Reviews by AmberShards

Yes, this is the first work of a newbie, and it shows. It's extremely rough around the edges and really could use a lot more detail and backstory. Then again, Vigilante doesn't aspire to be anything of import. If you're expecting Photopia or The Moonlit Tower, here, well, why would you?

The game is complete and winnable, which beats all the IntroComp games and nearly all SpeedIF games; so when you look at it from that perspective, you can at least enjoy it. Playing time is less than two minutes, and the plot consists of simply shooting everyone who stands in your way. Seen from the perspective of the "world is against me" typical to vigilante movies, there's some catharsis in wiping out your foes.

Anyhow, I can't really say that this game deserves more than one star, but I would like to encourage the author to give it another shot (pun intended).

As a cave crawl, Spelunker's Quest is rather typical for the genre, although in this case, more is definitely less. The charm of Adventure was its lack of specificity. Because you never knew exactly why you began outside the building, you were free to create your own backstory. Spelunker's Quest (SQ) however, provides you with a plausible backstory, and then fails to use it; it exists simply as a vehicle to get you to the initial room.

The gameplay itself is typical for the genre; there are monsters which mean multiple opportunities for sudden death. The objectives -- getting treasures and getting out -- also break no new ground, except that they're less plausible than usual. Why is that? The backstory gives you a reason to escape, but not a reason to collect treasure. The puzzles themselves aren't terribly difficult, except for two; one involves random violence for no particular reason, and another you'll probably discover through just plain dumb luck. These two puzzles cause the playability to suffer a notch or two.

SQ provides fairly evocative room descriptions, decent descriptions of objects, and doesn't bother with implementing much else. This approach can leave you playing the "get all" game to see what objects are available. Stylistically, you'll find single-line responses with exclamation points and droll replies, again evoking the early cave crawl games. However, the objects and their uses betray that spirit. SQ features both modern and ancient weapons, both technology and magic, without any real thought behind how all of these work together -- it's like the items are present just to solve puzzles.

Finally, while SQ can be solved in thirty minutes or less, you're left with a feeling of incompleteness all the same. How exactly did such a strange world exist in the first place, cobbling together elements from many different times and places? Would your friends believe you when you told them? Isn't there, or shouldn't there be, more? As for a little bit of fun, SQ suffices, but it leaves you with a bland kind of fun, like eating aged cereal.

A Walk in the Park is not only a short game, it's a one-turn game, which makes it positively microscopic. Not only that, but winning is trivially easy. The replay value consists solely of finding other ways to win, which isn't as satisfying as failing to win multiple times and then finally succeeding.

At any rate, the writing style is a silly kind of easy-going pop-culture slice-of-life humor. There are no outright bugs, but then again, the game doesn't promise a whole lot, either. Only a few objects are described and default responses rule the day. That there are no points makes me wonder if the game is finished -- did the author really mean for you to win with zero out of zero points?

At least "A Walk..." isn't annoying. If you need something to do for five minutes, there are definitely worse ways to spend your time.

Sea Captains is faintly interesting, but ends up crippled by a lack of implementation. Purple prose is everywhere. The first (and only?) puzzle is guess-the-verb time, and weirdly enough, the protagonist changes without informing the player. You'll probably wander around for a few turns before you realize what has happened. So if you like a little bit of British slice-of-life to flavor your frustration, Sea Captains is for you.

This game begins with an abundance of purple prose and/or spartan implementation. You are lying down, but you can't get up. You have a basket (which contains things) yet you can't open it. You can't move in any directions, so you're left to just try things at random until something happens. That's annoying. If there are preferred courses of action, it's the designer's responsibility to guide players towards them -- unless ticking off the player is the point, and this game isn't purposefully one of Those Games.

I eventually gave up trying to guess what I was supposed to do next, because the game just didn't have enough hooks to keep me interested. It was missing foreshadowing, clues, plot, and had very little emotion. I realize that sounds harsh, but it's more a statement said with a sigh than a landscape-wasting nuke. Maybe taking a look at how stories work and why they work will help for the next effort.

