Go to the game's main page
Review
Adapted from an IFCOMP25 Review
Where is the line between evaluating a work on its intrinsic merits, and in the context of its ongoing franchise? I don’t mean in the sense of specific observations about a work - those are not so difficult to categorize, usually. I mean in the sense of reviewer responsibility? Is it more dishonest to pretend the work has no prior art that informs a player’s experience? Or to dote on that prior art, shortchanging the merits of individual entries? Is it even possible to talk about, say Buffy the Vampire Slayer and NOT contrast seasons 3 and 6?
“Reviewer,” you say, “surely you can do BOTH?” To which I say, “Well, I don’t see you in my Patreon Supporters feed, do I?” It feels like this abbreviated IFCOMP25 review cycle of mine has thrown this question into high relief. Fully 5/10 of the works I chose to review are part of an ongoing series - chosen in part BECAUSE of their lineage and my engagement with them. This is a naturally human impulse, right? To want to reengage something that previously delighted you? It’s not a failure of imagination or discipline on my part? …Right?
As a standalone parser game, Phobos is squarely in the puzzle tradition of IF. A series of code-locked doors that gate plot revelations and objects useful in future puzzles. All to foil a plot to keep an errant moon from being propelled at inhabited Mars like a cosmic cue ball. Just another day at work for Galaxy Jones! I found the puzzles (alien language code breaking and math tricks) to be a series of really satisfying variations on a theme, that built in complexity in a very natural way. It was rare that I was unsure what to try next - the codes rewarded experimentation and lateral thinking. A particular fave was one that incorporated background environment noise into its solution.
Additionally, you possess a gimcrack that slowly translates that alien language, metering out background revelations in a very satisfying and well-paced way. There was one moment that brought an audible gasp from me, when that omnipresent voiceover was revealed to be (Spoiler - click to show)a countdown!. It was a great moment of tension amidst as capable and tight a collection of parser puzzles as I’ve seen in a while, rewarding attention to environment and background lore in equal measure.
There was another gasp elicited from me during gameplay. In the single greatest moment(s) of the previous game, perhaps in all of IF 2023, the ascii messages that accompanied point-earning accomplishments was a shot of pure joy, doing so much to set the tone of the first work. I knew it was coming, I had seen the preview screenshots, yet it still thrilled me when it showed up!
The second time it showed up, I knew I would be unable to complete this review without leaning on comparison. See, the prior work was a high speed pulp adventure. GJ was an action hero of infinite resourcefulness. In my memory, every instance of point earning was through derring-do and unapologetic two-fisted action. That reward text underlined and emphasized her action hero bona fides, announcing that YES! Galaxy Jones is DOING HER THING!
This entry is a more deliberative puzzle solver. Not puzzles couched as action setpieces, or use-objects-in-weird-way gymnastics. Actual logic, code-breaking problems. Now OF COURSE GJ can handle those. It’s just, I wasn’t quite prepared for her to EXCLUSIVELY handle those. Fully two thirds of my awarded points were code breaking. It made for an odd dynamic. The puzzles were MORE engaging and much more tightly crafted. But narratively it felt neutered compared to the messy, propulsive heart of the first episode. The puzzle solving banner is less a full-throated celebration of our protagonist, as it is a marker of task accomplishment. I kinda loved the former more?
Of a piece is the action-based climax. It built on a surprisingly complex bit of lore, leaning on empathy and tragedy in a very sophisticated (the more impressive for its brevity and conciseness) way. Which is to say, NOT the black and white of pulp adventures. This was very well done! This was also ever so slightly at odds with the tone of its predecessor. I did a quick mental exercise. What if I encountered these two in reverse order? Would my opinion of either of them change?
I don’t think so. I liked each of these for their disparate charms and strengths. Both easily outpaced any glitches or implementation issues (which were fewer here, though still occasional). I’m just a little asea because I can’t quite fit them together. Nor can I, much as I feel like it’s probably my reviewer obligation to try, RESIST DOING SO. It feels like that is an abuse of the series-review tension? A pretty damning failure of my imagination on my part.
Played: 11/10/25
Playtime: 1.25hr, score 9/11 with three deliberately engaged obvious death endings
Artistic/Technical ratings: Engaging/Mostly Seamless, totally unfair penalty point for inheritance dissonance
Would Play After Comp?: I do feel like I will be revisiting both of these in the years to come.
Artistic/Technical ratings:
Artistic scale: Bouncy, Mechanical, Sparks of Joy, Engaging, Transcendent
Technical scale: Unplayable, Intrusive, Notable (Bugginess), Mostly Seamless, Seamless
