Capcom snubbed by AIAS awards
by Alexander Sliwinski 
{ Jan 28th 2007 at 4:45PM }
Capcom was passed over for awards by the Academy of Interactive Arts and Sciences again this year. Granted, they didn't have any stellar outings in 2006 like they did with 2005's Resident Evil 4, but that didn't stop Gamespot from poking Capcom and pouring lemon juice on their paper-cut. As Gamespot puts it, "This year, when the nominations for the 10th Annual Interactive Achievement Awards were announced, two titles that gamers noticed were missing were a critically-lauded pair from Capcom -- Okami and Dead Rising." You know, Okami, the Zelda-like game about a wolf that Capcom supported so much they shut down the studio that created it. And the "criticially-lauded" Dead Rising? Gamers may have been critical of Dead Rising, but the lauded portion is a stretch. For every good thing (and the good was amazing!), Dead Rising compensated by giving us two bad.
Anyway, when all is said and done, Capcom is not a member of the AIAS and needs to pay its dues to be nominated. AIAS confirmed to Gamespot that publishers Tecmo, Majesco and Eidos are also not members, accordingly they did not get nominations. This issue should be pretty cut and dry for Capcom, just pay the AIAS if you want a chance at a trophy to place on the mantel for polishing between Mega Man releases.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Jeff Bryce @ Jan 28th 2007 5:07PM
What a snobby article. This is garbage. I mean, its like saying "Well of course this actor didn't get nominated for a SAG award, he's not in it" but then added "besides, he sucks anyway". This is just garbage.
Spirit @ Jan 28th 2007 5:18PM
Give me a break, Gamespot. Making fun of Okami (a very good game)? I agree with #1. So low. So terribly, terribly, low.
Lijik @ Jan 28th 2007 5:18PM
I have to agree with #1, this article is pretty snobby.
And am I the only one who doesn't see getting 80s as a negatively critical thing?
Knoxximus @ Jan 28th 2007 5:19PM
Paying for a chance to get nominated for a chance to win a trophy is pure corporate bullshyt.
Jonah Falcon @ Jan 28th 2007 5:28PM
Um, Joystiq? Both Okami and Dead Rising earned tons of nominations AND wins - heck, Dead Rising even beat Twilight Princess in one site's awards. So don't tell me they were "reasonable" omissions.
NoHitHair @ Jan 28th 2007 5:32PM
So I can make money by starting an award show and charging "dues" for all potential contestants?
This sounds lucrative. Where do I sign up?
Saint Jouten @ Jan 28th 2007 5:33PM
Dead Rising wasn't too bad of a game, but nothing award worthy like RE4 was. As for Okami, I've never played it but didn't like the hype surrounding it in the fact it was Sony's 'version' of TP. The only good copycat game that I liked was Saint's Row, but that was only because they improved what was wrong with the genre.
Erik @ Jan 28th 2007 5:35PM
The remarks by the Joystiq contributor are what I find snobby, not the GS article itself. Posts like this are why this site lacks any credibility with me beyond a glance and a shrug.
Saint Jouten @ Jan 28th 2007 5:37PM
Every type of these 'Award Groups' always have some kind of stipulation or membership requirement, so I wouldn't put too much weight into this anyways.
Lampbane @ Jan 28th 2007 6:06PM
I'm going to have to agree with Alex, actually. It's the AIAS awards and their rules should be abided by. It's not like they HAVE to give out awards in the first place. Dead Rising and Okami and Capcom can just go somewhere else and stop whining.
And saying that the games were flawed... well, it's just pointing out that letting the games slide in just because they're "good" isn't exactly enough of a reason. They're still flawed (or at least, Dead Rising is) and well, these awards are about technical achievement to a degree.
Judd @ Jan 28th 2007 6:18PM
Tons of organizations require a fee. You basically can't get any work in Hollywood if you're not in the Screen Actors Guild. From Wikipedia: "the initial fee to join the Guild is a one-time charge equal to double the day player SAG scale rate of $737, or $1,474."
"Granted, they didn't have any stellar outings in 2006 like they did with 2005's Resident Evil 4."
