What is an Award Ceremony Anymore?

An award ceremony is a great way of highlighting a year of excellent releases and recognizing the talent and work it takes to bring said thing together. Whether it be video games, music, movies, TV shows, or any number of other mediums and categories, I think an award ceremony is important at adding a level of legitimacy to something by recognizing that there is skill and expertise needed to do it right and do it well. It turns a pastime into an artform, and it shows those who aren’t as aware of the industry that there is more to it than what meets the eye.

Video games have struggled with this idea for a long time. While more are accepting of this medium, many still see it as a childish pastime or as a mere toy rather than something with artistic integrity and seriousness similar to a book or movie. I believed one thing that could help alleviate this sentiment is a legitimate award ceremony similar to the Academy Awards. Unfortunately, the the most recognizable video game award ceremony at the moment is The Game Awards, and I would hardly call that legitimate. Between its flashiness, fondling over certain personalities like Hideo Kojima or Josef Fares, nominations that feel as though they were chosen by popularity rather than quality, and its clear lack of interest in the awards over new announcements are among some of the issues I have with the TGAs. I wrote about this issue in 2020, and it largely held up with 2021’s ceremony as well.

The Game Awards feels like an insult to what an award ceremony should be and what it represents. It also hurts with legitimizing video games as serious medium rather than just a children’s toy. Because of that, I’ve considered the D.I.C.E. Awards as the “Oscars of video games.” It isn’t as big, but it’s ran by a more official organization (The Academy of Interactive Arts and Sciences), it’s focused on awards, and the whole thing just feels more professional.

This blog exists because I wanted to talk about this year’s D.I.C.E. Awards, which happened on the 24th. Outside of my one blog complaining about the 2020 TGAs, my coverage of video game award ceremonies involves talking about whether or not I agree with each award given out, which eventually evolved into just talking about my highlights of the ceremony. I was planning on doing something similar for this year’s D.I.C.E. Awards. I was going to talk about how despite feeling low-budget, not being a big fan of their weird chibi award announcement screens, and finding most of the jokes to be misses rather than hits, I still preferred this style of award ceremony because it gave emphasis to each award in such a way that celebrates the different aspects of making a video game. I was going to praise how each nominee for each award displayed the people who worked on that specific aspect of the game, as well as the ceremony’s tight runtime and speeches from both Ed Boon and Phil Spencer. I was even going to talk about how I audibly said the f-bomb each time Loop Hero didn’t win the award it was nominated for. But all of that changed when Austin Wintory walked on the stage.

To be clear, I’m not really familiar with Wintory, and this isn’t really about him. It’s about what he said. While presenting the award for Outstanding Achievement in Original Music Composition, he said “As a side note, the Oscars announced this week that they were no longer going to televise the Best Score category. So not to channel Josef Fares but D.I.C.E. Awards, Oscars, interesting subjective lineup there.” I only saw this news in passing and didn’t think much of it, but this quote brought that news full-force into my noggin. As a way to combat last year’s low ratings, the Academy Awards will not broadcast eight awards: Best Film Editing, Best Makeup and Hairstyling, Best Live-Action Short Film, Best Documentary Short Subject, Best Original Score, Best Production Design, Best Sound, and Best Animated Short Film. These will instead be pre-recorded and edited into the broadcast with the hopes of making the ceremony “Tighter and more electric,” according to Academy of Motion Pictures, Arts and Sciences President David Rubin.

While I get wanting a tighter schedule by essentially cutting out the smaller awards (though I would hardly call something like Best Original Score a small award), it goes against what I believe these awards are for. It’s about celebrating all aspects of filmmaking, and not giving equal segments to all of them says aspects of film like editing or sound aren’t as important, which isn’t true. I used awards like the Oscars as a reference point to this exact argument in my 2020 TGAs blog to why all awards should be given equal treatment, but that isn’t the case anymore. While the argument can be made that something like makeup and hair styling isn’t as important as director, I think undercutting the work of a hair stylist still isn’t okay because it takes a small army to make a piece of entertainment like a movie, and removing one piece of that army no matter how big or small would mean an incomplete product.

