Category: Misc

Things that don’t fit in any other category

Glass by Emily Short [misc]

[This review appeared in issue #45 of SPAG. The issue was published on July 17, 2006.]

I’ve barely begun to explore the capabilities of Inform 7 (I7), partly because its appearance has rekindled my interest in actually playing IF. In that vein, I continue to explore the games that were released with I7 as “Worked Examples”. Having made my way through Bronze, Emily Short’s adaptation of Beauty And The Beast, I came next to Glass, in which she similarly adapts Cinderella. Actually, perhaps “similarly” isn’t the right word here — where Bronze was all about landscape and puzzles, Glass resides on the other side of the spectrum, focusing entirely on character and conversation.

There are other differences, too. Although both works are meant primarily as example I7 code, Bronze feels like a full-fledged game, while Glass plays much more like a demo, or perhaps an experimental comp entry. That isn’t to say that there aren’t interesting ideas embedded in Glass — there are, and I plan to discuss them — but the experience of playing it feels altogether more slight than solving Bronze. Not only is it simply a smaller game, it also demands less interaction from the player; “Z.Z.Z.Z.Z.Z.Z.Z.Z.Z.Z.Z.Z” is a valid walkthrough, though perhaps not to the best ending.

Those endings are important. Like some other short replay-cycle games, Glass layers on story elements by making less-than-optimal endings the most easily reachable. There aren’t a terribly large number of endings (another factor making the game feel a bit thin), but it’s unlikely that most players will reach the best ending first. Along the way, they’ll learn more about the motivations of each character, and in fact more about some hidden details of the game’s main scene.

This information in turn adds meaning to the rest of the paths to be found in the game. It’s a variation on the “accretive PC” model of knowledge I discussed in my review of Lock & Key on IF-Review. The difference is that the news gained through these sub-optimal endings doesn’t so much help the player better direct the PC or better solve the game, but it does lend additional drama to the other branches of the story. I suppose this game gives us accretive NPCs more than an accretive PC.

However, there are some tricks at work with PC knowledge, too. The player/PC knowledge divide is one of the thornier fundamental problems of IF — a player new to the game will almost inevitably know less about the character and game-world than the PC does, and both the game and the player often start out by scrambling to narrow the gap. There are some workarounds for this, amnesia being the more traditional and popular, while accretive PCs are a more recent innovation.

Glass has found another: base your game on a story with which the vast majority of your audience is already familiar. Bronze was an imaginative variation on Beauty and The Beast, but it neither shed a great deal of light on the original tale nor did it require much information about that tale from the player. Our familiarity with the base story helps us get up to speed on who the PC is, but it isn’t otherwise exploited. However, in Glass, the player must bring to bear knowledge from outside the game in order to reach the best ending. For anyone familiar with most any version the fairy tale, this gambit should work well, though perhaps not right away. Still, it’s an ingenious way of bridging the information gap between player and PC — I’m surprised we haven’t seen more of this strategy before. I suppose there are only a limited number of stories with which authors can assume widespread audience familiarity, and an even smaller number of those that aren’t still under copyright.

With this bridge in place, then, Glass is free to disconcert us a bit as well. For one thing, the player character has some rather surprising qualities (and that’s all I’ll say…), which are left for players to discover rather than being announced upfront. Not only that, the game’s take on the Cinderella tale is less than traditional. In keeping with many modern treatments of fairy tales, its approach to the story’s villains is a little more sympathetic, and its portrayal of the heroes is a little more ambivalent. I would have expected Emily Short to bring some subversive ideas to any fairy tale she touched, and she doesn’t disappoint here.

One more note: in the article I wrote for the long-awaited IF Theory book, I mentioned that it was hard for me to imagine how the basic component of landscape could be extracted from interactive fiction, since as soon as the first room description appears, the game introduces a concept of geographical location. Well, Glass is the game that breaks that model — it has no room descriptions whatsoever. That doesn’t mean it’s without a landscape, though. It’s just that instead of presenting a landscape of Place, Glass instead gives us a landscape of Concept. The NPCs traverse a conversational terrain with particular goals in mind, and at every prompt the PC can try to steer that travel to influence its destination. It’s a compact territory, but well worth exploring.

Finding Martin by G.K. Wennstrom [misc]

[This review appeared in issue #45 of SPAG. The issue was published on July 17, 2006.]

In an era of bite-sized IF, Finding Martin is a 12-course meal. Actually, it’s more like one of those progressive dinners, where you go from one house to the next, a different course at each house, for a total of 12 courses in the evening. Except it’s more like going to one of those every night for two weeks.

Seriously, this game is HUGE. This is the kind of game where you might find an item with ten different modes, many of which can be used to adjust the item to one of its 720 different settings (and some of which do other things entirely), settings which are split into twelve different themed sections, many of which give hints, some of which give red herrings, and some of which perform game functions. I am not exaggerating. And that’s just one item out of dozens and dozens you’ll find in this game way way way before you get anywhere near finding Martin himself.

If you love yourself a big, juicy puzzlefest, Finding Martin is cause for celebration. It’s several times larger and more complex than anything Infocom ever attempted, and it’s generally quite well-implemented. I encountered a number of glitches in my journey through the game, but they were all minor — typos, missing synonyms, and underimplemented parsing mostly. There are a few logic errors here and there, but nothing game-crashing, and in fact very little that even caused me any trouble with a puzzle. Moreover, these problem areas are a very small percentage of the game itself, and this is a game that implements some highly complex behavior. A few errors here and there are quite forgivable in a game this ambitious in scope.

As for the puzzles themselves, the news is again mostly good. Most of the challenges are logical, and some are quite clever indeed. In particular, there’s a puzzle (or maybe it would be more accurate to call it a suite of puzzles) toward the end of the game that is astoundingly intricate and deeply satisfying, the kind of a puzzle that would make up the entirety of another game.

It’s a time-travel scenario that takes the groundwork laid by Sorcerer and expands it by an order of magnitude, asking you to consider the relations between a number of different time-slices as well as to coordinate the actions of multiple past selves with the actions of your current self in order to bypass certain barriers. However, well before you reach that puzzle you’ll have made your way through a large number of obstacles that should scratch any inveterate puzzler’s itch.

Not only that, the puzzles frequently build on each other, and most of the goals require several components to achieve. Finding Martin‘s world can feel astonishingly layered and convoluted. I frequently found that the discovery of a new item or command would add new dimensions to the pieces of the game I’d already uncovered, and that their interactions would open up new avenues for exploration.

Of course, the flip side to this is that such a discovery would often compel me to explore the game’s giant world yet again, trying the new key to see if it would unlock any heretofore unseen doors. At time, the gameworld feels like an obsessive-compulsive’s paradise, but at least most of the interactions seem logical once they’ve been found.

Unfortunately, not all the puzzles manage to meet the same high standards. There are a number of read-the-author’s-mind stumpers spread throughout the game. Some of these just require induction stretched absurdly far, but for several others I still have no idea how I was supposed to come up with the solution.

There’s another category, too: puzzles whose solution required some kind of cultural referent which I lacked, a la Zork II‘s baseball puzzle. Finding Martin‘s pedigree consists mostly of geek lore like Monty Python and Douglas Adams, and that stuff I’ve got covered, but a couple of puzzles require knowledge of Asian customs that I only learned from the walkthrough.

On the flip side of read-the-author’s-mind are “puzzles” whose solution is entirely arbitrary but so heavily clued that the game pretty much just tells you what it is. Imagine a dark room with a description along these lines: “It’s impossible to see anything in this room — this must be what a cinnamon roll feels like when it’s in the oven!” And lo and behold, you just happen to find a cinnamon roll later in the game, so when you bring it into the dark room and eat it, the cinnamon-oriented olfactory sensors in the walls detect it and turn on the lights, just as they’ve been programmed to do by the house’s exceedingly eccentric and patient owner. That example isn’t from the game, but there are several puzzles in there that are cut from the same cloth.

The substandard puzzles are a minority, and they certainly aren’t enough to ruin the game, but my advice is: don’t be afraid to bust out the walkthrough. Yes, sometimes you may find that a perfectly logical solution was staring you in the face, but other times you’ll be relieved to just take the rather farfetched solution and move on with your life. Happily, the author is kind enough to provide a walkthrough on her web page that is broken up into 5-point clusters so as not to give away too much at once.

However, if I may offer one more piece of advice: download the full walkthrough from that page and tuck it away somewhere on your hard drive. Otherwise, you may find yourself, as I did, stuck two-thirds of the way through the game and panicking because the author’s site has gone down. Luckily for me, the page came back up the next day and I found some cached bits on Yahoo in the meantime, but I could have saved a good deal of time and stress if I’d just had the full walkthrough to fall back on.

Finally, take heed of the author’s advice in the intro text: save your game a LOT. There were quite a number of times I found myself returning to an earlier savegame because I was trapped without a necessary item, or I wanted to undo something I’d done a bit improperly a few hundred moves earlier. Actually, that brings me to one of my chief gripes about Finding Martin: it sets a few arbitrary limits, ostensibly in the name of realism but functionally just to irritate the player. Chief among these is an inventory limit. Let’s face it: this is not a game that holds realism particularly dear. Many of its puzzles consist of caprice and whimsy, and its entire plot is metaphysical to say the least. However, for some reason it decided that the player should only be able to carry a limited number of objects, and it failed to provide any kind of bottomless sack-type object to circumvent this limit.

Not only that, there’s a puzzle component that steals items when they’re dropped on the ground. Even more confoundingly, commands like PUT ALL ON TABLE are met with the response, “One thing at a time, please.” And of course, there are many many journeys to pocket worlds whose obstacles require that the player has brought a particular item. Frequent were the times I cursed at this game for the way it forced me into numbingly dull inventory management tasks when I wanted to be having fun instead. Also, there are several instances of the game being pointlessly obtuse, along these lines:

>READ BIG BOOK
First you'd need to open it.

Come on. This is 2006 — we know by now that READ implies OPEN. Such obstructionist world-modeling benefits nobody.

I’m not sure if responses like this one and the response to PUT ALL are TADS default behavior. I do know that I sometimes wished this game had been written in Inform, so that I could get certain pieces of the Inform default functionality. Besides the lack of a sack_object, I was jonesing hard for an OBJECTS verb that would let me see all the items in the game I’d found up to that point. Similarly, a FULLSCORE command that told me all the puzzles I’d solved so far would have been most welcome, especially given how many times I had to restore back to an earlier saved game. Finally, having just played Bronze, I really missed conveniences like GO TO that allow me to traverse the game world without rattling off memorized directions to the parser.

