Archived from groups: rec.games.int-fiction (More info?)
Reviews of:
---
* EAS3: Luminous Horizon
* Blink
* All Things Devours
* Gamlet
* Kurusu City
* Chronicle Play Torn
EAS3: Luminous Horizon
---
First impression: There can be no doubt that any game called EAS3 is an
obvious pre-comp favorite. With that kind of leverage, I guess you don't
need to do a lot of begging to get someone to illustrate your game for you.
(The game comes with an illustrated comic-book recap of the first 2 games.)
Anyone who played the earlier EAS games will remember the stylized graphical
KABLOOIEs that come right out of a Batman cartoon. As usual, the text of the
game is crafted with care. Room descriptions change to reflect the current
state of the game. It must have been difficult to code due to the
superpowers (e.g. when you fog an object).
But I did find a few errors. For example, the archways in the hallway that
you can pick up and carry around. There is also a distinct lack of synonyms
for objects, particularly singular forms of plural objects (which is
annoying). And this from a famous nitpicker (who IIRC criticized one of last
year's authors for an inadequate description of rat droppings). There is
also:
>jump in pit
That's not something you can jump onto.
>jump into pit
Sorry, but that's either not here or not important.
>put gizmo in pit
That can't contain things.
Some of the bugs were even implemented with a sense of humour...
"A brilliant white light flashes from the gizmo! Dad is stunned. Stunned
that you haven't properly coded this case. [BUG]"
And the playability wasn't always perfect. Most of the time, individual
components of an object are not described separately, so it is difficult to
figure out how to manipulate things. I also sometimes found myself stuck on
several of the puzzles because the solution was very similar to something I
had already tried.
Making the hint system part of the game is altogether too tempting, IMHO.
Getting a hint should be a meta-action, not a part of the game. And while
you can choose not to use the hints by avoiding the command "talk to
austin/emily", during many of the fight scenes, the simple action of
switching characters reveals crucial information. In those cases, if you
watch what your computer-controlled self is doing (even though it usually
gets them killed), that was the action you were supposed to take. It's both
a spoiler and a red herring at the same time.
In some other games (e.g. Max Blaster, Photopia), the NPC is there to
deliberately steer the game by performing any actions that the PC refuses to
do. The effect in EAS3 is slightly different, in that the NPC won't
generally do anything to advance the plot. I ran into this situation on
three different occasion, including the climactic fight. (And perhaps it was
fate, but just as the bad guys exploded with a final KA-BLAMMO, my PC also
BSOD'ed in sympathy.)
EAS3 is a pretty good game, but it's not a masterpiece. The suits and
superpowers are cool, but rather old hat in episode 3. The comic feelie was
nice, but did not factor heavily in my judging system. The conversational
system is probably well done, but it's not an important part of the game
(you can barely use it for fear of spoilers). But my biggest complaint by
far was the lack of variety. Most of the game came down to punching things,
blasting things, and running from things. EAS2 was just more fun.
Novelty: medium (considering it's the 3rd game in a series)
Interest: high
Fun: medium
Polish: medium
Score: 7
---
Blink
---
First impression: Starting in a kitchen... always invites criticism in an
ifcomp. Then again, the credits claim this is a conversation-based game with
multiple paths/endings. Those are always popular (and I'm surprised I
haven't seen more of them in this comp).
Everything in this game is very terse. Even the conversational system
frequently gives you only 1 choice of what to say. Sometimes it gives you 3
very similar choices. Throughout the game, you are often constrained
geographically as well. The reasons for this aren't very logical... except,
I suppose, that you are constrained to a particular story/memory.
It seemed like there were quite a few bugs in general. This game makes no
attempt to handle unusual actions from the player. At the end of the game,
the parser does not give you the usual choice between
restart/restore/quit -- it simply exits. I didn't know that a game could
force the parser to exit (on purpose), but please don't do that!
The "about" blurb implied that there were multiple "paths" through the game.
