AGS Awards Nominations - Disappointment

Started by alkis21, Sun 13/03/2005 23:05:08

Previous topic - Next topic

alkis21

Before I begin, I would like to state that I totally respect the people's votes. I would also like to congratulate all the nominees. This is NOT a post that questions the validity or the objectivity of the results. The people have spoken loud and clear.
I cannot help but feel utterly disappointed by the fact that Other Worlds only got nominated for best documentation. After all the positive reviews and feedback from the 4000+ people that have downloaded it in 4.5 months, my expectations were higher. Especially considering that if you look at the votes in the main page, OW's current score is higher than the games that got nominated for the 'Best Game' category expect Apprentice II. Just Adventure called it "one of the best, if not the best adventure game of 2004" and "3rd best Independent adventure game ever". I was really aiming for the Best Story & Puzzles category, but I guess my game is not worth as much as I believed.
I have played many of the nominated games and most of the nominations seem much deserved to me. I don't want anyone to think that I mean any disrespect to the other creators. I just felt that Other Worlds deserved a place among them. I suppose someone complains every year about the results, I'm sorry that this year it's me, I must sound like a spoiled brat to all of you.
Good luck to everyone.

Privateer Puddin'

Quote from: alkis21 on Sun 13/03/2005 23:05:08Just Adventure called it "one of the best, if not the best adventure game of 2004" and "3rd best Independent adventure game ever".

And here, your argument fails.

Pesty

Other Worlds was nominated for other categories, it's just that only the top five games with the most votes could be used. Just because your game didn't make the final cut doesn't mean nobody voted for it, it just didn't get enough votes. It's not an insult to you or your game.
ACHTUNG FRANZ: Enjoy it with copper wine!

It is a mistake to think you can solve any major problems just with potatoes. - Douglas Adams

alkis21

Privateer, how does my argument fail? I don't get it.
Pesty, I don't feel insulted, I feel disappointed.

Grundislav

Your argument isn't totally invalid, but look at what you said:
Quote"OW's current score is higher than the games that got nominated for the 'Best Game' category expect Apprentice II. Just Adventure called it "one of the best, if not the best adventure game of 2004" and "3rd best Independent adventure game ever". "

People obviously liked your game. Ã, Shouldn't you feel good enough about that? Ã, So it didn't get nominated for an AGS Award, it's not the end of the world. Ã, An AGS Award isn't a measurement of your game being better or worse than others, it's just a silly little ceremony we've come to adopt.

Does it feel good to win an AGS Award? Sure it does, but remember it also feels good to have people praise your game. Ã, If that's what you're looking for, you certainly seem to have gotten some pretty high marks already.

Rui 'Trovatore' Pires

Don't worry, I'm pretty disappointed myself - I was pretty sure I'd get the "best documenbtation" award for Larry 2. I wasn't expecting Larry 2 to gather any other award, of course, but I am damn proud of the documentation it has.

Well, c'est la vie, Alkis. You and me and many many other AGSers. Don't take it bad, it's not that Other Worlds is bad, on the contrary it's GREAT. The other games are simply better. Or so the nominating process told us.
Reach for the moon. Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars.

Kneel. Now.

Never throw chicken at a Leprechaun.

Pumaman

Regardless of this particular case, there is a debate to be had about the nominations process in future AGS Awards. The problem we seem to get, and it happens every year, is that a group of 5 games tend to be the same nominees for all the main awards.

It probably happens because people think to themselves "oooh, I liked game X" and then proceed to nominate it in every category.

The idea has been floated that the nominees could be selected by a committee rather than by the public, and then the public would just vote on the winner. Obviously that's a decision that will need to be made for next year.

Rui 'Trovatore' Pires

...sounds like a damn good idea. The formation of the committee should be a careful thing, of course, but it does sound quite quite QUITE good.
Reach for the moon. Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars.

Kneel. Now.

Never throw chicken at a Leprechaun.

alkis21

I know it's not the end of the world, and I know people's feedback should be good enough for me.. I guess it's my vanity speaking, wanting more. When I talked about JA comments and the votes I've had, I didn't mean "Other Worlds should have been nominated", I meant I expected it to be nominated.

