Game Awards 2014

[The Avatar 1,089]

The first "Game Awards" (replacement of Spike's former VGAs) has just ended yesterday. Here are the winners in each category, as well as the nominees. Dragon Age: Inquisition won game of the year and Nintendo won developer of the year. What do you guys think of the results? I'm glad that Nintendo got the spotlight this year, with Mario Kart 8 winning in two categories and Smash Wii U winning best fighting game. Nintendo consistently puts out fun, well-made games but (in my experience, anyway) seems to have a reputation as a developer for little kids. Maybe these wins will change some people's minds. 

 

As far as the other categories go, I'm also glad that Shovel Knight won best indie game. I think that Pokemon ΩR/αS should have won best remaster, but maybe that's just because I've never played GTA and I'm partial to Nintendo. To be honest, I don't see how "Mountain" made it into the games for change category. I guess it was nominated because it tries to stretch the boundaries of what defines a game, but I really wouldn't consider it a game in the first place.

 

The Game Awards also gave developers the chance to show off their upcoming titles. You can check out the full list here on Polygon. As for the biggest reveals, Nintendo demonstrated gameplay from the upcoming Zelda Wii U; Hello Games released another trailer for their space-exploration game, No Man's Sky; the creators of Rust, Facepunch Studios, announced a new game, Before; the first trailer for Adr1ft, a space-survival game by Three One Zero, premiered. I'm really excited for the new open-world Zelda game. No Man's Sky and Adrift look like they could be really cool, too. What are your thoughts?

 

Also, if you're interested, you can watch the whole awards ceremony here on YouTube.

[MilitantRadical 2,844]

I really liked the direction the show was trying to take but it was still a bit too commercialized. I love having the big reveals but the awards need to take center stage next time. The categories need to change a bit so that more of the talent in the industry is recognized. It needs categories like Best Sound Design, Best Art Direction, Best Lighting, Best Cinematography, Best Creative Director, Best Performance Capture, and Best Animation, Best Graphics Engine. I think they should take out the awards by genres like "Best Shooter" or "Best RPG" and just consider them all as a whole like the Academy Awards. It also needs technical achievement awards. I really liked how they had the Industry Icon Award, that was probably one of my favorite moments.

 

 

Nintendo consistently puts out fun, well-made games but (in my experience, anyway) seems to have a reputation as a developer for little kids. Maybe these wins will change some people's minds.

 

Everyone knows Nintendo puts out fun well made games and their reputation as a developer for kids is well deserved. What is wrong with making games for kids, same as Pixar makes films for kids? I don't see how these awards will change people's minds. Yes, Nintendo does have more mature titles, but it is known for it's games that appeal to general audiences and kids.

 

 

I think that Pokemon ΩR/αS should have won best remaster, but maybe that's just because I've never played GTA and I'm partial to Nintendo.

 

Well then your opinion is invalid. Not trying to be mean, but it is just unfair to pick a winner with such biases and lack of experience with both products. I love the GTA 5 remaster, but I can't say it deserves to win over Pokemon since I haven't played the Pokemon remasters. Much like I can't pick a Game of the Year since I've played none of the titles on that list. My personal Game of the Year is Alien: Isolation, but that doesn't mean much since I've only played 3 or 4 games this year

 

 

The Game Awards also gave developers the chance to show off their upcoming titles. You can check out the full list here on Polygon. As for the biggest reveals, Nintendo demonstrated gameplay from the upcoming Zelda Wii U; Hello Games released another trailer for their space-exploration game, No Man's Sky; the creators of Rust, Facepunch Studios, announced a new game, Before; the first trailer for Adrift, a space-survival game by Three One Zero, premiered. I'm really excited for the new open-world Zelda game. No Man's Sky and Adrift look like they could be really cool, too. What are your thoughts?

 

I loved the Adr1ft trailer, that game looks pretty amazing. That Untitled game by Hazelight also looks pretty darn cool. I'm interested in No Man's Sky but I keep wondering what you really do in that game. It seems you just go from planet to planet going: "oooh, ahhh, so pretty". The Zelda reveal looked pretty cool too, but I'm not going to get a WiiU just to play that game. One thing they didn't show in the Zelda trailer that I'm really interested in is the towns. I want to see what they've improved about cities and towns. In previous Zelda titles they felt quite empty and lifeless. I hope they've added a lot more NPCs and side-quests you can get from them.

[Xenocity 343]

Both the VGA and TGA are funded if not out right bought by the developers and publishers. 

 

Most of the developers and publishers skipped it just like they did with the VGAs.

 

Also most of the awards handed out including best developer were quickly done, while others were formally done. 

 

Lastly can we take an award show seriously that awards EA for game of the year and allows Nintendo to show up kiddifying it?

[The Avatar 1,089]

Nintendo consistently puts out fun, well-made games but (in my experience, anyway) seems to have a reputation as a developer for little kids. Maybe these wins will change some people's minds.

 

Everyone knows Nintendo puts out fun well made games and their reputation as a developer for kids is well deserved. What is wrong with making games for kids, same as Pixar makes films for kids? I don't see how these awards will change people's minds. Yes, Nintendo does have more mature titles, but it is known for it's games that appeal to general audiences and kids.

 

I guess what I was trying to say is that I think its unfair that some people discredit Nintendo as a developer because of the perception that it is a developer for kids. Personally, I think Nintendo's games are wrongly labeled as kids' games because of their appearance, the way they are marketed, and the lighthearted nature of games like Super Mario Bros. or Kirby; however, if perple who perceived Nintendo games this way really delved into games like Metriod or Zelda, they would find that many Nintendo games have a level of depth and an exploration of more serious themes that would never be found in the average kid's game.

 

I think that Pokemon ΩR/αS should have won best remaster, but maybe that's just because I've never played GTA and I'm partial to Nintendo.

 

Well then your opinion is invalid. Not trying to be mean, but it is just unfair to pick a winner with such biases and lack of experience with both products. I love the GTA 5 remaster, but I can't say it deserves to win over Pokemon since I haven't played the Pokemon remasters. Much like I can't pick a Game of the Year since I've played none of the titles on that list. My personal Game of the Year is Alien: Isolation, but that doesn't mean much since I've only played 3 or 4 games this year.

