The Video Game Awards are almost upon us, rejoice all ye faithful! Once again I found myself a little in awe at what Geoff Keighley has managed to put together with this event and honestly a little bit jealous. Through tenacity and years of building connections, (I'm really bad at one of those things) Geoff managed to assemble a coalition of trusted gaming critics all over the world to recognize his gaming awards as the one true official Game Award event; his baby managed to overcome rampant ridicule and meme-age in order to become a truly respected yearly spectacle; and some Devs have even agreed to forgo other gaming events in order to debut their projects here. (Makes sense. This is probably the second most viewed gaming event of the year behind E3) I think it's fair to say that Keighley's game awards are, at this point, our version of the Oscars; only, you know, without as much pageantry, history and general respect. Ah who am I kidding, no one outside of Hollywood respects the Oscars. We're on equal footing there.
Last year we saw a brilliant showing from the inhouse orchestra, (although the previous year's medley will forever hold a special place in this gamer's heart) surprising big game announcements, (Mortal Kombat 11, really!) and guest presenting by truly respectable individuals from outside the gaming spheres. (Still can't believe the Russo brothers showed up.) The awards also didn't neglect to secure their, oh so coveted, sound bits; you know, to ensure that the event would remain in the hearts of memers for the next few months. (Although, despite my snide, I will admit that I yelped a little bit when Christopher Judge said "read it, boi!" Which is especially weird, in hindsight, seeing as how I've never played 'God of War'.) I have no doubt that Keighley will attempt to surpass all that with next month's awards, (December 13th. save the date.) which may be more then possible if rumors are to believed. I mean, Capcom are still sitting on that 'Resident Evil 3 Remake' announcement that we know is coming and I'd be shocked if CD Projekt Red don't take advantage of the last big gaming show before the release of 'Cyperpunk 2077'.
Full disclaimer, I'm in full geek mode right now. I just finished watching the third episode of 'The Mandalorian' (If you haven't: You Need To Change That Immediately!) and right now I would love nothing more then to go on a fandom jaunt down all the prospective award winners and make my predictions on who should win and why. (Maybe I will, closer to the event.) But as you can tell from my title, I have a much more sobering topic to discuss today as I delve into some of the rising controversy surrounding the Awards as well a general discussion about ethics. (Sigh.) A discussion which targets two men that I hold in incredibly high regard as individuals, one of which is an inspiration and the other is a man to whom I owe by passion for storytelling. (So this is going to be a bitter blog for me to pen. Type. Whatever.)
Let me precede the critiques and tough-talk with a little disclaimer, which should be obvious but there's never any harm in stating things in obvious terms. Firstly, yes, I am bias. Incredibly so. I am a life-long loner who has failed to establish a sense of community and belonging with anything outside of gaming. (Does that come across as sad? It's not supposed to be.) I positively adore this medium of storytelling and that puppy-eyed, rose-tinted, obsessiveness often gets in my way to be objective about matters which demand such, like ethics. So as much as I'll attempt to be level headed and sensible, don't just take me view on this matter, read up and form your own opinions. (Plus 'level headiness' doesn't exactly make for an entertaining writing or, I'd imagine, reading experience. So screw that noise, am I right?)
One of the budding complaints that I've seen drifting around the community is one that actually transcends the Gaming Awards and actually travels around to all award shows; the being the irregular cut-off date. As with most all Awards ceremonies, the Gaming Awards is a annual event, meaning that the award titles often feature the suffix 'of the year'. This can shape up as a bit of a misnomer, however, when events transpire to ensure that the award in question is being presented to a game that is not, in fact, of that year but of the previous year. This is, of course, due to the 'cut-off date' issue that results in products that are released too close to the gaming awards being discluded from the proceedings. This is, of course, meant to ensure that each game is given it's due to shine (and not devolve into a microtransaction-strewn mess) and prevent any title from being overlooked due to rushed coverage. However this situation is not perfect.
