Not wishing to make the jobs of those organising this even more arduous than it already must be, but...
What if we had separate awards for Best Commercial AGS Game and Best Freeware AGS Game?
With an increasing number of games going commercial, it seems fitting that we would consider splitting the prestigious Best Game award into two. (Yeah I know The Journey Down won it as a freeware game... but still!)
I do agree. It would be nice to see freeware and commercial games have their seperate categories.
Releasing freeware so the public can play games for free is an award in itself if you ask me.
Totally agree with you guys.
I think that although the AGS Engine is building a solid name thanks to those magnificent commercial titles, the freeware games are the roots of this community and in most cases a one-man-does-it-all thing.
Separate awards would even the balance, in my opinion.
Makes sense to me. That way Vince Twelve's next game might not win every single award!
Not that it didn't deserve the awards of course, but a high quality commercial offering shouldn't necessarily be graded the same way as a high quality freeware one.
I agree with all above and I think there are now enough commercial AGS games each year to justify it.
I do think every award ceremony needs its one big Best-in-Show award. The Oscars has 'Best Picture', the Grammys has 'Record of the Year', so I think it doesn't hurt to have one main 'Best AGS Game', commercial or otherwise. Then why not have 'Best Freeware AGS Game' as the secondary (but equally prestigious) title?
Quote from: CaptainD on Thu 28/03/2013 11:03:44
What if we had separate awards for Best Commercial AGS Game and Best Freeware AGS Game?
I was thinking the same. Good point.
I was saying the same thing on my stream recently, 100% agreed.
I agree. Makes a lot sense. It's a good way to reward people who choose not to demand money for their product.
I think a few of the other awards may, in return, be up for removal. Alternatively, we implement a jury of some sort. The way one game tends to get virtually all the awards is a bit unfortunate. Not saying Resonance didn't deserve all its awards this time, but there's certainly a trend. A jury could be involved either in the nomination phase, or the final voting.
I'm curious to see some data on this. Could somebody make a list of all games nominated for the last three years, and point out how many of them are commercial? Are all or most of the winning games actually commercial games?
Strongly oppose.
I seems to me that this is a reaction to Resonance scooping the loot. Having a paid team might give you an advantage in some techical categores (such as best animations, best character art, best backgrounds, etc.) but other than that, commercial and freeware games compete on the same turf.
Resonance won Game, Gameplay, Dialogue, Puzzles and Gameplay because it was developed with love, blood, sweat & tears for five long years by a talented and dedicated individual.
This exceptional result was, well, exceptional! I don't think we will face something like that in the next five years.
More in general, I am against introducing new awards; on the contrary, I would axe a few of them!
The awards are (or should be) a very important showcase for AGS, of its community, of what it can do as a piece of software. The best stuff, period.
Too many awards and we are diluting the importance of them. This year we had 19 awards: do we really need Best SFX? or a plethora of technical awards? Or one award for best Puzzles and another one for best Gameplay? Or even Best Non Adventure? Do we really need one award more?
Compare our categories with the IGF awards (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_Games_Festival#IGF_Competition_award_history): they have 9 categories, with many many many more games competing!
To sum up: I am against inflating the awards :P
interesting sidenote: few years ago people were willing to introduce "Best Commercial Game", to kind of 'protect' those games (sort of an 'affirmative action'); it was probably thought that, as commercial productions, few people played them. Searching I found this (http://www.adventuregamestudio.co.uk/forums/index.php?topic=37767.msg530066#msg530066), but I recall another, more elaborate proposal.
Oh, and than you CaptainD for starting this thread: I usually try to push a 'AGS Awards discussion' around October/November, but it's not that they have been extremely crowded ;)
edit: grammar fixing
You make some good points Bici. I do disagree on one thing, though it's not wholly related to the OP. I think the Non-Adventure category is very important. You said yourself that the Awards are a showcase, and I think the award is a good way to show off the versatility of AGS.
I would just like to point out that my post was not a knee-jerk reaction to Resonance! I loved Resonance and, whilst it was a shame for other games that they didn't get a look-in, I wouldn't say that Resonance won any categories that it did not deserve to win.
My idea was more a combination of two things...
