Ratings and Reviews by MathBrush

This is a joke game. It has a long spiel about using science to make the most enjoyable game possible.

Then you make (Spoiler - click to show)two choices and end the game. This makes the game very short..

This sort of game, using short CYOA to mock game culture, came into vogue a decade later with authors like Soda51.

This game starts out at your house, but quickly shifts locales. The main location is a 5-level space station.

The game is mechanically impressive, with forced input, ASCII graphics, a topology machine and other nifty tricks. These alone make me want to play again.

However, the puzzles are hopelessly underclued (including one that is only possible if you have experienced a certain Infocom game or its imitators).

The writing is also rough. Bugwise, there was one room where I couldn't leave and had to undo.

This game didn't call out to me emotionally. It was the lowest placing z-machine game the year it came out in IFComp, but it is much better than other last place games.

In this game, you are the fat lardo. In one room, there is a duck.

Most standard verbs are implemented, and result in insulting you.

Why three stars? The game is polished. It is very descriptive in its insults. And it succeeds in producing an emotional reaction.

But the interactivity is bkring, and I would not play it again. I do not recommend this. Includes frequent strong profanity.

In this game, you are in some of paeduo-roman setting where an Oracle has incited everyone to violence.

This game is known for unfinished room descriptions such as "$$$". There are two npcs that do almost nothing unless you guess the right verbs.

However, the story that is there is interesting.

As to finishing the game...
(Spoiler - click to show)After 5-10 turns, you die. If you type XYZZY, time stops, but you can't win.

There are two ways to win: type Z over and over again, or SING over and over again.



Because of these unusual features, many speculated that this was a joke game. Its hard to know.

This game is about a trial in a science fiction setting. You witness a verdict in a courtroom, a friend gets upset, and new people arrive.

There are four locations, a few NPCS with a total of 10 or so topic responses,and a total game time of 20 turns or less.

There are a lot of guess-the-verb problems that mess with the polish and interactivity. Some descriptions are skimped on. And there's not enough information to care about the characters.

This game received last place in the 1999 IFComp due to a game-crashing bug whenever the player takes inventory.

Pressing the "play online" button for this game currently takes to that version. The inventory bug doesn't happen on Parchment, but half of the rooms are in complete darkness.


If you download and play the version in the zip file, you will see that your character can actually see in the dark. This is the version I played.

In this version, the game is quite interesting. You knock on the door and greet a lich (your employer) who takes you to his study and asks you to guard his treasure. He then gives you a mysterious map and keys and then leaves.

The real game then begins. You can wander around a complex and interesting map with many treasures. Quite a few adventurers (4-6) are also wandering around independently, each with their own light source.

I played for about thirty minutes, obtaining many treasures. I experienced more bugs, like repeated "no parent of nothing" messages whenever an adventurer looked behind the clock.

I can only conclude that there are more bugs in the game, as the adventurers never tried to take anything. It's a real shame, because the game seems intricate and fun. If the IF community hadn't been so harsh on Jason Finx and had encouraged him and helped him beta test this game, it could have been spectacular.

This game is a series of essays about "What if major historical events had happened differently?"

It is interesting reading but not polished. It is quite descriptive, however.

The interactivity didn't really draw me in, and I don't see myself reading it again. While the essays were fascinating, I felt no emotional connection to the text.

This game was last place in 1998's IFComp, and has an average rating of 1 star (out of 12 ratings) on ifdb as of this writing.

This game consists of 9 multiple choice questions presented as a job interview. There are several paragraphs of intro, a huge response to XYZZY, and a final score in three categories as well as a salary.

Why was this game so poorly regarded? CYOA in general was looked down upon until Twine and Choice of Games took off. Also, the author has a bitter tone, and includes lines like "That's not how life works" if you try to restart.

But the game is polished. The author spent a great deal of time creating a workable CYOA structure, and it looks good.

The writing is descriptive, and does an excellent job of representing the author's feelings

The game communicates an emotion of frustration, bitterness and helplessness.

However, it is difficult to know how your choices affect the outcomes, and disabled restart is obnoxious. Also, there is not much replay value.

In this game, a serial killer is on the loose, and you have to try and make it out alive.

The game is unpolished, with many unimplemented synonyms and some illogical responses at times.

The writing is somewhat descriptive, but most of the effort goes into making the narrator snarky and insulting towards the player.

This keeps the game from having a strong emotional impact, as it constantly tells you you are dumb or that you don't deserve easy solutions. Also, the final sequence of required actions is somewhat tasteless.

The puzzles are generally "guess what the author is thinking", and I don't plan on playing it again.

The author did put a lot of effort in this game, but I feel that an author that is antagonistic towards the player should reasonably expect negative feedback.

This game seems like it was written quickly, not beta tested, and by someone with not much inform experience at the time.

It is riddled with bugs and spotty implementation. (Spoiler - click to show)You can open a door if you are holding crowbar by typing OPEN DOOR, but not PRY DOOR or OPEN DOOR WITH CROWBAR. Exits don't match up. Doors don't open by themselves.

The writing is sparse and thin.

There is no real emotional connection to the game. Perhaps if it was better implemented, a lower class white life and its issues could take the stage.

The puzzles are not hinted at all. Sensible commands are frequently try ignored.

This game placed last or close to last in 1997's IFComp. Games like these lead to later movements for more beta testing.