Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Games Entertainment

Game Developer's Choice Nominees Announced 37

Posted by Zonk
from the gonna-rock-the-gdc dept.
The International Game Developers Association has announced the nominees for the 2005 Developer's Choice Awards. The list includes some pleasantly surprising decisions, such as the inclusion of the quirky Katamari Damacy in the running for Best Game of the Year.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Game Developer's Choice Nominees Announced

Comments Filter:
  • by Dragoon412 (648209) on Tuesday February 15, 2005 @10:22AM (#11676822)
    Take a look at some of the nominees:

    Leisure Suit Larry: Magna Cum Laude for writing? I've seen more engaging plots in first-graders' short stories.

    Prince Of Persia: Warrior Within and World of Warcraft for character design? Sure, maybe if they're talking about visual design only.

    My dislike for a lot of the games listed aside, the ones above are just grossly out of place.
    • by Xentor (600436)
      (From the GDCA website)

      "The Character Design award recognizes the overall excellence of (non-licensed) character design in a game - including, but not limited to, originality, character arc, emotional depth, etc. "

      I haven't played Doom 3 (As sibling post mentioned), but do any of the characters really have personalities? WoW comes off as pretty cheesy at times, but many of the hundreds of speaking NPCs have stories behind them, different modes of speech, etc. I don't think WoW deserves the award (Can yo
    • Prince Of Persia: Warrior Within and World of Warcraft for character design? Sure, maybe if they're talking about visual design only.

      Um, yes, that's what the phrase character design means.
  • by jvmatthe (116058) on Tuesday February 15, 2005 @10:34AM (#11676957) Homepage
    ...when it doesn't have Metal Gear Solid 3 anywhere on it. I'd have put it in any of Best Game, Character Design, Game Design, Visual Arts, or Writing. I'd say it's probably the best game I've played in two years, maybe more.

    It's got a great story (which manages to tie in well with all the other games), some of the most memorable characters I've ever seen, great music, good sound, impressive voice acting, and at least one really, really impressive one-on-one battle (versus The End, who feels like battling a real human at times). Then there is the whole camouflage mechanic which, while mostly unrealisitic, is pretty unique and interesting. And cut scenes that are actually interactive in a limited way, one that I found really appealing.

    To top it off, the game is actually fun to play, which is what we all wanted anyway.

    I also appreciated the fact that I could complete the game without killing any enemy soldiers and was able to use tranquilizer darts and stun grenades to defeat all the bosses. This gave me a special ranking at the end for not killing any humans (which apparently excludes bosses, since they do actually die, but that's a quibble). This is indicative of what I feel is one of MGS3's strengths: the freedom to get from point A to point B using any of a variety of methods. Despite being a completely linear game in the large sense, most players will have unique experiences because they'll do the various small tasks using different strategies.

    To get back on topic...list is flawed when it doesn't include MGS3. Sorry.
    • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 15, 2005 @11:10AM (#11677265)
      Um... NO.

      MGS3 was just like MGS2. It didn't do anything new, it just rehashed the same gameplay yet again. (Oh, it took away that radar. Yeah, that's exciting new gameplay. No, wait, that just makes it more like the various Tom Clancy games, minus the strategy.) Face it, if you played MGS2, you played MGS3. There was nothing new. Hell, you're playing the same damn character!

      Oh, wait, that's right, the annoying camouflage and health system. Somehow, making the game play more annoying doesn't seem like an improvement to me. Instead of using one item to completely cure a gunshot wound, now I need to use six! That's six times as fun, right? Oh, wait, no - it's just tedious. The food thing was BS too, since there was food EVERYWHERE and yet again you could instantly chow down on a complete meal to regain your health in the middle of a firefight with ten guards. Yeah, that's good gameplay. I'll just keep taking hits, because once I've finished with the guards, I can just go on a small hunting spree to restock the small zoo of animal carcasses I'm carrying around with me.

