Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Game Developer's Choice Nominees Announced

Posted by Zonk on 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.

6 of 37 comments (clear)

  1. This has to be a joke by Dragoon412 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  2. I can't take this list seriously... by jvmatthe · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ...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.

    --
    Curmudgeon Gamer: Not happy
    1. Re:I can't take this list seriously... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

  3. Correct me if I'm wrong... by Tepshen · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ..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.

    1. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... by th1ckasabr1ck · · Score: 4, Interesting
      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.

  4. I have no idea what I would have nominated... by Moryath · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.