Ratings and Reviews by OtisTDog

This is more of a demo than an actual game. Literally none of the conflicts introduced in the story are resolved by the time it ends, and it ends on a cliffhanger note that strongly implies the action will continue in one or more future episodes.

The most interesting thing about it is the backpack for holding inventory, a cool graphical interface that forces the player to choose which items will be available in each part of the narrative. The backpack only holds so much (represented as a limited number of squares), and items take up squares in varying amounts and configurations. You've almost certainly seen this interface in other games before, but here the assortment of items is entertaining in itself. (Spoiler - click to show)(Should I ditch the bong to make room for the photograph of Burt Reynolds? Which is more likely to be useful in a medieval setting: a spade or a pack of cigarettes?) Although items can be rotated to allow denser packing, there is never enough room to take everything available.

The implication of that process is that the choice of available items will significantly alter the gameplay of each part, perhaps even going so far as to make a poor enough choice result in a loss. However, as far as I can tell none of the choices to be made by the player -- neither the choice of inventory items nor the standard action choices presented -- matter much at all. The plot is essentially unchanged regardless of which options are selected; only details at the margins are modified.

The writing was amusing in many places, and some of the jokes got genuine laughs, but after two playthroughs I think I've seen just about all it has to offer. Recommended as a quick diversion for those who like anti-heroes and mild absurdism, with the advice that there's no point in thinking hard about which path to take since any two paths will be 95% the same.

The title of this review is a quote from the author-supplied blurb for Hobbiton Recall. It is, unfortunately, accurate.

It's not clear why the author chose to involve either The Hobbit or Total Recall in this game. Although elements from those two sources appear within, the motivation for choosing that pair specifically is in no way apparent. Neither particularly relates to the main plot of the game, which seems to revolve around toothpaste, nor do the elements selected from each interact in a meaningful or synergistic way. It seems like the pair of ostensible inspirations could just have easily been E. T. the Extra-Terrestrial and Minority Report, or Aquaman and Top Gun -- really any two intellectual properties with good name recognition and no obvious resonance, since the main purpose seems to be to provoke a curiosity about what the author has come up with to justify the juxtaposition.

Regrettably, most of what the author has come up with is AI-generated pixel art and jokes rooted in misogyny.

The original release included a game-breaking bug that prevented going beyond the first third or so of the game. If one finds oneself stuck (Spoiler - click to show)at a hospital with a bus ticket, that bug is the reason. This may have been corrected in a September 8 update. Since Gruescript is interpreted, its source is inspectable and can be modified, so it was possible to fix this bug and proceed before any official correction.

Since in general this game does function, I'd like to say something positive. However, I'm having trouble coming up with anything beyond the fact that the author seems to have put a large amount of work into it.

On the whole, this feels primarily like the product of the author's efforts to learn Gruescript. Clearly, quite a bit was learned. There's a noticeable progression of complexity in the coding as one moves steadily toward the end.

There are still lessons to learn regarding interaction design, e.g. being consistent in the patterns of action expected from players. I noticed, for example, that in some cases special actions are attached to the indirect object, in others the direct object. Also, in some cases the necessary item must be "held," i.e. selected, instead of just in inventory. Also, the implementation of the hedge maze was novel in my experience, but definitely unappreciated: (Spoiler - click to show)Per the code, just moving randomly is the key. There is no actual geography, one just gets shunted to the goal location about 10% of the time when moving in the single maze room.

In a couple of places it appears that the game can reach a "dead end" state in which it can no longer be finished, though I'm guessing that this is unintentional. If you are trying to reach the end of this lengthy game, I strongly suggest making use of the save game function on a regular basis.

I guess the fact that I tried my first Gruescript game and even learned a little bit about Gruescript code is also to this game's credit. Someone learning that platform might want to review the source code of this game for some example solutions to typical problems. As entertainment, however, I can't recommend it.

This game needs a lot more work before it's even worth trying, let alone entering in a competition.

The intfiction.org review by B.J. Best enumerates a number of significant issues that hamper the most basic of interactions. I ran into those and more.

Beyond the numerous technical problems, it's been a long time since I've seen a new game with such a player-unfriendly approach to design. Disassembly shows that there is a lot of intended interaction, but the game does very little to help the player discover it. The most likely outcome of an attempt to play in good faith is tremendous frustration followed by an unexpected ending, the text of which presumes events that have not yet occurred.

