Wii takes "Best of Show" from E3 awards
by Christopher Grant 
{ Jun 1st 2006 at 1:45PM }
An elite band of ninja game critics were chosen for their uncanny (and often deadly) speculative accuracy to determine the winners of the Game Critic Award's Best of E3 2006. Their choice for top honors, "Best of Show"? Nintendo's newest console: the Wii. Other big winners included Spore, nabbing three awards, and Gears of War with two.While the desire to see a victor emerge from the rubble-strewn LA Convention Center is great, the distinction hasn't always been accurate. Take for example, 2001's E3 champion: the Gamecube. 2002's best of show: Doom III. We could keep going, but you get the point.
Regardless, Gamespot's Greg Kasavin wrote of the Wii, "It's a good thing Nintendo got the name change of its next console out of the way before E3. With the shock of that announcement mostly over, the company proceeded to become the talk of the show ... by inviting audiences to get their hands on an impressive lineup of fun and interesting software for the Wii...not to mention that wild controller." Insert insightful sprint versus marathon metaphor here and reflect.
Check out some fun stats on the all the winners.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
White Rose Duelist @ Jun 1st 2006 1:51PM
So can Spore complete the trifecta by not being playable on the floor again and winning best of E3 2007?
Eric @ Jun 1st 2006 2:08PM
Not to start a flame war, but from all of the Wii reviews I read from E3 it seems like people had fun, biut had the doubts with the control system. How did it get best of E3?
Mullinator @ Jun 1st 2006 2:10PM
I fail to see how the Gamecube winning in 2001 and Doom 3 winning in 2002 makes the E3 awards groups any less credible. The awards aren't about how well the games do AFTER E3, but during their respective E3's. If the PS3 were to once again win this next generation would you honestly say they deserved to have won this E3 as well?
pennywise969 @ Jun 1st 2006 2:14PM
I think the OP is saying that just because they take this prize doesnt mean that they will end up being the greatest thing since sliced bread.
Not Impressed (Dmitri) @ Jun 1st 2006 2:16PM
When I saw all 3 of the conferences and explored the show floor, I was definitly expecting Nintendo to be the "Wii"nner of E3 '06. People can bitch about their Ps3 disappointments and their Xbox360 propoganda. But without a doubt, Nintendo's ideas to "Keep games fun, not competitive" is finally doing them some good. I doubt in the GameCube's second year of release, anyone would expect a blowout like this from Nintendo. They suprised me, they suprised many, and I am proud to say that I am a Nintendo fan once again. I hope they keep at it, and I hope Wii can see Miyamoto in a Link outfit one more time at E3 '07.
Not Impressed (Dmitri) @ Jun 1st 2006 2:24PM
Eric:
Look at the competition they had. Sony's conference made people either pissed off or laugh like crazy at their failed attempt to bring the audience in on the fun by having "flawed" gameplay and "annoying" speeches. Microsoft had a heads up which is why they managed to take 2nd place. They knew what was going to happen; they had 3rd in the conferences; they were the only system to announce the next GTA; they announced the unveiling of Halo 3's trailer via Marketplace.
With all of that said. Microsoft got lucky because Gates' speach made it feel like the typical Sony press conference. They knew what they had to do and they layed it out. Unfortunately everyone was too busy thinking about what they just saw at the Nintendo press conference.
People can have their opinions. But that's just what happened. Nintendo was the most appealing out of the 3 and it seemed as if Sony wanted to get the hell out of E3 a.s.a.p.
OhJustSomeRandomGuy @ Jun 1st 2006 2:57PM
Oh right, the group of guys who only just recently figured out that they shouldn't be giving out Best of Show awards to games that only showed movie footage.
I'm sure they're voting accurately and are immune to the effects of hype.
Pass.
Will @ Jun 1st 2006 3:12PM
My only problem is that of the games getting massive hype for the Wii and its controller, I've yet to see one that looks like it will be enjoyable for more than 5 minutes.
Wii sports? That tennis game is almost mockingly bare-boned. Sure, you can swing the racket like a real racket, to a point. But you can't even move your player, and I'm assuming the modes are sparse. After about 2 minutes, what's the appeal in continuing to play it and not just going to the local tennis court?