Due to the timing of the Game Awards, (being a December show) you'd think that they would be perfectly situated to succinctly round up all the games of the year, however, due to the quirks of the games market, that is not always the case. Anyone who works in sales knows that the holiday season is the time to push units, however, for gaming a rule has emerged regarding when is the best time to capitalize on that season. Given the cycle of reviewing, punditry and, most importantly, financial book keeping, October is the target month for all high-profile system seller games to hit in order to rake in that Christmas dough and still look neat on the balance sheets. But that's still okay, right? October is within the acceptable release window for Game Awards entry, so no harm no foul. Except that there is another dimension to this matter to consider.
You see, whilst it is true that October is the ideal month to push out your game, that very fact ensures that month is absolutely packed with high profile competition every year. This October alone saw the release of 'The Outer Worlds', 'Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon: Breakpoint', 'Destiny 2: Shadowkeep', 'WWE 2K20', 'Call of Duty: Modern Warfare' (Mk. 2) and 'Grid'. All massive titles in their own right, regardless what you think of their quality. (Oh, and the new 'Yooka-Laylee' game came out this October, for anyone who cares. Only me? Okay.) Hollywood has been taught the lesson time and time again that when you overcrowd your releases you are doomed to financial failure, so sensible publishers who know that when their game doesn't pack the weight to go toe to toe against the big leagues, it's alright to push their game to the fallback month of November. Maybe not so clean within the books but at least you get there in time for the Christmas shelves. Problem solved, right? Except, November is the cutoff month for featuring in the Games Awards. (Whoops.)
This is a topic that has been inflamed particularly this year with the release of the critically lauded, 'Star Wars: Jedi Fallen Order'. This is a game that has been discounted from the running for titles that many believe it could win such as 'Action Game of the Year'. All this is made particularly frustrating with fans, as one game which has been nominated for every category under the sun is 'Super Smash Bros. Ultimate' which released in December last year. Heck, that game is even in the running to win 'Ultimate game of the year'. (no pun intended.) Now, don't get me wrong, Smash Bros. Ultimate is a brilliant game which I've personally sunk at least 100 hours into; but if that game ends up winning 'Game of the Year 2019' then someone's going to be left scratching their head.
Okay, so 'Jedi Fallen Order' gets pushed back to next year, so what? Well, 2020 is lining up to be one of the most juggernaut, overblown years of gaming in a very long time. We're getting 'Doom Eternal', 'Final Fantasy 7 Remake', 'Halo: Infinite', 'Sqaure Enix's Avengers','Vampire The Masquerade: Bloodline 2','Oddworld Soulstorm', the new 'Destroy All Humans', 'Wasteland 3', 'No More Heroes 3', probably 'Resident Evil 3 Remake', 'Half-Life: Alyx', 'The Last of Us: Part II', 'Bayonetta 3' and, of course, 'Cyberpunk 2077'. (Ouch to my future wallet.) Bearing all those unbelievably exciting upcoming releases in mind, it's probably safe to assume that little old 'Jedi Fallen Order' will get lost in the crowd. Which is such a shame considering that this was EA's first dedicated single player game since their leadership made the asinine comment that "Single player games are dead." (Maybe they planned this release strategically to ensure the snub. Big if true!) So how do we solve this issue? Well the event could be pushed back into next year, but that often has the effect of making the proceedings feel irrelevant. (Just look at the BAFTAs or the Oscars.) Plus, that 'end of year' hype is what advertisers pay through the nose in order to capitalize on, Geoff would be putting that in peril by moving the air date of the show. So, I guess, there is no solution to this issue. The industry will just have to learn to strategize their releases better if they want that... what's our version of 'Oscar gold'? Video game silver? (Geoff should probably workshop that.)
