Competition Game Reviews

AAYELA -- by Magnus Olsson

Prose:

often good, sometimes a bit over the top. Crawling in the dark hearing ethereal chords is unfortunately a bit reminiscent of So Far. Especially unfortunate if the design of Aayela preceded So Far.

Difficulty:

quite easy actually. An enjoyable vignette.

Technical:

coding:

enjoyed being able to feel and smell. Most commands were anticipated quite well. One or two TADS error instances

writing:

One or two rather glaring mistakes ("an insisten breeze"). On the whole quite proficient.

Plot:

very simple, but serves its purpose

Puzzles

again quite simple, but vividly rendered.

ALIEN ABDUCTION? -- by Charles Gerlach

Prose:

generally effective, and sometimes quite chilling. A bit of awkwardness shows through at times, but never enough to jar.

Difficulty:

Except for one major "guess the verb" puzzle (the springarm), this was pretty straightforward. The most difficult part for me (aside from the springarm) was figuring out to get a "real" axe first.

Technical:

coding:

Some errors including no response to putting things in cylinder, TADS errors on taking shapes. Much was anticipated, but some significant things were not. Could use another round of beta testing.

writing:

Virtually no spelling or grammar errors jumped out. Well-proofed work.

Plot:

Outstanding. With the exception of a somewhat disappointing ending (though justifiable -- I just crave closure), AA gave a hint of how truly chilling suspense-oriented IF can be. The premise, the way information was slowly released, the drama & emotional intensity were really all quite strong. This was definitely the most enjoyable aspect of the game.

Puzzles

One or two quite clever (the duck), most well-oriented to moving the plot along. The "aliens testing your mental capacity" was an excellent pretense for puzzles. Hints were generally quite well-done, and with the exception of the springarm thing, puzzles were overall pretty good.

DON'T BE LATE -- by Greg Ewing

Prose:

Serviceable, but nothing more. There was so little of it, it's really hard to judge. Very little description, very few objects. A pretty sparse world. The prose that was there did its job, but nothing more.

Difficulty:

Apart from parser struggles, extremely easy. The only thing resembling a "puzzle" would be incredibly easy if it wasn't for trying to figure out the correct syntax.

Technical:

coding:

as mentioned, the parser was quite weak. Some extremely standard IF words not implemented. I just about quit when I realized it didn't know the word "get."

writing:

What little prose there was showed no significant grammar or spelling errors.

Plot:

This was probably the most interesting feature of the game, and it wasn't really all that interesting. It involves an Escherian reflection -- the object of the game is to play the game, and you can apparently play the "game-within-a-game" until you get really tired of it. This will probably happen pretty quickly.

Puzzles

None to speak of. With a quality parser, this game would probably have taken a good 10 minutes to solve.

DELUSIONS -- by C.E. Forman as Anonymous

Prose:

Infocom-level prose -- not at classic literature level but more than sufficient to get one's heart racing and chills mounting. The descriptions of virtual reality entrances and exits skirted the edge of histrionics but always came down on the right side. And the level of detail was a terrific kick -- I especially loved the futuristic game of Jeopardy!.

Difficulty:

I didn't find the game terribly difficult, but found myself checking the hints quite a bit simply because I wanted to see as much of the game as I could in the two hours allotted. The excitement of seeing the second act unravel left me with little patience for struggling with puzzles. If I had not been in a time limit situation, I'm sure this would not have been true.

Technical:

coding:

One of the best coding jobs I've ever seen. The shifting responses to "examine" and the number of objects and possible combinations of those objects gave the world a stunningly rich level of verisimilitude.

writing:

Basically flawless. I didn't find one single grammar or spelling error.

Plot:

First-rate. Extremely clever ideas masterfully revealed. The idea of Satan as a virus, the world as a VR construct, and God as a blind, black, bitter woman may be a little skewed theologically, but it made for totally engrossing IF. I look forward to the endgame with great anticipation.

Puzzles

I found Delusions to have exactly the right kind of puzzles for my taste in IF. Nothing arbitrary, nothing typical, and absolutely consistent with the described world and the advancing plot. The game proves that story-oriented IF does not have to be a cakewalk.

FEAR -- by Chuan-Tze Teo

Prose:

quite good. Describing different kinds of fear is not an easy task, and the author acquitted himself well. The opening was gripping, and the descriptions of the objects of terror (especially the spider) were very evocative.

Difficulty:

I found the game quite difficult, and rather jarring in its swings from totally plot-based puzzles (overcoming fears to pass obstacles) to extremely mechanical puzzles (the Egyptian statues, the duck.) Again the time limit and my immersion in the plot led me to the hints much more often than I would have used them in a non-competition situation. However, I can't say I wouldn't have used them anyway, especially with the statue puzzle.

