So the title is corny. Sue me.


http://www.interactive.org/newsandevents.asp

THE VIDEO GAMES INDUSTRY NAMES THE BEST OF THE BEST:

ACADEMY OF INTERACTIVE ARTS AND SCIENCES' SIXTH ANNUAL INTERACTIVE ACHIEVEMENT AWARDS PRESENTED IN LAS VEGAS

LAS VEGAS, NV - FEBRUARY 28, 2003 - The Academy of Interactive Arts and Sciences presented Interactive Achievement Awards in 30 craft, console, and online categories, at a star-studded event last night at the Hard Rock Hotel & Casino in Las Vegas. Electronic Arts was the big winner with a record 13 awards.

Battlefield 1942, published by Electronic Arts and developed by Digital Illusions, took home the most awards, a total of four, including Game of the Year, Computer Game of the Year, Innovation in Computer Gaming, and Online Gameplay of the Year. Animal Crossing, published by Nintendo of America and developed by Nintendo Co. Ltd., received the next highest number of awards, a total of three, including Innovation in Console Gaming, Console Role-Playing Game of the Year, and Outstanding Achievement in Game Design. Overall, Nintendo received a very impressive seven awards.

" These awards are important because they represent the industry' s picks of the top video games from an amazing field of innovation and creativity," said Paul Provenzano, President of the Academy of Interactive Arts & Sciences. " This year' s winners represent a bold and diverse group of games that illustrate how our industry continues to be a pre-eminent force in entertainment."

SEGA®' s Yu Suzuki, known as a forefather of console video gaming, won the Academy' s coveted Hall of Fame Award.

The Academy of Interactive Arts and Sciences Interactive Achievement Award winners include (in alphabetical order):

Computer Action Game of the Year - 2002
Grand Theft Auto III
• Publisher: Rockstar Games
• Developer: Rockstar North

Computer First Person Action Game of the Year - 2002
Medal of Honor: Allied Assault
• Publisher: Electronic Arts
• Developer: 2015 Inc.

Computer Game of the Year - 2002
Battlefield 1942
• Publisher: Electronic Arts
• Developer: Digital Illusions

Computer Role Playing Game of the Year - 2002
Neverwinter Nights
• Publisher: Infogrames
• Developer: Bioware

Computer Simulation Game of the Year - 2002
The Sims Unleashed
• Publisher: Electronic Arts
• Developer: EA Maxis

Computer Sports Game of the Year - 2002
Madden NFL 2003
• Publisher: Electronic Arts
• Developer: EA Tiburon

Computer Strategy Game of the Year - 2002
Warcraft III: Reign of Chaos
• Publisher: Blizzard Entertainment
• Developer: Blizzard Entertainment

Console Action Adventure Game of the Year - 2002
Grand Theft Auto: Vice City
• Publisher: Rockstar Games
• Developer: Rockstar North

Console Fighting Game of the Year - 2002
Tekken 4
• Publisher: Namco
• Developer: Namco

Console First Person Action Game of the Year - 2002
Metroid Prime
• Publisher: Nintendo of America
• Developer: Retro Studios

Console Game of the Year - 2002
Tom Clancy' s Splinter Cell
• Publisher: Ubi Soft
• Developer: Ubi Soft Montreal

Console Platform Action Adventure Game of the Year - 2002
Ratchet & Clank
• Publisher: Sony Computer Entertainment America
• Developer: Insomniac Games

Console Racing Game of the Year - 2002
Need for Speed: Hot Pursuit 2
• Publisher: Electronic Arts
• Developer: EA Black Box

Console Role Playing Game of the Year - 2002
Animal Crossing
• Publisher: Nintendo of America
• Developer: Nintendo Co. Ltd.

Console Sports Game of the Year - 2002
Madden NFL 2003
• Publisher: Electronic Arts
• Developer: EA Tiburon

Family Game of the Year - 2002
Mario Party 4
• Publisher: Nintendo of America
• Developer: Hudson Soft Co. Ltd.

