[fov]

Thanks, Kim, for the entertaining review.

I still haven't played the first Samorost (*ducks to avoid flying tomatoes*), but your review makes me want to, and the second one, and to pay for it. Good work! Amanita Design should offer you a job.

[wildcat]

I do rather like this game

Buy It. Everyone.

[RLacey]

To go completely off-topic: you write for Games™?

:EDIT: Back on topic: Nice review. I'm very tempted to get this .

[Ariel Type]

OMG, 4.5 for a short game with no story, puzzles, characters, but with tons and tons of pure pixel-hunting goodness? I know, the game is somewhat like a tradition at AG, and it has nice-looking graphics, but 4.5?! For a game based on pixel-hunting and nothing else? Really can't understand it.

[Jackal]

Saying it has no puzzles is ridiculous. You'd have been better off saying it has no interactivity, which is extremely limited, true. But the game is almost all puzzles, even if they're not the type people are used to.

Your definition of pixel hunting must just mean "finding things onscreen". Sure, you had to look for hotspots, some of them small, but I don't see how that's any different than every other adventure ever made.

Its popularity at the AG forums had nothing to do with its score, either.

The "no story, no characters" objection sounds familiar.

[fov]

Kim also makes it pretty clear in the review that the low price, and the fact that a good portion of the game is also available for free, ties in to her opinion of it. A 4.5 rating means every adventure gamer should play it. For $10 (or free, if you choose not to fork out for the second half), that doesn't seem unreasonable.

EDIT: Ariel Type, out of curiosity, have you played the full game? If so, how would you rank it (based on the format set out in AG's editorial policies)?

[AFGNCAAP]

Originally Posted by Jackal

The "no story, no characters" objection sounds familiar.

Doesn't ring a bell. Have I myst something?

[tsa]

Originally Posted by Ariel Type

OMG, 4.5 for a short game with no story, puzzles, characters, but with tons and tons of pure pixel-hunting goodness? I know, the game is somewhat like a tradition at AG, and it has nice-looking graphics, but 4.5?! For a game based on pixel-hunting and nothing else? Really can't understand it.

You don't have to play it. It's allright just to sit there and stare at the beautiful things on the screen. The whole atmosphere and all the details are so beautiful it's worth just looking at it. After a while I started clicking on things to see what happened. There are a lot of things that react to your mouse, but don't have anything to do with the puzzle you have to solve. I liked it a lot, didn't find myself pixel hunting once, but I think $10 for one hour extra playtime is a bit much. But hey, I'm Dutch

[stepurhan]

Originally Posted by tsa

I think $10 for one hour extra playtime is a bit much. But hey, I'm Dutch

Surely the $10 is a thank you for providing such a beautiful game and encouragement to produce more. If you think of it as payment for the enjoyment you got from both games (including all the stuff you can get for free) it doesn't look that bad really.

[Ariel Type]

I'm not saying that the game is bad. It's a nice little media. But it's just not a "4.5 star adventure". It's even not an adventure.
There is almost no thinking envolved - finding right spots and clicking on them in right order is all you need. It's pure pixel hunting - it was even pointed out in the review that after clicking on the right spot it disappears.
"No story, no puzzles" here is exectly what we have: "they took away my dog, I should find it". That's all! Even Space Invanders had better story
What I want from a "4.5 star game", even from a low-priced, is a deep story, great puzzles, characters.. Well, I've already mentioned it Or, it can be not that good with story, puzzles etc., but it can be very original. Bad Mojo, Loom, Goblins. Again, Myst - the first one was very original. Samorost is not in this line - pixel hunting was invented many years ago, beautiful worlds - also..
I played it all - it's nice, short and easy. I agree that it is even more suitable for just sitting and watching beautiful screens and animation. But what I'm looking for at the first place is a game. And I didn't find it here.
Remember, the main reason you gave, say, "Adventures of Fatman" 2 stars was that developers tried to make a profit of it. And the price was 15$ - just 5$ more then Samorost. Taking in mind that it was three (or more) times longer, harder, had some kind of plot, puzzles, characters - well, everything that makes an adventure game, I don't see a reason in such different opinions.
I see two possibilities to rate this game: give it what it deserves as a commercial game - in my opinion it should be somewhat 2.5 stars; or put it in the "undeground" section, taking in mind that almost half of the game is freeware and pointing that it is more of an "art" than an "adventure game"

[Jackal]

Okay, so it doesn't seem to me that this is about the quality of Samorost, but about it not meeting your idea of an adventure. Obviously if it doesn't even do that, it certainly won't meet your standard of a 4.5 star adventure.

But we judge games on what they are, not what they aren't. That's right, Samorost has no story and no characters. That's the type of adventure it is. And AS that type of adventure, it's a damn good one. We're not about to start knocking off points for things it never tried to achieve. It's like penalizing a silent movie for having no sound, just because we think movies SHOULD have sound.

Remember, the main reason you gave, say, "Adventures of Fatman" 2 stars was that developers tried to make a profit of it.

Um, no. That's the reason we gave it a score, period. We gave it 2 stars because for what it tried to be, it was a very flawed game. For what Samorost tries to be, it's a very accomplished one. If it's not to everyone's taste, that's understandable. But it's not a lesser game because of it.

