| The Glade 4.0 https://gladerebooted.net/ |
|
| Spike VGA Nominees https://gladerebooted.net/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=4723 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | Raltar [ Fri Nov 19, 2010 7:46 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Spike VGA Nominees |
http://gamerant.com/spike-tv-video-game ... eff-53342/ Interesting list. Can't say that anything on there shouldn't be. But I'm kinda upset Starcraft 2 wasn't up for game of the year...even though I think Mass Effect 2 should be game of the year. Also kinda surprised Red Dead Redemption isn't nominated for game of the year. And really surprised to not see Reach on best graphics. Thoughts? |
|
| Author: | Lenas [ Fri Nov 19, 2010 7:56 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Not surprised seeing as-of-yet unreleased games on the Spike list. That kind of sums up my thoughts. |
|
| Author: | Raltar [ Fri Nov 19, 2010 8:06 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Wait, which ones? Aside from the most anticipated category, I don't see any games on there that haven't been released yet. *keep in mind that I don't pay attention to sports or music games. |
|
| Author: | Lenas [ Fri Nov 19, 2010 8:25 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Donkey Kong. They can include that in the Wii category, but they can't include GT 5 in the PS3 category? Cmon. |
|
| Author: | Raltar [ Fri Nov 19, 2010 8:41 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I see. I don't pay attention to racing games or Wii games either so I had no idea. Is DK at least going to be out before the 11th? What about GT5? Maybe they were really hard up for Wii games or something. |
|
| Author: | Lenas [ Fri Nov 19, 2010 8:45 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
They're both coming out next week. |
|
| Author: | Raltar [ Fri Nov 19, 2010 8:57 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Yeah, then they should have both been on there, or neither. That is rather shitty. |
|
| Author: | Raltar [ Sat Dec 11, 2010 11:20 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Spoiler: How can a game win game of the year, but not win best PS3 or best 360 game, and the studio not even win best studio of the year? That makes zero sense to me. You would think game of the year would win in every category it was nominated for(save for best performance and music, I suppose). |
|
| Author: | Kaffis Mark V [ Sun Dec 12, 2010 12:40 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
I could see game of the year not being from the studio of the year. If another studio has several solid titles, and the game of the year was basically the only effort from its stable, it's not a shoe-in for studio. In fact, studio of the year shouldn't even have a game title attached. |
|
| Author: | Rodahn [ Sun Dec 12, 2010 12:59 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
That list is kinda 50/50 for me. Some good winners, some headscratchers. |
|
| Author: | Raltar [ Sun Dec 12, 2010 1:06 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: |
Kaffis Mark V wrote: I could see game of the year not being from the studio of the year. If another studio has several solid titles, and the game of the year was basically the only effort from its stable, it's not a shoe-in for studio. In fact, studio of the year shouldn't even have a game title attached. Except all studios nominated only had one game each this year. (well, Blizzard had a game and an expansion, but expansions don't count. Especially not MMO expansions) |
|
| Author: | Roophus Gunthar [ Sun Dec 12, 2010 12:12 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I'm confused. In the list, from the original link above, Red Dead Redemption wasn't even nominated for the GotY, yet that's exactly what it won. How? Also, in the link, it shows Halo: Reach as a nominee, yet the show had it down to only three - Red Dead Redemption, Mass Effect 2, and Black Ops. What's with the disparity of the lists vs. the results? Looking at the Best Shooter category, I was also baffled how Black Ops beat out Halo. Black Ops didn't even break the 90% metacritic mark. I like the game; but, I really don't see how it beat out Halo: Reach, clearly the best Halo yet, at least since Halo 1. A game that doesn't even break 90% isn't even considered a must-have game, generally speaking of course. The PC version *barely* broke 80%. Red Dead Redemption as best original game is somewhat questionable. The game is fantastic, but it's definitely not the most original game I've ever played. When I think of "original," I think of a game that breaks the molds set by games prior. Red Dead Redemption is a different setting, but was clearly made with the GTA mold. Great game, worthy of nomination for GotY, but definitely not the most original. NBA2k11 as best team sports game was a pleasant surprise. I figured Madden, as unworthy as it is, would take it. 2k11 was the best sports game this year, by far. As for the best studio, it's just a popularity contest based on their most recent release, combined with previous public opinion. Bioware won because they were also coming off the success of Dragon Age in late 2009. |
