Aquaria and Game of the Year lists and Reviews

[slymcbeans]

Hey everyone.  I was just talking to a friend of mine about this, and I could be WAY off, but it makes sense to me.  Let me lay it out for you all.  We all know Aquaria is a fantastic game, anyone that has seen it in motion can attest to that.  I am of the belief that it is a much better game that most of what the big game companies release.  By my logic, Aquaria should have appeared on many of the "big" Game of the Year lists out there.  But as of yet, I have seen no mention of it.  Which got me thinking, why haven't sites like IGN or Gamespot reviewed Aquaria yet.  They obviously know it is out there.  My best guess is that since Aquaria is an Indie game, places like IGN see no point in "reviewing" it.   IGN knows that Derek and Alec are not able to pay them ridiculous amounts of money for ad space on the site, and as such they must not see any point in giving the game its time in the spotlight.  Just wondering if anyone else out there feels the same way.

[Glamador]

Hell I havn't even seen mention of Aquaria on lists of awesome indie games and the like.  I read Joystiq and Kotaku regularly and they usually jump all over clever and fun games like Aquaria but I havn't seen a single mention in any of their GOTY lists, the runners up, the list of games that should have been played but probably weren't, or the list of indie games they suggest.  I find it odd myself.

[Atomic]

Aquaria was name indie game of the year at GameTunnel, as well as winning 'best graphics', 'best sounds' and 'adventure game of the year' awards.

http://www.gametunnel.com/articles.php?id=661

[Mull]

...

... It's no secret that preview space is for sale, so I guess there is some merit to your argument but assuming that Aquaria gets neglected simply because bit-blot doesn't bribe the press - or hold a reasonable potential to do so in the future - is cynical. Assuming they have been sent review copies, maybe they have a policy about reviewing games that aren't readily available in general outlets. Maybe they just didn't feel like it was broad enough to warrant informing people about - both Alec and Derek have stated repeatedly that it's not meant for everyone. Maybe they just felt that the kind of people usually playing these kinds of games don't bother with reviews anyway...

... I could go on for awhile, but your safest bet would probably be to just ask said publications what their review policies are - not as much fun as drawing conspiracy theories, but a lot more educational.

[ZealousD]

Aquaria simply isn't getting that much attention because it's a small, indie PC release released digitally. Most of the big sites haven't even reviewed it. I doubt this has to do with ad-space or the like, because if you look at the recent IGN PC reviews, about 75% of the stuff they review is crap. Take Alvin and the Chipmunks or Swashbucklers for instance.

That being said, even if they did, I simply don't see how Aquaria would win many GOTY awards, even if it got its due. Don't get me wrong, Aquaria is an absolutely fantastic game, and certain better than most console games released this year, but stuff like BioShock, Mass Effect, Super Mario Galaxy, and The Orange Box are absolutely brutal competition.

[billyea]

On an artistic level, I think Aquaria's the 2D Super Mario Galaxy. The particularity technically stressing, but it's just beautiful.

[slymcbeans]

Well I agree with many of the points you all have brought up.  I have played 99% of the games that populate the top ten lists for 2007, and I do agree, there are many fantastic games on said lists.  My point is more that Aquaria didn't even make the big sites awards for things like "best game no one played" or "biggest surprise".  Its not even mentioned once.  I do know about the Indie site giving it GotY, and that is fantastic, but something is up with the big name review sites.  I guess since the whole Gerstman situation my view of "game reviewers" has been tainted for the most part, and the lack of respect I see Aquaria getting fr0m the big ones (IGN I'm looking at you) is troubling. 
Honestly, Aquaria should even be mentioned if not in these lists under things like "best voice acting", "best music" or "best art style".  I get its a digital only indie game, but IGN has reviewed indie games that came out online first, so it not like they just flat out dont review these types of games.  And as far as the quote about the game "not being for everyone", that is not a good reason for a place like IGN to not review it.  Kane and Lynch is a game that is "not for everyone" but that doesn't stop them from reviewing that POS.

[Mull]

I get its a digital only indie game, but IGN has reviewed indie games that came out online first, so it not like they just flat out dont review these types of games.  And as far as the quote about the game "not being for everyone", that is not a good reason for a place like IGN to not review it.  Kane and Lynch is a game that is "not for everyone" but that doesn't stop them from reviewing that POS.

As I said, if you're really curious you should just ask them about it. Or search through some reader mail, FAQ or the like - they've been around long enough for the question of their review policies to be raised before.

And I don't really agree about the specific awards. While on a personal level I can agree with the opinion that the art and music are great, neither they nor the voice acting are either very technologically advanced or remarkably original and daring. This is not a critique on the game itself - as I said I think it's gorgeous - I just think that the complete experience is what makes Aquaria great. Not being either an arthouse project or a multimillion dollar cutting-edge-tech project, it's not really pushing the envelope as far as details go.

[blackzeroflame]

Aquaria simply isn't getting that much attention because it's a small, indie PC release released digitally. Most of the big sites haven't even reviewed it. I doubt this has to do with ad-space or the like, because if you look at the recent IGN PC reviews, about 75% of the stuff they review is crap. Take Alvin and the Chipmunks or Swashbucklers for instance.

That doesn't matter much for gamespot, they did a review of EV: Nova, and that was a PC/Mac release only available as shareware.  I think part of the problem is that people aren't showing enough interest.  Everybody keeps coming here to post about the game, but i'm not seeing people posting about it elsewhere.

[Derek]

Actually, I feel like Aquaria's gotten a lot of attention from the mainstream press!  Pretty much all the big mainstream sites have given it a mention.  Front page on Gamespot and Gametrailers, a review on Eurogamer, a spot on the 1up Show... and Kieron Gillen spoke very favorably about it on RockPaperShotgun.  The game also hasn't been out too long.

[slymcbeans]

I do agree with you Derek, I just feel that the attention the game has recieved is not nearly the amount it deserves.  A news article about the game coming out, or an interview with either of you two  is great stuff no doubt; but for these big reviews sites to not actually review the game (which is why they are there to begin with) is just some what troubling to me.  Anyway, cool to see everyones opinions on my little theory/observation.  Once again, thank you so much for Aquaria and for being so accessible to your fan base!

[Alec]

Here you go:

http://pc.ign.com/articles/844/844673p1.html

Moral of the story: be careful what you wish for.

[Glamador]

Good grief, that sounded like such a positive review but they gave it such a craptastic score.  7.5 for graphics?  An insult I say!  Aquaria deserves at least an 8.5 and that's reviewing conservatively.

[Guert]

Scoring a 7.4 on a website like IGN isn't such a bad thing.  True, I also believe the game should have received an higher rating but the fact that the game was positively reviewed just shows the game's caliber: it can actualy compete with big block busters even tho it is indie and NOT a shooter.

Big congrats to Alec and Derek for this review, even tho it's not as high as it deserves

[Ax]

Good grief, that sounded like such a positive review but they gave it such a craptastic score.  7.5 for graphics?  An insult I say!  Aquaria deserves at least an 8.5 and that's reviewing conservatively.

Well, if you truly feel that way why not write a reader review?  Sites like IGN and Gamespot have become increasingly more about reader generated content.  Even if you don't want to write a review, you can still rank the game.  Currently with only five ratings (one of which is mine--I gave it a 9/10) the game has a reader average of 7.7.  If only a handful of other people login and rate it what it really deserves that score will go up.  Every vote counts, so get out there and make it happen. ;-)

Just my two cents.