Same thing with the baseball and golf games. Simple stuff that does a decent job mimicking very specific real life motions, but that's about it. Sure, that will be fun and interesting for a few minutes, but could anyone really imagine playing a home run derby game for even 5 hours? Why would I do that and not go out and go to a field with my buddies?
The way E3 is set up, though, titles like Wii Sports are perfect for the show. You get a minute with the game and then walk away with a good impression. I just can't fathom that good impression lasting for such simplistic games like for even 5 hours, though. To me, at least, swinging the remote isn't going to be fun in and of itself, and I've yet to see the Wii Sports title offer anything besides that.
generaldane @ Jun 1st 2006 3:34PM
@will i never usually enjoyed tenis games or baseball games for more that 1 minute so that doesnt really bother me.
Jason B @ Jun 1st 2006 3:36PM
I have to agree with Will. I haven't heard too many people say it, but the Wii looks really, really, gimmicky to me. The game footage I've seen so far looks incredibly flat. I mean look at Red Steel (BTW there is not blood in the game so how does the steel becom "RED"). I guess it is simply geared toward the Pokiemon crowd and people who aren't very serious about gaming (i.e. my mom). But I am having a hard time seeing how a serious gamer could see it as a system that they could sit down with and lose themselves for a couple of hours.
Who knows, maybe some real games will hit the system but so far I think the critical hype is entirely over how "cute/tiny" the machine is while everyone simply chooses to ignore the content (or lack thereof) for the console. Simplistic things are fun for a short time but I the novelty wearing off in shor order.
I don't know, I guess this console just isn't geared to my demographic. Who knows, it may turn out to be fantastic, but so far I am woefully underwhelmed.
Jeff @ Jun 1st 2006 3:42PM
"I fail to see how the Gamecube winning in 2001 and Doom 3 winning in 2002 makes the E3 awards groups any less credible."
Well, for one thing, E3 isn't a competition. It's not like a dog show. There is no sanctioning to these awards, which makes them even more arbitrary than if there was. I mean anybody can just make up a bunch of awards for anything they want. Hey, I think I'll start giving out Tokyo Game Show awards next year. Should you care?
I'm not saying there can't be awards given out for events that are simple exhibitions. The question is whether or not you really take them seriously. It may be fun to debate whether the Wii was *really* "best in show" for like a day or whatever, but nobody really cares about these awards in the first place, and if you look back on them and see games like Doom 3 taking top honors, then you've gotta question if they're even worth paying attention to at all.
I think the problem with these awards is this. We all know how stupifyingly lame press preview coverage of games is. They'll fawn all over games before release, for a variety of reasons, and then savage them in reviews. They sucker you in, they become part of the PR machine, before you realize you've been taken. That's what happened with Doom 3, for example. Well, these awards are basically the equivalent to giving out a bunch of awards based on game previews. They mean nothing even if they *are* credible. But they're probably not even that.
generaldane @ Jun 1st 2006 3:54PM
Jason B
I completly disagree with almost everything you say but i will let someone else flame you
Todd @ Jun 1st 2006 4:01PM
I see some people are saying the Wii looks boring and unimpressive. I believe the more accurate thing to say would be that it looks boring and simple to you. Mainly because you are gamers and are used to what the industry puts out. What they put out is rather complex and engaging games that take a long time to get into and play unless you have a bit of gaming background. Don't worry, because Nintendo is still going to be bringing those games to you. However now they realize that to make it easier for anyone that's never played anything on a console they are going to make games that can be picked up and played without so much as looking at a manual or running through a tutorial. This makes it oh so easy for anyone to pick it up and give it a try. So while it may be something that won't hold your attention for more than 5 minutes, people that have never thought of themselves as being the type to own a console might think it's the greatest thing in the world. So don't knock simple games, they are some of the most popular in the world. Chess anyone?
Jason B @ Jun 1st 2006 4:14PM
I think I made it perfectly clear that those were MY views as a used I and ME in almost every statement. And I agree that bringing others into the gaming community can be a good thing but I (notice I said "I" impling that this is MY belief) also beleive that Nintendo has yet to show me any games that could hold my attention. But, I also said "Who knows, it may turn out to be fantastic, but so far I am woefully underwhelmed." so maybe this will change. I am definitely not saying that I will NOT by this system, but at the moment I (again my opion) just don't understand all the hype.
Lastly I would say to generaldane....Take your painties off and flame on...I'm a big boy, I can take it.
