Reviews by JJ McC

This presents as a graphically handsome choice-select, of the (Spoiler - click to show)choices don’t matter subgenre. Like most of this genre, its effectiveness comes down to its thematic resonance and its use of interactivity to enhance that. These works typically flirt openly with devolution to short fiction, which is not as prejudicial as it sounds.

I found the interactivity here effective when it leapt beyond the page-turning-link default. Presenting illusory choice, click-to-continue as a way to convey the tension of forced progress were both used effectively, if sparingly. They ably underscored the central point of the work - and the protagonist’s duress.

The theme I found a little too light. Its most obvious interpretation seemed to be of (Spoiler - click to show)a home-schooled vegetarian child with aggressively contrarian parents, with all the deep and despairing angst that scenario produces. There were some interesting comparisons drawn between software constructs and life in this state that were a highlight for me. The education level there did call into question a young child’s experiences and maybe pointed to a more sinister (paranormal question mark?) adult situation. It was all left so unclear and implicit though, that any number of interpretations could fit. Clearly the player is aligned with the protagonist, and meant to feel the despair and coercion. Coercion bad, right?! It also felt… overly dramatic? In a way that spoke to perhaps some immaturity of the protagonist?

I did a mental exercise. What if the coercion in question was vegetables, broccoli say, with the protagonist determined to eat nothing but twinkies. The angst and despair of a young PC would still feel completely of a piece and would require almost no changes to text. But boy would it change the theme of the piece, no? Look, I am absolutely NOT drawing an equivalence between vegetarian ethics and immaturity. I am saying that the theme here was unfocused enough to allow both interpretations and by extension that distasteful connection. The work’s heightened melodrama, coupled with the spare underlying details, called its premise into question in a way that was kind of interesting but begged all kinds of questions it couldn’t answer. And it was certainly undermining to the narrative presented.

Ultimately, this disconnect was too great to move me beyond a mechanical engagement with the piece. Ambiguity in art is very interesting, if that ambiguity swirls around a core central theme. Ambiguity OF that theme is not as compelling, and can drive some actively objectionable connections.

Played: 9/2/24
Playtime: 5 min
Artistic/Technical ratings: Mechanical/Seamless
Would Play Again?: No, experience is complete

Artistic scale: Bouncy, Mechanical, Sparks of Joy, Engaging, Transcendent
Technical scale: Unplayable, Intrusive, Notable (Bugginess), Mostly Seamless, Seamless

(Get it? Cause Shane is a famous Western...? How did I get this far up my own butt?)

Adapted from an IFCOMP24 Review

I have taken to calling this “link-select UI on otherwise parser-based gameplay” stripe of game “Twinesformer.” I am resigned to not being able to make ‘fetch’ happen, but am too enamored of it to drop it. This may be the most intricate version of this paradigm I have yet encountered. Deep parser constructs like “attach to…” “put in…” “pour on…” are provisioned here. A vast array of nouns are available in most locations and conversation trees. This is a two edged sword. On the one hand, it successfully mitigates one criticism of this style: ‘lawn mowering’ all possible command combinations to get a result. The command space is so large, and includes enough clearly incorrect combinations to cast doubt that it is worthwhile to try.

On the other hand, in order to provision all those combinations it takes, 3,4,5 clicks to build the commands you would type into a command prompt in a fraction of the time. Maybe a tablet/phone player would find some economy here, but anyone with a keyboard will chafe at these decisions. The UI is implemented as a semi-standard NAV block, inventory block, command expansion line, and system command block. Unlike other implementations of this, it is printed inline to the transcript and is just dynamic enough to require a full read every time. Often requiring searching lists of text for the noun you want. Meaning its layout regularity does not turn into command efficiency. If I could make one recommendation, it would be to put this ‘control’ section in a static pane away from the transcript. That would go a long way to reducing the clumsiness of it.

The story is a comedically engaging one - you are an Old West gunslinger’s sidekick, whose task is keep your charge alive and on task ridding a town of baddies, fighting his unearned confidence every step of the way. It is a tried and true formula, and the setup here is capably rendered. The local color NPCs are amusingly portrayed, for all their terseness. The environment and scenarios are pleasantly silly and occasionally laugh out loud funny. It is a great playground, economically established.

It does feel though, that the vibe it is striving for is at war with its gameplay. The ‘help’ command generated real dread when it revealed the presence of two benighted old-school tropes: unwinnable states and inventory management. Are these ever fun? Ok, unwinnable states has its defenders, but I am DECIDEDLY not one of them. There was at least a mode option to inform you the moment the game became unwinnable, which I appreciated. I instead played ‘standard’ mode, a deliberate choice to give the game opportunity to try and convince me of unwinnability’s merits. It did not, but to be fair, the scenarios themselves telegraphed their unwinnable decisions well enough that ‘UNDO’ was usually pretty obvious. There were also some insta-deaths that were funny enough to mitigate any frustration. Even so, I can’t escape just how often I was clicking ‘UNDO.’ Yes, much less onerous than a restart. Still well short of fun.