 

No, you're right. I would be a bad judge because I have never played many of these games. I have, however, played ΩR/αS, and besides the fact that I enjoy playing it, I think it was more deserving of a win than GTA because I consider it more of a remaster than GTA V is. As I understand it, GTA V is just another title in a series - not a remake of a previous game - while Omega Ruby and Alpha Sapphire were new versions of the original Ruby and Sapphire on the GBA

 

 The Game Awards also gave developers the chance to show off their upcoming titles. You can check out the full list here on Polygon. As for the biggest reveals, Nintendo demonstrated gameplay from the upcoming Zelda Wii U; Hello Games released another trailer for their space-exploration game, No Man's Sky; the creators of Rust, Facepunch Studios, announced a new game, Before; the first trailer for Adrift, a space-survival game by Three One Zero, premiered. I'm really excited for the new open-world Zelda game. No Man's Sky and Adrift look like they could be really cool, too. What are your thoughts?

 

I loved the Adr1ft trailer, that game looks pretty amazing. That Untitled game by Hazelight also looks pretty darn cool. I'm interested in No Man's Sky but I keep wondering what you really do in that game. It seems you just go from planet to planet going: "oooh, ahhh, so pretty". The Zelda reveal looked pretty cool too, but I'm not going to get a WiiU just to play that game. One thing they didn't show in the Zelda trailer that I'm really interested in is the towns. I want to see what they've improved about cities and towns. In previous Zelda titles they felt quite empty and lifeless. I hope they've added a lot more NPCs and side-quests you can get from them.

 

I agree. The graphics of Adr1ft are incredible - probably too incredible for my laptop, unfortunately. As for the Zelda reveal, I'm also interested in seeing the towns they have planned. With the huge world open to explore, I hope they include a lot more places to go and more NPCs to interact with, as well as more quests to complete.

[MilitantRadical 2,844]

 

Nintendo consistently puts out fun, well-made games but (in my experience, anyway) seems to have a reputation as a developer for little kids. Maybe these wins will change some people's minds.

 

Everyone knows Nintendo puts out fun well made games and their reputation as a developer for kids is well deserved. What is wrong with making games for kids, same as Pixar makes films for kids? I don't see how these awards will change people's minds. Yes, Nintendo does have more mature titles, but it is known for it's games that appeal to general audiences and kids.

 

I guess what I was trying to say is that I think its unfair that some people discredit Nintendo as a developer because of the perception that it is a developer for kids. Personally, I think Nintendo's games are wrongly labeled as kids' games because of their appearance, the way they are marketed, and the lighthearted nature of games like Super Mario Bros. or Kirby; however, if perple who perceived Nintendo games this way really delved into games like Metriod or Zelda, they would find that many Nintendo games have a level of depth and an exploration of more serious themes that would never be found in the average kid's game.

 

I agree it's unfair to use that as a criticism against Nintendo, but Nintendo isn't wrongly labeled as "for kids". You're associating "for kids" with "bad" or "low brow". Just because something is created with kids in mind, like Pixar films or many of Nintendo's core franchise games, doesn't mean adults can't enjoy them or that they don't have depth and exploration of serious themes.

 

Nintendo markets most of their games to kids and families because they know that is their core audience.

 

 

Both the VGA and TGA are funded if not out right bought by the developers and publishers. 

 

Yes but that's how you get the money to put on the show in the first place. Especially now that it isn't on TV.

 

 

Most of the developers and publishers skipped it just like they did with the VGAs.

 

It's a big industry but pretty much all the major players were represented there.

 

 

Also most of the awards handed out including best developer were quickly done, while others were formally done.

 

Yeah that really sucks. As I said above they should focus on the awards more. I like how in the Academy Awards they show little "making of" clips when they announce the nominees to give you a little information on why they're being nominated.

 

 

Lastly can we take an award show seriously that awards EA for game of the year and allows Nintendo to show up kiddifying it?

 

EA is a lame company, but if they made the best game then they deserve the award. Simply because it was published by EA doesn't discredit it.

 

What do you mean by "allows Nintendo to show up kiddifying it"?

[Xenocity 343]

@Militant

Gaming media and Neogaf are up in arms over Nintendo's showing at TGA.

They are upset that Nintendo didn't bring any hardcore games to the show, which hurt the show.

As for publishers and developers:

Activison didn't show

Bethesda didn't show

Capcom had no real presence

Epic didn't come

Square had no real presence

Namco had a minor presence

Microsoft didn't bother with it outside of ads

KT didn't bother

Etc...

Most of these are very important publishers.

[MilitantRadical 2,844]

@Militant

Gaming media and Neogaf are up in arms over Nintendo's showing at TGA.

They are upset that Nintendo didn't bring any hardcore games to the show, which hurt the show.

 

Then those people are stupid and don't understand Nintendo. What do they expect? Nintendo to have a game like Bloodborne? Not gonna happen. This ain't the N64 days where we had games like Turok, Extreme G, and  Perfect Dark. Nintendo is focused on that family experience. I think a lot of people are jaded because at launch Nintendo made it look like the WiiU would be able to support 3rd party games but a lot of 3rd party devs ditched because the audience isn't there and the tech of the WiiU isn't good enough to support the games they're making these days.

 

 

@Militant

Gaming media and Neogaf are up in arms over Nintendo's showing at TGA.

They are upset that Nintendo didn't bring any hardcore games to the show, which hurt the show.

As for publishers and developers:

Activison didn't show

Bethesda didn't show

Capcom had no real presence

Epic didn't come

Square had no real presence

Namco had a minor presence

Microsoft didn't bother with it outside of ads

KT didn't bother

Etc...

Most of these are very important publishers.

 

I think due to the fact that the gaming industry is much more international and younger than Hollywood is, it is harder to get everyone in the same room at the same time. It seems like the VGAs and TGAs are really geared for a holiday marketing push. I think Geoff Keighley's heart is in the right place. He wants an award show that rivals the Academy Awards and I think games need something like that if only to recognize the skill it takes to make the games we love so much.

[Xenocity 343]

Then those people are stupid and don't understand Nintendo. What do they expect? Nintendo to have a game like Bloodborne? Not gonna happen. This ain't the N64 days where we had games like Turok, Extreme G, and  Perfect Dark. Nintendo is focused on that family experience. I think a lot of people are jaded because at launch Nintendo made it look like the WiiU would be able to support 3rd party games but a lot of 3rd party devs ditched because the audience isn't there and the tech of the WiiU isn't good enough to support the games they're making these days.

 

As it has traditionally been, hardcore games are M rated games with adult themes and gore. 

Now you can add cinematic games to that list.

T games are rarely considered hardcore. 

 

Only Turok 3 was exclusive to Nintendo 64, the first two were released on PC as well. 

Extreme G 1&2 were critically panned for being ugly and bad gameplay. 

Perfect Dark obviously was developed by Rare when they were a second party. 

 

Nintendo 64 was dogged regularly for having a kiddy library and being nearly completely void of hardcore games (I had subscriptions to the major publications at the time)

Sony and Sega regularly stated in their marketing and interviews that you bought their systems for hardcore games and you bought Nintendo 64 if you wanted to play games made for children featuring BRIGHT COLORS and/or games your parents wanted to play. 

 

There was regular articles and marketing comparing SNES to Nintendo 64 to determine which was more family friendly. 

 

Nintendo 64 went down as a kiddy system in the eyes of the public by 1997, mainly due to competition aggressive marketing campaign and Nintendo 64's main games using bright colorful graphics (remember how PS1 and Saturn main games featured darker tones?)

 

3rd parties made demands when Nintendo came to them for 3DS and Wii U:

1. Give 3rd parties the launch with no major 1st party titles for the first 4-6 months to allow 3rd parties to establish a hardcore market
   1. 3rd parties openly complained that Nintendo releases too many first party titles at launch for their systems, killing the market for 3rd party games.
   2. Wii, DS, GC, N64, and SNES launched with too many 1st party titles making it really hard fort 3rd parties to make in roads. 
   3. Nintendo's CEO stated this in numerous interviews that he purposely delayed all the major 1st party games to the 6 months mark on 3DS and Wii U as part of the deal they had with 3rd parties regarding the  launches. 
2. Subsidize the development, marketing and porting of 3rd party games (Microsoft and Sony eat majority of the costs for 3rd parties)
   1. Nintendo told them they had to give them sizable exclusive content for ports or give them exclusivity on games to get subsidizes
   2. 3rd parties rejected Nintendo's offer and told Nintendo to pay up or lose out!
3. Let 3rd parties release their digital apps (such as uPlay and Origin) and allow their digital titles to be tied to them.
   1. If you buy a Ubisoft digital game from the eShop, you need the uPlay app installed and account name to use your game (I'm not sure if Ubisoft still does this)
   2. I don't know of EA bothered with Origin.
4. 3rd parties told Nintendo to provide the employees to port the games over like Sony and Microsoft do for them.
   1. Nintendo said no!

The major 3rd parties stated they'd release games on any platform as long as there is a high enough demand, power not an issue (Linux, Mac, Android, Vita, Steam OS/Steam Box, Windows Mobile, and Nintendo systems are all left with minimal 3rd party support)

3DS launch was odd even by industry standards:

• Ubisoft canceled it's Assassin Creed game for 3DS claiming there were too many hardcore titles on the system
• EA canceled nearly all their games except for Madden because there was too much competition
• Activision claimed the launch window was too cluttered with 3rd party releases and wonder why Nintendo wasn't regulating the releases
• Capcom was worried about their games getting overlooked due to all the games coming out
• lesser 3rd parties aired similar concerns 

6 months later, 3rd parties became worried when 3DS was selling ~200k+ in each territory a month. 

• They demanded that Nintendo cut the price of the system 
• They started delaying and canceling games until Nintendo jump started sales with 1st party release
• They asked Nintendo to market their games

Christmas/early 2012:

• hardware sales took off
• 3rd parties complained Nintendo released too many 1st party games, destroying 3rd party sales. 
• 3rd parties started delaying their games to avoid 1st party games or jumping ship. 

To Present:

• Capcom is the second best selling developer on the system rivaling Nintendo.
• Square has seen decent sales 
• EA started porting Madden and FIFA to the system in 2013. 
• Ubisoft has made a nice  penny on shovelware. 
• Natsume has done well
• other lesser third parties have done decently. 
• Sega did support the eShop and Virtual console with 3D classics and Gamegear games. 
• Sega does release the occasional retail game . 

Wii U Launch:

• Activision supported it with Call of Duty, though most DLC and patches didn't come
• Activision refused to release their games on the eShop until recently
• Ubisoft released ZombiU to critical panning from the major outlets including IGN, Gamestop, USA Today, NY Times etc...
• Ubisoft released Assassin's Creed with no DLC support (none of them ever did get DLC)
• EA released Madden and FIFA which lacked many modes and content
• EA released Mass Effect Trilogy on the other systems and PC for $60, then launched Mass Effect 3:SE on Wii U a week later (launch game and DLC was announced not to becoming Wii U) for the full $60
• EA delayed NFS Wii U to early 2013 due to competition (It was leaked on Neogaf that it was done to get gamers to double dip), though the developers found out along with the public (it also has no DLC)
• EA's official line is that their launch games bombed, thus there is no market for their games on Wii U. 
• Namco released Tekken Tag Tournament 2 (Wii U version has the most content), though the PS3 version was the advertised version. 
• Tekken bombed equally as bad on Wii U as it did on 360.
• Capcom's main game was Monster Hunter 3U (3G in Japan), though it didn't make out until end of the launch Window, though it did sell over 500k worldwide. 
• Square's only Wii U game was a port of DQX in Japan...
• WBi released Batman: Arkham City at full price, though it lacked the DLC and didn't do well. 
• Darksider II turned a small profit 
• KT allowed Nintendo to fix Ninja Gaiden 3 for Wii U's launch. This version is called Razor's Edge and it the best version of the game.
• Sadly the game bombed due to the stigma of the main version.
• The PS3 and 360 ports bombed badly as well
• The other games were hit and miss.

Wii U had the most diverse console launch with 23 launch day titles and almost 40 by the end of the launch window ranging from E-M rated. 

This is better than PS4 and Xbox One.

By the end of all the 3 launch windows Xbox One and Wii U were tied for the highest attach rate, PS4 had an attach rate of ~2.

 

 

 

Currently Wii U is still ahead of Xbox One in global sales. 

Wii U is still competing with Xbox One for the top attach rate.

PS4 still has a horrible attach rate under 3 games per system, PS4 owners aren't buying games for the most part. 

 

The point is 3rd parties have gotten Sony and Microsoft to give them everything and don't want to support the non hardcore market (this is why Mac and Nintendo are typically left out in the cold when it comes to hardcore games). 

3rd parties have been airing their issues for almost 20 years now in public. 

 

 

I think due to the fact that the gaming industry is much more international and younger than Hollywood is, it is harder to get everyone in the same room at the same time. It seems like the VGAs and TGAs are really geared for a holiday marketing push. I think Geoff Keighley's heart is in the right place. He wants an award show that rivals the Academy Awards and I think games need something like that if only to recognize the skill it takes to make the games we love so much.

Actually that isn't it at all. 

The companies that didn't show, also didn't bother with VGA claiming it wasn't worth their time or a valid show. 

Nearly every company that appeared bought time. 

 

The movie industry is radically different for one major reason:

Every major movie studio is American as is nearly all the major directors, reviewers and the Film Academy!

This is why there is a Best Foreign Film category at the Oscars. 

 

It is very hard if not impossible for a foreign film or a foreign director to win a major category, especially Best Picture and Best Director!

 

Video Games fall under 4 distinct classifications or 3 depending on who you ask:

• American 
• European/Australian 
• Japanese
• Others 

Or 

 

• American/Western (includes all Western countries)
• Japanese
• Others

The difference here is many European/Australian/Canadian developers (non Ubisoft) claim they are different from the American development style. 

 

 

One last note:

 

• Sony has 140,900 employees currently and 27 divisions. This affords Sony with great leeway with publishers and parts suppliers, thus being able to get the best deal on parts for their systems. Though they are teetering on the brink of bankruptcy still. 
• Microsoft has 128,600 employees currently and a near bottomless bank account to Xbox afloat at all costs. They do not use enough parts to get leverage over their suppliers, thus having to pay more for their hardware. Xbox hardware losses are still counting, said to be over $10 Billion, though the number is hidden due to Microsoft putting profitable products in the same division. 
• Nintendo only has 5,213 (you are reading this number right) and are constantly hiring new people, though they have the highest job requirements out of all the gaming companies. They also have very little negotiating room with suppliers due to their size. 
• Nintendo doesn't want to become a huge company by headcount. 
• EA, Ubisoft, WBi, Konami, Activision, Blizzard (well technically they and Activision are held by the same company) all have more employees than Nintendo. 

Enjoy the read...

[LexusInfernus 908]

I didn't really follow these awards, but I did see the acceptance speech of Trey Parker when he won over Kevin Spacey. That was pretty funny. 

 

Also, a lot of people bitching about TotalBiscuit winning some award. 

[The Avatar 1,089]

Also, a lot of people bitching about TotalBiscuit winning some award. 

 

He won "trending gamer" over StampyLongHead, PewDiePie, Jeff Gerstmann, and VanossGaming. I don't really understand the choice. Trending gamer implies that the gamer is popular, and PewDiePie (whether you like him or not) is definitely the most popular of these people. His channel is the most-subscribed on YouTube, it is one of the fastest growing, and his videos have a combined view count of 6,978,310,059. 

 

If the category was something like "most talented gamer" or "most entertaining gamer," it would be a different story.

[MilitantRadical 2,844]

 

Then those people are stupid and don't understand Nintendo. What do they expect? Nintendo to have a game like Bloodborne? Not gonna happen. This ain't the N64 days where we had games like Turok, Extreme G, and  Perfect Dark. Nintendo is focused on that family experience. I think a lot of people are jaded because at launch Nintendo made it look like the WiiU would be able to support 3rd party games but a lot of 3rd party devs ditched because the audience isn't there and the tech of the WiiU isn't good enough to support the games they're making these days.

 

As it has traditionally been, hardcore games are M rated games with adult themes and gore. 

Now you can add cinematic games to that list.

T games are rarely considered hardcore. 

 

Only Turok 3 was exclusive to Nintendo 64, the first two were released on PC as well. 

Extreme G 1&2 were critically panned for being ugly and bad gameplay. 

Perfect Dark obviously was developed by Rare when they were a second party. 

 

Nintendo 64 was dogged regularly for having a kiddy library and being nearly completely void of hardcore games (I had subscriptions to the major publications at the time)

Sony and Sega regularly stated in their marketing and interviews that you bought their systems for hardcore games and you bought Nintendo 64 if you wanted to play games made for children featuring BRIGHT COLORS and/or games your parents wanted to play. 

 

There was regular articles and marketing comparing SNES to Nintendo 64 to determine which was more family friendly. 

 

Nintendo 64 went down as a kiddy system in the eyes of the public by 1997, mainly due to competition aggressive marketing campaign and Nintendo 64's main games using bright colorful graphics (remember how PS1 and Saturn main games featured darker tones?)

 

So uhm... what's your point? Nintendo systems are generally geared more toward kids and families. Is there any debate?

 

All I was saying when citing games like Extreme G, Turok, and Perfect Dark was that in the N64 days Nintendo had more "mature" titles on their system. They had mature titles on Gamecube and Wii also, but Nintendo is slowly leaving those behind and are now focused almost entirely on games that deliver family friendly experiences.

 

When the WiiU was announced Nintendo DID make it seem like the console would support more 3rd party mature titles with games like Arkham City, Watch Dogs, Assassin's Creed, and ZombieU. I think this is part of the reason some Nintendo fans are upset with the game lineup for the console. They want those core Nintendo games like Mario and Zelda, but they also yearn for things like The Witcher 3 and No Man's Sky.

 

Power and architecture of the WiiU are a factor for 3rd parties not wanting to port games to the WiiU. The architecture of the PS4 and XBO are relatively similar making it easy for devs to create games for both systems. Also, compared to the PS4 and XBO, the WiiU is outdated and more modern titles like Assassin's Creed Unity or Arkham Knight would require significant graphical downgrades to appear on it, but I'm not suggesting that makes Nintendo incapable of creating great games for their system.

 

 

Currently Wii U is still ahead of Xbox One in global sales. 

Wii U is still competing with Xbox One for the top attach rate.

PS4 still has a horrible attach rate under 3 games per system, PS4 owners aren't buying games for the most part.

 

Pretty funny how PS4 is the "fastest selling console in history", yet still has such a low attach rate. I myself only have 2 games for the PS4. I bought the system fully aware that there weren't many games I was interested in and was more looking to the future. Thankfully The Game Awards and PSX showed a lot of great titles to come.

 

 

I think due to the fact that the gaming industry is much more international and younger than Hollywood is, it is harder to get everyone in the same room at the same time. It seems like the VGAs and TGAs are really geared for a holiday marketing push. I think Geoff Keighley's heart is in the right place. He wants an award show that rivals the Academy Awards and I think games need something like that if only to recognize the skill it takes to make the games we love so much.

Actually that isn't it at all. 

The companies that didn't show, also didn't bother with VGA claiming it wasn't worth their time or a valid show. 

Nearly every company that appeared bought time. 

 

The movie industry is radically different for one major reason:

Every major movie studio is American as is nearly all the major directors, reviewers and the Film Academy!

This is why there is a Best Foreign Film category at the Oscars. 

 

It is very hard if not impossible for a foreign film or a foreign director to win a major category, especially Best Picture and Best Director!

 

Video Games fall under 4 distinct classifications or 3 depending on who you ask:

• American 
• European/Australian 
• Japanese
• Others 

Or 

 

• American/Western (includes all Western countries)
• Japanese
• Others

The difference here is many European/Australian/Canadian developers (non Ubisoft) claim they are different from the American development style.

 

Kinda supports my point that the gaming industry is much more international than the film industry (at least Hollywood) which is one of the reasons it's a lot harder to get everyone in the same room together.

 

I am well aware that the companies bought time but that makes sense because they have to fund the show itself. It unfortunately kind of undermines the credibility of the awards themselves, but the show in its current form is still young.

 

 

I didn't really follow these awards, but I did see the acceptance speech of Trey Parker when he won over Kevin Spacey. That was pretty funny. 

 

Also, a lot of people bitching about TotalBiscuit winning some award. 

 

Yeah a lot of anti-ggers crying their little eyeballs out about losing a popularity contest.

 

I was really happy when they brought out Boogie2998. I love that guy's stuff and I'm glad The Game Awards gave a little nod to the "new gaming press". I'd like to see more of that next show. It would be awesome to have Angry Joe or Zero Punctuation present an award. Actually I think it would be pretty cool if Angry Joe hosted the show. I sincerely love "Dorito Pope" Keighley but he lacks the charisma to hold the show together. I think someone like Angry Joe could bring a lot of energy to it.

 

Also, a lot of people bitching about TotalBiscuit winning some award. 

 

He won "trending gamer" over StampyLongHead, PewDiePie, Jeff Gerstmann, and VanossGaming. I don't really understand the choice. Trending gamer implies that the gamer is popular, and PewDiePie (whether you like him or not) is definitely the most popular of these people. His channel is the most-subscribed on YouTube, it is one of the fastest growing, and his videos have a combined view count of 6,978,310,059. 

 

If the category was something like "most talented gamer" or "most entertaining gamer," it would be a different story.

 

PewDiePie is certainly more popular, but he wasn't trending compared to TotalBiscuit in the latter part of this year.

[LexusInfernus 908]

He won "trending gamer" over StampyLongHead, PewDiePie, Jeff Gerstmann, and VanossGaming. I don't really understand the choice. Trending gamer implies that the gamer is popular, and PewDiePie (whether you like him or not) is definitely the most popular of these people. His channel is the most-subscribed on YouTube, it is one of the fastest growing, and his videos have a combined view count of 6,978,310,059. 

 

If the category was something like "most talented gamer" or "most entertaining gamer," it would be a different story.

 

Yeah but wasnt this category one where fans could vote for? If PewDiePie didnt win, it would be because not enough people voted for him. 

 

Yeah a lot of anti-ggers crying their little eyeballs out about losing a popularity contest.

 

I was really happy when they brought out Boogie2998. I love that guy's stuff and I'm glad The Game Awards gave a little nod to the "new gaming press". I'd like to see more of that next show. It would be awesome to have Angry Joe or Zero Punctuation present an award. Actually I think it would be pretty cool if Angry Joe hosted the show. I sincerely love "Dorito Pope" Keighley but he lacks the charisma to hold the show together. I think someone like Angry Joe could bring a lot of energy to it.

Meh, if anything TotalBiscuit brings some much needed credibility to GamerGate, and he is definitely one who is all about the whole 'ethics in games journalism' thing, rather than complaining about or harassing women in gaming. But whatever, he is a personality, they will always have people divided. 

 

And yeah, Angry Joe could make an awesome host I think. Although he might piss off some of the bigger devs with his corporate commander persona. 

[MilitantRadical 2,844]

 

Yeah but wasnt this category one where fans could vote for? If PewDiePie didnt win, it would be because not enough people voted for him.

 

I don't know if there was voting, but if there was it would help explain why he won. I'm not a fan of Biscuit's but I think he's a reasonable guy. Still, you'd think that because PewDie has such a big audience a lot of people would vote for him also.

 

 

And yeah, Angry Joe could make an awesome host I think. Although he might piss off some of the bigger devs with his corporate commander persona. 

