Spike VGA's Out, Surprisingly are not Bullsh*t

[Iron Mal]

this thread is a joke, the VGA's were/are an abomination on gaming. Everything wrong about our passion was on display, the angry black guy from youtube was the only sane person in the room i feel. It's at heart an exercise in 'clever' marketing by various big name gaming corporations looking for an easy way to masturbate on stage about their latest multi-million dollar pile of s**t. Skyrim, while a solid 7/10 game, is no GOTY, that could go to any number of other, less well marketed, games. MW3 is a steaming turd of cancer upon gaming itself, and activision must have paid a tidy sum to get charlie sheen to say the name of that game.

Like one of the previous posters said, aside from the soo bad they are good jokes, the far too short speech from miyamoto, and game previews, theres no point in watching the VGA's, they are an embarrasment to gaming in my eyes.

Might I reccomend to you then that you simply don't watch them and just ignore them then?

I'm fairly certain that the number of people who a) know about the VGA's and b) cared enough to actually tune in and watch them who aren't gamers is probably very small, no-one is judging you as a gamer because of the VGA's (in fact, the only ones who seem to be getting judgemental over it are gamers).

Some people are going to argue 'oh, well the awards were bullshit! Skrim didn't deserve GOTY!' but in the end (as with all subjective matters like entertainment) this is something that is largely down to personal opinion and taste (I don't like Half Life 2 and FFX yet they got a shit-tonne of awards and praise when they came out, does that mean that everyone who does like them is talking bullshit for disagreeing with me?).

If your personal picks and favourites didn't make it into the nominations or awards then it doesn't mean that they were automatically bullshit, it just means you weren't a part of the majority on this one (as an award show it is supposed to be about what the most people liked and felt was good, of course the most popular titles are going to win, they are the usually the ones most people liked and enjoyed).

In the end all of the bile and backlash I see against the VGA's comes off as more immature and probably does more to damage our 'reputation' than any amount of the tea-bagging joke would have (it was a groan-worthy joke but I somehow doubt anyone thought or expected it would be the pinacle of wit, when you see people pulling poetic language out to wax lyrical about something they could have simply chosen not to watch if they didn't want to then it's just somewhat depressing).

Was the show good? No, it was 'meh' overall (still an improvement from last year at least).

Was the show bad enough to warrent all the rage and hate? Not even close and we come off as looking all the more childish and dickish for it.

 

[northeast rower]

this thread is a joke, the VGA's were/are an abomination on gaming. Everything wrong about our passion was on display, the angry black guy from youtube was the only sane person in the room i feel. It's at heart an exercise in 'clever' marketing by various big name gaming corporations looking for an easy way to masturbate on stage about their latest multi-million dollar pile of s**t. Skyrim, while a solid 7/10 game, is no GOTY, that could go to any number of other, less well marketed, games. MW3 is a steaming turd of cancer upon gaming itself, and activision must have paid a tidy sum to get charlie sheen to say the name of that game.

Like one of the previous posters said, aside from the soo bad they are good jokes, the far too short speech from miyamoto, and game previews, theres no point in watching the VGA's, they are an embarrasment to gaming in my eyes.

Woah, everyone back up, we have a gaming elitist here! Just in case we didn't here it from everyone else with two hands and a keyboard, MW3 sucks!

Oh, and a contrarian as well? When half of the gaming world worships "Skyrim", I think that you have no place saying that it doesn't deserve GOTY.

 

[The-Epicly-Named-Man]

Nope, in fact I never have, I saw last years winners and nominations and that's about it. But it was enough to tell me sort of the show they were running.

Otherwise known as the 'I don't know what I'm argueing about but this is what I've heard' arguement, not very strong in the face of criticism that one.

Yes, the winners of last year were pretty much bullshit and the show was awful but upon watching this year's show I can say that they're still bad but (and here's the important part that a lot of people seem too wrapped up in 'gamer pride' to actually recognise) they're getting better.

The nominations they handed out this year were fair enough, there were a lot of good games on display and the ones that recieved awards (one of my main complaints about the VGA's this year was the lack of actual award giving) did seem like titles that had genuinely earned them (MW3 was a very good game, as was Skyrim and Batman: Arkham City).

The show they're running isn't inherantly bad, it's got a ways to go before it's what I'd call 'good' but they do seem to have at least made more of an effort this year (which counts for a lot in my opinion).

Actually, it's not, it's the "I don't live in the US and can't watch it, but I've seen the award results on various gaming websites I can actually access and disagree with them" argument. Whether the nominations are actually good is subjective (for example, I think MW3 winning best shooter is ridiculous, especially when it came out the same year as DE: HR), I raise issue with a) the nomination system and b) the narrow representation of the industry.

 

[Iron Mal]

Actually, it's not, it's the "I don't live in the US and can't watch it, but I've seen the award results on various gaming websites I can actually access and disagree with them" argument. Whether the nominations are actually good is subjective (for example, I think MW3 winning best shooter is ridiculous, especially when it came out the same year as DE: HR), I raise issue with a) the nomination system and b) the narrow representation of the industry.

Weirdly enough I don't live in the US either but myself and a friend stayed up late to watch it via an online broadcast so I can still call you out on not having actually watched the show you're complaining about (something that tends to weaken one's arguement, like the people who complain about the Twilight books but haven't actually read them).

The nominations are largely going to be subjective (the only objective measurement they have for a game's quality is the number of people who vote for them) as you've said so it's very shakey ground to try and say 'oh those nominations were bullshit!'.

