Do you think that majorly unpolished games deserve awards?

So, I was having this debate in a thread about GT5, but I thought it was an interesting enough topic for its own thread.

I don't think that unpolished (but good) games deserve awards. I think that games that are great in the vast majority of areas, polished to an above average standard of quality while providing a compelling experience deserve awards. Doing so gives recognition to developers who manage to not only make a good game, but do justice to the game by polishing it to a high standard. I don't favor giving this kind of recognition to developers that drop the ball on major aspects of a game.

Thoughts?

Edit: BTW, I'm talking about "best of genre/GOTY/best on platform" type of awards, not specialized category awards like best voice acting, etc. If a game was a buggy mess but indeed had the best voice acting, it should win that. So I'm not talking about those type of awards.

This didn't need its own thread.. If that "unfinished" game is better than a "finished" game? Yes.UCF_Knight

Yes it did because its not about GT5. Its simply inspired by the debates surrounding that game. Its a general question.

[QUOTE="UCF_Knight"]This didn't need its own thread.. If that "unfinished" game is better than a "finished" game? Yes.GreySeal9

Yes it did because its not about GT5. Its simply inspired by the debates surrounding that game. Its a general question.

Dude, every game is unfinished these days, otherwise what's the point of DLC?

So did Fallout 3 not deserve any awards when it came out?UCF_Knight

It's only slightly unpolished. I'm talking about games that are unpolished in a major way.

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="UCF_Knight"]This didn't need its own thread.. If that "unfinished" game is better than a "finished" game? Yes.dream431ca

Yes it did because its not about GT5. Its simply inspired by the debates surrounding that game. Its a general question.

Dude, every game is unfinished these days, otherwise what's the point of DLC?

This is not true. The existence of DLC does not make the games that have DLC "unfinished". DLC is pretty much a way for the developers to get money.

[QUOTE="UCF_Knight"]So did Fallout 3 not deserve any awards when it came out?GreySeal9

It's only slightly unpolished. I'm talking about games that are unpolished in a major way.

No, they don't. Image you went to see a big budget action movie in the theater, and in half the scenes the greenscreens were still there instead of cgi, or with those basic shape placeholders you see in those "making of" things. Would that be ok as long as they finished the cgi for the dvd/bluray release?

So this thread spawned because of the GameTrailers award to GT5, right?TheMoreYouOwn

Pretty much.

So this thread spawned because of the GameTrailers award to GT5, right?TheMoreYouOwn

Yes, that is partly true and I alluded to that in the OP. Do you have any more irrelevant comments to add?

Come to think of it, Halo 2 (Single Player) was completely unpolished.

New Vegas was one of the best games this year.

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="UCF_Knight"]So did Fallout 3 not deserve any awards when it came out?UCF_Knight

It's only slightly unpolished. I'm talking about games that are unpolished in a major way.

What would be my problem? Of course we are talking about individual opinions of unpolished. You don't even have to use GT5 as an example if you want to talk about games that you personally find to be majorly unpolished but great in many ways.

As for Fallout 3 .vs. GT5:

Fallout 3 had some bugs and that's it. Now, if you said "New Vegas" I might agree with you.

GT5 has a huge gulf of quality between cars (some cars don't even look like they should be in a PS3 game), very inconsistent visuals, a damage model that was so strangely applied that nobody could figure out exactly how it worked, weird stuff regarding the changing the color of your car. Not to menton it flubbed basic things like menus, had a messy online set up, didn't include basic thing like leaderboards.

Taking into account genre standards, I really don't see how F3 is more unpolished than GT5.

Come to think of it, Halo 2 (Single Player) was completely unpolished.

dream431ca

I don't disagree.

I mean, it wasn't even close to GT5 in that respect, but it was definitely sloppy in many ways.

Depends on the award. I'm not giving an unpolished game best of genre. But I also am not going to deny it something it may deserve look best voice acting, most innovative or best tech. I believe you have to be fair above all else.

Depends on the award. I'm not giving an unpolished game best of genre. But I also am not going to deny it something it may deserve look best voice acting, most innovative or best tech. I believe you have to be fair above all else.

ActicEdge

I agree with that.

I wouldn't even be against a bad game winning a very specialized category if it indeed did have the best voice acting or whatever.

[QUOTE="dream431ca"]

Come to think of it, Halo 2 (Single Player) was completely unpolished.

GreySeal9

I don't disagree.

I mean, it wasn't even close to GT5 in that respect, but it was definitely sloppy in many ways.