Technical:

coding:

fairly smoothly coded work. Can't recall ever running into any coding jams, and many situations were well-anticipated. However, several were not. I mentioned my strong beef against the locked front door, which should have been coded beyond a standard response. Another example is the jammed drawer, which could not be pried with the plate but did respond to a kick (this illogic creates a bit of a "guess-the- verb" puzzle) and falls to the ground still described as "closed."

writing:

Errors were few and far between. In fact, the only error that stands out in my mind is a reference to a light hooked to "the mains power supply", and even that may be attributable to my ignorance of electrical terminology.

Plot:

The plot of Fear was basically a clever way of stringing together a number of mechanical puzzles, but it worked charmingly. Again, this review is written without knowledge of the endgame, but I anticipate a clearing of the amnesia, an alleviation of the oppressive emotional weight, and a general tying together of loose ends.

Puzzles

The puzzles were quite good, though quite difficult for me. Then again, I'm not a great puzzle solver. For me the primary appeal of interactive fiction is the emotional pleasure of experiencing a world and moving through a gripping plot rather than the more cerebral aspect of puzzle-solving. For my taste, Fear came down just a bit too heavy on the puzzles, making it a little too hard for me to move through the story.

MY FIRST STUPID GAME -- by Dan McPherson

Prose:

The author wisely didn't write very much, so there isn't that much to slam. The middle-school level of diction ("piss", "eyeballs oozing gore," etc.) was extremely annoying.

Difficulty:

Thankfully little. The less time spent in this game the better.

Technical:

coding:

How about a turkey sandwich you can't call "turkey"? How about a wooden door you can't call "wooden"? How about a snide rejection to "get all"?

writing:

Remarkably, I noticed no errors. Perhaps when this writer has something to say he'll be able to do a creditable job of it.

Plot:

I can't see any such thing.

Puzzles

The main puzzle is "Why did he enter this in the competition?" That one is pretty hard to solve. The rest were complete clichés (feed a hungry monster. unlock a door. overcome the time limit with which the game started.) I can't decide which is worse.

OF FORMS UNKNOWN -- by Chris Markwyn

Prose:

Struggling to reach Plotkin level. The pieces of prose which are the most successful are the ones most imitative of Plotkin. The rest is utilitarian, with the exception of the prose which makes no sense at all.

Difficulty:

Impossible. The game's buggy coding made progress impossible for me well before I got to the bug the author discussed on rec.arts. int-fiction. Of course, this means that the point at which I quit actually was a passable point, but to my mind if the walkthrough doesn't get you where you need to be, the game is impossible.

Technical:

coding:

Extremely poor. From small points like the lack of a new_line after some inventory calls to rather glaring problems such as the broken frame puzzle (try tying a rope to the frame, then tying something to the rope, then walking away holding the tied object -- works mighty easily!) and the fact that dropped objects all seem to become concealed somehow.

writing:

No errors that leaped out at me. However, to be fair, I didn't see the whole game.

Plot:

In So Far, the lack of a coherent plot was a bit frustrating to me, but I could hold my frustration in abeyance because of the game's many fine features. This game offers no such redemption, and suffers greatly from being an imitation springing from a cliché (the college dorm room as starting point).

Puzzles

ranging from highly illogical to basically logical but impossible to complete. For example, lighting a dark room (whose description reads "You can't see a thing") by saying "turn on light" not only goes against the logic of the description (isn't the light switch one of the things you can't see?), but also against one of the most standard conventions of interactive fiction, which suggests that even a light switch in a dark room is inaccessible without a faint light by which to discern it. Delusions had the answer to this -- Forms does not. Another example is the dials in the shaft -- what is the logic behind setting them all to 0? Only the arbitrary logic of the game, such as the decision that for some reason bringing a light source into a cave through the door extinguishes that source for no good reason.

IN THE END -- by Joe Mason

Prose:

Often rough, but often rather touching. The world whose picture the author paints has some very charming aspects, and the prose brings this across nicely. Unfortunately, the skill with which this is accomplished serves only to further undercut the notion that your goal in this world should be to leave it.

Difficulty:

Well, a goal-oriented word like "difficulty" is a bit of a mismatch for a game like this which has no way to win. How difficult is it to finish the story? Why, not at all. One only has to wait 7 turns, step outside, and type "kill me" and that's all, folks. The concept of "difficulty" doesn't really seem to apply to this story though -- what's really difficult is figuring out why the goal is what it is...

Technical:

coding:

This is where In the End really shines. Its interface (with its lack of compass directions) worked quite spectacularly (for me, anyway), giving the world a wonderful real-life feel. I never realized how much compass directions undercut the simulation aspect of IF until they were removed -- after all, who goes around thinking about which direction they're bearing? (Except, perhaps, for spelunkers :)) I was also impressed with many of the responses that had been anticipated for NPCs (WOMAN, TELL ME YOUR NAME was especially appreciated), though some could still have used some polishing (SHOPKEEPER, TELL ME ABOUT HOPSON elicited no response, but SHOPKEEPER, TELL ME ABOUT MR brought about the correct reaction). And I apologize for continuing to harp on this point, but when the interface is exciting and the world seems to offer so many possibilities, the dead last (no pun intended) thing I wanted to do was commit suicide.

writing:

The initial box quote jarred me, because I'm used to seeing "whimper" spelled with an "h". However, I'm not near my copy of Eliot right now to see if it's simply a transcription of one of the poet's intentional alterations, so I'll call that one neutral. Other than that, the writing seemed quite technically proficient.

