What would you define as 'innovation' in game design? Maybe a game that transcends the very boundaries of what you would consider a game? A game that excites and reminds you of the possibilities of interactive media in a way you haven't felt since you first started discovering video games? A game that challenges you to think in ways you simply haven't before? It's a game that is fundamentally different, distinct to a fault, and pretty much every single thing that the Industry is not mired in currently with our endless remakes, sequels and remasters. You want a product that thinks out of the box. Astounds. Redefines. Amazes. You want a game that isn't Starfield. So why, in the name of all the gods in the sky, does it have the Steam award for 'Most Innovative game'? And what exactly can we learn from this little foray into backwards land?
So Steam has decided that it wants to get into the 'award giving' circuit just like the Game Awards before it- actually this was a crusade they embarked on quite a while ago, we're simply catching up to them now. Because you see, I've never really given two craps what Steam tells me a good game is- Steam is flooded with absolutely unbearable trite every other day, if those wastes of Software are considered good enough for a platform, that platform simply hasn't enough integrity to be an authority on 'quality'. That being said, Steam is the biggest storefront for games that exists, so if anybody was going to do it- it makes sense that it would be Steam. Although I bet Stadia would have tried to slide in on it if they knew that was a possibility back in their days.
Steam's aspirations at respectability are scuppered by one small detail, however; their belief in the video gaming public to be trusted with sole voting authority over the award's gifted. In Geoff Keighley's awards, that duty is gifted first to reviewers who couldn't give less of a toss to pick out the nominees, and then the final decision is made in a joint vote betwixt the public and those journalists, with a heavy skewer to make the journalists vote count for more. Steam, fools that they are, left both the nominations and the award gifting totally up to the whims of the gaming public- which of course led the way for eye-popping results that make more headlines than the actual legitimate winners. (Afterall what else is there to say? Baldur's Gate 3 earnt two more awards? Big whoop, it's already Game of the Year- what else was going to win?)
Starfield being crowned 2023's winner for Most Innovative Gameplay, however, is such a sarcastic plaudit I can't help but giggle about the cruel sardony behind it all. Made all the more potent by the fact that Bethesda's long suffering community team took to Twitter to celebrate the win, not noticing the thorns of the joke twisted inside of the rose of the 'victory'. Of course, this only brought out the attention of how ludicrous the win was to their followers, who let Bethesda's Twitter team know well how they were the butt of a joke. And now we have one of the most head scratching screenshots of the year- with Starfield wearing a badge it has no business existing in the same room as. Oh innovation, how far your concept has fallen!
But Starfield was perhaps the most obvious joke. It was actually such a headline stealer that I didn't notice the even deeper cut that the gaming community had made on another game awarded a similarly as perplexing award. See, when you look at the multiple award winning game 'Red Dead Redemption 2' and see it as a winner of an award, that makes sense at first glance. Perhaps a glimmer of confusion might strike you upon remembering- this is the 2023 game awards and RDR2 released in 2018, but who knows why mad award shows give out the awards they do? What was this one for? Labor of Love? Well that sounds like a fine enough award I guess... until you actually read the description of that particular award.
You see 'Labor of Love' is described as an award gifted to a game that had already launched a while ago, but who's developers 'like good parents' have stuck around to nurture the game's community and growth in the following years. It's an award designed to be given to all those indie darling games that get substantial updates over the years like Terraria or Stardew Valley, and the Live Service games that make perpetual support part of their business model. (Which in my mind would inherent disqualify live service games from being considered 'Labor's of Love', as they are more 'Labors of our wallet', but higher ethics are besides the point here.) Only upon acknowledging all of this does the sarcasm of Red Dead Redemption 2's award really hit home.
Red Dead Redemption 2's after-game support was it's online mode, the same as Grand Theft Auto Online, but Rockstar soon realised that the art of adding content to a western themed game presented more creative challenges than the half-hearted new cars every few months, that GTA Online required. They experimented for a year with job roles, Moonshining, some special bounties and then the team decided it was too hard and gave up. After just over a year. Yes, Grand Theft Auto Online is still supported to this year, yet Rockstar couldn't even keep Red Dead Online alive to see the 2020's. Talk about pathetic attempts at providing post game support and a hilarious poster child for everything you'd avoid in the search for a 'Labor of Love' product.
Some have highlighted the missed opportunities for serious contenders to get recognised thanks to these joke nominations and votes, and cry out for the establishment of proper curation standards. To be fair, Steam is the biggest store front and being recognised there could be more important to an up and coming game than by any other respected award show. But to be honest, the Steam awards have never been taken seriously- and I think one last chance in the year to stick the knife in to the big corporations and twist it a little isn't going to collapse the industry in on itself. Afterall, what's the point if we never take the chance to take a laugh at ourselves. Or at others. Who disappointed us. Greatly.
No comments:
Post a Comment