Well looks my point was proven.
55 Likes
I did find that the author of Tesla was named one of 50 inspiring individuals who represent the bright, the bold and inclusive future of video games by The Game Awards.
Is that what you were thinking of?
1 Like
Maybe so! I do remember these things quite vaguely, to be honest.
3 Likes
Bringing over some stuff I wrote on Reddit: The Nebulas are nominated by SFWA members, i.e. published authors of sci fi or fantasy work in some recognized market. I’m a member, thanks to having published with CoG, and so are a few of the other CoG authors, though most don’t want to pay the $100 a year for SFWA membership, especially folks not from the USA.
FWIW, I haven’t read Sins of the Sires yet, so didn’t nominate it this year (though along with Pentiment I nominated a couple of other eligible CoGs that didn’t make the cut). Natalia is an increasingly well known author among fellow sci fi writers, with a nomination for novelette as well this year. Authors who are known by other authors for non-IF work are more likely to make the cut for a Nebula nod; see the previous CoG nominations not only for Natalia but for Kate Heartfield (Kate Heartfield - The Nebula Awards®), who similarly was known for her novels and short stories before she came to CoG. It’s not nepotism – the SFWA membership is too big for that to work – it’s name recognition.
Before anyone here starts asking “why didn’t CoG nominate a game I liked better?”: Neither CoG nor Paradox nominate anything. SFWA members do – authors who know other authors. That’s why the only VTM CoG to get a nod is the only one written by someone with a track record outside CoG: https://www.natalia-theodoridou.com/ Getting short stories published in Uncanny Magazine is the kind of thing that puts you on the radar for a Nebula nom.
33 Likes
So… In short, networking. Got it.
44 Likes
Plus maybe SFWA members having tastes that differ from yours. “Objective” though yours may be, people can be sincerely mistaken.
7 Likes
Entirely fair. Just feels like there could have been a better nomination is all. Mostly… kinda… ALRIGHT definately. Just not of a fan of certain ones making out that we need to be all in favor of the nomination when some of us have issues. Sure, kudos for the nom but doesn’t mean we ALL have to be for it.
24 Likes
Just one question
Why?
14 Likes
I’m really shocked by many of the responses on this thread. I wonder how the author would feel to read them all–both the criticisms that their writing is undeserving of an award and also that they’re only a finalist because of “networking.”
I guess no one cared enough about how much they hated our past finalists? Certainly all of them are games that weren’t hugely popular on our forums. I guess it was just a gentler kinder time when we could just say “congratulations” or nothing and move on.
11 Likes
A lot of the past finalists weren’t popular, that’s true, but they did feel like finished games with a consistent story and game design. I actually quite liked Magician’s Workshop. They fell into the same trap as most mainline CoG of being very average and same-y but the worlds they presented were unique and interesting, even if they didn’t quite stick the execution. Sin of Sires is based on a prexisting IP so it doesn’t even really have that to offer.
As to what the author would think, they could have responded to criticisms at any time after the game was published, but they didn’t. Jason dealt with all the criticisms himself (I think at one point he said he would pass on feedback to the author?). It gives the impression that the author either isn’t present on the forums and/or doesn’t care about how the game was received.
EDIT: A lot of respect for Mr. Jason for handling the release fiasco about as well as anyone could have. He managed the complaints without silencing them and made everyone at least feel heard.
38 Likes
Congratulations to both Natalia Theodoridou and CoG for this latest honor!
I remember thinking when I read Sins of the Sires for the first time that I wouldn’t be at all surprised if it joined the ranks of CoG’s award nominees, and I’m thrilled that it did. It wasn’t the only 2022 game that deserves honors, and there are at least four others I’d love to see get a nod when the XYZZY Awards come around, but this is the one I would have chosen as a work of literature. I found it both beautiful and heartwrenching, and although I can appreciate why it may not work for readers looking for a different kind of experience in a game, I have always considered it a special favorite.
