Eurogamer Review

[Lambchops]

As far as I can see Eurogamer is the first major site to review Aquaria giving it 7/10

http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=89548

A quick glance at the score made me think that perhaps the review was going to be a little harsher than I might have expected but I'm greatly in favour of reading the words rather than the score and it's a very positive review (with some nice alliteration too!), which is good to see.

I'm pretty much in agreement with most of  it apart from his comments on it being steeply priced for an indie game. While that's true in comparison to other indie efforts, most other indie efforts don't have a good 20 hours of gameplay so I'm not quite sure why he thinks its overpriced. Oh that and I LIKE oblique puzzles (and I didn't think any of the ones in this game were too bad, compared to, say, any adventure game I've ever played!).

Anyway nice to see positive reviews coming in for the game, hopefully it will be the first of many.

[Ian]

Yeah for example they gave the orange box 8/10.. hehe

The review was almost all positive, and from looking at some of the scores given to other games, aquaria did pretty damn good.

[ulix]

Yeah for Eurogamer 7/10 is actually quite a good score.

[Derek]

Awesome!  That was really fun to read.

[DominicWhite]

Yeah, a 7/10 is pretty damn good for Eurogamer. They seem to copy Edge, in that they actually consider 5 to be average, right in the middle. 6 is 'good', and 7 is 'very good'. 8 is 'excellent', 9 is 'spectacular' and 10 is probably 'transcendent'.

Although Edges rating score is even better:

1: One
2: Two
3: Three
4: Four
5: Five
6: Six
7: Seven
8: Eight
9: Nine
10: Ten

(Numerical scores are silly, no?)

Good to see the game getting some pseudo-mainstream coverage. Hope it's selling well. The choice of distribution method is a bit clunky, which may be putting some folks off. While I bought it right on day 1, I know a few folks who would be more willing to impulse-buy it if it were on Steam.

[Lim-Dul]

They seem to copy Edge, in that they actually consider 5 to be average

Or rather: they don't seem to follow the ultra-annoying 7-9 rating trend... Many sites nowadays do - 7 crap, 8 average-good, 9 awesome. ;-)

[Quemaqua]

I disagree with several points, but on the whole it's definitely positive.  And yeah, 7 isn't a bad score from Eurogamer.

This article does, however, exemplify exactly the reason I went about writing Overwritten.net's review, because it really glosses over or just plain doesn't mention a lot of what I think makes Aquaria so special.  It doesn't once talk about the depth of the story, the music, or the palpably emotional undercurrent that runs through the whole thing.  It doesn't talk about the voice acting, which is not only unusual for an indy game, but really good on its own.  Hell, it doesn't even mention the editor, which should be more than enough to make most people realize the game's potential for more lasting value.

So yeah, I'm inclined to call this sub-par journalism.  But at least it's positive sub-par journalism.

[Lim-Dul]

Quemanqua - sub-par journalism? You know, you've written a very long review - TOO long. Normal journalists don't have so much time/space to review a game so they have to set their priorities... How do I know that? Because I'm a game journalist myself, working for two Polish magazines (paper, not online).

[Quemaqua]

I've done a lot of reviewing in my time, and I'm well aware of the way it usually works.  Length has little to do with it, he could easily have touched on those points without drastically increasing the length of the review.  My point is simply that I felt he failed to mention a lot of what really makes the game special.  I wasn't attempting to compare myself to him, nor start a fight or anything of that nature.  I just initially feared that the game would probably get a lot of reviews that just kind of said "Hey look, an indy game" and moved on, and this pretty much exemplifies that.

[Lim-Dul]

Well - you found certain points worth mentioning, Tom apparently didn't - different reviewing styles.

You listed several points that stand out as Aquaria is an indie title - they don't stand out so much if you compare them to most mainstream releases - at least the ones that deserve to be praised.

Depth of the story? I for my part didn't find the story too deep. The story is deep compared to what? Other indie titles?
The "emotional undercurrent" sounds like a very subjective opinion of yours and is borderline fanboyish. It's good that such a thing hasn't been mentioned. =)
Voice acting? Yeah, Aquaria HAS voice acting but is it that good? Again, compare it with some mainstream titles.