There are built-in hints which seem necessary to review if one wants to get complete information about the objects in the room. However, each revealed hint costs the players points. This is somewhat ameliorated by a buggy scoring system that allows infinite points -- or at least it would if there wasn't a hard turn limit. Even the hint system is effectively anti-player.

The plot, such as it is, is also a jumbled mess. (Spoiler - click to show)The protagonist must deliver a big presentation and needs sleep. His marriage is on the rocks because he's been prioritizing his work life and handled a miscarriage poorly. He is paranoid and probably an alcoholic. Oh, and someone threatened to kill him and blow up his house.

My recommendation to the author is to visit intfiction.org for help in learning the basics of Inform 7. My advice to everyone else is to avoid this game until an improved version becomes available.

[EDIT: Note that the author has been in touch with me regarding the technical issue described near the end of this review, and it is almost certainly something specific to my non-standard setup. You shouldn't expect to encounter it yourself.]

Detritus (2025), which is not to be confused with a title of the same name from 2013, is this year's IFComp entry by author Ben Jackson. His entry last year, The Den, came in 2nd overall and 1st for Miss Congeniality, and I anticipate similarly high rankings for this polished, high-quality work.

With its slick graphical interfaces, soundtrack, multimedia effects and compelling sci-fi story, playing Detritus feels like playing a commercial-quality offering from yesteryear. This is unabashedly a game, rooted in exploration of a mystery but also requiring juggling certain resource management demands. It offers both easy and normal modes; in my experience there was enough leeway on normal mode to make it worth choosing that, because the additional tension that it adds contributes much to the mood.

Though it takes some time to come into its own, the story does not disappoint. I found it to be far superior to the young adult tale told in The Den, though it does not explore the questions that it raises in any particular depth. (Spoiler - click to show)I admired the key twist, which integrated certain beats that I had taken as merely for style. I certainly didn't see it coming, but like any good twist it immediately reorganizes what came before into a new and coherent whole.

Jackson's prose does a marvelous job of painting the scene. Looking back from the vantage of a few days, I remember most of the action very much like a film. I think this could easily be adapted to a full-scale videogame -- it's its own pitch!

I encountered one technical issue that is relatively minor, and may be specific to my environment. (I'm only mentioning it because there doesn't, as of this writing, seem to have been an update posted to the IFComp website since the time that I downloaded the game.) Certain portions of the game present a nine-button, 3x3 keypad for manipulation. In my browser, for whatever reason, the last button in each row was being shown on its own row even though there was plenty of horizontal room. Since the spatial arrangement of the keys is significant to the puzzles involved, I found it easiest to copy their arrangement elsewhere for reference. In all likelihood, this issue will be fixed shortly -- perhaps even by the time that you read this review.

You won't want to miss this one.

The answer is a short but sweet wordplay puzzler from an author who is clearly familiar with many of the amateur era's most famous works.

After playing this one on my own for about ten minutes, I put it aside so that I could suggest it to my play group. We all had a lot of fun with this well-fashioned game that seems to have drawn inspiration from a whole range of titles, but most resembles Counterfeit Monkey (to which overt homage is paid) blended with the array of magical devices seen in Metamorphoses (plus perhaps bits from Junior Arithmancer's framing story, The Impossible Bottle's iconic centerpiece, and the learn-magic-to-escape-the-room structure of Suveh Nux).

The puzzles fall into two main categories: deducing the function of various magical devices and then using those devices to craft the items needed to escape the room. Both of these types were well done. I don't know how long it might have taken me to finish the game on my own, but the group was able to do it in about 45 minutes.

The game is a bit poker-faced in the beginning, though there are definitely clues to get one started. Once the function of each machine is worked out, there is plenty of fun to be had in trying out the various implemented transformations. As with Counterfeit Monkey there are many more of these than are necessary to reach the end of the game, so a good part of the fun is just playing around. The game has no score, and I don't think that there are anything like achievements set up, so this is purely for one's own amusement.

Gameplay was 100% bug-free, and none of us spotted a single typo, so this work appears to have been very well tested. There is still room for improvement in player friendliness, however, due to uncharacteristically finicky interactions in a few places. (Spoiler - click to show)(We must have typed >PUT X ON TABLE a dozen times. It would be nice for this to automatically reroute to >PUT X IN CHAMBER instead of just disallowing it.) If there is to be a post-comp version, then an achievement system might encourage a more thorough exploration of the possibility space that the author has created; my sense is that we saw only a relatively small portion of it.

