means that for these games (as with Space Quest IIv), the eligibility criterion used was its release date (and, as per the poll above, a clear supermajority of the community supports this).

I meant that I think it's subjective and unnecessarily complicated to have two different criteria that are applied to different games on a case-by-case basis. I'd rather have one simple rule. I think for practical reasons candidates should be in the games db, and I'm a bit leery of the organizers unilaterally going in and creating new entries (or messing with existing ones), so for that and other reasons already mentioned, I think the most straightforward rule would be to limit contestants to those submitted to the db in the year in question.

But it does seem that this view is in a minority, and if it is the considered decision of the community to base it on "release date" (whatever that might mean, precisely), I'm not strongly opposed. Always subject to bicilotti's approval and the actual practicality of the proposal, of course (which don't seem like major obstacles in this case).

I am strongly of the opinion that games that were not allowed to compete last year because they hadn't been submitted to the db should be included this year, but it doesn't seem like there's really much opposition to that view. (OTOH, if Dave was to now add Blackwell Convergence to the database, four-five years after its release, I don't think it should be allowed to compete. )

I also tend to think that creators should have the opportunity to decline to participate in the contest (as some people have in the past), and I'm curious how you all would propose to handle this if any game released in the year is automatically a candidate.

Commercial games
The biggest decision is probably what to do with commercial games. Shutting them out of all categories except for one special one doesn't seem right to me. After all, these are AGS games just like all others, and it just seems like terrible discrimination to exclude them almost completely. Separate awards for each category... well, it's cumbersome, but as long as there's still one overall "Best Game" no matter its commercial/free status, it might work. My preference is still for a joint competition, though.

I have rethought my position on Commercial and Free games. [...] and I'll credit Snarky's arguments for the persuasion.

Yay! Thanks! 

[AGA]

"One ruler", with some sort of indisputable power to decide things, never works! this isn't North Korea!

It's not the community who will be making the technical changes and actually administrating the Awards...

[Volcan]

I think there're no commercial games for MAGS. So MAGS won't apply with new ags awards rules.

I disagree with best overall game. A commercial game might win with that.

[qptain Nemo]

I think for practical reasons candidates should be in the games db, and I'm a bit leery of the organizers unilaterally going in and creating new entries (or messing with existing ones), so for that and other reasons already mentioned, I think the most straightforward rule would be to limit contestants to those submitted to the db in the year in question.

But if it's so important that the authors give their consent, why not just make the organizers ask them for it before adding each game? At least the organizers would actually have the power to fix things in case the consent is given, unlike an unlucky author who realized their mistake too late and can't fix anything with the current system. And if necessary they could be adding some kind of entries directly to the eligibility pool without adding it to the main db or something. I really don't like the idea of some extremely trivial technicality imposing limits on the actual needs of the task at hand.

[Abisso]

It seems most of what I said has been either misinterpreted or reduced to its less important aspects.

I repeat here: what is the original sense of the Awards? Celebrating games made with AGS, independently from their budget? If this was (and still is) the case, the whole matter is simply irrelevant. All games should be allowed, there should be no separate categories, and no "Best Free" or "Best Commercial". Because if the philosophy is "they are AGS games, non matter what", then what's the point of having even those special Awards? It seems totally illogical to me.

Speaking of the admission criteria, I see a lot of unnecessary confusion as well. What I suggest is that release date should be a requirement: there is, the release date has to be the year before the one when the related Awards Celebration takes place. This, however, doesn't prevent us to add another requirement like, for example, the insertion in the games database (or any other reasonable one). If that had been the case, there would have been no doubt at all for the admissibility of Primordia.
It's been released in 2012? Then it's not eligible. Period.
And let's take Forge: Chapter One as another example.
Has it been released in 2013? Yes. Has it been inserted in the database in 2013? No. So it's not eligible. Period.

With this couple of requirements (release date + insertion date) the eventual issue of an author not wanting his game to participate is fixed as well.

That said, this is not the solution I prefer: as I explained I have a totally different view on both the topics. But let's forget that.

