Adventure Gamers - Forums

Apart from a handful of QTEs in the first episode (which also had a lot of traditional puzzles), KQ plays very much like a traditional adventure. (I don’t think it’s a particularly good one, but that’s beside the point.)

What Goetia is doing in the non-traditional category is a far bigger mystery to me.

(Maybe it’s time to let go of the whole traditional/non-traditional distinction? It seems to get more and more muddled every year.)

Now, Samorost 3 not getting nominated for best music is the real scandal here.

(Also, may I say how much the Aggies depress me? They just remind me of how many game I haven’t managed to play.)

Maybe more importantly, wheres shardlight for traditional? 4 star review here.. one of the best of 2016 easily.. who forgot?

I’m guessing the nominations are done by review scores, which is why we see the same games repeated in many categories.

I must say I approve of the idea to remove near-adventures like Candle and Inside. They may be good games but I’m glad that pure adventures are prolific enough in 2016 to represent all the categories.

One notable omission is Tales, which I though deserved a best music nomination at the very least.

Gabe - 11 February 2017 12:36 PM

Well i’ll be.. no INSIDE.

Its nominated and won most of other awards out there and will grab GDC,BAFTA and xyz
So it doesnt really matter much
But what puzzles me why it wasnt nominated if Cave was always considered AG

And no Firewatch in writing, not even Oxenfree or KZ0
And last guardian is there which has full action bits

It’s easy to tell which people were too lazy to read the article intro about why certain games were/weren’t included.

Advie - 11 February 2017 07:09 AM

(sorry ag staff we gotta comment thats what we do)

Don’t apologize… comment away! Just don’t expect us to agree with you.

Kurufinwe - 11 February 2017 07:22 AM

What Goetia is doing in the non-traditional category is a far bigger mystery to me.

Yeah, that could have gone either way, but we went non-traditional because possession of objects is a very unconventional approach to gameplay.

(Maybe it’s time to let go of the whole traditional/non-traditional distinction? It seems to get more and more muddled every year.)

It is indeed extremely hard to decide how to classify many games, but why do away with a bonus award? It’s not like it’s in place of GOTY. It’s just a way to make sure that neither the traditional stuff gets lost in the sea of genre-bending titles, nor vice versa. So we get to celebrate ten top games instead of five. Who wins by cutting that back in half just because categorizing is imprecise?

EDIT: Instead of traditional/non-traditional, we used to recognize first- and third-person. We changed it when the former all but disappeared. Now that they’re far more prevalent (in 3D this time), that’s something we could consider going back to.

Oscar - 11 February 2017 07:43 AM

I’m guessing the nominations are done by review scores, which is why we see the same games repeated in many categories.

Most definitely not. What would be the point? A review is one person’s opinion; the Aggies are a collective effort. But obviously there is going to be correlation; the better games get better scores.

@jackal

storytelling framework and without an excess of action
no dexterity-challenging puzzle-platformers

last Guardian had excess action , i even died at last big fight
Fights are recurring, needs dexterity, from pushing eye holding warriors to
pulling their heads off, even some boss fights

And There is plenty of dexterity based platforming, more challenging than sticky UnCharted series

I fell more in TLG than Inside though inside is more clever in puzzles but lenient in checkpoints

And i dont know why TLG was omitted from Sound design department where it gave hard time to other AAA games in any genre in business

Jackal - 11 February 2017 01:33 PM

Oscar - 11 February 2017 07:43 AM

I’m guessing the nominations are done by review scores, which is why we see the same games repeated in many categories.

Most definitely not. What would be the point? A review is one person’s opinion; the Aggies are a collective effort. But obviously there is going to be correlation; the better games get better scores.

So it’s a popularity contest? That would explain a lot. Although odd for a site which concedes that there do exist “better” games.

I rarely agree with nomadsoul, but on this occasion he is right. Just how does the nomination process work here? How many of the staff played The Last Guardian to decide it was sufficiently “non-action”, and how many played Candle and Inside to decide they were too “action-based”?

Oscar - 11 February 2017 02:58 PM

I rarely agree with nomadsoul, but on this occasion he is right

It always cracks me up how people think that because they post on a forum that they should have some sort of editorial control of a site. You don’t own the place, you don’t work for it, and those that do don’t owe you anything. This isn’t a political election. They’re frivolous awards for a frivolous hobby on a site that has a forum where you can (and have in the past) freely make your own awards and discuss them as you please.

So make your own thread about what games you think were best in 2016 and organize it however you want. The staff at AG have every right to do the same on their end.

D - 11 February 2017 04:25 PM

It always cracks me up how people think that because they post on a forum that they should have some sort of editorial control of a site. You don’t own the place, you don’t work for it, and those that do don’t owe you anything. This isn’t a political election. They’re frivolous awards for a frivolous hobby on a site that has a forum where you can (and have in the past) freely make your own awards and discuss them as you please.

So make your own thread about what games you think were best in 2016 and organize it however you want. The staff at AG have every right to do the same on their end.

It’s slightly more nuanced than that. A website like this is always reliant its community and it is in its own interest to listen to it. Alienate the viewer base and the advertising revenue goes down. It’s a mutual relationship. Just like any business can tell all of its customers to “f- off” - of course they can do it, but it’s not going to be very good for business.

All that aside, I’m fairly sure the feedback is appreciated. We all want the site to do well and stay alive.