Reviews by Andrew Schultz

PGRTAG was one of the first games I played when I came back to text adventures and judged for IFComp 2010. It doesn't seem to break any theoretical ground or have grand arguments. It would be easy to disqualify as dashed off, and I suspected once I saw ten or so games like this, I wouldn't be so high on it.

But after testing and playing a lot of games, I still haven't found many that reached this level. In so many humor games, I see what they're trying to do, and I say good job, but this one's jokes are immersive. I was worried from the title that the game might be overdone, but it feels balanced right.

Though originally I figured, sure, I enjoyed it, but it's not going to last. I figured once I learned more and saw more, I'd be glad I played it and all, but I really need to learn from more sophisticated efforts.

It's several years later and I'm still coming back to it, though, while games that discuss structure are more over my head, or I don't feel as invited to learn from them, or I figured I got their lesson and I'd like to move on. This game does pretty much everything it wants to, right. It's a spontaneous affair, and it has those touches I wish I'd seen. The over the top narrative voice makes fun of, say, coffee shops and people who complain about them too much. The puzzle where Comrade Rosalia wants to share Communist Manifestos with the students but needs one for everyone is funny and sad bad-logic.

The end result for me is a very spontaneous game. You're invited to try silly stuff, and in fact the two paths through the game are very funny, and the alternate solutions let you use items differently. There's a best ending ((Spoiler - click to show)don't use the pawn shop) and a not-best, and they both make sense.

I think the community needs games like this, to keep us all grounded, or to remember that you don't have to be academic to sort old ideas into new stuff, or even to enter into Interesting Arguments (all arguments between NPCs in the game are suitably ludicrous.) I mean, when I read about reworkings of an old myth or whatever, I can't really mark that as superior to something like this, which pastes silly tropes and leaves you feeling, yes, it's okay to write silly stuff and want to.

On the downside, there's some guess the verb ((Spoiler - click to show)POINT device at X) and some annoying disambiguation among devices, where you have three "(long name)" device to choose from. But the game's short enough, it's not a huge deal.

Sadly, I haven't seen the author again. I hope they come back. Even a game half as good would be very welcome. When someone writes a game like this, it's easy to feel they can just dash off another. But it's not so easy to find that big-idea sweet spot and execute it. Still, as a blueprint for writing something very funny, it's hard to beat PGRTAG.

I found myself coming back to this game more often than I thought. The author intended it as somewhat of an exercise, so I don't feel right rating it, so I'll list what it's done for me:

1. been a go-to resource for I6 stuff, complex and basic
2. presented a meta-puzzle of how to group the number of keys more mathematically. Once I (thought I) found it, though, I think that solution loses some of the whimsy that makes the game enjoyable.
3. encouraged me to poke at the parser to try and do weird stuff (including figuring how to do this in I7--where, roughly in-line with the author's comments, I think it's a bit of a bear)

It's certainly an odd one, with relatively welcoming "meta" jokes. You may be able to provoke some of them with standard verbs, but if you don't, the AMUSING section at the end reveals them, and it's fun to go back and look.

I agree with the reviews that mention the solution isn't quite a logic puzzle, and once you "get" it, it's only so replayable. But it is more replayable than I thought it would be when I first cast it aside, and I like it.

At any rate, I have nowhere else to put this, so here is my plan for the "superlogical" version. While it's potentially a technical improvement, I don't see it as actually making the game any more fun, and I don't want this to feel like banging on the door for an update. I enjoyed the logical exercise that sprang from "maybe we should count the numbers this way instead" & hope some other people will, too, once they've played the game. The game encouraged/allowed me to look at puzzles beyond the main joke/mechanic, and that's always a Good Thing.

(Spoiler - click to show)2 types of scratches: dull and sharp. In a ratio of 1:2.
3 types of roundedness, in a ratio of 1:2:2.
9 colors, in a ratio of 15:32:32 etc. (Note: this'll give roundoff errors when you count keys for the properties below, and I can't think of a way for the game to account for this without giving spoilers. But 271 is prime & that messes things up.)
7 key brands, in a ratio of 1:2:2 etc.
1 other property, in a ratio of 1:2.

