Warning: long read.
I think I'm gonna jump right into the debate of what should be taken into account when rewarding video games or any other kind of artistic or cultural product.
First of all, absolutely everything that I'm going to say here is of course subjective, because it's only my opinion and opinions are only true to people who have them, but they are as false as they can possibly be to other people with their own different opinions. This is obvious, but I want to leave it written here because it's also partially relevant to some of the things I'm going to say. So let's go.
The way I see it, neither sales nor the audience opinion should ever, by any means, be taken into account in an awards ceremony or any other event or festival showcasing products whose quality is to be rewarded with some kind of prize or recognition (the exception, for obvius reasons, being any especific award that is expressly thought to represent the public opinion). Why so? I'll start with sales.
Simply put, sales are a terrible way to measure quality. There may be lots of books, movies, music albums or video games that are real masterpieces and never get mainstream nor have a big impact on consumer's habits, and there may also be real pieces of crap created by very untalented people that sell tons of units. Those are the extreme cases, and also the hardest ones to find, but, in the middle, there is a wild variety of grey: products of (very/not so) good quality that sell more or less bad, products of (very/not so) good quality that sell more or less well, products of (very/not so) poor quality that sell more or less well and products of (very/not so) poor quality that sell more or less bad.
Hence, with such a vast spectrum, how can we possibly use sales to measure quality? Sure, a best-selling product has probably made a huge impact in society, but the big question is, is that what's being rewarded? In a category that would especifically evaluate the impact that a product has had, then surely so. And, in that case, sales would indeed be of extreme relevance and usefulness. But that doesn't apply when we're deciding if a certain product is the best in some artistic or technical category, or the best overall. What we're measuring there is quality, not impact, and sales have little to nothing to do with that.
In fact, if a person comes to me trying to sell me, let's say, a book, and the only reason or one of the reasons that person uses to make me buy that book is that a lot of people have already bought it, I'll probably not buy it. If you really want to sell me the book, then talk me about what the book is trying to tell me, including not only the story, but the overall content (topics, points of view, etc.) that would make me consider buying it. Or talk me about how all that content is expressed: is it well written? Does it show proper use of the language and all its richness and resources? If so, then I may be interested in buying that person's book, but not because of how many people have paid for it so far.
That applies to other forms of art as well: if we're talking about music, the expertise when playing instruments or the sound of the voice matters a lot; if we're trying to measure the quality of a film instead, then illumination, acting, photography, FX, etc. come into play; and, if it's video games what we're evaluating, the depth and variety of the game mechanics, or how well the core loop is made, are very big points that we should consider.
However, who's actually, thoroughly and proactively, looking for all those technical aspects when consuming a certain artistic or cultural product? Following the book example, when someone is reading one, that person is generally not looking at every little detail in the text while exclaiming: "Oh, what an awesome asyndeton!", or "Wow, this alliteration is just magnificent!", or "Damn! This hyperbole is so well made that I wanna jerk off thinking about it!". No one does that, because all what people do instead is just enjoying the product they have in their hands.
Of course, there are many people who may sometimes think of how well played an instrument is in a certain song, or how well a certain scene looks in a movie, or how well implemented a mechanic is in a game. But, as a general rule, they aren't puposedly searching for anything of that when listening to a song, watching a movie or playing a game. They're just enjoying it.
And that leads me to my second point, which is the reason why I don't think the audience opinion should be taken into account on events that reward the quality of certain products: people tend to think that what they like is good and what they dislike is bad, so the more they enjoy something, the better it is for them, and vice versa. But that's not necessarily true, and here's where my initial statement comes into play: our opinions are only true to us (what I'm writing now is probably a bunch of bullshit for a lot of people), and those opinions that are only true to us are also influenced by a lot of external factors that are completely irrelevant to the quality of the product, like our taste, our mood at a specific moment, our political views, our passion for a brand or even something as arbitrary as our love or hate for another person who happens to (dis)like the product we're consuming.
That, of course, is also true when it comes to some decision-makers who, in whatever event, decide that a product is the best at something, but the difference is that, when we let other people reward an artistic or cultural product, we're assuming that those people are able to put all their biases aside when measuring quality. Of course, their opinion is still there and it is what it is: just an opinion, therefore subjective, but at least they can (theoretically) have a more complete picture than most of us, because they have (presumably) dived deeper into all those aspects and little details that we usually just take into account superfluously or even overlook altogether.
Whether those decision-makers really put their biases aside and have a more complete picture of what they are evaluating or not is something I don't know; it would be arguable at least. And that's why I never care about any awards ceremony: since I don't know anything about the professionalism of the decision-makers and I don't have any means to know about it, I just don't give a damn.
But, even if those people are not being professional, adding the audience opinion into the formula is not going to improve the results by any means; on the contrary: if those results are already shallow and biased (which, as I just said, I don't know), with the general public votes they would be even shallower and more biased. So, in the end, that would only make bad what is good and worse what is bad.
Also, as a side note (although I have to admit that this is what made me join the debate in the first place =P), I'd like to add something in relation to this, using this statement as the base for my argument:
|
It's like all those small movie festivals, hardly any of those winners make a splash or are noticed by the people yet they win their little awards. |
For a product that has already had a big impact, as it could be a Hollywood blockbuster, prizes don't matter beyond the extra recognition and money that comes with them. But, for little products or people who have no means to generate a big impact, those little awards can mean the difference between failure and success. Being a winner or even a nominee in a certain festival or event raises talk and gives visibility, and many people who wouldn't have shown any interest on a certain product (or get to know of its existance in the first place) may give it a chance and even like it, just because of it being a winner/nominee at that event.
So, even if I don't particularly like these awards ceremonies, I think sometimes they can be useful and play a positive role in giving little works the spotlight, even if just for a few hours or days. Not always, but sometimes. And that's another good reason why sales shouldn't be taken into account when choosing the winner or nominees for an awards ceremony (and with this I come full circle): because you leave out many products that not only deserve to be there, but can also take good advantage of being there.
TL;DR: the way I see it, neither sales nor the audience opinion should be taken into account in an awards ceremony, for reasons. Also, my opinion is entirely and deeply susceptible to be bullshit.
Last edited by Verter - on 12 December 2020I'm mostly a lurker now.