Pesty

Quote from: Pumaman on Sun 13/03/2005 23:25:22
It probably happens because people think to themselves "oooh, I liked game X" and then proceed to nominate it in every category.

If we don't go with the committee idea for next year, I am going to disqualify anyone who does this for next year. I want people to put more thought into their nominations. I got some people voting for Apprentice 2 and other games they voted in every other category in the p3n1s award category because they simply weren't thinking or paying attention.
ACHTUNG FRANZ: Enjoy it with copper wine!

It is a mistake to think you can solve any major problems just with potatoes. - Douglas Adams

Kinoko

Well, SOME of us take this seriously :P I sat there and played at least some of every game I came across that was nominated (that I hadn't previously played). Of course, I didn't play -every- single game up for nomination, and therein lies part of the problem. (eg, I hadn't played Other Worlds at that stage, sorry alkis).  Just about every award has this problem, and it's a hard one to remedy. I do think the committee idea sounds like a good way to solve this though, assuming excellent people who HAVE played every single game are picked.

Snarky

I actually think most of the nominations look pretty decent. Yes, we can talk about the games that deserved a nomination and didn't get one, but are there any nominations that seem undeserved? There are a few I would argue with (7DAS for best gameplay? Cirque for best animation? No-Action Jackson for best scripting?), but on the whole they seem fair.

Most people who're nominating probably haven't played all the games that might deserve a nomination. I know I hadn't (though it turns out I've tried every game that got a nomination). Therefore, the games that got the most attention on the forums, the ones that were played by most of the voters, have an advantage that is very difficult for an outsider to overcome.

Clearly, graphics have a lot to do with it. No game that doesn't have good graphics was nominated for any major category (though some might not agree about Ben Jordan 3), and very few good-looking games released last year aren't on the list (I can only think of The Hamlet and A Tale of Betrayal).

I think nominations by a panel, along with a forum thread to let others offer input, would be a good solution. Otherwise, I'll make sure to vote more tactically next year, deliberately not nominating the favorites.

Vince Twelve

For your consideration:  "Nomination Reform"

Having a panel has already been discussed, and I, for one, believe it to be a good idea.  The panels would have to be carefully chosen (I say panels because I think having separate panels for graphics, gameplay, documentation, etc... within reason... might be a good idea).  Any AGSers on the panels would have to disqualify their own games from that year, obviously. I would also suggest grabbing some non-AGS community people to join the panels.  Perhaps some people from the adventure game journalism area, like Jozef Purdes at DIY Games who makes the "Independent Adventuring" feature.

Now, the big problem here is that you have a small number of people who are responsible for playing a huge number of games...  The way they handle this at most big awards shows (like the Oscars) is to limit the entries by requiring the people responsible (developer(s)) to submit their product (game) to the categories for which they believe they have a reasonable chance of winning.  This submission may be a simple Email or PM from the developer with the game name and the categories he/she wishes to enter the game into, or it may be more complicated, like a web form including a paragraph on why the game deserves to win [insert category name here].

Regarding Panelists:[/i]

Pros:
    -eliminates the "Only the most five most popular games were nominated for every category" issue.

Cons:
    -That's a lot of games to consider...
        Possible solutions:
            -Required Submissions
            -Create 'No' and 'Maybe' piles based on a cursory examination.
            -Choose the panelists at the beginning of the year, allowing them a head start.
    -Possibility of bias
    -Possibility of hurt feelings and resentment

        Possible solutions:
            -Anonymous panelists

           

Regarding required submissions:[/i]

Pros:
    -Limits the number of games a panelist has to look at.
    -No massive list of every game produced in the last year is required.


Cons:
    -Looking at the bundle of submissions may still be a large undertaking for a small group of panelists.  Certainly more difficult and time consuming than tallying the community's nominations.
    -Some developers may miss the note about needing to submit their games and some worthy games may be missed.