Game of the Year - 2002
Battlefield 1942
• Publisher: Electronic Arts
• Developer: Digital Illusions

Hall of Fame Award
Yu Suzuki, SEGA

Handheld Game of the Year - 2002
Metroid Fusion
• Publisher: Nintendo of America
• Developer: Nintendo Co. Ltd.

Innovation in Computer Gaming - 2002
Battlefield 1942
• Publisher: Electronic Arts
• Developer: Digital Illusions

Innovation in Console Gaming - 2002
Animal Crossing
• Publisher: Nintendo of America
• Developer: Nintendo Co. Ltd.

Massively Multiplayer / Persistent World Game of the Year - 2002
The Sims Online
• Publisher: Electronic Arts
• Developer: EA MAXIS

Online Gameplay Game of the Year - 2002
Battlefield 1942
• Publisher: Electronic Arts
• Developer: Digital Illusions

Outstanding Achievement in Animation - 2002
Sly Cooper and the Thievius Raccoonus
• Publisher: Sony Computer Entertainment America
• Developer: Sucker Punch

Outstanding Achievement in Art Direction - 2002
Sly Cooper and the Thievius Raccoonus
• Publisher: Sony Computer Entertainment America
• Developer: Sucker Punch

Outstanding Achievement in Character or Story - 2002
Eternal Darkness: Sanity' s Requiem
• Publisher: Nintendo of America
• Developer: Silicon Knights

Outstanding Achievement in Game Design - 2002
Animal Crossing
• Publisher: Nintendo of America
• Developer: Nintendo Co. Ltd.

Outstanding Achievement in Gameplay Engineering - 2002
Tom Clancy' s Splinter Cell
• Publisher: Ubi Soft
• Developer: Ubi Soft Montreal

Outstanding Achievement in Original Music Composition - 2002
Medal of Honor: Frontline
• Publisher: Electronic Arts
• Developer: EALA

Outstanding Achievement in Sound Design - 2002
Medal of Honor: Frontline
• Publisher: Electronic Arts
• Developer: EALA

Outstanding Achievement in Visual Engineering - 2002
Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers
• Publisher: Electronic Arts
• Developer: Stormfront Studios

The Interactive Achievement Awards, which were held during the annual D.I.C.E. Summit (Design, Innovate, Communicate, Entertain), were hosted by comedian and actor Dave Foley, best known as the star of the long-running NBC comedy series, News Radio. Among the awards presenters were extreme sports personality Tony Hawk; multi-sensory performance troupe Blue Man Group; actress Kelly Hu, star of the upcoming X2, the sequel to the blockbuster film X-Men; Kristen Dalton, star of USA' s hit Sci-Fi The Dead Zone; Kristina Anapau, star of the VH-1 Original movie, They Shoot Divas, Don' t They?; and Mike Metzger, the undisputed pioneer of freestyle motocross. The show also featured a special musical performance by the recording act, Unwritten Law.

G4, the TV network all about video games, will air a one-hour special on the Interactive Achievement Awards.

About the Academy of Interactive Arts and Sciences

Located in Los Angeles, CA, the Academy of Interactive Arts & Sciences (AIAS) is an official professional academy of the $7+billion interactive entertainment software industry. AIAS is supported by the industry' s leading companies and counts among its board of directors representatives from Activision, Bioware Entertainment, Electronic Arts, Ensemble Studios, Infogrames, Insomniac Games, Interactive Digital Software Association, Microsoft, Nintendo of America, Oddworld Inhabitants, Sony Computer Entertainment America, Sierra Entertainment, and Carnegie Mellon University.

I agree with most of them, but it was sure obvious who would win from the beginning.

I like that Yu Sazuki won

How in the name of god did Animal Crossing win " Role Playing" game of the year? I love the game as much as any other but...even if it' s been a...pah, I' ll just grit my teeth and move on...

Just in what way is Battlefield 1942 innovative?

Hmm... some good ones there. Still gotta wait for Animal Crossing to be released here and see what all the fuss is about.

I' m sorry, but I' ve never been a big fan of AIAS. They seem to get it right sometimes, and other times, they seem utterly clueless. Tekken 4 fighting game of the year? On what grounds? On what PLANET? I mean, it was a fine game, but you' re telling me it was better than VF 4 or CvS 2? Come on...