This would be a great game for introducing people to parser IF if you're prepared to help them get used to the conventions of the command prompt. Players both young and old are sure to be charmed by Weldon, the world-weary talking rabbit who occasionally provides light hints to nudge you on your way.

I extend my thanks to author Lance Nathan for producing this smart little gem and sharing it with all of us mere players. I certainly hope to see more games by Mr. Nathan in the future.

Long ago, in a review of Zombies (1999), I wrote:

I was struck by the way this piece is framed -- it made me think about the possibilities of throwing a mini-game like this into the midst of a standard IF work... In this case, the game is turn-based, which might work with the "stop-and-think" nature of IF instead of against it.

In all likelihood, Arthur DiBianca, author of Operative Nine was completely unaware that the above statement existed. It nonetheless pleases me to see that the idea -- one that far exceeds my own technical ability -- actually had merit.

This is another limited parser game by DiBianca, who is one of the most prolific (if not the most prolific) authors in this functional subgenre. As he once explained in a short interview, one of the reasons that he likes to use the limited parser format is that it makes his games more accessible to those new to parser IF. His experiments have consistently proven that limiting the options for player input in no way limits the amount of fun that the player can have.

In a limited parser game, the reduced instruction set available for commands generally keeps the search for a solution short enough to maintain a brisk pace, which produces a fundamentally different feel to these as compared to traditional parser works. The simplified solution space also creates a fundamentally different basis for effective puzzle design -- the author must figure out how to anticipate (or create) gaps in the player's intuition and require solutions that don't seem obvious even when they are plainly in view, metaphorically speaking.

When done right, the solution eventually comes to the player like the flash of insight informing a clever geometry proof. Failing this ideal result, the author can at least be certain that the brute force work to discover the solution is manageable. DiBianca is especially gifted in hitting that "just right" mark, and in anticipating just how far to take things before boredom and/or frustration set in. As someone who generally dislikes pure logic puzzles, I admire DiBianca's skill at dressing these up in mini-games that make solving them feel like play instead of work.

Although this game at first seems like something in the spirit of Spider and Web, DiBianca's playfulness comes through in short order, and the player will quickly discover that the only significant actions to be performed are moving around and playing the mini-games presented through the "PQ-807 microcomputer" available from the start. A tutorial game shows one the ropes, and then the first puzzle (opening a door) must be solved.

DiBianca's inventiveness is on display here as he deploys about a dozen different mini-games ranging from simplistic to devilish in difficulty. I didn't have to consult any hints to reach the end, but I did get through one or two of the puzzles only via what felt like blind luck in stumbling onto a solution.

Someone who loves logic puzzles could probably fly through this game in 30 to 45 minutes; I lost track because I was having too much fun to pay attention to the clock, but it felt about the regulation two hours. I was especially glad to see that the penultimate puzzle (Spoiler - click to show)actually consisted of several different mini-mini-games combined into one challenge, since the difficulty had only been increasing until that point. (Among DiBianca's many talents is an excellent sense of pacing.)

This game is solidly fun, and I give it extra points for breaking new ground -- something that grows ever-rarer in an art form now in its fourth decade. With any luck, Operative Nine will inspire similar experiments in the future.

This game categorically defies expectations. It starts out giving every sign of being a hack job by a first-time author desperately fighting a losing battle against Inform 7's seemingly infinite layers of complexity, and I'm pretty sure that's exactly what it is. The remarkable thing is that, in the end, author Laura (no surname given) won that battle.

Countless new authors come to the world of interactive fiction with grand visions of making a sprawling epic of a game that does everything. Grand worldbuilding! Sorting hats! Combat! Conversations! Multiple endings! Crafting! Nailbiting tension! Reversals! Philosophical beats! Timeloops! The meta! This is impossible. It can't be done, especially by a newbie... unless, apparently, they are stripped down to their absolute core and all concerns about polish are tossed aside.

A large number of player actions in Mooncrash! take the form of a >CHOOSE verb (i.e. the affordance that is the heart of the choice-based paradigm), which seems to have been simply bludgeoned into place, crushing all built-in conversational verbs in the process. That verb -- plus >EXAMINE, basic movement, >TAKE, >PUT and a handful of specialized attack verbs -- are the only commands that will do anything for the player. Other verbs remain but are irrelevant since they do nothing useful.

