AGS Awards 2023 - The future of the awards

[Stupot]

Also, definitely start the process earlier. Nominations in the first two weeks of January, votes until late January at the latest, ceremony (or results) in the first week of February.

I agree that it needs to be earlier, but your timeline is extremely optimistic indeed. I think a more reasonable target is to have the ceremony in about late March / early April, but that is for the team to say.

[CaptainD]

I like the idea of opening the voting process to non-forum members, as long as there is some anti-cheating measure available (recording IPs or using cookies, or both), BUT the problem with that is that the most popular, commercial, better marketed games would be the ones to always win, whereas if the vote stays within the AGS community, the process is likely to be more neutral. I think the community here cares more about whether games are good than whether games are popular, and that's pretty valuable.

Yeah this would be my concern too, it would be more of a popularity contest than a quality contest. So while I do like the idea in many ways, it's probably too problematic to implement.

[Crimson Wizard]

To provide an alternate opinion, "programming" is often quite visible in AGS games, because of how engine is focused on particular gameplay and offers little to no foundation for another. Hence it's quite easy to notice something that was programmed from ground up as opposed to games using built-in behavior.

EDIT: but of course such category will be prone to not having enough competitors each year. So maybe consider the some kind of "special award" as with "Good character".

[Snarky]

Also, definitely start the process earlier. Nominations in the first two weeks of January, votes until late January at the latest, ceremony (or results) in the first week of February.

I also think it should be sped up, but I think your proposed pace is too high. It pretty much restricts participation to people who have already played most of the AGS games that came out in the last year.

If we could do nominations in January, voting in February, and the ceremony in early March, I think that would be more reasonable (though still pretty demanding if you have a lot of games to catch up on). The FYC thread should start... well, why not now?

But in any case, I think the most important thing is to have a fixed schedule in advance. And last year there were pretty lengthy turnaround times from e.g. when nominations closed to when voting opened, which we should try hard to minimize.

[cat]

So, can we all agree on the following?

*) A tighter schedule for nomination, voting and the ceremony

*) Reduced categories
All graphic category are merged into a "Best Visual Design", all audio categories into "Best Audio Design" and puzzles and gameplay are merged into "Best Gameplay".
"Best Demo" and "Best Character" are dropped.

Keep in mind that doing big changes to the categories mean also changes to the awards client. Not sure, but the intro animations still include the category names.

*) Snarky agreed to update the award client if we go the simple route (i.e. only use the screenshots from the database)

[Kastchey]

cat, yes, I believe you have captured the key points perfectly.

To provide an alternate opinion, "programming" is often quite visible in AGS games, because of how engine is focused on particular gameplay and offers little to no foundation for another. Hence it's quite easy to notice something that was programmed from ground up as opposed to games using built-in behavior.

Definitely, but only if you are very familiar with the built-in behavior, and possibly also with modules and plugins made by other authors. Best Programming would be an outstanding category if we had a judge panel system and could pick our experts. It is a lot easier to make an honest judgement on visuals or storyline, because all of it is on the surface, made for the player to enjoy. There's no misjudging (or refraining from vote) due to lack of programming knowledge or familiarity with AGS.

[cat]

I am slightly in favor of keeping the programming category, if only because these are awards centered around a game making engine. Many people here are familiar with AGS. While noone knows the quality or details of game code, people can acknowledge skillful use of the engine (in the lines of "well done, I wouldn't know how to do that", "creative use of the engine" etc.).

[heltenjon]

To provide an alternate opinion, "programming" is often quite visible in AGS games, because of how engine is focused on particular gameplay and offers little to no foundation for another. Hence it's quite easy to notice something that was programmed from ground up as opposed to games using built-in behavior.

EDIT: but of course such category will be prone to not having enough competitors each year. So maybe consider the some kind of "special award" as with "Good character".

To be fair, one of the comittee awards already in place can also be used for this, although the tech award has been given mostly to work on the engine, modules and plugins the latest years. But maybe the committee could choose to award "Spectacular programming" a given year if there is a game that deserves it? If there are few coders in the anonymous committee, they would probably be dependent on tips from our experts in the field.

*) Reduced categories
"Best Demo" and "Best Character" are dropped.

Possibly combine Best Demo and Best Short game?

Best Character, if we should want to keep it, could be awarded by a separate committee consisting of a few of our members who play most of the games, but are not necessarily devs themselves. I think this is a different consideration from Lifetime Achievment or Technological advancement, and calls for a different approach. Not possible now, but ideally, these members would be appointed before a year starts and keep each other updated on good characters in a separate thread. (My thoughts here are that there probably will be a "best character" every year, put maybe not "Outstanding programming". Also, I think our programmers are too busy programming to have time for being hard core gamers. Could be wrong.)

