Ratings and Reviews by OtisTDog

As I started playing the third (and final?) entry in the Frenetic Five series, I found myself immersed and smiling almost immediately.

Once again, you take the role of Improv, MacGyver-disciple and leader of the City's most available group of superhero temp workers. This game opens with you at the tail end of a party, playing "Battle Cry" with some other local crime fighters after indulging yourself a bit too much. I knew I was already hooked when I immediately replayed the prelude to get another crack at this game-within-a-game. I was extremely disappointed to discover that the catchphrase "Able to carry wood furniture up a flight of stairs in a single bound!" was not for a superhero called The Prime Mover.

Author Neil deMause really seems to have been getting the hang of writing IF by the time this piece was created. As before, the story universe seems alive, with the action for many scripted scenes and exchanges taking place over several turns. There is little temptation to keep entering "wait" to see them play out, however, for two reasons: First, there is a lot to keep you occupied in the game environment. Second, the way they are written doesn't necessarily tip you off that they will continue from turn to turn.

This method is an extremely effective way of creating a convincing social atmosphere; the interaction amongst the NPCs gives them a sense of independent life (in stark contrast with the stage puppets that many IF NPCs resemble), while at the same time feeding you a steady drip of characterization, backstory, and hints. The technique's potency won the work an XYZZY award for "Best NPC" -- the second for the series.

The work required by the author to create this mirage is significant, and there are limits to how long it can be sustained. Spend too long in an area without moving the plot forward, and your companions will become oddly silent, an after-effect of the compelling illusion provided when they are "on".

Long-time players will recognize the site of your team's mission as the setting for Zork. Perhaps that is why this episode feels like it has some meat to it, and that it will take some real effort to reach the end. This is just another trick, however -- the total length is typical for a modern, non-commercial piece.

The implementation quality is much improved when compared to previous entries in the series. I did encounter a few small bugs, but nothing significant to gameplay.

As with previous episodes, the highlight of this piece is the author's sense of humor. It starts funny, it stays funny, and then... (Spoiler - click to show)well, then there's the ending.

To call the ending unsatisfying is an understatement. I was powerfully reminded of the movie The French Connection, for the strange and sudden severing of the viewer from the plot thread, leaving the story to end not with a bang but a whimper. (Well, figuratively, at least.)

Frankly, I couldn't believe that the ending I saw was the only one available. I scoured the internet for hints and walkthroughs, finding only a single walkthrough that delivered the same ending. A few more iterations of the climax scene offered no other options, so I took the unusual step of decompiling the game file to look for other possible variations. There were none.

Why you would go through the effort of creating a work of this scale to deliver such a disjointed, downer ending is beyond me, but doing so is the author's privilege. Mr. deMause seems to have a penchant for challenging player expectations of the medium, and this certainly qualifies.

Assuming you don't want to read the spoiler above, all I can say is that the ending is different from what you might expect of this genre or this series.(Spoiler - click to show) The only takeaway seems to be: Friends Don't Let Friends Fight Crime Drunk.

In addition to being mostly enjoyable as entertainment, this is an excellent piece for study of technique -- both writing and coding. Even with the spare object and verb implementation, the world is vibrant and animated in a way that few works of IF manage to be. I gladly recommend it to anyone looking for some laughs, which are delivered at their usual "frenetic" pace.

I found myself with a few free minutes this evening and thought I'd try the latest on IFDB. I ended up spending at least an hour with this game, which was surprisingly engaging.

The genre claimed for this work is "fantasy", but it's more comedy than anything else. It has a chattery, bantering tone that did a lot to endear this game to me, and did so quickly -- which is important because I very nearly quit after the first move. (Let's just say the command "read sign" did not produce a very promising result.) The text is frequently silly, but it only crosses the line into *too* silly once or twice. It made me chuckle on a few occasions.

The game proclaims itself as geared for a novice, and it mostly lives up to the promise. Puzzles are not difficult in terms of a thinking challenge; they are immediately recognizable as the "insert tab A into slot B" type of artificial roadblocks that litter both IF and other role-playing games. This is frequently reinforced by the fact that, in many cases, uses for objects are strongly suggested in their descriptions, often with comic effect.

Some puzzles were difficult, however, in terms of implementation choices. Object implementation is fairly rich -- perhaps too rich in some places.(Spoiler - click to show)At least one critical object is only discoverable after examining a seemingly-already-adequately-described scenery object in the first room... and then examining something mentioned in that object's description. This seemed like an artifact of the programmer having some fun, and it was not in keeping with the description style of the rest of the game. On the other hand, conversations were implemented so sparsely that they barely existed. If you don't hit on certain keywords, the NPCs issue only unmodified default responses.(Spoiler - click to show)This was particularly frustrating in dealing with the first NPCs I encountered, outside the mines. They did not react to keywords based on the nouns in the area, and for several minutes talking to the foreman gnome got nothing but "no response" results. I eventually went back and read what he first says and found that keywords there get real replies. After that, conversations went more smoothly.