For you MW3 winning shooter of the year may be ridiculous but to someone else it was the obvious choice and to someone else it must have been Battlefield 3 and another person's response may be 'I like pie'.

Just because the game you thought deserved the award didn't get it or even get nominated doesn't mean that they're wrong (and it doesn't mean your chosen game is bad so those of you on here getting defensive about it can relax) it just means that not as many people picked it as their choice for that particular award (as said in a previous post, it just means you weren't in the majority on this one).

As for the representation of gamers in the industry, allow me to summurise my overall view of people's response to the VGA's in the following hyperbolic and strawman-esc statement:

'They made us look like immature man-children so we're going to piss, whine and throw a tantrum about to until they...er...well...so they'll feel really bad about it!'.

Considering how large and all-encompassing gaming has become to western society I think that it'll take a lot more than a stupid award show to put our reputation in the black, throwing a hissy fit over it (as many on here have), however, just makes us look like the petulant children that we keep saying they're representing us as.

 

[The-Epicly-Named-Man]

Weirdly enough I don't live in the US either but myself and a friend stayed up late to watch it via an online broadcast so I can still call you out on not having actually watched the show you're complaining about (something that tends to weaken one's arguement, like the people who complain about the Twilight books but haven't actually read them).

The nominations are largely going to be subjective (the only objective measurement they have for a game's quality is the number of people who vote for them) as you've said so it's very shakey ground to try and say 'oh those nominations were bullshit!'.

For you MW3 winning shooter of the year may be ridiculous but to someone else it was the obvious choice and to someone else it must have been Battlefield 3 and another person's response may be 'I like pie'.

Just because the game you thought deserved the award didn't get it or even get nominated doesn't mean that they're wrong (and it doesn't mean your chosen game is bad so those of you on here getting defensive about it can relax) it just means that not as many people picked it as their choice for that particular award (as said in a previous post, it just means you weren't in the majority on this one).

As for the representation of gamers in the industry, allow me to summurise my overall view of people's response to the VGA's in the following hyperbolic and strawman-esc statement:

'They made us look like immature man-children so we're going to piss, whine and throw a tantrum about to until they...er...well...so they'll feel really bad about it!'.

Considering how large and all-encompassing gaming has become to western society I think that it'll take a lot more than a stupid award show to put our reputation in the black, throwing a hissy fit over it (as many on here have), however, just makes us look like the petulant children that we keep saying they're representing us as.

I'm clearly talking to a brick wall, aren't I? That's what I get for arguing on the internet I suppose. I laid out my complaints clear as day, and you basically reiterate exactly what I said I wasn't complaining about. To attempt to clarify; I don't care the games I like weren't nominated, I care that the nominations were all games from a single sector of the industry. As to your insistence that my opinion is basically invalid because I decided to sleep instead of watching an award show that has proven in the past to be fairly rubbish and gave no indication that it would improve this year, fine, if that really means I can't in anyway complain about something that doesn't necessitate watching said award show, then you "win", so please just feel self-satisfied and don't bother wasting my time again by replying.

 

[Iron Mal]

I'm clearly talking to a brick wall, aren't I?

Actually I'm a human being but snideness will get you a long way apparantly.

That's what I get for arguing on the internet I suppose. I laid out my complaints clear as day, and you basically reiterate exactly what I said I wasn't complaining about.

You laid out your arguements, I disagreed and explained why I in my response.

I don't see why you're getting so angry.

To attempt to clarify; I don't care the games I like weren't nominated, I care that the nominations were all games from a single sector of the industry.

Except that means you still care about the nominations since they were one of your problems (if you didn't care about the nominations then why the hell would you care where they came from?).

I shall now have to explain this for a third time, most of the awards were probably given out in response to how great their overall reception was and how the gaming population at large liked them. This naturally means that most (if not all) of the nominations are going to come from the high-production valued studios with the most resources and fan support avaliable because (and this part is important so I shall underline and bold it) these tend to be the games that are the most popular and most widely liked by the population at large.

So no, there is no real good reason to get pissy over the nominations whether it be because you thought a particular game didn't deserve an award or whether it be because you felt they focused too much on the AAA industry because in the end it's a natural result of how the voting system works.

As to your insistence that my opinion is basically invalid because I decided to sleep instead of watching an award show that has proven in the past to be fairly rubbish and gave no indication that it would improve this year, fine, if that really means I can't in anyway complain about something that doesn't necessitate watching said award show, then you "win", so please just feel self-satisfied and don't bother wasting my time again by replying.

If you didn't even watch it then why are you complaining?

Has it affected your life in any way?

Hell, I did watch it and it didn't affect my life in any way.

Complaining about things you haven't seen or experienced yourself but only heard about is the sort of stuff we normally give Fox News and the Daily Mail shit for so what exactly allows you to get away with it?

I actually did watch it and I can safely say from first hand experience that while still not great they certainly were an improvement from last year and people's reaction to it overall shows that maybe this 'immature man-child' reputation they're worried about the awards giving people is actually well deserved.

No-one's saying you can't complain but it does need to be kept in mind that the fact that you haven't actually seen it yourself limits your opinion to just the second hand accounts of everyone else (compared to those of us who actually watched it and formed our own opinions on the matter).

Also there is no winning an arguement on the internet, as my Dad used to say, 'argueing on the internet is like running a race when you're retarded, sure, you might win but you're still retarded'.