 

He might, but I think they're all mature enough to handle a little roasting. It's like the Academy Awards where the celebs kind of get ripped on by the host. It could work.

[Xenocity 343]

@Militant

 

Actually Gamecube, Wii and Wii U will all have more mature titles than Nintendo 64.

 

The main overarching reason for the lack of 3rd party support on a Nintendo system, is the fact that 3rd parties sales are killed by the flood of 1st party titles. This is the reason why Sony and Microsoft have very few 1st party releases in a given year. 

3rd parties refuse to support a system that is dominated by a 1st party, which includes the reason why EA refused to support Dreamcast (you cannot have games that compete with EA). 

 

According to the ESRB's site:

 

ESRB rating system wasn't fully in place until holiday 1994, thus SNES only having few hardcore titles (this means we cannot disprove the kiddy image of SNES)

Nintendo 64 - ~ 30

Gamecube - 31

Wii - 42

Wii U - 21 (as of today)

 

This means Wii>Gamecube>Nintendo 64> Wii U in terms of hardcore games

Though if we base it on the second year of each console, then it is different. 

Wii U is currently 7 titles away from matching the Nintendo 64's total library

 

 

 

 

 

How does this compare to the competition:

 

PS4:

•  53 M-rated titles: 24.5% 
• 65 T-rated titles: 30.1% 
• 47 E10+ rated titles: 21.8%
• 51 E/EC rated titles 23.6%

Xbox One:

• 49 M-rated titles: which is 32%
• 38 T rated titles: which is 24.8% 
• 32 E10+ rated titles: which is 20.9%
• 34 E/EC-rated titles: which is 22.2% 

Wii U:

• 21 M-rated titles: 5.6%
• 40 T-rated titles: 10.6%
• 71 E-10+ (Many T-rated titles are now classified as this): 18.9%
• 233 E&EC: 62.1%

The bulk of the E&EC rated titles for each system are digital releases including retro games, applications such as communications & Art apps and Indie titles. 

All releases on consoles and handhelds must be rated by ESRB!

Google Play, Mac App Store, iOS App store, Steam, Origin, and Windows store aren't bound by the ESRB. 

 

And for fun the Wii: 

 

• 42 M-rated titles: .02%
• 380 T-rated titles: 17.5%
• 433 E10+ rated titles: 19.9% (E10+ began midway into Wii's lifespan)
• 1319 E/EC rated titles: 60.7%

The Wii's breakdown is very similar to both PS1 and PS2, which all three were heavily skewed to T and under. 

 

TL;DR 

 

Nintendo systems cater to everyone, while the competition caters mainly to the hardcore games with many T rated games. 

 

Does catering to everyone = family friendly, kiddy, and/or casual?

Does catering nearly exclusively to those who want M-rated games and some T-rated games make it hardcore?

 

Does the PS1 and PS2 having over 60% of their libraries skewing to E and T rating make them casual and kiddy?

 

It's really in the eye of the beholder. 

[MilitantRadical 2,844]

The main overarching reason for the lack of 3rd party support on a Nintendo system, is the fact that 3rd parties sales are killed by the flood of 1st party titles. This is the reason why Sony and Microsoft have very few 1st party releases in a given year.

 

I totally disagree. The WiiU lacks 3rd party support mainly because major 3rd party developers see there isn't a big enough audience and it isn't worth their time and money porting their games because of it.

 

By audience size I'm not talking about the amount of people who own the console, I'm talking about the kind of people who own the console. A demographics study by Nielsen revealed that the Wii appeals primarily  to boys 6-11 and women 25-34. It is a bit old (2009), but I have no doubt if you did a current study on the WiiU would yield similar results. This isn't to say that the WiiU is only for boy 6-11 and women 24-34, just that they have the largest market share. Most of the AAA 3rd party titles these days are not aimed at that demographic, although there appears to be some slow shifts toward including those audiences more on the newer consoles.

 

Titles like Arkham City, Mass Effect, and Assassin's Creed failed to return on the investment their publishers put in to porting them to the WiiU not because they were overshadowed by more and better 1st party titles, but because the audience for those games wasn't large enough. Nintendo's core audience is either not old enough or simply not interested in these kind of games. Sure, a vocal minority of Nintendo fans wish they had more mature 3rd party games but they don't represent a large enough market to justify porting games to the WiiU.

 

Companies like Microsoft and Sony have fewer 1st party games than they do 3rd party games simply because there are more 3rd party developers. 1st party game development studios are usually much smaller than big 3rd party devs, so they can't just crank out games at the same volume. They're not holding back because they're afraid the success of their 1st party will drive away 3rd party games. 

 

3rd parties aren't afraid their games can't compete with Nintendo's 1st party games and that they will be "killed off", they're afraid that there isn't enough of a significant audience on that system who will buy their games - and justifiably so.

 

@Militant

 

Actually Gamecube, Wii and Wii U will all have more mature titles than Nintendo 64.

 

I'm not denying that fact. I'm trying to articulate that Nintendo has gradually moved more toward a family oriented identity as compared to their competitors since the N64.

 

Nintendo systems cater to everyone, while the competition caters mainly to the hardcore games with many T rated games.

 

It is all about which audience you advertise to that counts. Pixar's films cater to everyone. An adult can enjoy a Pixar film like The Incredibles just as a child can, but the films are targeted toward families and kids.

 

Lets disassociate "mature" from hardcore". Just because a game is rate E doesn't mean it can't be "hardcore". "Hardcore game" is very hard to define. To me "hardcore" means a game that you get involved with for long periods of time, whereas a "casual game" is just something you do to pass the time. A "casual game" is something that you can easily pick up and play in short periods of time, whereas a "hardcore game" is something that you set aside time for.

 

 

Does catering to everyone =family friendly, kiddy, and/or c asual?

 

No.

 

Advertizing to families, kids, and "casuals" = family friendly, kiddy, and/or casual.

 

Does catering nearly exclusively to those who want M-rated games and some T-rated games make it hardcore?

 

No. Anyone who equates "hardcore" with level of maturity (as rated by the ERSB) is an idiot.