- whilst I have been playing AGS games for probably more than a decade now, it's only the last 3 years that I've nominated and voted, and this year's was the first time I've actually attended the awards ceremony. I wouldn't have thought of this or put forward the idea before simply because I was (shamefully) pretty much unaware of the whole AGS awards thing.
- mainly it was a reflection of the fact that the number of AGS-made games that people are selling has increased considerably; the indie adventure game market (inside and outside the AGS community) has reached a maturity it could not have dreamt of a few years ago.
But anyway, just an idea! ;-D
@bicilotti - thanks for the thanks! Again this is more a reflection of me being aware of and interested in the awards now (at long last... :-[)
I'm not sure it's fair to characterise it as a reaction to Resonance winning lots of awards. I'm sure everyone here would agree it thoroughly deserved them and it is right that commercial games like that (Gemini Rue, Cat Lady, Journey Down etc.) are showcased and recognised by the community also.
I also don't think it's right to judge freeware and commercial games on the same turf. If we did so then, with respect to all concerned, there would not be many freeware games here that anyone got that excited about. For instance, I happily consider many freeware games made here as excellent, and a lot more as very good, but if I'd had to pay money for them I would likely view them differently. Only my own perspective obviously.
Furthermore, I feel that it should be the case that a commercial game is better than a freeware game, otherwise why is the creator charging/not charging for it?
Personally I would like to see the honours shared and both types of game rewarded in separate categories of some kind. I'm not saying that Blackwell Epiphany or Resonance 2 etc. wouldn't deserve to clean up at a future award ceremony, but it would be nice to see non commercial games recognised alongside them in one or more specific category.
Quote from: Stupot+ on Thu 28/03/2013 12:15:37
I do think every award ceremony needs its one big Best-in-Show award. The Oscars has 'Best Picture', the Grammys has 'Record of the Year', so I think it doesn't hurt to have one main 'Best AGS Game', commercial or otherwise. Then why not have 'Best Freeware AGS Game' as the secondary (but equally prestigious) title?
That would imply that freeware games have non chance against commercial titles. And if a freeware game wins boths the best game and best freeware we have the same situation.
The (my) solution would be to either have best game, best freeware game and best commercial game, which would mean 2 more new awards or have both, best freeware and best commercial game, and whichever game gets more votes earns the best game of the year and the best freeware/commercial title is just deleted (or included if this sounds better). Or have indeed three categories best game, best freeware, best commercial and then decide by the votes and if best game of the year wins also best freeware or best commercial game this is just taken away (or included) (considering the very slim possibility of something completely different winning best game of the year and none of the best freeware/commercial because of whatever).
Doesn't community have "Pick of the Month" awards? :)
I think it's a fair way to make a note of amateur games.
This way you may award as much as 12 games per year!
Haha. "Not to say Resonance didn't deserve those awards, but..." I feel like the mafia or something. I'm going to break your legs if you suggest I didn't deserve all those awards! :P We can discuss the suggestions in this thread on their merits without worrying about my feelings, you guys!
I don't know if Commercial vs Freeware is the solution, but I do agree that having one game sweep the awards makes it less fun. (It also makes the winner not know how to address that without sounding like a dick. So, sorry if I sound like a... well... dick.)
I like the jury idea (either in the nominations or final voting phase) and it might work as long as the jury is diverse enough and really dedicated to playing all the games. I remember this being suggested several years ago as well and supporting it.
The awards should be fun, first and foremost though, and having a jury might make it less fun for those not on the jury. But still, just voting for one title across the board en masse is less fun.
Edit: Besides, we have to change the rules now so that Resonance will forever remain the winningest AGS game of all time. :D
Quote from: Vince Twelve on Thu 28/03/2013 15:25:22
How can I possibly be expected to hold all these trophies?!? :-D
You make a good point, Mr. XII. :wink:
(http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/30796407.jpg)
I couldn't even photoshop in all the trophies BECAUSE MY HANDS WERE FULL OF TROPHIES!
Edit: Avatar updated.
:cheesy: :cheesy: :cheesy:
Too many trophies! Goodness, yours is such a tale of woe, Mr. XII. I can only count my lucky stars that I've never known the burden of the AGS Award... never... not once... not after ten years and more than twenty AGS games... sigh... lucky me... :=
EDIT: Nice avatar. I shall have to update mine now...