I think this argument also leads to another argument of if these award ceremonies are meant for audiences or industry professionals. I personally believe award ceremonies like D.I.C.E. or the Oscars should be for the industry, no matter how boring they may be for audiences. Sure, they don’t have the flashiness or excitement of E3, but that’s not the point. It’s meant to celebrate the works of others and highlight a year of excellence, so I don’t really care about it being some spectacle for the viewer who isn’t going to appreciate each award as much as the other industry professionals sitting in the conference room or theater where the awards are being given. I think these ceremonies can be fun for both the audience and professionals, but I do not believe they should sacrifice their integrity for the sake appealing to a group of people who the ceremony shouldn’t be meant for.

Nevertheless, The Oscars and other award ceremonies care about their ratings, so they’re going to do what it takes to bring those numbers up. But when I think about the D.I.C.E. Awards, I never really think about them trying to get high ratings. Their whole presentation was rather mundane (in a good way), as there were no musical performances, weird extra bits like random interviews in the crowd, or even ad breaks. The whole thing felt like a ceremony by industry professionals, for industry professionals, and they decided to let the audience watch because it didn’t make a difference to them. When I think about last year’s Oscars, I think about how they wasted time with games while speeding through their In Memoriam section (which I was particularly salty about because my favorite film composer Ennio Morricone died that year and I thought the whole thing was disrespectful). I could write a whole blog about why I thought the Oscars last year failed (and it wasn’t due to Covid 19), but that’s for someone else to write.

Getting back on track, by the end of the D.I.C.E. Awards I concluded that they are more professional than the Academy Awards. The Academy Awards are now steering towards being a crowd pleaser like the TGAs at the cost of truly representing all aspects of the celebration of filmmaking while the D.I.C.E. Awards has remained focused on celebrating the industry in a way that feels professional, even if it isn’t as flashy (though it is a lot less time-wasting). This doesn’t even bring into account other factors like the Oscars attempting to bring in a diversity quota into the Best Picture category which means nominating films based on criterium outside of merit.

Using the Oscars as a reference on how to do it right was important to me not just because I wanted a frame of reference from another medium, but because that specific frame of reference also was the largest and most important award given out in that medium. That reference no longer applies now. It’s now a better comparison to the TGAs, which is exactly what I didn’t want to happen because it justifies this more crowd-pleasing approach for both mediums. The last thing I want to see is the Academy Awards follow in the footsteps of the TGAs by injecting movie announcements, product advertisements, and an excessive amount of musical performances and sketches while undercutting the awards for the sake of ratings.

So with the D.I.C.E. Awards being a more legitimate award ceremony in my head, a new question popped up for me: Is this what makes video games more accepting as an artistic medium similar to movies and books? I already know that the answer is no and that I ultimately believe it’s a generational thing more than anything else, but this award ceremony is about as professional as it gets. Just like any other good ceremony, the D.I.C.E. Awards separates the greats from the money machines and highlights the talents and skills needed to create these pieces of entertainment, and yet it doesn’t quite shine like the Oscars. When it comes to awards, a lot of people only really care about the big dogs, and the TGAs are the big dogs for the video game space (which I wouldn’t use as a showcase for why the games industry should be taken seriously). For as long as the D.I.C.E. Awards lives under the shadow of the TGAs, it won’t have the importance it deserves. One could argue that its importance doesn’t matter because it’s an award for professionals and they are the only ones who need to care about it, and I would agree with that. But I also think there could and should be greater appreciation by the audience, and I would much rather hang my hat on the D.I.C.E. Awards being the big award for games than the TGAs.

Maybe after reading all this, you think to yourself that the old, more traditional style of award ceremony isn’t for you because you don’t care about the awards as much as the announcements or you just find them boring. That’s totally fine, as these award ceremonies aren’t for you. Maybe this is the evolution of the award ceremony: an event for ratings rather than an event for professionals. But while these big award shows lose their identity and what it means to truly celebrate the art of the craft, I believe ceremonies like the D.I.C.E. Awards will exist to correct things. Ultimately, I want to see a reversal. I want to see focused ceremonies like the D.I.C.E. Awards be on the top of the food chain while others like TGA live under its shadow. I want a ceremony that doesn’t really care whether or not I watch because it’s going to happen regardless of viewership. It may be more boring, but the second it becomes about what the viewer want is the second it loses who these awards are really for. Award ceremonies aren’t meant for viewers, and I believe the D.I.C.E. Awards is an example of how to do it right.

The Game Awards are atrocious. They're all about dumb spectacle and "Look who we have presenting these awards? Look how serious gaming is" when it's totally not

Sorry, but I don't take The Game Awards seriously, because deep down, they don't like the Awards seriously. Say what you want about the Oscars, they do have a lot of problems, but they do seem to care about the awards they hand out.

