IGF voting through Gamespot?!

[cyrus_zuo]

Have to say I'm not crazy about this one at all...it will only lead to Alien Hominid being voted for over all the other games b/c that is what that crowd already knows...much the same as the sham of Savage getting the audience award last year when you had to fight to get to see Facade...very disappointed in the direction (not disappointed in having IGF stuff on gamespot...but the voting itself...)

http://www.gamespot.com/igf/index.html

[Gmicek]

Well, it's only for the Audience Award.

[KNau]

Hmmm...could they have possibly picked a less indie oriented site for the voting? And to have console/FPS fanboys doing the voting?! Thank god the awards aren't actually relevant in any way ;)

[Coyote]

When I was in the retail games industry ("big business"), it always felt like the IGF (which was a fledgling deal at the time) was more of a "throwing a bone to the wannabes" type event. It seemed like the entire purpose of the IGF was to get these guys a job with a major studio.

Maybe my perception was wrong, and maybe times have changed. I'd seriously consider entering a game in the future, if for no other reason than a little extra advertising. But it's still hard for me to take it too seriously. It feels like what you'd get if the MTV Movie Awards had independent movie categories.

[Gmicek]

I've always felt the same way Coyote. What's more, this time of year has always striken me as the time when the gaming media goes about their annual "see, we do care about games other than the huge releases" by assigning a writer or two to cover the event. It's like how radio stations always do toy and clothes drives around Christmas to accomplish their 'giving back to the community' requirements. So when people moan about the lack of coverage for the little guy they can point out their annual IGF coverage and claim to actually care about that sort of thing.

As far as the decision to host it on Gamespot, well, at least it's not Gamespy or IGN. I'd take Gamespot over the rest any day.

[James C. Smith]

Has anyone expressed these concerns to the IGF directly? Especially specific things like the voting through GameSpot?

[BongPig]

Whats the problem with mainstream gamers voting on indie games? I would have thought this is a good thing. Mainstream gamers asked to vote on games many of them ever knew existed. This might just be the kind of thing to get these gamers to take a look at some indie games. Is that so bad? ... somebody help me out here. What exactly is the problem?

[Andy]

Good question Mike. I can add only - what is the option - make the voting at Real or BigFish? :)

But we are out the list anyway - so just my two cents....

[queasy]

@BongPig
I don't think it's a problem with the people, but more of what cyrus_zuo said:

it will only lead to Alien Hominid being voted for over all the other games b/c that is what that crowd already knows...much the same as the sham of Savage getting the audience award last year when you had to fight to get to see Facade

If the average gamer loves (let's say) alien hominid, do you think that person will go out of their way to download all 9 of the other contestants (in each category) and then play them just to see if it really is the best game?

-j

[BongPig]

Fair enough point queasy, but then who should do the voting?

And although I do agree that many voters might go for Hominid without even looking at the others, surely others will take a look and introduce themselves for the first time to the current indie scene.
Remember, this is only the first year they've tried this. We would hope that if GameSpot run the votes for these awards year in year out, more and more mainstream gamers might become interested. Bigger picture and all that.
Maybe im being romantic! We've got to start trying to introduce ourselves to mainstream gamers eventually..... dont we?
Well, it seems like a good place to start, even if the results are a bit predictable for the first few years.

[milieu]

One problem with opening the floor to GameSpot is that not all the games have downloadable demos or even trailers. So how can the audience possibly make an informed decision on those games?

At the IGF, don't they have dedicated machines that are set up with the game so the attendees can play it?

[cyrus_zuo]

Yep they have dedicated machines...

Gamespot and Gamespy in years past have done an article on the games, if they do that in addition to the voting I think that would be great. Again my concern here is just that it gives an unfair advantage. With some games that discovery on the IGF floor can make them win the audience award...IF it is an audience award shouldn't it be based on the opinion of people who have actually PLAYED the game? There aren't demos for all the games...how can you possibly vote...? Again I see issues here...and I did respond to the IGF....though it was a short email...

Mine (in response to getting my new IGF banner):
I have to admit I'm a little surprised by the decision to use Gamespot to
collect votes.
Ad is up.

There's:
Thank you! Best, Tara

----
Guessing that means they don't want to discuss it. Everyone is welcome to think what they want, but I think we can agree on one point...not all traffic is equal...not sure that relates at all...but maybe :)

[PoV]

How about the other side of it. Has anyone else considered all the additional downloads the entrants (with actual downloads that is) are going to get? Talk about good times if you had a double digit conversion ration. :D

[queasy]

That's a good point too bongpig. It seems some what two-edged. On the one hand, the indies get a lot of exposure, yet on the other hand, we have the "hey, i'm just gonna vote for the game I know" problem.