And while I don' t agree with Battlefield 1942 winning GoY, I' m okay with it. Splinter Cell getting console GoY made me happy though, mainly because it was my personal favorite game of 2002. And I' m glad they recognized the great sound in MoH: Frontline (two sound awards for that game).

I think they could' ve been a little more imaginitive when it came to Art Direction. Two awards in that category for Sly Racoon? Yeah, the game WAS well-created, but there were others that deserved a nod...if they like that cel-shading so much, Wild Arms 3 had some beautiful artwork in the characters and towns.

Animal Crossing......I just don' t agree here. It really isn' t all that impressive, IMO. I know some people find it to be crazy addicting, but I would never be one of them. I get the idea, and it' s a good one, but I don' t believe it deserved three large awards.

As always, it seems the AIAS isn' t too diversified in the presentation of these awards, with some VERY questionable calls.

But I guess it' s better than last year. At least this time I agree with SOME of them.

posted by Peylow:
" Just in what way is Battlefield 1942 innovative?"

Battlefield 1942 is very much the first of its type. How many other games played from a first person perspective can you name where you have a range of classes and weapons for soliders, coupled with the ability to ride tanks, jeep, drive battleships wih individual guns manned by other players, enter submarines, man defense guns, fly, jump out and paracute etc etc. This is a war game on an epic scale. With a decent PC and broadband I have been enjoying 64 player battles over huge levels, with diverse attack and defense options. For now this is as close to real warfare as you can get, short of enlisting in the army. You may argue there are flight games, there are FPS games, there are tank games, sub games etc, but this combines them, not only into seperate levels where you only drive, but into huge landscapes where you could be bombed, torpedoed, sniped, machine gunned, shelled, naded, run over etc.

I think BF1942 deserves every award it recieved. As computers get more powerful and internet connections can handle more data, this is the future of online gaming. Everything you used to wish for in a war or online game, becomes reality with BF1942. Remember seeing the abandoned tanks in Medal of Honor and wishing you could drive them? Here you can.

Okay, but online gaming can die tomorrow, for all I care.

Don' t take this the wrong way Fathoms. I am not saying this applies to you, since I have no idea how good you are at games, but the vast majority of people I know that tried online games and didn' t like them are the people that sucked. No one likes playing online if they spend the entire game dead, or in last position. In fact you always notice that the quitters in online games are also the losers.

Online gaming really only works for certain genres IMO. For example, i think Resident Evil online sounds dreadful. Sports, racing and especially first-person shooters though work incredably well. How anyone could enjoy Unreal Tournament single player for example is beyond me. It sucks, BAD! Online it is completely different. It requires real strategy against unpredictable opponents who can change tactics at any time and work as a team. You also have no idea of how good a shot they are, unlike identical bots. Everyone loves competitivness. Why do you think that sport in general is so popular? People thrive on the need to prove themselves better than others. Pure, unadulterated, one-up manship. The thrill of beating a real-life opponent in a game like Quake 3 by 20 kills and not dying once yourself can' t be beat. Against the computer you barely give a damn, but cause you know you actually beat a real person it is about 1000 times sweeter. Everyone loves to taste victory, but do you care about victory against a " stupid" bot?

By no means do I believe single player games should disappear. I don' t at all. Single player experiences can be excellent, but I feel that unless you are horrendously bad at games online, most people would enjoy them. People are just amazed when they see me playing a game and I explain to them that the 16 people they just saw me shoot were real-life people from around the world. There is something astonishing at the prospect IMO.

I believe online gaming will be big in the future if the infrastructure is in place (cheap broadband, and equipment available everywhere), but not to the point where other gaming types will be lost.

I understand all that.

I HAVE played games online before, of course. Anything from FPSs to role-playing. I actually refuse to play most western RPGs unless I play them multi-player (they bore me to tears single-player, unlike my favorite Japanese RPGs). However, you' re talking to someone right here who enjoys UT/UC single-player. And yes, I' ve played it both ways. I don' t really care if I' m killing a bot controlled by the PC or by a person. I really don' t. Sure, a person is unpredictable, but then again, I haven' t really noticed a pattern from the computer AI in Unreal Championship yet. I just like the fast action, and I really don' t care if I' m playing with other people or not.