I noticed that I could provoke different reactions from NPCs, but it never
seemed to have an impact beyond the current scene.
I really didn't get into this game. The PC just didn't ring true to me.
Novelty: medium
Interest: medium
Fun: low
Polish: low
Score: 4
---
All Things Devours
---
First impression: This game starts with a lot of opening of doors. Some of
them open easily, others don't. And some of them can't be disambiguated from
each other because there's 5 doors in the same room! I'm not expecting to
like this game.
>x me
Dark hair frames a warm face. Despite the anxiety written now in your tense
brow, the confidence of youth and vibrancy of intellect are clear. There is
a depth in your clear green eyes.
On one hand, that's one of the more interesting responses I've seen to "x
me", but on the other hand, how can I tell all that stuff? Do I have a
mirror?
>i
You are carrying:
a bright steel key
an ID card
a timed explosive device
Nope. Maybe I'm looking at my reflection in the bright steel key.
Anyway, I'm intrigued by the puzzles in this game, although they seem very
difficult. There is a hint site that I had to consult once or twice. So far,
I didn't use it to find out *how* to do anything, although I did need some
help with *what* I should be trying to do. While the plot doesn't actually
literally make sense, I can forgive that because I enjoyed the game. My one
main complaint is that in a game that relies heavily on precise timing, the
author didn't implement "wait until".
I didn't begin with high hopes for this game, but the longer I played it,
the more I want to figure it out. Maybe the idea isn't completely original
(it certainly owes a nod to Spider and Web or Moments out of Time, as well
as several popular movies), but it was an interesting enough game to make me
spend a lot of time (well beyond 2 hours) trying to get the whole thing
right.
If there is a weakness to ATD, it is the spartan nature of the game. There
are no extraneous objects or locations. This is understandable. ATD is
unabashedly a puzzle game, and any extraneous objects could introduce
unforeseen complications. Still, for readers looking for a challenge, this
has the markings of the best pure puzzle game of the comp.
Novelty: high
Interest: high
Fun: high
Polish: medium
Score: 9
---
Gamlet
---
First impression: Huh? No title, credits, etc? The last game that began that
way was pretty bad! But the concept sounds interesting. A Jewish version of
Hamlet?
I have to say that this is a very lewd game. Perhaps this is a deliberate
reference to the bawdy puns of Shakespeare, but I'm not really sure. For
example, you can kiss just about anything that moves (or doesn't), and there
are a couple of fairly graphic masturbation scenes.
One thing's for sure. I'm enjoying the room descriptions. Quite often, I
find verbose object descriptions in IF games to be overdone and cloying, but
not this time.
>x curtain
The flicker of uncertain light thrown by a kerosene lamp plays on the folds
as the curtains sway flapping in the breeze. Now and then they bulge out in
the wind and their hems brush a night table.
Even the inventory text has been spiced up:
>i
You have
a yarmulke perched on your head at a dashing tilt
knotted sheets tied around your waist
I made quite a lot of progress on my own and then got stuck in the study.
Postings in the newsgroup indicated that quite a few people got stuck in
about the same place. The game does have a built in hint system, but it only
gives the mildest of hints. I had to consult the author for more. But there
were other times when unsolicited hints came in the form of voices, often
leading you through the story quite explicitly.
The nature of the puzzles also requires a few contrivances of the "you can't
take object X into location Y for reason Z" variety. It's annoying, but
forgivable.
One particular weakness of the parser is in pushing things around. In many
games, you can "push object east". In this game, you can't do that. But you
can "push object1 to object2". I had to go back and read the walkthrough to
figure that out (it's not 100% needed to solve the game).
In the end, I was a bit disappointed with how the game turned out (both plot
and gameplay). As the action progresses, the connections to Hamlet become
more tenuous, and the puzzles are of the "what can I do with this object I
have" type rather than "how do I solve this obstacle". Nevertheless, the
first half of this game (certainly the first 2 hours of playing time) are
impressive enough to earn it a good score.
