2009 Lemmy Award Discussion

[LVUER]

For me, Lemmy Awards isn't a competition but rather a community recognition.

I think there's no harm being recognized by many people... or being not recognized, since if you don't want to enter your game in a contest, then you surely want to go unnoticed.

So I changed my opinion. I think every game should be entered for award nomination. Is it hurt that much if your game recognized by other people? Like when you get a good grade in History lesson and get praised "Dude, you're awesome!". Will you get angry and say "Shut up, man! Mind your own biz!"

[mugenjohncel]

- CONTENT NO LONGER RELEVANT -

[Samu-kun]

Game's released at the end of the year will have the advantage being more fresher in peoples mind.

I don't know... I mean, Tying Threads was released at the beginning of 08 and yet it still won. The only thing that confirms your theory is Araiah, and I think it was a good visual novel in its own right anyways.

But your post did remind me of something... I absolutely have to win to keep you from winning!!!! Ahahaha! >:3 *runs out and starts working more*

[mugenjohncel]

- CONTENT NO LONGER RELEVANT -

[Jake]

Personally, I enjoy the adrenaline rush provided by a competition
...
only in such environments I could go in berserk mode... strive to improve, outdo the others.

I can certainly appreciate this - it's the kind of reason I enjoy taking part in NaNoRenO, as well. It's not a competition, but it's certainly a challenge, which demands a certain goal by a certain deadline, and I find it much easier to get on with work when I have something very specific to work towards.

And to be honest - it's a conversation I've had with a couple of people recently, but as far as I'm concerned it's fine if individuals want to see an awards programme as some kind of competition. They're not creating things for the same reasons the beret-wearers are, but that's OK. What I don't want to see is the awards programme itself encouraging that kind of attitude, because we shouldn't be trying to persuade people who were making VNs for totally unrelated reasons to start thinking of competition instead of doing whatever they were doing in the first place.

I don't know... I mean, Tying Threads was released at the beginning of 08 and yet it still won.

Not only that, but Lady Sugarplum's Bad Day was released ages ago, and it won twice. In the Humour category (where the honorable mention went to another game released around the same time, a third of the way through the year) it won out over a game released far more recently.

In fact, I had to go back and play it again when I was voting, because I was unsure that I was remembering it well enough, and a bit worried that I had a rose-tinted memory of the game because it was so old.

[Samu-kun]

Now that I think about it, maybe whatever disadvantage older games get as a result of people forgetting about it by the time December comes around will be offset by the human tendency to glorify things that have happened in the past.

[LVUER]

@mugenjohncel
Yeah, nice argument! Way to shove some realities to those idealist. I must agree that competition is the thing that make human stronger. Without war, we won't be seeing microwave. Without Olympics, we won't be seeing breaking record performance. Although fierce competition could break some down.

Umm... OK, but you can't deny the advantage of releasing a game near the end of the year (or near Lemmy's)

But the closer it is to the end of year/Lemmy, the bigger possibilities that people haven't played it yet. And usually the earlier game will become a standard for later game (so if earlier game is too good, later games will suffer from a bias).

[JQuartz]

Off topic rant:

Without war, we won't be seeing microwave.

Even so cost of war is too much to bear(money, casualties, destruction of civilization, etc) just for the discovery of microwave. Message by an anti-war proponent.

And usually the earlier game will become a standard for later game (so if earlier game is too good, later games will suffer from a bias).

Yeah but if the earlier game is really that good to be able to make such a huge impression on the audience, then it deserves the win anyway. So the bias doesn't have a significant effect on the audience's vote.

[LVUER]

Off topic rant:

Without war, we won't be seeing microwave.

Even so cost of war is too much to bear(money, casualties, destruction of civilization, etc) just for the discovery of microwave. Message by an anti-war proponent.