Okay, I’ve been complaining for a while, which makes it sound like I didn’t enjoy the game. That’s not true — overall I had plenty of fun. It’s just a similar feeling to what I had when playing Once And Future, another enormous old-school puzzlefest. Like OAF, Finding Martin provides lots of opportunities to feel that satisfying click as logical components snap together, but forces a little too much tedium on the player after that click has happened.

It’s the figuring-out that’s the fun part of a puzzle, not the follow-through of putting twenty pieces in just the right place once you know where they’re supposed to go. Several of this game’s puzzles would have been much more fun if they’d provided some way of automating that follow-through once the player has demonstrated understanding of the basic concept.

Enough about the puzzles anyway. What about the story? Well, actually, the story is pretty much MIA for the first third or so of the game. We begin with a reasonably compelling premise: your brilliant but peculiar friend Martin has disappeared, and his family has asked you to explore his house in hopes of finding him. Why you and not, say, the police? Well, it seems that you may just be close enough to Martin’s highly bizarre mindset to understand how to find him when the police wouldn’t even be able to get in the door. Strong echoes of Hollywood Hijinx abound as you poke through rooms laden with fascinating devices and hidden exits, but there’s not much more story to be had for a while.

Finally, the game begins doling out plot in awkward lumps, but about two-thirds of the way through, these lumps smooth out and the story begins to tie together as more and more interconnections between Martin’s family and friends, as well as his past, present, and future, reveal themselves. By the time I was rolling toward the endgame, I had felt genuinely moved several times. In fact, a couple of times Finding Martin hits a real IF sweet spot, where the solution to a puzzle not only advances the story but carries strong emotional content about the PC’s role in the other characters’ lives. I recall one moment in particular that gave me goosebumps, as I figured out how something I had done in a past time-travel scenario had affected the future, and how someone in that past had sent a message forward in time to me.

Remember how I mentioned the game’s geeky pedigree? There are a number of references woven throughout the story that are pulled straight from the geek handbook: Star Trek meets Hitchhiker’s meets Tolkien. Some of these made me smile, and some made me squirm. At times I felt like saying, “Yes, yes, I get it. You like Monty Python.” Also, the writing around these references can sometimes feel a bit flat and ingratiating, as when the PC encounters a used paperback:

>x novel
It's a book by Douglas Adams, entitled "So Long and Thanks for All the Fish". Apparently this is the fourth book in the "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" trilogy. It occurs to you that publishing the fourth book of a trilogy must be the toungue-in-cheek behavior of someone with a fantastic imagination and an audacious taste for the bizarre.

Ho ho ho. Nothing like belaboring that “fourth book in the trilogy” joke. I get it — you like Douglas Adams. Also, “tongue”.

Aside from that, though, the writing worked well. Most of the time it was transparent, but there were some clever twists and turns throughout, as well as a few good jokes. Having finished this game at last, and finally found Martin, I have to express my admiration. It must have been an unbelievable amount of work to put together a game of this size and scope, and for the most part it’s done really well. If you’re hungry for puzzles, Finding Martin should keep you fed for several weeks. Even if you’re not a puzzler, grab a walkthrough and explore this game — there are pleasures here for many tastes.

Damnatio Memoriae by Emily Short [misc]

[This review appeared in issue #47 of SPAG, in the “SPAG Specifics” sections. Note: that means there are SPOILERS AHEAD. The issue was published on January 16, 2007.]

Damnatio Memoriae is a tiny game, but it’s got plenty of quality. There are a few multiple-solution puzzles and the skeleton of a story built around an “accretive PC” model, where a winning playthrough only comes from the lessons taught by a few losing iterations. The writing is reasonably good, as one might expect from Emily Short, and the setting puts her considerable knowledge of ancient Rome to use. It takes hardly any time to play, and repays exploration with a surprising depth of implementation.

All that said, I think I made two mistakes in approaching DM. One was assuming that because it shares a universe with Savoir-Faire, the details of its magic system would be identical to that game. The other mistake was forgetting that this game’s raison d’etre is to be example code for Inform 7, not necessarily to be a complete and satisfying game in itself. Consequently, I found myself feeling disappointed by finding only anticlimactic, abrupt endings, and so turned to the walkthrough after winning but still feeling unsatisfied. From there, I became confused and frustrated by the way this game’s magic differed from that of S-F. These factors combined to make my playing experience less than fun.

It didn’t help that the first winning ending I reached was, I think, buggily incomplete. There was a “time’s up” message and a “You have won” message, but no connective material between them, which of course felt bare and anticlimactic. I’m assuming this was a bug, but there were a number of places in the game where logical connections felt missing. For instance, in a branch where I had killed Clemens, left him in the study, and ducked outside, I thought I’d hide under a pile of hay. Here’s what happened:

>hide
What do you want to hide under?

>hay
Without some decoy, they'll certainly look hard enough to find you.

What, the corpse of my doppelganger up in the study isn’t enough of a decoy?

I chalk these lacunae up to the fact that the point here is not to create a perfect, polished game but rather to demonstrate Inform 7 rules within the context of a nominally game-like structure. Also, despite the fact that this game is tiny, the number of possible interactions between objects makes for a plethora of implementation details, so it’s natural that without extensive beta-testing (as a full-fledged game would have received), some would be missed. As I said, I mistakenly entered the game with the wrong expectation about that, and in any case, I feel like I’m beginning to cross over into the uncouth practice of airing bugs in a review rather than privately to the author, so let me move on to a different topic: the functional differences between this game’s magic system and that of Savoir-Faire.

I had never played S-F to completion, so I prefaced my approach to this game by playing through its larger cousin. Savoir-Faire is a marvelous game, with an internally consistent magic system of linking and reverse linking that enables both its puzzles and its story. However, the logic of linking in Damnatio Memoriae parts ways with S-F in several areas, so I found it a disadvantage to have S-F so fresh in my memory as I played DM.

For one thing, Savoir-Faire disallows linking anything to the PC, saying, “Linking yourself is generally considered a very bad idea.” In DM, however, linking the PC is an important tool. This hurdle is easily cleared, but it leaves the player to figure out how linkages between people operate, and their operations are in fact rather counterintuitive. On top of this, DM also adds a new kind of linkage: slave linkage. The differences between the three types of links can be subtle indeed. Consider these three messages:

>link clemens to me
(first unlinking Clemens)
You build a mutually-effective link between Clemens and yourself.

>reverse link clemens to me
You reverse link Clemens to yourself (son of Julia and Agrippa, who died before you were born). While one of you lives, so does the other.

>slave link clemens to me
You build the link, enslaving Clemens to yourself. It is an expedient Augustus has been using for years: now any attempt upon your life will instead kill your slave.

On the face of it, these messages would seem to indicate that the regular link allows you to control Clemens, the reverse link causes harm to both when anything is inflicted on either, while the slave link transfers that harm from you to Clemens. However, a simple link doesn’t allow you to control Clemens. Instead, a regular link behaves in the way I expected a reverse link to act, and vice versa.

The other significant difference between S-F‘s linking and that in DM is that DM is much less consistent about disallowing linkages. In Savoir-Faire, you could depend on the fact that unless two objects had some sort of common quality, they could not be linked. Damnatio Memoriae is a little more capricious:

>link window to pitcher
The window is insufficiently similar to the painted glass pitcher of water for the two to be linked.

>link letter to pitcher
You build a mutually-effective link between the old letter and the painted glass pitcher of water.

I was able to understand the first result a bit more when I realized belatedly that there’s probably no glass in the window, but that still doesn’t explain how I can link the pitcher to a letter. Similarly:

>link pitcher to clemens
This would work better if the painted glass pitcher of water were a person.

>link vase to clemens
You build a mutually-effective link between the vase and Clemens.

I’m not sure how much these inconsistencies would have bothered me if I hadn’t just played Savoir-Faire, but that game sets a standard that Damnatio Memoriae fails to meet. Consequently, I felt a lot of annoyance at seeing solutions in the walkthrough that never would have occurred to me, since I was expecting DM‘s magic system to be more like that of S-F.

This is a whole lot of kvetching over a sample game, and in a way, it’s a nice problem to have: Emily’s work, even other samples like Bronze, is of such impeccable quality that I’ve begun to hold even her slightest output to what may be a ridiculously high standard. When a game like Damnatio Memoriae fails to meet that standard, I’m more disappointed than I would be in another author’s work, and linking (sorry) this game to one of her real masterpieces only aggravated the problem.

I guess all this is to say that I’d love to see other games set in the various historical periods of the Lavori d’Aracne universe, but I hope they’re created as games rather than as samples. That way, the focus can be on story and craft, rather than on teaching the features of a system. That’s my selfish desire as a player, mind you — no doubt when I’m working on learning Inform 7 I’ll wish just the opposite.

Three Games by Steph Cherrywell [misc]

[I originally published this over on my main blog, >SUPERVERBOSE, before >INVENTORY existed. In the spirit of getting all my IF stuff in one place, I’m republishing it here.]

In 2019, Steph Cherrywell became only the second person in the 25-year history of the Interactive Fiction (IF) Competition to win it twice. The other person to have done so is writing this post. So I was inspired to check out Cherrywell’s work, and managed to find some time over the holiday break to revisit my old IF-reviewing ways.

Now, I should make clear that I’m no longer keeping up with the IF world overall, so I haven’t been reading other reviews of her work, or of anybody’s work for that matter. I’ve played very few games from the last 15 years, so something that seems new and exciting to me might be old hat to people who’ve kept up. My perspective is basically that of a former expert who’s done little more than toe-dipping since 2005. With those disclaimers out of the way, let’s jump in!

Cover art for Brain Guzzlers From Beyond

Brain Guzzlers From Beyond

Brain Guzzlers was Cherrywell’s first comp winner, from 2015, so it seemed like a reasonable place to start. Plus, for my next Watchmen essay I’m researching a bunch of background on 1950s sci-fi movies, and Brain Guzzlers looked like an affectionate parody of ’50s sci-fi, so I was predisposed to dig it.

And dig it I did, though I quickly learned that the game wasn’t exactly parodying ’50s sci-fi movies, which generally involve earnest scientists and square-jawed military types grappling with monsters, aliens, giant bugs, or giant alien bug monsters. This game’s tone is closer to Firesign Theater’s “High School Madness” sketch — a broad exaggeration of ’50s teenage tropes as seen in Leave It To Beaver and Archie comics. (Malt Shop Archie, that is. Not Sex Archie.) Cherrywell crashes the ’50s teen universe into the ’50s sci-fi universe, and comedy ensues, with a subversive edge provided by details like mixed-race NPCs, homoerotic undertones, and the ’50s-defying female action lead.