It's hard to say what is considered the most legitimate Game of the Year award. Unlike the Oscars, as this article states, many major titles are not eligible for the award. But IGN.com which is probably the most visited gaming website(maybe Gamespot is bigger) gave a suprise game of the year award to Okami. While IGN often annoys me, if a major site like that gives a title Game of the Year it should not be disregarded.
Author X @ Jan 28th 2007 6:49PM
Regarding all the comments chastising the GS article, 100% of the snobbery is joystiq-generated. Despite what Alexandar says, I cannot see anything close to "pouring lemon juice on their paper-cut. " If you actually read the GS article, it just explains clearly why Capcom is upset and the reasoning AIAS has given, and gives background on the situation - ie, no other non-members have had their games nominated, what each side says happened with RE4 (if Capcom is to be believed, they were told it could be nominated but not /win/ unless Capcom joined... pretty back-handed, and if true it explains why Okami/DR weren't nominated - they already tried that ploy and it didn't work).
I'm not saying I think the games would have won anything, or even that they would necessarily have been nominated if Capcom were a member - I haven't even played either (although I've been drooling over Okami since it was announced on the japanese Clover site, I have not found the time or opportunity). In fact, I really don't care about video game awards, even though Capcom clearly does. However, I agree that this article is incredibly snobby and insulting with no good reason. There's industry drama, so you complain about the games without actually citing real complaints? Please, joystiq, I'm not saying you should report events without comment - that's the point of a blog. But "if you can't say anything at all, hurl school-yard insults and try to make it look like the sourced article started it" doesn't seem to be a terribly good policy for writing content.
PS: I play Megaman games. Yes, there are a lot of them. Yes, I'm aware that many of them are not good. Thank you for taking that cheap shot once again, I had almost forgotten about those two facts, and clearly need a reminder every two days. While you're at it, please post another Wii article so I can read 50 comments referring to it as "GC 1.5" and make a joke about the PS3 being out of the casual gamer cost bracket.
Kenny @ Jan 28th 2007 6:55PM
Okami was an absolutely amazing game. I understand Capcom didn't pay up, but Okami was too good of a game to just ignore.
ALH @ Jan 28th 2007 7:07PM
'For every good thing (and the good was amazing!), Dead Rising compensated by giving us two bad.'
what is with the negativity surrounding dead rising :s. Perhaps i have a zombie mall fetish, but apart from being a bit of an attention whore of a game i didnt see anything wrong with it? Sure, the sparce save points, agressive timing for missions and the whole 'if you save when you die you have to start over' thing are anti- casual but jesus.. if you want casual that bad go play on arcade or better still, buy a wii.
Shibathedog @ Jan 28th 2007 7:35PM
sweet another full of shit game award i can ignore. You have to pay in for a chance to win? No it doesn't work that way, you make a good game for a chance to win.
Icarus @ Jan 28th 2007 8:01PM
When the media decides to host a videogame awards show with an all star cast of celebrities like the one on Spike and all of the other cable shows included I stop whatever I was doing and walk into my room and leave whoever is watching that bullshit misrepresentation of the definition of gaming wich they consider anything with sex and guns to be the overused word that so many gamers claim to be wich is HARDCORE but they're not. It's beyond that MTV/HipHop/Tap Dancin/wannabe gangsta bullshit.
sjenky @ Mar 8th 2007 7:55AM
Ehm, what the hell is an AIAS ? And how much do I have to pay to get one? :-)
Killer Loki @ Jan 28th 2007 9:24PM
7. Dead Rising wasn't too bad of a game, but nothing award worthy like RE4 was. As for Okami, I've never played it but didn't like the hype surrounding it in the fact it was Sony's 'version' of TP. The only good copycat game that I liked was Saint's Row, but that was only because they improved what was wrong with the genre.
Wow, now that's a snobby response..
samfish @ Jan 28th 2007 10:46PM
It IS rather funny that Capcom is bitching about Okami not winning anything, considering they killed Clover...who was probably the best studio to come along since Rare in the late 90's.
That move alone gives me no sympathy what-so-ever for Capcom being "snubbed".