 

 

Does the PS1 and PS2 having over 60% of their libraries skewing to E and T rating make them casual and kiddy?

 

No.

 

It's all about the identity the company wants to project. Nintendo wants to project a family friendly/kiddy identity because that is their core market. The sheer size of the PS1 & 2's library means that even if 60% of their games were "skewing to E and T", they still had more T and M titles than the N64 and GameCube. This isn't a positive or a negative, just saying that the PS1&2 get their recognition as consoles for more mature audiences because they had more T and M games than the Nintendo consoles did at their time and they advertized more to the +17 demographic. The percentage skew is irrelevant.

 

You can't blame people for seeing Nintendo as kiddy, or family, or casual oriented since that is the very image Nintendo is trying to project.

 

Feel free to respond to any of my points, but lets try to keep this on topic as well.

 

You may not have seen The Game Awards, but what did you think of the trailers that came out of it? Any games that interested you? Are you hyped for the new Zelda? What would you like to see in a game award show?

[Duke87 1,070]

Lets disassociate "mature" from hardcore". Just because a game is rate E doesn't mean it can't be "hardcore". "Hardcore game" is very hard to define. To me "hardcore" means a game that you get involved with for long periods of time, whereas a "casual game" is just something you do to pass the time. A "casual game" is something that you can easily pick up and play in short periods of time, whereas a "hardcore game" is something that you set aside time for.

 

Perhaps, but changing the definitiion of "hardcore" changes the debate.

 

Based on this issue having come up previously "hardcore game" seems to be alluding more to the demographics of the people who play it than anything else about the game itself. That is to say, a "hardcore game" is a game played primarily by people who spend a lot of time playing games. Such people are college students and 20-somethings, i.e. adults. Hence the relevance of the M rating since the point is that the game is designed specifically with adults in mind.

 

This is all valid reality but what I don't see is the leap from "designed for children" to "inferior".

[MilitantRadical 2,844]

Perhaps, but changing the definitiion of "hardcore" changes the debate.

 

 

I don't think I'm changing the debate since I'm not changing the definition, I'm clarifying it. A lot of people conflate "mature" with "hardcore", this is wrong. According to Wikipedia a "hardcore gamer" is someone who "spends a good amount of their time playing video games, often have the latest consoles/high-end PCs, and are usually technologically savvy. In addition, they prefer to play games that have depth and complexity and often seek out game-related information." So by that measure a hardcore game is just a game that has depth and complexity. A game doesn't have to be rated M to have that.

 

 

 

Based on this issue having come up previously "hardcore game" seems to be alluding more to the demographics of the people who play it than anything else about the game itself. That is to say, a "hardcore game" is a game played primarily by people who spend a lot of time playing games. Such people are college students and 20-somethings, i.e. adults. Hence the relevance of the M rating since the point is that the game is designed specifically with adults in mind.

 

I can't quite make out what you're trying to say here.

 

Also, lets try to keep things on topic. The Game Awards - what did you think about them or the trailers?

[Xenocity 343]

@militant

Nielsen's market research isn't worth it's price.

They can't even do TV ratings right, which is based on 50,000 Nielsen box holders for the whole of the U.S.

NPD tracks North American sales by working with the major retailers and publishers.

They aslo work with The ESA and EEDAR (other tracker and analysis)!

Sony, Microsoft, and the major 3rd parties use the NPD for their decisions.

NPD also yearly survey over 1,000 gamers to accurately classify gamers (you only need a sample size of ~120 to get accurate data on a group)

I have the 2013 & 2014 results and classifications of gamers posted on this very board.

NPD's data found that hardcore gamers are still 13/15 - 35 year old makes who play M-rated games, on PS and Xbox, primarily FIrst Person Shooters.

They also stated hardcore games must have blood /gore, heavy violence, and sexualization.

This means M-rated is the hardcore rating, with some T-rated games fitting the bill.

All other games fit the family friendly/kiddy/casual bill.

Also PC users, multiconsole owners. Handheld gamers, Mobiles users arent hardcore either according to the 2014 report.

You would then fall in one of the other 5 categories.

NPD and EEDAR have openly both stated that Microsoft and Nintendo need to scale back on first party output to gain full third third party support.

Microsoft is currently is missing out on 47 third party games, including SFV and other decent sized third party games.

NPD in their regular reports claim EA, Ubisoft, Activision, Square-Enix, and other companies CEOs have told them the reason for not supporting a Wii U was mainly due to Nintendo's first party games taking most sales from third party games. Michael Pachter regularly talks about this on his show (he's an analyst) as does the other NPD analysts. He states his conversations with third party CEOs and the data shows that if Nintendo scaled back its first party release schedule to that of Sony's, they would gain better third party support.

Also the Wikipedia gamers definitions are old school pre PS definitions

Last note no one obviously cares about TGAs outside of Neogaf.

This is my thread with the NPD with the gaming classifications.

Also Assassin's Creed and Call of Duty made modest profits on Wii U according to financial reports of both companies.

[MilitantRadical 2,844]

NPD's data found that hardcore gamers are still 13/15 - 35 year old makes who play M-rated games, on PS and Xbox, primarily FIrst Person Shooters.

They also stated hardcore games must have blood /gore, heavy violence, and sexualization.

This means M-rated is the hardcore rating, with some T-rated games fitting the bill.

All other games fit the family friendly/kiddy/casual bill.

 

Could you find me where it specifically says that hardcore must have blood /gore, heavy violence, and sexualization?

 

So are you saying that Nintendo isn't for hardcore gamers and are you admitting it is more for kids and casuals?

 

 

NPD and EEDAR have openly both stated that Microsoft and Nintendo need to scale back on first party output to gain full third third party support.

 

Where have they said this?

 

Microsoft hardly has any 1st party games. Their 1st party output has always been pretty low. They have Forza, Halo, Fable, and Gears of War - that's about it. Out of those 4 only 1 was released this year and only 1 was released last year. How is there a correlation between the amount of 1st part and 3rd party?

 

Microsoft is currently is missing out on 47 third party games, including SFV and other decent sized third party games.

