AGS Awards 2013! - Wieners (and winners)

[Volcan]

So here's my idea of a list:

I'm not seeing any issues with the current list of categories; we traditionally get sufficient and diverse votes for each. So I don't really see the point in reducing it. Perhaps we need to scrap one or two categories, but I think a proposal of "scrapping most of them" goes much too far.

With this in mind, these are the categories I think could be dropped without too much issue:

    Best Demo
    Best Player Character
    Best Non-Player Character
    Best Tutorial or Documentation

I still think other categories could be combined, though.  Maybe not to the extent that I recommended earlier, but some combinations wouldn't be unreasonable.

If the best demo is removed i'll remove my game from FYC topic.

[HandsFree]

The previous 2 years I had a small game out myself (although nowhere near award material) so I felt uncomfortable joining this discussion then, so I might as well join now.

If I understand correctly in 2012 the rule was that a game had to be added to the database during that year. As far as I'm concerned that's an ok rule for all the reasons posted by others, but if it's decided that from now the release year will be leading, then at least this year we should allow the games that weren't eligible for that reason last year.
Developers of Primordia and bakesale games, and possibly others, were led to believe that their games were allowed in 2013 because that was the year they added the games to the db; so to change the rules to the effect that they would have been eligible in 2012 after all but not now strikes me as unfair.

In my view the freeware games and hobby-developers are the backbone of the AGS community and as much as I liked the commercial AGS-games, I felt, with all the coverage those already get in gaming sites, that the free efforts were more deserving of the extra attention. So I also support the idea of giving commercial games their own category (or categories).

BTW I would consider bakesale games and other games that only add a price to give it to charity not commercial.

[Gribbler]

Personally I really like the "best character" awards, and I think the "best tutorial" is good to encourage more people to have their games come with clear intructions (and reward those who have done so). I can certainly get behind dropping "best demo", though.

+1
I also like non-player character category. I think it's a fun, sort of reminds me of best supporting actor/actress in movies

[AprilSkies]

Thanks for the inputs everyone!
The point I was asking opinions on is more specific, though.
In plain words, we face the case of a game which was released in 2012 but added to the DB way later (not just one or two days later, like SQII VGA, not because of technical problems as for some Bake Sale entries). I found it eligible for this year Awards but it seems a large majority is against this decision.
Since it is the first time this happens, it's appropriate to promptly decide on a general rule.
So please, clearly state your opinion on this circumscribed matter.

I would like to give my 2 cents about what bicilotti asked for.
Admitting a game released in another year to the AGS Awards is absolutely permissible, but the community must be careful and pay attention to one thing:
The awards are very famous, but not everyone knows how they work (I mean the players outside the community)
If the game we are talking about is very famous, everyone knows when it was released.
Everyone know because all the specialized sites talked about.
Community has to pay attention about that: the shadow of favoritism. This should not happen. People outside the community should not think that "AGS-site" promotes its AAA games, not making them compete each other (people outside don't know that it is a "users-decision").
So I think that it is absolutely permissible (I mean the admission to the awards), but the reason should be clear and explained well.

[Andail]

Alright, I've added a poll to guide us through these questions.

Note how there are 3 polls in 1 (each question having 3 options), which means you will only cast one vote per question. This instead of creating three different polls... I hope it's clear.

[DoorKnobHandle]

Voted. Thanks for setting it up, Andail!

[Ghost]

Vote cast. That was quick, Andail, thanks a lot

[CaptainD]

A vote!  A vote!  How exciting.

[Volcan]

I voted.

I'd suggest to keep that current rules for 2013 games to be fair for everybody but change them for 2014 games.

[PuNKKoMmANDO77]

Voted

Thanks for giving to us the decisional power.

[miguel]

Thank you Andail.
Whatever the decisions turn out it will be the community choice. Proud to be here.

[qptain Nemo]

Double post to assess this particular point: as I said adding the game to the database is the simplest way to state "deal me in, please". I have know at least one developer who purposely didn't add their game to the DB because they didn't want to be associated with the community (and I guess, with the Awards too). To sum sup: imho some kind of "submission rule" will be always needed, wherever you decide to technically draw the line.

Aaaaaand to restate a well known thought of mine: to prevent and counter the risk of inflation, we need less  categories, not more!

I suppose this eventually boils down to the meaning we choose to give to the awards. Because for me the preferred meaning would be documentalistic: I'd like the awards to represent each year of AGS gaming through the perception of players as accurately as possible, and as such the wish of the author to be represented or not doesn't matter. Just like whether voters are registered on the forums doesn't matter (so I'm with Peder on this one and from this POV commercial games getting more voters isn't a downside, because it simply represents the reality). However, to some people the meaning is clearly more social and is about active participation of authors in the competition process and in the community. If you take it that way of course it all matters. I don't want to impose my preference on anyone, especially considering how this conflict of views is not trivially resolvable at all, but obviously I'll still advocate it.

As for categories, I don't mind them being numerous. Again, from my POV I'd prefer more information to less. And I'll still harp on about how we need Best Comedy one (my argument is if a game's strongest point is being genuinely very amusing without having neither a strong storyline or beautiful graphics it doesn't have a chance at recognition despite its high entertainment value). But most importantly, for the love of CJ, don't conjoin Best Voice Acting and Best Music into one category. Please just don't. Seriously. I really hope I don't have to explain why.