I also don' t believe online gaming is stable enough yet. Server problems bug the hell out of me, and I' m sorry, but when I turn on a game, I want to play. I' m quite good at FPSs, but when I die online, I do NOT want to sit there and wait for the round to be over (i.e., Counterstrike). On top of which, it costs extra money which I' m not really willing to part with. It' s not worth it to me. Most of the time, I run into punk kids online who are only in the game to ruin the experience for everyone else. Even in the most private sessions, there tends to be one idiot who refuses to be useful.

All of this put together just makes me not care too much about online gaming. I don' t consider games to be a social hobby anyway. If I want to do something with friends, I' m going out. If people are busy or I don' t feel like it, I' m playing some games by myself to relax. I might play a session of multi-player Heroes with a couple friends over the modem, but that' s about it. See, I don' t mind ringing up a buddy of mine and getting a session of Diablo II going between the two of us (or three or four of us, depending on how many we get), but I don' t really like the idea of wasting time with random servers and random strangers. Let' s face it, even the most ardent online players will agree that not every session is a very satisfying one, and sometimes you just have too many server problems or " cheater" problems...other times, it' s great fun.

For me, the overall sacrifice and the fact that I really don' t care that much about playing games with other people (I figure if I' m going to be communicating with other people, it should be about something besides games), makes me ultimately indifferent about online gaming. Oh, and one last thing I forgot to mention: while I am a huge RPG fan, MMORPGs are all AWFUL, IMO. Just massively BORING, for me. Not sure why...

I appreciate most of what you say there Fathoms.

Having a modem, for one thing, is dreadful for online gaming these days. Especially when many of the people you face are on broadband you are at a major disadvantage. Like you said, you also keep paying, even when you are not playing (in lobbies, dead, waiting for next round ect). Broadband changes this dramatically though and lets even more players on at once, yet remain stable. However, if you don' t enjoy online gaming at all, it would be unwise to invest in Broadband, except for " other" purposes.

IMO, I think online multiplayer is unfairly branded " full of bugs" these days. Things have changed since the early days of Doom and Quakeworld. Most are pretty darn stable and easy to get up and running. Still it is more difficult than single player - there is one extra menu screen to go through.

I can certainly appreciate the pain of counter-strike. It can take ages for the next round and it requires a lot of patience. However, it is extremely popular and the fact that you don' t want to die and do your absolute best to live is what makes the game so different from all other FPS games. It is slower paced, and given its popularity, it seems that it is what people want. I personally don' t like counter-strike, but I love its Unreal Tournament equivalent - Tactical Ops, which is slightly faster.

MMORPGS don' t hold too much appeal for me, but I have never played one so it is hard to judge.

As for the " enjoy playing against bots" issue, I guess its a matter of taste. I can' t stand it, you don' t mind. Fair enough. The reason I don' t like it is that it is still obviously a multiplayer game. I love FPS games, even single player, but there has to be a point or story. A reason to play. Medal of Honor is a good example of what single player FPS should be like. In a bot game of UT or UC there is no point. You could play for infinity with no end if you wanted. I also find that every game is the same. When you play online your skills develop and to say bots present no threat to me these days is an understatement. I could play a bot game for 30minutes on UT and get killed maybe once. Thats not fun IMO. I need a challange and online I definitely get that. I am far from the best and it really puts your own skills in perspective. Single player I look for a purpose in atmosphere and engrossing story. In multiplayer I look for a challange and the sport of the thing. Single player botmatch offers me none of these.

I appreciate your view though. In fact I actually agree with it to a point. It seems that once that point is reached it comes down to indivdual taste in a gaming experience. Of course this is the case in all games, of all genres with all people. Not everyone will ever like the same thing and that is what makes the world interesting.

ORIGINAL: Pierre2k

posted by Peylow:
" Just in what way is Battlefield 1942 innovative?"

