Miss Gosling's Last Case

A sober-minded critic might accuse Miss Gosling’s Last Case of over-egging the pudding. A cozy mystery that leans into the bucolic-English-village element of the subgenre surely needs at most one gimmick, but here we’ve got both ghost-solves-her-own-murder and cute-animal-sidekick-saves-the-day, as the eponymous sleuth can only make her will known beyond the grave by directing Very Good Boy Watson to the clues that will allow the bumbling bobbies to crack the case. Isn’t it, perhaps, a bit too much?

That sober-minded critic can go soak their head; this game is glorious fun, and I wouldn’t surrender either the acerbic Gosling or the doughty collie for the sake of restraint. They’re a lovely pair of partners, and the mystery they’re up against is no slouch, either.

The setup here is classic Christie – Miss Gosling is very clearly Marple-coded, and her mysterious semi-resurrection hasn’t slowed her brains or dulled her edge. A consulting detective who’s helped put more than her share of criminals behind bars, she’s quite sure that foul play must have been involved in the falling-down-stairs incident that led to her death, but the police are content to write it off as an accident. Of course, all that changes after a short tutorial section that sees Watson presenting clues to the investigators; unfortunately, they subsequently get the stick wrong-way-round once again and decide your modest estate must have provided the motive for the crime, and start investigating your nearest and dearest for the crime of murder. At that point the game proper opens up – you follow four distinct puzzle chains across your house, from the crime lab in the attic to the potentially-poisonous garden to the dark and foreboding root cellar, in search of the evidence that will clear the four key suspects and trigger the endgame.

It’s a traditional approach to a mystery, and one that leans into the strengths of IF as a medium (since you’re controlling a dog, you won’t have occasion to lament a weakly-implemented conversation system – you can bark, and that’s about it). The writing similarly is solidly genre-appropriate:

"You have a long history with Basil Hughes, and it’s in no small part thanks to your investigations that he’s risen through the ranks from Constable to Inspector. He has his eye on Chief Inspector now, but really, well…the man is far too close-minded, far too quick to jump to the obvious conclusion. Large and stout, with an immaculate uniform and an impressive moustache, he tries to look every bit the image of the modern constabulary."

There is novelty on offer here too, however. For one thing, this Dialog game is playable entirely with clickable links – context-sensitive actions appear whenever you address a particular item, beyond a few that are always available, and I found the implementation was spot on. Admittedly, the canine nature of the protagonist means there’s a rationale for not including every action you can possibly think of, which helps constrain the screen real-estate needed for this interface, and I’ll confess that I played by typing in my actions 95% of the time. But it’s still an exemplary implementation that makes it plausible to contemplate playing a big parser game with complex puzzles entirely on mobile or without a keyboard, which is quite the achievement – an even playing on my laptop, I still found it more convenient to click links from time to time, like to avoid having to write out SHOW PHOTO ALBUM TO DAVIS or what have you.

The puzzles are also not ones I’ve seen before. Sure, the elements are straightforward enough – you better believe that this house has a dumbwaiter, and good lord are there a lot of locked doors – but the way the problems are posed, and the ultimate solutions, take full advantage of Watson’s canine nature. Particular obstacles might hinge on your color-blindness or lack of thumbs, while your keen senses and peoples’ tendency to overlook a pet provide an edge. Some of the puzzles do trend a bit hard (there’s one in particular that I don’t think you can begin to solve without engaging in some unmotivated arson), but I almost always knew what I was meant to be doing, and the game did a great job making me feel clever as I worked through them (the objective-listing THINK command and full InvisiClues system also helped on that front, of course). There are a few places where Watson’s abilities seem slightly implausible – especially his ability to manipulate a torch or tape recorder – and there was a place or two where I thought an alternate solution might have been nice to provide (Spoiler - click to show)(I spent a lot of time trying to wedge open the root cellar door, which seems like it should have been possible), but this overall is a great set of puzzles that hold together remarkably well.

If I were to venture a sincere criticism, it’s that I wanted a more robust denouement – the endgame sequence revealed the villain and gave them their comeuppance in a satisfying way, but I would have enjoyed a more worked-out idea of what, if anything, is next for our dynamic duo. And given that the meat of the game is concerned with clearing the four suspects, it would have been lovely to see them on-screen and enjoy having saved the day. But for a game that comes in with such an overstuffed premise to leave the player wanting more is no mean feat, and I definitely do want more: this may be Miss Gosling’s last case, but on the strength of what’s here I’d gladly play some prequels (dare I suggest that given the list of beta testers, a flashback crossover with Lady Thalia might not be out of the question?)

This was most my anticipated game of IF Comp, mostly because I’m convinced that it’s connected to Daniel Stelzer’s discovery of a murder mystery that says “do not break this seal”, a pseudonymous Twine entry titled “Uninteractive Fiction” that tells you not to play it, and the big IF Comp mystery.

I’m no further ahead on any of that, but I did enjoy “Miss Gosling.”

Here, you’re an aging private investigator, seemingly styled after Miss Marple. As the plot synopsis suggests, you’re dead, and you need to solve your own murder. Because you’re a ghost, you can’t physically interact with things. Instead, your dog Watson can handle some objects on your behalf if it’s plausible for him to do so.

Watson...(Spoiler - click to show)The dog is clearly named Watson in reference to Sherlock Holmes’ sidekick. Interestingly, Dr. Watson is usually the narrator of the Holmes stories, whereas Ms. Gosling is generally the third-person limited narrator in this game. The game’s mechanics convey the idea of “sidekick” here.

Limited Possibilities and Streamlined Actions

Because you’re generally instructing Watson what to do, the possible actions that you can perform are limited. This cuts down on the number of things you need to think about. For example, a dog can definitely pick up things with its mouth, can possibly pull a chain or turn on a stove, but definitely cannot pick locks.

The game also lampshades many of Watson’s more unlikely abilities in a very funny way — especially the fact that Miss Gosling had the foresight to teach the dog compass directions and how to take inventory.

The game also streamlines things in another important way. It often describes rooms and objects through Miss Gosling’s personal thoughts, feelings, and memories. For example, in the reception room:

You designed this room specifically for uninvited guests. Back when the front door was at the west end of the house, they’d have to wait awkwardly outside until you had the sitting room or dining room in order. Now, there’s a place to sit and take tea with them at a moment’s notice—and admire the framed case reports on the wall—and that can make witnesses ever so much more willing to open up. [List of exits]…

As a result, the objects you can interact with are very clearly set out. I rarely confused scenery with things that you can interact with. That made me open to trying combinations of things because I knew I probably hadn’t missed any vital place or object.

(On top of that, the fact that you can only handle one object at a time also helps cut down on possibilities. Plus, you can jump between rooms or jump to objects with a keyword. There is a lot of streamlining in this game.)

Approachable With Intuitive Puzzles

In all, it’s a very approachable game with intuitive puzzles. It also has Invisiclue-style hints, which are good for players like me who can’t usually solve everything. I’ll collapse my comments on puzzles here.

(Spoiler - click to show)One puzzle was a bit difficult. After moving a flashlight to a water logged room with a dumb-waiter, I had to move to the next room. So far so good.

However, I assumed I had to somehow hold the door open while holding the flashlight — possibly by propping the door open.

Instead, the game abruptly changes gears and requires you to navigate the next dark room by smelling based on a clue foreshadowed much earlier. Finally, it requires you to exit the dark room based on sounds that you need to set up. As always, not everyone a lot of difficulty with this, but I did.

On the flip side, there was a color-blindness puzzle that was over a bit too quickly. The game told me which roses to take as soon as I had looked through both tinted bottles. However, I hadn’t even started to work out the black-and-white light deductions that I expected I would have to do.

I expect “Miss Gosling” will do well in the comp. It’s innovative but has enough of a traditional structure and popular genre trappings to have broad appeal. The light humor is also very endearing.

It has link-based and parser-based play options, which should have further broad appeal. I hope it’s not overlooked because it’s listed under If Comp’s “other” category.

Ghost Gimmicks

One more thing. What Heart Heard Of, Ghost Guessed by Amanda Walker similarly lets you play as a ghost that can’t handle with physical in the usual sense. I like the idea, but I found it little confusing.

I don’t know how common the ghost gimmick is across the entire IF catalogue. Mathbrush also mentioned Erstwhile. Based on reviews, I think you need to read people’s minds. I don’t know if prevents you from handling objects. In fact, it’s choice based, so maybe the authors never implemented an object system in the first place.

On the face of it, I think “Miss Gosling’s” secondary-character-as-proxy approach is the most straightforward way of approaching ghostly limitations that I can think of. However, it does water down the limitation a little since the lost abilities are so replaced in such a direct way, for better or for worse.

This was a long game! It took me around 3 to 4 hours to finish, possibly because clicking links wasn't quite as fast as typing, but it went well.

Two of the most enjoyable murder mysteries of the last ten years are Erstwhile, a twine game where a ghost has to try to solve his own murder, and Toby's Nose, a parser game where a dog has to aid Sherlock Holmes.

This game combines the two! It's a parser-choice hybrid where you are a ghost that has to influence your dog to solve your own crime.

The setup is a classic murder mystery: you have died in the middle of the night, and four people stand to inherit from you. Each suspect has to be cleared or convicted before the day is through.

The game relies heavily on physics and on the five senses, as well as interactions with the neighboring humans.

Overall I found it very fun. I'd like to describe some nitpicks with the puzzles but those should come with the caveat that I had a good time!

The thing with some of the puzzles is that I could conceive of many possible solutions to problems but couldn't tell what the game was looking for or what effect things would have. How much do lights illuminate things? How far does sound travel? How does a dog communicate with a human?

I grew a bit frustrated, but a light bulb went off when I realized how few red herrings the game has (although they're there!). I changed from *deductive* reasoning to *inductive* reasoning. Instead of making a plan and trying to figure out how to achieve it, I looked at the items, actions and locations I hadn't used yet and thought, 'How can I do something with this?'

Occasionally there were plotlines that stretched my disbelief (especially the amount of things the dog got away with) but not so much more so than a normal mystery book.

Overall, I enjoyed the high level of polish. I realized later on that the 'find ____' options were actually really good at zipping you through the map quickly; if you remember where something is, you can just type it in and click on the 'find such and such' link and go there immediately. I also liked the characters of Watson and Davis.

The hint system works very well. The game has some automatic hints at the beginning which were a bit too spoilery for me, but fortunately the author has added a way to turn those off; the normal hints, on the other hand, can be accessed at any time.