2008 Video Game Baftas

[Midnight Echidna]

While I dislike the majority of the games listed there, I know there was some stupid stuff going on when I looked at the entrants for each of the categories. I mean, I'll admit some of these are good games, others overrated, and some just not good.

Mario Galaxy was alright, its just that it was so hyped that people thought it was so much awesome-er than it really was. I dislike CoD and MGS games, so I can't talk about those. But GTA is fun..

I'm not entirely sure what counts as "Artistic Achievement"...but how on earth do CoD, GoW, etc. fit into that category? Surely they could've found better games there. Maybe I don't know CoD very well, but how on earth did it get Story and Character? Maybe I just don't know how Single Player goes.. :|

[Gabz Girl]

From my standpoint 2007 was one of the worst years in gaming due to absolutely (or nearly) no innovation or forward for the industry...

...

Have you forgotten Bioshock?

O___o

[Strong Bad]

LOOOOOOL is this shit a joke? LOL

[Urtheart]

...

Have you forgotten Bioshock?

O___o

Visually lovely, boring bland and badly constructed gameplay. There was a nice unique idea in the art style, which was great, but it's hardly going to revolutionise games in the future.

And SB no these are the official awards, same as movie stars get, although maybe I should look into who actually votes for them (apart from the people's choice).

[Strong Bad]

Oh, sorry. Reading the list I thought it had to be a joke.

[Patticus]

They royally fucked up last year's entries, so by doing the ones they lost last year with this year's, next year should see the awards actually mean something.

[Mollfie]

Because a lot of people like it. Shockgasp opinion differences.

rofl I know that. I was merely stating my opinion n__n

I've played all the COD and found them all pretty boring, I'll always give a game a go though before I judge.

Edited March 12, 2009 by Mollfie

[Scorch]

I don't see why people are saying that Super Mario Galaxy didn't deserve it. That's one of the best games to ever be released on the Wii so far (as well as being one of the best Mario games made in years). It really got Mario back to his roots by combining gameplay elements from Super Mario 64, as well as some of the past 2D Mario titles. It had tons of references to the older games (like the Koopalings' airships, minus the Koopalings themselves, of course), and the list just goes on and on. That's a lot more than what could be said about some of the recent Sonic titles (not that I hate them, but still).

Edited March 12, 2009 by Scorch

[ovarloard]

There are many reasons why I can't stand Mario Galaxy.

The cheif among them is the fact that, after playing Sonic games, I can't go back to the slow walk and jump thing.

[Ming Ming Hatsune]

I still don't get way Galaxy won GOTY of 2008...I'm now thinking this game could also win 2009's (well at least up for nomination again...)

CoD4 was boring too. I rented it once because my friends kept on talking about it. Killzone 2 is wayyyyy better. <3

[Candescence]

I don't see why people are saying that Super Mario Galaxy didn't deserve it. That's one of the best games to ever be released on the Wii so far (as well as being one of the best Mario games made in years). It really got Mario back to his roots by combining gameplay elements from Super Mario 64, as well as some of the past 2D Mario titles. It had tons of references to the older games (like the Koopalings' airships, minus the Koopalings themselves, of course), and the list just goes on and on. That's a lot more than what could be said about some of the recent Sonic titles (not that I hate them, but still).

And to add to that, the level design was bloody genius. Sure, it was easy for the first sixty stars, but it was fun. As. Hell.

[Strong Bad]

I don't see why people are saying that Super Mario Galaxy didn't deserve it. That's one of the best games to ever be released on the Wii so far

Oh yeah, and that's such an amazing accomplishment. >_> Mario Galaxy was fun, but it lacked challenge and replay value. Definitely didn't deserve to be Game of the Year 2008, even looking passed the fact that it came out in 2007.

[Sega DogTagz]

Mario Galaxy was fun, but it lacked challenge and replay value. Definitely didn't deserve to be Game of the Year 2008, even looking passed the fact that it came out in 2007.

Agreed. I some of the elements of the game were clever but it got old fast. I haven’t even bothered to pick up the game since I beat it (and I got it the day it came out).

