Some of the biggest, well-know brands in the video game world announced new titles at last week's E3 trade show in Los Angeles. Maybe you've heard of Halo, Mario Bros., or BioShock but, unless you're a gamer, you probably know little else about them. Countless hours are spend enraptured by this varied, multi-billion-dollar industry, yet it still operates like a niche community. An acquired taste.
I think that video games need their Oscars.
I'm not talking about another awards show, per se. The world doesn't need another pointless TV special, replete with strutting celebs, and lots of insider jokes and thank yous. Pouring slime on somebody is a nice touch, I'll have to admit, but all it does is help sell advertising time between segments. It doesn't help the creative industry, per se.
No, I'm thinking about the early days of Hollywood.
Motion pictures were a struggling, new medium. There were no classics in 1927, but rather lots of experimentation, cheap yucks, and not just a few really, really silly movies. "Real" theatrical entertainment was live, and usually sans amplification. Flicks were popular foremost with kids and those adults who enjoyed such low culture pursuits.
In other words, movies were the video games of the early 20th Century.
Hence was born the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. What a glorious hoity toity title for an industry in desperate need of credibility. Yet, while first and foremost a shamelessly brilliant publicity tool, the Academy's awards established a sense of standards and professional self-respect.
It also helped dimensionalize the supply chain, adding layers of effort and expertise to an end-product in which such work wasn’t always evident. These motion picture thingees were complicated, and their production the work of artists, not just oddballs.
Compare this to what we know about most video games. If our interest passes the "oh, I'm not one of those" litmus test, they still come across as oddly generic and inert. Do we know about all the brilliant technology underpinning them? The artistry in rendering, not to mention the creativity in character and plot development? Where is recognition for the best game musical score, or sound effects mixing?
Sweden's University of Gotland's Game Awards do something like this every year, and I'm sure there are others, so there's lots of good thinking already out there worth copying.
It seems like video games are ripe for their own big, global evening celebrating games, not the business of making titles, nor the nutcases who love playing them (yours truly included).
Amen! I've read genre fiction all my life (several genres actually) and love it. Now I write genre fiction. I'm so tired of the people who dismiss them as not being "real" books.
Funny, they sure feel like real books ...
Lillith Saintcrow has one of my favorite takes on this. Her Hack Manifesto is just great.
Posted by: Sniper Games | October 19, 2011 at 01:17 PM
I think it would be good to introduce some gifts or prizes for the regular gamers. This is no doubt a very insightful posting.
Posted by: EverQuest Accounts | July 10, 2009 at 07:01 AM
It's a nice idea to have an Oscar awards for games but then it's gonna be a bias cuz the only people who can appreciate and will vote for this will be gamers. But it's really a neat idea to have this so that games can be introduced to the market effectively. Of course if one day there's gonna be an Oscar for games, my vote goes to World of Warcraft. ^^
Posted by: wowgold | June 30, 2009 at 11:19 AM
The above post is correct. I'd also say that the limits of niche programmed cable networks versus the old days of broadcasting or mass coverage also mitigates the impact of the existing game awards shows...
Posted by: demosthenes | June 22, 2009 at 05:25 PM
Multiple awards in the game industry - all with major recognition and respect within the game industry, and all with live ceremonies - are vying to be the oscars of the game industry. Here are a few:
The Game Developers Choice Awards
Spike's VGAs
The Academy of Interactive Arts and Sciences
One of the biggest barriers to these really taking off has been the lack of "celebrity" to appeal to the mass market.
Posted by: Jen McLean | June 22, 2009 at 02:35 PM
You make a really good point; there is a profound difference between the active experience of games vs. the one-way, inert experience of movies.
But I think the evolution of the game experience will be away from active "playing," per se, and more to an immersive, easier executed medium. There aren't enough consumers who want to be expert 'players' to warrant the kind of attention/numbers that the video game world needs to make the next jump in its growth. The closer games get to allowing consumers to 'live them' -- as naturally and easily as they would consume a movie or TV show -- I think the closer they'll be to becoming a mainstream medium.
Posted by: Jonathan | June 20, 2009 at 02:48 PM
The "movies are the video games of the early 20th Century" metaphor is neat, but it hides an essential difference. We watch movies, but we PLAY games. The "global-academy stage" of gaming will not come from best game awards but rather from best player awards. The truly defining moment will be the arrival of the global game-player hero. The process is well under way (eg. with gaming beginning to be covered as a credible sport event).
Posted by: domen | June 20, 2009 at 02:25 PM