Quote from: Ponch on Thu 28/03/2013 15:44:00
I can only count my lucky stars that I've never known the burden of the AGS Award... never... not once... not after ten years and more than twenty AGS games... sigh... lucky me... :=
And the Cow Of The Year Trophy goes to...
There's a Cow of the Year award? WHY DIDN'T I WIN IT?
Ok, seriously, sorry to derail the thread...
Quote from: Vince Twelve on Thu 28/03/2013 16:44:52
There's a Cow of the Year award? WHY DIDN'T I WIN IT?
It's an injustice!! :P
Quote from: Andail on Thu 28/03/2013 13:58:17
A jury could be involved either in the nomination phase, or the final voting.
Do we really need a jury when there is such a small group of voters? Doesn't Resonance winning all those awards mean that the majority of voters consciously voted for it in almost every category?
If that's the case, I'd say the ceremony went exactly like the majority of the community wanted it to be. I doubt there were any: "Ooops, if I knew Resonance would win so many awards I wouldn't have voted in every category on it. Poor freewares!"
EDIT: Added context.
I think the question is rather whether the number of high-quality, high-profile commercial releases means that freeware games are effectively locked out of the awards, and if so, whether that's a problem.
In principle it's of course possible to put as much work and as many resources into a freeware game as in a commercial release, and we do see a few free projects that have that amount of tlc applied (The Journey Down AGS-version, Heroine's Quest, Fountain of Youth...). But the amount of effort and the level of execution needed to compete with commercial releases seems to now exceed what most hobbyists can justify; either you set your sights lower, or you make it a commercial project (particularly now that a commercial release has become a more realistic goal).
But for that same reason I'm not entirely convinced it's a problem. It's not like AGS has been taken over by Rockstar Games and EA. Wadjet Eye, Himalaya, Harvester, Infamous Quests, Screen 7... behind those company names are the same people who've been making freeware AGS games for years; most of them active members of the community. Andail and Grundislav are working on commercial games; Ben304 is doing the art for the next Blackwell title. Just because their work is good enough that people are (hopefully) willing to pay for it, should that make them any less eligible to compete just the same as anyone else?
Is a commercial AGS game fundamentally different, so that it requires its own category, or is it just something that is correlated with being made by skilled people who put a lot of effort into it?
Quote from: Radiant on Thu 28/03/2013 13:58:44
I'm curious to see some data on this. Could somebody make a list of all games nominated for the last three years, and point out how many of them are commercial? Are all or most of the winning games actually commercial games?
If I've read everything correctly....
2010: Unsure of this data -- 11 of 17 by Journey Down, which wasn't a commercial game at the time, but is now, right? I wasn't around yet in 2010.
2011: 9 of 17 by commercial games (Gemini Rue & Blackwell Deception)
2012: 12 of 17 by commercial games (Resonance -- actually 13 of 17, if you count a bake sale game, RAM Ghost)
So 61% in the past two years have been won by commercial games (64% if you count RAM Ghost). That 64% stands if you count Journey Down as a commercial game and spread the stats over three years.
Source: AGS Wiki
One thing I might suggest is that there be more attention paid to the credits in listing the nominations. For instance, in the Oscars, the producers get to stand up for the Best Picture award, the director for Best Director, all the way down to the technical positions. All of the nominations were listed as being for Vince, and he had to clarify in his thank-yous who actually did the work. Part of the reaction might be to Resonance as a monolithic entity winning all of the awards, whereas Vince was careful to say, "Credit for this award goes to Shane Stevens / Janet Gilbert / Nikolas Sideris / etc."
I know that Bicilotti had a ton on his(?) plate though. I hope to be able to offer to help out more next year. Another thing that might help is some sort of showcase in between the nomination and voting phase, where each game has a write-up, a screenshot, some commentary from a person not affiliated with the creation of the game. Maybe a stand-alone webpage or PDF. The wiki is nice as a record of events, but it provides little context besides links for someone interested in the games. This showcase might also serve as a sort of outreach to other gaming sites, like a press release, to better achieve the mission of the awards, which I assume is to spread word of the games, as well as the engine.
Money where my mouth is: unless my life is completely topsy-turvy next year (like it was/is this year -- sorry again, Bicilotti), I'll volunteer my time and skills to help out with such an effort if anyone thinks this is a good idea.
