Video games are an important part of culture. Some are masterpieces with plots better than half the films out at the moment, so it's quite right that they should have their own awards i.e the Video Game Baftas which were held last night and unfortunately inexplicably attended by ancient boy-band Blue.
Judges choose Mass Effect 2 as the best game of the year. It comes as no surprise since it received '30 perfect reviews' and is already ranked as one of the best games of all time (according to wiki that is.) This is the type of game to get really excited about one that pushes the boundaries of the video game as an art form.
But of course, sometimes game fans don't care for epic-sci-fi story-telling and beautifully crafted characters sometimes they just want to shoot Fidel Castro in the head. Predictably Black Ops won the people's choice award. Let's not take anything away from Black Ops it's a record-breaking and damn fun game but it's not particularly innovative.
Thankfully though Heavy Rain was awarded for its original music, technical innovation and story-line.
Other winners included:
- Kinect Sports (best family game)
- Cut The Rope, (best handheld game)
- My Empire (best social network game)
- F1 2010, (best sports game)
- God Of War III (artistic achievement award)
So what do you think? Any games missing from the list? And what’s more important innovation and artistic merit VS sales figures and fun? If it was down to the public Black Ops would probably win everything. But then it’s the public that buys and plays the games that count at the end of the day.
One thought on “Video Game Baftas: High Art Vs Low Art”
Cut the rope was a good game but probably won fans through the cutesy factor.
No iOS game has had me coming back for more like the awesome “Space Miner”.