Mike Russo's ParserTHON 2025

(Lost this one in the flood, reposting)

Wild West, Tin Star, and Desperados, by the BDB Project (ParserComp)

The phrase “old-school adventure” conjures up, at this late date, a few modest charms – perhaps an ingenuous treasure hunt, an exuberant narrative voice pleased as punch at the simplest things – and a parade of horrors: awkward parsers, dead-man-walking scenarios, no UNDO, guess-the-verb puzzles, endless empty maps… We look back and where we imagine we came from and we shudder, grateful to have been delivered from such tribulations and newly content to graze the fruit of recent years’ labors.

How accurate this picture is, I’ll leave to others more familiar with the 80s scene; I’ve played a few Infocom titles and a few random entries here and there, but know it much more by reputation and its influence than by direct experience. But I’ll admit that it’s a set of stereotypes that informs my thinking, which has left me in a bit of a hall of mirrors when evaluating this trio of games. They’re loosely-linked series of Italian diskmag games from the 80s, sharing a totally blank protagonist and a vague Western setting, translated and updated into (Puny)Inform. In some ways they’re exactly what I’d have expected based on that description, in other ways they’re not, and while I’ve got some guesses as to what the adaptation changed and what it left lie, they feel like stabs in the dark – because of course the past was more idiosyncratic than the flattened version that’s come down to us.

Let’s start with the difficulty, since that’s probably the place where the mind contemplating a throwback adventure goes first. While there are a few tricky puzzles here and there, mostly they’re – easy? Outside of a maze with a thirst timer, I don’t think it’s possible to die or render the games unwinnable, first of all, and the smallish maps and limited number of red herrings mean I was rarely at a loss for how to progress. Indeed, where the games err, it’s most frequently in overdoing the hand-holding. Here’s the description of some seats in a stage-coach in the first game:

They are fine-crafted and look very comfy, if you overlook the holes and the stains. It may be worth searching them.

You will be shocked to learn it is! Perhaps this is a modern effort to make the puzzles friendlier, or perhaps it’s a relic of a time when finicky parsers required more direct prompting of the player (the implementation of all three games is smooth throughout, unsurprisingly, with plenty of synonyms available and no disambiguation issues or other hiccups). Either way, it can sometimes be a bit too much, as with this sequence in the third game:

> x dead

It’s the corpse of the outlaw you shot from the bell tower. He’s now paid for his sins. You should search him to see if he has anything important on him.

> search him

You search the body, but don’t find anything noteworthy. You should now hide him in case the other desperados return. Perhaps you could drag him into one of the villas.

> x sombrero

It’s the sombrero the outlaw was wearing. You should put it on as a disguise, in case the others come back.

In other sequences the player does have something to do, though. That aforementioned maze, which comes in Tin Star, actually isn’t bad – it’s not too big, the map connections aren’t too byzantine (there are no diagonal directions), and there’s a fun sense of progression as well as relief once you finally escape. There is a critical item located in there that’s off the beaten path, but the need for something like it is clear once you get to the appropriate point in the game, and once you’ve secured water and your horse it’s much less of a pain to re-scour. And I enjoyed the counterintuitive way to navigate the mines in the same game (you can only find the way out once you lose your light source). It’s medium-dry-goods all the way down, and most puzzles are simple lock-and-key or swap-this-for-that affairs, but each of the games has one or two that are at least a little novel and reasonably satisfying to solve, so it all goes down easy enough though there’s little here that will stick to the ribs.

As for the narrative components of the games – well, remember what I said back in paragraph two about how we retrospectively view the past as more monolithic than it actually was? I wasn’t just talking about 1980s video games. Unsurprisingly given the trilogy’s provenance, the setting owes more to spaghetti Westerns than nuanced scholarship. There are bandits, mines, rattlesnakes, noble Indians, and victimized women. It’s a relief that the natives are generally portrayed sympathetically at least, and get a little bit of specificity in their material culture is described – though my eyebrow did rise upon finding some pemmican in the second game, as the game’s set in Arizona, amid the Hopi and Apache, while pemmican is a plains-Indian food.