And in 2009, Time Gentlemen, Please! (also commercial) took a majority of the awards. (The commercial version of TJD is different from the freeware AGS version (http://www.adventuregamestudio.co.uk/site/games/game/1344/), by the way. As far as I can tell without actually downloading and playing it, the version that won the AGS Awards is still freely available.)
It's always a little boring when any single game/movie/whatever sweeps an awards show. But it's usually the best game that wins, and so the awards were deserved. A "Best Commercial Game" category sounds nice and would let the other, smaller AGSers have a chance at the huge cash prize that accompanies every AGS Award (there is a huge cash award, right?). But I'm not sure such a thing could be implemented easily.
Do we split every category into commercial/freeware? That seems cumbersome. Great games like Resonance or Oceanspirit Dennis Losers His Vaginity will always win almost every category that they're in because they're of a significantly higher quality than most of the freeware efforts put out by the other poorer developers inspiring hobbyists. For example, if the top game is split into two groups but the background category isn't, then you'll hear cries of "2034 A.C.'s shoddy backgrounds won't have a chance against Rockstar304's latest majestic backdrop!" I know this because I'm already saying it in anticipation of the 2013 Awards. :=
My two cents is that we keep the awards the way they are, I guess, and just accept the fact that AGS has finally gone commercial in a successful way and the bar has been raised much higher than it used to be. It's not like it was in the days of Fatman (commercial) versus Larry Vales (freeware) -- but the games are much larger (and deeper) than they used to be. So I for one welcome our Wadjet Infamous 7 Screens overlords.
Still sucks that the guys running the awards this year totally forgot to mention the Bake Sale. But that's the sort of problem I can drink away... in time... maybe...
Nice suggestions Eric, especially the one of paying more attention to the credits.txt of a game.
To derail the thread even more, some times ago I wrote a list for a possible 'reform' of the AGS Awards (basically the idea was to halve the number). I never posted about it because I thought it had 0% chance to be accepted, but since the theme is tangent to the discussion, here it is
Best Game
Best Gameplay
Best Writing
Best Visual Art
Best Music
Lifetime achievement
Best Non-Adv
Best Short Game
Quote from: Snarky on Thu 28/03/2013 19:08:29
And in 2009, Time Gentlemen, Please! (also commercial) took a majority of the awards.
Iirc correctly, TGP took the same number of awards as The Marionette and MC Chronicles.
+1 to Stupot's, Snarky's, Ascovel's and selmiak's posts! +cake to Limpin' post below!
As a freeware game maker, just hearing people comment about the game I made is truly fun and exciting enough.(The good and the bad Critique)
When you release freeware, the 'award' you get is hearing the feedback. Seriously, does a freeware game need to be pat on the back also and told they are the best freeware release of the year at AGS?
I can also understand not having the need for the best soundFX award. This award is slightly on the fence (I do love good soundFX). Having said that, maybe swapping Best soundFX for Best freeware isn't the worst idea if you wanted to keep the same number of awards?
All in all, I don't think you can go wrong with the current setup. Is it really necessary to stretch things like Snarky mentioned, that's the true question?
Gameplay, writing/story, and puzzles, as bicilotti points out, are unrelated to the argument. A commercial game has just as much of a chance of sucking in these areas as any freeware game, and no amount of money or manpower will affect that.
This is strictly a technical awards issue*. It's not entirely unfair to assume that a commercial game with professional voice work has a distinct category-specific advantage over most AGS games, as does a game that employs the talents of the best artists the community has to offer.
On the other hand, not all commercial games may equally excel in these categories either, leaving us with no other option than the extrapolation of the argument to "Commercial" vs "commercial", as team size and budget become issues. Would my hypothetical commercial game, hypothetically made entirely by me, be at a disadvantage to the latest from Wadjet Eye? Should we instead have team-based commercial versus one-man-band commercial?
We could split the awards, but since the number of commercial AGS games released in a year rarely breaks a handful, it doesn't seem like it would be worth the extra effort. Off the top of my head, and if they were ALL added to the database, I can think of four games that were eligible for this years awards, which doesn't seem like nearly enough to spread out over an extra dozen commercial-specific categories. It is enough, however, for a single "Best Commercial Game" award, which would probably be the most likely result of any split.
Since the AGS community is primarily based around free games, it wouldn't be out of the question to see a majority vote for a separate commercial award.