-jasonb
copa @ Jun 1st 2006 4:15PM
360 won awards with Gears of War and Mass Effect. PS3 won with Heavenly Sword and Assasin's Creed.
So far, none of these titles have been announced to be cross-platform.
Despite what some people are saying, system-exclusive software titles may continue to shape the console wars for the next couple of years.
Jason B @ Jun 1st 2006 4:16PM
Damn, I should proof read before hitting "Add Your Comments"
:)
-jasonb
Mullinator @ Jun 1st 2006 4:17PM
I think with the Wii the idea of "gimmick" is going to start being applied to games that show off "amazing graphics" as a defining game feature.
"WOW THAT GAME HAS AMAZING GRAPHICS!!"
"Ya graphics are just a gimmick. We play games not tech demos."
BPM? @ Jun 1st 2006 4:23PM
Jason B, there IS blood in Red Steel.
http://www.nintendowiifanboy.com/2006/05/22/red-steel-to-contain-blood/
Honestly, I don't know where people got the idea that Red Steel would be blood-free. It just won't have gratuitous amounts of blood (people don't really spurt blood like crazy like you see in movies and stuff).
And, hey, don't diss the Pokémon crowd. There are a lot of us older fans, too. When you dig underneath the cute-ish exterior of the games, you find that the main games have a very deep battle system. Many people build serious competition teams.
And if the developers (who have actually worked with Wii) say that the control scheme is great (and not just a gimmick), who are we, who never played it, to argue?
Yeah, it won't have the same raw power that 360 and PS3 has, but is that such a bad thing? Look at the current generation of gaming. GameCube, Xbox, and PS2 all have visually impressive games. Or do you think that all of them "suck"?
GCN's CPU (Gekko) is clocked at 485MHz, whereas Xbox's CPU (Pentium III, I think?) is 733MHz.
GCN's GPU (Flipper) is 162MHz, and Xbox's GPU (by nVIDIA) is 233MHz.
Even though clock speeds were different, they still offered similar visuals.
Wii's CPU (Broadway) is supposedly 750MHz (hasn't been confirmed), and the GPU (Hollywood) is 243 MHz (also, not confirmed).
If those numbers are true, then Wii will definitely have more raw power than Xbox. GCN and Wii run off of a different architechture than Xbox, so there's a difference in performance.
How will Wii games compare to 360 and PS3 games in terms of graphics? Perhaps they won't look as nice, but that doesn't mean they'll look awful.
Eric @ Jun 1st 2006 4:24PM
Why do people have to put Doom 3 in the "embarrassment" category? Obviously it didn't live up to the hype, but how close it came to meeting the hype challenge is debatable...It was groundbreaking in its visuals and wrote the book on uneasy and disturbing atmosphere.
Doom 3 is the only game that scared the hell out of me the first time, while the Silent Hill's and Resident Evil's only succeeded in making me nervous.
Anyway, I would agree with some here that you have to take these "awards" with a grain of salt. I mean any award given to a "target graphics" video is just utter stupidity. Kudos to Sony for making everyone think that that was what next generation was going to look like. (I mean seriously that Killzone video made Crysis look like last gen---And I'm pretty sure Crysis wouldn't run very well on any console) Too bad Sony didn't realize it is better to under promise and over deliver---the opposite tends to piss people off...i.e. E3 2006---Which is why Sony could only be 3rd. I don’t think Microsoft really offered any truly unexpected surprises…among other things the Halo 3 announcement was expected by most…and the GTA announcement only means it gets to the 360 sooner; it was never a PS exclusive to begin with...Thus most agree Microsoft gets 2nd. Whether the Wii will sell in the “real world” or not is irrelevant. Nintendo was the only console maker to introduce something totally different from its previous generation…consequently it was the most interesting, thus most regard Nintendo’s E3 appearance to be the best.
I'm glad everyone got a kick out of the Wiimote. I hope the best for them...but I am apprehensive about their strategy.
I see young kids wanting the coolest thing their friend has....Johnny Not-so-cool is playing "Nintendo style"(you know what I mean) tennis with his best bud Johnny Super-cool. JS makes fun of JN for playing with "kiddie toys"...JS brings JN over to his house for some Halo 3 action. JN from then on wants a 360.
Even if Johnny Super-cool has the Wii...he leaves himself open to ridicule for having a "kids toy." Kids see adult content as cool…because kids generally want to be adults and everything therein. (I won’t get into kid psychology but do you follow?)