I really just don’t see why everyone else is so ga-ga over it. It was just what we expected, and not much more.

[Remy]

I don't see why people are saying that Super Mario Galaxy didn't deserve it. That's one of the best games to ever be released on the Wii so far

Not saying much.

The cheif among them is the fact that, after playing Sonic games, I can't go back to the slow walk and jump thing.

One forgets how slow and clunky Sonic is in the 2D games, only once he hit 3D did he start moving like a weasel on crack.

and Mario in 3D controls far better then any Sonic in 3D ever has.

[Mollfie]

like a weasel on crack.

lol

I really enjoy Mario Galaxy still, I completed it ages ago but I still play it from time to time to get the extra stars. I love replaying levels on it.

[Patticus]

and Mario in 3D controls far better then any Sonic in 3D ever has.

Let's go back to the old Sonic gameplay, then. Mario's has stayed more or less the same since his inception (although Galaxy is far less slippery than 64) and everyone loves that. Sega shook up Sonic's gameplay in a pretty major way, and his popularity has been on the slide ever since.

[Gabz Girl]

Oh yeah, and that's such an amazing accomplishment. >_> Mario Galaxy was fun, but it lacked challenge and replay value. Definitely didn't deserve to be Game of the Year 2008, even looking passed the fact that it came out in 2007.

Well GTAIV didn't really deserve it either. Actually, none of those games deserved it! Except maybe Bioshock but..for some reason that wasn't on the list. B/ Guess an August release in 07 doesn't count (and Octoboer 08 release for PS3 too?).

[Urtheart]

As I said, no one is going to agree with awards whatever happens.

Everyone has personal tastes, and that's always going to sway everything, even in awards.

I could rant on for ages but I'm trying to refrain from it.

To an extent I'm glad GTA4 didn't win any awards because it's won them in almost every other medium.

But the thing to remember is, this kind of things are not based on how good a game is, it's based on popularity (or the amount of money a particular site/organisation has been given in promotion, that always puts the favour in books).

Anyway looking into things, this is how nominations are chosen:

http://www.bafta.org/awards/video-games/vi...ing,541,BA.html

Each jury will comprise between seven and nine industry practitioners across a range of developers and publishers and will be chaired by a member of the BAFTA Video Games committee.

Pretty much a biased system. It'll all be down to which games do they want to hype the most and make sell to again make revenue. Would explain why the game choices were so limited.

Would also explain why Mario Galaxy won an award, I can't belive people are still blinded by nostalga over a year after the game came out, but then again, most of the judges will be the kind to be completly blinded by it.

Let's go back to the old Sonic gameplay, then. Mario's has stayed more or less the same since his inception (although Galaxy is far less slippery than 64) and everyone loves that. Sega shook up Sonic's gameplay in a pretty major way, and his popularity has been on the slide ever since.

Kind of off topic but...

Agreed Mario works better in 3D far better than Sonic, Nintendo based the game around it. I think the big difference though is exactly tyhe opposite to what D'harhan said. When Mario 64 came along, he had to re-invent his game style, refocusing from platforming to exploration (man how many times have I said that) because platforming doesn't work very well in 3D, hence why all the platforming elements in Galaxy are 2D (most giving a nice 3D illusion).

Sonic on the otherhand is trying to force a 2D high concept into a 3D environment, and it doesn't work. It works when the paths are linear, and as such the gameplay is 2D anyway. The other elements are added to give some kind of 3D gameplay, but usually don't work that well as they are additions rather than core focal gameplay styles (more so recently).

Anyway tis off topic.

To expand, nominations for ELAN are out, pretty much every category is Gears of War 2, Left for Dead, Fallout 3 and Fable 2, Fallout 3 and Left for Dead leading since they are up for the PC award as well.

[Flint]

Let's go back to the old Sonic gameplay, then.

As if that would make anyone happier in practice.

[Pelly <3's U]

Well GTAIV didn't really deserve it either. Actually, none of those games deserved it! Except maybe Bioshock but..for some reason that wasn't on the list. B/ Guess an August release in 07 doesn't count (and Octoboer 08 release for PS3 too?).