*Or not, as the case may be. It's the AGS Awards, people, not the Alfred Nobels! It's about celebrating a year of games, ALL games, made with AGS, and a fun way to get the community interacting. It's not about arguing the validity of one man's cabbage over another man's turnip. Perspective, yo?
Quote from: LimpingFish on Thu 28/03/2013 23:18:03
Gameplay, writing/story, and puzzles, as bicilotti points out, are unrelated to the argument. A commercial game has just as much of a chance of sucking in these areas as any freeware game, and no amount of money or manpower will affect that.
It's impossible to hire talent in these fields? You think if you had a couple of million dollars to spend on the writing and game/puzzle design, you couldn't put together a team able to improve on whatever ideas you initially had?
I also think that even if you don't hire anyone to help you, it's demonstrably possible to improve these aspects of a game through additional effort; e.g. by running lots of playtesting, listening to feedback, and making changes in response. (It's one of the things Dave Gilbert has talked about, how he was able to make a better-received Blackwell title by shifting his investment from art to tweaking the gameplay and writing.) Commercial titles
might have an advantage if they can invest more effort, though at the same time a professional studio has to weigh the return-on-investment in a way hobbyists don't.
Quote from: Snarky on Fri 29/03/2013 00:08:35
It's impossible to hire talent in these fields? You think if you had a couple of million dollars to spend on the writing and game/puzzle design, you couldn't put together a team able to improve on whatever ideas you initially had?
I'd be willing to argue that writing is inherently good or bad, regardless of the professionalism/cost of the people involved. I don't think you can throw money at writing in quite the same way you can at graphics or sound. Or you can, but the improvements may be less overtly impressive. "No amount of money..." is a little hyperbolic, though, so it's cheerfully withdrawn.
But, in regards to the original discussion about commercial AGS games potentially having an advantage, I would regard that potential advantage as having a more immediate effect in the graphics and sound-related categories.
Does it warrant changes to the awards? Probably not. Would we even be having this discussion if a non-commercial game had swept the awards? Probably not.
EDIT: Although, this
is the third year in a row that a commercial game (or game that was intended to be commercial, in the case of The Journey Down) has taken every major graphics award, and most of the sound awards. But those games also won their fair share of writing/gameplay awards, so I'd be wary of drawing any conclusions from that fact.
I don't believe none of the voters thought that Resonance was not the best game made last year (with AGS) but voted just because. Resonance won because it deserved to win.
Resonance will make money, and I hope it makes enough money for a Resonance 2,3,4... And this simple fact puts Resonance in another league.
Other game makers offer their games. That's something very noble and part of this community. Playing Pleughburg and being able to find out how the game was made in this forums is something I'll forever keep in my heart.
Free games made with AGS for the community and general public should and must get the awards like Best Game of the Year. They are the core of this community and what makes people coming back and staying for years and years. It's also the school for many professionals in the business (programming, art, music, game designing, etc...)
Commercial games made with AGS should be showcased, praised and given all the love we can give, but because of the fantastic AGS Engine. Those games have their own sites and publishing deals. Let's say they are what every person here aims: to be successful in game-making.
So, they've reached a point where competition is with other commercial games. Shouldn't be with freeware games.
My idea here is that every year the main star of the show is the AGS Engine and the people that making games without monetary compensation help to develop AGS and the community.
It's fantastic and everybody is really proud that so many people do succeed in game-making with profits and all,
but what is really something is the guys that stick in the forums every day, helping out others with their graphics, writing, coding, puzzles and so on. There are even planned workshops on different subjects of game-making. This people are the real heroes, the artisans.
I am not sure if I can explain it all in English that well, but I am player and a voter who loves to see people winnig awards that make this community so lovely, stay alive and such a nice place to be. That includes the creators of nicely done games and all the helpers in every way.
To me the AGS Award has its roots in this community and those who love to make and share games for fun and free. It's wonderful to see some of the talented ones to be able to go commercial, but that's another step and a differend „stage“ for me. Those made the decision to do the step going to become professional and left the hobby-stage behind (with this game). I like to see someone doing this and I an happy if done successfully â€" it's like to see a child grow up, leave the house and to be proud of what it has become â€" and it will always be welcome at home.