 

The only reason SF5 isn't on XB1 is because Capcom took a nice fat paycheck from Sony to help make the game. It has nothing to do with Microsoft's 1st party output.

 

NPD in their regular reports claim EA, Ubisoft, Activision, Square-Enix, and other companies CEOs have told them the reason for not supporting a Wii U was mainly due to Nintendo's first party games taking most sales from third party games.

 

Please show me where it says this.

 

All the analysis I've read supports my claim that Nintendo lacks 3rd party support mainly because the install base for those games isn't there. Not because of 1st parties.

 

In this article by Eric Kain they say:

 

"A system’s poor install base scares off third-party developers, which in turn leads to less new content, ultimately making it harder to cultivate a robust install base."

 

Nintendo’s Scott Moffitt, EVP of Sales & Marketing for Nintendo of America says: “we realize that we need to continue to build the installed base to demonstrate that making games for Wii U is a good investment."

 

 

Michael Pachter regularly talks about this on his show (he's an analyst) as does the other NPD analysts. He states his conversations with third party CEOs and the data shows that if Nintendo scaled back its first party release schedule to that of Sony's, they would gain better third party support.

 

I'm a huge fan of Pachter's, but he's been wrong on multiple occasions. Also, I've never seen him or anyone on his show say that the data shows that if Nintendo scaled back its first party release schedule to that of Sony's, they would gain better third party support. Could you show me where he said that?

 

Here is something Pachter said about Nintendo: "They are more than a decade behind the curve, and they are so insular that there is no desire internally to learn from others. Nintendo hardware goes away. There is a place for their content. There is no place for Nintendo hardware. Nobody cares. They will have to abandon hardware." - WiiU Daily

 

Do you agree with this statement?

 

I'm pretty sure Patchter doesn't have a show anymore.

 

 

Also the Wikipedia gamers definitions are old school pre PS definitions

 

Not really since they align pretty well with the very NPD report summary you linked to in The main factor is time spent playing, which is the first criteria in the Wikipedia definition.

 

Also Assassin's Creed and Call of Duty made modest profits on Wii U according to financial reports of both companies.

 

"Ubisoft CEO Yves Guillemot states that they will not release any more Assassin’s Creed games on the WiiU, following the poor sales of Assassin’s Creed III and ZombiU." - http://www.loadthegame.com/2014/08/20/ubisoft-ceo-says-assassins-creed-unity-wont-arriving-wiiu/

 

Yves Guillemot: ""We need the sales to increase so it becomes more and more mass market then we will have the volume that will justify massive marketing and TV marketing." - http://www.polygon.com/2014/6/9/5793660/ubisoft-unreleased-wii-u-games

 

"Looking at this through the prism of a business decision, if I’m a third-party publisher, what I want is that I want a large, diverse installed base to invest in my development and be able to monetize against that large installed base," Fils-Aime said. "That’s why, from a Nintendo first-party perspective, we have to drive the installed base. We need a diverse group of consumers. Not just core, not just casual, but a broad, diverse group of consumers within that installed base, so that whether you’re Ubi with Assassin’s Creed or with Just Dance, you’re feeling confident that your game is going to find a home. You’ll be able to monetize your development." - http://ca.ign.com/articles/2013/06/20/nintendo-third-party-support-a-secondary-priority

 

In essence they are saying that the WiiU lacks the install base to justify making games for. It has very little, if at all, to do with "first party games taking most sales from third party games." I can't find a single article that supports your theory. They might exist, but I can't find them.

 

It isn't because 1st party games are taking sales from 3rd party games, it is because the core audience isn't interested in buying games like AC and CoD on WiiU. 3rd party devs and publishers don't fear competition from WiiU games, they fear a lack of interest from WiiU users.

 

In a recent interview, the creative director for Assassin's Creed Unity Alex Amancio explained that the Wii U "really couldn't" handle Unity's planned scale. "I mean this is why we from the beginning, this was going to be a new-gen-only title, because the crowds aren’t aesthetic, they actually have impact," said Amancio. "If we did anything to hinder that or to reduce that it would have a detrimental impact, it wouldn’t be the same experience." - http://ca.ign.com/articles/2014/10/06/ubisoft-assassins-creed-unity-could-not-run-on-wii-u

 

This statement supports my theory that the power and architecture of the WiiU are a factor for 3rd parties not wanting to port games to the WiiU. Compared to the PS4 and XBO, the WiiU is outdated and more modern titles like Assassin's Creed Unity or Arkham Knight would require significant graphical downgrades to appear on it. It has nothing to do with Nintendo 1st parties. To be fair AC: Unity can hardly run on PC, PS4, and XB1, but that is mainly because Ubisoft likes to cram their games full of stuff and suck at optimizing.

 

So can we agree that:

 

1. Nintendo is focused on making family/kid friendly games.

2. Nintendo is perceived as kiddy and casual because it markets itself that way.

3. Nintendo lacks popular M rated 3rd party games because the audience isn't there.

4. The WiiU lacks the technological ability to run new-gen only games like AC Unity and Arkham Knight without significant graphical downgrades.

 

Last note no one obviously cares about TGAs outside of Neogaf.

 

Well we in this thread clearly care.

 

So are there no game previews that came out of the show that interest you?

[SimCoug 5,976]

I'm not sure how I came about it, but I saw that new Zelda dev video... The last Zelda game that I really played was 'A Link to the Past' 

I have played 'Ocarina of Time' but only a little bit.

It sure has come a long way since then.  Zelda always had great stories and characters - I hope the new game continues that.

[MilitantRadical 2,844]

I'm not sure how I came about it, but I saw that new Zelda dev video... The last Zelda game that I really played was 'A Link to the Past' 

I have played 'Ocarina of Time' but only a little bit.

It sure has come a long way since then.  Zelda always had great stories and characters - I hope the new game continues that.

 

Yeah the game looks fantastic from a graphical standpoint but I really want to know what the story is about. One of the great things about Ocarina of Time was how they advertized it. The story really looked like an epic quest. It also looked kinda dark too, something I feel this new Zelda lacks.