Novelty: high
Interest: high
Fun: high
Polish: medium
Score: 8
---
Kurusu City
---
First impression: Okay, a game that is gratuitously Asian? And another
"robots control the world" type of thing. The premise could be good or bad,
but the map seems very sparse so far, much like "Who Created that Monster".
I need some guidance here.
You enter this game with such an unclear idea of what to do (and in what
order). The about text warns that you can get the game into an unwinnable
state, and it does not appear to be obvious when that happens. For example,
truant robots randomly appear and cart you off to a school from which there
is no obvious means of escape. Have you lost at this point? You have
absolutely no idea. (The robots are easy enough to avoid with the "undo"
command, but what kind of game requires the user to undo moves as part of
the standard solution?)
After exploring all the obvious areas of the game and getting nowhere, I
decided to resort to the hint file (if nothing else, to tell me in what
order to attack the puzzles). With a gentle prod, I make rapid progress.
It's all forgivable, except for the fact that it is very easy to get the
game in an unwinnable state and you can continue to play for a long time
without realizing it.
Dealing with the robots is another source of annoyance:
>escape
I don't know the word "escape".
>hide
You might be able to run, but you can't hide.
The robot comes closer, uncertain as to whether you're going to try
something sneaky.
>flee
You sprint away and dive into a previously unseen bush.
The game is fairly buggy -- not in terms of actual implementation errors,
but in terms of missing synonyms and clumsy grammar (e.g. "flee" is an
essential verb, but "escape" is not implemented. It was particularly
annoying when I found out that I had to replay half the game because I
skipped a step that I had actually tried to do, but the parser hadn't
accepted it.
BTW, I love inappropriate default parser responses:
>eat her
You shouldn't, you might need her later.
(That isn't as cannibalistic/lewd as it sounds, since I was a werewolf at
the time.)
KC isn't a bad first effort, but I didn't enjoy the cruelty factor. As it
is, I am once bitten, twice shy. Once a game demonstrates that it is not
playing fair, I am quick to hit the walkthrough any time I get stuck. To the
author I say: I would have given your game a 7, but you lose one point for
senselessly annoying me.
Novelty: medium
Interest: high
Fun: medium-low
Polish: medium
Score: 6
---
Chronicle Play Torn
---
First impressions: From the Readme: "Now a few comments about the dark side
of the game: its testing was done in a hurry, it is very likely that you
will find irritating bugs in the prose, and the working of the game." So
remind me again why I should bother playing your game?
The game starts, interestingly enough, in an abandoned house with some
surrounding mysticism. It's familiar enough territory. Last year, we had
"Domicile" (which was basically unplayable due to bugs). I'm hoping for a
better experience here.
>x sheet
A sheet of paper with some mystical writing on it.
>read it
"I d n t k o , w e e h a e e s m l p e r d i h e l r s v n d y g
.. I d n t k o , w o h s r w a e i , b t I m s r e i n t a n p i i ,
a h i h p s g e t d e i u h s a l r t a h m ... "
The writing, apparently only part of the original message continues, but you
can't decipher it without the other half.
Wanna bet? If I can solve the NYT crossword puzzle, I'm sure I can decipher
that. [10 minutes later, and I've got it all except for one word that seems
like a magical term.]
As puzzles go, this is not bad. However, solving it doesn't get me anywhere.
The game won't continue until you find the other half of the paper and let
the PC solve it. Let me suggest that a more satisfying way to implement this
puzzle is to provide two alternative solutions. a) decipher the message, or
b) find the other half of the paper. (Max Blaster had the neat idea of
putting the coded message in the xyzzy response and having it lead to a
hidden easter egg.)
Many obvious actions are not implemented, and there is some guess the verb:
Dead end
This tunnel is clearly a new addition to the cave possibly dug by the
primitive dwellers of the sleeping chamber. The walls are roughly dug out,
the floor is bumpy, heaps of dirt here and there.