What I don’t understand is what there is about this game that prompts such absolute vitriol. As a reviewer, I can usually find some redeeming quality even in a work I dislike (just as I can and do acknowledge flaws in things I love), and I’ve never seriously questioned the judgment of people who disagreed with me or accused people of ulterior motives for liking something I didn’t. There are games that came out this year that I would have been shocked to see up for an award, but if one of them had been nominated I would have congratulated the author and left it at that. Instead there’s just so much nastiness. I’ve been the target of some of it just for saying that I really loved the game and was thrilled to see it get the recognition I’ve always thought it deserved. I’m actually glad at this point that Mr. Theodoridou doesn’t come onto the forum much - I hope he’s reveling in this moment somewhere the haters can’t touch.
13 Likes
Some people might say that trying to tone shame other uses and categorize them “unkind” for expressing their reservations about a game is, in itself, not an outstandingly kind rhetorical move…
55 Likes
Tone is important for community. I’ve yet to see an online community where a spike in calling people out for “tone policing” or “tone shaming” wasn’t followed by a spike in relationship breakdown, petty backbiting, and general assholishness. Small-n sample, I’ll admit, but consistent enough to give me a preference for calling out rudeness over calling out tone-policing.
It’s possible to pan works without being assholes about it, and if we want to remain a community of fans and authors together, it’s important that we make the effort.
12 Likes
I’m glad you wrote this as it sums up my feelings on it pretty well.
I don’t feel like most people in this thread are being mean for the sake of being mean, I feel like they’re offering mostly legitimate criticism, some of it maybe a bit harsh but only one comment I think can really be construed as mean spirited. Idk the authors I’ve given feedback to want criticism, even harsh criticism as it helps them improve their work. For someone to not even pay attention to the reception their work got, let alone not responding to it, shows me that they are not interested in improving their work.
Just my .02 of course.
31 Likes
Expressing reservations are fine, some people are being quite rude here though in their assessments. It really could be done in a less offensive way. I think care in particular needs to be taken before assuming that the nomination was never based on merit with anyone.
If you understand how SWFA works, you can get a better idea why some things are more likely to be nominated than others. This is nothing new, look at previous year’s nominations from COG’s library. Most of them are not the most popular on the app stores. Consider this, how often have you decided to check out a book because you’ve read something you liked before by the same author? SFWA contains a lot of american traditional fantasy/scifi writers who would know this author’s work and be more likely to take a look at it in a different format to see if they liked it. There is every reason to believe that this game was nominated because people who are members of the SFWA had seen and liked it. The fact is this author has published good stuff across a range of platforms. SFWA contains a particular subset of the population (that is largely American, published writers) so their tastes may not necessarily align with the CSG’s fans idea of perfect IF.
(From someone who is (or at least was? I don’t know what the SFWA is doing with their registrations) not eligable to be a member due to not publishing enough work in their recognised markets so I have no stake here.)
11 Likes
One guy was, I guess, somewhat rude, but otherwise? It’s not a stupid idea to have reservations about nominating an author with a game that has a lot of issues and feels generally unpolished.
If that is rude and bad tone… well, sure? But it doesn’t hide the fact the criticisms were legitimate and at times not sugarcoating it can be helpful.
36 Likes
Again, we didn’t nominate the game. That’s not how it works.
Who here is saying you did? I see some concerns about the nomination process but not anyone saying that COG nominated the game, just that it’s not a great representative of the COG library in terms of quality.
40 Likes
Sorry badly worded. I meant previous nominations that have come from COG’s library. Not nominations by COG itself.
1 Like
I also want to add in my feelings on the criticism. While this thread is not very specific on why readers have such an adverse reaction to SOTS, there has already been discussion after discussion on not just the original thread of the book but the discussion thread for all the VTM books as a whole. One does not need to walk far to understand the problems with the book, it has been talked about many times by many different people.
Someone discussing what they liked and disliked about SOTS
And this is my short discussion to Jason on the problems with how SOTS handles politics. These are only two and there are a ton of constructive criticism on the book outside of this thread. This reaction to SOTS isn’t exactly out of the blue.
18 Likes