So apparently all Activision developers are enrolled in the Academy of Interactive Arts and Sciences. One of the things they do is like the Oscars, but for video games. As an Activision employee, I was enrolled (though it appears anyone who works in the industry can apply, which is pretty neat) and today received an email asking me to vote on the nominees to determine who would receive the awards for various areas. It’s a pretty neat idea and as games have moved into the area of art, they deserve the recognition.

However I have some issues with the entire process. First off, what pool of games is this pulling from? Minecraft is no where to be seen, so one assumes “indie” games do not count. Also there doesn’t seem to be any consideration given to the size and scope of games in comparison to each other. Angry Birds was a fantastic game. But does it in any way, shape, or form compare to Red Dead Redemption?!? The sheer scope of the games puts them in a different class from each other! (The movies have “shorts” much like this should really keep casual/small games in their own category.)

Second, when the academy votes on movies, they have to take time to view all the movies before voting, while there is no such ability to do so for these games. They ask you to cast votes on things you are certain of. So it is on an honor system. But then, I felt terrible because I had to pick a game with an outstanding soundtrack from a list of games I have never played. I ended up choosing the one that was a sequel to the game I felt had a great soundtrack.

Third, the nominees are heavily focused on about 4 games. Now to be fair, this *can* happen. Look at Lord of the Rings Return of the King. Or this year with The King’s Speech. The thing with the game nominations is that it really feels like people just took one game they played and nominated it for every spot, regardless of how appropriate it is. What this leads to is categories like Innovation in Game Play, where *none* of the games are particularly innovative despite the fact that there are games out there that were wildly innovative. Back to my Angry Birds example, it’s a great game, but physics is not particularly innovative. Half Life 2 did it how long ago? Boom Blox did the exact same thing how long ago? I ended up voting for Heavy Rain, despite the fact that I feel it isn’t really a “good” game because at the very least it tried to be innovative. (Not that quick time events are innovative, but at least the heavy weave of the story, the character outcomes, and such were mildly innovative, though the case can be made that Indigo Prophecy did it first without the quick time events.)

I like the idea of an awards show. Even the Spike awards as an idea appeals to me. But it needs to be a thoughtful consideration with clearly defined areas that allows all games to shine. Unlike movies, games can be wildly divergent and should be compared to their peers. Also the terms need to be clearly defined to the voters. There is a great deal of adjustment that needs to take place for these awards to truly mean something and to be fair.