But then again both Johnnies could have both systems….
…Which brings up another problem for the Wii. If the Wii is perpetually recognized (not always mind you) as the “second console” to the 360 or PS3, it will always be the secondary console to be played with while on break from the rigors of the primary console. Most of the game purchasing decisions (to anyone with a limited budget) will go to the primary console…the Wii will just get games at a later date. (Hmm….Red Steel now or Halo 3 now? I’ll get Halo 3 and Red Steel will just have to wait) I’m just a pessimist that doesn’t see the Wii taking the consumer world by storm.
Will @ Jun 1st 2006 4:33PM
Todd-
Do you really think Wii sports is going to make anyone a gamer? Is there anyone out there really thinking, "I'd love to play a baseball video game, if only I didn't have to press 'a' to swing".
The reason why non-gamers are non-gamers is because they either aren't interested in the medium, which developers can't do anything about, or there isn't content which appeals to them. Putting out the same drivel in new packaging isn't going to change anything. If they want to attract new gamers, they need new games. A new controller just isn't going to do it.
Sure, the Wii is attracting some good attention from E3. But for what? Wii Sports? That's hardly gonna get any new gamers. Excite Truck? There's a ton of off road arcade racers that non-gamers already aren't playing. Tilting a controller isn't going to change that.
Any 'revolution' in getting non-gamers into gaming is going to come from developers and, to an extent, publishers. You want to get non-gamers involved? Develop a game that is a love story that doesn't involve killing anything. Seriously. Make it a compelling, interactive choose-your-own-adventure. Makes game that people can immerse themselves in and live different lives, lives that are appealing to non-gamers. Do you think Wendy, a mother of two in Ohio, is sitting there thinking, "I'd sure like to play Zelda, if only I could swing his sword like a real sword"? But you give her something like The Sims or Second Life, and suddenly she's a gamer.
Basically, the revolution in games isn't going to come from the Wii and its controller. It's going to come from developers and publishers that decide that there can be more to games than adolescent male fantasies.
Canadian Geese @ Jun 1st 2006 5:15PM
The Wii definitely should have taken Best of Show. It had 27 playable games (unheard of!) and broke E3 records for longest wait to play the game.
Don't let the Wii's E3 success take away from your favorite console (unless you are a Sony fan, in which case you just have to admit that Sony had an extremely poor showing at E3. The symbolism of Solid Snake putting a gun in his mouth comes to mind).
Todd @ Jun 1st 2006 5:22PM
"Do you really think Wii sports is going to make anyone a gamer? Is there anyone out there really thinking, "I'd love to play a baseball video game, if only I didn't have to press 'a' to swing"."
Yes. Besides it's been a long time since I seen a baseball game that's as simple as press 'a' to swing. Now you've got several ways to swing and you need instructions to learn them all. Don't even get me started on the mechanics of playing golf with a current controller. Something as simple as a golf swing takes all kinds of button pushing and timing to get right. None of this has anything to do with the actual game. However with the Wii-mote that will change. For once you'll have a control that will emulate some of the movements used in real games that can't be emulated with current control designs. For once something as complicated as assembling a model or painting a picture can be done with movement and an index finger alone. Sure you can do that with a regular controller, but you’ll be toggling through a lot of things with the joystick before you get something in the right place.
You claim that game developers and producers will be what bring new gamers to the table? Why would they take the chance of making games that they know won't appeal to their core audience in an effort to attract non-gamers? Simply put they won't, unless there is a small group that can push a crazy idea through the company and get it green lighted. Then if it gets made, it won't get very much support from the company. If you haven't noticed with the tons of sequels and content based on existing franchises, developers aren’t interested in taking big chances unless someone else does it first and are successful. Nintendo is taking the chance, they are building the buzz, and they are taking the first steps. If Nintendo is successful then you'll see a lot more in the industry jump on board. If the talk from E3 and the success of the DS is any indication then they are off to a good start.
Pip @ Jun 1st 2006 5:30PM
I think people are ready to try something new with gaming.
Sure the 360 and PS3 look great, and the games will be fun. But in the end, it's just gaming with better graphics.
Nintendo took a chance with the DS. People thought it looked like a big gimmick, and it wouldn't pan out. A year later, people all realised, hey, this really works. This is FUN, and DIFFERENT.