GTA4 would deserve game of the year over horrible bioshock, though I don't think GTA4 was all that amazing of a game either and didn't deserve to win all the game of the years it did. I also can't believe Fable 2 won, I didn't know a game that came out in 2004 was qualified to win an award for 2008 games. I think CoD4, Left4Dead, and possible Layton deserved their awards.

All that being said video games awards are just about the dumbest thing ever. Just about every gaming site/blog/random person on the street gives them out and they have no real defined criteria to meet. In the end it doesn't amount to anything because does anyone really pull out a game to enjoy and think "Man, it sure is great to be playing this prestigious game of the year award winning game." Me thinks most people play whatever game they're going to have fun with.

[Remy]

As if that would make anyone happier in practice.

It'd make me happy.

[Pelly <3's U]

It'd make me happy.

And you call yourself a sonic fan.....

Actually I have no idea if you call yourself a sonic fan

[Scorch]

Mario Galaxy was fun, but it lacked challenge and replay value.

It lacked challenge and replay value, you say? I'm going to have to disagree with that. The Luigi mode alone was enough replay value for me (even to the point where I've beaten the game a total of 16 times), and it's proven to be slightly more challenging than when you're playing as Mario (particularly during the Cosmic Luigi races, since he's faster than Cosmic Mario). Also, they added difficulty to the boss fights during the Daredevil Runs (and the Daredevil Run at Melty Molten Galaxy had no boss- you had to go through the entire stage without getting hit).

Not saying much.

You clearly didn't read anything beyond that part of the sentence.

really just don’t see why everyone else is so ga-ga over it. It was just what we expected, and not much more.

"We" doesn't exactly apply to everyone, because Super Mario Galaxy is MORE than what I expected it to be. When the game was first shown during E3 2006, I thought it looked extremely mediocre, and it didn't seem vastly different from Super Mario Sunshine (minus the lack of FLUDD, the water pack, at least). My opinion on the game didn't change until about a year later when it was shown again during E3 2007. And when I actually played the game, I was amazed, because I felt that Nintendo had really outdone themselves that time. Super Mario Galaxy was a major improvement over Super Mario Sunshine, and was pretty much everything that it wasn't (not that Sunshine was a bad game, I just expected it to be a little better than it turned out to be). In my opinion, the game has even surpassed Super Mario 64, and I consider that (along with its remake) to be a true masterpiece.

Edited March 12, 2009 by Scorch

[Urtheart]

I also can't believe Fable 2 won, I didn't know a game that came out in 2004 was qualified to win an award for 2008 games.

Wha? Fable 2 was released in it's earliest location 21st October 2008, it began development in 2004 maybe. But definitly qualifies for 2004 awards.

To Scorch, it'll depend who you are talking to, I certainly never found any challenge in Galaxy at all, losing less than 10 lives in the entirety of the Mario Career and Luigi's supposed "disadvantages" were not enough to make any difference to the game.

As I've previously said most of the games major charm is nostalgia, to say it surpassed Mario 64 is an odd statement since it is 64, with a different gravity modifier. There are a few levels which are almost direct ports. Considering I played 64 just before it on the DS (being the first time I ever played 64)

The problem is that's my opinion. Admittedly I'm looking at it from a design view, and in a way I never played either game to really enjoy them, just as a "why is everyone so hyped about these titles". From my standpoint Galaxy did absolutely nothing that hasn't been done before and better.

However this is getting off topic in a way, if you want to continue debating how awesome/shit/bland Mario Galaxy is, make a new topic, unless it's related to the award.

[Covskin]

When did anyone actually care about video game awards? Spike TV or BAFTA, the ceremony ends up being a lot of low-level celebrities who look puzzled by this "Bi...o...shock?" and gives you the impression that the awards panel aren't much better.

Not to mention people arguing about which game is better always seems cause more anger than which film is better (how many people bitched about the Oscars/BAFTAs this year?).

Personally, I find individual websites/magazines' end of year awards far more interesting.