      The character design is just as lame as always, the story was just as pointless as always, the boss battles were just as lame as always. All around it was a C-grade game. That's probably why it didn't make the nominations - it was a lousy game, that was simply a rehash of previous lousy games.
      • This is NOT informative:

        Hell, you're playing the same damn character!

        Wrong.

        yet again you could instantly chow down on a complete meal to regain your health in the middle of a firefight with ten guards

        Wrong. You didn't gain health from eating, but when you were well fed you would gradually regain health over time.

        it was a lousy game

        Just wrong.

      • You're not Solid Snake in MGS3.

        How is the camo system annoying? You mention it but then fail to explain what bothered you about it.

        If you're in the Cure menu frequently, you're doing something wrong - this is a stealth game, not a first-person shooter. You don't want to be getting shot at constantly, much less removing bullets every area.

        As mentioned by someone else, food does not cure you - it restores stamina.

        You're entitled to your opinion on the game, but it sounds fairly ill-informed. Did you get t
    • This is the game developer's choice awards. If this were the game player's choice awards then maybe you could nominate it. It's the difference between the Oscars and the Golden Globe Awards.
  • hmm (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Staplerh (806722) on Tuesday February 15, 2005 @10:36AM (#11676966) Homepage
    The choice snippet above caught my attention:

    The list includes some pleasantly surprising decisions, such as the inclusion of the quirky Katamari Damacy in the running for Best Game of the Year.

    We keep beating this drum - I think Katamari Damacy looks like a cool game, but believe it or not, most of my friends think that as well. While my friends are nerds (engineers, mostly), they aren't slashdot fans and such. I should ask my far younger brothers and sisters...

    What I'm trying to say is that Katamari Damacy is pretty mainstream now, and although it looks like a victory for the 'little guy', I think that victory came a long time ago.

    Meh, good call for the awards people anyways, just chippin' in my two cents.
    • Let's hope that the sequel does a better job with the camera in close quarters. Other than that minor annoyance, it was a very addicting game that was fun enough for even my wife to enjoy it, and she doesn't play many 3D games on the consoles. We can't wait to see how the King of the Cosmos screws up the Universe next time.
    • If by "little guy" you mean a game from a company with $400 million a year in video game revenue...
  • by Tepshen (851674) on Tuesday February 15, 2005 @12:01PM (#11677791)
    ..but isnt this the "DEVELOPERS CHOICE" awards? everyone is going to be posting about how they agree or disagree with the picks. However, If your not a developer your opinion doesnt really mean squat. now if it was awards for popular choice I could understand.
    • by th1ckasabr1ck (752151) on Tuesday February 15, 2005 @12:30PM (#11678139)
      Well, I AM a developer so I suppose that makes my opinion more valid:

      Best Game: Ratchet and Clank 3. This is the most fun I have had playing a game in a while. What game has been made recently that's more fun than R&C3?

      Audio: Doom 3 is the best use of audio to create atmosphere that I have ever experienced in a game.

      New Studio: What Crytek did with Far Cry as their first game is extremely impressive.

      Character Design: Katamari Damacy. Your father in that game is one of my favorite characters of all time.

      Technology: Doom 3. There were more than a handfull of moments in that game where I almost could not believe that what I was seeing on my screen was really there.

      Writing: Ratchet and Clank 3. Most of the nominees have really terrible writing. HL2? Give me a break. The game was awesome, but the writing? R&C3 was funny and quirky, and did quite a bit to make the overall experience of the game more fun.

      • "Writing: Ratchet and Clank 3. Most of the nominees have really terrible writing. HL2? Give me a break. The game was awesome, but the writing? R&C3 was funny and quirky, and did quite a bit to make the overall experience of the game more fun."

        How LSL:MCL made the writing list is beyond me. Especially when you consider that the original creator [allowe.com] is pretty much disappointed with Sierra's blasphemous creation. The writing was horrid from what i've heard, which is a major departure from the series since i
        • Depends how you define(or perhaps judge would be the better term) visuals. Technical engine specs is only half the story, the other half is the art department. Having the most cutting edge engine, with a sub par art staff isn't necessarily going to produce the prettiest game.

