<< Portico: Gphoria 2006 fails to amuse

8/10/2006

Gphoria 2006 fails to amuse

Not having cable, I missed Gphoria 2006. Even if I had it, I'm not sure I could have stomached much of it, if Kyle Orland's summary is reliable - and I am confident it is.

The strategy nominees were Advance Wars, Fire Emblem, Battle for Middle Earth II, Star Wars: Empire at War, and Age of Empires III.

I'm not too familiar with Fire Emblem and only dabbled with eventual winner Empire at War in the demo. I think Battle for Middle Earth II is the best strategy game of the year so far, but the Gphoria nominees stretch back into last summer when the 2005 awards were held.

Age of Empires III
was in Autumn 2005, released a week before Civilization IV.

Which was not nominated.

How can the game of the year for 2005 - not just strategy game, but game period - not get nominated in this category? You can't blame the graphics, since it looks better than either of the console nominees here. It is turn based as are Advance Wars and Fire Emblem.

Now I know I shouldn't take Gphoria seriously. I couldn't even find a list of the winners until today, well after the show aired. And they have awards sponsored by Mountain Dew and Garnier Fructis. I can't quibble with their Game of the Year (Oblivion) since almost everyone is telling me how amazing it is.

But guys. Play Civ IV. And do a recount.

1 Comments:

Blogger Knyght said...

Oblivion isn't good, it's pretty. As a game, it's flawed. It's worth getting, because someone will eventually mod it to how it should be, but on it's own it's not a great game.

But yeah, I agree on the strategy side. Advance Wars totally should've won.

8/11/2006 02:40:00 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home