Plot:

A frustrating one, and although it's true that such a device is new to interactive fiction, it felt gimmicky and hollow, so its absence up until now is quite justified, to my way of thinking. And beyond the final goal of the game, there really is no plot. I even checked the walkthrough just to make sure I wasn't actually doing something stupid and overlooking or short-circuiting a plot that was waiting to be discovered. No such luck. I just keep thinking, what a pity.

Puzzles

Well, this was "puzzle-less IF" alright. But then again, it also had no plot. So its lack of puzzles was logical, but did nothing to improve the work.

KISSING THE BUDDHA'S FEET -- by Leon Lin as Anonymous

Prose:

Only once in a while did the use of ridiculous levels of exaggeration slip into the annoying; much more often it was pitched just at that level where one can enjoy the joke without endangering the suspension of disbelief. The writing is lively and its level of detail greatly increases the game's immersiveness.

Difficulty:

The game's difficulty was just right for me -- I never felt so stuck that the pleasure of working on the puzzles ceased to become fun -- but it was always a little work to figure those puzzles out. I also enjoyed the feeling of never quite knowing when a puzzle would be solved, and the fact that as soon as you took care of one problem another one, gopherlike, would pop up somewhere else.

Technical:

coding:

Some really masterful strokes, such as all the wrappers and papers that pile up around the house. Most commands well anticipated, and in fact I look forward to returning to the game after the competition has ended and trying all of the "amusing" pieces. Only once in a great while was a logical action not anticipated in the coding (examples are putting the towel back on its rack and trying to unplug the TV while wearing the catcher's mitt.)

writing:

Grammar and spelling were both well in hand. The anonymous author is obviously a skilled writer, and I look forward eagerly to his or her next game.

Plot:

Well, there wasn't really much of a story to go through, but I never felt the lack of it. In short, the premise was clever and substantial enough to make me feel as though I really was living through a hilarious night of hell, even though I was really just solving puzzles one after another.

Puzzles

Though it's hard to pick a favorite, I think this was the best aspect of BUDDHA. As I mentioned earlier, the puzzles were clever, pitched at just the right level of difficulty, and very well integrated into the overall plot. Some favorites are how to put Bob out of commission and then neutralize his snoring, as well as the problem of Alice and her radio.

PUNKIRITA QUEST ONE: LIQUID -- by Ryebread Celsius

Prose:

The mangled grammar and spelling in the writing are so severe in this game that they are nearly inseparable from the content. The author's inability to write clearly in English obscures whatever good ideas he may have. This is a work that could only have been published on the Internet -- any medium in which editors keep the gate for published work would have sent this prose back for major revision -- even a spell-check would have done a world of good.

Difficulty:

The most difficult thing was discerning meaning from the tortured writing. After that, the greatest difficulty arose from deciphering the logic behind the game's baffling magic system and world rules. I went for the hint file right away, but I confess I didn't try very hard on the puzzle before doing so; at that point I felt quite sure that the writing was bad enough that it would block my ability to figure things out on my own.

Technical:

coding:

The game was small enough that not much coding would have been required. There were very few objects to interact with each other. In the portions I played, the coding was creditable. (one exception was the fact that the game referred to footnotes without providing them -- there should have been a response to the verb "footnote" or "note" which explains that the notes are to be found in the solution file.)

writing:

As I said earlier, the only word is atrocious. Unbelievably poor spelling and grammar -- so bad that it made the work almost totally incomprehensible. Apparently the author either didn't have a spell checker or an English dictionary available, or had them available but didn't care to use them.

Plot:

From what I could make out, the plot was fairly minimal. However, there may have been more than I could figure out from the writing.

Puzzles

The only real puzzle didn't make any sense to me, but then again that could also have been the writing. The solution requires a knowledge of the "glow" power of the hero (which apparently generates not only light but heat as well) which may have been conveyed by the text in a part I skipped over as unreadable.

LISTS AND LISTS -- by Andrew Plotkin

Prose:

Very little of it, but of course it conforms to the high Plotkin standard of quality.

Difficulty:

I found LISTS to be quite difficult going, but then I'm just working on learning C++ and Inform now, so Scheme was a bit of a leap in abstraction for me. The feeling was reminiscent of just beginning to learn UNIX after years of working on DOS (and, to a lesser extent, Macs and Windows).

