Merk's Review: Red Moon

[Merk]

After stalling out over the past five days, I’ve moved forward. This is a draft of my review for Red Moon, which is the 18th game on my randomly-ordered list. That makes it the center mark, with 17 before and 17 yet to come. It looks like I’ll make the deadline, but I think others have been finished for days now.

This is nothing to do with Red Moon or any game in particular, but I’m starting to think I might skip the reviews next year, and just play to vote. Or maybe I’ll get an entry done in time myself. The big thing is just that I seem to be spending more time reviewing than playing, and most of what I have to say could probably come out just in the form of a discussion.

Also – and this is something I thought I’d never do – but I might also take to skipping ones that don’t win me over after a few minutes (next year, I mean). I know that’s the norm for many judges. I used to dislike the practice on principle alone. If an author put effort into a game – or even if he didn’t – it’s still important to see everything there is to see, in order to make the most informed decision possible. The worst thing for me, especially in response to my earliest entries, was seeing a reviewer dismiss the game as worthless after admitting to playing through only a fraction of it. But now… I don’t know. I’m starting to see why that happens. Skipping the obviously bad ones and not worrying about a review would definitely speed up the process.

But that’s digression, and nothing to do with this review. So…

Scroll down past the spoiler space for the review.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

Game #18: Red Moon
Author: Jonathan Hay
Played On: October 25th (45 minutes)
Platform: Inform 7 (Zcode)

>xyzzy
Not even powerful, ancient magicks will save you now.

Jonathan’s Hay’s Red Moon has an auspicious start. The protagonist and his almost comatose sister are hiding in a dark, decrepit one-room hut as something unimaginably dangerous lurks outside. Fear and paranoia even turn shadows and darkened shapes inside into would-be evils. They have nowhere to run. The menace could be upon them at any moment. A chance to call for help is rendered impossible. For the first few minutes, the game does everything right in setting the stage for an impressive survival horror experience.

And then… it fizzles. The threat becomes less and less real as nothing happens. The protagonist takes a moment to reminisce about a photo, which doesn’t fit with the urgency of the situation. Limited things in this one room exhaust themselves of useful interaction early on, so it’s easy to feel stuck. Suspense gives way to frustration and boredom. Ultimately, I began to wonder if the story might have worked better without dropping the player into immediate danger that goes unfulfilled. By then, of course, the game had lost its initially strong grip on me.

This may have been the point. With no new ideas, I began to try the old ones. I noticed odd things. Then again. Definitely, something strange is going on. It’s counter-intuitive, but clued just well enough to work. Since this is the game’s only puzzle I’ll not spoil it, but I think a little frustration is probably a prerequisite to taking the necessary actions.

The author has implemented five different things that can end the game, so it’s more likely the player will stumble on at least one of them. My first win was one of the four alternates. The hints tip off the “main” solution, and the others are also in the included walkthrough. All five are essentially the same conclusion, with only minor differences in what leads up to it.

I don’t know if this is the story the author set out to tell, or if (as mentioned in notes from his walkthrough) his mere three days of development time just sort of forced it. As a three-day project, and as the author’s first work of IF, it’s impressive. The implementation is decent given the limited surroundings, and even some unexpected surprises come in the form of responses to actions I didn’t expect to work. The writing is okay (with a few bits that seem awkwardly worded), and it’s at least a complete game. It’s just not a very long game, and it’s complete only in the sense that the author didn’t just leave loose ends hanging.

I’m not sure that should be taken as praise, though. The game it started out to be would have been far more interesting. If it had kept its opening momentum, gone creepier, kept its pacing, developed the protagonist, given his sister a real role in the story… then who knows. Even keeping the game’s final revelation (which, if I guess correctly, will be a subject of contention with many of the judges), the author had plenty of room to develop this theme in a longer game.

This is a very good first effort, and an amazing one given such a short development time. It just doesn’t stand up well against its better competition. I’ve scored it one point for its implementation, one for the story, one for writing, and the free point. That’s a vote of “4.” No, scratch that. Red Moon earns the bonus point as well. It’s a noteworthy effort by a first-time author, so that’s a bonus for encouragement. I’d like to see what he does with three weeks, three months, or even longer. If Jonathan Hay makes an appearance in IFComp 2009, I’ll expect it to be a better, meatier work.

[George]

I’m constantly impressed by how seriously some of the judges take the judging, by doing like you say and playing through a work they wouldn’t normally without the context of judging. I admit my approach is the complete opposite, and I have no problem with judging a work based on the opening 15 or 20 minutes of play.

One advantage of the recent relaxation of discussion rules is I can read a review of a game I previously dismissed, and then go back to it.

Hopefully it balances out?

[Merk]

That reminds me of a third way to make the comp go quicker. Wait, check the reviews, and only play the best.

[George_Shannon]

@Merk

The big thing is just that I seem to be spending more time reviewing than playing, and most of what I have to say could probably come out just in the form of a discussion.

I noticed this too, I would typically play through one game in part of the evening, but spend the rest of the evening reading reviews and writing my own. It’s a little tough, but I think it’s worth doing at least once. We’ll see next year.

I think I got all the ‘short’ games in one bunch in my random order. Lately I need all two hours to finish the game.

[Merk]

@George Shannon

I noticed this too, I would typically play through one game in part of the evening, but spend the rest of the evening reading reviews and writing my own. It’s a little tough, but I think it’s worth doing at least once. We’ll see next year.

Which do you do first – read other reviews, or write your own? I’ve been doing the latter, although a time or two I’ve seen spoilers just in checking reviews that mention or reference other IFComp games. So far, my observations and opinions are more in step with the norm than in years past.

@George Shannon

I think I got all the ‘short’ games in one bunch in my random order. Lately I need all two hours to finish the game.

Ha. You and me both. At first, I wondered if there were going to be any overly-long entries this year, but the answer is yes.

[George_Shannon]

I try to make sure I have most of a review written before I read other reviews. I think it colors my review too much otherwise. I end up thinking “Wait, I can’t say that, that’s what [someone else] said.”