Miss Gosling's Last Case

Adapted from an IFCOMP24 Review

Earlier this COMP I bemoaned, multiple times, the lack of a convincing Twinesformer link-select/parser hybrid paradigm that didn’t make drudgery of its UI. Let me destroy suspense by saying Miss Gosling might have solved the case! Between the game’s use of inline directional and object links, and a sly ‘contextual command box’ which both segregates from the transcript proper, AND tries to anticipate player moves enough to provide a hopefully-relevant subset of command space, things felt smoother here than any alternative I can think of. Crucially, the command box responds to player input, not game state, which is a very subtle, but essential design choice. It would be too easy to fall into a game state trap that inadvertently spoiled or hinted solution space just by virtue of options presented. I found this UI gratifyingly neutral and responsive.

Other design choices were equally powerful. It includes both an in-game map and progressive hint file. I love map inclusion whenever the protagonist is in a familiar setting, bypassing the narratively unrewarding ‘exploration of notionally known environs’ portion of the program. The hint system was also precisely engineered. Progressive invisiclues are the perfect paradigm for an intellectually limited player like me. When I needed to consult them, they provided just the right level of imprecise goosing to get me going again.

More on the graphic design: from the font/graphic layout, to the use of colors to sidebar gameplay outside the story (like score, task list, etc) - keeping those things graphically distinct isolated them from the narrative, mostly, to let the story play unhindered. The score/progress bar was both understated, but prominent enough to instill confidence in the player experience. There were some mild intrusions, I felt, when the game judged I was spinning too long and threw in not-so-subtle hints pointing me to the path. I like the impulse of that idea, helping players get their footing, but found the implementation erred on the intrusive side. Even a menu choice to call it up, or tune the internal counters might have eased that a bit. Or just leave it to invisiclues.

Really though, that very tepid criticism is the only reservation I have with this work. The central conceit - an Agatha Christie-esque detective ghost solving her own murder with the help of a dog who is the only being that can still see her - just awesome, no notes. The puzzle design is flat out fantastic - it explicitly plumbs the capabilities and limitations of a canine protagonist (guided by human ghost) in strikingly varied ways. If you carry some pop culture knowledge of dog trivia, rest assured the game has a puzzle that maps to it. A very satisfying, very clever implementation of it. It really is the centerpiece of the work, foregrounding canine capabilites in every puzzle. The protagonist and all the NPCs, y’know, the HUMANS in the work, draw on detective fiction tropes in a pleasant, if not revolutionary way. I wouldn’t say any of them are all-timers, but they are all very functional in their service of the plot, and at least gifted with personality shorthand that makes them more than scenery. The ghosty protagonist is further delightfully of-her-time, with turn of the century cultural and technical observations that build a seamless environment to dog around in. Even the background/lore dump artifacts were rendered with flair and amusing protagonist commentary.

[Admire the restraint I have so far employed, not once turning this review into a dog v cat thing. That was the previous draft.]

Yeah, this was an engaging romp with really excellent and thoughtful gameplay. I was outright angry that I couldn’t finish it by judging time. Sometimes, in games with hints and walkthroughs, I will make the call at the 1:45 mark to just run the walkthrough to end, in interests of giving a thorough assessment to the game. Here, I did not even consider it. The story was laid out well enough, the puzzles designed strongly enough, the UI engineered precise enough, I felt like not ONLY did I have the measure of the game, I WANTED to see it through, COMP judging be damned! Well done game, you have turned me on my COMP bosses!

Played: 10/1/24
Playtime: 2hr, score 13/18, unfinished
Artistic/Technical ratings: Engaging/Seamless
Would Play Again?: Yeah, gonna finish

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

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.

With Inform's core code having grown so much that only the smallest scenarios produced by it will still fit within Z-machine, one might wonder whether that venerable format is destined for the dustbin of history. Sure, there are still people actively using Inform 6 with the PunyInform library to make Z-code games for retrocomputing platforms, but that's a niche within a niche. With this work, author Daniel Stelzer proves that the Z-machine is still a vital platform when used with the relatively new but sophisticated Dialog language.

Miss Gosling's Last Case plays very well. Puzzles are meticulously designed and well-suited to appeal to those who would be attracted to the murder mystery genre -- requiring an active imagination that takes careful notice both of what is said and what can be imagined about the scenario being depicted.

Only basic verbs and simple commands are in use, a constraint imposed by the separation of story protagonist from primary actor. By ensuring that there is an in-game reason for preferring simplicity, the player is subconsciously prompted to throw out any ideas for actions that cross a certain low threshold of complexity. It gives something of the feel of a limited parser game without actually being one.

The game's text has an emphasis on providing backstory and characterization, largely eliding physical descriptions of the scene outside of a few key objects. This is done skillfully -- at first I did not notice the style, because room description text provides introductory exposition as the player gets familiar with the situation. Should the lack of detail become noticeable, that is a cue the player should simplify the approach being taken. The object implementation is spare enough that, should imagination fail, even brute force approaches are likely to pay off within a reasonable number of commands.

Quite a lot of work has been put into creating a smooth and seamless play experience. New players will benefit from many "invisible" parts of the system that are designed to support that goal. First and foremost are >FIND and >GO TO verbs that make navigation as simple as can be. Object disambiguation is handled with a numbered selection that makes it very clear how the parser is "thinking," and that in combination with very descriptive error messages will rapidly train a new player in the preferred method of interaction. More subtly, the game design itself ensures a sharp focus on specific goals at all times, even during the middle game when one has a choice of order in which to pursue subgoals. Lastly, the introductory scene offers a tutorial voice that is sure to help total newbies get started with a parser, though it is extraneous to someone familiar with the form.

My initial impulse is to give this game four stars, which translates roughly as "distinctly above average" and/or "highly recommended" in my rating scale, but there are a couple of minor shortcomings that keep it just below that threshold. One of the segments (Spoiler - click to show)(involving identifying a rosebush of blooms with a particular color) does not feel as well-implemented as the others. (Spoiler - click to show)Specifically, although a point is awarded when the correct actions have been taken, the player is not notified about which rosebush is correct and must deduce it from some diagrams. This is not difficult, but neither is it particularly interesting, and stylistically it is out of step with the rest of the work by adding even a speck of unnecessary friction. Also, the multiple locations of the tea garden just seem "deader" than other parts of the house from a writing perspective; they are restricted to repetitive descriptions of largely undifferentiated locations with few objects. Perhaps less important but worthy of adjustment is the pacing in the final scene. (Spoiler - click to show)It took several tries to work out the correct move to trigger a win, and it felt very arbitrary that it should be that move which does so. Repeated barking should be just as effective given the situation, and would be the low-friction option to conclude the game after the real puzzle has been solved. As a final nitpick, it would be nice to be able to turn off the tutorial mode at the beginning. (Note that any or all of these criticisms may have been negated in release 2, which was recently posted.)

I'm going to go ahead and round up a bit for my star rating, though I'll hold off on letting it count toward the average in the hopes of a post-comp release to sand off the handful of remaining rough edges. In the meantime, I do very much recommend this piece to anyone looking for a bit of fun, and I would even suggest it (with reference to the provided hints, if needed) as a first experience with IF for someone who likes the murder mystery genre. My hat is off to Stelzer for creating a first-class introductory work easily on a par with Infocom's best of that type. Bravo!

[Note: It turns out that much of the preceding unintentionally -- but almost exactly -- echoes an off-site review by PB Parjeter, which was written prior to this and to which I've added a link on the game's page here. I guess that's evidence that the observations are well-founded!]

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.