Technical:

coding:

Andrew is the god of Inform coding. All hail Andrew.

writing:

Well, of course the main place this came up was in the online manual for the language, which naturally had no errors in spelling or grammar, and in fact was written in a fun jocular style.

Plot:

No. No, not really at all.

Puzzles

Well the problems were definitely puzzling, and certainly not your standard Interactive Fiction type of puzzle, either. LISTS certainly gives a mental workout, but then again so does Calculus I.

THE CURSE OF ELDOR -- by Stuart Allen

Prose:

Once in a while the prose would reach a level where I enjoyed reading it. All too often, though, it was simply one trite cliché after another (A dragon regards you sleepily, the men are gathered around the roaring fire, etc.) The other problem with the prose was its uneven level of detail -- some things in room descriptions were described at length -- some other obvious features (a twelve foot pit, for example) were not described at all. Also, some simple errors (a room description which tells of an exit leading east when the exit really leads west) lead me to believe that the game was not well beta-tested.

Difficulty:

Well, considering that from the outset something I needed to complete the game was hidden by buggy coding, I'd rate the difficulty right at "impossible."

Technical:

coding:

As I've said, quite spotty. Not to take away from the author's accomplishment of creating a free-standing text adventure engine -- this is obviously quite respectable. However, it's not all that respectable if it doesn't work. Example bugs are (of course) the councillor, the "help" command that doesn't help, and the fact that basic commands like "verbose" and "again" are unavailable.

writing:

Unfortunately, the writing was littered with quite a few errors, especially spelling errors and simple grammar errors. For example, lots of it's/its errors, which is a pet peeve of mine. Clearly this work was not proofread (at least, I hope it wasn't proofread!).

Plot:

I found it too difficult to get past the bugs to find the development of anything I could reasonably call a plot.

Puzzles

Once again, the real puzzle was figuring out where the bugs are in the game's code. From looking at the source code, the puzzles I looked at were fairly well-worn (picking a lock with a wire, making an animal sneeze). However, to be fair I didn't come across all that many puzzles on my own, so there may be some better ones that I missed. Gee, a walkthrough or hints would have helped!

MAIDEN OF THE MOONLIGHT -- by Brian P. Dean

Prose:

The author's prose does a very nice job of conveying the desolate, decrepit mansion. Descriptions of rooms, objects, and the moonlight peeking into various locations were all quite literate and strong. Also, the Baron's notes gave his voice a credible Victorian timbre -- of course, the Baron was supposed to have lived in the 17th century, so maybe that isn't such a good thing.

Difficulty:

Well, some parts of the work were quite easy to get through, and the pace flowed through them quite smoothly. However, they were stopped dead by the light source puzzles, which made a first-run solution of the game basically impossible.

Technical:

coding:

Everything was quite smoothly coded. I can't think of any problems I encountered.

writing:

I'm writing this review a few days after last having played the game, so my memory may be faulty on this count, but I don't recall any faulty grammar or spelling.

Plot:

As I mentioned above, I found Maiden's unraveling plot quite engrossing, which made it all the more frustrating to have to be continually restarting the game after my lamp sputtered out. Still, I'm looking forward to returning to the game after the judging period ends in order to find out how I can break the Baron's curse over his daughter and her paramour.

Puzzles

Addressed in "difficulty"; some were very straightforward, and others were quite impossible. One which I found particularly thorny was the problem of the spikes atop the iron fence. The way I had envisioned the fence was with tall, sharp spikes, while the solution to the puzzle was more suited to something along the lines of barbed wire. Perhaps a more vivid description here would alleviate the problem.

PHLEGM -- by Jason Dyer as Adjacent Drooler

Prose:

Lots of cleverly funny little touches, from Leo the lemming whispering "Rosebud..." to the "Lil' Terrorist brand Flame-thrower." The prose was generally lots of fun to read, even if at times the silliness became a wee bit more irritating than amusing.

Difficulty:

Well, I found myself looking at the hints quite a lot, but I'm not sure whether that's because the puzzles were simply difficult, or difficult to take seriously. For some reason, I found myself unwilling to agonize about how to handle the guitar-playing lunatic, and wanted to look at the hints in order to see more of the jokes, since a game like Phlegm suffers quite drastically from a reduction in pace. So I suppose you could say it was a difficult game, but then again I'm glad I approached it the way I did -- a plotless work like this one begs to be finished rather than battered.

Technical:

coding:

The coding was on the whole quite strong. I only found one weak spot, which was the fact that I discovered that I could carry the powder as long as I was holding the grail -- it didn't need to actually be inside the grail. Somehow I don't think this is what the author intended.

writing:

The writing was pleasantly error-free, which made the humor much more accessible and easy to digest.

Plot:

Well, I couldn't really say there was much of a plot, but on the plus side I don't think much of an attempt was made at one either. So the game was plotless (aside from the very most basic "get-the-treasure" motivation), but it didn't suffer all that much from being so.

