The_vagabond7 said:
Yeah, that's one of the many problems with the young fledgeling industry and it's critics. "Game Of The Year" doesn't actually have any meaning, there is no particular criteria for it's being chosen. One person may vote their game of the year based on it being an incredible technical achievement, one may vote for it because they think it advanced videogames the most as an artform, one may vote on it based on which it had the most fun playing, another may vote on one just to spite fanboys, or because it had poodles and he votes for anything with poodles. But there isn't any particular criteria for what determines what "game of the year" means other than this particular group happened to put one on their list of games more than another. Meh. But who doesn't love the juicy catfights that ensue! |
The problem with this industry is that it's still perceived as a child's toy and that its growth has come lockstep with money from the creators. There's no cultural respect or reverence given to Galaga. There are few classes taught on the important of The Legend of Zelda and its impact on society. Shit, there are barely even classes on videogames and their impact on pop culture as a whole.
Once games get that kind of respect (and they will), we'll see real critics come into focus and start analyzing what was good, what was shit, and what was derivative.
Separate the money from the creators and the authors, put historical analysis in the hands of academia, and this medium might get a little respect.
As a side note, I fucking hate academics. But I have high hopes that by the time I'm forty, I'll be able to read a real book about how the NES changed the way we view the world.
Or check out my new webcomic: http://selfcentent.com/