@sombre: One of the things I complained about with the 2020 awards was how much they loved getting movie celebrities to present their awards. Who cares about them? We should be celebrating our industry, not swooning over movies. We can be so much better than movies, and yet stuff like that holds us back.

@av_gamer: I agree with both your points. I still think there is a level of seriousness to the Oscars, but I am noticing them going down a path that could eventually lead to TGAs (maybe not as severe, but definitely not as professional as it should be). The weird thing about The Game Awards is that a lot of people (based on what I've seen) watch it for the announcement and couldn't care less about the awards, and yet its high viewership count is what adds "legitimacy" to the awards. It's the biggest award ceremony for video games, so a lot of people take it seriously because of its size despite its size coming from announcements. People like you and me (and pretty much everyone else in these forums) see through The Game Awards as some half-assed E3 with a dash of awards, but there are many who watch this show on more of a surface level and think this is the Oscars of video games. I find the whole thing very frustrating, and I always get pissed watching the awards at The Game Awards get sidelined in favor of spectacle and viewer desires.

I'd say the Geoff asked that same question of "how do we legitimize gaming?" and came up with the answer of "get as many eyes on it as possible". The celebrities are there to generate buzz. The sponsors are pandered to to secure money, partnerships, and platforms. The announcements happen to draw in the holdouts that just want to see video games.

We can disagree with the path TGA is taking, but I don't know if they're wrong. I mean, how do we legitimize gaming as a medium that stands side by side with movies and television? Okay, the real question is "do we even need to" but obviously a lot of people feel that we do.

Bombast and showmanship, as aggravating and shallow as it can be, isn't the worst approach in modern media. It's why even film awards are having to move more into this direction. It's all about the numbers, baby. Gaming doesn't even have the weight of history behind it like film and TV do, so recognizing achievements in this industry either would have to stay intimate and internal, or attempt to grow by jockeying for position with shows like the Oscars by appearing just as big and worthwhile.

@mindbullet: I feel like this is the best take that others seem to overlook or are under the impression that someone just foots the bill for these things. The options are have sponsors and game reveals or just turn the whole thing into a edited YouTube video where Keighley stands infront of green screen and ticks off catagories and winners and maybe a few devs get some remote facetime to say a few words and then there will be articles rightly calling it miserable.

The other option would be not to do anything at all, an option that will make people who hate these happy. But despite how shit award shows tend to be I have heard that they are morale boosters for devs to see their games nominated next to larger games. That what they do gets some kind of recognition outside a paycheck and a meta score.

I personally think they are hard to watch but if they mean something to the rank and file devs that the collective games writing industry came together to appreciate their work then I believe can stand some sponsor wankery.

@merxworx01: I don't think anyone here is under the impression that these things take no money to run, but the current solution The Game Awards uses undeniably has issues, and almost all of them are issues the show created for itself.

There's plenty of smaller ones, like it being questionable if a show like The Game Awards will bring the prestige Keighley seems to think it will, or what kind of conflicts of interest it creates by having so many promotions be video games, or portions of the gaming audience wanting prestige without wanting to themselves treat games with prestige, etc., etc..

But to me, the biggest issue by far has always been that the TGAs simply try to cram too much (awards and sponsors both) into a single show. The TGAs eclipse most other game awards in terms of awards presented, even those which have little else going on (the TGAs average 32 awards, whereas DICE has 23, BAFTA's game awards have ~15, and GDCA has 11.) Certainly, it's a valiant effort to recognize a wide range of categories, but does the show really need awards like "Most Anticipated Game", or "What YouTuber is popular this year?"

Then you add onto TGAs' award count 75+ minutes of promotions, 30-60 minutes of skits, performances, and the like, and it makes it impossible for any show to be less than ~3 hours. It creates the very problem that the Oscars have hit, where important awards are reduced to a second's mention, and it creates the issue I've heard everyone complain about for the last four TGAs of "this thing is too fucking long."

I appreciate games award shows, both as yearly recaps and as ways to give respect to development teams, and I fully recognize that these things can only happen when they have sponsors or some established backing to provide money. But at some point, it's started feeling like Keighley wants The Game Awards to be the Oscars and E3, and the end result is a show that's as exhausting as a day of E3 while simultaneously giving half of its awards less acknowledgement than they deserve. There's a line between Geoff Keighley doing a dumb sketch with [razor company mascot] or a fast food chain sponsoring a given award and "half of this show is ads for video games".