So the game can count key types by division.

Another way to do this would be to call the game 69120 keys, since 69120 = 2^9 * 3^3 * 5 (allowing for several 1:2 divisions,) or you could just have one division of 16 colors at the top as follows:

1:2:...:3 and pick, from the 3, 15 specific types to eliminate, and factor this in when picking that specific color. However, the game could also warn the player off, saying "Wow! That's probably not it, there're way too many."

68992 is maybe even a better number, being 2^7 * 7^2 * 11, allowing for 2 1:2:2:2 and 1 1:2:2:2:2:2 pairing, and you can maybe have an easter egg of a specific combination with 113 extra keys. 69000 is 2^3 (1:2:2:3) * 3 * 5 * 5 * 23 (1:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:2), so that has possibilities, too, and 69069 = 3*7*11*13*23 and "only" 36 extra keys.

This is the sort of game where I scream out "I want more games like this!" though I'd have absolutely no way to tell people how to go about writing them. It has the abstract puzzle-solving, but nothing too hard, and it has some puzzles you've roughly seen before, but nothing like the infamous 5- and 3- gallon jugs and needing 4 gallons, or whatever.

And some of the puzzles left me reaching for the hints even on replay a few months later, but it was more to see what happens next than to get on with it. It's a cheery and funny little farm game with a lot of harmless humor and down-to-earth writing.

Only it isn't quite. There's a bit more, and once I saw the alternate way through, yes, it's very clever, and I appreciated the twist once I saw it. The only problem is, I wasn't able to figure that out for myself.

The HINT (object) usage is very nice and forward-looking, and it's quite possible this game inspired me to use it in two of my own games. It's appreciated, at any rate, to keep immersion, and given how long ago this was written, the author deserves commendation.

Goose Egg Badger is a very good game that doesn't bring up philosophical discussion of What Interatcive Fiction Is, and that's just fine by me. It executes its own ideas faithfully and certainly left me smiling and wishing I could find a similar hook and share/execute it as well.

Laterna Magica got dumped on pretty harshly in the IFComp, but it's by far the best last-place game I've seen since I've paid attention (2010.) I'd go so far as to call it the best bottom-three game I've seen. This seems like faint praise, but when I paged through the comp results, I was shocked to find it dead last.

Its last place finish is probably more a result of a stronger field than anything else. Though I can see why people may've disliked it--it's about a journey to ultimate enlightenment, but with loops. A lot of them. There's one choice buried in one loop that breaks another loop, and the text is deliberately obscure, perhaps too obscure. Your choices are questions with no right answers, and while this is part of the shtick, there are almost no ways to get any right answers or clues you are on the right path. It seems philosophically correct that we don't notice that we're getting smarter, but there's no sense of progress or hinting we're doing it wrong besides "oh, this again." I got a semi-messy map out of it, and I stumbled through, but ultimately I didn't feel enlightened.

And three months later, I can't remember what I did, and I'm a bit worried about going back to find out. So I can't say this is a favorite.

Still, the game has a coherent start, a good premise, and a way through that's logical once you see it. It doesn't soar, but it works. It may give unpleasant flashbacks to those books people flog on you at the airport as "gifts," with different spiels whether you're reading a book or not (but could you please give a donation?) & some of the text rattles on. And while I love some so-bad-it's-good, and I've even had fun poking through underimplemented games and reassembling them to find out what's going on, this game feels more like it had good intentions and clear focus on its own but it never translated to the enlightenment it tries to give the player.

I generally try not to rate games I competed against in IFComp, but I feel sad this game has a flat one star. Doing math on the previous ratings, it even needed a three-star rating to bump it up. I can't quite give that in good conscience, but two stars--definitely.

A year after EctoComp 2013, I found myself coming back to this game. It's a very good example of SpeedIF. While there's a lot that isn't implemented for you to examine, it's not critical to the story. The main focus is to run away from that beast that's chasing you.

From a technical level, you're just running around nine rooms avoiding a best that will kill you. It's possible to get stuck in a few places, but the game is short enough you can just replay. You can also find sanctuary from the beast to get several endings. I managed to get these, and they were still satifying despite not the "good" one that makes everything click--on re-playing, I see that a lot of hints were there. Though I sort of forgot for a bit about (Spoiler - click to show)The Wizard's Tower, as I may've assumed it was as impassable as the guard by the bridge to the village who wants money. But that's a minor hinting issue.

Speeding through this game under the deluge of IFComp 2013 entries, I missed that (Spoiler - click to show)the beast is half as fast as you, assuming instead that (Spoiler - click to show)the author wanted you to randomly teleport in the fairy ring. So somehow I managed to "fear" the beast and ascribe it more power than it had.

That's a good accomplishment for an EctoComp game. This is a high three stars in my rating, which for a speed game is very good indeed, and while I can't knock any game that placed above it--there were a lot of good ideas--I'm still surprised it wound up in the bottom half.

This is a twine game about being tall--well, not really. It's got a clever misdirection where your mother is upset at you for buying heels. But the arguments she looks may sound familiar. They are (Spoiler - click to show)the standard arguments against homosexuality. This is a funny look at something where people can get too serious or obscure, or the implication is too clumsy, and while the story seemed to drag slightly, it worked for me. I also enjoyed the shout out to (Spoiler - click to show)Randy Newman's "Short People" at the end, which seemed to expand things beyond the game's main issue and to conformity. Yet at the same time, it recalled when I got taller than my mother and sister and I was treated differently...for a bit. And I even felt a bit apologetic.

So the trick works for me. But I wish it would not have taken so long to get there. The text-manipulation tricks that cause pauses didn't work for me--they feel more like shareware nags than real-life pauses. I think it's okay that (Spoiler - click to show)your conversation choices don't matter, you won't change your parents' mind, and they want to rant, but on the other hand, piling this on to 5-10 second waits for relatively short dialog leaves the work feeling like filler. So a new argument I hadn't seen but liked got combined with text effects I had seen but didn't like. These text effects didn't ruin the game for me, but they did leave me reaching for my handy PERL tag-stripping script, which kind of killed immersion.

I get the sense that, with Twine being relatively new, cool elegant text effects exist we haven't discovered yet will be able to give the reader (or me, at any rate) more of the effect the author intended. Unfortunately, my reaction was "not this again." But I'm glad I worked through that.

I still prefer parser-based stuff, but PM was a well-done effort that managed to get the good parts of point and click (quick to navigate, immersive, easy to remember what you did) without the bad parts (tough to find the place to click for certain "puzzles.") On the strength of the map alone, which unlocks areas as you discover new evidence about aliens, PM is worth a go.

I mean, you can argue any Twine game is a point-and-click, but the big difference here is having a map you can look through and adjust. It's a bit above Bound, because there the map just described where you were in an apartment, and this was a cheerier, more absurdist mix of city and countryside.

There's only one puzzle in the game, which is (Spoiler - click to show)just remembering a string of four nonsense words, and while the writing doesn't soar, it's very pleasing to open up the university, the trendy areas in a city, and the secret passage from/to the desert.

ShuffleComp had many successful experiments, but this game felt like it built on several experiments the author tried themselves. I forget if I gave it a commended vote, but it was on the fence. It had sensible organization to go with a goofy back plot (the silliness quotient feels about right,) and that is always a good combination. Plus it reminded me I really wanted to listen to more Frank Zappa, and a side aim of the competition was to expose people to new music.

While I can't find fault with any of the commended games in ShuffleComp 2014, which was a pretty strong competition, I'm a bit disappointed Truth missed out. It's very old-school parser stuff about finding and exposing lies. They can be exaggerations or oversimplifications or clunky wordplay society's grown to accept for convenience.