That comedic tone is Brain Guzzlers From Beyond‘s greatest strength — you can’t go three sentences without running into some delightful turn of phrase, well-crafted joke, or witty perspective. Take, for example, this description of a “Modernist Living Room”: “This circular room is ultramodern, like something from twenty years in the future. The sleek, smart-looking furniture is a symphony in avocado, orange, and mustard-yellow.” Or this description of the Drive-In: “You’re standing in the drive-in on the edge of town, where all the coolest teens come to ignore movies. To the north is Make-Out Mountain, and flanking it are a number of less controversial mountains.” Those mountains? “There’s Propriety Peak, and Constance Crag, and Mount Homework.”

The whole thing is a great deal of fun to read, and pretty fun to play too, thanks in part to Cherrywell’s smooth fusion of parser and choice structures. The game follows a familiar pattern of using the parser for exploration and multiple choice for conversations, and that works well, especially with Cherrywell’s charming illustrations of each character to flavor the dialogue. But she takes the structure a little further by rendering the action scenes via choices too.

Action scenes, though they can be done quite well, are rather difficult in parser IF, because there’s always the chance that some confused response or failure to understand input will deflate the pace and tension. Cherrywell makes sure this doesn’t happen by flipping her action sequences into a structure where input is limited and can’t be misunderstood, but still preserves a sensation of choice with options like:

1) Swing around and punch that monster square in the snoot!
2) Scream for help and try to pull away.

Another ingenious use of choice comes right at the outset of the game, in which the player is asked a series of questions. The game’s conceit is that you’re taking a quiz from a teen magazine, but in fact what you’re doing is defining the PC. Those choices affect gameplay in both superficial and substantial ways — everything from altering the “X ME” description to bypassing a puzzle entirely.

The tone and writing were my favorite parts of playing Brain Guzzlers From Beyond, but they weren’t flawless. There were a surprising number of typos right in the beginning, which gave me an uneasy feeling: “corresponding your choice” rather than “corresponding to your choice”; “absense of stars”; “your were practically almost sort of his girlfriend”. But either the game got better as it went along, or I just stopped noticing because the experience was so absorbing. Either way, it’s laudable, and in fact may have even been more fun for exceeding my wary expectations.

Brain Guzzlers combines fun writing with clever structures, but I can’t leave out its puzzles. Time after time, this game made me feel smart by presenting puzzles with just the right amount of clueing and lateral thinking, always perfectly in tune with the light and breezy feel of the story and setting. It rewards thorough exploration and leads players right up to the gap that they need to jump across, without building a paved bridge there.

My favorite puzzle of the game was the RPS cannon, and I was pleased to see that it also won the 2015 Best Individual Puzzle XYZZY Award. I confess that I didn’t solve this puzzle on my own, but seeing the solution made me wish I had. All the clues were there, I just didn’t put them together.

All in all, playing Brain Guzzlers From Beyond made it easy to see why the game won the 2015 IF Competition, and made me eager to play the follow-up. So that’s what I did.

Cover art for Zozzled

Zozzled

Zozzled was Cherrywell’s 2019 IF Comp winner, and where Brain Guzzlers was a funny pastiche of 1950s tropes, Zozzled is a hilarious pastiche of 1920s tropes. It becomes clear when playing these two games consecutively that Cherrywell is in fact a master of pastiche. She scoops up a whole bunch of slang, stereotypes, and style, stringing them together in rat-a-tat fashion for a wonderfully enjoyable ride. The best comparison I can make for Zozzled‘s style is to Alan Moore’s pieces in the voice of Hildy Johnson at the end of some of the League Of Extraordinary Gentlemen books. In other words, excellent.

Sure, she hits a bum note once in a while — using the term “sheba” for a woman is great once, cloying many times in a row — but overall, at pretty much every level, the writing in Zozzled is sharper than that of Brain Guzzlers, which is high praise. It’s quite a bit funnier, for one thing. Where Guzzlers frequently made me smile or chuckle, Zozzled had me laughing out loud. Some of my favorite examples:

The response to EXAMINE GLAD RAGS (because this game would never call a dress a dress if it could instead call the dress “glad rags.”):

If the right dress makes you feel like a million bucks, this little black number makes you feel like Rockefeller’s bank account. And much like Rockefeller’s bank account, it generates plenty of interest.

This description of a refrigerator:

This refrigerator, much like the old lady that time she chaperoned your senior year homecoming dance, is sitting in the corner, humming quietly and radiating bitter cold.

And finally, a great easter egg for Zork fans, in the description of some locked-away valuables:

Just a few odds and ends that guests have deposited – brass baubles, golden eggs, platinum bars, ivory torches, sapphire bracelets, that sort of thing.

It’s not just turns of phrase either — there’s a character who is described as “constitutionally incapable of telling the truth”, which the game then plays out literally to great comic effect. Not only is the wit superb, the story is more sophisticated too. Where Brain Guzzlers was pretty much “fight the sudden arbitrary menace by solving puzzles”, Zozzled sets up story beats in the beginning that pay off in the end, giving the puzzles a reason to exist that transcends “something bad and inexplicable happened here”, replacing it with an unexpected love story to which the PC is a witness.

So, if Cherrywell upped her writing game in Zozzled, how about her… game game? I’m sorry to say that the game aspects of Zozzled were a little weaker than those of Brain Guzzlers. Now, that doesn’t mean it was a weak game overall. I’m about to dive into criticizing a couple of its flaws, so I want to make clear that generally speaking, Zozzled is well-crafted — solid implementation, intriguing design, and reasonable puzzles. It takes the same approach as Brain Guzzlers, which is to say “breezy puzzle romp fusing parser and choice mechanics”, albeit without the illustrations. Its concept is equally solid, maybe even a little less checklisty, but it does stumble in a couple of places mechanically.

The first of these is the transition from introducing the ghost conceit to turning the player loose on the puzzly middle game. In a long choice-based sequence, Zozzled stages a conversation between the PC and an elevator operator named Kipper Fanucci (another Zorky reference, methinks.) That conversation does a lot of expository work, explaining that the hotel setting is haunted, and that Hazel the PC has the rare ability to see ghosts, at least once she’s wearing a pair of magical “cheaters”. Then it transitions from a conversation to a choice-based action sequence, except unlike in Brain Guzzlers, where the possible actions were rendered in prose, Zozzled phrases them in parserese, like so:

1) >ASK KIPPER ABOUT GHOST.
2) >KILL GHOST.
3) >TALK TO GHOST.

Eventually, this sequence reveals the way in which Hazel can exorcise ghostly presences, a command which nicely ties together her carefree flapper persona with her ghostbusting abilities. Moreover, once you exit the Kipper sequence, wearing the cheaters allows you to see ghostly presences in various places, with the spectral stuff rendered in bold, a cool and effective choice.

Except… now that you can see the ghosts, you can’t interact with them anymore! Try to EXAMINE GHOST and you’ll get tersely rebuffed: “(That’s not something you need to fiddle with.)” The entire ghost concept gets introduced via specific IF commands allowing the PC to interact with and contain a ghost. Then, immediately afterwards, there are a bunch of ghostly encounters in which the ghosts aren’t even implemented as game objects. Pretty unsatisfying.

Eventually, I figured out that you have to first solve the puzzle with which the ghost is associated before you can interact with it, which makes perfect sense but could be much better explained. If the answer to X GHOST had given a description indicating that the ghost was deeply embedded in its container and would have to be driven out before I could deal with it, that would have felt much less jarring and buggy.

Similarly, some solution-adjacent feedback would have also helped with the game’s most frustrating puzzle, the fruit bowl. Without spoiling anything, this puzzle has a solution which is logically sound and emotionally satisfying, but which requires quite an intuitive leap. Moreover, the solution requires the destruction of game objects, which goes pretty heavily against the grain of experienced IF players. As with the RPS cannon in Brain Guzzlers, I found myself turning to the hints, but unlike with the RPS cannon, I didn’t feel dumb for failing to solve it myself.

On the contrary, I saw that I came extremely close in a couple of different ways, but the game didn’t give me the feedback I needed to make that final leap. In fact, I would argue that the puzzle should be more tolerant of solutions that fit the spirit if not the letter of the intended answer. Luckily, this puzzle was an outlier. Others, such as the séance and the oyster, brought together actions that made perfect sense in context and worked beautifully with the tone.

Playing Zozzled right after Brain Guzzlers made it impossible not to compare the two, and what I found was that each game was very strong on its own, but each also had its strengths over the other — Zozzled its (even more) masterful writing, and Guzzlers its silky-smooth structure and puzzles. It turns out that Cherrywell has written one other Inform 7 game besides those two, so it was my third choice for this survey.

Cover art for Chlorophyll

Chlorophyll

Chlorophyll came out in 2015, the same year (amazingly) as Brain Guzzlers. Where Brain Guzzlers was Cherrywell’s entry into the main IFComp, Chlorophyll was for a Spring competition called ParserComp, a themed long-form game jam focused on traditional text adventure format, i.e. excluding choice-based mechanics. Consequently, Chlorophyll is pure parser, unlike Zozzled and Guzzlers.

And you know what? It turns out Cherrywell is still a hell of a writer, even when she’s not penning snappy dialogue for branching-path conversations. Chlorophyll really has no conversations — it hews closer to old-school IF by ensuring that the PC is on her own, navigating through a seemingly abandoned outpost, albeit one that bears unsettling evidence of violent disruption. Until the third act, her only encounters are with minimal-personality robots. Structurally, the game is deeply reminiscent of Planetfall, albeit without Floyd.

Except, instead of Planetfall, a more apt title might be… (I’m so sorry, I can’t seem to stop myself) Plantfall? See, in Chlorophyll, the PC is a sentient, walking plant, a la Groot, but with a better vocabulary. (Or, in the specific case of the PC, Teen Groot I guess.) She and her species depend on sunlight to produce nutrients (hence the title), and without it they slip quickly into unconscious torpor. In the first act of the game, this works out to a tight hunger timer, keeping the PC tethered closely to sunny areas and requiring her to find ways to light up more and more of the outpost with artificial sunlight. In these explorations, she also figures out that her goal is to power up the outpost so that it can restore sunlight to the whole planet — which happens to align perfectly with the 2015 ParserComp’s theme of “sunrise”.

Now normally, hunger timers are one of my major pet peeves in IF, but the one in Chlorophyll worked, for two reasons. First, rather than being an arbitrary limit imposed in the name of “realism”, this game’s hunger timer was a crucial character detail, one that drives the PC’s initial problem and that lends lots of tension to the first several sequences. Second, about a third of the way into the game the PC finds an object which obviates the timer altogether, so that it goes away permanently. Not only that, the mechanism that eliminates the hunger timer also has strong emotional resonance, lent further weight by the player’s relief at removing the constraint. More about that a bit later.