After several minutes it ends in a dead end. Digging tools lie on the ground
in a mess as if they just left for dinner and may come down in every minute
to go on with the work.
>dig
(the digging tools)
Digging would achieve nothing here.
Huh? How can you miss something like that?
Also, the author explains in the Readme that "examine" and "search" are
different verbs and do different things. Fair enough, but you have to be
consistent about it:
>get tools
They are no use to you.
>search them
You look over the tools, and a pickaxe in decent condition catches your
eyes.
So why didn't I notice that when I tried to get them?
Actually, most this game is not half bad. I'm interested enough to keep
playing, but the game does have a lot of flaws... pretty much everything the
author apologizes for in the Readme is true. The game feels rushed,
inadequately tested, and too long. After 2 hours of playing, I have 60% of
the points, but I don't feel like I'm 60% of the way through the game.
Unresolved plot elements abound.
There is the makings of a good game in here, but it's not ready yet. Aside
for the overall lack of polish, there are serious playability issues. The
optimized command to set the dials didn't work, which is annoying. Some
actions require long delays (e.g. 60 turns) to have an effect. I also
experienced one crash bug.
Then there are some inconsistencies in ChooseObjects. As with Kurusu City,
these kinds of inconsistencies lead to serious playability issues. One time
when I typed "break <object>", the game went all the way into my closed
trunk, retrieved the pickaxe, and assumed I wanted to use that. Later on,
when I tried to "break <object>" I was told I couldn't. But the actual
solution was to break the object with the axe.
Once I realized that the game was not consistenly implemented, I gave up on
solving the puzzles myself and I played the last third of the game relying
heavily on the walkthrough.
I'm going to give this game a 5. It wasn't altogether fun to play in its
currently form, but it showed a lot of potential. Also, what the hell is
with that title? Nowhere in the game is it explained.
Novelty: medium
Interest: high
Fun: medium
Polish: low
Score: 5
Reviews of:
---
* EAS3: Luminous Horizon
* Blink
* All Things Devours
* Gamlet
* Kurusu City
* Chronicle Play Torn
EAS3: Luminous Horizon
---
First impression: There can be no doubt that any game called EAS3 is an
obvious pre-comp favorite. With that kind of leverage, I guess you don't
need to do a lot of begging to get someone to illustrate your game for you.
(The game comes with an illustrated comic-book recap of the first 2 games.)
Anyone who played the earlier EAS games will remember the stylized graphical
KABLOOIEs that come right out of a Batman cartoon. As usual, the text of the
game is crafted with care. Room descriptions change to reflect the current
state of the game. It must have been difficult to code due to the
superpowers (e.g. when you fog an object).
But I did find a few errors. For example, the archways in the hallway that
you can pick up and carry around. There is also a distinct lack of synonyms
for objects, particularly singular forms of plural objects (which is
annoying). And this from a famous nitpicker (who IIRC criticized one of last
year's authors for an inadequate description of rat droppings). There is
also:
>jump in pit
That's not something you can jump onto.
>jump into pit
Sorry, but that's either not here or not important.
>put gizmo in pit
That can't contain things.
Some of the bugs were even implemented with a sense of humour...
"A brilliant white light flashes from the gizmo! Dad is stunned. Stunned
that you haven't properly coded this case. [BUG]"
And the playability wasn't always perfect. Most of the time, individual
components of an object are not described separately, so it is difficult to
figure out how to manipulate things. I also sometimes found myself stuck on
several of the puzzles because the solution was very similar to something I
had already tried.
Making the hint system part of the game is altogether too tempting, IMHO.
Getting a hint should be a meta-action, not a part of the game. And while
you can choose not to use the hints by avoiding the command "talk to
austin/emily", during many of the fight scenes, the simple action of
switching characters reveals crucial information. In those cases, if you
watch what your computer-controlled self is doing (even though it usually
gets them killed), that was the action you were supposed to take. It's both
a spoiler and a red herring at the same time.