Fortunately, the author includes a walkthrough, but, unfortunately, it is in the form of a series of commands to win the game a certain way. A better hint system would have been nice, since I did find myself consulting the walkthrough at one point (see first spoiler above), and in doing so, I inadvertently saw the solution for another.

All in all, I liked this game, but I think it needs significantly more polish before it can be considered complete as an introductory piece of IF. A real novice would probably have been confused and frustrated by the numerous small bugs and issues I encountered, and anyone turning to the walkthrough for help would have a lot of potential fun ruined.

Keep an eye out for future work from this author. There's definitely potential here.

Having enjoyed my good time playing the first Frenetic Five adventure, and having been left "hungry for more", I chose the sequel (The Frenetic Five vs. Mr. Redundancy Man) as my next game to review. Let's just say: It made an impression, and I won't forget it.

Neil deMause, the author, seems to have profited from the feedback he received for Sturm and Drang. As Baf's guide notes, this is "smaller and tighter than the original". Geared for the IF Comp, this piece railroads you to the enemy hideout almost immediately, avoiding the meandering feel of the midgame of the original. This is an improvement, and totally appropriate as part of the lightweight style of this series.

Also gone is the dependency on having random items to solve puzzles. Everything you need to solve the game's puzzles are either in the immediate vicinity or provided by a teammate. The focus is getting you to think like the PC you are playing: Improv, whose superpower is coming up with improbably effective plans a la "MacGyver". Again, an improvement.

One thing that's consistent is Mr. deMause's wit and sense of verbal humor, which shines through this piece as much as it did the first. For the second time, I found myself laughing out loud, which doesn't happen very often unless I'm reading something by Douglas Adams.

Unfortunately, another thing that seems consistent is the quality of implementation. I found myself running into strange bugs, finding aspects of the game revealed to me by bad parser guesses, and even a straight-up TADS error of some sort. Once more, I found the technical issues interfering enough with the content to slip into two-star territory on my rating system -- even though they did not prevent (and sometimes even helped!) my progress.

Perhaps Mr. Redundancy Man was another rush job (as I assumed with Sturm and Drang), or perhaps Mr. deMause's talents as a writer far exceeded his talents as a programmer when this was written. If the former, I fervently hope the day comes that we see a fully-matured work from him. If the latter (and if coding is still a challenge for him), perhaps collaboration is what's called for; there are certainly plenty of people involved in the IF community with the converse problem of being better coders than writers.

That said, I urge the reader to note that my rating system is unusually harsh, with a tendency to underscore decent games so that the four- and five-stars stand out. I would gladly recommend this piece to anyone who enjoyed the first "episode" in the series, and I would gladly recommend both to someone who hasn't played either of them yet.

One final note that may indirectly be a spoiler so I'll tag it as such: (Spoiler - click to show)Aaron Mumaw's review of Undo, also by deMause, made me think of the members of the Frenetic Five in a different way. It occurs to me that the superpowers of the team members are related to the common frustrations and foibles of interactive fiction. Lexicon could be the counter to "guess-the-verb" puzzles, Clapper eliminates "Fedex quests", Newsboy embodies the device of sudden revealing obscure-but-necessary information to solve puzzles, and Pastiche represents the need to guess what the author has made it possible to actually do in work if it's not well-hinted. (Either that, or she's a counterweight to the inexplicable dearth of frequent pop song references.) All this works well in keeping the action flowing and centered on Improv (i.e. you), whose talent is the sideways thinking any puzzle-based IF calls for, but it seems only a few critical puzzles require your help, with most of the rest easily solved by asking teammates for help.

It's been a long time since deMause produced a Frenetic Five piece, and he may never do so again, but it occurs to me that this character setup is ideal for enabling multi-solution puzzles as in Wishbringer. It would be an excellent device for providing a graduated point system (so far missing from each game) that rewards players who solve more without the help of teammates, and would provide some replay value without throwing up roadblocks for those who just want to see the story.

I was a big fan of "The Tick" back when the animated series was on. One of my favorite jokes from the series was the hapless group of pseudo-superheroes known as the Civic-Minded Five, whose absurdly ineffective "powers" consisted of things like having four legs or being able to deliver static electricity shocks. Neil deMause may or may not have been familiar with the Civic-Minded Five, but it seems likely that he was, as the characters in this game are clearly cast from the same mold.

