Reviews by cgasquid

The Game Formerly Known as Hidden Nazi Mode is a harmless game about finding bunny rabbits hiding in a Jewish neighborhood. Adorable, right? It could be that the author grew up in a Jewish neighborhood, or the game could be aimed at Jewish kids and attempting to create familiar surroundings, or it could just happen to be one. It's a nice, homey, friendly place that's safe and welcoming.

Until you enter the "special command" -- (Spoiler - click to show)JOIN THE SS.

Suddenly the game is about a Nazi officer searching for Jewish families. The rabbits are replaced by terrified innocent victims. Both the player character and the game itself become monstrous.

The point, though, is that the horror is hidden -- not the way horror is hidden in a creepypasta game, but deliberately hidden by the creator to pass along an abhorrent message to an intended audience under the nose of the mainstream buyer. And this is absolutely something that a sufficiently 2edgy4u kid could discover.

The author's point is that you never know what's hiding under the surface of the media your kids are consuming. Not unless you can actually examine it, take it apart, and make sure there's nothing under the surface.

I ... don't fully agree with this. It's not that parents shouldn't curate their children's media. That's a matter of carefully walking the line between too restrictive (isolates the child from friends, prevents learning critical thinking during crucial development stages, weakens child's resistance) and too permissive (forces confronting adult ideas at too early a stage, encourages poor conflict resolution, demonstrates unchallenged bad behavior).

What I don't agree with is the notion that seeing publisher-provided source code would accomplish anything at all.

If someone is already perfectly willing to hide rancid, nauseating evil inside a children's game, what on earth makes you think that the source code document will be the same source code as the actual game? If the game is a lie then why would the source code necessarily be the truth!?

I'm really not sure what this is meant to be. I won on my first attempt, just by answering the questions (the interviewer's three, and the one question Josh asked me). The actual gameplay was tedious; mostly just (Spoiler - click to show)waiting and passing the plate when indicated.

I tried talking to the other characters, but they all just looked at me funny. In particular, they weren't interested in discussing the particulars of the experiment ... ? Maybe having a menu-based conversation system would help? I didn't talk much and still won, so ...

Are there really people who could (Spoiler - click to show)look three innocent people in the eye and murder them all for a plate of cookies? I mean I guess fascist aliens might, but the experiment doesn't seem to have anything to do with the interview!

(Spoiler - click to show)Cicero was killing his son as an example, performing an evil act to increase his army's efficacy. Nietzsche advocated creating one's own morality system guided by the will to power, but the selfishness of this doesn't extend to coveting very minor material gains. And the alien, while monstrously selfish and evil, was fighting for real temporal power and security. The aliens have things they could offer that the subjects might kill for -- freedom, greater privileges, the ability to send messages to loved ones, etc. -- but they are offering something worth barely anything. How could ANYONE come to the decision to kill for a trivial, transitory gain?

The experiment is faulty, it doesn't prove anything, and from the IF player's perspective it means you mostly just (Spoiler - click to show)keep typing Z and every few turns PUSH THE PLATE. That's Annoyotron level gameplay.

+=3 was intended to make the point that a puzzle can have a perfectly logical solution and still be virtually unsolvable.

It does not make this point, as the puzzle does not have a logical solution.

For those not in the know, the goal of the game is to pay a troll by handing it three items. This is the first puzzle and the only puzzle, and you encounter it immediately. However, there aren't three items in your inventory, nor are there any other items to be picked up. So, what to do?

The solution presented is to (Spoiler - click to show)think of objects that have been implemented but that are never mentioned in any descriptions at all, that are omitted from your inventory even though you possess them, and that can't be found by examining yourself -- specifically, clothes.

Unfortunately, as too often happens when an author is trying to lecture the audience, it just doesn't hold up.

