Best of E3 Awards

[Evil Avatar]

In the "Point and Laugh" category, IGN has posted their Best of E3 Awards (http://games.ign.com/articles/620/620084p1.html). Will Wright's Spore and Epic's Unreal3 technology walk away with top honors.

[Orphiuchus]

Ign sucks.

[DevDict]

I am somewhat intrigued by Spore, however I have zero respect and trust in IGN.

[Evil Avatar]

The real shame of it is that there were developers at the show, showing off titles that will come out before the end of 2005, and those titles were totally ignored by these awards. (And by most of the press in general.)

Titles like Oblivion, Conker and Ultimate Spider-Man are really the kind of titles that people should focus on when giving out awards... not tech demos for 2006 games.

[KDups]

From the awards:

Seriously though, nothing else that could have possibly happened at E3 '05 would have been capable of surpassing the utter enormity of Sony's PS3 announcement. The only thing that might have topped Sony's unveiling in terms of raw shock value would have been a supernova, and we're pretty sure that didn't happen.

Wow yeah, showing off a mediocre design, a terrible looking controller, and a reel of game footage that most likely won't be what we're playing in a year. Huge.

Sony's hype machine in action.

[Lodin]

Ign sucks.Worth a quote methinks.

[EGO]

Why do they have a seperate 'Best Non-Playable' award?!? From what I've heard, most of the show was NON-PLAYABLE, especially the things they're giving awards to!

oh and yes...

IGN SUCKS!

[Royal Fool]

Talk about lame awards, haha. And specially tailored and modified to fit Sony's hype.

[kizke]

IGN = teh suck.

I don't think it can be said enough. If anyone working for IGN or Gamespy or Snowball communications reads this, I hope they realize that most self-respecting gamers despise their site.

[the_ham_dog]

EA is absolutely right. Games that are real and coming out soon should be the ones that people should be hyping... not vaporware that won't come out for three years. blargh.

[mister_slim]

The real shame of it is that there were developers at the show, showing off titles that will come out before the end of 2005, and those titles were totally ignored by these awards. (And by most of the press in general.)

Titles like Oblivion, Conker and Ultimate Spider-Man are really the kind of titles that people should focus on when giving out awards... not tech demos for 2006 games.
They also have a Best Of E3 section for each console and handheld, with picks for them. Conker got best graphics, same as last year.

IGN can't even format their sections similarly, the Nintendo-specific awards are formatted into two pages, while the PS and Xbox awards are formatted with one or maybe two awards per page. A little desperate for ad revenue, maybe?

[Deadend]

Hey, remember when IGN didn't suck?

Me, neither.

[feeble]

I dont get these awards from IGN.

there is no scale and have 10-20 votes doesnt make things so.

On some cases there was only 1 runner up.

I vote worst Award page for E3 2005. with my 1 vote this makes it true.

[automaton]

Well, Gamespot has their best of E3 awards up (http://www.gamespot.com/features/6126660/index.html?q=1&tag=gs_hp_topslot_click) and they are much better. They actually give best in show award to a game that was playable and is scheduled for release before the end of the year.

[Rommel]

While I found the video for LoZ good, I felt Spore trumpted it. Of course, I am to understand that LoZ was playable - so I happily defer to the publicity it is getting if it truly is as good as reported.

[milkaxor]

I am somewhat intrigued by Spore, however, I have zero respect, and trust in IGN.

If you add a couple commas to your quote, as I have, it becomes hilarious.

Going with the topic, there were a lot of good games at the show but the biggest things at the show was next-gen consoles, no matter how far off they are.

[if76]

I think giving most innovative game design to spore might be a bit unfair. It's entirely possible that the award was merited but I can't help but think there were games at the show that didn't have Will Write's name on them that may have deserved the award more.

Sure what he SAYS sounds cool but we have yet to see it in action. Sure the premise of evolving creatures from primordial stew to sentient beings sounds cool but the game isn't nearly far along for us to know if it will actually happen.

We don't really know much about the actual game design either. Is there a goal? What are the objectives? What are the challenges? How long does a game last? We don't know the answers to any of these questions but I bet there were some indy devs at E3 whos games were also very innovative but could answer all these questions.

[Rommel]

Sure what he SAYS sounds cool but we have yet to see it in action. Sure the premise of evolving creatures from primordial stew to sentient beings sounds cool but the game isn't nearly far along for us to know if it will actually happen.

We saw him altering the bone structure of the creatures on the fly! It could have been some smoke and mirrors, but goddamnit they were nice smokey mirrors!

[Sloth]

E3 is all about hype. I think as a general rule you shouldn't hype a product more than a year away from release, except at E3. Thats just part of the show.

[Racknahm]

Hey, remember when IGN didn't suck?

Me, neither.

Actually they started sucking when they set up their subscription system, after that it went downhill pretty quick.