[cat]

Possibly combine Best Demo and Best Short game?

Ah, I haven't thought about that. But actually, a demo can of course count as a short game or even non-adventure game.

[Snarky]

Seems like every current category has its champions...

Personally I would hate to lose "Best Short Game," since those are often my favorite AGS games (but they usually have a hard time winning Best/Freeware Game).

If we keep it, I think I like "Technical Achievement" better than "Programming"—I think it makes it clearer what we are supposed to be judging. (I also like "Game Design" better than "Puzzles"; my big bugbear is having both "Gameplay" and "Puzzles," but that's an old argument.)

As for Best Character, I don't think it really makes sense the way it's currently done: it seems to pretty much default to the main character, so then why not just have voters pick the game rather than type the name? (Last year I tried to nominate two characters from the same game, but that wasn't allowed.) This is one category I think should go.

Keep in mind that doing big changes to the categories mean also changes to the awards client. Not sure, but the intro animations still include the category names.

*) Snarky agreed to update the award client if we go the simple route (i.e. only use the screenshots from the database)

Yup. We might need new graphic assets for the category intros and perhaps the trophies. On the other hand, if we lower the expectation level for the production quality, it doesn't have to be all that much work to update.

(Of course, this is all in case Dualnames doesn't decide to do it after all.)

[Kastchey]

We have a vast selection of trophies to reuse, so I wouldn't worry about it too much. Category intros are a separate issue though, because they feature the name of the award, and are animated. They were made by selmiak so if he's up for updating them, great. If not, we can perhaps substitute them with idle graphics.

As for keeping and ditching specific awards, if we feel that there are things the opinions are heavily split on, we can do a poll afterwards to decide on these few specific items. The good news is that we have a consensus about the awards that create the biggest bottlenecks during the prep stage (animation, character art, voice work) being simplified into more generic categories.

[Cassiebsg]

I agree with merging those categories, and dropping Best Demo.
There aren't that many demos posted anyway, and sometimes, they aren't even clearly marked.

I would too be sad to see Best Short Game go, for the same reasons Snarky stated.

As for "Programming",  the problem is we don't really see how things are done in code. Thus it ends being, how one think the dev programmed and/or "that looks awesome, it must have been hard to code". The reality might though be very different, and maybe there's not really much wizardly coding, but just a bunch of "hard-coded cheats", or something like that. I remember Gurok mentioning that when he own a Best Programming award (Not that he doesn't do wizardly code, that he wouldn't have deserved the award... but maybe just not on that particular game ).

So while I agree we should be awarding this category, I don't think the current way to do it is the most fair for the devs.

[LimpingFish]

While noone knows the quality or details of game code, people can acknowledge skillful use of the engine (in the lines of "well done, I wouldn't know how to do that", "creative use of the engine" etc.).

Maybe. But if we're looking to expand the audience for the awards, potentially with new community members (and we have to acknowledge the fact that some of our members are players rather than developers), I don't think we can rely on this approach. But...

If we keep it, I think I like "Technical Achievement" better than "Programming"—I think it makes it clearer what we are supposed to be judging. 

...I guess I'd be open to this. It still contains some of the pitfalls I highlighted, but I think it's less confusing than appearing to ask people to specifically judge code. It could also potentially absorb the "Innovation" award in some way.

I like the idea of opening the voting process to non-forum members, as long as there is some anti-cheating measure available (recording IPs or using cookies, or both), BUT the problem with that is that the most popular, commercial, better marketed games would be the ones to always win, whereas if the vote stays within the AGS community, the process is likely to be more neutral.

Well, if we're being honest, and excluding a handful of exceptional freeware titles, successful commercial AGS games almost certainly reach a far bigger audience; not just on Steam, but sometimes on Playstation, XBox, and Switch. And a large percentage of that audience have likely never set foot in our community, and probably know next to nothing about AGS. I'd like to think we could rely on a portion of this audience to vote in the awards, but, as a pessimist, I'd expect only bad things if we opened the voting to non-members.

At some point in the past, I argued that commercial games should be excluded entirely from the awards, as, in at least some cases, we were putting hobbyist developers up against games with might have had a budget, professional team members, and such. To be fair, there were somewhat fewer commercial games at the time. Later, I suggested excluding commercial games from all other awards, except for a single award specifically tailored to them.

My argument about the current system we have was that, imo, commercial games would always have an advantage (and looking back, since 2012, only two freeware games have won "Best Game", while ten commercial titles took home the award; this despite the fact that there are far more freeware games than commercial titles added to the database each year. In fact, for each of the last two years, only a single freeware game has made onto the "Best Game" short list), and that it made more sense to have an exclusive commercial award while keeping the "Best Game" award exclusively for non-commercial games.