[Ninth]

Originally Posted by Jackal

Um, no. That's the reason we gave it a score, period. We gave it 2 stars because for what it tried to be, it was a very flawed game. For what Samorost tries to be, it's a very accomplished one. If it's not to everyone's taste, that's understandable. But it's not a lesser game because of it.

Are you grading games according to what they're trying to be? That's the impression that this post is giving me... and it's kind of weird.
Of course a very small, very short game will have an easier time being perfect than a full scope, ambitious one, but does it mean it deserves a better grade?

[Jackal]

Within reasonable parameters, yes, we have to do so. Obviously if a game doesn't even meet some minimum level of ambition, that's different. But should we have docked Fahrenheit for its lack of puzzles? Myst for its lack of characters? First Mile for its lack of graphics? Or should we judge each according to their own merits?

Your conclusion about what's "easy" is wrong, though. A small, short game has to be overwhelmingly excellent to get a favourable review. There is zero margin for error. A big, ambitious game like Longest Journey has all kinds of weaknesses that get overlooked because it brings so much ELSE to the table.

EDIT: And just for the record, it was Kim who assigned the game its score. Despite my defending the score, I had nothing to do with it. I do, however, agree with it.

[Ninth]

I just realised that a very short game could never deserve a good grade in my eyes, so I guess there's no point in arguing further.

EDIT: Wait, that would be too easy, I need to add a little bit of arguing.
So: Isn't length a defining point of the quality of a game? It's like going to a delicious restaurant that you leave starving.

[stepurhan]

Originally Posted by Ninth

Are you grading games according to what they're trying to be? That's the impression that this post is giving me... and it's kind of weird.
Of course a very small, very short game will have an easier time being perfect than a full scope, ambitious one, but does it mean it deserves a better grade?

I think "Adventures of Fatman" was clearly (from the title if nothing else) intended to be a humorous game. For me, and presumably the reviewer, it didn't achieve that. In fact, I fould the game irritating in a lot of ways. The game had multiple death scenes but these weren't always clearly flagged (until you died and had to reload/restart) and sometimes the game wasn't consistent about what would or wouldn't kill you A prime example is the door buzzer puzzle near the start of the game.

Spoiler:

You can twist the broken wire together with your bare hands but if you don't insulate it before putting the cover back on pressing the button electrocutes you. If the wire holds lethal voltage how do you twist it together in the first place?

I also found the humour fell flat a lot of the time.

Sure a large adventure has more scope to be "perfect" but time and again independent developers have proved its perfectly possible to build small praiseworthy games. Examples (IMHO) include Two of a Kind, 5 days a stranger and The White Chamber. All these games clearly set out what sort of game they are in the beginning and then present a quality (if small) product on that basis. I'd rate all these games highly because they all give an enjoyable and consistent gaming experience. Isn't that what a ratings supposed to mean?

[Ninth]

Just for the record, I'm not really arguing about Samorost's grading, and even less about Fatman, since I haven't played either of these games.

[fov]

Originally Posted by Ninth

So: Isn't length a defining point of the quality of a game? It's like going to a delicious restaurant that you leave starving.

Not everyone wants a long game (just like not everyone wants a big meal ).

I think the question should be whether the game leaves you wanting more and feeling dissatisfied, or if it reaches its natural conclusion. It's the same with a story. You can have a very short story with a perfect narrative arc, and a very long novel that peters out and leaves the reader feeling dissatisfied, because the ending didn't feel "right". It has nothing to do with the length of the work, but with whether the author was able to meet the expectations s/he set for the reader at the beginning of the piece. Same with a game.

[stepurhan]

Originally Posted by Ninth

Just for the record, I'm not really arguing about Samorost's grading, and even less about Fatman, since I haven't played either of these games.

Fair enough. Speaking personally (having played both) I'd say the gradings are fair. If I was recommending games I'd say play Samorost (and its sequel) but avoid Fatman. Lifes too short to spend it playing poor games.

Bu at the end of the day it's all about personal preference innit.

[Jackal]

Originally Posted by Ninth

EDIT: Wait, that would be too easy, I need to add a little bit of arguing.

I was just thinking... Ninth not arguing? He must not be feeling well.

So: Isn't length a defining point of the quality of a game? It's like going to a delicious restaurant that you leave starving.

Not a defining point of quality, no. A defining point of value, maybe. As is cost, and the two play off against each other. We try not to tie our scores too closely to this, as cost isn't permanent, and everyone has a personal standard of value. So we're more likely to mention it in the body of a review than have it reflected in the score. Still, a short game for $20 or $30 presents a bigger dilemma than a $10 one, and the score probably would take a hit for it.

At the end of the day, though, the score IS about quality. Going back to our editorial policy, a 4.5 star game represents " An instant, hall of fame classic. Every true adventure fan must have this game in their library." We think Samorost 2, at $10, deserves its place alongside the other greats for what it offers. And since I'm a cheap bastard with scores, I don't say that lightly.

[Ninth]

Originally Posted by Jackal

Going back to our editorial policy, a 4.5 star game represents " An instant, hall of fame classic. Every true adventure fan must have this game in their library." We think Samorost 2, at $10, deserves its place alongside the other greats for what it offers.

Judging by the quality of Samorost 1 (which is pretty neat, don't get me wrong), "an instant, Hall of Fame classic" seems a bit overkill for Samorost 2.
Oh well, I'll know when I play it.