This next issue is a bit of a silly one but definitely still worth bringing up. Geoff Keighley spent so much time trying to establish these Game Awards as a serious endeavour, firstly to the myriad of publications that he ended up pulling under it's banner, and secondly to the fickle gaming public who's initial reaction was to simply point and laugh. This was achieved by ensuring that the process and games in question were respectable and based upon games that reviewed well and received positive reception fan-wide, rather than just sales figures. (Although one could equate the two.) However that can be put in jeopardy due to the show's bizarre instance of requiring a certain number of applicants for each category. Because trust me, that is the only possible excuse for 'Jump Force' getting a spot in the show.
Part of me does feel for the show runners here, including Geoff. Fighting games aren't exactly as 'dime a dozen' as they once were and it must have been difficult to find games to bounce off of the likes of 'Dead or Alive 6', 'Mortal Kombat 11', and 'Super Smash Bros. Ultimate', but is the solution 'Jump Force'? Seriously? Can't they throw in 'Samurai Shodown' or something? (Wait, that's already there.) Dragon Ball Z: Kakarot? (Ugh, that's next January.) Wait, wasn't there a 'Blazblue' this year? (Darn, it was a re-release.) Then just have four contenders. Honestly, any other course of action is preferable to including a game as functionally, narratively, and visually terrible as 'Jump Force.'
It sends an absolutely awful message across the industry that it doesn't matter how terrible you game is, as long you have limited competition we'll let you slap 'Game Awards nominee' in you 'Accolaides' trailer. Additionally, it reflects badly on the whole show by making every other game there look like an absolute joke for sharing a stage with that oil-spill of a product. Does this mean that their organizers are going to spend money and working hours on putting together a highlight reel for that game's introduction? (Ah, the whole thing just makes me sick to think about.) Yes, I know that there is absolutely no way in heck that this game will win, 'Smash Bros.' practically has it in the bag (which is still a 2018 game getting a 2019 award.) but the damage has already been done to everyone's respectability by this title's mere presence. (I've got to move on. This subject is seriously giving me a migraine.)
This last one is going to be a bit more dull, but a lot more important. (This is the reason why I tagged 'Ethics' in the title.) Allow me steal from the 'lazy-speech-writing handbook' by starting with; Merriam-Webster defines 'A conflict of Interest' as; "A conflict between private interests and the official responsibilities of a person in a position of trust". Contextualized quite simply, this means that when someone is given the role to provide an objective stance on a subject, it is imperative that they do not, themselves, have a vested interest on the resulting outcome. It is the same code-of-conduct rules that applies to traditional journalism, which is part of a set of rules and standards that we call 'Ethics'. News reporters and journalists are expected to take a neutral stance in their gathering of the news as they are in a position of power, as distributors of knowledge, and their personal slant could influence the readers. (Which is the reason why Journalists do not "make the news"; as Editor Perry White insisted in the 1978's 'Superman') The same is true with Police investigations and Jury duty. It is a standard law of ethics that is carried across all different mediums and situations for it's succinct nature and adherence to values that we consider: responsible.
With that firmly established: The Game Awards has a conflict of interest on it's hands regarding the latest product from visionary game director: Hideo Kojima. (A man to whom I literally owe my direction as an artist. So this isn't easy for me to talk about.) 'Death Stranding' is a game that is incredibly divisive in it's bold, art-house break from the norms of video game design. (A topic I could, and likely will, write an entire blog upon.) This has led to a bevy of mixed responses from all over the industry as some hate it, some love and hate it, and others have no idea what to think about the title whatsoever. Ultimately, this has led to the game receiving a 83% on Metacritic amongst respected critics and around about 60% with the audience. Not terrible numbers by any means, but not a general consensus of being 'great' that one would expect from a game that was nominated for... oh, I don't know- how about 'Ultimate game of the Year'? That's right, alongside powerhouses like 'Resident Evil 2' (89-93% on Metacritic) and 'Sekiro: Shadows Die Twice' (88-91% on Metacritic) stands a game that people are still struggling to decide whether they like or not. Am I doubting that the game will end up becoming a cult classic that is beloved in the years to come? Of course not. But this sort of off-kilter, arguably unearned, recognition, reeks of the kind of 'back door' politics that makes the Oscars such a laughable event in this day and age.Hideo Kojima is, for those of you who didn't know, a huge fan of Geoff Keighley and that love is, very much, reciprocated. We all remember the shade that Geoff threw at Konami when they refused to let Hideo come to receive his reward, (which, even now, was kind of unprofessional from a host who prided himself on bridging the gap across gaming communities.) and memes have been made about the emotional highlight-tape that Keighley put together once Kojima did get the chance to attended. (Truly, their love was written in the stars!) Now, of course, their friendship is entirely ancillary to this issue. The whole point of Keighley assembling the Game Awards was to bring together various gaming outlets and important industry figures to pick out the nominees to ensure that personal bias was minimized. Geoff doesn't have some overarching ability to shoe-horn in his own candidate, that would completely undermine the whole show. What this relationship has done, however, is drawn the eyes of the people to look closer as the odd nomination of a game that feels (forgive me, Kojima.) undeserving.