|
| Author: | Lenas [ Sun Dec 12, 2010 8:09 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Black Ops is a far better shooter than Reach is. |
|
| Author: | Raltar [ Sun Dec 12, 2010 8:41 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I was kinda surprised Halo: Reach didn't win a damn thing. Not that I felt it was the best in the series(I felt that the original and Halo 3 are better) but I was still expecting Reach to win...something(best original score at least). But it didn't. Which really surprised the hell out of me. |
|
| Author: | Roophus Gunthar [ Mon Dec 13, 2010 6:00 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: |
Lenas wrote: Black Ops is a far better shooter than Reach is. You represent one opinion. Collectively, the game didn't even break 90% (Black Ops) on metacritics. Here's how I judge what game is better. I look at the history of the two franchises, then see how far the current game has changed itself from the predecessors, for the better of course. Reach really does change up Halo more than any other game in the series has done to this point. The single-player campaign was arguably the best or second best of the series. Black Ops, on the other hand, feels almost identical to MW2, minus some of the excessive perks. The single-player campaign is definitely the highlight, which I will admit is awesome. As awesome as it is, it's also equally short. All CoD games are extremely short-lived in the single-player campaign. That alone, in my opinion, hurts the game. At less than six hours in length, it doesn't matter how awesome it is. That's simply not long enough. CoD relies completely on the multi-player community. It's no wonder they pump out a new game every 12 months. They really only need to throw together a quick, action-packed campaign, and then modify the multi-player component to a different era and setting. I have a hard time giving shooter of the year to a game that spent less than 11 months in production. It's even harder to consider it when you see how short the campaign is. Lastly, when you consider how little has really changed, game-play-wise, I don't know how this beats out Reach. I'm not saying reach is the best shooter ever. I just feel it's more worthy than Modern Warfare 2.5, er Black Ops. With all of this said, I'm eagerly awaiting a great shooter to come along that doesn't have the name Call of Duty or Halo in its title. Honestly, both series have about wore their welcome. Not enough has changed in CoD since MW1. Halo has already milked the cow dry. With Halo finally calling it quits, I really don't see CoD going the same route. They're going to milk it on a yearly basis, especially since there has been such enormous sales for the game. |
|
| Author: | Raltar [ Mon Dec 13, 2010 6:04 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
In all fairness, aside from the special abilities you get in Reach, it really doesn't play any different from ODST. Which really didn't play any different from the original Halo. Halo 2 and 3 had dual wielding, but also had really crappy pistols. Though, Elites are way more hard to kill than Brutes could ever hope to be. |
|
| Author: | Lenas [ Mon Dec 13, 2010 6:16 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Reach hardly changed anything, all it really did was add a single chosen ability. The single player was great but the multi became dull very quickly with lame game types and maps. Not to mention "upgrades" that were aesthetic only. I personally feel Reach and Black Ops' campaigns were very similar in quality, so my judgement lies on the multiplayer. It doesn't come anywhere near Black Ops in required skill, match variety or map quality. Also, the game was in development longer than 11 months. The first clue was May 2009 with Activision looking for Vietnam War-era music. Musical score isn't the first step in development, either, so it was probably in development much longer. I would be willing to bet that Treyarch has been working on Black Ops, at least planning it, since World at War launched in 11/08. |
|
| Author: | Roophus Gunthar [ Mon Dec 13, 2010 6:17 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Regardless, Reach is a AAA title that was developed over a much longer period of time. Black Ops was a hand off the baton, pump out a new title, type of games. Reach spent 3 full years in development. Black Ops spent less than a year. I'm not saying a longer development means a better game. I'm saying Black Ops is clearly just a rehashed, refined game. Reach is a full, high budget, massive title that spent time to really fine tune everything. Preference in styles of shooters has a lot to do with the voting, I think. A lot of people who like CoD do not like Halo. The same can be said vice versa. Call of Duty is turning into the FPS version of Madden. Change the rosters, add/remove a couple feature or problems, and release 12 months later. I don't know how ANY game that has this model should be considered for any type of game of the year. So many people discredit Halo simply because they don't care for the style. Saying it's easier makes no sense to me. CoD isn't exactly the most difficult of shooters. Also, CoD is the "in" game. Halo had its run a while back, and a lot of people want it to go away. |