Battlefield 1942 is very much the first of its type. How many other games played from a first person perspective can you name where you have a range of classes and weapons for soliders, coupled with the ability to ride tanks, jeep, drive battleships wih individual guns manned by other players, enter submarines, man defense guns, fly, jump out and paracute etc etc.
<snip>

Ok so it has brought together allot of good ideas, but all those ideas have already been used in other games. All Battlefield 42 really does is to gather a bunch of old ideas and execute then well.

I do not argue that the resulting game is good, I do argue that it can hardly be called innovative. I think that award should have been given to a game that really did try to do something new, that did try to innovate new ways of gaming.

Hey, I know where you' re coming from. I have friends that swear by online play too. They' ve begged me to come online and play some simple UT deathmatch, and I usually agree, but I don' t find it to be much different than playing against the PC. I guess bots do get tiresome after a while, but I find it hard to believe that you have NO trouble against the bots set on the highest difficult setting in UC for the XBox......I can barely beat certain levels on the second-highest difficulty, and I think I' m pretty good.

You probably would develop more skills playing against real players, and that only makes sense. But like both of us said, it all comes down to personal tastes, and I' m an RPG fan at heart. I can enjoy a fast-paced session of UT or Half-Life just as much as anyone else, but only for an hour or two at best. I get tired of it quickly, but it' s fun while it lasts.

Multi-player RPGs on the other hand, those I can play for much longer with some friends. Icewindale, Diablo II, Neverwinter Nights, and HoMM have been staples of my multi-player PC gaming for the past three years or so, and I haven' t regretted one moment I spent playing those. Then again, those weren' t online per se, they were just multi-player with friends. Which brings me back to not wanting to play with strangers, just because I don' t know how they' ll play. I don' t know much about online servers these days, and I believe you when you say they' re more stable, but you can' t tell me annoying players don' t get in the way. OFTEN. Bugs the ever-lovin' SH** out of me. LOL

I play every once in a while. I may get XBox Live at some point so I can play Halo online, but other than that, I' m happy with my single-player fun, especially for the consoles.

In reply to Fathoms:

I do have problems with highest difficulty bots in UC on the Xbox. I was talking about the bots in the likes of UT on PC. The bots in UT2003 don' t present much threat though. In a game of Unreal Championship, my main problem is with the controls. I can play quite well with a control pad, but all of my FPS gaming skills are pretty much based on the keyboard and mouse combination. With that I am nigh on unstopabble against bots. To some extent thats why I find playing with a pad on UC so frustrating. Its irritating to go from being able to have pin point control and accuracy to slow, less accurate, less quick weapon changes etc that the pad offers. I still enjoy the occasional game of UC though.

On your other point, yes there are always players who ruin it for others. Cheaters, people in your own team who kill you, people who drive round the track the wrong way etc. However, I find them more of a mild annoyance and they usually get bored and leave quickly enough. Also, on PC at least, new anti-cheat software is always being updated to put players in their place.

To Peylow:

I figured that would be your come back which is why I mentioned it at the bottom of my post. Read it again. Here is what I said -

" You may argue there are flight games, there are FPS games, there are tank games, sub games etc, but this combines them, not only into seperate levels where you only drive, but into huge landscapes where you could be bombed, torpedoed, sniped, machine gunned, shelled, naded, run over etc. "

I still believe this qualifies as innovation. How else can you possibly innovate these days. Name any game and you could argue its all been done before. Take a game like Shenmuefor example. Completely fresh and a one of kind experience IMO, but you could argue that you have seen fighting games, RPGs, QTE events (diehard arcade anyone) etc. Shenmue just combines them.

Battlefield 1942, innovates by provding a NEW game structure where all of the elements it contains can work in unison, effectively and in a balanced fashion. It innovates in the freedom it offers you to do anything to win. It offers unlimited tactics. It offers a new online gaming style in the form of capturing bases and having a lives pool for your team. It offers the largest number of simultaneous players online in the one game ever.

Perhaps it is just an evolution rather than an innovation, but in this day and age I think that it is as good as we can expect. I can' t think of a single game that provides anything as fresh, and new as BF1942 and thats why I think it deserves the award.