[Andail]

Best comedy and other genre awards isn't a bad idea, and it looks like most people want a plethora of awards so it probably won't be a problem.

I'm personally more worried about there being only one commercial award, seeing how my TSP might end up competing against games like Nellie Cootalot 2, Kathy Rain, the latest Blackwell iteration and whatever other titles WEG are pushing this year, probably resulting in not even a nomination for me

[Adeel]

I'm personally more worried about there being only one commercial award, seeing how my TSP might end up competing against games like Nellie Cootalot 2, Kathy Rain, the latest Blackwell iteration and whatever other titles WEG are pushing this year, probably resulting in not even a nomination for me

Don't lose hope so soon, sir. With my vote, option 1 and 2 of First Question are tied. I'm keeping my fingers crossed for the second option.

[LimpingFish]

Why? You mean you wouldn't want the competition to be as inclusive as possible without some games lost to arbitrary trivial technicalities? I know I would and I say that as a player not as a developer. If my favourite game got excluded that way and I wouldn't be able to vote for it, I'd be even more pissed than I am about PISS. (pun not intended) And now I recall I actually was really pissed about Primordia as well. Let me ask you too, why not? What exactly is there to lose by trying to represent AGS gaming as accurately as possible and including all games we're aware of?

I want it to be inclusive, but I don't see the problem with leaving it to the developers to make sure their game is eligible. If my favourite game didn't appear in the database, and therefore wasn't included in the awards, I'd be disappointed, sure. I'd also be curious as to why it wasn't in the database in the first place, seeing as that's how award eligibility has been determined for a number of years.

I'm sure that if enough people call for change, though, new award rules will be introduced in the future.

I suppose this eventually boils down to the meaning we choose to give to the awards. Because for me the preferred meaning would be documentalistic: I'd like the awards to represent each year of AGS gaming through the perception of players as accurately as possible, and as such the wish of the author to be represented or not doesn't matter.

I disagree with this, only in so much as that I don't think a set of awards is the best way of achieving this. But as it stands, the awards are all about community to me, and as such should require the active participation (at least initially) of nominees.


EDIT: Voted.

[Ponch]

The bigger question still remains: Are we having the ceremony in the IRC channel (i.e. the friendly but run down community center in the bad, low rent part of town), or are we going to return to the posh and luxurious AGS Theater, the shiny jewel in the glittering heart of the city?

I VOTE THEATER!

[qptain Nemo]

I want it to be inclusive, but I don't see the problem with leaving it to the developers to make sure their game is eligible. If my favourite game didn't appear in the database, and therefore wasn't included in the awards, I'd be disappointed, sure. I'd also be curious as to why it wasn't in the database in the first place, seeing as that's how award eligibility has been determined for a number of years.

Well the problem is that it's not as clean cut as we'd like it to be. Sometimes the lack of presence in the database is a meaningful choice as you say. But sometimes it's not at all. It may be just an oversight (and one that may be too late to fix too even if the author wants to). Or reluctance to include a commercial game because there would be no free download for it. And the database does pose as a database of downloadable AGS games first and is only retrofitted to serve the awards second, which as far as I know actually discouraged developers from adding their games to the database for that reason. Yes, in most cases it indeed just works. But again, sometimes it becomes conflating meaningful choice with trivial mistakes and limitations of the system in place.

I disagree with this, only in so much as that I don't think a set of awards is the best way of achieving this.

*shrug* Perhaps, but I still definitely find it appealing and interesting enough.

I VOTE THEATER!

Me too. I'm even considering doing something to that effect, especially seeing as no one did the last time. I'm not making any promises of any sort whatsoever yet though.

[Ponch]

I VOTE THEATER!

Me too. I'm even considering doing something to that effect, especially seeing as no one did the last time. I'm not making any promises of any sort whatsoever yet though. !

Awesome! Best news I've heard all day! Thanks for promising to do this! 

[bicilotti]

edit: after a brief chat on IRC, I am questioning whether a community vote is the appropriate way of settling this (or any other matter, for what it is worth); of the online communities I am member of, the most thriving ones operate mostly by do-ocracy and consensus.
Below is my original post:

Spoiler

Thanks for setting this up Andail, voted.
The forum poll has problems though (being a forum poll):

• There is no way to express ranked preferences, hence failing the Condorcet criterion (in simple words: a selection might be the most voted but still lose in a head-to-head comparison). This is especially significant for question number two. If we end up with (example):
      - 7 votes for keeping the same numbers of awards
      - 5 for reducing them to ten
      - 4 for reducing the number to half
  There is a strong possibility that in a run-off option B would beat option A. I sense the same problem for question # 1
• Answers are not orthogonal (i.e. mutually exclusive, see question 3). There is some 'bleed-over' from question 1 to question 2 too (i.e. there is a clash should "keep numbers of categories low (around 5)" and "separate commercial class with several awards" both win)
• Maybe when there is a voting on rules (as opposed to a voting on persons/games), expressing preferences should be overt and possibly motivated (example from a very controversial ratification procedure)

Nitpicking much? Probably. Do I want to end up with something complicated like this? Not necessarily.
But as we are evolving as a community and ask the community to get involved, our decisional tools should be the best suited to attain participation, inclusion and technical merit.

edit II: unrelated, but thanks qptain & Limpin' for your interesting back and forth.

[close]

[dactylopus]

I voted.  It's interesting to see the breakdown of votes.