Submitted for Your Consideration: Changes to ORIGINS Awards

woodelf · Jul 4, 2003

James Heard said:
How else would you explain Titanic? No really, sales are one of the few things that can't be manipulated by a committee discussion - they're facts, and if they're misrepresented then they're fraud at some point. Sales are popularity awards too, else no one would be buying them. [snip] It certainly shouldn't be the only criteria for any sort of reward, but like they say, "quantity has a quality all it's own."

It's just not that simple. Frex, a while back i decided to go see a movie, and decided that it would be either Matrix: Reloaded or X2. I chose Matrix because i figured it would be the lesser-quality of the two (this was before i'd read any reviews or heard from friends who'd seen them--i thought X-Men was better than Matrix, so expected the sequels to follow suit). Now, this is not masochism on my part. It's simply that, precisely because X2 is a better movie, it will still be enjoyable if i see it in a 2nd-run theater with less-awesome sound, or even rent it on video to see it. I didn't expect Matrix Reloaded to have much going for it but special effects, which would lose most of their value on a 20" TV screen (especially since i don't have a DVD player, and VHS is almost always pan-n-crap instead of letterbox). And, as it turns out, i was right--it was flashy, and had a couple good bits to the soundtrack, and a few nifty bits in the fight scenes, but pretty much lacked plot, dialogue, or acting, IMHO. I enjoyed watching it--but no more than a patently B-grade effort like Flash Gordon--but wouldn't bother with the next one if it hadn't ended on a cliffhanger. Even then, i still may not. It just left me feeling hollow.

So, the fact that i've increased the sales of Matrix Reloaded and not X2 is not an indication of quality--i wouln't have even voted for the original Matrix, which was far superior, for any kind of award based on quality--but of factors related to the medium. I rarely see movies in theaters any more--pretty much just those rare ones that are very flashy, and only appeal to me because they're flashy.

James Heard · Jul 4, 2003

So in category "Most Flashy" you'd translate sales to quality there. I don't understand the resistance.

Fast Learner · Jul 4, 2003

I don't think your analogy works in gaming, though. Do you really buy a gaming product that you think might be inferior to another because you'll buy the other one... when?

It is true, certainly, that people buy products -- including games -- for all sorts of reasons not related to quality including pretty packaging, cool names, recognizable brands, release timing, advertising, the physical weight of the product (heavier usually seems more valuable), and probably a dozen other things that have absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the product is actually better or worse than another in terms of its core or "real" purpose.

But: what is the "best" item in a category? For example, in popular music I would argue that the best song is the one that people most like to buy, regardless of any music critic's perspective. It's the best simply because it's the most popular. If you're the average 14 year old then you want it because other people want it. It likely became the most popular due to all kinds of reasons, mostly good marketing, but that is how popular music is measured: its popularity.

Both popularity and awards are limited by exposure: if you never saw it you're certainly not going to buy it and you're probably not going to vote for it. As such it's highly likely that the most popular item in a category isn't necessarily the best, and the most highly awarded item isn't the best: at least not the best in some theoretical objective comparison of quality for the item's purpose.

When it comes to games, then, should popularity apply when determining the "best" product? Why not? Does anyone believe that those who nominate and award the Pulitzers have read and evaluated every possible piece of published writing that might apply, or that those who nominate and award the Nobel prizes have examined every potential winner? And even if they did, why would anyone believe that they're being even remotely "objective"?

As far as I'm concerned industry awards are and will always be about popularity and highly subjective judgement. To pretend that they're not is, in my opinion, idealism of the most unfortunate kind.

Revamping the Origins awards so they more accurately reflect the state of the industry and admit that popularity and subjectivity are the core of any award system makes perfect sense in my book.

Anubis the Doomseer · Jul 4, 2003

Originally posted by Fast Learner
I don't think your analogy works in gaming, though. Do you really buy a gaming product that you think might be inferior to another because you'll buy the other one... when?

This situation breaks down in one key area. Unless you are into pdf file-swapping you have to buy a book before you can read it and use the material - and therefore judge its value.

I can hawk a book and (through, for example, a house organ mag or incredible retailer penetration) sell a billion copies. But every single one of those buyers are disastisfied with their purchase. Am I the "best" or not? If you go by sales then yes I am, if you do some sort of follow up with the buyers - after they have time to read or play the material, the result may be very different. Many people buy games that end up being bad buys - they become almost cult hits because of their kitch value.

The problem is further compounded with FLGS' that polybag (and don't allow peeking), and internet sales (which you cannot peruse the material before buying).

Then comes along the problem of print run and the bias toward large publishers. If you go by copies sold = popularity then you are all but handing nominations to Hasbro, White Wolf et.al. because they can get the larger print runs - it's more cost effective for them. Factor in certain deals at the retailer level (for example, Exalted may be kick ass, but because you can't find it in a Toys R' Us, whereas you can find a copy of the PHB, which is going to have more "sales"). You are penalizing small presses twice - they can't afford to print many copies of their product, and they lack the weight with distributors and big box retailers that other companies may have.