I think a lot of people look at the DS and the Wii the same way. At first glance, yeah, not quite sure what to make of it. But you really would like to find out what the really smart developers can do with them.
Jason B @ Jun 1st 2006 5:39PM
I stand corrected, there WILL be blood in Red Steel. But the fact that the developer is shooting for a Sub T (teen) rating realy solidifies my feelings that this console is not geared toward my demographic.
Look, I'm not saying this is a bad thing so stop getting so defensive. I'm meerly saying that its appeal to me at this point is severly limited.
I have several friends that I am sure will buy this console as soon as it hits the shelf and when they get one I'm sure I'll want to play it just to see if I am wrong about it. And believe me, if I am wrong I will buy one. Heck, I'm even looking at buying a DS for my girlfriend but again, I think the target crowd for the Wii and Nintendo in general is not the serious gamer. That is not a knock at Nintendo it is simply an observation of mine and the apparent strategy of Nintendo.
-jasonb
Will @ Jun 1st 2006 6:03PM
"You claim that game developers and producers will be what bring new gamers to the table? Why would they take the chance of making games that they know won't appeal to their core audience in an effort to attract non-gamers? Simply put they won't..."
Exactly! Which is why there's very little innovation in gaming right now, and which is why gaming isn't as big as it could be.
Don't be fooled by the Wii. It's still the same games, just in different ways. What games are getting all the hype? Wii Sports. A compilation of simple sports games. Excite Truck. Arcade off-road racing. Red Steel. Guns AND swords! Zelda. Super Mario Galaxy. Not exactly anything new there.
These are the exact same games that people that aren't currently gamers could have been playing for the last 10 years. But you think because the Wiimote, that'll suddenly make non-gamers play? Because it's more intuitive? Hell, I'd argue that it won't even be all that more intuitive, because you'll have to learn what a half-dozen different buttons do, you'll have to learn how to hold the remote for the game you're playing, you'll have to learn which actions can be simulated with movement, and you'll have to learn how to do those movements.
The Wii is all well and good in that it's going to give gamers an interesting new take on games they are already playing. But if you want to broaden the appeal of video games, you're gonna have to broaden the appeal of the video games, not change around the control scheme.
jonat3 @ Jun 1st 2006 6:26PM
There is still a learning curve, granted. But people are more willing to learn the moves and gestures rather than memorizing the buttons. People glance at an fps or sports games and they get immediately disinterested when they notice how many buttons need to be memorized. But when they realize that the action can be performed by actually DOING it instead of memorizing buttons, well.....that changes a few things. Even if there's a learning curve, suddenly people are more willing to try it out, because doing the action yourself is easier than memorizing buttons.
Todd @ Jun 1st 2006 6:32PM
Sure they are the same games, for now. Nintendo has even admitted that there will be a transition period where we will be playing the same games only with new controls. However there will be games that come out that can only be used with the Wii-mote. Think the Bob Ross Joy of Painting game. Heck, you could even play Operation using a Wii-mote...tell me how that would be fun if it was using a standard controller?
I understand your point that taking the same old games and giving them a new controller won't attract non-gamers. But the Wii-mote will allow for games to be made that are nothing like the ones that are out now. That will, even by your own admissions, attract non-gamers.
yeoua @ Jun 1st 2006 6:47PM
What is this talk of a "serious gamer"? Personally I see a hardcore/serious gamer as a hardcore/serious GAMER. You know, a person who plays games. All games.
Just because a game doesn't have blood and gore, doesn't make it any less fun, or any less of a challenege (Smash Brothers, Zelda). If you consider yourself a true gamer, you shouldn't be putting arbitrary restrictions on what you should or shouldn't like. Try it out anyway, and judge it on the game's merits.
Likewise, a hardcore movie buff shouldn't only be watching the classics or indy productions, but also watch the silly low budget stuff and Hollywood blockbusters. Just look at Ebert, the ultimate movie nerd. He gave the latest X-Men movie... 3 of 4 stars. He enjoyed it in the context that it was a no brainer action flick that didn't try to be much else.
Perhaps everyone who considers themselves a hardcore gamer should do the same for all games.