GT5 has weird design choices. Halo 2 was just sloppy in almost every way (Single Player wise). GT5 may be unpolished but it sure isn't sloppy. And I don't want this thread to turn into another GT5 thread.

EDIT: One more thing. People should look at why they buy the games they buy. Most people who bought GT5 like racing. They could care less about painting flowers on their cars. Just give them a racing wheel and a good TV and their happy. The menus may be a little clunky, and the design choices a little weird, but it all comes down to the racing and GT5 does that better than any console game to date.

You could say the game thing about Fallout 3. People who bought Fallout 3 were either fans of the orignial Fallout games (like myself) or they like Bethesda Studios and their work with the Eldar Scrolls (Which I also like). A lot of people compained because it wasn't a FPS in a typical sense where you shoot someone in the head once and their dead. It's an RPG so it works of a point damage system and random chances at hitting your opponent.

My point is, if you don't like a game because of something, don't buy it. Plain and Simple. GT5 won the best racing game this year on Game Trailers because of the Racing, not how the menus looked and operated. Fallout 3 won a lot of awards too, and a lot of people hate that game.

Maybe dubious honors for being notably unpolished...

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="dream431ca"]

Come to think of it, Halo 2 (Single Player) was completely unpolished.

dream431ca

I don't disagree.

I mean, it wasn't even close to GT5 in that respect, but it was definitely sloppy in many ways.

GT5 has weird design choices. Halo 2 was just sloppy in almost every way (Single Player wise). GT5 may be unpolished but it sure isn't sloppy. And I don't want this thread to turn into another GT5 thread.

Unpolished=sloppiness.

[QUOTE="ActicEdge"]

Depends on the award. I'm not giving an unpolished game best of genre. But I also am not going to deny it something it may deserve look best voice acting, most innovative or best tech. I believe you have to be fair above all else.

GreySeal9

I agree with that.

I wouldn't even be against a bad game winning a very specialized category if it indeed did have the best voice acting or whatever.

Yup, that's basically how I judge, but to me, categories like best tech, voice acting etc are just junk categories. Just excuses to give out meaningless awards. Atleast imo.

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="dream431ca"]

Come to think of it, Halo 2 (Single Player) was completely unpolished.

dream431ca

I don't disagree.

I mean, it wasn't even close to GT5 in that respect, but it was definitely sloppy in many ways.

GT5 has weird design choices. Halo 2 was just sloppy in almost every way (Single Player wise). GT5 may be unpolished but it sure isn't sloppy. And I don't want this thread to turn into another GT5 thread.

These 2 are virtually synonymous

Bad or awkward design choices do not make a game not polished. As another user said, New Vegas was one of the best games all year. And though it was completely broken at launch, it still deserves recognition. GT5 wasn't broken, nor did it have an significant flaws. Deciding the game should not receive any racing awards because of certain aspects seems absolutely silly.UCF_Knight

Bad/awkward design choices doesn't make a game unpolished, but severe inconsistencies in visual quality, sloppy menus, having to jump through hoops to change a car's color, etc. does equal a lack of polish. I honestly don't see how somebody can say the game was polished with a straight face.

I didn't say that it shouldn't win any racing awards whatsoever. I just think that a best of award should go racing games that were executed better.

Depends on its competitors. If it's still the most fun game, despite it being unpolished, it would still deserve the award. After all, the main goal of a game is to be fun, not to be polished. Sure, polishment helps a lot to reach that goal, but it does not automatically make a game the best.IronBass

I don't think the funnest game is neccessarily the best.

For instance, in many ways, I had more fun with Majora's Mask than Ocarina of Time, but I definitely find Ocarina of Time to be a better game. I think "best game or better game" is a lot more complex than simply being the funnest. I actually find the daytime parts of Sonic Unleashed to be a hell of a lot funner than Ratchet and Clank, but Sonic Unleashed happens to be a terrible game and Ratchet and Clank is a good game.

[QUOTE="dream431ca"]

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

I don't disagree.

I mean, it wasn't even close to GT5 in that respect, but it was definitely sloppy in many ways.

ActicEdge

GT5 has weird design choices. Halo 2 was just sloppy in almost every way (Single Player wise). GT5 may be unpolished but it sure isn't sloppy. And I don't want this thread to turn into another GT5 thread.

These 2 are virtually synonymous

My mistake.

[QUOTE="UCF_Knight"]So did Fallout 3 not deserve any awards when it came out?GreySeal9

It's only slightly unpolished. I'm talking about games that are unpolished in a major way.

I thought Fallout 3 felt incredibly unpolished when it came out...