Unlike Zozzled and Guzzlers, there’s very little humor in Chlorophyll. Instead, Cherrywell creates a strong atmosphere of eeriness and foreboding. After playing those first two games, I was all the more impressed that Cherrywell has a whole other register, and is equally great at it. The SF concept was intriguing and logical, the setting evocatively described and sensibly constructed, and the mood of the whole game was just terrific, all the more so for not being another wacky pastiche of a bygone era.

The story was well-structured too, with sudden action at the beginning leading to a series of increasingly compelling discoveries. There are powerful, stomach-dropping moments as the PC discovers more and more effects of the antagonist’s presence, and a sensational climax and denouement.

The puzzles for the most part are solid, with a particularly expansive middle game, in which two entirely different different chains of puzzles (one for good behavior, one for bad) can be pursued, either of which unlocks the climax. I quibble a bit with one solution on the “good” track, as it involves the breaking of an object described as “unbreakable”, with no clear rationale that I can see for how that breaking makes sense. But no matter — that’s a pretty minor objection to what is overall an accomplished piece of craftsmanship.

I think my favorite part of Chlorophyll is its strong emotional core. Neither Zozzled nor Brain Guzzlers prepared me for this. While there’s a love story in Zozzled, Hazel (the PC) is just a bystander to it, really, with no particular emotional investment in anything. Bonnie, from Brain Guzzlers, witnesses a close friendship but is herself mainly either a cipher or a punchline. But Zo, the PC of Chlorophyll, begins the game enmeshed in an instantly familiar and warm mother-daughter relationship, so when her mother gets incapacitated, I found myself drawn in immediately.

Zo is an adolescent, who feels like she’s grown out of childish things but that her mother doesn’t recognize her abilities. Then she’s thrown into the adult role without that mother’s support, and must become the caretaker herself. That makes it all the more moving when Zo discovers evidence that her mother really does recognize Zo’s growth, emblematized in the new solar vest that deactivates the light-hunger timer. This is a wonderful example of using IF constructs to serve and strengthen the story — as we remove a game constraint, we also remove a mental constraint from the PC, allowing both more access to the world and more understanding of her place in it.

Similarly, when Zo finds her unconscious mother, and realizes the jeopardy that they are in from the antagonist, the moment lands harder than anything in Zozzled or Brain Guzzlers. Granted, nothing in those other two games was meant to land that hard, as a sudden emotional jolt would have really wrecked the mood, but having played those two games first, I was all the more surprised and transported by the weightiness of this one.

With these three games, Cherrywell has become one of my all-time favorite IF authors. I’m grateful to have spent my time on them, and I greatly look forward to whatever she releases next.

Really Late Reviews #3: Redjack – Revenge of the Brethren [misc]

[I wrote a few reviews of graphic adventure games in 2001, and Stephen Granade hosted them on the About.com interactive fiction site he ran at the time. I called them Really Late Reviews because, well, I wrote them long after the games in question had been released. About.com has gone so far down the Internet memory hole that I can no longer retrieve those reviews in the context of the site, so I’m taking their dates from the original text files on my hard drive. That means this review of Redjack: Revenge of the Brethren was written on July 18, 2001.]

So it came to pass that in January of 1999 I was wandering the aisles of a “Toys R Us”, after having exchanged a Christmas gift that didn’t suit my tastes. Those tastes being what they are, I found myself drawn to the computer game section of the store. There on the shelves was an adventure game called Redjack: Revenge of the Brethren, and something about the name rang a faint bell. Hadn’t I heard some good things about this game on comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.adventure? I thought so, and consequently I picked it up.

Okay, so I was a little crestfallen later, when I realized that the game I had been thinking of was Redguard, but as it turned out, my “To Play Someday” pile already had quite a few games on it, so I didn’t mind putting the game aside for a while. Now, as a part of my “Really Late Reviews” project, in which I play and review old adventure games with an eye towards learning more about good and bad game design, I’ve finally played through the game.

The verdict? Redjack is irritating in a lot of ways, but has tasty graphics and some pretty fun portions. Most of all, it’s an object lesson in the rewards and pitfalls of including action elements in an adventure game.

Redjack is a pirate game, and while some people are a sucker for this genre, I’m not one of them. I enjoyed the Monkey Island series, and Infocom’s Plundered Hearts, but “pirates” always seemed a rather narrow theme to me, and it’s an especially odd choice for an adventure game, given that any pirate adventure will inevitably draw comparisons to the aforementioned Monkey Island games, and almost as inevitably come up short. Redjack certainly does. To my mind, it’s better to choose settings and genres that haven’t already been thoroughly explored and dominated, if only so that players come to your game without preconceived notions or lofty comparisons.

My own experience of the game was affected adversely by misplaced expectations that Redjack‘s Nicholas Dove would be as interesting and funny a character as MI‘s Guybrush Threepwood. He isn’t, not by a long shot. What’s more, unlike Monkey Island‘s neatly tied narratives, Redjack never offers any explanation for the central question it raises: why is Nicholas Dove involved in the plot? And finally, the Monkey Island games, and LucasArts games in general, have taught me to expect (well, hope anyway) that adventure games will be designed well enough not to close themselves off for no good reason; Redjack disappointed me here, too, with an amazingly badly designed endgame.

Two equally plausible and compelling tasks are presented to the PC in this endgame, but there is only one right choice. Completing the “wrong” task makes it impossible to complete the other, which not only made no sense within the context of the story, but also completely destroyed my faith in the game’s design, right at the point that such faith was most critical. Listen up, designers: DON’T DO THIS.

Redjack wasn’t all nasty surprises, though. In fact, the plot held one or two twists that I found genuinely unexpected, and though these were leavened with a generous helping of cliché, I found I didn’t mind that too much either, since the clichés were so pleasurably pulpy. The story wanders around the Caribbean and the high seas to enjoyable effect, and there were a number of swashes that were lots of fun to buckle.

The puzzles, for the most part, were also fairly well-done. There was a recipe puzzle, though most of the ingredients for the recipe were available immediately to hand, which was a rather refreshing approach. There was a “mathematical sequence” puzzle (arrange things in a particular order while their placement exercises numerical effects on their layout), which was fun precisely because there was only one of them. However, most of Redjack‘s obstacles were not traditional adventure game puzzles, but instead action sequences, where the game’s usual interface evaporated, to be replaced with one of a variety of arcade-type mechanisms.

Now, let me make something clear: I have no problem with the concept of action/adventure hybrids. In fact, I’m rather a fan of blended genres in general. I saw Half-Life as sort of an action/adventure hybrid, with strong story and puzzles accompanying its more visceral thrills, and I loved that game. I’m currently quite addicted to Planescape:Torment, which is often held to be a kind of mutant child of CRPGs and text adventures. I’m no genre purist; I’m all for the various forms intermingling and colliding.

However (you had to know a “however” was coming), genre blending presents game designers and programmers with multiplied challenges. It’s hard enough to put together a solid story, engaging puzzles, interesting NPCs, and an intuitive interface. With an action/adventure, all these things aren’t enough — the action, too, must be gripping, with smooth response, clear feedback, and exciting mechanics. Redjack provides adventure elements of considerable quality, but falls down rather badly on its action elements.

This action comes in a variety of forms, all of which are quite primitive compared with modern action engines, or even old arcade ones. There’s a jumping “puzzle”, though unlike most of its ilk this one doesn’t involve split-second timing; there is a loose time-limit on how long the PC can be on most spots, but the jumping itself happens automatically — no fast fingers required. Instead, the player is tasked with crossing a dangerous area by jumping from one safe-spot to the next, and must assess which spots are too far away for jumping. Sound easy? Not when the area is presented with grainy, pixellated graphics that offer little in the way of depth representation.

There are a couple of “shooting-gallery” type puzzles, in which the player is presented with various moving, shooting targets, and must maneuver a crosshairs onto these to dispatch them. This has a lot of potential for fun, but that potential is wrecked by the game’s stuttering, jerky presentation of the action. I ran Redjack on a computer that far exceeded the game’s minimum requirements, but I was still plagued by hesitation and halting in most of the action sequences. This sort of thing is absolute poison to action gameplay. The most fun of all the action sequences was the cannons, for which the player has to compensate not only for moving targets, but for the trajectory of the projectiles. Yes, the jerkiness was still a problem in these sequences, but the absence of a counterattack lessened the frustration factor considerably. Also, ships hit with a cannonball exploded in very satisfying gouts of flame. Huh huh huh, huh huh huh.

The majority of the action sequences, though, were of the swordfighting variety. True to the rest of the game’s action tendencies, the swordfighting interface was clumsy, unresponsive, and erratic. The introductory portion of the game spends a significant amount of time and effort teaching this interface to the player, and this training is quite well-done. Unexpectedly, however, the training turns out to have little bearing on the game itself. Instead, most of the times Nicholas is in a swordfight, his opponent is virtually invincible, at least without recourse to some element technically outside the interface. The first time I was faced with this situation, and figured out how to solve it, was probably the best moment of the game for me. I was frustrated by my inability to defeat an opponent, and then I thought “What if I tried this?” and it worked — always a delicious feeling in an adventure game.

However, as that sort of situation came up over and over, I started to find it a little more frustrating. For one thing, many of the ways in which the game wanted me to behave where decidedly non-intuitive, and the responses to some of my actions made no sense. For another, it’s rather difficult to look outside the interface for possible solutions when an NPC is hammering away, a problem intensified by the game’s haphazard response times. And finally, the game’s reliance on adventureish solutions to actionish problems rendered its moments of actual action rather anticlimactic.

For me, it was a perfect illustration of the pros and cons of including action elements within an adventure game, or more specifically of changing interfaces during the course of a game. Redjack not only asked me to adjust to a new interface every couple of scenes, but also sporadically made that interface fairly useless, requiring some lateral thinking on my part. When this worked, the effect was beautiful, providing not just an action rush but a cerebral “Aha!” moment as well. However, the game didn’t provide enough of a logical framework, nor a smooth enough action interface, for the trick to work very often. More frequently, I found myself clicking away randomly at various spots on the screen, or growling at the primitive nature of the action mechanics, completely disengaged from the story and the game, and wishing I could go back to the game’s normal interface.

Not that said interface was without its problems. Redjack uses a 360-degree panning system, with considerable freedom to pan vertically as well, but there’s a catch. The panning behaves “inertially” — that is, as the game continues to pan in a particular direction, the panning picks up speed, and doesn’t halt immediately once the cursor is moved back to the center of the screen. The overall effect was a bit like being drunk, except without the euphoria. Needless to say, I stuck to keyboard navigation whenever possible, but there were a number of instances that required the use of the drunken mouse panning.