Many works in recent decades have proven that this is enough. Superluminal Vagrant Twin, The Little Match Girl 3: The Escalus Manifold, practically the whole catalog of Arthur DiBianca... all of these feature essentials-only command prompt interaction that keeps the action moving by limiting the player's choices to the handful of options that are relevant at that point in the unfolding story. The author's execution at this game design level is very adroit; each scenelet has one easily-apprehensible mechanic, and the spaces in between are handled with quick-to-read prose decorated by hefty sprinkles of narrative glitter fashioned from RPG tropes (both tabletop and computerized).

The prose is absolutely essential to this game's success. As noted author Amanda Walker says in her intfiction.org review of the game, it "needs to be purple and is suitably lilac". Given how rough-hewn the program side is, one might expect the writing to be similarly crude, and the opening paragraph certainly does little to challenge that expectation. As one progresses through the story, however, low expectations are challenged with bits of imagery and beats of action that suggest a raw talent for the craft of IF, one that grew significantly even over the course of creating this game.

There is hinting about a deeper story, one that perhaps justifies certain hard-to-explain aspects of the situation presented. (Spoiler - click to show)(The main villain and the Four Winds are originally a group of friends from a universe more like our own? Or maybe they're all avatars of a group of players in a computer game, just like the protagonist?) Are these hints even consistent? Does that question even matter? If you're only in it for the fun, then the answer is no. The story provided is a half-finished sketch that lets one fill in the blanks with the ideas that seem right according to fit and preference.

This is one of those games whose main strength is that it continues to surprise on the upside all the way through, even when taking the completionist route and trying to see every ending. It really does delight, and intrigue, and satisfy. If the author considers refining this game into a post-competition release, my own advice (of quite dubious value) would be to go in the direction of "less is more" by learning to remove unneeded default actions entirely, and also to take some cues from authors of "limited parser" games such as the ones listed above about how to better set player expectations in accordance with that style. There is some danger that doing this would dispel the air of earnest sincerity that is a substantial part of the game's charm.

Although the quality of the initial segment will vary somewhat depending on the results of the factional alignment at the start of the game, anyone spending two hours with this game is certain to get past the initial poor impression, so it will be interesting to see how it fares in the competition. Even if it places low in the rankings, I would strongly encourage the author to spend some time genuinely studying the available tools (and to seek help and advice on the forum) so that the next attempt can better fulfill such a sweeping vision.

On first starting this game, I was strongly reminded of Rover's Day Out, due to the split-level reality of the action taking place. However, as play continued my thoughts turned more to the early chapters of Homestuck.

The minimal challenge to be found in Moon Logic comes primarily from dealing with the "helpful" automation that attempts to interpret what the player means to do based purely on the chosen verb and the object context. As one might guess, this is only sometimes what the player actually wants to do. Soon enough, anyone playing this will be learning how the automation thinks and trying to anticipate its foibles to accomplish one's objective.

The main action involves exploring the immediate environs of Zork's classic white house. It's an impressive bit of work, both looking and feeling like you are interacting with a world model engine as complex as would be found in a typical parser game. (There's even nested inventory!) I find myself very curious about the technical underpinnings of this work and hope that author Onno Brouwer will provide some details in a post-mortem after the competition.

The player familiar with the original on which this spoof is based will recognize the NPCs and locations, often modified from their inspiration. Although the setting and emulated display strongly encourage the sense of playing the original, actual gameplay frequently diverges from expectations. Perhaps the greatest feat accomplished by Brouwer in this work is creating something fresh that is also a parody of Infocom's first game.

Along with the main progression of plot action, there is a second progression involving the UI itself. Billed as featuring the latest in "artificial incompetence," the simulated game proceeds to live up to that moniker by imposing visual effects over the basic text window. At first, these are fun and amusing, but by the time it gets to the point where (Spoiler - click to show)the text orientation rotates every few seconds, I was looking for the off button. (Fortunately, Brouwer has provided one.)

At the end, the game delivers a ranking in the old school style -- one based not on points but on turn count. Presumably, fewer moves results in better rankings; if not, then the ranking I received (Spoiler - click to show)("'Me, too' adventurer") is a bit of metacommentary. Achievements are also tracked, pegged to turn count instead of point value, making me wonder whether there may be more to be found than I saw in a single playthrough.

This isn't a deep game, but it is a fun short experience that mixes a bit of potential nostalgia with a demonstration that much more is possible in today's technical environment. It's well worth the time to play.