Go to the game's main page
Review
Adapted from a Review-A-Thon 25 Review
Style: choice-select
Played : 7/21/25
Playtime: 15m, 3 endings
This "Penny Pinching Parity" work, another sub-500 joint, takes an interesting tack on the challenge. What better way to save word count than to dispense with subject-verb-object and articles, definite and otherwise? That’s a lot of linguistic dead weight, right?? Think how many more sentences can you get with one and two word constructions!
Our protagonist awakens from sort of sci-fi sleep pod. The reduced language of the piece conveys a deep disorientation, like the world in all its detail is simply TOO MUCH for the protag (and us) to process and the best we can do is loose impressions and sporadic detail focus. It cleverly puts the player on the same footing as the protag, grappling with overwhelmed senses to understand the truth of our situation. Seriously, no notes, just a wonderfully deliberate and effective use of wordplay to underscore the dramatic theme of the work. It’s hard to tell whether the Jam spurred this particular mood, or the mood found perfect lodging in this specific Jam - either way it ends up being a super good match.
In a Jam game this short, it is no criticism to say that this textual achievement is the showpiece and central achievement of the game. Its characters, and to lesser extent plot twists, are dispensed rather expeditiously in the three endings. Constrained by format to almost speed run its revelations, the work firmly embraces Twilight Zoney tropes and mood. (Or maybe Outer Limits-y?) It’s the kind of work that shows its limitations and mitigating strategy boldly, openly, but STILL feels natural and unconstrained in its discipline. It gets where it wants to go with precision and calculated effect, and succeeds extremely well at it. It feels for all the world like a super controlled narrative of intriguing mood that HAPPENS to conform to this Jam’s rules, not something force fit.
My only friction with this work was not with its narrative, not at all, but with its technical choices. As a link-select work, its links are presented inline, with highlighted words to expand or direct the story in specific ways. This is implemented as a continually-building screen of text, where clicking (when not wiping the screen for a new ‘scene’) adds lines of text to the display. Until it gets too big for the window where it must scroll. Yet subsequent links remain stranded at the top of the page and not repeated. The effect of this choice is to require a back and forth scrolling: click link at top of page, scroll to bottom to read, return to top for more linkage. This mechanically clumsy interaction mode forced a level of fiddly clarity that worked against the impressionistic language and mood it was building. My sense is the work would be stronger with a different, less deliberate and mechanical UI model.
Otherwise, pitch perfect.
Another sub-500 review achieved! I am powerless before my conceits.