@mindbullet: I can see this as an approach to legitimizing the games industry. The problem I have with that though is the thing that we are trying to spread to as many eyeballs as possible are The Game Awards, and I personally do not want that to be the representation of the games industry. On the movie side of things, I could see someone making a similar argument for the MCU. It's getting a lot of eyeballs back into theaters, but I don't believe that is what should represent cinema (but I'm a bit of a film snob, so take that as you will).

I do think your question of whether or not we even need to care about legitimizing games is an interesting one. I personally think we should as I think doing so will help with the public perception and acceptance of games as an artform and meritable pastime, and I think we could see some neat outcomes with more legitimization. At the same time though, trying to legitimize it is ultimately about trying to appeal to an older generation, as I think the younger generation already accept gaming. I don't think that older generation is really changing their minds about video games (outside of seeing their economic benefits in the stock market), so I could see people not caring about this topic because it's a matter of time more than anything else.

@merxworx01: Money doesn't grow on trees, so of course these shows need to find a way to make money. Where this argument comes to a fault, however, is with these two game award ceremonies. The D.I.C.E. Awards didn't have any advertisements, sponsors, etc., and yet they still had a show with stage presences and all. On the flip side of things, The Game Awards puts into question just how much they need to do to make the show happen. I don't have the numbers, but I'm guessing a large percentage of their revenue goes into their spectacle (A-list actors presenting awards, music performances, grandiose mise en scene, etc.). This isn't a matter of throwing in a few advertisements and sponsors to make enough money to have a show, it's a matter of clearly showing that the interest lies in announcements over awards. Also, while awards are certainly great for developers, I bet they don't necessarily appreciate having their achievement read over in a lineup of five awards over the course of thirty seconds or forgotten altogether (TGAs forgot to announce PUBG as best multiplayer game in 2017).

I certainly believe that there is a way to generate income to put on a proper award ceremony without it devolving to The Game Awards. I mean, the D.I.C.E. Awards found a way. Ultimately, it shouldn't matter how the audience or media perceives the event. What matters is that a ceremony properly celebrates the work put into video games, and if that is boring to some then so be it.

@franzlska: I think your line about wanting prestige without wanting to treat games with prestige is a great quote for this. I think we all want to have prestige with this medium, but we aren't going to get it through dew-rito sponsorships and turning the show into some Marvel-esque spectacle (it's an exaggeration but it gets the point across). I agree that they are trying to cram too much into a three hour time window, and I sadly think the awards are the first thing they choose to cut. In my 2020 blog, I proposed either treating sponsors and announcements as their ad breaks or just cramming the announcements into the pre-show. Either way, I think it's a way of raising enough money to make the show happen and make it fun while not compromising its integrity. I also said in my previous blog how it's currently the opposite and the awards act as the ad break, as I remember counting up-to twenty minutes of announcements between some of the awards. I wish Keighley would just separate the two, because it seems like he just wants to create a E3: Winter Edition more than run an award ceremony.

What they’ve always been, an industry circlejerk? (I kid, but then again, I don’t really)

@franzlska: No doubt TGA has lots of bloat. There are a number of questionable decisions behind the scenes that make the whole show seem unwieldy to the detriment of the show but it seems like a number of the issues mentioned seem from the outside are concessions to sponsors, to the multitude of devs and most of all, the different communities that watch the show for multiple reasons. The frayed edges of the show make some kind sense when users are involved in voting and having many catagories that involve genres and content creators that they care about.

Things like most anticipated seem silly and I doubt many games writers care about this category but it is also a morale boost for people working on nominated titles. I don't follow these and unless it's a "let's talk over" video I don't tend to look further into how well they do but it seems like TGA is much newer. The other award shows have been around for sometime. TGA tends to produce enough fanfare that getting an award means something and maybe over time sponsors will be less intrusive, opting to to be more on the sidelines if viewer numbers increase so they can give every category the airtime they deserve.

@brg: I was wondering about that too since it seems like Keighley spends most of the year begging people and sponsors to be a part of show. I think I saw some tweets where he was happy about getting a big sponsor which was a tough to look at.

Luckily for DICE the Academy that holds the shows can make money off people who enter their games into consideration for the show and it looks like some(not all)of people pay to be a member also get to vote as well. It's backed by the Academy of Arts and Sciences and it looks like they have pretty deep pockets and have ties to major entities in the industry. Say what you will about TGA but they simply can't compete with an outfit that's a decade older, whose members are developers who pay to be a part of a well connected organization.