One thing that levels out the playfield is having all the games readily playable. With the gamespot scheme, a user has to first download, install, play the game, and then if the user is that type of persion, uninstall it.

At the IGF, the dood just walks up to the booth, plays the game, that's it. There's less of a barrier.

Anyway, in the end it doesn't seem to be that big of a deal. Exposure vs a chance at a 1k usd prize.

-j

[milieu]

Exactly. I will definitely enter the IGF, and I really hope to be a finalist...but I could care less about the prizes. The exposure of being a finalist, let alone winning a prize, would be worth the time and expense to apply and attend.

[Coyote]

Oh, it's a great publicity / advertising opportunity.

Just not much of a legitimate contest, and the rewards will likely not be reaped by the most deserving.

The gamer purist part of me resents the idea, but the businessman part of me (which I never knew I had) says, "COOL!"

[PoV]

Just not much of a legitimate contest, and the rewards will likely not be reaped by the most deserving.
As legit as the grammy's or any other awards ceremony. You can't have an unbiased anything, because you need an opinion to make a decision, and an opinion is biased. The IGF is a pannel industry peoples opinion of indie games. If they decide a game is indistinguishable from a commercial game and that makes it best, that's what they decide. Just like the gametunnel end of year awards is Russel's, and the roundup is that of the panel. The IGF is no more illegitame than us, just they have several more thousand dollars to spend on rewarding them.

[JoeMaru]

I don't understand what all the fuss is about.. at least this year they are picking some games that are inide, shooting for mainstream audineces, and fun.. past years the acceptance criteria has been a little strange. if your game was not 'weird', it was not considered 'indie' enough and would not get accepted.

I looked at the entries this year, and I am impressed.. the last few years I went and played the games, and I would 70% of the entries did not impress me at all in any way.

Comparing it to the emmys or grammys or oscars is appropriate. they are all just ceremonies for a bunch of insiders congratualting each other.. who really cares if it means anything about who is the best.. those who are in it get exposure and sales. And that probably is the best one can expect and hope for.

The idea that there should be some kind of purity associated with it is just something I don't understand.

[GBGames]

One thing that levels out the playfield is having all the games readily playable. With the gamespot scheme, a user has to first download, install, play the game, and then if the user is that type of persion, uninstall it.

At the IGF, the dood just walks up to the booth, plays the game, that's it. There's less of a barrier.


Don't forget that with the IGF, the dood has to actually BE there in the first place. With the gamespot scheme, a user just has to be at a computer. Less of a barrier.

[ManuelFLara]

past years the acceptance criteria has been a little strange. if your game was not 'weird', it was not considered 'indie' enough and would not get accepted.
I'm sure with 'past years' you do not mean 'just past year', since Savage was a mainstream game in all senses..

[queasy]

gbgames:

yes, that's obviously a greater barrier *in general*, but what i'm saying is since everyone who's there has easy access to the games, then everyone who votes is more likely (not necesssarily of course) to have played all the games before voting. With the gamespot joint, since everyone has varying degrees of access (percentage of traffic who will download, install, play, uninstall game versus percentage of traffic who will walk up to a booth to play), the voting may be favoured towards those few games that people already know.

-j

[KNau]

The problem I have with this method is that an audience award should be limited strictly to the audience at the GDC. If you don't attend, you don't vote. Otherwise it's not the audience award but the Dribbling-Doom 3-player-bored-one-night-and-looked at-the-web-page award.

All this talk about "yipee, maybe the mainstream will notice us" is a bigger problem in that it assumes and gives the impression that indie games are just the mainstream's poor retarded cousin. That we all secretly wish we could be working on the next Halo iteration rather than whatever crappy little games we are currently developing.

It also assumes that we share the same "many and male" 15 - 25 year old audience, which largely we don't. Hell, I'm willing to bet that even the action titles from indie developers are selling outside the typical readership age / interest range of gayspot.

In the end it's not a big deal since all the "winners" of previous years have remained in their relative obscurity or disappeared completely. The best you could hope for if you win is to get an interview with a publisher so you can go "pro" get out of this indie developer slum.

You do all want to go "pro" right?

[BongPig]

KNau, I know an awfull lot of gamers who enjoy gamespot AND hate Doom3. ;)

[Vorax]

KNau, I know an awfull lot of gamers who enjoy gamespot AND hate Doom3. ;)

Even more then that, most FPS players don't bother with sites like Gamespot. FPS players are hard-core gamers. They visit dedicated sites. There are many such sites for games like Half Liife x, Quake x (and various Qx engine games), Halo, Unreal xxxx, etc.