As it just so happens, Kojima himself is one of those 'industry professional icons' who is on the board for the Game Awards. He helped to start this whole affair alongside Keighley, which explains the reason why those two are so enamoured with each other. (Not to downplay the founding of the Awards show. Good on them, and I can only wish that I get the chance to contribute so substantially to the gaming industry one day.) Kojima is also a legendary figure in the industry who's mere name commands respect from many of the other outlets on the official board, and just as I am biased on this subject matter, so too are the board bias for a person to whom they all hold respect and reverence. (Once again, deservingly so.) However, if we allow such, frankly, irrelevant factors to influence the decision process, then we risk marring the integrity of the entire institution that Keighley worked so hard to build. No one wants the Game Award's committee to become a mirror to the out-of-touch squabbling and insider politics that makes the Oscars look like a joke, but that seems like what is happening with Death Stranding's nomination.
I am not, and would never, doubt the quality of Death Stranding or any single one of Kojima's games, (Although 1986's 'Penguin Adventure' does look a tad ropey) but nominees for the Games Awards should be based on objective quality as much as humanely possible. (As much as that very concept borders on being an oxymoron.) The clearest possible way we have of quantifying that, inherently qualitative, value is through aggregate reviews, and Metacritic shows us that there existed games which were better received then 'Death Stranding' this year. 'Devil May Cry 5', for example, scored 87-89% on Metacritic, the new 'The Legend of Zelda: Links Awakening' scored 87%, and even indie-darling 'The Outer Wilds' scoured 82-85%. Every one of these games were lauded for their quality and have just as legitimate a claim to the coveted 'Game of the Year' nominee slot. What they don't have is a legendary and respected director who just so happens to be an industry superstar and on the board. We could argue about the specifics of eligibility for each game all day, but at the end of the matter we are left with a nominee that is a clear violation of the 'Conflict of Interest' subsection of common award show ethics. I love Kojima and, once I get a chance to play it, I'll probably love Death Stranding too; but for the good of the Game Awards as a show, process and institution, it is best for Death Stranding to be withdrawn from the 'Game of the Year' nominee slot. It just didn't receive the required universal objective praise for someone like me to overlook the potential for personal bias, and I'm sure that you can see it too.
Phew, that last point really sucked to make but it did have to be said. Out of all the weird and ugly sides of the gaming industry, (a few of which have become grotesquely apparent in the past couple of years) The Gaming Awards is one that I have genuinely grown to respect and am fiercely protective of. It is one of the few bright spots that separates the gaming culture from the festering pettiness that infects other entertainment mediums and I would hate to see that sundered for something a silly as personal biases, or any of the other issues that I mentioned today. I love having this one part of the gaming world that I can point to and say "look at that. We did a good thing there." Whenever the media scapegoats gaming again for another ludicrously unsubstantiated accusation, we can proudly ignore that noise in the knowledge that gaming is respectable, and that is emblematic in us having one of the greatest Award shows of the year. If I were Mister Keighley, (and some nights I wish I were) I wouldn't risk that kind of legacy for anyone or anything.
No comments:
Post a Comment