Remember that EuroGamer is NOT an indie portal and the things you mentioned might be special for an indie title but are virtually taken for granted in any good mainstream game so why mention them? EG shouldn't cut Aquaria any slack because it's independent - in fact I find it good that they reviewed the game exactly like a mainstream title and it still received a 7/10. Most indie games don't even make it on the review list.

I could agree with the music since most tunes are quite catchy and the editor should indeed have been mentioned even if it doesn't matter to the average player...

I think you don't read enough Eurogamer reviews - they really don't mention things that don't stand out either way.

[Quemaqua]

Well, you're welcome to think they don't stand out, but I do.  Most of those "little details" are what bring a game out as better than another most of the time, in my opinion, and they often dictate where my gaming dollar goes.  And yes, I'm also comparing this game to others of its ilk, including not only indie but most other mainstream action/adventure games.  Had this come out on DS and you compared it directly to other DS action/adventures, I think it would stand well above many of them.  My talk of the story and the emotional undercurrent of the game are both plainly apparent to me in the face of what is generally provided by similar games which don't engage me on that level much if at all.  Fine, this isn't a DS game, but my comparisons in that regard were to similar games, regardless of platform.  Call me a fanboy if you like (and I hate to break it to you, but all reviews are opinions and hence entirely subjective, including every review you've ever written), but my point that I felt this particular review lacked information remains valid.  You're welcome to disagree, and I can understand why you may not like it, but I fail to see why you need to engage me on the topic.

EDIT - And don't take any of this as a flame or anything.  The internet has a way of making things seem too personal.  I don't mind the debate even if I don't understand it, and I harbor no ill will.

[Lim-Dul]

I know that this isn't a flame. =)

As to the subjective reviews. Believe it or not but we have very clear guidelines to writing reviews at my place and it happens frequently that I give a game a high score although I don't like it. Why? Because objectively speaking it's good - there's nothing wrong with it except for me not liking it. If I were to be only a gamer I'd dismiss the game with a bad review but as a journalist I have to deliver more than that.

[Quemaqua]

There's some of that, I'm sure, but if you don't like something, how in the world do you think you can objectively state whether or not it's any fun?  The objective is reporting whether or not something is fun to play.  Even if the job entails reporting a lot of other details beyond just that, that's a pretty important part of it, no?  One should be able to look beyond the confines of their own taste to be certain, but to give a great review to a game that you find to be a chore to play is rather courting disaster for a critic, IMO.  If something is outside of your preferred genres I can understand that you wouldn't feel qualified to judge it too harshly, but in that case you probably  shouldn't be writing the review.

[DominicWhite]

Yeah, I'd classify having in-depth knowledge of the genre and a games particular peers within it as being a cornerstone of objective reviewing. Having someone who doesn't like, say, real-time strategy games review an RTS and give it a high score in spite of their opinions is almost as bad as that same person giving it a low score based on their personal dislikes.

I'm no huge fan of historical sim-strategy stuff like Paradox's grand strategy series (Victoria, Hearts of Iron, etc), but I can appreciate that they're good games in spite of my inability to play them well. Despite this, I can't honestly say I could write a good review of them, because I'm just not well versed enough in the subject, the genre, and surrounding materials.

Someone who is highly knowledgeable in a particular genre will be able to pick out things wrong with a game that others might overlook, too. The irony - you need specific, subjective knowledge and experience to give a decently objective review.

[Lim-Dul]

but to give a great review to a game that you find to be a chore to play is rather courting disaster for a critic, IMO.

Well - I can give you an example: the GTA series.

I don't like the series except for the first title and that's only because I remember it fondly when I've been playing it with my friends on LAN. It IS up my review alley genre-wise, yet I don't quite like all the open-ended gameplay. Yes, I found the game (GTA: San Andreas) a chore to play but I gave it a high score because I could see how most other people could find the game enjoyable. I've been around the gaming business long enough to be able to objectively tell a good game from a bad one. At least that's what I like to think. The "subjective influence" on my final score can maybe change it +/- 1, rarely more.