Whichever it is, it's not hard to find by lawn-mowering. The usual suspects pop up, with ads that lie, politicians, clergymen, and so forth. Though the lies are generally stretched so the game never does something boring like have an agenda. Just examine everything, including (Spoiler - click to show)a line of Keats's poetry (the one about the urn)and you'll get all 21 points. But instead of getting points, you unearth truths, debunk fibs, etc.

As a bonus point for amusement, the author's pseudonym is a trivial truth. Before people revealed who they were, it was pretty clear the author was, indeed, an earthling. Which was just the sort of direct joke that worked so well in the game. And what a tidy game it is--it fits into the Z5 format!

Also, I had some knowledge with my truth, (Spoiler - click to show)"beagle puss" as the Groucho disguise you expose for the final point and a Final Revelation. I like that you can Find The Truth even before getting all the points, too.

I don't have a ton of conspiracy theories, myself, but for so long, I was simply unable to tell theorists to stop with that nonsense, already, whether it was about workplace, classroom or global politics. It's so tempting to listen, because that stuff's imaginative if you haven't heard it, yet it dies out.

Fortunately, conspiracy theory is fertile ground for satire, and The Cabal hits a lot of good points. It collapses several favorite political theories, places and lore into being about text adventures. This highlighted, to me, how conspiracy theorists like the me-me-me angle while really it's just more about an uncaring world and people willing to accept how things are to get by.

There's only one potentially vicious part. Though most characterizations are clear jokes, one personality is depicted as living at Ruby Ridge, which left me uncomfortable enough to look for an explanation. I got one here--well, at an archive.org copy of it--and was impressed. The essay's worth it even if it's a necessary distraction from an otherwise free-flowing game, because it hits on conspiracy theories some writers have when really it's about laziness or time limitation. It's also nice to have conspiracy literature that actually cleans things up.

I found the puzzles worked as conspiracy debunkers by giving you the opportunity to go off on useless tangents. So many of them (Spoiler - click to show)give the solution up front, then provide absorbing writing so it's possible to get caught up in details that utterly don't matter. The final maze is particularly funny, as (Spoiler - click to show)the game seems far more likely to trap you if you map it by UNDOing.

The author did the right thing by throwing a large chunk of this work into multiple-choice conversation. It establishes the character-player as someone with bizarre thoughts but never really kicks him--it's more about outlining your basic conspiracy theory fallacies. It's good for a thoughtful laugh, even for someone who wasn't present when the game was released.

There isn't really one room to escape--there are five, but hey, that leaves a bit more to do, and the room would be pretty crowded otherwise. Maybe it needs extra walls to deal with all the fourth wall stuff you have to deal with--after all, the author is one of the writers for Kingdom of Loathing, an absurdist heavy-texted MMORPG that relies on that sort of thing. People who like that will probably like this. People who like this game will probably like KoL a bit better, since it's more polished over the years--it's the author's job, and this game was not. Still, it was fun enough.

There's a lot of annoying stuff like eating the bottle and not the pills, the right verb for the safe, and a terrible muddle climbing on things (Spoiler - click to show)you need to stack.

Overall, I think this sort of puzzle works well with an existing fanbase and with discretely labeled choices, because a player base can team up and decide what to do (or how to do it most quickly,) and the next person through can just get the benefit of the humor or maybe polish the solution. With just one player, though, it really bogs down, and there's too much to guess at--I found that to be the case on replaying. There was a lot I remembered and couldn't guess the right verb on.

This is a flawed game that people who're willing to sacrifice a bit of play for humor will nonetheless enjoy because it does enough to get laughs. Unfortunately, it falls into different traps than the ones it bemoans in the funny little introduction. Still, I'm glad it's there. Kingdom of Loathing fans will probably enjoy this when they've used up their moves for the day, though. They might want to have a walkthrough handy, too.