Puzzles

Some of the puzzles were quite funny, and extremely reminiscent of Nord and Bert, especially those involving the needle. Then again, some others (the flame-thrower, for example), failed to be a lot of fun in their irrationality. In general, though, I'd call the puzzles successful in what I deduce to be their aim -- parodying typical IF problem (the references to Balances were especially funny) and providing nutty goals in an off-kilter universe.

THE LAND BEYOND THE PICKET FENCE -- by Martin Oehm

Prose:

There were a few moments in the prose where it was clear that the writer did not speak English as a first language, but the fact that those moments were noticeable as exceptions to the general trend means that overall the writer did a fine job of writing in an unfamiliar language. The descriptions were sometimes a little thin, especially with the game's two NPCs, but in general the fairytale fantasy mood was well-evoked by the writing.

Difficulty:

I found this game's difficulty to be pitched a bit below average. I never needed to look at the hints, and felt that I progressed through the narrative at a satisfactory pace. I finished the game in a little under an hour, which may mean that it was a little too easy if a two-hour playing time was intended (I'm certainly not the quickest IF player, as earlier reviews may indicate). However, I never felt disappointed with anything being "too easy" -- easier than usual, perhaps, but never to an annoying degree.

Technical:

coding:

There were a few coding problems, and in fact one fatal bug which first made some of my possessions disappear after a restore and then kicked me out of the game altogether. Also, some fairly common verbs ("throw", and the "character, command" mode of interaction) were not implemented, which was a little disappointing. Aside from these problems, the coding was smooth and relatively bug-free.

writing:

As I mentioned above, there were a few instances of awkward grammar which indicated that the writer was not quite comfortable enough with English to sound like a native writer. The problems were relatively infrequent, and had less to do with spelling or grammar errors than with awkward or unusual constructions.

Plot:

Well, the only plot here was a basic "find the object" quest, though cast in much less epic/heroic terms than usual, which was refreshing. There wasn't much of a sense of unfolding narrative, and many objects were either totally unexplained (the key to the gnome's treasure room tied around a swan's neck with a red ribbon? How did that happen?) or so convenient as to be ridiculous (how handy that the scientist just happens to have a powerful fungicide that can kill the problematic mushrooms!), causing the game to feel less like a plotted story than an excuse for stringing puzzles together.

Puzzles

The puzzles were rather average pieces, some quite derivative (the "key tied around an inaccessible animal's neck" is of course a direct crib from Zork II.) The ordinariness of the puzzles contributed to the game's low level of difficulty -- they weren't too difficult to solve, because they seemed quite familiar, and those that weren't derivative were of the "just-happen-to-have-the-perfect-item" type.

PIECE OF MIND -- by Giles Boutel

Prose:

Lots of the writing was really quite winning, and provided several nice moments of humor (the improvised songs) and drama (the opening sequence). I just wish the story could decide what it wanted to be, because the amalgam lacked an overarching purpose. One final note about the prose: I found several of the puzzles quite difficult because the room description seemed to belie the character's willingness to do the action necessary to solve the puzzle. Examples are smashing the television and touching the computer screen. I think that room descriptions play a very complicated role in defining the character's traits, and while the contradicting room descriptions were an interesting experiment, they didn't work for me in this case. Perhaps if I'd gotten more sense of desperation, or if the character-defining traits ("I've managed to avoid smashing it so far.") were described in less of an offhand way, I'd be more inclined to lead the character to do things that it is described as wanting to resist.

Difficulty:

Due to the phenomenon described above, I found myself consulting the walkthrough quite often. Of course, then there's the separate issue of the game's unsolvability. Frustratingly, this bug sets the difficulty at "impossible."

Technical:

coding:

Having a game-killing bug prevents Piece from getting a high score on coding. Apart from the fact that the game is unwinnable, I found the coding to be pretty smooth, although I think Inform is capable of handling things more smoothly. For example, when walking into the copyright office without clothes, the game should prevent the player from entering rather than allowing entrance only to revoke it.

writing:

The writing was relatively free of typos (though I think I noticed one in one of the box quotations, unless the author is playing subtly on the meaning of the = sign.) and grammatically correct.

Plot:

Well, I'm not sure I ever really understood the plot, since I never got to see the endgame. The concept of a character who is aware it is being controlled is an interesting one, and I think one with great potential. Unfortunately, that potential is not realized here, due to the game's schizophrenic approach.

Puzzles

As mentioned above, the structure of the room descriptions made some of the puzzles quite difficult. Others, though, had their share of wit and pizzazz. I especially enjoyed the copyright man.

RALPH -- by Miron Schmidt/Calyx Software

Prose:

The prose in Ralph is unquestionably its best feature. Lots of really clever, funny touches make the game a real joy to read, and I found myself trying all kinds of things because I knew that I would more often than not get a chuckle out of the answer. Of particular note are the reactions to "dog-specific" verbs like "scratch", "bark", and "wag", which give great context-specific responses.