In some other games (e.g. Max Blaster, Photopia), the NPC is there to
deliberately steer the game by performing any actions that the PC refuses to
do. The effect in EAS3 is slightly different, in that the NPC won't
generally do anything to advance the plot. I ran into this situation on
three different occasion, including the climactic fight. (And perhaps it was
fate, but just as the bad guys exploded with a final KA-BLAMMO, my PC also
BSOD'ed in sympathy.)
EAS3 is a pretty good game, but it's not a masterpiece. The suits and
superpowers are cool, but rather old hat in episode 3. The comic feelie was
nice, but did not factor heavily in my judging system. The conversational
system is probably well done, but it's not an important part of the game
(you can barely use it for fear of spoilers). But my biggest complaint by
far was the lack of variety. Most of the game came down to punching things,
blasting things, and running from things. EAS2 was just more fun.
Novelty: medium (considering it's the 3rd game in a series)
Interest: high
Fun: medium
Polish: medium
Score: 7
---
Blink
---
First impression: Starting in a kitchen... always invites criticism in an
ifcomp. Then again, the credits claim this is a conversation-based game with
multiple paths/endings. Those are always popular (and I'm surprised I
haven't seen more of them in this comp).
Everything in this game is very terse. Even the conversational system
frequently gives you only 1 choice of what to say. Sometimes it gives you 3
very similar choices. Throughout the game, you are often constrained
geographically as well. The reasons for this aren't very logical... except,
I suppose, that you are constrained to a particular story/memory.
It seemed like there were quite a few bugs in general. This game makes no
attempt to handle unusual actions from the player. At the end of the game,
the parser does not give you the usual choice between
restart/restore/quit -- it simply exits. I didn't know that a game could
force the parser to exit (on purpose), but please don't do that!
The "about" blurb implied that there were multiple "paths" through the game.
I noticed that I could provoke different reactions from NPCs, but it never
seemed to have an impact beyond the current scene.
I really didn't get into this game. The PC just didn't ring true to me.
Novelty: medium
Interest: medium
Fun: low
Polish: low
Score: 4
---
All Things Devours
---
First impression: This game starts with a lot of opening of doors. Some of
them open easily, others don't. And some of them can't be disambiguated from
each other because there's 5 doors in the same room! I'm not expecting to
like this game.
>x me
Dark hair frames a warm face. Despite the anxiety written now in your tense
brow, the confidence of youth and vibrancy of intellect are clear. There is
a depth in your clear green eyes.
On one hand, that's one of the more interesting responses I've seen to "x
me", but on the other hand, how can I tell all that stuff? Do I have a
mirror?
>i
You are carrying:
a bright steel key
an ID card
a timed explosive device
Nope. Maybe I'm looking at my reflection in the bright steel key.
Anyway, I'm intrigued by the puzzles in this game, although they seem very
difficult. There is a hint site that I had to consult once or twice. So far,
I didn't use it to find out *how* to do anything, although I did need some
help with *what* I should be trying to do. While the plot doesn't actually
literally make sense, I can forgive that because I enjoyed the game. My one
main complaint is that in a game that relies heavily on precise timing, the
author didn't implement "wait until".
I didn't begin with high hopes for this game, but the longer I played it,
the more I want to figure it out. Maybe the idea isn't completely original
(it certainly owes a nod to Spider and Web or Moments out of Time, as well
as several popular movies), but it was an interesting enough game to make me
spend a lot of time (well beyond 2 hours) trying to get the whole thing
right.
If there is a weakness to ATD, it is the spartan nature of the game. There
are no extraneous objects or locations. This is understandable. ATD is
unabashedly a puzzle game, and any extraneous objects could introduce
unforeseen complications. Still, for readers looking for a challenge, this
has the markings of the best pure puzzle game of the comp.