Adding to the panning difficulties was the fact that the bottom left corner of the screen contained the inventory interface, and whenever the mouse was placed there, all panning would halt quite abruptly. Thus, players always have to take extra care when panning left, lest their intentions be halted by the inventory displaying itself. On the plus side, this inventory required no management whatsoever, with items automagically disappearing once they are no longer useful. Redjack‘s method of object interaction takes a little getting used to — the game allows you to take an inventory item and stick it anywhere on screen, where it will stay through all panning and movement. It took me some time to recognize that this is pretty much never useful — if an inventory item is going to interact with something, it will do so immediately, and thus if it’s just “sticking” there, I’m on the wrong track. I would have preferred a little clearer feedback for this, like perhaps the inventory item being transferred back to the trunk when it is dropped in a non-useful spot.

One more technical comment, though it isn’t really about the interface: whenever Redjack loads a saved game, it goes through the process of transferring various files from the CD to the hard drive “to optimize game performance,” a process which can take as long as 60-90 seconds. People, this is silly. The files only need to be copied once, preferably at installation. Recopying them at every restore is not only a nuisance, it’s a completely pointless nuisance.

I mentioned that the beginning of Redjack contains an extensive section training the player on how to use the swordfighting interface. This training is an example of one of Redjack‘s best aspects: its use of NPCs as an in-game cueing mechanism. The game’s NPCs, while fairly broad stereotypes, are engaging and lively. Even better, they’re often a very useful source of hints and meta-game information, but that assistance is blended skillfully into the story. For example, that training sequence — Nicholas wants to join the crew of a pirate ship, but the Captain understandably wants him to learn how to hold his own in a fight first. So Nick finds a wayward pirate named Lyle, does him a favor, and in exchange Lyle teaches him how to fight.

Thus the player has an opportunity to learn the swordfighting interface, in a way that completely makes sense within the context of the story. In other sections of the game, Nick’s companions may offer puzzle hints, but only when asked. I was impressed with the slickness of this hint system — very rarely did a character point out the blindingly obvious, and when I felt genuinely stuck, my NPC companions often could offer a nudge that gave just enough information. Along with being a pretty snazzy hint system, this technique remedied a common problem with adventure games, that of NPCs who are supposedly intelligent and useful people but who completely fail to have any thoughts or insights about game situations.

The imperfection in the NPCs is their bizarre tendency to occasionally slide into anachronism or fourth-wall breaking. For instance, in that training sequence, Lyle says, “Ye stand right here while I open up my sack of whupass.” Now, I’m no student of the 18th century, but my instincts tell me that it’s a good bet no real pirate ever spoke the phrase “sack of whupass.” These kinds of obviously inappropriate references, while funny enough, threw me right out of the story without exception. In that same sequence, Lyle gives instructions like “use the left and right arrow keys on that keyboard thingy down there, and you’ll lean left or right.” The game is setting up a little confusion here: an in-game character is referring to meta-game mechanics, while trying to pretend he doesn’t really understand them because he’s an eighteenth century pirate? It doesn’t work. Also the voice-acting on the NPCs is generally pretty bad, though at least it’s done with a sense of energetic abandon.

These quibbles aside, the NPCs were one of my favorite things about the game. Another component that worked for me was the game’s graphics. These were appealingly cartoony, just a little more lifelike than the average Disney animated feature, with the occasional spectacular sky or artifact. There was a bit of strangeness with the panning — the graphics would get rather pixellated anytime they were in motion, snapping back into focus once the movement stopped. There were perspective problems, too, with the NPCs against the background, and occasionally I’d see a huge piece of someone’s head or arm blocking my view suddenly if they were in the wrong place relative to me.

Still, Redjack‘s world was a lot of fun to look at, and that goes for its cut-scenes as well. These scenes often had interesting camera angles or entertaining visual conventions (like the moving line on the map representing Nick’s travels.) I also liked the music fairly well, though it did tend to get a bit repetitive at times.

In short, I enjoyed the game most when it was at its most adventure-like. That’s not because I dislike action games, but because Redjack handled its action so ineptly. The lesson here is clear: if you’re going to include action in your adventure games, make sure that the action is just as compelling and fun as the adventure — otherwise you’ll end up with a game like Redjack, whose dashing adventure ultimately falls in defeat to the dull, heavy sword of its action.

Really Late Reviews #2: Riven [misc]

[I wrote a few reviews of graphic adventure games in 2001, and Stephen Granade hosted them on the About.com interactive fiction site he ran at the time. I called them Really Late Reviews because, well, I wrote them long after the games in question had been released. About.com has gone so far down the Internet memory hole that I can no longer retrieve those reviews in the context of the site, so I’m taking their dates from the original text files on my hard drive. That means this review of Riven was written on April 23, 2001.]

As I continue my project of trying to play and review the tall pile of game CDs sitting next to my computer, I start to get an idea of how the pile got so tall in the first place. I finished the first review (of The Space Bar) late in January 2001, and now I find myself in April only just finishing the second. Somehow real life keeps getting in the way. Well, that and writing text games. Let this be a lesson to you, kids. (Though just what the lesson is, I’m not sure.)

The idea behind these “Really Late Reviews” isn’t to help people decide whether or not to buy a particular game — in the vast majority of cases, the games probably aren’t available anymore except through auction sites and dusty bargain bins. Even Riven, one of the biggest hits ever, is no longer in print, though it’s not too hard to find. Instead, these reviews try to focus on what does and doesn’t work in a specific game with an eye towards good and bad design decisions in general for adventure games.

The scrutiny is perhaps especially appropriate in this case, since Myst and Riven were such humongous hits that they had to be doing something right for somebody. The fact that they’ve both received such tremendous backlash from some hardcore adventure gamers is, to me, just more evidence of this fact. The tone of many of those complaints always reminded me of the irritation felt by longtime fans of groups like U2 and Nirvana after those groups got big, annoyance that their hip and private playground had suddenly been invaded by the unwashed masses.

It’s not that I thought that all the criticisms of Myst were baseless — on the contrary, I was just as annoyed by its anticlimactic ending and its sometimes pointless puzzles as anybody. But the vehemence of those objections always felt a bit out of place to me. I will say, though, that I’ve always been struck by the irony of Myst‘s emphasis on books, and the same is true for Riven. Here we have the adventure games that, more than any single other, took players’ hands off the keyboard and placed emphasis totally on mouse interaction, yet their central metaphor is of books as transportation devices.

In fact, when one of those books opens and we see that the pages are in fact blank, and in place of the text is an animated graphic, we might realize that there, conveniently displayed before us, is the Myst aesthetic: gorgeous art on the simplest background, divorced from (con)text as much as possible. For an old text adventurer like me, there was something amusing about the fact that the games had such a worshipful attitude towards books and pages, while eschewing actual words almost completely. I say almost because the games can’t quite manage to avoid presenting text, and consequently end up hitting players with giant swaths of it at once. But more about that later.

Of course, the point has been made before that this very ejection of text in favor of art was one of the keys to Myst‘s success, and it’s a point I find persuasive. I know that while playing Riven, I enjoyed how easy it was to find one breathtaking vista after another, even before any puzzles had been solved, with only a few mouse-clicks. That simplicity is a solid virtue, and the fact that almost anybody could figure out the interface within 60 seconds had to have helped the game’s popularity. Simplicity and dazzle are a powerful combination, and Riven has both in spades — it’s no wonder that so many other games have copied its interface.

But as easy as that interface was to use, I found it frustrating at points. For one thing, the fact that Riven‘s graphics were so detailed, with so many subtle areas of light and shadow, meant that in any given screen, there were several features that might yield results when clicked upon. Consequently, I found myself doing a lot of random clicking in a great many places. It’s not that this approach is difficult, but it does get rather tedious, especially when only one out of oh, say 75 of those clicks actually accomplished anything. Another problem with the Riven hunt-the-hotspot interface is that for unspecified areas of many screens, clicking would actually advance the PC forward, while clicking elsewhere would have no effect. Numerous were the times when I’d have to backtrack because I’d moved forward without wanting to.

The answer to these problems would have been just a little more cursor differentiation. Riven already has this feature for some areas. For example, when the cursor would turn into finger pointing right, clicking would turn the PC 90 degrees to the right. When the cursor becomes a grabbing hand, you know it’s possible to click and drag the feature beneath it. If only it had lit up on other (non-draggable) hotspots and evinced some difference between forward motion and no effect, I could have been saved a lot of pointless clicking. These features seem so obvious that I wondered whether they had been omitted in the name of making the game more challenging. If so, they certainly served their purpose, but increased challenge of that sort doesn’t make a game any more fun, just more numbing.

But even when I’d feel myself sliding into a stupor from all the fruitless clicking, Riven would always reawaken me with its phenomenal art. This game is known for its graphics, and rightly so — even its fiercest critics may allow that it’s “pretty.” I’ll say more than that: it’s stunning. The level of detail in rocks, plants, and skies made them feel indelibly real, and the effect was aided by all the tiny touches that were put in just to enhance the game’s feeling of presence. In a forest, tiny fireflies (or are they dust motes) swirl around you, for no other reason than to deepen the aura of enchantment. Water shimmers and refracts brighter and darker colors up at you, creating a remarkably mimetic effect.

From time to time you’ll see other people, always shying away from you and warning their companions of your presence like timid prairie dogs. The other thing that just knocked me out about some of the graphics in Riven was their choice of colors and level of color saturation. When an elevator descends from the ceiling, it isn’t just gold, it’s GOLD. When the pathway from that elevator leads to a huge viewport on the ocean, it’s hard not to be awed by the intense BLUEness of that panorama.

Riven‘s puzzles partook of a similar intensity and attention to detail, and there were plenty of neat ones. I won’t discuss them in too much detail, since I don’t want to spoil the game for those who might still seek it out, but I will say that the game often rewards sophisticated spatial thinking, and that the solutions often require bringing together disparate pieces of information in crafty and revelatory ways.

In fact, my main criticism of the puzzles is that sometimes they go one step too far in this direction. In one instance, several things clicked together at once in my brain and I realized that I had figured out a puzzle that was cunning and delicious, but when I went to solve it, I found it unyielding. Turns out that the game had established a pattern of clues in four out of five sub-parts of the puzzle, but had broken that pattern in the fifth part, presumably to make things more challenging. My frustration arose from the fact that where I had once felt clever for teasing out the underlying motif, I now felt cheated out of the solution I’d earned, for no compelling reason. The pattern-matching was a bit of a stretch already, and when the pattern was arbitrarily broken, the puzzle started to feel a little unfair to me. Other problems occurred in one or two combination locks whose solutions didn’t quite make enough sense, including one in particular that I had to try over and over until it worked, even though previous attempts with the same combination had failed.