Thinking Gamespot is driven mostly by FPS players is very wrong...speaking as one of the (recovering) hard-core sub-culture, low-life, pond scum FPS players :)

[Gmicek]

I think the bottom line is that people who haven't even seen the games in action will be voting on which one they feel is the best. That's like having the academy awards chosen based off the movie posters or previews.

[JoeMaru]

and having those who play the game firsthand, and happen to be at the GDC is somehow better? I don't see why it would be.. you basically want to have the retail industry game developers deciding what wins?

Sorry, it just strikes me as weird. I hear a lot of bashing of the portals and of retail on these boards, and it blows my mind that anyone would actually want the crowd at the GDC to decide on the award.

The best you could hope for if you win is to get an interview with a publisher so you can go "pro" get out of this indie developer slum. You do all want to go "pro" right?

I can only hope that this was a joke. If that is the best anyone can hope for, then I feel sorry for them. There are a growing number of 'pros' out there who are sick of the soul sucking pit that is the retail games industry.

The best I hope for is that the developers get more exposure than a footnote in Game Developer magazine. I think the web voting is great, as it gets the games out to real people.. who may buy the game and spread the word and see that there are more games out there than you see on the retail shelf.

To me it seems a shame that anyone would want to limit the voting to those who play the games in person at the show.. to this, I will add, the GDC is not what I would call a very diverse group.. the majority of people there are geeky game developers and fanboys.. I don't think that somehow they are moe enlightened than any other voting group you could pick at random.

I respect everyones opinion, and understand why.. but it still confuses me that people would take that stance.

Either way, I wish the entrants luck, and if I make it down, I will be down there checking them all out.

[KNau]

Perhaps I just misunderstood what the IGF awards are.

I thought the awards served as some sort of "peer review" and not consumer related at all. After all, the customers vote with their pocket books and there's little room for error in figuring if you have a good game or not. If I have a game that isn't selling despite my best efforts - it's a crap game! I figured people who entered in the IGF were doing it in the hopes of some sort of "respect" from their peers and that's why I found the whole concept kind of..well..sad.

The comment regarding going "pro" being your best hope was a half joke. What I mean is that's what is expected that each entry wants - an interview with EA and a shot at a contract to make the next Olsen Twins Go-Kart Adventure. Otherwise, why enter when the money is less than a good game should be making and the marketing value historically has been negligible? The only thing left is respect and a shot at working with a major publisher on a future project.

Hmmm, visiting the Gamespot mainpage I see - console, console, console, EA, console, EA, etc. etc.

[BongPig]

KNau, i think your views are too harsh. I visited Gamespot straight after your comments, and of the top 10 most popular articles, 5 are PC only and none are EA.
So I think we need to re-assess what we think of the avarage Gamespot visitor. They are not the dumb, crude FPS freaks many of us think they are.

If you ask me, Gamespot is a mighty fine site. Fair enough, they dont seem to cover indie games enough, but getting involved with IGF is a step in that direction. Why O why should this upset anybody ( when the reason many of us dislike Gamespot in the first place is thier lack if indie coverage ) is beyond me.

[BongPig]

To add, gaming awards should be voted on by gamers. There shouldnt be catagories. This is ultimately where ild like to see gaming go. games are Games to the consumer. They dont care if this game is indie, or this game isnt.

As Joe said, im just as uncomfortable that games might be voted on by the few individuals who attended IGF.

Can I ask you all....
Do you enjoy our games being catagorised as indie, or would we all rather see games become just games, where information for AAA tiles and small scale indie titles can be found in the same magazines, stores and websites? I always imagined this is where we would all like the industry to end up, but im not sure anymore. Its certainly my dream.

It does seem like alot of us like this cellular games industry thing, where we are 'indie' with our own websites and magazines, completely seperate from the AAA lot, with thier own sites and mags.

I guess it would make sense for puzzle game authours to want to stay seperate, seeing as so few mainstream game fans seem to like full on puzzle affairs. But remember, there are many indies, like ourselves, who make games that appeal to the mainstream croud. What about us? Same with BraveTree. We are just as important a part of the indie community as the puzzle heads, and we would like more exposure on mainstream sites. Remember that next time any indies assume we all hate mainstream games... because we dont.

[KNau]

If that's the case, why have the IGF at all? Why don't we all just meet up at E3?

You're assuming that if Mutant Storm or Think Tanks is listed on a page next to Doom 3 and Nascar 2005 that it will be a boon to your sales but I highly doubt that would be the case. Despite self-classifying as mainstream I don't think you share the same audience.