And if you allow online sale figures... who are you going to trust? I can say I sold a billion copies of my pdf on my homepage, and nothing short of an audit of my books will prove otherwise.

Number of sales is a flawed way to measure quality or popularity.

- Ma'at

Fast Learner · Jul 4, 2003

Anubis the Doomseer said:
Number of sales is a flawed way to measure quality or popularity.

I certainly agree that sales don't measure quality, but they most certainly measure popularity. The product that sells the most is the most popular. How else would you measure it?

Awards, though, as a stated above, aren't about quality.

If you have the fans vote you're guaranteed to not have the highest quality product win because the only way someone could vote for the highest quality RPG Supplement, say, would be to have tried all of the RPG Supplements available that year.

The same is true of any other group.

Awards in such a broad field can never really represent quality. Even awards like the ENnies only represent the perceived quality of the products submitted to the ENnies.

ichabod · Jul 4, 2003

The Origins awards are pointless. They've been pointless for a long time. It would not surprise me if they've been pointless forever, so I don't see this "rebuilding stature" thing. Weighting things towards the "professionals" in the game "industry" is not going to help them. Weighting things towards big sellers is not going to help them.

And really, what is the point of the awards? To give publishers a sticker to put on their game to increase sales. If publishers want to increase sales they should produce quality product in a timely manner. If consumers want to know what game to buy, they should find a reviewer whose tastes correlate with their own. With a very few exceptions, awards ceremonies are meaningless. GAMA would be much better served putting their efforts into other areas.

cnath.rm · Jul 5, 2003

Talaysen said:
Sorry. I think the Origins Awards need a change, but I'm not going to support a proposal that includes, albeit buried under a bunch a double-speak, yet another swipe at KenzerCo for having the audacity to win for HackMaster. I'm just sick and tired of all the industry whining over this issue. Yeah - the fans voted for a parody. They voted for a FUNNY GAME, one based by their admission on D&D but filled with elements all its own. If this bothers you, you can always use the strategy favored by authors afraid of J.K. Rowling's success and push for a separate set of awards.

Is this what people are complaining about? I hadn't heard any complaining or anything, but I didn't have much of a chance to talk to the shopkeeper from my flgs who went. Ryan's comment could fit this, I'm just wondering if this is what/who he meant.

Coik · Jul 7, 2003

Mark said:
Let's say there is a category for widgets.

Company A produces five each with a quality (on a ten scale) of 10, 9, 10, 8, and 9.

Company B produces one with a quality of 2.

The artificial equal footing is created when 2 is allowed to compete with a 10 while the others aren't allowed.

But they are allowed...they just got eliminated in the primaries when Company A choose to submit Widget 10 (Mark I) instead of one of the others.

Besides, wouldn't allowing a company more than one entry in a catagory (and thereby increasing the likelihood they'd get the award) artifically increasing their chances to win?

And really...if Company A's widget is really so much better than Company B's, than this would be a non-issue, since it'd blow Company B's widget out of the water without even trying...

Anyway, mouseferatu summed up my point on the sales-based nominations pretty well...

If the top-selling items are really that popular, they'll be nominated on their own merits. There is simply no good reason to give an already leading product an artificial leg up.

And again, I ask...what was so bad about this year's awards?

Mark · Jul 7, 2003

Coik said:
Besides, wouldn't allowing a company more than one entry in a catagory (and thereby increasing the likelihood they'd get the award) artifically increasing their chances to win?

Nope because it wouldn't be artificial. The five best products (if that's the number of possible nominations) should be able to compete against one another regardless if they come from one company, two, three, four or five. When you eliminate the chance for the best products to compete, then you are making an artificial adjustment.

(The second quote you made is not from me.)

Coik · Jul 7, 2003

Mark said:
The five best products (if that's the number of possible nominations) should be able to compete against one another regardless if they come from one company, two, three, four or five.

Well, Mark, I think that this is where the crux of our disagreement lies. If there's a Widget catagory and Company A has nominations for their Widget 10 (Mark I), Widget 10 (Mark II), and Widget 9, you see it as all three of them competing against one another. I, on the other hand, see it as all three working together in order to stack the deck and increase the chance that Company A will take home the Widgets Award.

(The second quote you made is not from me.)

Check out the sentance immeditely prior to my second quote.

Submitted for Your Consideration: Changes to ORIGINS Awards

Ryan S. Dancey

woodelf

First Post

James Heard

Explorer

Fast Learner

First Post

Anubis the Doomseer

First Post

Fast Learner

First Post

ichabod

Legned

cnath.rm

First Post

Coik

First Post

Mark

CreativeMountainGames.com

Coik

First Post

Similar Threads

Related Articles