          That said, it's possible to look at computer graphics and focus on and appreciate the technical aspects, in essence trying to ignore the art staff effort. I've done this myself watching CGI movies, I'll find myself momentarily wat
      • by DA_MAN_DA_MYTH (182037) on Tuesday February 15, 2005 @02:45PM (#11679711) Homepage Journal
        Where you a developer for Ratchet and Clank 3?
      • Well, I AM a developer so I suppose that makes my opinion more valid:

        Best Game: Ratchet and Clank 3. This is the most fun I have had playing a game in a while. What game has been made recently that's more fun than R&C3?


        I am as well. I agree with all of your picks except best game (and maybe best writing. I might give that to Sly 2). While UYA was a lot of fun and that shouldn't be understated, it was only marginally better than Going Commando. On the other hand, we had some really excellent pic
        • I felt Going Commando was a letdown. While the platforming aspects were great, just as in Sly Cooper 1, the overly populous minigames (the flying, gunner, and skateboarding missions) were all very poorly done and brought the game down. Sly Cooper did the same thing with its driving and gunner levels. Both of the sequels to these games (UYA and Band of Thieves) corrected this error, removing the annoying levels (especially the space flying missions from Going Commando) and fixing the ones that remained so
  • by Killjoy_NL (719667) <slashdot.remco@palli@nl> on Tuesday February 15, 2005 @12:31PM (#11678143)
    Because the last contest I read about had only EA games listed as nominees and winners.
    Like The Sims, Fifa "pick a number", etc

    I believe these to be well thought out nominations.

    I just hope my current favourite game WoW will win :)
  • by Moryath (553296) on Tuesday February 15, 2005 @01:03PM (#11678485)
    but I would have hoped to see more variation than just "Doom 3, Half-Life 2, GTA, WoW, Doom 3, Half-Life 2, WoW...."

    I mean, seriously. There are thousands of games released in a given year, and at least half of every category's nominations are just repeating the same tune.

    I'm not going to whine about what I think they should have nominated, that'd be pointless. But I will point out that maybe, just maybe, there should be more variation in where they're looking for their nominations.
  • KotOR2 (Score:4, Informative)

    by aurum42 (712010) on Tuesday February 15, 2005 @01:41PM (#11678918)
    I must say, I'm a tad surprised at the nomination of Knights of the Old Republic 2. Admittedly, I'm only halfway through the game at this point (playing intermittently over a period of months), but IMO the game is a pale shadow of the original Bioware title.

    The story seems to lack cohesion with the original's (which was a satisfying Star Wars style archetypal good vs. evil thing - simplistic perhaps, but fun), and they apparently failed to run the game's dialog through a spellchecker, let alone a grammar checker. This ruins the sense of immersion, for me at any rate. There are several seemingly gaping plot holes, that I'll detail in a reply, for anyone who's interested (some mild spoilers, so I'll leave it for now). Also, the music is quite banal compared to the original's haunting melodies (Jeremy Soule did the first one's music, I believe - not sure if it's him again, or someone else, but I liked his music in Dungeon siege too). You'd think that building on KotOR1's game engine would result in fewer bugs, but that's sadly not true either - I've already encountered a few (generally minor, but very annoying).

    • I concur. Kotor2 is a far worse story, is far easier, is far shorter, and is quite a bit more... bland than it's original. It's still a fine game compared to other modern games... but doesn't hold a candle to kotor1...
    • Welcome to PC style game development.

      I've been suffering through Vampire The Masqurade: Bloodlines.
      The game is great, has a lot of potentian for different style gameplay depending on your character and how you build them up. The dialog seems quite well thought out.
      The problems are numerous deadly bugs, horrible typo/spelling errors and to top it off they never bothered to go over the script and match the subtitles to the actors lines, so where things get adlibbed it gets disjointed.

      It really wants to be a

Real Programmers don't write in FORTRAN. FORTRAN is for pipe stress freaks and crystallography weenies. FORTRAN is for wimp engineers who wear white socks.

Working...