You are Improv, leader of the Frenetic Five, a group of part-time superheroes in between gigs. Your superpower is coming up with MacGyver-like plans, which is no doubt the result of long hours of radiation received while watching the show on TV. You are trying to do just that, as a matter of fact, when your team's junior member, Newsboy, arrives to announce that evil is afoot... and it's up to you to stop it!

I must congratulate Mr. deMause for his writing talents. The story unfolds and the personalities of your teammates emerge in a convincingly lifelike way through various timed scenes. The jokes come fast and often, and several had me laughing outright. Everywhere the author paid care and attention, the payoff for the player is delightful.

Unfortunately, the care and attention the author paid seems to be wildly uneven. High expectations set by the opening scenes rapidly dwindled once I left the apartment, and by the time I reached the ostensible goal of the evil villains' hideout, the game world had lost its fizz and gone flat. I ran out of patience and resorted to a walkthrough, which left me totally bewildered as to how anyone could realistically have completed the game without it.

It's possible that I just missed an awful lot, that I couldn't tune into the author's wavelength and just didn't interact the right way. However, it seems far more likely that this work is simply unfinished as a result of of trying to get it out the door in time for that year's IF Comp, where it placed 13th. It's really a shame, since the story's universe held a lot of promise and left me hungry for more, despite the relatively unenjoyable time I had trying to reach the end. The good news is that there are two additional Frenetic Five titles out there that I have not yet played, and which I hope earn higher scores.

The coding quality is competent. What works, works well, and I encountered no notable bugs. It's obvious that Mr. deMause has it in him to produce some truly top-notch interactive fiction -- even half-baked, The Frenetic Five vs. Sturm und Drang did take the "Best NPC" Xyzzy Award for 1997, which is no small achievement. I look forward to playing more from this author.

It was 1996, and Graham Nelson -- creator of the Inform language and the father of modern IF -- had just released Inform 6 in April. The Second Annual IF Competition was underway. What better chance to show off the new stuff? Professor Nelson completed the intriguingly-titled piece known as The Meteor, the Stone and a Long Glass of Sherbet and submitted it to the IF Comp under the pseudonym (and anagram) "Angela M. Horns".

This is a game in the old-school style. That means the pastiche of elements that are assembled into the story is contrived, but the beauty of it lies in the assembly. It's like a patchwork quilt: You can clearly see the seams attaching various unrelated flights of fancy together, but if that's where you focus your attention, you'll miss the striking overall pattern.

At the outset, you play a diplomat, caught in an interminable "tour" of the land you are assigned to. Before long the setting changes to what long-time IF players would consider more familiar territory -- almost literally. Allusions are made to a secret mission, but it's up to the player to figure out what the mission is and how to accomplish it as you go along.

This work predates the modern style of detailed implementation, and its object and room descriptions are remarkably spare. This is clearly not carelessness, however; a rich world is presented as your imagination fills in the artfully-carved blanks. Perhaps it is the nature of a mathematician like Nelson to pay such close attention to negative information, as this same tendency shows through in the design of several puzzles. There is often as much of a clue provided by what is not said as there is by that which is.

Echoes of Zork abound, but they do not define the experience. The story comes into its own towards the end. If you, like me, find yourself completing the game without achieving the maximum score, then you'll also find yourself diving right back in to see how to dredge up those last few points. And if you, like me, find yourself looking at the built-in hints to speed that process, it's only proof that you've been well and truly hooked.

There are a few bugs (including one I found that crashed Frotz), a few quirks (potentially unplanned "solutions" to puzzles) and a couple of instances of find-the-syntax, but on the whole gameplay was smooth and of professional quality. If you enjoyed the original Infocom Zork and Enchanter series, or the more recent Enlightenment, this is a must-play. Three stars for this work from a five-star contributor to the art.

Emily Short has pioneered a number of advances in IF, most notably the radically innovative conversation model of Galatea. Galatea was not universally loved; my sense is that many people thought of as too experimental or too "new school" (i.e. all story, no puzzles) to be generally accepted. Not one to turn down the implicit challenge, Emily set to work on Savoir Faire to demonstrate that she really did "know how to do it" in the old school style.

She succeeded dramatically, removing any doubt that she is one of the modern masters of interactive fiction, and joining the pantheon of the New Implementors. Savoir Faire is arguably her most acclaimed work: Too big for submission in the IF Comp, it swept up most major awards in the 2002 XYZZYs and was a finalist for the remainder.