Novelty: high
Interest: high
Fun: high
Polish: medium
Score: 9
---
Gamlet
---
First impression: Huh? No title, credits, etc? The last game that began that
way was pretty bad! But the concept sounds interesting. A Jewish version of
Hamlet?
I have to say that this is a very lewd game. Perhaps this is a deliberate
reference to the bawdy puns of Shakespeare, but I'm not really sure. For
example, you can kiss just about anything that moves (or doesn't), and there
are a couple of fairly graphic masturbation scenes.
One thing's for sure. I'm enjoying the room descriptions. Quite often, I
find verbose object descriptions in IF games to be overdone and cloying, but
not this time.
>x curtain
The flicker of uncertain light thrown by a kerosene lamp plays on the folds
as the curtains sway flapping in the breeze. Now and then they bulge out in
the wind and their hems brush a night table.
Even the inventory text has been spiced up:
>i
You have
a yarmulke perched on your head at a dashing tilt
knotted sheets tied around your waist
I made quite a lot of progress on my own and then got stuck in the study.
Postings in the newsgroup indicated that quite a few people got stuck in
about the same place. The game does have a built in hint system, but it only
gives the mildest of hints. I had to consult the author for more. But there
were other times when unsolicited hints came in the form of voices, often
leading you through the story quite explicitly.
The nature of the puzzles also requires a few contrivances of the "you can't
take object X into location Y for reason Z" variety. It's annoying, but
forgivable.
One particular weakness of the parser is in pushing things around. In many
games, you can "push object east". In this game, you can't do that. But you
can "push object1 to object2". I had to go back and read the walkthrough to
figure that out (it's not 100% needed to solve the game).
In the end, I was a bit disappointed with how the game turned out (both plot
and gameplay). As the action progresses, the connections to Hamlet become
more tenuous, and the puzzles are of the "what can I do with this object I
have" type rather than "how do I solve this obstacle". Nevertheless, the
first half of this game (certainly the first 2 hours of playing time) are
impressive enough to earn it a good score.
Novelty: high
Interest: high
Fun: high
Polish: medium
Score: 8
---
Kurusu City
---
First impression: Okay, a game that is gratuitously Asian? And another
"robots control the world" type of thing. The premise could be good or bad,
but the map seems very sparse so far, much like "Who Created that Monster".
I need some guidance here.
You enter this game with such an unclear idea of what to do (and in what
order). The about text warns that you can get the game into an unwinnable
state, and it does not appear to be obvious when that happens. For example,
truant robots randomly appear and cart you off to a school from which there
is no obvious means of escape. Have you lost at this point? You have
absolutely no idea. (The robots are easy enough to avoid with the "undo"
command, but what kind of game requires the user to undo moves as part of
the standard solution?)
After exploring all the obvious areas of the game and getting nowhere, I
decided to resort to the hint file (if nothing else, to tell me in what
order to attack the puzzles). With a gentle prod, I make rapid progress.
It's all forgivable, except for the fact that it is very easy to get the
game in an unwinnable state and you can continue to play for a long time
without realizing it.
Dealing with the robots is another source of annoyance:
>escape
I don't know the word "escape".
>hide
You might be able to run, but you can't hide.
The robot comes closer, uncertain as to whether you're going to try
something sneaky.
>flee
You sprint away and dive into a previously unseen bush.
The game is fairly buggy -- not in terms of actual implementation errors,
but in terms of missing synonyms and clumsy grammar (e.g. "flee" is an
essential verb, but "escape" is not implemented. It was particularly
annoying when I found out that I had to replay half the game because I
skipped a step that I had actually tried to do, but the parser hadn't
accepted it.
BTW, I love inappropriate default parser responses:
>eat her
You shouldn't, you might need her later.
(That isn't as cannibalistic/lewd as it sounds, since I was a werewolf at
the time.)