All put a lot of heart and free time in creating their game, innovation for the engine or community and deserve to be noticed.
Those who offer their games and help for free only have our feedback and are the main reason for me to be awarded with this AGS Award for a very good game or achievement or innovation. If there is a group of talented people who do such a work in several years and offer it for free, then they might get most of the awards, yes â€" but that won't happen such a lot of times. Mostly these games here are done alone or in little teams and they won't be able to do every aspect of a game in perfect or to pay for someone who is able to do so â€" and it's not the goal for a hobby. I'd love to get them an award for the part they did well without being knocked out by a professional (whom I expect to be „better“).
Since most of the creators of the commercials are still part of this family I'd love to let them take part, but in a category that fits to the rule, that the game itself is in the database (not only a link to somewhere else) â€" like a demo. Also because of that I'd like a seperate category for best commercial (that doesn't need to be in the database).
Apart of that I'd like most of the award categories to stay like they are, just a bit tweaking to be able to give it to the one who did that part in person â€" like Mister x for best background art in game y or Mrs. V for best programming in game w (like it has been said already about to take the credits more into account).
Just a bit of my humble opinion (as far as I was able to explain it â€" hopefully) (roll)
(http://www.smileyvault.com/albums/userpics/12962/liebe12.gif)
What about having runners up? The voting system wouldn't need to be changed, we'd just know who came second in all the categories. This is a lot more varied in this year's awards, as I would expect it was in previous years where one game won many of the awards.
Quote from: AGA on Fri 29/03/2013 17:21:28
What about having runners up? The voting system wouldn't need to be changed, we'd just know who came second in all the categories. This is a lot more varied in this year's awards, as I would expect it was in previous years where one game won many of the awards.
Good idea. Might be the best middle ground solution?
I'd love to see this retrospectively for this year's games, even.
Quote from: AGA on Fri 29/03/2013 17:21:28
What about having runners up? The voting system wouldn't need to be changed, we'd just know who came second in all the categories. This is a lot more varied in this year's awards, as I would expect it was in previous years where one game won many of the awards.
I like this idea too.
I haven't read the entire thread, and I have not nominated nor voted for the AGS competition for at least three years I believe (I can't vote when I haven't played all games and when I don't fully remember the games I played during the first half of the year what can I say) so feel free to take my opinion with a pinch of salt.
But...
Didn't we have this conversation several years ago? Where someone proposed that remakes and/or fan games should get their own category, I am guessing because some were fearing awards swept, and we agreed that, you know, a game is a game is a game, whether it's made by an hobbyist during a couple months, or a professional who puts forty hours a week for a year in their commercial venture, or a passionate who puts five hours a week for eight years in their epic scale game, whether it's made by one person or ten, a game is a game and all games are worthy of competing in all categories, and we didn't need pity prizes and trophies that meant nothing because not every games could compete.
I say no special treatment. It is great to receive recognition among your peers, but:
I still want the AGS award to mean something, it's not just a fun ceremony among us anymore, indie news outlets repost the results and players use these results to decide which games to play or not, it's serious,
Maybe the winners of a sweep truly deserved to win these awards,
And maybe we need to focus less on the winners and more on the nominees, I mean, out of the one hundred or so games released that year, being chosen to be one of the nominees for that year still mean that you're one of the best five or ten games of that year, if that doesn't mean anything, if that ain't recognition among your peers, I don't know what that is.
Just saying.
I like the idea of giving 'silver' to the runner-ups.
Back from reading the thread, and that got me thinking, you know, time, just like money, is a resource too. Should a game that took eight years to make be allowed to compete with games that took eight months to make? It ain't fair for the eight months games because the eight years game probably got more effort poured into it. Same goes for games made by one person competing with games made by teams. And what about commercial games that have to compete with Kickstarter backed commercial games?
No, the solution isn't in more categories, it's in valuing up nominations and runner-ups, like some suggested.
Also, I disagree about the redundancy of Best Puzzles and Best Gameplay. Best Gameplay to me encompass interface, intuitiveness, learning curves, the way the game plays, that sort of thing, while Best Puzzles is more about creativity, originality, logicality (I can't believe that's a word), the way hints and puzzles are presented... To take an action game example, in the Action Game Studioâ,,¢ Awards there could be a Best Gameplay award, but also, Best Level and Best Boss Fight. To me it's not redundant.