As for me... I wasn't planning on getting the XBOX360, but with Bioshock, Gears of Wars, and Mass Effect... it's getting hard not to just drop the money down. Of course I'll get the Wii and Mario, Zelda, Smash... and if the price falls to something reasonable, the PS3 along with MGS4 and FF13 (both of them) is looking good.
xerus @ Jun 1st 2006 9:30PM
I'm just curious, after reading some of these comments, how do you people define "serious" or "hardcore" gamer?
chris3116 @ Jun 2nd 2006 10:50AM
Serious or hardcore gamer will play on Wii. You're not an hardcore gamer if you don't play on every consoles.
Plain simple.
insertnamehere @ Jun 2nd 2006 11:07AM
About whether non-gamers will get into the wii: I seriously doubted it. I thought that it would mostly appeal to those gamers who are burnt out on the current offerings and wanted something new in their gaming pallet; the type of people IMO most attracted to the DS and thus the wii as well. However, I was told by a number of casual gamers (of the never-owned-a-console, played-Madden-at-a-friends-house variety) that they seen the Wii on some mainstream news show and were interested in it and might buy it. And everytime, it wasn't the things I found interesting (Mario, Zelda, etc.), it was "playing tennis for real". Its unlikely, but Nintendo might be on to something here.
As for the asinine job of ranking the "Big Three's" e3 performance, I think it went like this: Microsoft wasn't expected to do much, but had a strong show, Nintendo had a lot of expectations, and they delivered, and Sony was expected to have a strong showing, but underdelivered. All rankings then derive from that.
bob @ Jun 2nd 2006 11:25AM
I foresee the Big N will cake the taco during the next gen system's war. Just look at the DS vs PSP. Sony put all the bells and whizzles into the PSP but, while doing so, they forgot the basic ingredients needed for a successful handheld. Their biggest mistake being that they didn't make it cartridge based. Handhelds are for quick play on the go. Nobody wants to wait thru 2 minutes of load time to start playing. Our lives are too hectic, we want to play NOW. With the Nintendo DS, you can turn the system on and are playing within 10 seconds! Twisting the topic back to the forthcoming consoles...all this debate about "hardcore" or "casual" or "softcore" or "non-gamer" has NOTHING TO DO with the sales of entertainment systems! You're either a Player or you're NOT. You'll either own a system or two or you won't. It's not who you are that makes an entertainment system sell. IT's Perceived and Real VALUE that is what causes consumers to open up their billfolds en-mass. Right now, the Wii has tremendous perceived value while the PS3 is in need of some serious PR dusting off to regain whatever perceived value it had prior to E3. AT this time, only the 360 has any REAL value because I can walk into WalMart, buy one, and be playing against fools on "live" within 1/2 an hour of hooking the dang thing up or I can go over to a friend who owns one and play it tonight. Once the Wii and PS3 are available for purchase...it'll be their REAL value that becomes the deciding factor. But I suspect that the PS3 has already price pointed itself out of existence. The Wii will fly off shelves, initially, based on its perceived novelty + lowest price point = great real value = mass consumption. As for the high end demographic, MicroSoft has Sony by the balls. Both systems ARE EQUAL PRICED yet the perceived value is all about the 360 being the cheaper system. The MS marketing wizards scored when they decided to hold back the HD-drive from the initial system launch. So you'll buy a $399 X360 then, next year, you'll be forced to buy the HD-DVD at $199 to play Halo3 making the complete system $598. This tail loading of the total cost was pure marketing genius. Sony will soon learn to realize that you can't force ANYTHING down the consumer's throats. You've got to make then WANT it 1st. Apart from the niche videophiles and HD-gamers, nobody WANTS HD-DVD or Blu-Ray. Standard DVD is doing just fine thank you very much. But MILLIONS of gamers WANT Halo3 and once MS announces that it'll be only playable via the HD-DVD usb drive....guess what'll happen for the high end market? You got it. Meanwhile, everyone who bought a Wii (including those who are "waiting" for a price drop on the high end systems) will be having too much fun (i.e. REAL value) to consider blowing an additional wad on a high end system. Sorry for the rant...but I can see where these things are going. That’s why I'm an an analyst at Goldman Sachs.
jgrey @ Jun 3rd 2006 6:09PM
I think there are several candidates for this award, and Wii was one of them, so I don't have problems with it.
To those of you who have less than favourable opinions about this award, I think what you think of this award depends on your allegiance. If what you like had received it, you'd be happy. If not, you would go around finding reasons to slag it off.