        Possible solution:
            -Allow year-round submissions



These are just the few ideas that sprang to mind when I read this thread.  Feel free to add to them, subtract from them, or just completely ignore them. 

DGMacphee

#13
Quote from: Grundislav on Sun 13/03/2005 23:17:15
People obviously liked your game.  Shouldn't you feel good enough about that?  So it didn't get nominated for an AGS Award, it's not the end of the world.  An AGS Award isn't a measurement of your game being better or worse than others, it's just a silly little ceremony we've come to adopt.

Does it feel good to win an AGS Award? Sure it does, but remember it also feels good to have people praise your game.  If that's what you're looking for, you certainly seem to have gotten some pretty high marks already.

Quoted for emphasis.

Just a quick note: The AGS Awards is only supposed to be just a bit of fun. Remember that. It's not a measure of how big your penis/breasts are. People can still lead very fruitful lives without AGS Awards. And reforms are good, yes, diversifying the categories is good, yes, but don't get too bogged down in reforms and rules, cause it sucks the fun out of it. As long as people have fun... that's the main thing.
ABRACADABRA YOUR SPELLS ARE OKAY

DGMacphee Designs - http://www.sylpher.com/DGMacphee/
AGS Awards - http://www.sylpher.com/AGSAwards/

Instagame - http://www.sylpher.com/ig/
"Ah, look! I've just shat a rainbow." - Yakspit

Barbarian

#14
Quote from: DGMacphee on Mon 14/03/2005 02:46:34
Ã,  Remember that. It's not a measure of how big your penis/breasts are. People can still lead very fruitful lives without AGS Awards.

DG is quite correct in all of what he says... But now my overactive imagination has me visualizing a bunch of game-makers, standing in line at an "AGS Grocery-Store", holding their "penis or breasts" in one hand,Ã,  pushing a shopping cart with the other hand, and all moaning stuff like, "Oh, woe is me, my penis / breasts is way too small, and I have no fruite.. My life, 'tis be a failure! *Sniff*"Ã,  ;D

DG ya cruel bastard, I luv's ya!Ã,  Ã, :=Ã,  Heheh!
Conan: "To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of the women!"
Mongol General: "That is good."

Blade of Rage: www.BladeOfRage.com

Radiant

As Pesty said, it may be useful to discount some nominations that clearly are poorly thought out (i.e. submitting your fave game everywhere). What may actually help, is requiring people to list a sample of what they nominate (i.e. you don't just nominate game Foo for best puzzle, but you name the puzzle you thought was so cool in Foo). Of course the voting is still for the game and not the individual puzzle, but if you nominate something for best puzzle (or music, etc) and can't think of a sample, then I'd say the nomination is not justified. Just my two pieces of eight.

What might also help is adding a descriptive text for some of the more obscure categories. 'Best room art' is pretty obvious, but what exactly constitutes 'best scripting' is not.

SSH

When I did the foregos last year (dart, hotspot what happened this year?) if there were people who had way mor enominations than everyone else, i put them in the final vote. That meant that some categories had 3 choices some had 7 but it meant that no-one missed out on a nom when they had 10 nominations and the avergae was 2
12

AGA

Quote from: Rui "Erik" Pires on Sun 13/03/2005 23:28:05
...sounds like a damn good idea. The formation of the committee should be a careful thing, of course, but it does sound quite quite QUITE good.

Yes, awards like that sound novel...

Vel

@Alkis:
Well dude I felt pretty disappointed last year with WWTLF too. Now I think about it, I see that it should have been much better to get nominated in more categories. IMHO, your problem is pimping - you use every opportunity to talk about your game. I know, I was the same. I've got better I hope though...

@Pumaman:
Yes, in my opinion that would be best. What I did was to select which of the 9-10 games I played and liked deserved the nomination. Not too much time, I guess :/

LucasFan

QuoteIMHO, your problem is pimping - you use every opportunity to talk about your game. I know, I was the same.

How about a Best pimping category? Btw, Alkis... your game is one of the best, if not the best adventure game of 2004 and 3rd best Independent adventure game ever!!! Give other games a chance, too. You don't need this little award.

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk