B.J.'s IFComp 2025 reviews

I’m looking forward again to playing the games of the Comp and talking about them. I’ll post my reviews here as I’m able. Should games receive individual threads, I’ll try to post a link.

I’m more likely to explore parser games. I also have an affinity for the weird, the experimental, and the misshapen.

My reviews in the past have tended to be longish, but I’ll be trying to keep things more succinct this time around so that I can play and write about more games. We’ll see how that goes in practice.

Onward!

Penny Nichols, Troubleshooter by Sean Woods

Clickbait by Reilly Olson

By All Reasonable Knowledge by BMB Johnson

Us Too by Andrew Schultz

valley of glass by Devan Wardrop-Saxton

A winter morning on the beach by E. Cuchel

Eight Last Signs in the Desert by Lichene (Laughingpineapple & McKid)

Uninteractive Fiction 2 by Leah Thargic

The Breakup Game by Trying Truly

Fired by Olaf Nowacki

Violent Delight by Coral Nulla

11 Likes

Penny Nichols, Troubleshooter by Sean Woods

This review will set aside the many possibilities for and concerns over using AI to tell a story while acknowledging that there are many strong feelings about those matters on many sides. Instead, I’ll address the game as it was intended: a parseresque experience fueled by AI. You copy the provided prompt, drop it into Claude or ChatGPT, and play.

Except I did not play the game as it was intended. I knew I would be dealing with AI, and the premise (you’re an insurance investigator at a space station where a mysterious artifact has recently disappeared) was fine but I expected the game would quickly melt into various sci-fi cliches.

Instead, I played the game in bad faith, attempting the following actions:

  • Starting a conga line

  • Throwing a frisbee at someone’s head

  • Playing a Lady Gaga song on a ukulele

  • Revealing that I am completely illiterate

  • Making valentines out of red construction paper and giving them to various crew members

  • Asking if we could, like, go to a sports bar and get some wings

These choices led to some iridescent prose, such as:

You drop your arms to your sides, letting the ukulele clatter to the crystalline floor of the revealed dragon’s hoard. “You know what? I’m tired. This investigation is weird, I can’t read, and I never did find those chicken wings.”

It was an entirely sophomoric way to engage with the game. But the fundamental premise of using AI for interactive storytelling is that you can enter literally anything and expect a sensible response.

And you know what? Despite the many, many weird wrenches I threw into the story, and no matter how much I actively worked to derail it, it remained surprisingly coherent. A contemporary concern about generative AI for text is that its “memory” is poor—it can’t remember details large or small over the course of extended interactions, but I didn’t seem to encounter glaring issues like that using Claude.

But I wonder if, from a narrative perspective, that’s a problem. The AI prompt explicitly identifies the AI to respond like a considerate game master. Despite my theatrics, in the end I “won” the game and made a dragon friend who was going to teach me how to read. If I completed the story with my dumb commands, is there a point to allowing literally any interaction? I didn’t seem to appreciably influence the fundamental narrative on a macro level. Were I playing a real-life Spelljammer D&D campaign and I behaved in a similar fashion, my DM would have rightfully a.) killed my character and b.) kicked me out of the group before the end of the first session.

But knowing there was no actual human on the other side, I had a genuine, stupid fun making my character do batshit things and forcing the AI to earnestly respond. Does that make Penny Nichols a good game?

I dunno. I’ve been a writer for all of my adult life, and I am also a teacher of writing. Serious uses of AI for writing fill me with an existential dread, which is why I played as I did. But conventional wisdom suggests that players don’t really care how a game is made; they just care that it’s fun. And, to most players, particularly those who don’t usually seek out IF, could roleplaying with AI be more fun than bumbling through a traditional parser game with its ossified and esoteric commands? I think this game suggests the answer has the potential to be yes, even if I don’t like it.

For now, perhaps it’s best to stop there. As we continue to think about how AI will shape interactive stories, I’ll end with my own version of Penny as I tried in my very roundabout way to solve the mystery:

CONGA! Everyone join the conga! We’re gonna conga our way to the TRUTH!

12 Likes

Clickbait by Reilly Olson

I really enjoy the premise of Clickbait. You’ve recently learned about a weird online photo contest, and you’ve chosen to be truant for the day from your dull corporate job to explore an abandoned subway tunnel that you read about on Reddit. You climb down there and (of course) get locked in. You want to escape, but you also really want to win that contest and its concomitant fake Internet points.

The narrative voice is lovely with its cynical edge. We are subtly mocked for having an iPhone 9 and for drinking disgusting energy drinks. The various messages to replace “Taken” are amusing (for a FitBit we find: “This doesn’t belong to you but that doesn’t seem to be stopping you, does it?”). We are further humorously scolded for attempting to take various things we shouldn’t, particularly when they are bolted or otherwise affixed to our surroundings.

Yet the game tries to be helpful overall. When we meet characters, it cheerfully suggests everything we can try in an ASK CHARACTER ABOUT TOPIC format. It often clues the correct course of action—at times, perhaps too much so—which makes the game reasonably simple to complete, with a surprise twist at the end.

I really enjoyed the setting, the descriptions of the disused train and tunnels, and the real, present-day milieu. The game makes it easy to imagine this type of adventure could happen tomorrow in some semi-forgotten city. The game is fun. The game is good.

But it isn’t great. And I’ve been contemplating what draws that dividing line.

In Clickbait, it’s a bunch of small things. The map is very east-west linear, which is admittedly mimetic of a train tunnel, but could have perhaps benefited from a bit of intercardinal curve at one point (even though I typically hate NORTHEAST and its ilk). The puzzles are well clued, but there are so many locked doors, often with the same solution: find the appropriately colored keycard. The game tries its best with its characters and its ASK epistemology, but for an abandoned subway system, there sure are a lot of people here, and none are developed deeply—they exist as puzzle devices. The photography mechanic, crucial to the player’s motivation, is unevenly used throughout—I didn’t feel the need to take that many photos. (And the most important photo I did take seems like a major loose end—the person seemingly trapped in an inaccessible room.) There are also several Inform issues that could be handled more deftly. In our very first train car, an “old coffee cup (closed)” will not open; a few cars to the east there are “an underseat shadows” which are problematic for both their grammar and their odd callout in the first place—presumably there are shadows everywhere in the train. As for the twist ending, I found it forced; the game, otherwise pleasingly realistic, veers into unlikely cliché.

I’m being picky and giving a litany of gripes when the overall gameplay is solid. In terms of my ballot, this game feels like a 5 or 6 to me. But with another round of polish, and not too much additional time (given the scope of what’s already been done well in the game), it could easily be a 7 or higher. Perhaps that’s my dividing line? Many good stories have solid settings, narrators, interactions, and the like. But the truly great games of Comps past have spent the time and care to get all the little details polished until they shine.

6 Likes

By All Reasonable Knowledge by BMB Johnson

By playing a parser game, the player enters a contract with the author. The author gets to set most of the terms, but some things tend to be non-negotaible. Parser games should mention all important objects in a room, for example. They should be constructed so that paths forward might be reasonably guessed or seen, even if they are not straightforward. And so forth.

By All Reasonable Knowledge doesn’t always fulfill that contract, unfortunately. The opening tone is light enough, with a tinge of satire, as it employs the exhausted “you wake up not knowing who you are nor where you are” opening trope. We’re then given a thorough description of the wrecked room we’re trapped in and suggested things to interact with to get out. It’s a decent start. But then the game begins to falter, forcing players to return to this original description time and again. LOOK only provides the briefest of descriptions (“You are in a dingy bedroom”—which is useless, since there is only one location in the game) and VERBOSE doesn’t rectify the issue. So I wound up constantly scrolling back up to see what I had missed, breaking the flow of the game.

Sensible actions sometimes fail. You begin the game with a lighter, but LIGHT LIGHTER fails, giving the default Inform response (“This dangerous act would achieve little.”). Some nonsensical actions do work. You begin the game with your Brain in your inventory, which you then can drop with seemingly no ill effects. Sometimes, the game is poorly coded: KICK NOUN gives no response whatsoever. X ME, which would likely be important in our amnesiac scenario, gives “As good-looking as ever,” as ever. Standard Inform responses abound for many verbs, preventing progress by not suggesting more useful avenues of inquiry. There is apparently an “LSM Manual hint system” which doesn’t seem to work—I could never correctly specify what I wanted help about.

The inability to interact reasonably with the parser made this game a slog for me. The fundamental mechanic to progress is THINK ABOUT X, which is interesting, but X is often very unclear. Again, filling in X for a noun that’s in the room (but that isn’t one of the hard-coded topics) gives a blank response. By recovering your memories, the game slowly advances, and it starts to reveal some darker secrets, such as an estranged parent and a miscarriage.

Eventually, after some trial and an abundance of errors, and the discovery of a phone I could dial which isn’t accessible in the game world (and yet is one of the game’s most thoroughly implemented interactions), I got out of the room. Apparently my wife had locked me in there and I decided to reconcile with her, achieving “the best way this game could have ended” with a score of 150 out of 80 since point-earning actions can be repeated ad infinitum. The barking of a dog appeared as an item in the room, but LISTEN didn’t do much. I never opened the room’s cabinet, either.

The game is not irredeemable, despite my kvetching. The writing is serviceable with some comic underpinnings and the mechanic of using memory to advance the story rather than object-on-object interactions has potential. I liked seeing the memories accumulate in my inventory and using them to move forward. There are some good possibilities here. I wish the game were more thoroughly implemented to satisfyingly explore them.

In How to Talk about Videogames, Ian Bogost says, “You don’t play a game to experience an idea so much as you do so in an attempt to get a broken machine to work again.” That might apply to a range of parser games, but for By All Reasonable Knowledge, I fear the machine is too broken to be enjoyable.

5 Likes

Us Too by Andrew Schultz

I first played one of Andrew’s homophone games for last year’s Comp. The fundamental premise is the story gives you a two-word clue which you then transmute to a two-word homophone to advance the story in unexpected and often surreal ways. For example, Why Pout?, the title of last year’s game, becomes WIPE OUT.

I looked at my review of Why Pout? from last year, and most of the overall observations hold here. These games offer a very specific flavor of puzzle-solving, and it may be an acquired taste. Ultimately, I think one either likes this sort of thing or doesn’t, and that’s about it. I like it.

The plot of Us Too is reasonable enough—our eccentric aunt has left us a mine in her will, and we will inherit it if we can complete a bunch of fetch quests that her lawyers will oversee. The mine serves as a sufficiently fun place to explore, acknowledging that the point of these games is not really to develop a deep narrative but rather ask the player to conquer a gauntlet of wordplay.

So, what makes Us Too different from Andrew’s last game? For weaker areas, the whole introductory sequence stands out as potentially impenetrable. The game sometimes gives all four words of a homophone pair, and taken as a phrase, those four words don’t always make sense or distort language in odd ways. The first “solution,” which is narrated to us, doesn’t fully use the mechanic we’ll need. Our aunt’s name is Aunt Rickie-Anne, for which the narration suggests the solution is “tricky” (Aunt Rickie → Anne Tricky). But single-word solutions are never used while playing. The first solution we need to provide is responding to “House O’” (HOW SO), which is maybe the grammatically weakest puzzle in the game. Finally things start moving forward meaningfully when we arrive at the mine and riff off our nickname.

Upon arrival, though, we are presented with some bewildering things in our inventory: an Aw-Lug-All-Ugh, an A’ight, Amusing Item Using, and an Urgh-Ought-'Er Jot. These translate to the player’s carryall, the list of things we need to gather, and a note about how to get started. The game does try to explain their usage via narrative. But seeing the contractions and somewhat tortured language of our inventory might be enough to convince new players to turn away.

My other concern is there are some puzzles which seem to violate the fundamental conceit of using a two-word phrase to advance. One puzzle is solved by transmuting an item on the list you carry, which seemed out of scope to me. There’s a navigation challenge that’s fine enough on its own but doesn’t belong—to solve it, you need to manipulate a certain object, whereas for everything else in the game, objects are manipulated for you. And the puzzle on which I struggled the most was the cartoon in the diner, which asks you to identify both the initial phrase and the homophone phrase, a marked increase in difficulty over anything else.

However, the affordances the game gives feel much stronger. There is a helpful THINK command that records when you’ve made a correct guess (or even half of a correct guess) about something that doesn’t work quite yet. There are a lot of passages in the overworld (ultimately expanding in all eight directions of the standard parser-approved compass), but the game is very clear about where you can go, and, more importantly, where you shouldn’t go because you have completed everything in a given area. This aspect of the game is managed very carefully by the narrative, and it saves a lot of frustration and fruitless wandering around.

Further, the game gives you an eye that serves as a hint device, and an item in your inventory that will simply let you skip a puzzle. Early on, there are multiple puzzles available at once, but towards the mid and late game, you need to solve them one at a time to advance. These aids can help prevent a player from giving up entirely, and the game never scolds you for using them.

The best thing about Us Too is when the puzzle solutions simply flow from one to the next. It’s supremely satisfying to quickly rattle off four or five successful commands in a row while the entire realm surreally changes around you. In order to make the mechanic work, a lot of the translations are nonsensical (in the Scribe Room, for example, you must SCRY BROOM, even though there’s no real reason to expect there’s a broom there), but the best puzzles have both narrative and linguistic meaning. For instance, how would you reach a high cup? Why, you’d have to HIKE UP. Many room descriptions have hints about the general meaning of the phrase you’re supposed to enter, and there are even some funny responses when you enter a possible answer that is incorrect. (My favorite is at the beginning, when trying to dealing with the lucent row. I tried to LOOSEN TROU—as in, drop my pants—and the game clutched its metaphorical pearls.)

I typically prefer IF that offers meaningful stories and easy puzzles that don’t get in the way of experiencing the narrative. Us Too offers completely different pleasures, and it’s a testament to the game’s strengths that I enjoyed it as much as I did. I’ve played three of Andrew’s other recent Comp games, and I feel this one is the strongest. Go ahead, inhabit the role of “Trike” West. Go ahead, TRY QUEST.

7 Likes

valley of glass by Devan Wardrop-Saxton

I’m of two minds about valley of glass.

I.

I come to IF by way of poetry, and have specifically yearned for a lyrical use of the parser form, or at least a satisfying short-parser experience. Other examples entered into past Comps have tended to collapse under their own weight, oozing pretentiousness or evaporating into ellipses. The opening line of valley of glass awakens me:

It is early spring in the valley of glass, the first of the seven years you promised to the village blacksmith.

The prose is tight and immediately introduces the story’s twin tensions: you are trapped in the eponymous valley and are indentured to a blacksmith. Heading east from the starting road presents a river, “a silvery, south-flowing snake,” whose water is “cold enough to cut you, sharp and glacial even through your boots.” The writing is lovely—chiseled and ominous. Each description is imbued with myth, even if we’re not certain what those myths mean.

Most directions you travel are instead those you’ve traveled in memory. And each describes some egress you’ve previously attempted and failed. We are trapped, then, in this valley of glass, on the brink of another blacksmith day.

The game is a meditation on what it means to wait, to do nothing but remember, and it’s about the vacant moments that other stories elide. It’s about what it means to literally have no escape, how long seven years of required labor must feel when we are only at the beginning of the first one.

The game economically offers these themes through minimal but meaningful travelling. It is an excellent example of what a cohesive, lyric parser game might be.

II.

I wear a pair of boots and hold a polishing cloth. Logically, I try to polish my boots:

*** Run-time problem P10: Since leather boots is not allowed the property “polished”, it is against the rules to try to use it.

You polish leather boots until it gleams.

The game’s spell is irrevocably broken.

Beyond this particular error, the problem with valley of glass is that Inform comes with preloaded actions and responses that are helpful in many other scenarios but are useless here. “You jump on the spot.” “Time passes.” “You aren’t feeling especially drowsy.” None of that dross matters in this particular context, and yet it still exists. It’d be nice to be told something other than “That’s plainly inedible” when I attempt to eat my silver apple or golden pear.

I’ve read that some players use X ME as an acid test for how they expect a Comp parser game to fare. A meaningful response augurs well; “as good-looking as ever” suggests the author is failing to show their membership card. It might be gatekeeping in the abstract, but here X ME would very much benefit from something other than the default response it provides, because the story is drawn from a particular folk tale, and we are inhabiting a particular character from it. Motivation and worldview matter.

I briefly wondered if the game should instead be choice-based, though I’m convinced the act of traveling has meaning. It would be markedly better, then, to trim valley of glass to a limited-verb format: the directions, X, and maybe POLISH. (RUB and CLEAN also elicit default responses, alas.)

I’m dismayed the author has made some fundamental missteps, and I don’t trust their command of the form. Perhaps it was just a few rooms’ worth of pretty writing after all.

III.

Which mind is right? I’d prefer to give the author the benefit of the doubt. If we play the game the way it exactly expects us to play it, the effects are luminous. But parser games are never played so cleanly. That’s why authors have playtesters and transcripts and hours of arguing with code. It appears valley of glass did not go through such a process; it feels more like a whim than anything else. That diminishes any effect it might have. And that’s unfortunate, because there are good strategies to be studied here for future short-form parser auteurs.

13 Likes

Portrait With Wolf might be of interest!

5 Likes

A winter morning on the beach by E. Cuchel

I’ve been replaying A winter morning on the beach for a while now, and it remains somewhat enigmatic to me. I’ve just reached the fifth, and likely final, ending, where the game calls me an arsehole. Naturally, I find this to be the best ending.

We are cast in the role of a sixty-year-old man with hypertension. Our doctor has advised us to walk ten thousand steps every day. And so we make our way along the abandoned beach toward our goal.

The beach is well-described, as is the sea. But we best get moving. In the game, admiring the scenery too long will result in us becoming bedizened with seagull excrement, forcing us to return home. Similarly, walking for too long will cause our leg to cramp and elicit a sanctimonious message from our narrator, also sending us home for the day.

Thus, we must walk along the beach but take frequent stops. At regular intervals, we also encounter informational signs with quotations about ecological virtue.

If we are neither hamstrung nor shat upon before we accumulate our daily steps, we reach a bathhouse where we find a red toy car in the sand and a crying child to whom we can give it. We do so, and are told, “You have always wanted a grandchild to play with, and today you proved that you would be a great grandfather.” Then our daughter calls, and informs us we will soon be a grandfather. (If we show the child the car but do not give it to him and leave, we are instead met with news of our arseholery.)

The game is put together well, but it’s difficult to see the purposes at which it aims. The experience is so serene, and the final choice so obvious, that it seems slight. The signs seem to hound us into becoming more eco-minded, but the ending is unrelated to that. And the “correct” end feels as sticky-sweet as the child may very well be.

Perhaps we could imagine, if our sacred texts were more concerned about high blood pressure, the story as a salted-air passion play—our body almost too much to bear, the scourge of the seagulls, the long journey, the beseeching signs, the red of blood, the recognition of the mother, the promise of new life. Of course, that would be quite a stretch, even more than the ones our doctor has prescribed for us.

It’s delightful to see Mathbrush’s Simple Multimedia Effects in the wild, and I found the game’s use of hyperlinks to be quite effective—sometimes using them and sometimes not, and the gliding between clicking and typing was effortless. The visual presentation of the game is more head-scratching; the beach background is fine, but nothing in the story seems to justify the deliberate choice of an ancient green-on-black computer monitor.

The game is implemented quite well and is easy to play. The author has labeled it as experimental, which seems appropriate. But I leave the beach feeling unsatisfied. The net effect is too tame, and the final choice and message too insistent, for A winter morning on the beach to travel anywhere beyond its rather suburban strand.

6 Likes

How do you dealt with the seagull-turned-divebomber ? I have filled my 2hrs. with multiple attempts, the best being three moves going, one breathing which gives me ~ 50 moves prior of being “bombed”; the best conclusion I came on the mechanism is “a sort of weighted random event”.

Best regards from Italy,
dott. Piergiorgio.

1 Like

I’m not exactly sure how the timer works, but I can replicate getting to the bathhouse at the end consistently. The most straightforward way is to begin a new game. WALK five times in a row. Then WAIT once. Repeat this process until you reach the end. I’m not sure if the hidden counter is simply five of any action, and then you must rest? I got frustrated by the seagull as well, so I just started marching onward until the game advised me to stop, which I did, and then marched on again until I got another warning, and so on.

Can you tell me what command got you through the green door at the end? I could NOT get it to disambiguate correctly-- it kept insisting that I wanted to use the green pad to unlock the door instead of the green card. So I never got to see the end of the game.

1 Like

Thanks for the review!! Really nice to hear you liked my humor. Peppering in little comments and jabs was definitely my favorite part of writing the game.

This is my first attempt so I appreciate the constructive feedback as well. Excited to make another game knowing wayyy more about Inform and what people like to see. :slight_smile:

3 Likes

I played in the browser and apparently my game was wiped, unfortunately, so I can’t check. I do remember just lawnmowering through possibilities. At one point, I dropped everything except the key item in a different room, I think. I probably tried OPEN HATCH, UNLOCK HATCH, UNLOCK PAD, then any of those by adding WITH CARD or WITH GREEN CARD, and probably just UP, too. Not sure if any of those are actually right, though.

1 Like

Eight Last Signs in the Desert by Lichene (Laughingpineapple & McKid)

Where else to begin other than this is delightful?

Eight Last Signs is surrealism done right. It is deeply aware of its own roots while also forging ahead into the distant now, crashing gacha gaming into Magritte and Dali. The art and writing work harmoniously across the disintegrating barrens, with Satie dreaming his way through the soundtrack. The best thing about the experience is that the creators understand that surrealism is fundamentally comic, not tragic, even as everything in the game’s world is abraded to nothing.

We enter the desert at the coda of an apocalypse, finding ourselves worshipping at monuments of humanmade and natural detritus: a road cone, an ink cartridge, some selenite. We perform rites—don’t call them rituals—at each, clicking through cycling choices of uncertain meaning.
After visiting two monuments, we are rewarded with a eulogy of sorts that intertwines them. Certain choices we made come back to us as echoes or rhymes. Here, for example, is my marriage of an ink cartridge and a commemorative t-shirt:

The banding of the ink cartridge and the commemorative t-shirt, unfathomable inner workings. A man comes down the stairway and carries bright shapes on himself. Nobody can know more. Following a gap in the map, she reaches a hole. And she is vapour! Sublimated into bitter blues. It was a different person who clawed to this belonging. The letters are empty now. The liquid bubbles and rises through the perforated chambers. She counts on her fingers: yellow as the spine of a book, a tulip, a goldfinch, a pillow, a midcentury lamp, a tomato and a simplified depiction of the sun. Initiate the next phase of cleaning only if the print quality is poor. She unclogs it slowly with warm water and she waves in the distance, relaxed, wrinkled. In the city, life is carried over with the names filed off.

The language is electric, synaptic, and awash in the yellow I had previously chosen for the ink’s color. It’s a pretty nifty trick, this procedural stitching together of words into a compelling prose poem.

Then, once we’re finished reading, the monuments burn, just two more dissolutions in the desert.

Alongside the main story is a perpetual, postage-stamp-sized sidebar—the Twine file delightfully calls it “meanwhiles”—that leans away from myth and into current pop culture claptrap:

In another world: 146 automated spotify playlists used the image of three crescent moons over three men in bowler hats in the past 16 weeks. Ground down to inert particles.

The “meanwhiles” derive from Oulipian combinatorics (indeed, Queneau is cited as an influence in the credits). Substitutes for the Spotify playlists include painkiller ads and Redbubble accounts, and the images used are descriptions of artworks of the surrealist masters of the twentieth century. Other topics include YouTube, energy drinks, Funko Pops, and SEO, but no matter which reels the linguistic slot machine lands upon, all of it becomes eroded. Indistinguishable. Sand, sand, sand. And for the final act, of course, we must succumb, too.

Did I mention the game was funny?

The overall effect is one of a cosmic collapse beneath the folderol, served with just enough cynicism to keep it sharp. It is funny to make a pilgrimage to a road cone, to ascend it from the inside, and then ultimately to be atomized alongside it.

I’m concerned, though, that this haboob of words is frequently blinding, although I concede that may be part of the point. There’s just so much weirdness here that it’s hard to not become inured to it after a while, and it becomes impossible to focus on the beautiful language line by line. This is why the prose poem is the perfect form for surrealism—it offers just enough strangeness without overloading the reader. When I’m trying to read the narrative of worshipping at the monuments and clicking through the cycling links and remembering which two monuments I’m joining together and then reading the prose that links the two, it becomes, arguably, too much. However, the game wisely allows us to reread the best prose—the poems that arise after mixing two things—again at the end.

Similarly, I worry that the language is a little too tied to Breton’s original conception of surrealism and less attuned to more modern uses. The game tends to lean on the abstract too much, and it savors individual lines at the expense of following the thread of a larger whole. This experience, with its alien imagery and cycling links, distantly reminds me of Propentine’s With Those We Love Alive, and it comes up a little short. That story—and most modern prose poetry and surreal flash fiction—has a narrative impulse Eight Last Signs lacks. There are clear sequences of events to give readers a place upon which to hang their figurative hats. And while there is certainly the fundamental narrative of visiting the monuments here, often these vignettes are more about tempus-fugit ideas rather than an experience that continues to accrete. A day later, I remember almost nothing about the wicker monument, for example, even though at the time I found the language compelling.

And then there is the adage, attributed to Emerson, that if you are to aim for the king, you must kill him. English literature already has its perfect work about monuments crumbling in the desert: Shelley’s “Ozymandias.” Arguably that sonnet (the least surreal of all poetic forms) does more in its fourteen lines than the game does with its whole. Is that a fair comparison? Of course not, but it’s difficult not to make it.

Much of my commentary here is academic (read: pretentious), but I enjoyed the experience so much that it’s right to consider it not just within the provincialities of the Comp but rather as part of the weft of postmodern literature as a whole. The game is a cri de coeur, a wheel of fortune, and a linguistic playground. It is lovely.

As for a score, let’s see … take pure psychic automatism, raise it to the power of a newsstand, carry the one … and ah, yes, we arrive at tautology. An 8, then, for Eight Last Signs in the Desert.

7 Likes

Uninteractive Fiction 2 by Leah Thargic

This review contains massive spoilers for the game. (Yes, I’m serious. There are indeed things to spoil about this game.)

(I managed to lose.)

Uninteractive Fiction 2 by Damon Wakes (let us dispense with the pseudonym, shall we?) is a follow-up to the wildly successful last-place entry of last year’s Comp. I’m half-serious about “wildly successful.” Even though Uninteractive Fiction finished almost a full point(!) below the second-to-last-place entry, it spurred conversations both comic and thoughtful about the very ontology of IF.

Already the reviews for UF2 are rolling in, some smartass and some wearied, and it is currently rated last of all the 2025 IFComp games on IFDB, although it’s still very early. The premise is simple: last year, “You lose” was the result of the single possible click in UF. This year, it’s “You win,” accompanied by a glorious fanfare. On the surface, it seems like a trolling trifle.

I wondered if that’s truly all UF2 was, so I opened the game in Twine. (Full disclosure: My motive was not quite that pure, as I was also searching for the source of the audio.) Aha! A single passage titled “Good Luck Importing This”. A challenge, then.

The solution requires some knowledge of the inner workings of Twine. Twine can store things like images and audio within the generated webpage itself rather than as links to external files. It does so using Base64 encoding. The first step is to take the Base64 string from the “Good Luck Importing This” passage and drop it into a Base64 decoder. The result is … more gibberish, but clearly HTML, and if you’ve looked at the raw HTML output of a Twine game, you might recognize it as such. Take the resulting text string, save it as HTML, and run it to get … the same result?

Of course, at this point, we must import our new HTML file back into Twine, and the game’s secrets are revealed.

The passages are arranged in the shape of a skull, and they have a variety of amusing names, including many variations of “SUPER DUPER MEGA TOP SECRET.” One similarly named passage includes “TEST FROM HERE” as its text, and when we do, we are delivered to our true reward:

You could have just accepted the win, but instead you delved too greedily and too deep. You lose.

The text of “you lose” cycles through a rainbow of hues, and the familiar “womp … womp … waaaAAAaah” sound effect from the original UF plays. In fact, through some circumlocutious coding, it seems that starting from any passage other than the official one will lead to this end.

It’s hard to take our loss too seriously, though. The passages are brief and entertaining to peruse, including one titled “Easter Egg” (“Made you look.”) and one called “NOTE” (“I sure hope this actually looks like a skull in the thumbnail preview flowchart.”).

So it’s difficult what to make of UF2 as a whole. It seems like Wakes isn’t just playing a metagame, he’s playing a meta-metagame with IFComp as its base. He’s now run two “franchises” of metagame content—the UF series and of course the genital trauma games, which randomly select between players getting the “real” game or a grating awful parody of one at the start. This also isn’t the first time that Wakes has artfully arranged his games’ Twine passages. In DICK MCBUTTS GETS KICKED IN THE NUTS, the passages take the shape of, um, a dick, and in ROD MCSCHLONG GETS PUNCHED IN THE DONG the passages literally spell out “NO DICK THIS TIME”.

It all feels pretty light, though, and that’s good. The games antagonize the players and push (or punch) certain buttons, but they never take themselves too seriously. It’d be tempting to wade into headier explanations, but Mike Russo’s review of the original UF wisely cautions against traveling too far down that path. The concept of “the death of __________” (the player, the author, the genre of IF, irony, etc.) is itself dead, and postmodernism no longer feels very modern.

Still, these extended gags are part of Wakes’s oeuvre, and it is less common for IF critics to consider the arc of an author’s work within the venue of a particular Comp. As silly or superficial as these games might seem, craft and care are put into them. Their secrets feel more than mere easter eggs, but they also don’t rise to the level of meaningful substance. I worry that the coded messages are too goofy for a more thoughtful multigame metanarrative to seep through.

And ultimately, that’s fine. I had fun solving the mystery of UF2 and I enjoyed poking around its rubble. Perhaps I’m even falling into some 4-D chess trap Wakes has crafted by even writing about these secrets in the first place, and I’m still impressed by the sorcery of encoding a Twine game entirely within the passage of a Twine game. The game doesn’t deserve the last-place finish it may very well be headed for, though I’m not sure my score of a 4 will be enough to place it much higher.

24 Likes

Did the first Uninteractive Fiction have similar hidden depths? I don’t remember hearing about it at the time.

1 Like

Not that I could find. The current file has two passages (The text is just “PLAY” → “You Lose.”). The latter has some Base64 stuff, but it looks like it’s entirely the sound effect. Decoding it doesn’t produce anything else meaningful.

1 Like

The Breakup Game by Trying Truly

The premise of this Twine story is that you are supposed to think of someone you have loved and lost, and then the story will help you process those feelings of loss. But “you” appears to not be a character for whom you’re given a different identity. Instead, it seems to be addressing you, the player, directly, asking you to consider a real-life relationship. Indeed, the game’s tagline is “This is about you.”

I played the game earnestly, thinking of my first love which, as I have been taking to describe things recently, was in the previous century. The game is filled with positive motivations and thera-speak, and is definitely well-intentioned and kind. But for a breakup that happened thirty years ago, I’m pretty well-adjusted, thanks. The game ties itself into a few knots trying to cover its bases with abstractions that might apply to any and every conceivable relationship. But any past relationship that still hurts (or is healed) is filled with the specifics—the tangible things—that the game can never know. Again, it means well, and it might be useful as triage for someone in the recent wreckage of a relationship. But to me, it seems to lack a longer-term perspective and wisdom.

I don’t know the identity of the author, but I’d guess their age is comparatively young—twenties or thirties. Me, I’m almost fifty, and I’ve been married for more than half my life, beginning in the previous century. This game isn’t about me in any appreciable way, despite the tagline’s promise. That’s the risk of the second-person direct address: if the reader doesn’t identify with the premises of the story, the reader feels the story is unapproachable, that it has locked that person out. I don’t really need to work through my emotions about lost love anymore, and I don’t need the pep talk of going forward and kicking life’s ass, as the story recommends. Maybe my edges have been smoothed by time, for better or worse. But despite its good intentions, The Breakup Game excludes me as I try to be a participant in the conversation, which limits any success it might have.

5 Likes

Fired by Olaf Nowacki

Well, it finally happened. We—an ordinary guy—have been canned from our job, so we’re back in our office, early in the morning, to pack up our meager things. Fired is a “revenge play,” according to its subhead, and we’re going to ruin our boss with printouts we’ve made as proof of the crimes he’s committed: “fraud, embezzlement, falsification of documents, psychological harassment, sexual assault and that’s not even all.” (It makes one wonder what isn’t on this list.)

The game is well-written and well-implemented, even though it sometimes follows classic illogical text-adventure logic. We drive a forklift through a wall not so much as it’s a realistic thing to do but rather the game needs a way to make us physically progress forward. There’s a key in an unidentifiable blob found in a microwave, and only by attaching the blob to some velvet can we get it out.

Perhaps the oddest item in the game is the doll that resembles the boss in his office. It’s a giant, weeble-wobbly thing that also somehow talks? The solution to its puzzle also feels the weakest—it all gets a little nonsensical.

Thematically, though, I like how unified the game is. The game’s title, the Talking Heads poster, and the game’s crucial final action (literally burning down the office building) are all nicely tied together. However, there were several points along the way where, to quote a different Talking Heads song, that I couldn’t help feel like a psycho killer. We really, really, really don’t like our boss, and we’re repeatedly told so through a bunch of insults that are amusing enough on their own but start making me question whether I enjoy playing such a bitter PC. But fundamentally the story seems to be a satire. The whole scenario, particularly with its end, feels much more like Office Space than the sort of true madman revenge one might see in Poe. The game is listed as a comedy, after all.

I suppose we could go into a Marxist interpretation of the game, where we’re the abused working-class hero finally standing up against the owners of production. And it’s difficult to ignore the game’s parallels to today’s anti-billionaire sentiment shared by many who are not billionaires. But the game seems a little too light for that kind of analysis.

For me, it’s a fun and quick romp through many a cubicle-dweller’s wistful fantasy in a classic old-school style. It isn’t groundbreaking and occasionally leans too much on surreal. (In our world, there literally is no polished floor that is more impassible and treacherous as a sheet of ice—it’s just a mechanic to force us to solve some puzzles in the basement.) But it’s worth half an hour of your time when you’re playing Comp games on the clock in your own workplace. I like the game’s fundamental message to the powerful and proletariat alike: “Watch out / You might get what you’re after.”

4 Likes

Thank you so much for this awesome review! :blush:

PS:

Of course I’d love to see that! :grinning_face:

1 Like