Slashdot Mirror
Writer's Guild Nominates Game Writing
Ars Technica's Opposable Thumbs blog notes that the Writer's Guild of America stepped back from the picket line long enough to nominate a few 2007 games for great writing. Unfortunately, their nominees suck. The list of nominees consists of: "Crash of the Titans, Written by Christopher Mitchell, Sierra Entertainment. Dead Head Fred, Written by Dave Ellis and Adam Cogan, D3 Publisher. The Simpsons Game, Lead Writer Matt Selman, Written by Tim Long and Matt Warburton, Dialogue by Jeff Poliquin, Electronic Arts. The Witcher, Lead Story Designer Artur Ganszyniec, Dialogue Sebastian Stepien, Additional Dialogue Marcin Blacha, Writers Sande Chen and Anne Toole, Atari. World in Conflict, Story Design Christofer Emgard, Story Consultant Larry Bond, Script Consultant Ed Zuckerman, Sierra Entertainment." No Mass Effect? Nothing at all from the Orange Box? No BioShock? For shame, WGA.
I'll say that the writing on the Simpsons game was fantastic. From some of the simpler jokes, to the whole plot (and how it ends) they did a fantastic job. It's too bad the rest of the game is so mediocre that it can be trying to play though.
Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
That's what the WGA claims is the crux of the strike but when studio execs agreed to deal provided about a half-dozen unrelated items were considered off the table for discussion, the WGA refused. The studio execs are willing to negotiate electronic distribution royalties.
While that's a possibility, IMDB'ing some of the names suggest they're probably not WGA members. Artur Ganszyniec for example, is an Eastern European with zero television/film credits. Christopher Mitchell doesn't show up at all. I don't believe you even can join the WGA unless you work an industry (film or TV) job first (and I know a bit about it, having once been an associate member.)
Just a guess but I would bet nominations such as this come from within the WGA, instead of polling the game industry (or reviewers, or fans.) It's quite possible these games simply managed to attract the attention of the guild members for whatever reason, and I would further wonder if there was extremely low turnout for the vote since the choices seem to favor some pretty random personal tastes. Obviously this is all pretty lackluster, but they may be just putting the mechanisms in place for a "real" award in the future.
A lot of speculation on eligibility for awards. The TFA has a link to the awards site that includes eligibility. Here are two excerpts:
"Work that was not produced under WGA jurisdiction may be submitted...."
"At the time the script is submitted, the credited writer(s) of the game must be, or apply to become, a member of the WGA's New Media Caucus...."
The writers work must be nominated, it sounds like typically by a writer. Since these aren't yet high profile awards, the writers who bothered to submit their games and apply for membership are the short list of nominees.
Here is the link to eligibility and submission procedures:
http://www.wga.org/awards/awardssub.aspx?id=59You are looking for the terms "rival" and "nonrival".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rivalrous
A related concept is "excludability".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excludability
One can make a matrix of these two categories and place most products into one of the quadrants.
Music recordings used to be rival/excludable. You could only get them on CD (or tape). If you were using that CD then someone else could not (rival). CDs cost money at the store and such are excludable. It is pretty easy to make money on goods that are rival/excludable as long as people want those goods.
Digital technology has turned music recordings into nonrival/nonexcludable. I can rip your CD and we can now both listen to the music (nonrival). One could put that recording on the internet making it available to everyone (nonexcludable). It is extremely difficult to make money on goods that are nonrival/nonexcludable. DRM technology is an attempt to move goods like this back towards rival/excludable.
Some argue that once your product becomes nonrival/nonexcludable then you shouldn't try to change your product to be profitable but should instead change your business model to fit the new marketplace. Treat the nonrival/nonexcludable product as advertising to sell something else that is rival or excludable -- like concerts or t-shirts.