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="UCF_Knight"]So did Fallout 3 not deserve any awards when it came out?Ross_the_Boss6

It's only slightly unpolished. I'm talking about games that are unpolished in a major way.

I thought Fallout 3 felt incredibly unpolished when it came out...

Well, that's a fair opinion, although I don't personally agree with it.

Do you think that FO3 deserved its GOTY awards?

[QUOTE="Ross_the_Boss6"]

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

It's only slightly unpolished. I'm talking about games that are unpolished in a major way.

GreySeal9

I thought Fallout 3 felt incredibly unpolished when it came out...

Well, that's a fair opinion, although I don't personally agree with it.

Do you think that FO3 deserved its GOTY awards?

Well I didn't like the game but that was for other reasons as well. Even so, I think it deserved the awards it got.

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]I don't think the funnest game is neccessarily the best. For instance, in many ways, I had more fun with Majora's Mask than Ocarina of Time, but I definitely find Ocarina of Time to be a better game. I think "best game or better game" is a lot more complex than simply being the funnest. I actually find the daytime parts of Sonic Unleashed to be a hell of a lot funner than Ratchet and Clank, but Sonic Unleashed happens to be a terrible game and Ratchet and Clank is a good game.IronBass

That's not necessarily true. A developer might make a game for all sorts of reasons besides fun: because they feel they have a story to tell or something else. Fun is always a big part of the equation, but its not the only part.

The thing is, fun is sort of a vague feeling much of time that has a lot to do with a person's tastes over the quality of a game.

The fact that I derived a way larger amount of fun from Sonic's daytime levels than R&C doesn't negate my overall opinion that Sonic Unleashed has so many parts that don't work that is is an terrible overall package and that R&C is a quality game with a quality mechanics are a solid, if uninspired, design.

This is not to say that quality is objective. It's almost entirely subjective. But I can, on some level, separate my overall opinion of quality from the fun I had because much of the time, fun has to do with individual tastes.

Yes. I think New Vegas should win RPG of the year everywhere... because it is actually a RPG. Though, I have yet to come across a single "unpolished" part of it... or any bugs or game-breakers (I got stuck in a tree... but I jumped into it of my own accord). But it is seen by the general majority as an unpolished mess.

The thing about a GOTY award is that it stops being about the enjoyment, and focuses more on what elements in a game best represent its genre. Games like Super Mario Galaxy 2 and New Vegas definitely are the epitomes of their genres this year. But other games which people enjoyed more are getting all the awards.

That's not necessarily true. A developer might make a game for all sorts of reasons besides fun: because they feel they have a story to tell or something else. Fun is always a big part of the equation, but its not the only part.

The thing is, fun is sort of a vague feeling much of time that has a lot to do with a person's tastes over the quality of a game.

The fact that I derived a way larger amount of fun from Sonic's daytime levels than R&C doesn't negate my overall opinion that Sonic Unleashed has so many parts that don't work that is is an terrible overall package and that R&C is a quality game with a quality mechanics are a solid, if uninspired, design.

This is not to say that quality is objective. It's almost entirely subjective. But I can, on some level, separate my overall opinion of quality from the fun I had because much of the time, fun has to do with individual tastes.GreySeal9

A developer can think whatever the hell he wants to, it doesn't change what games are and why they are played.

And game quality, not being something measurable, has also to do with individual tastes.

I still fail to see any difference between quality and fun.

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]That's not necessarily true. A developer might make a game for all sorts of reasons besides fun: because they feel they have a story to tell or something else. Fun is always a big part of the equation, but its not the only part.

The thing is, fun is sort of a vague feeling much of time that has a lot to do with a person's tastes over the quality of a game.

The fact that I derived a way larger amount of fun from Sonic's daytime levels than R&C doesn't negate my overall opinion that Sonic Unleashed has so many parts that don't work that is is an terrible overall package and that R&C is a quality game with a quality mechanics are a solid, if uninspired, design.

This is not to say that quality is objective. It's almost entirely subjective. But I can, on some level, separate my overall opinion of quality from the fun I had because much of the time, fun has to do with individual tastes.IronBass

A developer can think whatever the hell he wants to, it doesn't change what games are and why they are played.

And game quality, not being something measurable, has also to do with individual tastes.

I still fail to see any difference between quality and fun.

But you talked about the main objective of a game. The maker of something does have some say in what it intended to do. The individual player does too. Perhaps the individual player is looking for more than fun. The thing is, I'm not trying to make a concrete statement about a game's objective whereas you are.

Game quality might have something to with tastes, but mostly is it determined by standards and a subjective judgment pertaining to whether a game met those standards, whereas fun is something less analytical. It is more a vague feeling.