Difficulty:

Unfortunately, I found it impossible to progress beyond 0 points without the help of the walkthrough. Even more unfortunately, this was because I had chosen the syntax "put sheet in hole" rather than "block hole with sheet" -- this is the type of difficulty I don't enjoy.

Technical:

coding:

Apart from the above-mentioned problem, I found the coding quite competent. Especially noteworthy was the simulated dynamic creation of objects (when holes are dug). The author smoothly created the impression of being able to dig an infinite number of holes by a combination of smart coding and a cleverly worded cap on the number of holes dug.

writing:

The prose was technically very strong. I found no errors in grammar or spelling.

Plot:

While the plot was quite simple, I didn't find this to be a problem, since the viewpoint character was a very simple creature himself. The experience of commanding a dog to do random things provided a very funny perspective on animal behavior.

Puzzles

This was the weakest part of Ralph. I found the puzzles quite baffling, especially the "guess-the-verb" one but the others as well. For example, why would a human scrabbling in the ground for ten seconds be able to find a bone which had already eluded a more efficient canine nose?

REVERBERATIONS -- by Russell Glasser

Prose:

In some areas the prose was outstanding -- economical descriptions which brought off the flavor of an object or area without getting mired in detail. In other areas the prose failed to note rather important aspects of a scene (the most grievous offense occurring at the very first room of the game.) Finding the clever responses was the greatest pleasure in the game, though sometimes the "SoCal" references felt quite self-conscious; overall the game's prose was like the game itself: strong ideas weakened by problems in key areas.

Difficulty:

I never found myself resorting to the hints, but I was occasionally forced to solve problems in the game by exploiting the logical errors in its structure. For example, the beginning sequence gives no indication that a pizza needs to be delivered -- I didn't find out until I tried to leave town and the game told me "You aren't leaving town until you deliver that pizza." What pizza? Why, the one never mentioned in the initial room description! Consequently, the game was somewhat difficult, but for the wrong reasons.

Technical:

coding:

The game suffered from several coding problems, including not only the one mentioned above, but a disappearing door (to the mayor's office), a store manager who only notices stealing when it conflicts with the plot, a pizza box and note which drift from room to room, and several rooms which do not contain text for items mentioned in their description. On the other hand, there are some shining moments in the coding as well, such as tailored responses to YES and NO.

writing:

The writing's occasional proofing errors provide a bit of unintentional humor, such as when the game describes the district attorney as being "only... uh, ten years old than you!"

Plot:

The plot of the game was great! The fun and zaniness of foiling the conspiracy made the game's technical errors much more forgivable. Several moments in the plot were even quite inspired, and felt intuitively right in the unfolding story. Examples include kicking the window while hanging on the ledge and throwing the bomb in the sewer.

Puzzles

Some of the puzzles (such as getting past the security guard and getting rid of the bomb) were quite good and managed to achieve the subtle balance between the problem logically blocking the narrative and the solution advancing it. The puzzles that presented real problems were based on coding flaws rather than conceptual ones, such as the initial pizza problem and the final rope problem, which defeats so many attempted verbs that one feels like jumping off the building.

RIPPLED FLESH -- by Ryebread Celsius

Prose:

The descriptions were weak, and the overall feel of the game evoked walking through the brain of a mental patient -- a series of non sequiturs, loosely tied together by an irrational framework. The writing suffered under so many errors that they seriously occluded the author's ability to communicate, and this problem was compounded by the fact that many (most, actually) of the objects and rooms in the game seemed to have no real purpose or function.

Difficulty:

I found it possible to move through the game without much trouble, which is a good sign; at least the language problems didn't render the game so opaque that it was simply impossible to complete without a walkthrough. Mainly the point of the game simply seemed to be finding one's way through a maze of rooms -- the one real puzzle (the wardrobes) had its effect spoiled by the fact that one didn't really gain much of anything by solving it.

Technical:

coding:

Coding problems abounded. Nothing fatal, but certainly plenty of the nonsensical and downright baffling. For example, how about those lights that get turned on so brightly that they blind the character, yet in the next turn the room is still dark?

writing:

Really quite terrible. My only hypothesis is that the author is a student (rather than a speaker) of English, and a rather poor one at that. A dictionary and a spell-checker would improve things immensely -- then the proofreading can begin.

Plot:

No, there wasn't one. A bunch of random events tied together by a whacked-out ending does not a plot make.

Puzzles

I mentioned the game's only real puzzle above. Other than that, the game's "puzzle" was just walking through the exit in each room until finally arriving at the "win game" room. Nothing much made sense, and so the whole experience ended up being unsatisfying. The real brain-twister is why the author chose to enter this piece into the competition in the first place.