Yes this game has bugs -- even in the final version. Yes, it does have unnecessary profanity. It's flawed, but it's also a lot of fun, and hilariously, dementedly earnest. Where else are you rewarded for stealing stuff and beating up teenagers, among other things? I couldn't rate it highly because of the bugs, but the perspective alone makes it worth playing.

Aside from a few touches of atmosphere, Lonely Places is remedial horror, with all of horror's worst attributes thrown in: stereotypes, profanities, and gore for the sake of gore. In addition, I'd throw in Lovecraftian, which is one of the most overdone and unconvincing forms of horror. Really, unless you are Lovecraft or Ramsey Clark, you're probably better off doing something else. (And while that's just a personal opinion, I've read A LOT of wannabe Lovecraft fiction, and IF seems to prefer this sub-genre over any other form of horror, sadly.)

With that aside, the game feels incomplete, due to typos, misspellings, many default responses, and a general spartan approach to matters. You are driving in your car in the beginning, but there is no stereo. Later on, actions that probably 90% of people would try are not available. As an added bonus, the game insults you in the end if you do not play as you were supposed to.

While the personality test at the end is creative and unique, that in no way atones for all the other problems that this game possesses. What's really disappointing, though, is that many of these problems could be fixed with a few hours of time, if not much less. If a single word can sum up an impression, the word "abandoned" sums up Lonely Places.

Awakening is a fair effort, and the first effort (to my knowledge) by Pete Gardner. Giving away the plot would give away the game, but let's just say it's a believable -- in the horror genre anyways -- amnesia scenario. Don't let that scare you off, though. The game has a dreary atmosphere and a few puzzles that compensate.

Also, Awakening is a short game. Most players should be able to finish in under 30 minutes; and 30 minutes feels just about right. If it was any longer, it would seem forced.

As far as mechanics go, some important details aren't clued well. Disambiguation problems crop up (especially when entering places). A rather nasty bug late in the game allows you to put the game in an unwinnable state. This area is the game's weakest.

Despite the dreary atmosphere, Awakening didn't really resonate emotionally. The areas that it paints will stay with you, but you'll remember them as you do a house tour and not as a story. The lack of NPCs may be also to blame here.

On the whole, it's a fair game for a first effort. If you've got a few minutes on a rainy day, check it out.

I'm not sure how you rate an intro speed IF; such games don't even attempt to be full games, and as Speed IF, they are typically chock-full of flaws that the designer just didn't have time to correct. Rating such games requires the reviewer to abandon applying a single metric to his reviews, if nothing else. What a five-star intro Speed IF game is, could in no way be a five-star finished, full game.

However, as Speed IF goes, 2007 seemed to be a good year; both this game (abbreviated D3) and Faett Tiw are much more polished, and hence, game-like, than the usual crop of Speed IF entries. D3 has no typos, and the descriptions are remarkably well-written. Most objects even have at least one non-default response. The puzzles are not well-clued, though, but you can only hope for so much.

D3 is a game told in high Victorian style with more than a nod towards steampunk, told with a humorous, almost over-the-top comedic flair. Objects are necessarily ornate with multiple adjectives. The science is necessarily a pinch shy of alchemy, especially once you factor in the restrictions of the contest. I'm quite fond of the atmosphere and would like to have seen this become a finished game, minus some of the ridiculous contest restrictions.

Reading the other reviews of this game make me believe that the game you can download up and to the right is not the same game that is being reviewed. Here are my reasons: there is no graphical component anywhere in the game (at least not under any Glux interpreter for Mac OS X); you do not place any puzzles in this game -- instead you are someone trying to escape an inescapable cell; others mention a "help manual", but there is no help manual in any of the links above and the game provides no help. So, I'm quite puzzled about what exactly is going on here, but for all intents and purposes, it seems that Lock & Key is just another boring one-room escape game. Maybe if I spent another 2-3 hours I might figure out how to do the impossible, but such challenges always leave me cold. In any case, it gets one star for decent writing, because two stars would be a bit excessive for such an unoriginal concept.