All that considered I'd say Keighley does well for being a newer show in relation to the rest.

Edit: So it looks like everyone who votes is also a paying member.

If TGA was supposed to be an award show for the people in the industry foremost, trying to get a huge stream audience through giveaways, celebs, game discounts, world exclusives and voter participation wouldn't be the focus. But it is, so at that point the actual awards are not 'the main thing' any longer. But having a huge audience be there as it happens, is what gives an award meaning. There are so many awards being given away that have no meaning to anyone. The Game Awards is a widely known phenonemon and viewed by millions, therefore it matters. I doubt the studio's that win something will care that there was a Shick robot walking around when they heard that it's greatly respected what they've built over 4 years of hard work.

@onemanarmyy: And that's the frustrating part about all of this. I mentioned this earlier with someone else's post, but it seems a lot of people watch this show for the announcements, but its high viewership gives "legitimacy" to the awards being handed. It's not the prestige of the awards that makes it important, but the announcements that surround it that makes it important. I don't doubt that developers still care about winning this award. Where I have trouble with this is that many people who only really watch TGAs on a surface level either don't care about the awards or think this is the Oscars of video games when it's actually just Geoff wanting his own little E3 press conference.

The Game Awards suck because Geoff Keighley is utterly obsessed with famous people knowing who Geoff Keighley is. He believes that celebrities provide legitimacy. It's like he got made fun of for liking video games in middle school and thirty years later he's still trying to prove that video games are cool.

I "hate-watch" the Game Awards every year, and mostly only for the trailers. I'd encourage anyone who feels the same way to listen to the Game Awards podcast from a few months ago. It's a 4-part podcast featuring our very own Jeff Gerstmann, and in it Keighley explains why some awards are given out in the pre-show or mentioned in passing. I'll be honest: his reasoning makes some kind of sense, even if it leaves other questions open.

@bladeofcreation: I never heard of this podcast before, so I'll check it out. I also kinda "hate-watch" it too just to see how bad they screw the awards over as well as watch some announcements. I guess in a way I'm part of the problem by giving the show another pair of eyeballs. I can certainly see the argument about his obsession with famous people. I see this not just with movie celebrities, but with big name game personalities like Kojima too. I feel like more than anything else, he's trying to prove that he's relevant, maybe as a way of trying to make people forget about his earlier days of mountain dew and doritos.

Is this what makes video games more accepting as an artistic medium similar to movies and books?

Is this really still a concern? Games are more accepted than ever, and anyone that's put time into something can recognize stuff like the art, the music, maybe even the story. Like... who cares at this point? Maybe some people don't see them as high art, but movies have been around forever and there are people that still complain about the validity of a Marvel movie.

I also thought that the Keighleys have been accepted for what they are. It's a cool show that brings the industry together for a night. Some segments are kinda dumb, some of the stuff is really great. There are awards, there are trailers, and a ton of people watch it. Definitive award shows are less relevant because every site or channel has its own awards to give out, but this one is totally watchable and totally fine.

The DICE awards, and the GDC awards/BAFTA mentioned elsewhere, are associated with existing organisations/events. So they have a distinct advantage over The Game Awards in terms of feasibility. People show up to the DICE awards because they are already at DICE itself, and people are less likely to skip DICE due to the awards being a part of it.

Even considering that though. The Game Awards are terrible and are basically stuck in a discourse feedback loop of:

• "It's important to get together and acknowledge the great achievements within the games industry."
• TGA gets appropriately critiqued on their quality and ability to meet this mission statement.
• "Woah, woah. Calm Down! It's all just a bit of fun!"
• People dismiss and/or ignore TGA as a result
• "But! It's important to get toget..."

Also, as much as TGA tries to copy more "prestigious" awards shows from film/music/et al. With the way they handle esports/"creator" type awards, they are equally copying sports award ceremonies, which are perhaps the least respected of any award ceremony. (I don't mean the awards/trophies of individual sports/organisations/teams here. I mean generic "Big Sports Drink corp presents the Best at sports 2022!" awards.)

I've posted this in other threads on this subject. But I'm still shocked Jeff G has weird "Giantbomb doesn't belong at GDC" stances, but gives so much time and thought to TGA. Even while attempting to maintain a critical detachment as best he can.