I think Lego Harry Potter is some of the most fun I had this generation. Much of that has to do with its design, but a lot also has to do with the fact that I simply like Harry Potter. That is why fun is different from quality. A game's fun factor might have a lot to do with factors outside of the actual game. Quality usually measures the game's parts and how the game is as a whole without things like being a fan or liking that sort of game coloring the judgment.

Fun is a vague impression. Quality is a subjective assessment of how well certain aspects of a game work and how well they are executed.

Depends on how they affect the experience with respect to the award. I would have trouble giving GT5 technical graphic awards due to these sorts of issues. (something that I never would have imagined myself saying for the past 3 years)

[QUOTE="IronBass"]

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]That's not necessarily true. A developer might make a game for all sorts of reasons besides fun: because they feel they have a story to tell or something else. Fun is always a big part of the equation, but its not the only part.

The thing is, fun is sort of a vague feeling much of time that has a lot to do with a person's tastes over the quality of a game.

The fact that I derived a way larger amount of fun from Sonic's daytime levels than R&C doesn't negate my overall opinion that Sonic Unleashed has so many parts that don't work that is is an terrible overall package and that R&C is a quality game with a quality mechanics are a solid, if uninspired, design.

This is not to say that quality is objective. It's almost entirely subjective. But I can, on some level, separate my overall opinion of quality from the fun I had because much of the time, fun has to do with individual tastes.GreySeal9

A developer can think whatever the hell he wants to, it doesn't change what games are and why they are played.

And game quality, not being something measurable, has also to do with individual tastes.

I still fail to see any difference between quality and fun.

But you talked about the main objective of a game. The maker of something does have some say in what it intended to do. The individual player does too. Perhaps the individual player is looking for more than fun. The thing is, I'm not trying to make a concrete statement about a game's objective whereas you are.

Game quality might have something to with tastes, but mostly is it by standards and a subjective judgment pertaining to whether a game met those standards, whereas fun is something less analytical. It is more a vague feeling.

I think Lego Harry Potter is some of the most fun I had this generation. Much of that has to do with its design, but a lot also has to do with the fact that I simply like Harry Potter. That is why fun is different from quality. A game's fun factor might have a lot to do with factors outside of the actual game. Quality usually measures the game's parts and how they function without things like being a fan or liking that sort of game coloring the judgment.

Fun is a vague impression. Quality is an assessment of how well certain aspects of a game work and how well they are executed.

I agree with both of you to an extent. You have to use some portion of objectiveness because the statement, "it was the most fun game I played all year" is useless in itself. That said, games are entertainment so that to me even if it is not concretely measurable, itabsolutely deserves to be a factor. I also don't like to say that games are suspose to be about fun (because while that is my mentality everyone seems to want games to be experiences, and thrillers and art sigh), I think entertainment is the better word to use. But really, game quality is not measurable eaither, you can look at everything objective but if it doesn't come together "right"its still a bad game in the end.

Depends on the award.

But you talked about the main objective of a game. The maker of something does have some say in what it intended to do. The individual player does too. Perhaps the individual player is looking for more than fun. The thing is, I'm not trying to make a concrete statement about a game's objective whereas you are.GreySeal9

As I said, makers can think whatever the hell they want. A product has a pre-defined function, a reason for them to exist. While there are variations in the way the games try to achieveit (like, creating a good story), those variations are meant to make a game fun.

Game quality might have something to with tastes, but mostly is it determined by standards and a subjective judgment pertaining to whether a game in met those standards, whereas fun is something less analytical. It is more a vague feeling.

I think Lego Harry Potter is some of the most fun I had this generation. Much of that has to do with its design, but a lot also has to do with the fact that I simply like Harry Potter. That is why fun is different from quality. A game's fun factor might have a lot to do with factors outside of the actual game. Quality usually measures the game's parts and how the game is as a whole without things like being a fan or liking that sort of game coloring the judgment.

Fun is a vague impression. Quality is a subjective assessment of how well certain aspects of a game work and how well they are executed.

GreySeal9

Whatever analysis you made of a game's quality, it will be based on how much fun you had with it. Whatever standard you use, how good or bad each independent element performs (or the game as whole) will be defined by how they contributed to the game being fun.

For example, good level design will be, regardless of how you word it, based on how much fun you had playing through said levels. Good gameplay will be gameplay you had fun playing. And so on.

I agree with both of you to an extent. ActicEdge

[QUOTE="ActicEdge"]I agree with both of you to an extent. IronBass

Well yeah but I have to atleast pretend to be fair :P