THE METEOR, THE STONE, AND A LONG GLASS OF SHERBET -- by Graham Nelson as Angela M. Horns

Prose:

The game's writing consistently maintains an exceptional level of quality. The vacuous' Amilia's ramblings serve exquisitely to define her character, and the "briefings" concisely draw the player's diplomatic situation while quietly evoking Zorkian echoes. I found myself just a little confused by some of the cave descriptions, but this was mainly due to the sense of scope which the author unerringly conveys.

Difficulty:

As I mentioned, the game was too difficult (and large) for me to complete in the two hours allotted for judging time, and part of this difficulty arose from problems with the first two puzzles. After finally summoning the bird of paradise, I spent a good fifteen minutes trying to pour, put, rub, insert, or otherwise attach the sherbet to the elephant before finally resorting to the hints only to discover that the game demanded I "throw" the sherbet glass. However, in other spots the difficulty of the game was quite legitimate and logical, as in the instance of the ladder problem, which was another solution I found in the hints rather than finding it myself.

Technical:

coding:

On the whole, the game was very well coded, and I never found the kind of irrational flaws which can snap the suspension of disbelief in interactive fiction. There were a few spots where the game suffered from a lack of synonyms, especially the elephant (as described above) and the hook (one must again "throw rope over hook" but cannot stand on the table or hamper, lasso the hook, simply "throw rope" , "put rope on hook", or even "throw rope onto hook".) When these problems are eliminated , the game will be very strong indeed.

writing:

Sherbet is a well-written and well-proofed piece of work in which I don't recall noticing any technical mistakes.

Plot:

It was a great pleasure to get embroiled in the plot, and the premise of the main character as a diplomat rather than an adventurer provided a break from cliché married with a plausible reason for the snooping called for by the game's structure. I'm looking forward to the endgame, which I hope will offer a tie between the game's diplomatic beginnings and its Zorklike middle.

Puzzles

Mostly discussed above in "Technical -- coding" and "Difficulty." Many of the puzzles were real pleasures (panning and the ladder come to mind) and the twist on treasure collecting (giving all the treasures to the Zork adventurer) was brilliant. Once the puzzles are better coded the game will be really first-rate.

SMALL WORLD -- by Andrew Pontious

Prose:

The prose which describes the world is very well done indeed, and much of the time I really felt a part of the situation because of how well the worlds Lilliputian proportions were described. The game obviously draws heavily on Gulliver's Travels, especially in its description of the player staked to the ground by tiny people, and though it shares none of Swift's social commentary, it does convey a distinct sense of his imaginative milieu. The main weakness in the prose related to the puzzles. In puzzles such as the loose ring and the rod, I didn't feel that enough description was provided to allow me to reasonably predict the outcomes of my actions, and consequently I ended up solving some puzzles by force. (e.g. how would I know that something made of silver would buoy me?)

Difficulty:

I found the game rather difficult, and ended up referring to the "cheat" hints a number of times (13, or so I'm told by the game). Unfortunately, much of this reliance was due to the lack of information described above or, in one case, to a lack of synonyms. When these features are improved, the game's difficulty will be well pitched.

Technical:

coding:

There's little to complain about in the coding of Small World, so I hope my quibble doesn't receive undue focus. On the whole the game was very smoothly implemented, and I never found myself searching for the right word, except for once. Of particular note were the game's warnings before moving to an unsolvable state, and its ingenious hinting system. The one area in which I had trouble was in receiving the "that verb isn't implemented" response to "CLEAN SOCKS." When that verb wasn't available, I presumed I was on the wrong track altogether, not that I simply needed to "WASH" the socks instead. It took a "cheat" to get me out of that one.

writing:

The game's writing was technically proficient. Mr. Pontious does a nice job of eliminating errors in grammar and spelling.

Plot:

The plot of the game was really quite sweetly designed, creating a childhood fantasyland which was evocative not only of Jonathan Swift, but also C.S. Lewis' Narnia works, Lewis Carroll, and Bill Watterson. The battles between Heaven and Hell were a very nice touch, and I smiled at the gentle ending, which packs the character off to the hiking trip with a refreshed perspective.

Puzzles

This is my main difficulty with the game. As I mentioned above, some of the puzzles were really delightful and smart, while others felt a bit lazy. I think, though, that with the addition of richer descriptions for crucial objects such as the ring and the pipe (whose mechanism is mysterious to me even now), and with a closer attention to synonyms, these wrinkles will be well-ironed.

THE HOUSE OF THE STALKER -- by Jason Clayton White

Prose:

The opening sequence of the game got me quite interested, but most of the other prose served to undo tension rather than create it. For example, the author tries to create emotional depth to the character by describing a recent divorce. After about a paragraph of this, the game says "Now that you've had a good cry, maybe you'd like to try preserving your life some, hmm?" The condescension and flippancy in this narrative tone completely destroy any gradually building sense of empathy or emotional urgency. Also, object descriptions give no thought to the interactivity of the game. For example, every time you look at the TV, an announcer breaks into a show and says the exact same thing. The hair dryer is described as having its cord hanging off the sink... no matter where you take it. This is lazy writing, and it obliterates suspension of disbelief.