And now I'm going to bed, I keep finding typoes, misplaced words and badly syntaxed sentences, my brain's just not following anymore.
Quote from: Radiant on Sat 30/03/2013 00:53:29
I like the idea of giving 'silver' to the runner-ups.
Barn Runner-ups, you mean! ;)
Since I am fairly new here, and didn't play all of the games, I didn't participate in the Awards this year.
That said, I would like to voice my support for the concept of individualized awards. The artist should win for the art, the programmer for programming, etc. Also, a Best Sound category could encompass both music and effects, and Best Gameplay could include puzzles.
But anyways, congratulations to the winners (and nominees) this year. To be honest, while a 2nd (or even 3rd) place award seems nice, being a nominee is prestigious in itself. I'll agree with blueskirt when he said "players use these results to decide which games to play or not." That includes the list of nominees.
But to the point of the original post, I don't think there needs to be an altogether different set of awards for commercial games. If anything, perhaps Best Game could be awarded to 2 winners: Best Game (Commercial) and Best Game (Freeware). This way they are essentially the same award. Marking each game in the awards list as (Commercial) or (Freeware) would be helpful, mostly to the players who are looking for games to download.
I haven't had a chance to read through this thread, so I'm going to assume no one has mentioned this yet.
I don't like how the nominations work with the top 5 per vote total. So if the majority of the people who nominate never actually played any game BUT Resonance, it sways the votes quite a bit. Many single nominations towards the overly popular game will kick out any chance the less popular game has (even if the less popular game is more deserving - it just wasn't played by many).
It's almost as though there should be a "I've played this game" checkbox which is used to calculate the weight of all nominations. I certainly don't play every game in the database when I nominate. No one does. There's always that gem that hasn't gotten popular yet. It's definitely not a very solid system that we currently have.
Edit: Basically if the less popular game was played by 100 people and nominated by 50, it should be higher up the nomination list than Resonance - which was played by 200 people and nominated by 55 (random figures).
Of course you'd have to add a better formula. You wouldn't want a game played by 5 people and nominated by 4 to beat Resonance (which it would if the system wasn't designed properly).
Well it is good that we are talking about this. We should.
Many of us are trying to grab the momentum of (Indie) Adventure Games becoming again popular and profitable. I believe 2013 and 14 will produce many more commercial games than we are used to. This is the time where many of us are seriously considering investing (time or money, or both) on a game that can achieve monetary return.
For this we have to thank the ones that opened the door before us. How?
- Showcase those commercial and acclaimed games in our site/forum. We owe this to the game makers. Without their believe in AGS we would be probably missing the train.
- Showcase and praise our Engine in a proud way. People/gamers must relate Gemini, Resonance and the rest to the AGS engine.
- Really invest on the AGS awards - pictures, trailers, make it big!
- But, please separate freeware from commercial games. It's a ocean apart. Commercial games will always win over freeware. Our big event of the year should be the Awards but have freeware games to be the core and joy of our community! Let them win, make those game makers proud and ready to go one step beyond.
- Commercial AGS games should have separate awards because those games should compete with similar productions.
As much as I prefer having one big best-in-show award, I could be swayed to the idea of having separate awards for freeware/commercial, if only because I think having runners-up silver prizes is an even worse idea. For me, being shortlisted IS the runner up prize. If people are worried about the freeware nominees being overshadowed by the commercial ones, then lets together make more of a push to publicize the entire shortlists, before the award ceremony. Maybe we could even invite people outside the AGS community to vote. It depends if we want an open, public showcase of all that AGS can offer, or a small family loveletter to her freeware roots.
I would personally propose sitting tight for a couple of years to see how things play out. Resonance was a massive, massive achievement. I am a bit of a fan-boy, but I genuinely think this year's awards reflect that fairly. I certainly don't really think we need any kind of 'handicap' system. Occasionally in any award ceremony, you get your Titanics and your English Patients, and then things go back to being a bit more open for a few years until the next biggy comes out. That's fine with me.
I am not a big fan of the runner up awards because all in all it would be a bit too much for my taste.
Also the runner up's should already be awarded because of their nomination!? (roll)
... and if you cancel the nomination awards and "only" do runner up awards instead to avoid this, there will be less games with awards in the end :(
Quote from: miguel on Sat 30/03/2013 11:34:14
- But, please separate freeware from commercial games. It's a ocean apart. Commercial games will always win over freeware.
