Why Pout?

I beta tested Why Pout? in an almost-finished state.

Like a good portion of of Andrew Schultz’s catalogue, this is a wordplay game. Here, you’re manipulating homophones to transform objects.

Decent Plot Beats

I think I’ve played four of Andrew’s games over the last decade, most recently Tours Roust Torus in 2022. I get the sense that he constructed the world for Why Pout? a little more thoroughly than he did for his other games.

Why Pout? relies a bit on fantasy tropes, but never to the point of cliché, and it has some decent plot beats built around identity and comradery.

I don’t agree with BJ Best's criticism that the gameplay suffers from ludonarrative dissonance simply because the puzzles use arbitrary objects.

Looking to other games for precedent … one title that set a high standard in this regard is Counterfeit Monkey, which touched on themes of separation and unity both in its puzzle design and its plot/characters. It also featured an endless variety of shapeshiftable objects that were often out of place or inappropriate, sometimes to humorous effect.

Why Pout? doesn’t attempt anything as ambitious as Counterfeit Monkey. Still, I think that puzzles, wordplay-based or not, necessarily provide enough of a basis for any sort of plot about overcoming challenges. The specifics don’t always matter.

(I also think that no matter how well a wordplay game connects story and gameplay, it’s always going to feel a bit weird to play. That’s not a bad thing.)

Challenging Wordplay Puzzles

I also wanted to comment on difficulty. After reading a few other reviews, I think I can safely say that Why Pout? is a challenging game at times.

Most puzzles are mandatory. Critically, BJ Best had trouble with some of the same homophones that I did, particularly (Spoiler - click to show)MENSCH ELF and MANNA CURB (Mike Russo also had trouble with the second one. According to Tabitha it’s not mandatory, though? I thought it was.)

There were a few other ones I had trouble with. Part of the problem might be this: I believe Andrew was going for perfect or near-perfect homophones. I think that matches that don’t sound so perfect might be more intuitive. I think players would be more likely to try commonplace words even if those words are not perfect homophones — though I can’t prove it.

To be clear: even though I found the game hard, it wasn’t always hard. I got through a good chunk of the middle game without hints, and I enjoyed the parts I did solve on my own.

**Why Pout?** by Andrew Schultz

Andrew Schultz has a long history of making wordplay games which all follow the same general pattern (typing words based on an overarching wordplay theme using words that appear in the location) as well as a large repertoire of other games (like chess games and even a baseball game).

His longest running series, called 'Prime Pro-Rhyme Row', involves rhyming pairs of words. While fun, I had the feeling it was getting mined out.

This game takes on a fresh mechanic that still involves two-word pairs. Unlike the rhyming games, which could be slowly brute-forced by trying each letter of the alphabet and then adding multi-consonant starters, this puzzle type (which I won't spoil just in case) can be solved through multiple means, including auditory and mechanical, but with much less possible lawnmowering.

That's not to say it's trivial. I did use hints a couple of times. It turned out one puzzle was there that I didn't even realize was a puzzle that was gating all the others.

Anyway, the story here is mostly surreal, with a sequence of random, fantastical things that don't exactly fit a coherent narrative, but the overarching plot is heartwarming and fun: you're collecting friends. In different areas you find people that need help, and, in return, they help you solve more of your puzzles, and can give you pep talks as well.

This is a lot of fun. The pep talks can be nice, too. Some are more general and vague:

> The ________ discusses ways to identify people or situations that justneed a bit of help, and how to do so without making them feel
> hopeless or in need of help, or that they got themselves in this
> position in the first place.

while others are more concrete:

> You think up a ________ you mumble under your breath. The
> merchant finds it a bit weird you like THAT as a way to keep positive.
> It doesn’t seem like that sort of thing helps the economy. Their
> cheeriness slips slightly, with impressively-balanced potshots at
> people more and less successful than they are.

I prefer the more concrete ones, as they have a lot of character.

Overall, this was fun. Recommended for fans of wordplay parser games.

Adapted from an IFCOMP24 Review

Another in a great line of wordplay larks from ANDREW that I might both love AND RUE. Will I prove a BEARD OWNING wizened sage, or a BEER DOWNING rummy of regret? Shall my intellect soar with eagles among their ACORN AERIE, or will these puzzles give me A COR’NARY? Oh, I could go on, don’t dare me.

Another really fun outing in a series that is a beacon of comfort in the IFCOMP landscape (not unlike DiBianca’s ouvre’, at least prior to my epic fail this year). Comfort food kind of feels like a back handed compliment, doesn’t it? “I love it because it is so FAMILIAR…” These may not be the words an artist wants to hear, but y’know what? I love meatloaf, and will eat it wherever and whenever it is on offer. Same for peach cobbler. Their flavors are consistently rewarding, and each encounter adds to the warm encounters before it, transforming it to a memory-infused repast of happy. Sure, your molecular cooking experiments may dazzle in novelty but they simply cannot carry the emotional resonances that enrich say Christmas breakfast casserole. Thanks for trying, vapor steak, but no.

It takes a moment to adjust to this particular brand of wordplay, but as usual once up to speed the giddy head scratching begins! The intro text marks this as ‘less difficult’ than others in the series and that is probably so, just on the nature of the wordplay involved. I needed the walkthrough far less here, actually mostly when specific locations or directions were required, not so much for the wordplay itself. There were some unfinished aspects to it. I believe I got a message saying ‘put better details here’ or somesuch, and toughest, the penultimate location had no direction pointers to the final location, it was not clear I was not in a dead end! Only the walkthrough told me a direction to try. While notable, and perhaps defeating without hint or walkthrough, presence of hints allowed me to route around blockage to fully appreciate the work on hand. Take heed other works!

I must say, I particularly enjoyed the profanity optional room. I found those puzzles so obvious as to really question my standing in polite society, but also kind of charming in how awkward they seemed against this author’s much squeakier writing persona. Andrew may be a seasoned sailor on the swearing seas, but his writing does not give that impression. It was kind of endearing, honestly. Usually, I top these joints out at Sparks, but in deference to the power of comfort food am upgrading it this year to Engaging, with Notable unfinished artifacts.

In the end, despite warnings they might IMPART ACHE, I proclaimed, “I’M PARTAKE!” I followed the FANCIFUL CRUMBS, arming myself with logical FANCY FULCRUMS against these puzzles. I avoided mental FUNKY STROKES and had a solid session of
_ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

I told you not to test me. I have no shame.

Played: 10/2/24
Playtime: 1.75hr, 54/54
Artistic/Technical ratings: Engaging/Notable missing navigation cues!
Would Play Again?: No, experience feels complete

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