I agree with HiddenX here. And most of what DA is saying too.
No. And I didn't say that it would.I don't think the price you pay should be relevant either.
Think about it.
Let's say you got Skyrim at a bargain price of 10$.
Does that make the game inherently better because you didn't pay 50$?
You're right, the price shouldn't count when it comes to quality rating. A mediocre game won't win an award in a more general category. But it could win in low-price categories. And I think that's fine. The award woudn't mean that it's better than a game being 2nd in a general category.Price is relevant for the consumer, sure, but not for the quality of the game. I don't see it, and I don't like this concept of dividing cheap games and expensive games.
Games = entertainment, and the only relevant factor is how FUN they are. Price can and probably should be talked about - but not as a measure of quality.
I fundamentally agree with you DARt.
But it might be so that an indie company develops a great game but it lacks a lot of "polish", which makes people rank it lower. Because of that it'll not have any chance against a game with a bigger budget who has all that "polish" + a lot of extras.
I guess the thinking behind this category is to acknowledge that kind of game, it was a great effort, and if it is recognized and people buy it same developer could get a chance to make version 2 with a bigger budget were they add the necessary things making it a much greater game.
Ok, how about another situation, the game is great but the person behind it does not have enough budget to market it, so that a lot of people can play it and vote for it in the main game of the year category?
But if there is a smaller category for this kind of games, it might make game of the year in that category and gain the amount of attention it needs.
The problem with getting rid of the categories is that the results become predictable. As on most major gaming sites, the "biggest" game will win GOTY, simply because it has the biggest community behind. Small games have no chance.
That's pretty much why to me the "best indie" category feels like a "most gracious loser" award - which I find very unfair. Treat them the same and they will get attention by being in the same "best" list with the big ones you've already played.But if there is a smaller category for this kind of games, it might make game of the year in that category and gain the amount of attention it needs.
Ok, how about another situation, the game is great but the person behind it does not have enough budget to market it, so that a lot of people can play it and vote for it in the main game of the year category?
But if there is a smaller category for this kind of games, it might make game of the year in that category and gain the amount of attention it needs.
If we do like this, we'll get the same top lists as more or less every other site and nothing else. Which would be kind of pointless just like Gorath said.
No other game would get recognized.
A toplists category it doesn't have to be indie game, maybe less known games vote or something like that?
To me a main point of reading awards and such is finding good games to play, as well as bringing attention to good developers who can keep making great games.
I firmly believe that a good game gets noticed, no matter how much money went behind it.
Obviously, the mainstream will overlook a ton of indies - but that's as it should be. Indie games are not meant for the mainstream.
I disagree.
RPGWatch is a site that supports Indie games and makes them known.
A lesser known good Indie-game, that get many votes by RPGWatch-veterans, is more important for me, than well known popamole games that gets votes from anonymous masses.