Let me scratch a bit at these unwinnable states. One inescapable feature of this gameplay choice is that the player will revisit, sometimes often, flavor and setting text. When that text is cold and concise, it kind of disappears into the problem solving focus. When it has personality and humor, for me anyway, it devolves into a grim reminder of the fun I COULD be having, instead of retracing old ground, over and over.

There is another way the game commits to its old school vibe - hiding things around town expecting the player to find and pick them up, with their use only becoming clear waay down the road. This is a perfectly legit and time-tested approach. However, it ALSO becomes baffling when confronted with the puzzle that needs them, but no text hinting what might be needed. Ie, if you didn’t already FIND the magic thing, you won’t have any idea it’s even available, let alone necessary to solve the puzzle. The text did no work to point you to missing possibilities. So you try so so many ill-fated and unsupported things. And then UNDO repeatedly. Add some timers to those puzzles and it can be many iterations before you realize you don’t have what you need. It is no exaggeration to say UNDO was, by FAR, my most utilized command. In retrospect, perhaps I should have consulted the walkthrough sooner, but it does speak to the piece’s strengths that I chose not to for so long.

So what we have is a delightfully engaging setting, chock-a-block with wry humor (and surprisingly cold, and funny for it, deaths), married to a PUNISHING gameplay paradigm and clunky UI. There are infrequent but notable bugs: “since the itself fills most of the space”; “There’s currently You are here.”; a donkey that follows you even if its enticement is not present. These are notable, but not overly intrusive in and of themselves, though the latter definitely falls into an ‘absent magic item’ puzzle category.

In the end, for me, the amusing prose and setting could not escape those contrary gameplay choices. And I didn’t even talk about the deeply unrewarding inventory management click-drudge. Lots of bouying Sparks, but too many notably intrusive counterweights dragging it down. And so, so, …so…so

…SO much UNDO.

Played: 9/1/24
Playtime: 2hr, score 3/17
Artistic/Technical ratings: Sparks of Joy/Notable UI and gameplay fighting
Would Play Again?: No, saturated on UNDO

Artistic scale: Bouncy, Mechanical, Sparks of Joy, Engaging, Transcendent
Technical scale: Unplayable, Intrusive, Notable (Bugginess), Mostly Seamless, Seamless

Adapted from an IFCOMP24 Review

This is about as close to a bare metal parser as you can imagine. In an undefined space, with two undefinable objects, get out! Gameplay here is the key, the focus being on experimenting with the almost-nothing you are presented with to determine the rules and ‘reality’ of the scenario. It’s language is kind of belligerently, hilariously unhelpful, striding a line of meaninglessness and JUST enough nuance to tickle your logic ganglia. For me, the language started as frustrating, but almost immediately became a strength of the work. It is doing WAY more than raw word count might indicate.

I haven’t played many of these “experiment to find rules of the world” games, but the ones I HAVE played have often been more baroque and frustrating than rewarding. Maybe it was the scope of this one, maybe the engineering of its feedback and soft wording, but this really hit a sweet spot for me. Just opaque enough to be mysterious, just responsive enough to reward experimentation. The solution was very much in reach, in just a few moves. I was kind of flabbergasted at a sudden ah-hah moment only to realize that was the end of the game!

What do I do with this? Probably because of its opacity, the moments of clue revelation provided a legitimate charge of joy, almost immediately segueing into triumphant conclusion. Its word choice was just about perfect for its conceit. Those were undeniable Sparks this work elicited from me. And yet, because of its brevity, that was really ALL it offered. I didn’t have enough time to ramp into Engaged. It was a seamless implementation, and yeah its brevity helped make that manageable, but I have seen plenty of short works that couldn’t wring out their technical issues, so still noteworthy.

I got a charge out playing it for sure. Its brevity means it is impossible to be a waste of your time. But its modest goals were also kind of …insubstantial? My white hot triumph almost immediately faded to “that’s it?” And then, “what’s next?”

That’s fine, though, right? We eat M&Ms too!