This last may have been a technical problem, and if so, it was one of the few bugs I encountered in Riven. There were little problems here and there, usually having to do with the cursor changing shape erroneously, sometimes making me wonder if I was missing additional screens because of an error in the navigation routines. Besides the art, the game’s other really outstanding technical achievement was in its sound. I recently bought a new computer with a powerful soundcard and speaker set, and Riven took the fullest advantage of these. The music was understated and evocative, and the foreground sound effects achieved a remarkable level of verisimilitude. But even when these weren’t playing, the game kept up a steady stream of ambient background noises — chirping birds and insects in a forest, lapping waves at the seashore, echoing droplets of water underground, and so on.

These sounds blended seamlessly into each other and did a lovely job of completing the sense-picture started by the graphics. On the other hand, a five-second foreground sound effect that’s enchanting the first time through becomes really annoying the fifth time. Riven provided the option to skip transition animations, thank goodness, but omitted any such feature for sound effects, with the result that I sometimes had to stop a quick run through already-explored areas just so I could let a sound play yet again.

However, this interruption wasn’t as inconvenient as the numerous occasions when Riven would ask me to swap among its five CDs. I have two CD-ROM drives in my current machine, and I still felt like I was constantly disk-swapping, especially as I got further into the game and was doing a lot of hopping from one area to another. I’ve read that a Riven DVD was released which eliminates this problem, and if you’re still looking for the game, I’d highly recommend pursuing this option — the game casts such a lovely spell that I wanted it broken as little as possible.

Prisons are a recurring motif in Riven. In fact, at the beginning of the game you’re given a “prison book” that you’re supposed to use to capture the Bad Guy, but as soon as you’re transported into the game, you find yourself in an actual prison (you know, with bars), where the book gets stolen from you. On the way to retrieving it, you’ll explore a number of different cages and cells, and in fact you’ll be imprisoned yourself when the book is returned to you. All this incarceration felt like an appropriate theme, because it nicely symbolized my relationship to the plot.

I think it’s fair to say that Riven‘s story is very poorly paced. At the beginning of the game you’re given a number of teasers (and references that seem inexplicable if you haven’t played Myst and/or read the tie-in novels recently, which was exactly my situation) and then thrown immediately into the standard lovely-but-abandoned landscape. From there, it’ll be a loooong time until you get more story. Oh sure, there’ll be hints and evocative little clues of what’s going on, but I found myself wishing for more narrative throughout the game, instead of the endless wandering, button-pushing, and lever-throwing that I got instead. This feeling was not alleviated when I finally stumbled across one of the game’s several plot-advancing journals. These journals are uniformly massive, page after page of spidery handwritten text that provides plenty of plot detail and background information (more than enough, in fact) along with some well-placed puzzle hints.

The problem with these things is that they take a long time to read, and whenever I’d find one I’d sigh, realizing that my next half-hour or so would be spent slogging through a sea of text. Trapped in this stumbling rhythm, I began to feel like a starving detainee (albeit one with a very large cell in which to pace), begging piteously for a few more scraps of plot, please, and instead given massive meals every six days.

In the end, I decided that I wasn’t playing Riven for its story, and allowed myself to sink more deeply into its lovely graphics, sounds, and puzzles like a warm bath. I came out feeling refreshed and contented, more or less happy for the time I’d spent with the game.

Really Late Reviews #1: The Space Bar [misc]

[I wrote a few reviews of graphic adventure games in 2001, and Stephen Granade hosted them on the About.com interactive fiction site he ran at the time. I called them Really Late Reviews because, well, I wrote them long after the games in question had been released. About.com has gone so far down the Internet memory hole that I can no longer retrieve those reviews in the context of the site, so I’m taking their dates from the original text files on my hard drive. That means this review of The Space Bar was written on January 27, 2001.]

For several years now, I’ve had a growing pile of commercial adventure game CDs sitting next to my computer. For one reason or another, I haven’t gotten around to playing them, but when the millennium turned, I decided I was going to change all that. I’m playing through them now, and for each one I play, I’m hoping to write a review. These reviews won’t be aimed at helping people decide whether or not to buy the games — they’re mostly out of print now, so the point is pretty moot. (Although many of them could no doubt be obtained through eBay or bargain bins.) Instead, I want these “Really Late Reviews” to be meditations on what works and what doesn’t in graphical adventure games, as illustrated by the successes and failures of each work under scrutiny.

The game on top of the pile was The Space Bar, Steve Meretzky‘s first post-Legend foray into graphical adventures. Meretzky has a good name among text adventure enthusiasts like me for having written landmark Infocom games like Planetfall and A Mind Forever Voyaging. I wasn’t as fond of his later works for Legend Entertainment, the Spellcasting series, because what clever writing and puzzles they did contain were submerged in a sea of juvenile, sexist humor, but they were commercial hits and plenty of people enjoyed them. After he left Legend, he founded a company called Boffo Games, Inc., and created The Space Bar, a large adventure game that was to be Boffo’s flagship product. Despite good reviews, the game sunk, and so did Boffo. Maybe this postmortem will provide a little perspective on just where TSB went wrong.

The game puts you in the role of Alias Node, a human detective on the seedy world of Armpit VI, investigating a robbery and murder whose culprit has been traced to a dive called The Thirsty Tentacle. The bar, like the rest of the galaxy, is populated by aliens of various races, but very few other humans. Your job is to interview these aliens, looking for clues about the identity of the killer, and using your special ability of “Empathy Telepathy” to enter their memories and guide those flashbacks to discover vital bits of information. In effect, these flashbacks serve as mini-adventure games in themselves, and the bulk of TSB is spent navigating the memories of various aliens, with occasional excursions back into the Thirsty Tentacle to meet other aliens and, finally, to catch the criminal.

The aliens are definitely the best part of the game, springing as they did from the imagination of Ron Cobb, the same guy who designed the eye-popping oddities that populate the Star Wars cantina scene. Copious background information on each alien species enlivens the game, and deepens the experience of otherness that permeates the flashbacks. Visually, too, the game does a terrific job with the aliens, and here we see one of the great strengths of graphical games. Text is wonderful for evoking interior worlds, but for the presentation of bizarre shapes and structures, it’s hard to beat good graphics. For example, a text game might tell you that Sraffans have hourglass-shaped pupils, but it would be hard put to present the labyrinthine network of veins surrounding the pupil, or to take your perspective inside those eyeballs as the flashback begins. TSB uses graphics in some clever ways throughout the game, including a freaky perspective from within the compound eyes of an insectoid race.

So The Space Bar is clever, and visually engaging. It also has its fair share of funny moments, thanks to Meretzky, who’s much funnier when he’s not aiming at 13-year-olds. Unfortunately, fun as it is to look at, it’s often not much fun to play. In struggling through the game, I found myself thinking quite a bit about the problems of translating text-game writing experience to the creation of graphical games, and wondering if TSB‘s many flaws stemmed from those problems.

Take, for example, the game’s interface. If you don’t have a parser and prompt, something must obviously take their place, and in this case it was the standard 360-degree panning worldview (with a bit of up/down axis as well), augmented by a multi-purpose onscreen device called the PDA: a combination map, inventory, system command portal, voice-mail receptor, and information storehouse. The idea of the PDA is a sensible one, but its implementation in TSB was extremely clumsy. Rather than occupying a stable portion of the screen, it rises up to half-obscure the main window whenever you click on it, spending the rest of its time half-visible, with half its features unavailable.

One of the most important of these unavailable features is the voice-mail indicator, which blinks when Alias receives a message. Because the light is obscured from view except when the PDA is fully visible, you end up receiving messages and not knowing it for dozens of turns, until the little voice inside your PDA says “Have you noticed your message light is blinking?” Why no I hadn’t, probably because I CAN’T SEE IT! It’s silly that the blinking light is hidden, but even the hidden light is a better solution than the one the game adopts occasionally, which is to have the PDA suddenly rise up and stop all action as a message comes in and is played.

When this happens (and it’s usually at the worst times), the player has to wait for the game to speak its message before continuing on with any actions, and therein lies another significant difference between graphical and text adventures. Text adventures print all their output, which takes pretty much no time at all. Graphical adventures have voice-acting, which means that to receive the dialogue, the player has to wait as long as it takes for that dialogue to be spoken… every single time. The voice acting in TSB is excellent, so it’s a pleasure to hear the dialogue in real time when you’re hearing it initially, but when you already know what’s going to be said, even the best voice acting can become tedious indeed. TSB often provides the option of hitting Esc to halt these sequences, but all too often Esc doesn’t have an effect, and you’re left drumming your fingers while a phrase plays for the tenth time.

Even worse, when realtime voices are overlaid on turn-based gaming, the resulting timing confusion can turn an extremely simple puzzle into a maddeningly difficult one. For example, in one of the flashbacks, you’re waiting for your name to be called before you can leave a particular room. However, there are about 10 voice phrases that play before that happens, each of which is around 30-45 seconds long. The phrases play one per turn, so if you perform actions which advance the turn counter (examining things, inventory management, etc.) and space them less than 30 seconds apart, the phrases pile up and play one after the other. When this happens, you’ll hear your name called, and try to leave the room, but the turn when you were supposed to do that has long passed, so the game goes on to say “Oh, too bad you didn’t leave the room — you lose” as you’re frantically clicking away. Doctors recommend against this sort of game design, as it leads to many cases of heads embedded in monitors.

Another sin of sound design which TSB commits over and over is having background noises drown out crucial information. For example, there’s a scene where you’re performing your actions while a thunderstorm rages in the background. In a text adventure, the scene would look like this:

> EXAMINE WATERFALL
The water sounds funny -- there might be something behind it.

KER-POW! Deafening thunder shakes the ground where you stand.

In The Space Bar, you click on the “Examine Waterfall” icon, and what you hear is the flashback character’s voice: “The water sounds funny. There mi– KER-POW! –it.” Then the sound you hear is yourself growling, as you realize that the game has stupidly and randomly allowed a background sound to prevent you from learning information that, as the character, you should theoretically already know. In other words, an actual sound has obscured a symbolic sound, the latter of which is only meant to represent the character’s interior dialogue. This happens over and over again, in several flashbacks, and each time it does, you have to repeat the action and hope you get lucky enough to hear the information you’re supposed to have.

That same thunderstorm flashback also features another one of TSB‘s biggest gaffes: the realtime puzzle. There’s a chase sequence in this flashback in which you have to make the correct series of clicks and rotations, in an extremely limited period of time, and if you don’t the flashback ends unsuccessfully. Maddeningly enough, this is exactly the time when your PDA chooses to rise up and halt all action until it finishes playing the incoming message. Because restoring from a failed flashback is blindingly dull [you have to listen to the failure message in real time, then get past the transition animation, then trigger the flashback again, then another transition animation, then the beginning-of-flashback animation, and only then can you restore your game], the punishment for failure is quite steep.