Ms. Short's signature style seems to be daringly huge conception followed by lengthy and intense efforts to bring her new brainchild into being. In this case, the kernel of genius is her conception of the "Lavori d'Aracne", a type of sympathetic magic that allows users to link objects together, entangling them physically and conceptually in interesting ways. Where most authors might go on to write a perfectly delightful game full of special-purpose code to produce the "fun parts", Ms. Short seems to have labored to create an entire simulation system for it -- implementing not just the magic but its very laws.

This has two effects: First, the modeled world seems incredibly rich and deep as a result of your freedom to deploy this new power in just about any way that respects the built-in laws. It is entirely possible to forge links that are useless to the main character, but which nonetheless function in a consistent manner. Second, it sets the bar for coding very high, as the complexity of the game's system soars.

Unfortunately, Savoir Faire seems to have been a bite that was slightly too big to chew from a coding perspective -- though I played version 8, there are still (minor) bugs to be found. These are completely forgivable and do not detract from the entrancingly intricate story, but they did throw some jarring notes into an otherwise grand symphony.

Though this would normally qualify as a five star entry in my book, I'm only giving four stars because of the unfairness of one particular puzzle. Why "unfair"? Because:(Spoiler - click to show)The puzzle with the dancers and the letter was a sharp departure from the consistency of other linking puzzles. You are required to build a link between the two objects, but there is little to indicate that this should be possible according to the laws of linking as I gleaned them in a week of playing the game.

All other links seem to require at least two points of similarity from several categories: form, material composition, color, decoration, or physical relation/relative positions. This is true for both puzzle-related links and general case legal links, but no such correspondence exists for these two items. In my perception, the picture of the dancers would count as decoration on the old letter but must correspond to the physical form of the dancers themselves.

The dancing/encryption idea was very clever but this particular link seems not like the others; I am certain it is enabled by special-purpose code and would not be allowed as a general case. So, even though I knew the letter and dancers were related, even though the picture of one is on the other, so consistent was the negative reinforcement from my many failed experiments in linking that I spent a whole day without it ever occurring to me that a link of these two things might be possible. After all, some puzzle solutions do not directly involve links.

Maybe this incongruence was intentional -- many famous old school puzzles are at least as arbitrary, and there is a mocking undertone running through the game directed at old school fanatics (like me). I suspect this was just an error in continuity, though, and it had a disproportionate impact on my perception of the overall quality of the playing experience.

Then again, maybe I'm just annoyed that I didn't think of the solution on my own, since I was doing so well without hints to that point, and I may have eventually found the right command through brute force (a definite echo of the oldest of old school play). As she mentions in her own hints page, I always had the option of decrypting the letter out-of-game.

These minor flaws aside, there's no question that Savoir Faire is one of the great accomplishments of the new era, and I highly recommend this work to all players. It delivers the best of both the new school (dense story) and old school (great puzzles), and left me with a hunger for more that will no doubt be satisfied by the sequel, Damnatio Memoriae. Allow yourself one hint to avoid getting irritated like I did, and you'll probably end up giving it a five-star rating yourself.

[edit: With the passage of time, my irritation about that one puzzle has faded, and I have come to realize what a tremendous accomplishment this work embodies in its exemplary integration of a simulationist implementation with both the puzzles and the story. As such, I feel compelled to increase my rating to five stars, since it is undoubtedly the pinnacle of that class. Hats off to Ms. Short!]

Some people might think from my breathless review of Spider and Web that I am an Andrew Plotkin groupie. This is not the case. While I have tremendous respect for his fearsome combination of seamless coding and tight story-telling*, he is, in the end, only human. Shade is the reminder.

The start of this work exhibits all of Mr. Plotkin's hallmark qualities: his trick of making the mundane seem interesting with inventive prose, his expert sense of how long to keep the player in suspense before providing the next clue about what's going on, his knack for making the story follow you before you can follow it. The excellence of this work set up some high expectations about what would come next.

To me, everything about the first half of the game seemed to be pointing towards a particular moment of revelation, in which the player would literally "wake up" and begin a new section of gameplay. This never happened. Instead, things take a sharp turn towards the weird and abstract, and the story leaves the player in the lurch, confused and unsatisfied about which, if any, of the tensions introduced in the first half were resolved.

When abstraction is introduced, art is always in danger of sliding down the slippery slope from transcendent to incomprehensible. Shade, unfortunately, goes right over the edge. While it is tempting to think that I just "missed it", it seems more likely that Mr. Plotkin's profound intuition misled him here in deciding how to communicate whatever he was trying for. [edit: Turns out there was quite a bit I just missed. (Spoiler - click to show)The studied opinion of IF master Emily Short shows that a careful reading of the text provides plenty of evidence (subtle though some of it may be) to support a consistent and interesting interpretation of the end. I've upped my rating by a point to reflect this.]