Not just microwave though, it's just an example. Rockets came from long-range missiles, microwave from radar, nuclear energy from nuclear bomb, jet airliner from jet fighter, and lots lots more. Even medical development benefit from war technology (it's irony, but the foremost and most advanced technology usually comes from military first).
But it's not that I support war, you know ^_^ The point is that human usually show his true power only when he's at his limit/pushed all the way to the edge. Competition, restriction, desperate and harsh condition. All of these will make human more creative, clever, hard-working. My country is blessed by rich natural resources (gold, diamonds, crude oil and natural gas, green land... you just name it) and we have tropical climate (so no cold winter or hot summer for us). The result? Most of our citizen are very lazy.

And usually the earlier game will become a standard for later game (so if earlier game is too good, later games will suffer from a bias).

Yeah but if the earlier game is really that good to be able to make such a huge impression on the audience, then it deserves the win anyway.

Of course it is. Besides I'm talking about later game doesn't mean it have advantages over earlier game (since people still reminded of later game but already forgotten earlier game).

So the bias doesn't have a significant effect on the audience's vote.

Of course it has. Bias will make you give more/less points for something. I'm a teacher and I have to grade more than 1000 essays per year (I wish I could just give multiple choices all the time). Bias is really something that bother me a lot. I know but I can't help it though. Like if I grade smart student first, I will think "hey, the grade is good, perhaps the problem is too easy". And then I will (unconsciously) grade later students far stricter than usual. And it works the other way around too.

[JQuartz]

Of course it has. Bias will make you give more/less points for something.

Less points to a person who is not going to win isn't a significant effect. It's has an effect but it's not significant since whether the bias is present or not, the winning game still remains a winner, the losing game still remains a loser. Points for exams, however, is significant since less marks might mean F (and a exam retake) and more marks might mean A+(and being eligible for scholarships).

Off topic rant:

Not just microwave though, it's just an example. Rockets came from long-range missiles, microwave from radar, nuclear energy from nuclear bomb, jet airliner from jet fighter, and lots lots more. Even medical development benefit from war technology (it's irony, but the foremost and most advanced technology usually comes from military first).
But it's not that I support war, you know ^_^

Yet you speak as if war is beneficial and we should support war...

[Jake]

Yet you speak as if war is beneficial and we should support war...

I'm not a huge fan of the idea of murdering my fellow human beings either, you know, but the hard reality is that war is beneficial.

Stealing from other people without getting found out is also beneficial. It doesn't mean you should do it, it just means that you gain something from it.

[winternight119]

Actually, Quartz, LVUER stated themself that

But it's not that I support war, you know ^_^ The point is that human usually show his true power only when he's at his limit/pushed all the way to the edge. Competition, restriction, desperate and harsh condition. All of these will make human more creative, clever, hard-working.

(If I could re-phrase for them, it means that technological development explodes during periods of war because people are put under pressure to outdo all the other nations. Unfortunately, people get too lazy when it's not their lives on the line and it's other peoples'. I can understand if that's what you mean, too, Quartz.) I like what Jake said. In a perfect world, war wouldn't happen, which would be awesome.

But this world isn't perfect. And will never be. There will always be those corrupt and power-hungry figures. Stalin, Mao, Hitler, and even lesser murderers after the same goals. And this is the point where I forgot what else I was going to say. Point is, though, this is not an anti-war forum topic. This is about the competition. And typically politics are too heated a discussion to go into an unbiased topic such as the "2009 Lemmy Award."

>.<

~Night

[EwanG]

I'm not a huge fan of the idea of murdering my fellow human beings either, you know, but the hard reality is that war is beneficial.

Is it that war is beneficial, or that competition is beneficial? I think the Olympics example earlier in the thread kind of points to an innate need to strive (which probably comes from the DNA "imperative" to reproduce and thrive), but not necessarily a need to kill the competition in order to work harder.

[Adorya]

Sport competition comboed with politic, money and science get you to high performance drugs highly wanted by miiltary in order to boost troops...stimpack anyone?

I don't think war specifically raise technology rate, but as suggested above anything that pose a real thread to humanity would (uncurable diseases, pollution like many human's self stupidities...). The problem is by the time it is considered as a real thread, the threshold is often get past...

[EwanG]

And of course we are WAY off topic. SO, while I suspect someone can open another thread if we really want to discuss this, I think we've covered most of the points to how the 2009 Lemmys should run.

So, when will the official rules be posted?