Go to the game's main page
Review
Played: 7/6/24
Playtime: 10min, 4 playthroughs
Hm. This is the latest work that confounds my reductive reviewing approach with another in a seemingly endless series of ‘howmygonnadothis?’ choices to make. When reviewing for Comps, judging is in the mix so I feel compelled to explore the factors that led to a specific rating. That pressure/justification is absent here. While my aim is more towards fellow players and the author, I try to be congizant of the Key Review Question.
The unspoken question is ‘is this worth a player’s time, and if so, what kind of player?’ Single-conceit Jam games are typically so brief that it would be near impossible to fail that test. BUT, they are also so brief that their single is conceit IS THE WHOLE THING. So if, in a review, I tell you the single conceit there is nothing left to experience unspoiled. In a large game, spoilers may not be ideal, but with some surgical precision you can limit the damage while making relevant points. In a small game, there may not be much left after the damage.
Sure, that’s kinda what spoiler tags are for, but also is our global energy system well served by delivering scads of 100% illegible reviews to browsers across the planet?
What I can say is that this work telegraphs a kind of distasteful style of gameplay, but whose central conceit thoroughly and completely redeems it. Even THAT feels spoilery. Is gameplay fun? I wouldn’t say that. Is it engaging? A little too prickly and bare bones for that. But its central message and (Spoiler - click to show)gameplay headfake are well rendered at exactly the right size, exactly the right conciseness to drive its message home. Its prickliness serves that conceit wonderfully. I found this game expertly calibrated and pretty darn cool.