This game is still worth playing at least once just to marvel at the genius of its functioning as the story's central mystery unwinds. I can't even conceive of what the underlying code for this game looks like, but it feels like something deeply elegant and beautifully simple. If the story had the same coherence, this might have been another landmark work in the field.

* Or is it tight coding and seamless story-telling?

Wishbringer was part of Infocom's "introductory" line -- an attempt to bring a wider audience to interactive fiction by creating works that would appeal to those who had never played a text adventure before. Only a few introductory titles were produced, and this one is my favorite by far.

It is also the most effective. Unlike the other introductory titles (Moonmist and Seastalker), Wishbringer provides an easy-to-follow orientation to the IF interface in its opening sequence; the first tasks are going someplace, taking something, looking at it -- all of the basic commands experienced players take for granted. As with all introductory titles, the first few moves use an explicit prompt ("OK, what do you want to do now?") to hold the hand of those who are not sure how IF works.

This courtesy extends throughout the rest of the game. Puzzles are solvable in at least two ways: easy (using a wish) and hard (using your brain). Maximum points are awarded for solving puzzles the hard way, but those who just want to see the story advance will not regret wishing their way to the end -- though they may be prompted to go back and improve their score.

Part of the game's allure is its "once upon a time" tone, which is well-suited to freeing the imagination. This is enhanced by -- or perhaps the product of -- the enchanting writing style of Brian Moriarty (author of Trinity, which many people consider to be the best Infocom title ever). Most of the rest of its allure is probably due to the unforgettable platypi.

Those new to the game will likely have to do without its wonderful "feelies". The glow-in-the-dark Wishbringer replica was a little cheesy, but it was one of my favorites (second only to Planetfall's postcards, stationery, and Stellar Patrol ID). Even without these, Wishbringer is probably the ideal IF primer for young people and those young-at-heart.

I knew I liked Enlightenment right from the start. Sure, Taro Ogawa (the author) has appropriated just about every last detail from the Zork universe, but he does it so well that you can't help but forgive him. This game is not just fan-boy homage or unimaginative plagiarism, this game is something new that was lovingly crafted using familiar elements. This game is Zork turned up to 11.

As in Zork, the game's terse replies are just encouraging enough to get you to continue for another few moves even when you feel stuck. Perhaps it's because this game emulates that iconic look-and-feel so well that I had the patience to keep trying after nearly an hour of play without a single point scored. Yes, there is that much non-essential material to keep you busy, with many jokes to discover, footnotes to unlock, and interesting-but-not-useful things you can do with the assortment of equipment you start with.

The game's title is well-chosen; once that first point is scored, they become easier and easier. For the last few turns of my game, everything fell into place, and I felt I truly had achieved enlightenment.

The game's end notes state that this piece is actually 19K larger than the original Zork I. I am surprised, but not too surprised. No course of action seems inherently off-limits or "wrong" for this game -- a difficult-to-achieve perceptual illusion that is no doubt the product of vast amounts of coding work and exceptionally careful playtesting on the author's part. Mr. Ogawa is to be congratulated for having pulled it off.

Enlightenment is a one-room game that you wish would go on to "feature length." Though Mr. Ogawa seems to have never produced another piece for public release, I sincerely hope to see more by him in the future.

Leonard Richardson's writing in this work is the most consistently funny piece of interactive fiction I've encountered. He has a flair for doling out expert satire using a tongue-in-cheek style that somehow never lets you know the joke is coming before you've already started laughing.

The game's concept was inspired by the eponymous "guess the verb" problem found in many poor-quality games, but you won't encounter that problem yourself, since the unusual verbs required are deliberately spelled out for you. Your not-too-difficult job is to find when to use them.

I simply can't understand how this game scored just 11th place in the 2000 IF Comp. Only two possibilities come to mind:

First, players might not have caught onto the central puzzle of how the verb-guessing booth's attendant can be fooled. Without this, the game would have never gone anywhere or ended very quickly. The real comedy starts after you've figured this out.

Second, players might have panned the game because it is not a traditional piece of IF; there is not a central well-defined story. Rather, this piece is more of a playground for both author and player, stuffed to the gills with hilarious riffs on both famous works and IF in general. Every "examine", "show", or "ask" is an opportunity for Mr. Richardson to make you chuckle yet again.

Either way, this ranking was a grave mistake -- Guess the Verb! is a gem and a must-play in my book. I am tempted to give it 5 stars, but I am holding onto that "perfect" score for the future piece from this author that will surely earn them.