Anyway...apples and oranges.

[Snarky]

My argument about the current system we have was that, imo, commercial games would always have an advantage (and looking back, since 2012, only two freeware games have won "Best Game", while ten commercial titles took home the award; this despite the fact that there are far more freeware games than commercial titles added to the database each year. In fact, for each of the last two years, only a single freeware game has made onto the "Best Game" short list), and that it made more sense to have an exclusive commercial award while keeping the "Best Game" award exclusively for non-commercial games.

A few points:

There have been three non-commercial winners since 2012: Heroine's Quest, Urban Witch Story and If on a Winter's Night, Four Travelers (the last two are "pay what you like" donationware, but you can choose to pay nothing). And in 2021 (so within the last two years), three of the five nominees were non-commercial. The year before it was four.

In any case, if the best games are commercial, why wouldn't they deserve to win? It's the AGS Awards, not the Freeware Awards.

[Laura Hunt]

There have been three non-commercial winners since 2012: Heroine's Quest, Urban Witch Story and If on a Winter's Night, Four Travelers (the last two are "pay what you like" donationware, but you can choose to pay nothing). And in 2021 (so within the last two years), three of the five nominees were non-commercial. The year before it was four.

Just a technicality: the game itself is free, and was released as such initially on itch.io; what you're paying for (if you so choose) is the DLC, which we only added after the Steam release. Among other things, this is because due to some of the licenses of the music pieces I used we are not allowed to charge for the game, even if we wanted (not that we want to).

In any case, if the best games are commercial, why wouldn't they deserve to win? It's the AGS Awards, not the Freeware Awards.

(I was going to reply to LimpingFish directly, but since I'm already replying to your post anyway, I'll do it here.)

I completely agree. The idea of outright removing commercial games from the awards would only reinforce the idea that AGS is not a "serious" engine, and is meant only for hobbyists. Besides, we should be celebrating the fact that more and more devs are using AGS to create commercial games that stand tall against those created in other engines.

Furthermore, many (most?) commercial AGS games are created by small, in many cases one-person, teams, just the same as freeware ones, and these devs have to put in a huge amount of work and effort into polishing their games to a commercial standard. Excluding these games from the awards would feel like the community is "punishing" these devs for going the extra mile.

[Babar]

I don't think LimpingFish is suggesting excluding commercial games from the awards, when this discussion came up in previous years, the suggestion was usually having them only applicable for a specific "Best Commercial Game" award. This wasn't usually feasible, since there weren't enough commercial games released in a single year, but I get the feeling that's still true today.

[Ponch]

as a pessimist, I'd expect only bad things if we opened the voting to non-members.

I agree.

For my two cents, I'd hate to lose the ceremony. I look forward to attending it every year. I would also hate to lose "Best Character" because characters are what usually draw me to adventure games. I'd also hate to lose Best Short Game. Those are the games I play most (and the kinds of games I tend to make myself). Commercial games usually carry the day for Best Game, but so long as Best Freeware Game has a category, I'm happy. With the exception of the two AGS Bake Sale games I made, I only make games for free. I also like the MAGGIES having a tiny corner of the ceremony.

Having the ceremony earlier in the year is a good idea, but how short of a window do we want for nominations/voting?

[LimpingFish]

I don't think LimpingFish is suggesting excluding commercial games from the awards, when this discussion came up in previous years, the suggestion was usually having them only applicable for a specific "Best Commercial Game" award.

This is true. I know it may come across as "old man shouts at clouds", but I've just always felt that commercial games, being in the minority, were kind of, I don't know, separate from the community AGS experience; a bunch of hobbyist developers making the kind of games they want to make, regardless of aesthetics or commercial concerns. I really do think that developing a game with the express purpose of selling it is very different to freeware development. Not that commercial developers inherently have or have had to compromise, but I'm reminded of Dave Gilbert's series of videos on the development of Emerald City Confidential, which I found always found kind of depressing. Commercial game development, beyond the act of simply making a game and then deciding to charge for it, has always struck me as a (potentially) soul-destroying enterprise, as opposed to the freedom(?) of freeware development. As I said, I'm a pessimist. I also realize that this viewpoint may come across as somewhat myopic, but...

...I digress.

There have been three non-commercial winners since 2012: Heroine's Quest...

...currently says "This is a Commercial Game" in the database. Is this in error?

In any case, if the best games are commercial, why wouldn't they deserve to win? It's the AGS Awards, not the Freeware Awards.