Add to this the fact that the processor load in that flashback makes cursor movement jerky, and panning unreliable, and you have one annoying roadblock. Now, I’m not of the school of thought that believes adventure games should never ever have realtime action portions, though I do believe it’s a bad idea to throw one arcade sequence into an otherwise traditional adventure game (which is exactly what The Space Bar does.) I enjoy both adventure gaming and twitch gaming, and don’t mind seeing the two mixed, but they have to be done well — if I fail, I want it to be because of slow reflexes, not a slow processor. My P-166 seems pretty pokey these days, but in 1997, when The Space Bar came out, it was well above the game’s minimum requirements.

Still, I gritted my teeth through many attempts at this puzzle before finally, gratefully getting past it. In a text adventure, that realtime puzzle would probably still be annoying, but because the processor demands of text are minimal, the computer’s speed would very likely not be the bottleneck that impedes completion of the puzzle.

Another side effect of the increased complexity of sounds, images, and animations in a graphical adventure game is their increased size and consequent separation onto multiple disks. The Space Bar comes on three CDs, two of which contain flashback material and the other one of which contains all the sequences within the bar itself. As a result, every time a flashback begins or ends, you have to switch CDs. I needn’t point out that a text adventure is highly unlikely to fill more than one CD and therefore to require such constant switching, but I will note that the drudgery of such switches imposes unnatural limits on both design and playing.

Because I was trying to minimize CD switching, I stayed within each flashback and tried to solve them in their entirety one at a time, instead of hopping from one to the next anytime I got stuck, as I probably would have in a text game. In effect, the disk switching became another of the game’s many resource management problems, but one of its least enjoyable. The best of these puzzles take advantage of the potential of graphics to easily demonstrate spatial relationships, and end up achieving effects that would be extremely difficult in a text game. The worst of them work through the game’s regular interface, and the presence of graphics and sound slows down the solving process to no real benefit. Elements that slow the process of solving a puzzle by means of arbitrary and pointless delays make that puzzle much less fun. Text has an advantage here, because its elements very rarely cause time delays.

Another advantage of text is its ability to clearly separate objects. For instance, in one of the game’s flashbacks, you stand before a house. There’s a boat locker in front of the house, from which you must obtain a vital object. The problem is that the locker blends in a bit with the house itself, and both the house and the locker are clickable objects. Consequently, you can click on several features of the house, all of which the game will process as the house itself. The only exception to this is the locker, but when the windows, the roof, the chimney, and the pipes are all called “House”, why would a player think that the little brown square representing the locker is anything but another unimplemented house feature? What’s more, you can get irretrievably stuck in the flashback and not know why — I had to look at a walkthrough, and when I did I said, “What locker?” In a text adventure, this simply wouldn’t be an issue, because objects don’t overlap:

Beside the House
Be it ever so humble, this is your home. The roof, windows, chimney, and pipes may all be a bit ramshackle, but they're all yours.

There is a boat locker in front of the house.

There’s no chance you could miss the boat locker (as I did playing TSB), because the interface never obscures it.

Reading through this review, I’m worried that it sounds like I’m railing against graphic adventures in general, and arguing that text is always better. I hope it doesn’t sound like that, because I don’t believe that. For one thing, The Space Bar has several problems that are equally possible in text adventures (an extremely irritating maze, several bugs, one of which almost kept me from finishing the game.) For another, I don’t think that superiority and inferiority enter into the equation at all — I just think that text adventures and graphic adventures are distinctly different forms, kind of like (to employ a tired analogy) novels and films. The skill sets required to create each of them overlap a bit, but not nearly as much as you might guess. Playing The Space Bar felt reminiscent of watching a film directed by a really good novelist who knows very little about moviemaking. You can see what was intended, and if you look harder, you can see why for the most part it all falls horribly flat.

Letter to the Author: Dangerous Curves [misc]

[I beta-tested Dangerous Curves, a mystery game released in 2000. I didn’t review it, since reviewing a game I’ve beta-tested always seemed sketchy to me. However, I did write a long letter to its author, Irene Callaci. With her permission, I reprinted that letter on my website, and now I’m moving it here. Note that it includes SPOILERS. This letter is dated April 28, 2000.]

Dear Irene —

First of all, let me tell you about me and mystery games. The first mystery game I ever played was Infocom‘s Suspect, fondly bought for me as a birthday gift or something. I loved walking around the mansion, talking to the various characters, and searching all the furniture. I filled up notebooks with every utterance I could squeeze out of the characters, with lists organized by room of the items therein, with chronologies of what happened when. I waited in every single location for the entire duration of the game to see what happens. If I walked into that mansion today, I could probably navigate it entirely from memory.

The problem is this: I got absolutely nowhere at actually solving the murder. I couldn’t figure out what was significant in some places, but more importantly I just couldn’t figure out how to establish motive, method, or opportunity, let alone all three. I started to get more and more frustrated with the whole thing.

After a long, long time of this, I broke down and bought the Invisiclues. When I finally found the solution, I didn’t have a feeling of “Why didn’t I think of that?” Instead, I felt, “How in the hell was I supposed to think of that?” Since then, my track record with mysteries has been unimpressive. I did OK with Ballyhoo, but that was really more of a puzzlefest with a mystery plot tacked on at the beginning and end. I was hopeless with Deadline. I couldn’t get anywhere in Moonmist, though that may have been due more to the bugginess of the game than to my particular denseness. Even The Witness, which everybody on the IF newsgroups seems to think is a cakewalk, was totally impenetrable for me. I had only the vaguest suspicion who did it, and not the faintest clue how to prove it.

There haven’t been that many amateur attempts at mystery games, and what few there are I haven’t played, so I can’t say how well I’ve done in the post-Infocom world of mystery games. I will note, however, that I am an equally poor detective when I read mystery fiction. I basically never figure out who the murderer is ahead of the detective. Well, there was one period where I was reading a lot of Agatha Christie, and figured out that the murderer is always the least likely person. I was able to guess with a pretty good degree of accuracy using this method, but I still had to wait til the end of the book to find out just how the crime was committed.

Now let me tell you why Dangerous Curves is easily, far and away, my favorite mystery game of all time. I haven’t got this figured out exactly, but I think it has to do with the fact that the game steps outside of all the paradigms for mystery IF that I’ve seen up til now. In Infocom’s traditional mysteries, you had to establish motive, method, and opportunity. This was sometimes accomplished through the use of highly unlikely actions like TELL THE DETECTIVE ABOUT THE WEATHER, actions which required you to put together all the pieces in just the way a good mystery reader would do, and just the way that I completely suck at. I could never come up with these actions, and so I remained stuck forever, or until I looked at the hints, whichever came first. (You can probably guess what came first every time.)

Dangerous Curves doesn’t require this kind of reasoning. It allows for it, but doesn’t require it. With the help of devices like the full score listing, Frank Thibodeaux’s gentle prodding, and the anonymous tipster, I was able to put together all the pieces and, for the first time ever in a mystery IF game, feel like I was solving the crime. Let me tell you, this was a great feeling. I think one of DC’s great strengths is that while it allows for the kind of player that was great at Infocom’s mystery games, it also allows for players like me. None of the devices I listed above are required for a winning session with the game, but they sure helped me feel like I was having fun rather than banging my head against a wall. That kind of fun is a new experience for me in mystery games.

There are lots of other factors that added to my enjoyment of the game. One of the strongest of these was the outstanding writing. Even if I hadn’t been able to get anywhere in the game, I would have had a good time playing it, just because the writing was so much fun to read. It caught the perfect balance between noir and humor, similar to the balance achieved by Columbo back when it was a regular TV show. All of the historical details were just excellent, and most of the one-liners were actually funny, rather than coming off as lame pastiches of Raymond Chandler. There was also a very satisfying attention to the rhythms and musicality of language in many of the game’s longer passages. For example, from the opening text:

Her eyes watch yours as she fans the money out on the desktop. “I never mix business with pleasure. Do you?”

Not often. Not lately. “Not me,” you assure her. “Wouldn’t dream of it.”

Now that’s just a really well-written passage. Not only is it funny, and not only does it tell us a great deal about the character in a very few words, but it also rings with a great rhythm, like a good swing song, a rhythm that would make it enjoyable to read even if it made no sense at all.

Coming in close behind the writing is the game’s remarkable technical sophistication and depth of implementation. I loved knowing that I could go to the Wednesday mass and watch the churchgoers, reading lots of great text that had nothing at all to do with solving the case. It was just there to make the fictional world feel more real, and it worked beautifully. When I wrote one of these detailed responses to Suzanne after testing Worlds Apart, I told her that the source of that game’s power to immerse players came from the combination of two factors: range of interaction and rich detail. DC employs this same potent combo, and it works just as well. The more actions that got a non-default response from the parser, the more places I could go, the more people I could meet, the more things I could ask them about, and the more syntactical combinations that the parser understood, the more deeply immersed I felt in Dangerous Curves‘ Los Angeles.

A little more about that last item: I was just astonished at how much work you’d put into the parser for DC. At least two or three times per session, I would try something non-standard and find to my surprise that the parser understood it. This is the kind of improvement, I know from experience, that takes a huge amount of time and energy, but you can never be sure how many people will even find it, let alone use it, benefit from it, or comment on it. Well, I just want to tell you that I found it, and I loved it. The same goes for all the other technical feats you accomplished to make life easier for the player: the status line compass rose, the convenient handling of opening/closing and locking doors, the money that worked so well I hardly needed to worry about it at all. You took a lot of the tedious details of IF off my hands so that I could spend more time enjoying the story and the writing. Great move. In fact, during the next game I played after DC, I found myself grumbling, “Where’s my compass rose?” Your game was so good, it spoiled me!

I know we all like positive feedback, and there’s certainly plenty to give, but I do want to make this review a little more useful to you than just simple egofood, so I’ll briefly touch on a few of the game’s weaker points. I found that some actions were insufficiently clued, or at least they wouldn’t have ever occurred to me without the anonymous tipster. One example of this is giving the donut to the cop. Because so many locations in the game are implemented as one-room spots, even though they might realistically have other places to explore (for example, the Tribune, the library, or Rosie’s), I wasn’t expecting that I would be able to actually visit prisoners in the police station.

Moreover, though I could easily come up with the idea of giving the donut to the cop once I knew he wanted something, I wouldn’t have otherwise expected to be able to take it out of Rosie’s, since so many other things at Lenny’s and Rosie’s are forced to stay inside their respective locations. Of course, it’s logical that I could walk out with a donut as opposed to a beer or a blue plate special, but I sort of lumped it in with everything else. Another action I wouldn’t have come up with on my own was to get the bank teller drunk. I never saw any indication from him that he had anything worthwhile to say, nor much evidence that he was the kind of vulnerable lush who could be easily plied with alcohol to spill his secrets. Considering how little room you have left, I’m not sure what you could do to remedy these problems, and because you have the anonymous tipster in there, they’re not significant problems anyway, but I thought I’d just let you know about my experience.

