Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Doom III Takes E3 Awards

Posted by michael on from the marines-taste-good-with-ketchup dept.

Talinom writes "This has just simply gone too far. CNN has a story that tells how the video game Doom III by id Software has won the "Best Of Show" award at the E3 convention about one year before its release. Does this mean that Duke Nukem Forever is overdue for its "Game Of The Year" award?" The awards site is E3Awards.com. I don't see how they can give an award called "Best Action Game" to something that doesn't exist as a playable game, but then again looking at the past awards I see Neverwinter Nights won in 2000... in 2001... and in 2002.

7 of 192 comments (clear)

  1. E3 Awards is just another web page... by .pentai. · · Score: 5, Informative

    If you check it out, you'll notice they're not run by the IDSA (The happy people that bring us E3 yearly) or anyone of consequence...

    It's just like every magazine having its own Best of E3 list. I mean come on, a game I made made it on one of the lists, so trust me it's not seen as a huge accomplishment.

  2. Can somebody please loan Michael a clue....... by Ride-My-Rocket · · Score: 5, Informative

    ..... as to what E3 is? It is NOT a software store, where titles that have already been released are shown. It _IS_ an expo where new, bleeding-edge games that people will see IN THE FUTURE are shown (to varying degrees).

    Here's a hint -- you WON'T see Neverwinter Nights again as a candidate for "Best of Show" next year. Next time, be sure to think before you post..........

  3. Does it matter? by Jayde+Stargunner · · Score: 3, Informative

    I'm seeing quite a few comments along to line of "What's the point of E3 any more? It's just hype."

    Well, as a member of the gaming media (I'm an editor for RPGFan.com), I can tell you that E3 is and will continute to be a valuable assest for everyone in the business.

    Really, "Best of Show" awards are just fluff. The real nitty-gritty of the show happens on the floor, when thousands of industry folks get to play and see every upcoming game for the next year (or three--depending on the publisher.)

    Sure, people give awards as a way to highlight certain events, but that's NOT what E3 is about. I can assure you that people play more than the highlight titles, and it helps the gaming media--and industry as a whole--get better aquainted with upcoming product lineups and emerging publishers/developers.

    As long as E3 continutes to be a place for the gaming trade to go and look at a pltehora of upcoming products, it serves its purpose well.

    Just my 2 cents...

    -Jayde

    --
    What's a sig?
  4. Um... by GrandCow · · Score: 5, Informative

    I don't see how they can give an award called "Best Action Game" to something that doesn't exist as a playable game, but then again looking at the past awards I see Neverwinter Nights won in 2000... in 2001... and in 2002

    ID was approached by some of the people giving the awards during E3 concerning the awards ceremony. They were told that the game could not qualify unless it was in playable form during the show. ID saw this as a really good PR opportunity and DID let the game be shown in playable form... behind closed doors and your entry was based on a lottery system. Look on Kazaa, there's about a 10 minute video that someone took when they smuggled a camcorder into the room (against ID's wishes)
    --
    "Well kids, you tried your best, and you failed. The lesson is, never try." -Homer Simpson
    1. Re:Um... by GrandCow · · Score: 5, Informative

      I know I shouldn't be replying to my own post, but whatever. I figured I should clarify and there's no "edit post" button

      The majority of people did not actually sit down and play the game itself. The programmers made a hasty developer build and were showing people diferent levels. The game was being played (by one of the developers), so people could see. The programmers would open up a map, drop in the enemies that are supposed to be in the level, and run around and let people see how the game is coming along. There were VERY few people that actually sat down at the keyboard themselves, but over the course of E3 about 5-10 people were allowed to play instead of just watching.

      --
      "Well kids, you tried your best, and you failed. The lesson is, never try." -Homer Simpson
  5. Huh? by Morgahastu · · Score: 3, Informative

    They gave it the best in show award. Not the best playable game award. They decided that their demonstration was the best. Its not that complicated. They didn't say it was the best playing game, they said it was in the best in show. As in a trade show, product DEMONSTRATION people.

  6. Re:YEA BABY by Lt.Phil · · Score: 2, Informative

    I'm not sure I'd grab a Parhelia. While I think it will do well with current games, Matrox refused to send a Parhelia to [H]ard|OCP for review. Their reason was (and I quote, from the [H]orse's mouth): "Matrox stated that due to the nature of our testing that they were not "comfortable" with sending us a Parhelia card. They seemed to think that we would be a bit too rough on the Parhelia and possibly show some issues that the "enthusiast" might identify as weaknesses."

    Those "issues" Matrox is afraid of [H]ard|OCP revealing might be something like lack of vertex and/or pixel shaders... which are currently the only efficient way to do bumpmapping.

    However, this is only speculation, since, after all, no one has seen a Parhelia for themselves though and gotten a chance to play with it extensively. Who knows? The Parhelia could be a GF4Ti-killer (not likely, but it's nice to hope ;])