Wired: Games need Hugos too

Per

Vault Consort
Staff member
Admin
What is a rock? Why is the moon? When will computer games enjoy the same status as older fields of culture and entertainment? These are all hotly debated questions, and Wired's Game|Life blog proposes that one way to help the latter cause might be to create a games category for the annual Hugo award for science fiction, using Fallout 3 as an example of a possible nominee.<blockquote>Fallout 3 and Dead Space were exercises in world-building — one a vast, sprawling post-apocalyptic dystopia, the other a claustrophobic vision of Hell in space. That’s not to say that the stories in those videogames can stand up next to the prose in the novels and short stories that earned Hugos this year.

But videogames tackle science-fiction from a unique angle. Science-fiction has always been good at asking, “What if?” Games pose the same question slightly differently: “What if you were there?” They transport gamers someplace alien, letting them try on a new skin. Granted, a good many sci-fi videogames are shooters, but don’t hold that against them. After the Aikido-style pacifism of Portal, all game makers need is a little more encouragement.

Put a Hugo for videogames on the table and game developers might be inspired to create a “what if” scenario where the answers don’t involve gunplay.</blockquote>The idea has some merit - finding themselves competing to impress a crowd different from the usual gaming business and press, developers might be pulled in directions they previously hadn't considered. On the other hand, Hugos are awarded by a popular vote at Worldcon and those people are probably all crazy.

Thanks to Ausir.
 
Per said:
Fallout 3 was an exercise in world-building — one a vast, sprawling post-apocalyptic dystopia...

...with aliens, swamps and 200 years fresh food. Do these people actually use their brains?
 
Every time I see the thread title, it looks like 'Need Hugs'. It may be so.

But to stay on topic and not be vatted by Mr. Lizard man, I shall have to say, that games today have too little text. They could be getting Oscars, tho. I'd definately give The Neverhood some award, also most of LucasArts games, but to new ones . . .
 
Today there are just not enough good enough scifi games which could be nominated.

Maybe Mass Effect, but games like Fallout 3 or Dead Space are just stupid, especially Fallout 3.
 
patriot_41 said:
Every time I see the thread title, it looks like 'Need Hugs'. It may be so.

But to stay on topic and not be vatted by Mr. Lizard man, I shall have to say, that games today have too little text. They could be getting Oscars, tho. I'd definately give The Neverhood some award, also most of LucasArts games, but to new ones . . .

No they don't, if anything they need to shut up more often, the only time they don't have enough text is when they're supposed to have more as dictated by the game's format, like Fallout 3 for example, because developers are lazy.
 
RoseKilla said:
Per said:
Fallout 3 was an exercise in world-building — one a vast, sprawling post-apocalyptic dystopia...

...with aliens, swamps and 200 years fresh food. Do these people actually use their brains?
And no source of food whatsoever in the whole game. No farms no nothing...

"Do these people actually use their brains?" indeed!
 
I'll just go with whatever the majority of this board decides upon.

*obligatory Fallout 3 sucks comment*

-- alec
 
If who ever runs these Hugo Awards wants to include video games, good for them, but I would hope they look at potential recipients for what they are, not let it be based on a sort of popularity contest, or the fact that it has a lot of 9/10s in the reviews.
 
Crazy as hardcore science fiction fans probably are, I would guess they're less likely to be impressed by bloom and chunksplosions than the average person who votes on, say, G-Phoria. I also think they care quite a bit about the prestige of their award and would want to name a worthy recipient - and they do have a "no award" option.
 
Eh, I thought the whole Systemonics or whatever that stupid religion was called, was kind of lazy in explaining why things were so crazy on the Ishimura.

That being said, I liked Dead Space ten times more than I liked Mass Effect or Fallout 3.
 
Strange they point to Fallout 3 and Dead Space when stuff like Celestia and Orbiter are around and are more deserving of science fiction awards.
 
Yeah, I think this is for high profile stuff only.
These awards always are.

Those two being freeware doesn't help much either. Paying money is like buying membership.
 
I'm torn on whether this is a good idea or not.

On the one hand, legitimate writers are getting involved with gaming nowadays - Dead Space for example (which I haven't played) and Jericho (which I also haven't played). I'm a writer myself, and I'm hoping to branch into game development at somepoint...

But here's the problem: how much do most writers - and particularly those involved in the Hugo Awards - know about gameplay? I'm just a fan, if I ever do make a game it will be in collaboration with somebody who's played a lot more than I have. But the idea of something like Fallout 3 winning? Even if the plot was well written, it still doesn't deserve and award; the gameplay is awful.

This is dangerous ground that they're messing around with. Hugo Awards are supposed to mean something; it can't be the sort of hackery vote buying that you get in the Gaming Industry.
 
What the hell?
I played both games and I can tell you that story wise neither of them are award winning material.

Fallout 3 rips of its predecessors and the unpublished Van Buren material, and Dead Space rips off science fiction movies like Aliens, The Thing and System Shock 2.

If they want to create an award for games that shamelessly copy other games or movies then I would say that these are two great entries.

When it comes to classic science fiction games you probably will have to look further into the past, perhaps games like The Dig, Mission Critical, Deus Ex, System Shock series.

Anyone else also have suggestions?
 
Back
Top