@franzlska: The GDC Awards have the IGF Awards at the same event I believe. Which would probably push it up towards the same scale as DICE

I don't know, i've always disliked award shows, weird gatherings of successful people vying for praise and awards to feed their egos.
I'm sure there's some good intentions in highlighting the hard work people put into their crafts, but it's just kinda spoiled by sponsorships and shiny trophies and advertising like the only reason we're there is to be entertained and fed as consumers.

If i created something i was proud of i wouldn't want a celebrity to give me a trophy assigned by random unknown judges, i'd want to hear from the people who bought it and liked it, and maybe even hear from the people who inspired me that would be the ultimate reward, i don't need to wear a suit and go to a gathering of strangers with the aim of being told that i'm cool, hard pass.

@cikame: I largely agree when it comes to celebrity awards. I don't care about watching people with tens of millions of dollars get awards.

I feel slightly differently about the awards that highlight other aspects of the creative industries. An actor who gets paid $20 million per movie wins an award? Who cares? The person who designed that actor's incredible costumes wins an award? Now that's cool.

The video game awards are different, because with the exception of extremely indie games who are devoted by a single person, it's not generally a person getting an award. It's a team. Video game developers definitely have public-facing names, but it at least feels more collaborative. It's not Bobby Kotick getting the award.

I dunno. I don't like formal award shows anyways. I feel like there could be more value to awards shows for collaborative art. It's just that the The Game Awards aren't the show to do it.

Didn't TGA get something like 100 million views and the Oscars got only 10 million? And I did watch the DICE Awards or I had it on the background while playing Horizon with David Jaffe streaming it while he was extremely high commenting how boring it was, but also celebrating himself when they mentioned how God of War won in 2005 and then he quit sometime during Phil Spencer's speech to play Elden Ring. Notice how very few winners had any amount of stage presence compared to the Oscars where you know how the winners were arguably getting the biggest achievement in their career. And all award shows are ridiculously sanctimonious, but wasn't it kinda funny how Greg Miller got all high and mighty about Bobby Kotick when on that very same stage is Phil Spencer who is about to give that guy hundreds of millions.

The usefulness in these award shows for a broader audience are just to curate the best things to play or watch in a given year. Does the presentation or the prestige of it all matter if they're still nominating things worthwhile? For people who want more mainstream affair for movies they could watch the MTV awards and you could say that's closer to what TGA is. However this most recent TGA and DICE gave its best game to It Takes Two and nominated many of the same things in similar categories. In the end regardless of how the actual award show is, the nominees get the recognition and the winners the awards. For someone who cares about cinema as an artform or whatever, it's better to pay attention to Cannes which get it right about 1/5 times while the Oscars hit it maybe 1/10 and I've never seen a Cannes show in my life, I don't even know if they have one. If the ultimate goal is to get more eyes on certain special, important games worth showcasing then we could say The Game Awards might just be the most successful awards show of all time and we should be thanking it and Geoff Keighley for being one of the most important and influential people in not only the games industry, but the awards show industry as well, doing more for it than any of us ever will.

@csl316: Games are more accepted, but they still have a long way to go. For some, acceptance doesn't matter, but I think the industry could advance in some serious ways if we have more acceptance and legitimization. Also, I'm one of those people that complain about Marvel movies because I am a fan of the more higher art movies and I see Marvel/most streaming films as a way of turning cinema into content rather than art. The point is, though, that many easily separate the artsy films from the blockbusters, and award ceremonies like the Oscars do such a thing. The problem is many don't see the higher art in games, and The Game Awards only really feeds into that sentiment.

Hey! I want to receive an award from Bruce Almighty... or Chris Crawford's Dragon, or the spirit of Dani Bunten, or perhaps a space alien—not some mediocre, home-grown, poopy-headed stooge. I'll settle for Jim Carrey beaming over skype.

But seriously, no awards. Giving awards at ceremonies is putting a hat on a hat. The problem isn't that too many people/games/stories/characters are being sorted into the excellent pile.

Several years ago, Tadhg Kelly, a designer, producer, creative director, columnist and consultant, took issue with the idea that professionalism advances the games industry. Rather, he suggested that a professional mindset in the context of creativity produces mediocrity.

@bladeofcreation: I do agree with that when it comes to game awards specifically, there is value in a team lead standing on stage and dedicating an award to the rest of the studio or an indie dev standing with the giants, it's just marred by the rest of the issues i mentioned.