The Owl Consults

I enjoyed this 2017 IFComp game. You play as a consultant for super villains who answers their questions for money. The parser becomes a phone line, of which you have 2, and your commands are commands to the villains themselves.

Each villain has unique powers. The writing for the radioactive man grated on me a bit, but overall I found it clever. This game had the most traditional gameplay of the top games of the competition, with no limited parser commands.

I recommend it, and hope that everyone reading this will take the time to try it.

The Owl Consults is a game that I first came across while exploring the history of the XYZZY Awards but which I had never really heard about elsewhere. When it ended up on the chosen field for the Great Play Marathon, I couldn't resist the chance to check it out.

The game placed 6th in the 2017 IFComp, outshone only by Absence of Law, Will Not Let Me Go, Harmonia, Eat Me and The Wizard Sniffer. It went on to be nominated for four XYZZY Awards, contending for Best Game, Best Puzzles, Best PC and Best NPCs. It was clearly enjoyed and appreciated by many people, and it is still enjoyable almost a decade later. Per IFDB data, it is the 17th most-played title from its year of publication.

The game starts off very well, beginning with the blurb, which hooks via its unique premise. The title screen of the game primes the pump with a T. S. Eliot quote that evokes a serious air, though the reason for this particular allusion is opaque. (The quote is from a poem that T. S. Eliot wrote while converting to the Anglican Church.) Opening text quickly establishes a 1930s world with "superscience" elements of the type found in early scifi from that era, plus a player character who reveals almost nothing to the player. There is little time to get situated in the role of this enigmatic protagonist -- the phone is ringing, and we know from the blurb that answering it is what the game is about.

Doing so connects you to one of the Owl's clients, a jaded English catburglar named Amelia Derringer, who very much reminded me of Lady Thalia (though of course this character came first). There are significant differences, most notably that Derringer has a superpower: (Spoiler - click to show)the ability to gain the features of any animal that she consumes for a short period. She's been trapped in a cage by that apparently frequent nemesis of supervillains, Rex Dashing, who on first report sounds like a typical pulp-era science fantasy adventure story hero.

The advice that you must give to Amelia is extremely granular in nature and really seems like something she would think of herself, so at this point the structure of the game suggests that play will consist of a series of vignettes, with the player temporarily taking on the persona of a different supervillain in each. This is a clever way to shape a superhero game, giving the author license to introduce various protagonists (with their differing superpowers) in short, focused puzzle scenarios that don't require much in the way of framing story.

Once out of her initial jam, the call with Amelia is interrupted by that of another client: Dirk Radon, an overconfident mad scientist type with a knack for technologies based on atomic energy, whose superpower is (luckily) complete immunity to radiation. The tone shifts significantly as Radon's narration takes over, but it continues in the light comedy puzzler style. Radon's problem is that he's hemmed in by robots aboard an airship, which he built but which was stolen at some point by Rex Dashing. At this point, it seems as though each vignette might involve a villain trying to deal with Dashing, functionally making that character the primary antagonist of the Owl. The interruption of the first call also suggests the possibility of future puzzles that involve juggling multiple lines as the clients on the other end deal with timed challenges.

Soon enough, it becomes clear that both clients are aboard the airship Mephistopheles, and at this point in playing, the gears really began to turn in my head. If both clients and (as I had mistakenly thought) the Owl are aboard the same airship, does that mean that the Owl is Rex Dashing himself?? (Spoiler - click to show)The reason that I thought the Owl was on the same ship is the game's subtitle: "Aboard the Mephistopheles," which I had read as a continuation of the title text, i.e. meaning "The Owl consults aboard the Mephistopheles." Derringer's introduction mentions an airship and robots controlled by Rex Dashing. Radon's introduction is unambiguous that he is aboard an airship in Dashing's control and surrounded by robots. It is soon confirmed that both are in the same place, and this seems to surprise the Owl not at all. As gameplay progresses, Dashing (who always seems to be one step ahead of the villains) looms large as a frequently-mentioned but mysteriously absent figure, and he seems less earnest than one might expect based on the standard tropes. Could it be, I wondered, that the Owl/Dashing is putting one over on both of these "clients" as a way of defanging their plans, and/or romancing Derringer, and/or humiliating Radon for the fun of it? The high quality writing (about which more later) seems to carefully nurture the ambiguity that would allow for such intricacies, but this seems to be either accidental or the residue of abandoned ambitions.

It seems necessary to stop at this point and fast forward a bit: This game is not that complex. In the end, what's delivered is pretty much exactly what is promised, i.e. the Owl, an accomplished supervillian, helps some less capable villains for money. You should be prepared to enjoy it primarily on that level, or risk being disappointed as I was by its unfulfilled potential.

The core game design problem is handled very well. The two clients' subplots interact, each villain contributing to progress using a combination of capabilities and knowledge that makes sense given their revealed personalities and histories. Some additional difficulty is imposed on the player by the fact that the two clients despise each other and must be kept out of the same location, but the geography of the map is simple enough to remember, and it's easy to build the habit of shunting one character into a "storage" location before switching control the other.

The two subplots are coordinated into a double climax that is the top of the rising action, and the authors correctly understood that any obstacles following it should be very low difficulty in order to keep the action moving and present a satisfying ending even the first time through. The countdown sequence that creates a turn limit feels scary and creates some urgency, but the essential solutions are well-practiced by that point, and if the player has investigated everything along the way and bears in mind that there's no actual need to rush while entering commands, there is more than enough time to reach the optimum ending even with some false steps. It's to the authors' credit that you might not want to stop and think much between prompts.

At the level of individual puzzles, things go less smoothly. The reactions of other reviewers suggest to me that players unfamiliar with parser conventions were drawn to this game, and that for some of them their amusement gave way to frustration before reaching the end. Although the current release (1.02) has substantial hinting by the standards of experienced parser players, there are some missteps that I think hamper its approachability. Examples include: (Spoiler - click to show)1. Although its clear that the vacuum flask can be moved, players paying attention to room descriptions are unlikely to deduce that it's possible to push a heavy piece of equipment up a spiral staircase on rolling casters. 2. It's not clear why the ice on the vacuum flask won't melt in other than extreme heat; perhaps it should be described as having an atomic-powered refrigeration unit. 3. Some reasonable commands (e.g. >STAB MONSTER) aren't accepted when trying to defeat the sludge monster. 4. It's not obvious that Radon would want to give his radio speech a second time, especially since points are awarded for the first time and there is no player reward (in terms of new content) for experimenting by trying it twice. 5. It seems like there could be a story-appropriate alternative solution to keeping Radon bottled up while the reactor door alarm is going off: being trapped by the octopus. The trap door control seems to have no purpose, but Derringer can get out of the room (using powers) without closing the tank while Radon cannot. 6. Given the response to trying to acquire animal powers from the taxidermy specimens, it's not clear why it should be possible for Derringer to make use of a "fur-lined scarf." This doesn't seem like it's intended to be a difficult game, so I don't think more consistency and/or hinting would hurt.

The writing is the game's single greatest asset. The fact that both clients are in the same location allows the description of locations and objects (and even their naming) to differ between the two villains, and this is used to great effect for characterization. Whichever author(s) came up with the prose knew how to maximize the value of each word the player is given to read.

As an example that I found striking: When Derringer reaches a place that she calls "The Opulent Room", the response to >X CHAIRS is "The chairs are, much like Dashing himself, overstuffed and uncomfortably smooth." In eleven words, the line accomplishes three goals: giving the player an idea of the chairs' physical nature, characterizing the off-screen Rex Dashing's habitual demeanor, and -- via the judicious use of the word "uncomfortably" -- reinforcing the implication (also found in several other responses) that Derringer is attracted to Dashing. With the demonstrated capacity for such pinpoint accuracy in the prose, I can only assume that the rougher spots found elsewhere, particularly the somewhat disjointed final passage, are the product of a rush to complete the game.

The game's single greatest weakness is its handling of the PC/player relationship. Extraordinarily little information about the Owl is given outside of the final text. The ultrabrief "scene" in which the player mentally inhabits the Owl presents no personal details outside of a sense of self-satisfaction, and the only time that I recall the Owl's thoughts appearing in the narration is during the tail end of a multi-turn rant by Radon.

In actual play, the interactor is invited to "be" not the Owl but Derringer and Radon. By requiring both of these personae to be adopted by the player -- especially more or less simultaneously and in a manner requiring coordination of their efforts -- player identification with each sub-PC can be only partial. Since the blurb and opening scenelet sell the player on identifying with the Owl, and since the Owl is still ostensibly the one issuing commands to the two clients, the player is left trying to primarily identify with almost nothing at all, and can't help but wonder why. Given the strong characterization of the two other villains, treating the Owl as an AFGNCAAP feels out of step, so one instinctively makes an effort to pierce the veil of mystery that seems to have been intentionally drawn. (Even the sound that an owl makes prompts the question, via homophonic onomatopoeia: "Who?")

The main point of including a mystery in a narrative is to allow for a reveal, whether that happens in the text itself or in the mind of a reader fitting clues together until they form a solution. The Owl Consults seems to be unintentionally mimicing the latter type, at least until the very end of the game. The reveal that's provided rather roughly cuts off loose ends and, by returning the player to the Owl persona only briefly and only to lay out future plans, suggests a wrapping up of the Owl's saga before it has really begun. Although the Owl (Spoiler - click to show)admits to prior manipulation of the clients and plans to take advantage of them both in an indirect fashion, the Owl's victory doesn't feel like the player's victory, since it was impossible to anticipate.

What I'm left with is that I enjoyed this game and think it's worth both play and study, but I don't understand why it seems to invest such work into creating narrative possibilities that it has no intention of realizing. Players will find an amusing diversion with some original flair. Would-be authors will benefit from examination of the writing technique for its characterization, which is exemplary, and also the game and puzzle design, which are above average but still leave room for improvement. It's certainly one of the better superhero games that I've encountered.

Forgive me, it has been several months between playing this game and writing this review so I can't remember all the details, but what has stuck with me is that I didn't care for it much. The fact that (Spoiler - click to show)the game starts in one place and then you never go back there, and instead are playing somewhere completely different threw me for a loop. I didn't think that the puzzles were set up well (I had to cheat several times and when I found out the answer to several problems I knew that I was unlikely to have ever figured those out on my own because they didn't really make sense). I also think that some of the characters' abilities should have worked in ways that the game didn't allow only because that wasn't the right answer. My favorite part was the ability to switch between phone lines to control the different characters. Clever and decent effort in the classic style, but in the end just not for me.