A True Canadian
Newbie
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2003
- Messages
- 2,874
- Reaction score
- 2
Ever since its inception, Spike TV's video game awards show has been rather autrocious and generally viewed by gamers to be some of the most embarrasing two hours of "video game" related material each year. I still remember the first show: The host was David Spade ( 
), they announced the "Best Game of the Year" award in the first 2 minutes (that year's edition of Madden), there was no announcing of nominees, there was only about 5 minutes of actual game footage, and most of the show was filler including some live bands and a 10 minute wrestling match ( :x ).
Next year they changed the format a little bit and added more video game related material, but there was still way too much non-game-related filler. That year's host was Snoop Dog, and although he actually spent twice as much time hosting the show than David Spade, he managed to transform it into a rap concert.
Last year's award show was hosted by Samuel L. Jackson and although he actually was connected to gaming (having provided his voice for GTA: San Andreas), I couldn't bring myself to tune in after the distasterous first two attempts at the awards show. I still however went online to check the nominees and the eventual winners and I remember myself agreeing with only 3-4 of the winners chosen.
So anyway, why did I bother to devote 5 paragraphs to Spike TV's annual crapfest? Well this year's show will air on December 13th (with last year's host Samuel L. Jackson returning), but they've already announced the winners on their website, which I think is a bad strategy because why will your audience want to tune in if they know the winners? Anyway, I was looking at the nominees and the winners and I was surprised at how a lot of the winners made sense. Sure there's only one or two "real" nominees per category with the rest leaving you scratching your head, but for the most part the winners seem to be genuine (a certain female character wins the "Cyber Vixen Of The Year" category for instance ). Even in the bogus categories, they've chosen some decent and deserving winners.
I won't be tuning in on December 13th this year out of spite for years past, but if the awards show continues to mature they might actually get me watching again (a long shot, but it could happen). They still however have a long way to go before they have any credibility whatsoever. So what do you think of the winners/categories/nominees/etc. and what would your choices be if you ran the show?
Here's the link to the website: http://www.spiketv.com/#/events/vga2006/index.jhtml (click on "view the winners" on the left-hand side for details).
), they announced the "Best Game of the Year" award in the first 2 minutes (that year's edition of Madden), there was no announcing of nominees, there was only about 5 minutes of actual game footage, and most of the show was filler including some live bands and a 10 minute wrestling match ( :x ).Next year they changed the format a little bit and added more video game related material, but there was still way too much non-game-related filler. That year's host was Snoop Dog, and although he actually spent twice as much time hosting the show than David Spade, he managed to transform it into a rap concert.
Last year's award show was hosted by Samuel L. Jackson and although he actually was connected to gaming (having provided his voice for GTA: San Andreas), I couldn't bring myself to tune in after the distasterous first two attempts at the awards show. I still however went online to check the nominees and the eventual winners and I remember myself agreeing with only 3-4 of the winners chosen.
So anyway, why did I bother to devote 5 paragraphs to Spike TV's annual crapfest? Well this year's show will air on December 13th (with last year's host Samuel L. Jackson returning), but they've already announced the winners on their website, which I think is a bad strategy because why will your audience want to tune in if they know the winners? Anyway, I was looking at the nominees and the winners and I was surprised at how a lot of the winners made sense. Sure there's only one or two "real" nominees per category with the rest leaving you scratching your head, but for the most part the winners seem to be genuine (a certain female character wins the "Cyber Vixen Of The Year" category for instance
). Even in the bogus categories, they've chosen some decent and deserving winners.I won't be tuning in on December 13th this year out of spite for years past, but if the awards show continues to mature they might actually get me watching again (a long shot, but it could happen). They still however have a long way to go before they have any credibility whatsoever. So what do you think of the winners/categories/nominees/etc. and what would your choices be if you ran the show?
Here's the link to the website: http://www.spiketv.com/#/events/vga2006/index.jhtml (click on "view the winners" on the left-hand side for details).