I know putting Primordia may have been a wrong choice, but the team felt really stupid, when we forgot to last year, so I put it up and thought why not put it for nominations. It's not an attempt to get awards, it's an attempt to let people vote for it. If I cared about awards, the game would have been added to the database already, and I wouldn't bother spending time to fix bugs and go through feedback along with Wormwood studios.

Me, Mark Yohalem and Victor Pflug, along with Dave Gilbert, Nathaniel Chambers, and everyone that worked on this, worked hard to get a game done. I spent 2.5 years of my life coding. I didn't do it to get AGS awards.

It seems to me that Primordia isn't the focus of the discussion any more, it's just the pretext to analyse an already existing problem. I doubt anyone here would be pissed off in case it's allowed (maybe the exact opposite) and I doubt anyone thinks you and your team have elaborated a cunning plan to steal Awards. I don't, for sure.

In the end, I think the best solution would be to admit that game and any other that were inserted in the games database in 2013, since it seems the current rules are unclear on the admissibility of a game whose database insertion year is 2013. Of course this "amnesty" should be done only for this particular edition of the Awards.
Then we should come up with a common and widely accepted set of rules for the 2014 (and following) Awards.

[Gribbler]

I was wondering, have guys ever considered Golden Raspberry version of AGS Awards? It might be a fun thing to do. Especially for people not taking everything so seriously such as myself. I would be actually more than happy to win, I don't know, "most cliche puzzle" or "dullest dialogs" Better than nothing And I could finally wore a tuxedo

[AGA]

I was wondering, have guys ever considered Golden Raspberry version of AGS Awards? It might be a fun thing to do. Especially for people not taking everything so seriously such as myself. I would be actually more than happy to win, I don't know, "most cliche puzzle" or "dullest dialogs" Better than nothing And I could finally wore a tuxedo

It used to exist.

[Ghost]

I disagree with best overall game. A commercial game might win with that.

And again, why shouldn't it?

[Problem]

I'd prefer an additional "Best Free Game" award. If a free game also wins the "Best Game" award, then it really deserves both awards. And if a commercial game wins, then there's still an award for the best free game.

[Snarky]

Yeah, I like that idea, Problem.

I disagree with best overall game. A commercial game might win with that.

And again, why shouldn't it?

Indeed. In fact, that's rather the point: An award to honor the best game made with AGS, all other considerations aside.

Even if Monsanto, the NSA and Al Qaida made a game together, having kidnapped and enslaved all the world's best artists, coders and game designers, and sold it to raise money for an Adolf Hitler Memorial... if it really was the best gosh-darned AGS game made that year, it would be up for the Best Game award.

It seems most of what I said has been either misinterpreted or reduced to its less important aspects.
Speaking of the admission criteria, I see a lot of unnecessary confusion as well. What I suggest is that release date should be a requirement: there is, the release date has to be the year before the one when the related Awards Celebration takes place. This, however, doesn't prevent us to add another requirement like, for example, the insertion in the games database (or any other reasonable one). If that had been the case, there would have been no doubt at all for the admissibility of Primordia.

But this would not be a good set of rules, since it gets us into exactly the kind of situation we want to avoid, where a game was released in one year but the authors simply forgot to add it to the database until later, and so it ends up being disqualified from participating both the year of release and the year of database submission.

[selmiak]

[...] however I believe that there should be a Best Commercial Game, Best Freeware Game, and possibly even a Best Overall Game award.  [...]

Best Overall Game award is needed and if the game winning the Best Overall Game award also wins the Best Commercial Game or Best Freeware Game award (which is very likely) it should only be the best game this year and not also the other thing. the other subcategory winning game can keep this award then. my 2 cents.

[m0ds]

Also agree with Problem and some others - "Best Freeware Game" award seems like a decent and simple solution. It's the "free games" that are feeling left out, so better to make an award for that category rather than categories for commercial games IMO. Winning that and Best Game (overall) as freeware would be an honour indeed.