KC isn't a bad first effort, but I didn't enjoy the cruelty factor. As it
is, I am once bitten, twice shy. Once a game demonstrates that it is not
playing fair, I am quick to hit the walkthrough any time I get stuck. To the
author I say: I would have given your game a 7, but you lose one point for
senselessly annoying me.
Novelty: medium
Interest: high
Fun: medium-low
Polish: medium
Score: 6
---
Chronicle Play Torn
---
First impressions: From the Readme: "Now a few comments about the dark side
of the game: its testing was done in a hurry, it is very likely that you
will find irritating bugs in the prose, and the working of the game." So
remind me again why I should bother playing your game?
The game starts, interestingly enough, in an abandoned house with some
surrounding mysticism. It's familiar enough territory. Last year, we had
"Domicile" (which was basically unplayable due to bugs). I'm hoping for a
better experience here.
>x sheet
A sheet of paper with some mystical writing on it.
>read it
"I d n t k o , w e e h a e e s m l p e r d i h e l r s v n d y g
.. I d n t k o , w o h s r w a e i , b t I m s r e i n t a n p i i ,
a h i h p s g e t d e i u h s a l r t a h m ... "
The writing, apparently only part of the original message continues, but you
can't decipher it without the other half.
Wanna bet? If I can solve the NYT crossword puzzle, I'm sure I can decipher
that. [10 minutes later, and I've got it all except for one word that seems
like a magical term.]
As puzzles go, this is not bad. However, solving it doesn't get me anywhere.
The game won't continue until you find the other half of the paper and let
the PC solve it. Let me suggest that a more satisfying way to implement this
puzzle is to provide two alternative solutions. a) decipher the message, or
b) find the other half of the paper. (Max Blaster had the neat idea of
putting the coded message in the xyzzy response and having it lead to a
hidden easter egg.)
Many obvious actions are not implemented, and there is some guess the verb:
Dead end
This tunnel is clearly a new addition to the cave possibly dug by the
primitive dwellers of the sleeping chamber. The walls are roughly dug out,
the floor is bumpy, heaps of dirt here and there.
After several minutes it ends in a dead end. Digging tools lie on the ground
in a mess as if they just left for dinner and may come down in every minute
to go on with the work.
>dig
(the digging tools)
Digging would achieve nothing here.
Huh? How can you miss something like that?
Also, the author explains in the Readme that "examine" and "search" are
different verbs and do different things. Fair enough, but you have to be
consistent about it:
>get tools
They are no use to you.
>search them
You look over the tools, and a pickaxe in decent condition catches your
eyes.
So why didn't I notice that when I tried to get them?
Actually, most this game is not half bad. I'm interested enough to keep
playing, but the game does have a lot of flaws... pretty much everything the
author apologizes for in the Readme is true. The game feels rushed,
inadequately tested, and too long. After 2 hours of playing, I have 60% of
the points, but I don't feel like I'm 60% of the way through the game.
Unresolved plot elements abound.
There is the makings of a good game in here, but it's not ready yet. Aside
for the overall lack of polish, there are serious playability issues. The
optimized command to set the dials didn't work, which is annoying. Some
actions require long delays (e.g. 60 turns) to have an effect. I also
experienced one crash bug.
Then there are some inconsistencies in ChooseObjects. As with Kurusu City,
these kinds of inconsistencies lead to serious playability issues. One time
when I typed "break <object>", the game went all the way into my closed
trunk, retrieved the pickaxe, and assumed I wanted to use that. Later on,
when I tried to "break <object>" I was told I couldn't. But the actual
solution was to break the object with the axe.
Once I realized that the game was not consistenly implemented, I gave up on
solving the puzzles myself and I played the last third of the game relying
heavily on the walkthrough.
I'm going to give this game a 5. It wasn't altogether fun to play in its
currently form, but it showed a lot of potential. Also, what the hell is
with that title? Nowhere in the game is it explained.
Novelty: medium
Interest: high
Fun: medium
Polish: low
Score: 5
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram