Thread unlocked.

Thread Unlocked is another Neo-Twiny Jam entry like Idle Hands, but instead of using its scant 500 words to communicate an entire, but linear, self-contained experience, it allows the player to construct one of a myriad of one- or two-line forum posts, which gain power from your ability to imagine all that’s come before and all that will come after. The game’s opening wrings as much dread as any horror movie out of just four words: “Thread unlocked. Slowmode off.” We don’t know where we are, or what exactly was being discussed before the modhammer came down (though c’mon, it was probably AI) – all that matters is that we now have a renewed outlet for our feelings, which the mandatory cooling-off period has done nothing to quench.

You build your responses one word at a time, from a choice of two or three, until you’ve picked four, at which point the game extrapolates out a full, short post. This filling out of the prompts provides the game’s energetic kick, because the pieces that are in your control are pretty much just throat-clearing – “well now there’s another,” “you are not being”, “can I just say”. Seeing these banal introductions turned into discourse-interventions that are sure to wind up escalating things is gleefully groan-worthy; after running through the mechanic a couple of times, I started to feel the same exuberant anticipatory outrage I experience when seeing that there’ve been new posts to a contentious thread.

The responses are all there is to the game, while they vary, it’s not over a wide range. Still, they’re not all just flame-bait. Some are passive-aggressive:

"You are not being very thoughtful with your words. Can you delete what you just said, or I’ll have to flag you."

Some are vain attempts to tamp down the disagreement:

"Well now there’s another thread on sensitive topics. Leave it alone, I tell you."

And there’s at least one that’s actually nice:

"Can I just say that really means a lot to me! Thank you. I can’t express my gratefulness!"

(I stopped after getting this one, figuring I’d quit while I was ahead).

Again, you never see what prompted these posts, or what comes after them, which helps the purity of the gag stand out in sharp relief: it’s notable that there’s no option not to post, you always have to say something and that something will almost always be calculated to keep the bad feelings going until the thread is inevitably re-locked. Part of me wishes that the writing was a bit less generic, that there were more specific jokes or different voices woven into the responses, because I did find that they got a little same-y after a while. But I think that would have wound up undercutting the structuralist point the game is making: Internet arguments are all alike, and however much we might like to think of ourselves as above the fray, even the most anodyne point is likely to feed the flames. The way to win Thread Unlocked is not to play, but where’s the fun in that?

This twine game starts with a phrase that can be clicked on, which makes one word unclickable while new clickable words appear, forming a sentence the longer you click.

I thought at first there was one link per page, and so I just clicked quickly, and I got the same result a couple of times, so I figured it was just random.

Then I realized that you're actually building sentences one word at a time, which I thought was really neat.

All the messages are related to the kinds of things people say to each in heated or repetitive forum threads. They are vague enough to be generally applicable in many situations. I think I might have liked even more specificity, more details to make it feel more grounded, or a variety of distinct 'voices', but this was pretty fun.

Played: 7/20/24
Playtime: 5min, lost count of playthroughs, so many

Just when I think IF has shown me all it has to offer, works still manage to surprise me. Ok, that’s a statement of unearned hubris. This work though, is a one-conceit jam whose hook is discovering that one conceit. And that one conceit is surprising and unique, once discovered. So yeah, another work whose impact can really only be discussed with spoilers. Here’s what I’m gonna do: try it without, then clarify that exercise in opacity behind spoiler protection.

This is a conversation tree of sorts, where you are selecting a word at a time until you reach critical mass and a sentence is revealed. It lives completely in replays, where the narrative (such as it is) is assembled from multiple, multiple endpoints. It momentarily gives the appearance of agency, but is quickly revealed to be an excavation exercise not a building one. The player is more assembling the variations in their head than guiding their creation. It is a unique formula I had not seen before and ultimately the revelation it builds to is unexpected if not necessarily dramatic. It also has a point of view on its surprise.

Um, it is default Twine also? I think I am out of non-spoiler gas. Ok then.

(Spoiler - click to show)As the final sentences multiply, the player gradually realizes these are all post excerpts from an unnamed, toxic online discussion thread. The sentences are curated specifically to capture the anonymous rancor, the self-righteous high grounding, and petty ad hominem attacks of its inspiration. The surprise understanding of what we are reading is the game’s one conceit, and the surprise is effective. It is also… incomplete? No, that’s not the word. Lacking? Hmm, no. Unsatisfying? Kind of. What it does well is capture sentences of generic application, such that devoid of context they still ring completely true to the conceit. There is also some slyness to the idea that common word choices can lead to very different outcomes, hinging on a single word. This itself feels like a condemning comment on its inspiration, and not an unwarranted one. But because it is devoid of context, it is unclear (Spoiler - click to show)WHOSE rancor is being skewered. The likely intent is that ALL of it is, but some of the entreaties actually change pretty significantly if interpreted with one context vs another. Meaning, some sentences come off as earnestly high ground, but whose meaning could curdle pretty quickly in specific context, and it is not clear the author sees that. It has the effect of coming across as authorial reproach rather than cold documentation. That perhaps unintended undercurrent, for me, made the work more difficult. Intellectually, I presume the author does not intend this, that the lack of context alone should telegraph the intent. (Spoiler - click to show)But the phrasing of some it is somehow… sympathetic? In a way that suggested to me some amount of ‘Monday Morning Zinger’ agenda, like some phrases were more right than others. That language artifact, which I presume is what it is, diluted what could have been the work’s more powerful message for me.