Difficulty:

I used the hints to get through the entire game once I realized that there was only one way to solve it and that was by doing exactly what the author had in mind, since no reasonable alternatives are provided. This kind of difficulty tests one's patience, not one's intelligence.

Technical:

coding:

Coding errors were everywhere. For example: The player must remove a scarf from a doll, but this can only be done in the room where the doll is originally located. Trying "YANK SCARF" anywhere else gets a response of "You can't see any such thing." Another example: "PUSH CHAIR" gets the response "You push the chair over to the bookcase." "PUSH CHAIR TO BOOKCASE" gets the response "You can't see any such thing." The only other character in the program, the killer, wasn't even implemented as animate. ("SHOW PICTURE TO KILLER." gets "You can only do that to something animate.") Like the writing, the coding was lazy and ineffective.

writing:

There were very few technical errors in the writing. It's frustrating -- a good idea with technically sufficient writing ought to have been a much better game.

Plot:

The premise had the promise of being extremely gripping and intense. The idea that danger lurks around every corner of a familiar setting has the potential to be great interactive fiction. However, by the end of the game, the idea of plot degenerated into a series of arbitrary but extremely specific actions performed on the killer's body.

Puzzles

The puzzles were very difficult because of their arbitrary nature. One has to do a very specific and exact sequence of actions to the killer's body before the game won't respond to "KILL STALKER" with "Violence isn't the answer to this one."

STARGAZER: AN ADVENTURE IN OUTFITTING -- by Jonathan Fry

Prose:

Aside from the sometimes awkward or convoluted sentence structure ("One reason for this is that this is also...", "...any other senses you may have."), the prose worked fairly well. I got a nice sense of the turbulence of the river, and I thought the dialogue worked fairly well. Nothing was wonderfully well-crafted, but most was certainly serviceable.

Difficulty:

I found the game quite easy -- I finished it in about 40 minutes. Unfortunately, this ease aided the sense of anticlimax triggered by the game's abrupt ending.

Technical:

coding:

Overall the coding was strong, though there were a few weak points. These points included: two separate moss/lichen objects which shared names, so that in one location "X MOSS" yielded "Which do you mean, the moss or the lichen?" over and over again; an object which is on a rock across a rushing river, yet which can still be touched or moved, a god who demands a sacrifice when the verb "sacrifice" isn't in the game's vocabulary, and a dusty lens which responded to "X DUST" with "You can't see any such thing."

writing:

The writing was sometimes rather awkward, but it was generally correct in spelling and grammar.

Plot:

Well, Stargazer didn't contain much plot, though it did have the beginnings of one, and probably contained a lot of foreshadowing (though it's difficult to tell without seeing the story ahead). What was there was an intriguing beginning, but not much more.

Puzzles

While quite easy, the puzzles moved the story along well, and were very well integrated with the storyline. I'll be interested to see what challenges the author has in store in the actual game.

TAPESTRY -- by Daniel Ravipinto

Prose:

The prose tended toward the histrionic at times, and unfortunately this actually occasionally diluted the emotional impact of the situations. However, my experience of those moments was that they stuck out from the general trend of the writing, which was quite craftily done, and in fact sported some moments of real intensity and poignancy despite the occasional cliché.

Difficulty:

I didn't find the game too difficult to get through, but then again it wasn't particularly puzzle-oriented. In fact, the path of Morningstar required a great deal more puzzle-solving than the path of Clotho (which is the other one I tried). Is there a message here?

Technical:

coding:

On the whole the coding was quite proficient. I was a little unhappy with what I perceived as some shortcuts (for example, a medicine bottle not implemented as a container), and the author's realistic setting caused a few problems with Inform's standard responses. (Examples: entering "DIAL 911" and being told "You don't know that phone number.", and being told that I really should clean the soot that's collected on my carpet, yet "CLEAN SOOT" receives a reply of "You achieve nothing by this.") Apart from these details, the coding was accomplished quite handily.

writing:

Grammatical and/or spelling problems and typos were not entirely absent, (I remember noticing an "a" used in place of an "at" or some such) but they were very few and far between.

Plot:

I found the plot quite compelling. The prologue worked quite well for me, (though I did appreciate the "begin" command after my first time through) and the mutually exclusive endings were well planned. Ultimately, the game's plot boils down to the idea that moral dilemmas can be extremely powerful in the medium of interactive fiction. I think this is a very, very good idea indeed.

Puzzles

As mentioned above, this work wasn't really very puzzle-oriented. The puzzles that were included were integrated well with the game -- no gratuitous grafted-on "crossword" elements -- and this was both a strength and a weakness. The strength: nothing interrupted the suspension of disbelief created by the game's dramatic scenarios. The weakness: character-driven puzzles (which most of these were) all too often boiled down to how to fill in the blanks on "tell ____ about ____."