That's nonsense - an idealization of commercial products. You can make any piece of crap commercial. Just as well there are freeware games in the database I still count amongst the very best AGS games ever created. Also, some full-length AGS games like Time Gentlemen Please! turned almost freeware - the decision to go commercial was made very late in production.
Well, sir, your idealization of freeware products is just that - an idealization. Your idea among others that a game is a game and that's it, is pretty subjective. And a very romantic view of things, pardon my nonsense.
You seem to have misread my post and only focus on the phrase you quoted, but I'll say it again: good freeware games made here, some are even classic AGS games with sequels and done by very talented people don't stand a chance with games designed to be commercial.
What I do wish, is to give this guys a chance and for them to be able to win a best game award. Just that.
If I say testicle, now that's nonsense.
Sorry if I offended you with the word "nonsense", miguel. I just wanted to express my strong disagreement with the notion that freeware titles are weaker.
Your way of helping the underdogs is a double-edged sword - you're turning them into games of lower-standard by definition. I'm not even sure what you mean by "designed to be commercial". In terms of quality I would agree that a designer working full-time on a game has a great advantage over someone working on on their project only in the spare time. But neither Gemini Rue, TGP! nor Resonance were created with that advantage - perhaps with the exception of final stages of production.
Also, I don't believe in what you claim, that freeware games don't stand a chance against commercial games in the AGS Awards. In fact many of the commercial games will always be underrated at the Awards, as there are commercial games made in AGS that relatively few people here buy, and consequently never vote for them. Resonance, Gemini Rue and Time Gentlemen Please! were bought by many of the forum members, because of their history with the forums and because of the personas of their creators. However, not every commercial release will get that many buys here - simply because we usually don't have the money to buy them all.
Overall, I find the dichotomy between commercial and freeware games to be superficial. We had a couple of really well-loved commercial AGS games in recent years, but it had little to do with the fact they were commercial.
If you want to help the smaller, more modest productions I'd suggest the addition of categories like "best full-length game" and "best medium-length game" instead. That would be much more fair to all, and would create more appreciation for designers who take the time and energy to build really long, complex titles.
To go back to something that was said earlier--one vote AGAINST cutting Best SoundFX. (We're voting, right?) ...But that's only because right now I'm killing it with the soundFX in my game and I think I have a real shot of it.
QuoteSorry if I offended you with the word "nonsense", miguel.
You didn't, I was being a wiseguy.
Still, we have different opinions. To me, a freeware adventure game may lack (and often will) features that are mandatory on a commercial game, and still be considered a hell of a game. But that's art in its pure essence. We the gamers, the community, award a freeware game and its creator for the global concept of his game. It doesn't matter to us if the guis were standard engine ones, if the characters don't even have animations, if there's only a single tune playing, etc...etc... Because we are experiencing the beauty of having some free, entertaining game.
Then comes a different type of game maker, the one that feels he can deliver the same satisfaction but is willing to produce/pay for original interface, animations, and so on. It is expected that his final product is much more polished and according to the videogame standards. There's going to be demos, trailers, voice actors and blah,blah,blah.
When the gamers vote, they will consider all the aspects of the game, and the final package of a commercial game will always beat a freeware game. That's what buyers or voters do, in the supermarket or in a site.
We also don't have the same opinion towards the best AGS games in the last years. To me, it is clear that the commercial ones were way better than the freeware ones. Look at Nelly, for example, it was clear from the moment that it was launched that it had all the potential to become commercial, and it will become in the sequel. TOTK was the exception, in my opinion, and would have been commercial if the market was like it is now.
There's a certain type of humour and specific atmosphere that sticks to ags free titles that we should preserve. I am defending the guys that still make that kind of games and wish that they get awarded for that. That's all.
I have no problem with a logical distinction being made between games specifically targeted for commercial audiences and those where often a single person is creating a labor of love without concern for payment. A commercial product has a different set of goals and requirements to achieve vs a freeware game and I think it is often very unfair to force the two to compete.
This isn't saying that freeware games are inferior, merely that they have different expectations associated with them and therefore should be judged separately from commercial games...in the opinion of someone who has worked on his share of both.