This, also, is true. But, it's, imho, kind of like a big-fish-small-pond situation; why shouldn't commercial games go up against other commercial games exclusively? On Steam, if an AGS adventure costs ten bucks, and a, I don't know, Pendulo or Daedalic game costs ten bucks, shouldn't they be judged accordingly, as opposed to a freeware title? What if it's commercial AGS game vs commercial AGS game? It makes no difference to the player, as they're out ten bucks regardless. Should concessions be made because of the engine involved? Likewise, should freeware developers have to go up against a game that perhaps has, I don't know, professional voice work, or professional pixel-pushing? Is it possible that a freeware developer, in a year with a Wadjet Eye release, might say "well, I'm not going to beat that"?*

This is not a community problem, just a "me" problem, and I don't really expect the majority to agree with me. But it's something I've always felt, and something I'll probably, rightly or wrongly, continue to feel.

The idea of outright removing commercial games from the awards would only reinforce the idea that AGS is not a "serious" engine, and is meant only for hobbyists. Besides, we should be celebrating the fact that more and more devs are using AGS to create commercial games that stand tall against those created in other engines.

Again, excluding them completely isn't what I wanted (at least in the larger scheme of things). It's just always made sense to me to say the AGS Awards are open to all AGS games, but commercial games should only be represented by a "Best Commercial Game" category, where commercial games can exclusively compete against each other. Most people might disagree, which is fine, but I've yet to hear an compelling argument against doing this (though I realize the irony of the fact that I may not have presented a compelling argument for doing this either!), beyond it not being a popular opinion. Maybe it might open the awards to more freeware games, or at least free up some categories usually dominated by commercial titles? (And yes, conversely, it might be argued, it might stop commercial developers from entering the awards. I never said my plan was infallible!)

Furthermore, many (most?) commercial AGS games are created by small, in many cases one-person, teams, just the same as freeware ones, and these devs have to put in a huge amount of work and effort into polishing their games to a commercial standard.

Again, this isn't about punishing commercial titles, and if my argument comes across as such then I apologize to those developers. I mean no disrespect, but, as I said, I just feel commercial development (and the practicalities/pitfalls involved) is inherently in a different realm to freeware development, regardless of any freeware titles being developed with a team or with a budget, or reaching "commercial" quality.

Regardless, all my points could be answered with a hearty "so what?", and I accept that, and this isn't a hill I'm trying to die on. I also apologize if I've derailed the conversation, as I realize that I've typed up a lot of text for a somewhat non-argument...oh well.

*Yes, such an argument could've been made against "If On a Winter's Night...", as it's of an exceptional, commercial-type quality, and I'd have hardly called for that game to be excluded, so...I don't know.

[Babar]

It's just always made sense to me to say the AGS Awards are open to all AGS games, but commercial games should only be represented by a "Best Commercial Game" category, where commercial games can exclusively compete against each other. Most people might disagree, which is fine, but I've yet to hear an compelling argument against doing this (though I realize the irony of the fact that I may not have presented a compelling argument for doing this either!), beyond it not being a popular opinion

As I mentioned, the argument would be that there wouldn't be enough commercial games nominated for such an award to make it viable as its own category. And then that's essentially excluding commercial games from being recognised by AGS.

[Snarky]

I don't think LimpingFish is suggesting excluding commercial games from the awards

Restricting them to a single category means excluding them from the awards in general.

It'd be one thing if we had different competition classes for each category, but there aren't enough games or voters to support that.

I've just always felt that commercial games, being in the minority, were kind of, I don't know, separate from the community AGS experience; a bunch of hobbyist developers making the kind of games they want to make, regardless of aesthetics or commercial concerns

I fundamentally disagree. Indie developers making commercial games are an integral part of the AGS community, and have been for most of its history.

And in my subjective opinion, most commercial AGS games carry on the "culture" of AGS (for better and worse).

...currently says "This is a Commercial Game" in the database. Is this in error?

Yes. Heroine's Quest is and has always been free. (I believe there are some copyright issues that would make it difficult if not impossible to charge for it.)

Should concessions be made because of the engine involved?

In the AGS Awards? Yes!

Likewise, should freeware developers have to go up against a game that perhaps has, I don't know, professional voice work, or professional pixel-pushing?

In a contest about which AGS games have the best pixel-pushing and voice work? Yes!

You talk about "a bunch of hobbyist developers making the kind of games they want to make, regardless of aesthetics or commercial concerns." That's fine, but I think it's reasonable to point out that if you don't care about or strive for aesthetics or commercial (i.e. popular) appeal, you're probably not going to win a popular-vote-based contest for those things—and in fact shouldn't win.

This is not a community problem, just a "me" problem, and I don't really expect the majority to agree with me. But it's something I've always felt, and something I'll probably, rightly or wrongly, continue to feel.

I think we should drop the topic. We will not change each other's minds, and for me this is a hill I'm willing to die on.