Played: 9/1/24
Playtime: 5 min, escaped
Artistic/Technical Ratings: Sparks of Joy/Seamless
Would Play Again?: No, experience is complete

Artistic scale: Bouncy, Mechanical, Sparks of Joy, Engaging, Transcendent
Technical scale: Unplayable, Intrusive, Notable (Bugginess), Mostly Seamless, Seamless

Adapted from an IFCOMP24 Review

Why does anyone do this reviewing thing? No one reason, obviously. For me it started as a simple impulse: to try to give something back to the community in advance of asking it to consider my own efforts. It quickly got a lot more complicated. It turns out that the prospect that my words might help someone refine their art gives me hope that I have more to offer than raw snark and good intentions. Underpinning a lot of it is admiration for the medium and the artists that continue to transform it beyond anything dreamt of in the early days. There is so much negativity in the modern age, an opportunity to find things to gush about makes me just a little more resilient and centered.

So yeah, it’s all about me.

The common thread to this miasma of feelings is connecting with the work of another human, then further connecting with humans that have also explored that connection. So. What does this mean in the encroaching age of generative AI? This is a work that embraces new technologies to produce art, acknowledging its debt to automation to produce text. But most IF, especially parser IF, IS text. Where does human authorship stop, and machine authorship begin? Is there a line where machine authorship reduces the human part of the art? At what point am I inadvertently connecting with machine? And why on earth, given the things that motivate me to hammer out words for you, would I want to do that?

There is an argument of ‘so what? What does it matter if the work makes you feel something?’ Ok, fine. But what if it doesn’t? What if the words are capably rendered, the scenario clearly and adequately painted, but ultimately just flat? Then what? If authorship were unambiguously human, I would endeavor to show where and how that impression developed or missed the mark. But if it is because machine? I have NO interest in providing feedback to a machine that in the best case, has no way to digest my observations, and in the worst makes itself BETTER at a human endeavor I wish it weren’t involved in in the first place.

This is a Greek Myth IF, where as the titular protagonist you are asked to free your god brethren by solving IF puzzles. Last few years there was a spate of art that recontextualized and transformed Greek Myth in fascinating and revitalizing ways. This is not that, this is a pretty straight-ahead representation. Find some trapped gods, solve puzzles, on to the next. The gods themselves have no particular character or personality hooks, no neat twists, and rarely escape their familiar lore. If fact, if NOT for that lore their characterization would be nearly non-existent. How much of that is AI, and how much author choice? It certainly seemed to be missing a spark of some kind.

It isn’t helped that the gameplay is demanding in the least satisfying way. Early on, the difference between traditional cardinal directions, ‘go to,’ and ‘sail to’ is unclear. Its nouns are wildly uneven in their implementation - meaning most small details respond with ‘you see no.’ This trains you not to poke too deep. Until some puzzles REQUIRE deep dive into nouns no more or less prominent than their neighbors. NPCs, arguably the MOST human-adjacent aspects of IF, are similarly completely shallow (dare I say, robotic?). They have information to impart, but with almost no character voice of their own. Interactions outside that functional purpose generate a ‘you get no response’ Even when asking about, say, a trapped spouse they have just asked you to find!

The effect of all this is to highlight the mechanical moving parts at the expense of idiosyncrasy and unique human voice. Then to try to hide those parts behind capable text that more obfuscates than enthralls. The combination of all that is that puzzles are much harder than they should be - depending on if you poked at the right noun or not. It was pretty clear what needed doing in most cases, but the mechanics of finding missing pieces to do them were obtuse. In one case I literally turned rings to a near-random combination and it worked. In another I waited until the solution presented itself, just waited. The combination of obtuse yet also anti-climatic was off putting for me.

It also hit what seems a pretty big bug. Per the text in one location, both the Agora of Thebes and Mount Olympus were N. Going N though took you to an empty location. I think this made the game unwinnable (intrusive if not unplayable, per my rubric), as a pair of gods needed to complete your rescue were clued as being there. I spammed some commands just to see if I could power past to no avail.

I’m not thrilled that my first review of COMP24 comes across so negative. There is every possibility that being told AI was involved colored my response, I leave that to the reader to decide. There is every possibility that the work’s shortcomings have nothing to do with AI at all, and just needed more refinement. Between the flatness of the scenario and characters, and uneven puzzle implementation I guess I would RATHER attribute these things to AI. For sure, I want more humanity in my art!

Jeez, first game of Comp, and I am spiraling into existential angst and techno-paranoia. Buckle up folks, I’m turning into a curmudgeon before your eyes!

Played: 9/1/24
Playtime: 2hrs, score 30/maybe 90? (4 gods rescued)
Artistic/Technical Ratings: Mechanical/Intrusive Implementation gaps
Would Play Again?: No, engage IF for different thrills

Artistic scale: Bouncy, Mechanical, Sparks of Joy, Engaging, Transcendent
Technical scale: Unplayable, Intrusive, Notable (Bugginess), Mostly Seamless, Seamless