The other problem is one that I’m not sure how you could solve no matter how much room you had, which is that the characters were so well-drawn that I frequently found myself straining against the interface because I wanted to tell them more. It’s really frustrating to have to try TELL JESSICA ABOUT CARLOTTA when what I really want to say is “I broke into a real estate office and learned that the Mayor’s wife owns a huge amount of property along the proposed highway site, and that’s why Vickstrom was so hot on the freeway project, and no doubt why he had your husband killed.” Unfortunately, the solution to this problem is outside of the current grasp of IF in general, not just Dangerous Curves. The fact that your game made me feel the absence of such an interface that keenly is a great credit to your writing and characterization skills, not to mention the depth of immersion you achieve in your fictional world.

Playing Dangerous Curves has been one of my favorite IF experiences in a long, long time. Thank you for that, and for the correspondence, which I’ve also enjoyed very much. Good luck with your game and your life, and keep in touch.

Letter to the Author: Worlds Apart [misc]

[I beta-tested Worlds Apart, a fantasy game released in 1999. I didn’t review it, since reviewing a game I’ve beta-tested always seemed sketchy to me. However, I did write a long letter to its author, Suzanne Britton. With her permission, I reprinted that letter on my website, and now I’m moving it here. Note that it includes SPOILERS. This letter is dated May 19, 1999.]

Dear Suzanne —

In an earlier conversation, I referred to the style of Worlds Apart as “High Fantasy.” That’s not quite right; I was reaching for a term, and the one I came up with is inadequate because the fact is that WA doesn’t perfectly fit genre conventions. In fact, it comes closer to one of those grand, sweeping alternate-world SF stories, right down to the richly detailed biology, geography, and sociology of the invented planets. But it feels like fantasy. Orson Scott Card once wrote that the essential difference between fantasy and science fiction is that “fantasy has trees, science fiction has rivets.” Worlds Apart definitely has trees.

Moreover, it has telepathy, which certainly leaves it out of the “hard SF” category. It presents itself in a somewhat formal, elevated tone — no slangy streetwise speakers or clever cyberpunk cant to be found anywhere — and the concerns of the narrator are definitely emotional concerns. Despite the fact that this is IF, she’s not solving some Asimovian logic problem or saving the universe with a sparkling piece of technology. She’s not conquering a new frontier or establishing a planetary Empire; she’s not fighting insectoid invaders or solving virtual-reality mysteries. Instead, her frontier is inside herself. Her explorations, and her triumphs, feel more like poetry than adventure yarn. The “magical” items in the story have a strong metaphoric quality, and her encounters (especially with Saal) vibrate with mythic resonances. Small wonder that when the lazy librarian inside my brain reached for a shelf to put this on, it was closer to the Fantasy section than it was to SF.

But it is SF, albeit “soft” SF, where psychic powers and dragons can mix with other planets and evolved humans. The amount of world-building that WA displays is breathtaking. I know you’ve mentioned (and I’ve read on your web page) that for you, the Higher World is not exactly a product of the imagination. It’s been your companion through life and its visions are delivered to you rather than being crafted by you. But whatever its source, the level of detail in Worlds Apart was very impressive to me as a reader. It spoke of a careful, meticulous, thoughtful working-out of all the various aspects of an alternate world, even if that’s not exactly where it came from.

I spent a few years of my life studying literary theory, and I walked away from it believing that what the author intended for a work, and how exactly that work was created, is less important than the messages that the work itself delivers. What WA delivers is a kind of escape, a journey into a universe where my gills allow me to stay underwater indefinitely, where I can ride on dragonsback to the moon, and where I can reach out with my sixth sense to find out what other people are really feeling. Whether this world is really real to you or just made-up is immaterial to me, because you give me so many details and present the setting with such confidence that it feels real to me too, even though I’ve never had a vision in my life.

The fact that Worlds Apart is IF adds greatly to this sense of immersion. I think you’ve discovered (or deepened, anyway) a very potent combination: rich detail and interaction. In static fiction, a vivid setting greatly enhances a reader’s suspension of disbelief, and in IF the ability to command a character and actually explore this setting reinforces the escapist impulse from another direction. By combining these two to such a high degree, you’ve created a work that is very immersive indeed.

This combination is all the more precious for being so rare. Both world-building and the implementation of meaningful interaction are incredibly time-consuming pastimes. The fact that Worlds Apart has so much of both makes it a very special story. I really enjoyed testing it, and hope that my own work can live up to its high standard. My aims are somewhat different, but you have definitely set the bar for detail and richness.

I will probably take you up on your offer to betatest LASH, but it will be awhile. After testing Worlds Apart I was moved to play LASH in the same (testing) mindset, and in the process I found any number of things that I now want to improve or change. I think that the experience of testing Worlds Apart has not only made me a better tester, but a better author as well. Thanks for giving me that experience. Best of luck with the game, and in your life as well. Keep in touch.

WackyComp reviews [misc]

[I posted this in April of 1999, and it pretty much explains itself. I will note, though, that I was partly wrong in my conjecture of who wrote the games. Lelah Conrad was indeed one of the authors, submitting Knot To Be Undone as “Jess Kiddon”. The other author was Stephen Griffiths, who wrote Skipping Breakfast as “Dunnin Haste”.]

Last year, Lucian Smith had this idea. He thought it would be cool to have a “mini-comp”, where a bunch of people wrote games based on the same initial premise. There would be no prizes, but there would be voting, and rankings. So he announced his idea (actually, in the announcement, he attributes the idea to “someone on the ifMUD“, but in the absence of that anonymous genius, I’m giving Lucian the credit) on rec.arts.int-fiction, and generated quite a bit of enthusiasm.

Unfortunately, when he announced the premise and the rules around it, they were so amazingly specific, picky, and difficult to achieve, that he only ended up getting four entries, some of those after his deadline. If the voting or the rankings ever happened, I never saw it. He tried to scale back expectations by announcing a “micro-comp” (“Submit one or two scenes from a mini-comp entry!”), but by then it was too late: apparently the contingent of possible entrants wanted their mini-comps to really be mini. The main result of Lucian’s backpedaling was to produce a proliferation of goofy “meta-comp” ideas, each of which seemed to somehow incorporate all the others that preceded it.

Into this morass waded Adam Cadre, who had a simpler idea: write a short game that involves, in some way, a chicken crossing a road. It was dubbed the Chicken Comp, and it was a big success, garnering 19 entries, most of which were good, and many of which were wonderfully, hilariously funny. I still crack up anytime I recall Rob Noyes’ The Lesson of the Chicken, with its memorable piece of monologue, “Ah, Wang Chung. Everybody will have fun tonight.” The chicken-comp games were the highlight of the summer, and set the stage nicely for the established IF comp in the fall. There was still no official competition between the games except, as Cadre put it, the inevitable “discussion of which ones r001 and which suck.”

So along comes spring 99, and suddenly mini-comps are popping up like mushrooms. There was the Xcomp, for paranormal games, the I-Comp, for games without an inventory, and even the execrable Roadkill Comp, for games that involve dead animals. Most of the spring mini-comps garnered responses which made Lucian’s mini-comp look swamped in comparison, and David Glasser’s WackyComp was no exception. The WackyComp stipulated short games, each based on one of a list of quasi-aphorisms. The list’s contents don’t matter, because there were only two games submitted, both ALAN entries that based themselves on the first choice: “No knot unties itself.” I’ve tended mainly to review competition games, not spending much time on mini-comps, but the author of one of the WackyComp games asked me to take a look at the two entrants and provide a little feedback, so here it is:

The shorter of the two entries is by “Jess Kiddon” (another of the WackyComp’s conditions was that its authors don’t use their real names on their submissions), titled Knot to be Undone. The title is one of the game’s many puns on the word “knot.” This is not to suggest that the game is a huge mass of puns — it’s not a huge mass of anything. I’d be shocked if anyone spent more than 10 minutes solving this game. There is virtually nothing to do except for the actions to win the game.

You play Weava Knottersdaughter, professional knotter, though really what this means is that you’re a professional detangler — the “knot shop” where you work offers a knot-untying service. Anyway, in walks “the Body Adventura”, a stock adventurer type whose cryptic name, as far as I can determine, is a really strained pun on the name of Minnesota’s governor. He’s gotten himself stuck in a knot and your job is to untangle him, or better yet keep him entangled and somehow become the Body Adventura yourself. Luckily, this is no trouble, and then the game ends. That’s it. This is about as “mini” as a game can get, and still be considered interactive fiction. For what it is, it’s fine, but rather unsatisfying, kind of like eating just one potato chip.

A rather more substantial entry is Skipping Breakfast, by “Dunnin Haste.” In this game you’re a rabbit (though this is not immediately clear unless you examine yourself), who is tied to a tree and about to become a wolf’s breakfast. The wolf is off gathering more wood for the campfire over which he plans to cook you, so now’s the time to make your escape. Unfortunately, there’s the small matter of the knotted rope which binds you to the tree — you can’t untie it, and it won’t untie itself. Or will it?

This game’s puzzles are fun and rather clever, despite the fact that there’s a bit of “guess-the-noun”, and that the conversation syntax is sometimes too restrictive. The writing is charming, and the nature of the puzzles is quite well-integrated with the game’s fairy-tale atmosphere. Though it’s not quite as bare-bones as Knot, Breakfast is still a very brief game, with three points to be scored, relatively few objects, and only one location. That’s OK, though. It was fun while it lasted.

Both games are written and coded pretty well — I found neither bugs nor spelling/grammar errors in either one, though in both there was a real paucity of synonyms. Moreover, they both adhere faithfully to the concept behind the WackyComp, and work creatively within its confines. Neither succumbs to cliché, and both were fun. My main complaint is that each one (though Knot more than Breakfast) is over almost before it begins, but I suppose that’s the nature of mini-comps. Perhaps these tiny games could become preludes to fuller versions — I wouldn’t mind playing the sequel to either.

It’s also nice to see the ALAN language gaining some devotees, and perhaps one of these authors (whose identities are pretty clear from their choice of language and their postings before the WackyComp — nice job Mikko and Lelah) will be the one to write a major game which really shows off the language’s capabilities. It seems to be the pattern that IF languages only gain a significant following once a really well-done game has been completed in the language, like Inform‘s Curses or TADS‘ Unnkulia series. Now that’s a knot that won’t untie itself, but the nimble fingers of the WackyComp authors may be just the ones to unravel it.