|
| Author: | Lenas [ Mon Dec 13, 2010 6:32 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I'm still not understanding why you think Reach makes a better shooter. Does Reach have anything that Black Ops doesn't have? Disregard previous franchise entries for both games. Compare Reach directly to Black Ops. |
|
| Author: | Raltar [ Mon Dec 13, 2010 6:51 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: |
Lenas wrote: I'm still not understanding why you think Reach makes a better shooter. Does Reach have anything that Black Ops doesn't have? Disregard previous franchise entries for both games. Compare Reach directly to Black Ops. Setting and weapons are better in Reach, but that's an opinion. I'm not a huge fan of current day or historical shooters, which is why I prefer sci-fi shooters. But I will agree with Roofus that CoD is starting to turn into a Madden "let's barely update anything and release a new installment every year" type of game. Honestly, MW1 and 2 were barely distinguishable when it came to the real meat of the game(multiplayer) and I can't imagine Black Ops being much different. That's not to say Halo: Reach was all that changed, either...but at least we aren't saturated with Halo every year like we are starting to get with CoD. |
|
| Author: | Dalantia [ Mon Dec 13, 2010 10:35 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Quote: Black Ops spent less than a year. Source, please. Better yet - show me what else Treyarch has been working on since World At War. |
|
| Author: | Roophus Gunthar [ Tue Dec 14, 2010 10:12 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: |
Dalantia wrote: Quote: Black Ops spent less than a year. Source, please. Better yet - show me what else Treyarch has been working on since World At War. Not that I always trust Wikipedia, but it's a start: Quote: In May 2009, publisher Activision was rumored to be looking for licensing regarding Vietnam War-era music which led to speculation that Call of Duty 7 would be set in Vietnam.[35] In May 2009, Treyarch employee David Kim revealed on his LinkedIn profile that he would work as a senior animator on Call of Duty 7.[36] In November 2009, only a few days before Modern Warfare 2's release, Activision officially announced a new Call of Duty title for 2010 through their third quarter financial call.[37] In February 2010, a casting call for Call of Duty 7 led to speculation that the game would be taking place during the Cold War era with some battles taking place in South Vietnam.[38] On April 30, 2010, Black Ops was officially announced.[5] This here tells you that it couldn't have been developed any earlier than May of 2009, since a senior animator was just receiving word that he would be working on the upcoming title. Perhaps certain aspects of the game were in development before animation? I can't say. However, I can say that animation is a pretty essential part of a game's development. If the above is true, and a senior animator wasn't even aware of his role in the game until a year and a half before release, how long do you think it was in development for? Consider that MW2 was released exactly one year before Black Ops. |
|
| Author: | Kaffis Mark V [ Tue Dec 14, 2010 10:25 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Animation's not necessarily the first stage in development, but art assets are among the most time consuming ones, and need to be mostly complete for lots of other work to be done. |
|
| Author: | Raltar [ Fri Dec 17, 2010 12:11 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
G4's awards make more sense to me and not just because Mass Effect 2 won game of the year. It's just more consistent than the Spike TV VGAs. http://g4tv.com/articles/73136/The-Best ... f-Awards-/ |
|
| Author: | Roophus Gunthar [ Fri Dec 17, 2010 10:21 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: |
Raltar wrote: G4's awards make more sense to me and not just because Mass Effect 2 won game of the year. It's just more consistent than the Spike TV VGAs. http://g4tv.com/articles/73136/The-Best ... f-Awards-/ Limbo won four of the 23 awards. Starcraft 2 won three of them. Mass Effect won three. NBA 2k11 won two. Four games make up 12 of the 23 awards, over half. I'm not saying they're wrong. I'm just saying it's interesting. |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group https://www.phpbb.com/ |
|