On E3's Awards, Anticipation, Predictions

Thanks to HomeLAN Fed for its article discussing the state of the annual 'Best Of E3' game awards, in which the writer suggests that the "E3 awards are a bit of a sham and... a lot of games that get these awards are either not released in the coming year or if they are they are not as good as their E3 presentations make them out to be." He points out that "...out of the 16 categories that the Game Critics E3 awards had last year, 10 of them went to games that have not yet come out and won't be out until after E3 2004." Elsewhere, GameSpot focuses its 'GameSpotting' editorials on the forthcoming E3 trade show itself, suggesting that the show "is becoming a bigger and bigger source of stress and anxiety to the gaming industry as time goes by", even taking into account the excitement of "the biggest video game convention on God's green earth."

Comments

I realized something...

[genrader]

I'm not completely sure this ever happens, but what if one or two of the top ten awards ended up having that game cancelled? I'm guessing that probably won't happen as the developer figures they'll make money on it, but what about all those other "moneymaking" games that got cancelled, a few were on IGN's article the other day about mysteriously disappearing games, and other games too like Interplay and Volition's supposed Descent IV, etc.

Trade Show Stress.

[torpor]

"is becoming a bigger and bigger source of stress and anxiety to the gaming industry as time goes by"

its true ... trade shows ... or rather, the insipient demand for new products to be released at the trade show ... puts a lot of stress on mfr's. time and again, i've been to trade shows/conventions where new products were announced, proto's were made, and then 4 months later, the project is -still- not ready for public release. this screws with markets, and is generally unhealthy.

at this years music messe, my company (a leading musical instrument manufacturer) opted not to participate - we all still went to the show, and enjoyed it very much - but since we've long since stopped timing our product releases to the show period of the year (and only release things when they're -ready- i.e. manufacturing is producing shelf-storable product), we no longer feel a demand as a mfr to invest so heavily in the show.

its a double-edged sword, though. a lot of customers expect new stuff at the show. nevertheless, it feels better as a company not to have to cater to the mob-think that trade shows == target product release date. 'its ready when its ready' is definitely not something you'll hear much at a trade show ... but its the best policy for tech mfr's ...

Re:Trade Show Stress.

[RsD212]

Its getting to the point where a company will have 'products' to show at the trade shows, but then you cant find any more information about it for the next year. Its very misleading and perpetuates the whole vaporware idea, where what you see before your eyes may not actually ever exist in the real world. One recent example is the company Archos who recently announced a new video/mp3 player with built in PDA...go to their website and there is no information whatsoever, not even a press release or a hype page. Companies need to set realistic timetables and not give in to the masses judging their whole existence based on one trade show. And we, as consumers, need to cut the companies a little slack if a project does get delayed or if they dont have much to show at E3. Maybe then things will be a little less hectic.

E3 Awards

[Silwenae]

While I agree with the overall subject of the article, what is the root cause that is driving the awards?

Who exactly is hypeing these games that gets them the awards? If E3 is such a source of anxiety to the developers and publishers, maybe they should start by setting realistic expectations of when they're games will be delivered. It's not that I don't agree with id's philosophy of "when it's done" - but why show the game that early if they know the game isn't going to be released until *after* the following year's E3?

Do they need all the publicity to hype a game that far out? I would assume that the smaller game developers probably do - but if you look at the ones winning the awards - Doom3, HalfLife 2, Halo 3, they're going to get the coverage in the press regardless if the game is there or not.

I don't know what the answer or the solution is - my choice would be for E3 to have a rule that games to be shown should be released within 6-8 months of the show, but the inevitable "code leak", "revamping", or some other excuse would poke holes in that quicker than anything.

Re:E3 Awards

[chrismcdirty]

But not many games are released at E3. And most companies don't really want to show games that are already on the market. They want to show what's coming up.

But I agree. Most games are given a basic time for its release at E3. So any games that aren't scheduled to release in the following year shouldn't get awards.

It's not all bad

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not all bad... Some games get awarded, when you'd never think twice about them otherwise. For example, "Stretch Panic" on the PS2. It's a very odd, unique game, with a weirdly odd and unique play mechanic.

the other side of the coin

[h0mer]

Yes, the E3 awards are usually fluff pieces. Of course, all "previews" of games are usually fluff pieces. The reporter can't give an honest opinion of the game, since the problems may not be there when the final version is released. Even taking that into account, I can't count how many times the preview has said something about a flaw in the gameplay, mentions that hopefully the developer will fix it in time, yet the problem is still in the finished product and hurts the overall rating of it.

E3 is not all bad though! New hardware such as the Nintendo DS is always fun to see unveiled and next-generation titles usually incite some drool when revealed. Come on, you know your jaw hit the floor when the Metal Gear Solid 2 trailer was shown for the first time.

I think the overall lesson is that all news/hype/etc. that you read before a game is actually released should be taken with a grain of salt.

Is everyone forgetting the purpose of E3?

[Torgo's Pizza]

It seems like the fanboi and press seems to forget that E3 isn't about publicity or awards. It's about selling games to brick and mortar stores. The real stories of the show don't happen on the convention floor, but in the meeting rooms on the second floor.

John Callahan of HomeLAN Fed is missing the point. E3 is to games like ShoWest is to movies. Hey, everyone knows that the games aren't finished yet. It's the entire point of having E3; pitch your unfinished game to retailers in hopes of having it finished in time for the Christmas buying season. If all the games were finished, there would be no need for E3. Sheesh, everyone knows that the E3 awards are based on impressions made on the journalists and public. The real awards that count are the IAIAA awards or whatever they're calling themselves now.

Like my bud Greg Kasavin at Gamespot said in his editorial, these games are often at the show two years in a row. Is it stressful? Well yeah, because you're working not only to impress the buyers but other developers at the show. The years I worked at Microsoft's booth at E3, we did our best to impress the press but we worked harder to impress the guys from Blizzard who wandered over to see our game. (And vice-versa). E3 is what it is. Personally I think HomeLan Fed is complaining about nothing and this year's E3 is no less stressful than any other year.

Well, that is unless you're Infinium Labs...