First, regarding the response to EXAMINE ME. (Spoiler - click to show)You're described as the adventurer from Zork. There was an object that said adventurer possessed that wasn't implemented: (Spoiler - click to show)the compass, mentioned only in the Alice-in-Wonderland area in Zork II. But it couldn't referred to. It conveys the information that you're a fantasy adventurer -- yet the words BOOTS and ARMOR aren't implemented. Thus, even if someone does think of trying to obtain items by undressing, the first words they're likely to try won't work and they'll give up on the idea!

Second, regarding the game's tiny nature. (Spoiler - click to show)You're said to have just conquered a dungeon, but the game won't let you retreat to gather more items. In the games of this era there was always detritus left over -- the adventurer from Zork would at least have a lamp and sword. There's no logical reason to block this area off; the game is just refusing to allow you to go there because it isn't the intended solution.

And, lastly, regarding the shallow implementation. (Spoiler - click to show)A handful of different words for specific articles of clothing -- modern ones -- are available. Given the esoteric nature of the solution, again, someone isn't necessarily likely to keep trying clothing nouns unless they happen to hit on one first try. Trying to remove my dress or shoes and being told the game doesn't understand would cause me to discard this way of thinking. This game needed a LARGE vocabulary of garments -- and given how little game there is otherwise, there was absolutely time to implement it.

Overall, the reason that this puzzle is "logical but impossible" is because the author's rigged things up that way. All this proves is that IF authors are able to write puzzles where the only way most people can proceed is to read the author's mind or guess the right word, and buddy, that ain't news.

first to note, the provided link no longer works; the author appears to have taken the game down.

i mean, inasmuch as this is a game at all. much like many political games it has a point to make, and it doesn't want you messing around with things like choices or alternate story paths that might not lead to the desired horror.

this game accurately portrays the American police from the point of view of those minorities that are victimized by it. i'll give it that, which means it gets one extra star than most of the on-rails political IF i've read.

but honestly this isn't really much more effective than plain text would have been, and much less effective than a well-written essay containing documentation and interviews and providing proper citations.

which is to say, this kind of thing isn't going to convince anyone; it'll get a laugh out of the people who already agree with its message, anger those who disagree, and get a quizzical head-tilt from the rest.

the game is divided into two parts: first, a brief "orientation," where you play through a short mockery of The Stanley Parable. (mockery, not parody, because it doesn't really have anything to say about Stanley.)

you're set up with the familiar electric-shock button of the Milgram Experiment, but given absolutely no information about what's going on, why you're doing what you're doing, and so on. it turns out (Spoiler - click to show)it's intended to make you think Stanley is good and right for obeying orders without thinking, since that's what the military wants you to do in the field. it does this in an obnoxious and manipulative way, but given this is supposed to be an in-universe software program you're playing, that's obviously intentional and indicates the kind of organization you've signed up for.

the second and longer part has the player as part of a sci-fi military. while they have joined up intentionally, they know nothing about the organization, its goals, its mission, what they'll be doing, etc., etc. the military is authoritarian and delivers orders that are to be immediately followed. (Spoiler - click to show)it is logical that such an organization would offer the previous orientation, because they want you to think that your orders are always for the best, like Stanley's were.

unfortunately, during this second portion, (Spoiler - click to show)you really only have one meaningful choice. everything is binary; either follow orders (or implied orders) or disobey. disobeying just gets you yelled at before the thing you refused to do happens anyway. the only actual choice you have is whether to keep fighting when the enemy surrounds you, and these choices amount to "get shot in battle" or "get shot because the other military is as authoritarian as yours."

so, what is the message here? is it saying that we are wrong to obey blindly and follow authoritarians? hard to credit when it makes no difference either way. is it saying that we should obey, since the results will be the same regardless and obedience is the path of least resistance? that's a little hard to swallow, but i suppose it could be the intent. many people do think that way (or end up thinking that way after brainwashing). but the milgram experiment is usually cited as a rebuke to that line of thinking.

the lack of clarity or any real interactivity would usually merit one star. however, the writing itself is so good that i'm bumping it up to two. it's just too linear to be interesting, and the meaning too muddled.