Good Game: Lack of video game awards system creates problems

While other entertainment industries have award ceremonies meant to be the definitive culmination in end-of-the-year awards, the video game industry is lacking this. While music has the Grammys, television has the Emmy's, and films have the Academy Awards, video games, which are an amalgama of these mediums, have nothing to represent industry accomplishments with. The G4 and Spike video game award (VGA) shows are the industry equivalent of the MTV award shows.

The lack of an authoritative committee makes awards doled out by publications that much more trivial. Each publication differs in its categories as much as it does in its opinions. IGN, for example, selected "Mario Kart Wii" for the Nintendo Wii as the system's "Best Online Multiplayer Game" of the year. This category was most likely implemented because the other two major consoles had them, but this fails to take into account the disparity between online functions between Wii games and PlayStation 3 or Xbox 360 titles. If the online mode functions properly in a Wii game, then that is cause for rejoicing-but there is a completely different standard applied to the other two home consoles. Categories like this ignore the diversity and difference in what each console's strengths and weaknesses are.

Aside from selecting categories, there is the question of how each game ends up the winner of each one. Does a game get nominated, and the one with the most votes win? Or should Borda counts be used, which weigh individual game votes depending on the order voters placed the game in? Whatever the case may be, voters also have to equate themselves with the games that are being played. Often this means that games that take longer to complete, like role-playing games (RPGs), often miss out on end of the year awards, unless it is a mainstream "Final Fantasy" game. Games that are overlooked throughout the year are also, as might be expected, cast aside in favor of hyped or buzzed about titles like "LittleBigPlanet." Sequels also tend to fare better because, just as consumers choose in the market, reviewers often choose the familiar over the newly established. There is also the question of when to stop qualifying games as end of the year games. "Prince of Persia" did not appear on many award listings simply because, one can assume, it came out too late in the holiday cycle, even though reviewers lauded the game. This means, ultimately, games of high caliber will be lost in the new year shuffle, stuck in an intermediary point. This year's exception would be "Persona 4," simply because it was released for a system standing on its last legs (PlayStation 2).

What if there isn't a sufficient amount of people to make an equitable voting representation? This often means that winners of several categories are decided by a select few. Even in this case, other questions come in. Should this person highlight lesser-known titles, or take the easier road and choose what is expected? For example, should "Super Smash Bros. Brawl" win best Wii game of the year award, or should it go to a lesser and more overlooked title like "de Blob?" In some cases, there is a resounding condemnation of attempting such practices, but there wouldn't be a contest in many fields if this wasn't given consideration. By delivering an upset, it not only spotlights lesser-known titles, but distinguishes lists from each other. It was expected that "Super Smash Bros. Brawl," "Gears of War 2," "Fallout 3," "LittleBigPlanet" and "Grand Theft Auto IV" would dominate year-end lists, but what about games that actually need exposure to survive (and should) like "Valkyria Chronicles?"

While the practice of video game awards is still in its infancy despite the industry being more than twenty years old, a parallel can be drawn to other award ceremonies. Are the Grammys or the Academy Awards more memorable when the show goes as expected, or is a greater impression cast when there is a huge upset?