In the end it doesn't really matter to me personally. I have no intent of ever entering in the IGF or likely even attending. That's money and focus that could be far better spent elsewhere.

[cyrus_zuo]

and having those who play the game firsthand, and happen to be at the GDC is somehow better? I don't see why it would be.. you basically want to have the retail industry game developers deciding what wins?

The alternative is having people who haven't played the games decide who wins. At the GDC the games can be played, through gamespot they cannot. So it seems that your thought is that it's better to have people voting on games they can't play to choose the winner. I disagree with that point, but perhaps we agree that the winner is a sham anyway so my point is pointless.

The question for me isn't whether or not gamespot providing some coverage is helpful, I think we all agree with that being very good.


To me it seems a shame that anyone would want to limit the voting to those who play the games in person at the show.. to this, I will add, the GDC is not what I would call a very diverse group.. the majority of people there are geeky game developers and fanboys.. I don't think that somehow they are moe enlightened than any other voting group you could pick at random.


I would just like to see it limited to people who have played the games. Perhaps in the end this becomes just a strong point for the developers to have downloads available before the conference. I would think the benefits of doing that would certainly pay for themselves.

I think your point on the audience is fair I was a bit overzealous on my categorization on the gamespot crowd (which I suppose I'm a part of as I visit that site 3-5 times a week)

[JoeMaru]

If that's the case, why have the IGF at all?

I agree.. why have it? right now it is a bastard stepchild of the GDC.. and I think the venue kind of sucks.. hard to stand out when you are less then 100 feet away from the nVidia booth, which is 10 times the size and 10 times louder than the IGF.. If it is going to happen, I would at least like to see awareness raised beyond just those attending the GDC.. as it is now, most just don't care and walk right by it..

I would just like to see it limited to people who have played the games.

I agree on that.. but given two options.. limiting it to those at the GDC or having it on GameSpot.. I opt for gamespot.. as it has a better chance of helping the developers in terms of reaching an audience tht might otherwise never even know that these game existed. In and ideal world, it would be different, we don't live in an ideal world.

[BongPig]

KNau,
Im not classifying ourselves as mainstream. Ive just learned over the years that it tends to be mainstream gamers who like our games, not your average downloadable game player. Our typical fan plays mainly retail games, with not many indie titles doing the rounds.
So with that in mind, I would say yes, our games would sell much better sitting on gamespot next to doom3 then they would on some 'indie' site next to bejewled ( etc ).

[JoeMaru]

You're assuming that if Mutant Storm or Think Tanks is listed on a page next to Doom 3 and Nascar 2005 that it will be a boon to your sales but I highly doubt that would be the case. Despite self-classifying as mainstream I don't think you share the same audience.

We don't self classify as mainstream.. nor did we envision such a broad target audience. I know what the audience for ThinkTanks is.. our game does not appeal to everyone, but those that respond to it REALLY respond to it.

In terms of our sales, if we get mentioned anywhere, it boosts sales. Our conversion rate is pretty good, and for us, it is all about eyeballs.

What we have found is that people who purchase ThinkTanks find it while looking for a game that will serve them. We get a lot of old timers that used to play 'doom' back in the day.. but now they have families and don't have time to play UT3K or 4k or whatever.. and then the kids that are too young to really get into the hardcore shooters. We call them ex-Doomers and Never-Played-Doomers (those that will graduate to FPS games).. so, we actually would do well next to DoomIII..and we tend to get the older guys with credit cards that are willing to buy the game rather than just play the demo, or we get their kids. so, we probably woudl find our audience next to a listing of Doom 3..

I want to point out also that we are not manufacturing games for some 'mainstream' market because we thought we could sell it..

ThinkTanks was the game we wanted to make because it is the game we wanted to play. We are not targeting mainstream in a very broad sense. We targeted a very specific audience (that just happens to be a subset of the broad classification of 'mainstream'). We are making the games we want to make.. and although they are not particularly innovative, that is not really something that excites me.. I just like making good games that people enjoy, and that I enjoy making.

[Vorax]

ThinkTanks was the game we wanted to make because it is the game we wanted to play. We are not targeting mainstream in a very broad sense. We targeted a very specific audience (that just happens to be a subset of the broad classification of 'mainstream'). We are making the games we want to make.. and although they are not particularly innovative, that is not really something that excites me.. I just like making good games that people enjoy, and that I enjoy making.

IMHO, this is the best reason to make a game and a great way to view your market. Which is why I keep wondering why so many indy developers make games they would never play in hopes of reaching a market they don't understand.

If your going to bet on a crap shoot, it's better to use your own dice. ;)