More eye-rolling is the games’ take on vigilante justice. In Wild West, you’re a rancher whose family has been abducted by bandits; in the second, you’ve decided to take on a career as sheriff, while in the third you give up your badge in order to avoid creating an international incident when you pursue raiders across the Mexican border. Your goal is always to find a group of criminals and gun them down, and there’s not a Miranda warning in sight. Winning the first game requires poisoning a bandit gang’s water; the others climax with gunning down the Black Hats without a word of warning. Maybe I’m too much of a civil libertarian, but the victory message in Tin Star seemed to illustrate how hollow so-called law and order rhetoric can be:

Hiding behind the broken window, you fire on the bandits and pick them off one by one. The bandits look around in confusion to see where the gunfire is coming from. By the time they realise the source of the ambush, they’re all dead. Justice has been served. No one will mourn for those animals.

Congratulations, sheriff! Once again, the law triumphs.

Am I reading too much into these simple time-wasters? Almost assuredly so, but that’s the modern condition: these games were originally launched into a world where thematic analysis was not a go-to tool for reviewers, I don’t think, but today the question of what a game *means* often feels more important than what it *does*. For all that the updates make the games eminently playable in modern interpreters and with modern gameplay assumptions, they can’t, nor I suppose should they, allow them to fully meet this modern cultural context: these games weren’t originally meant to do that and it’d be wrong to pretend otherwise. So they stand as an incomplete time capsule, made more pleasant to contemporary eyes and capable of whiling away an idle half hour, but most interesting, perhaps, for what they say about a time we can no longer fully recover.

desperados mr.txt (52.8 KB)

ww mr.txt (29.4 KB)

tin star mr.txt (100.3 KB)

6 Likes

Blood and Sunlight, by alyshkalia (THON)

I’ve been at the IF-reviewing game for a while now: over twenty years stem to stern, and even if you discount the interregnums it still comes to about a decade. There’s been a lot of opportunity over all that time to interrogate my methods and their foibles, so I feel like I’m generally pretty self-aware about how I approach reviews. But there remain a couple of black holes that still lurk within this otherwise-well-surveyed galaxy, jealously guarding the secrets yet concealed within their Schwarzschild radii (forgive the tortured metaphor, my son’s been into space stuff lately so it’s all been top of mind). The one apposite to this, my final review of the Thon, is the mysterious ability some games have to make me stick to my first ending rather than replay them.

It’ll shock no one who’s followed my reviews that I have a bit of a completionist streak – OK, I’ve exhausted literally bit of content for every Assassin’s Creed game that came out before my son was born, down to finding all those stupid feathers that were floating over Venice in AC2 and clearing every map icon, however mundane, in Origins and Odyssey, so perhaps “a bit” is a misnomer. So it’s probably unsurprising that if a piece of IF advertises itself as having multiple endings, or significant branch points, my natural inclination is to check those out, and that inclination is even stronger when I’ve decided to review something; obviously an analysis informed by an understanding of a game’s structure and the full range of its narrative possibilities is going to be more incisive! Of course, I’m not slavish about this, if a game is super long or there are options that I’m just deeply uninterested in (see, e.g., “evil” paths), I’m more likely to be one and done. But when playing a short game that clearly signposts that it changes quite a lot based on player choice, and that maintains a minimum level of quality such that a replay feels like it would be reasonably rewarding, I’m typically happy to do so. Except every once in a while I just don’t feel like it, for reasons that I think aren’t *just* laziness but remain frustratingly hard to pin down.

Whew, we’ve finally circled around to Blood and Sunlight. This is a short Ink game that’s part of a series (I haven’t played any of the others) focusing on Zach, the vampire PC, and Lyle, his lover. This installment sees them firmly coupled up, but seemingly still in the early stages of the relationship, facing a milestone: there’s a party at Lyle’s place where Zach is meeting their family, it gets late, and Lyle asks Zach to stay the night, which he’s never done before. The dilemma isn’t about sex, to be clear – Lyle conks out a little too early for that to be on the table – but about Zach’s vampiric nature: Lyle doesn’t (yet?) have blackout curtains or any of the other niceties the discerning Nosferatu arranges for their lair. Fortunately, Zach isn’t the kind of vampire who’ll burst into ash if they catch a stray ray, but sunlight is enough to cause discomfort and nausea, so there are reasons beyond potentially-fraught interpersonal dynamics to hesitate to sleep over.

All of this is well explained within the game, even for a newcomer to the series – I felt like I had a solid handle on the characters’ respective personalities (Zach is a bundle of anxiety, Lyle is gentle and solicitous; Lyle’s family members are very much secondary but still manage to be appealing) and a clear view of the situation. Details of their backstory don’t really come on-screen, but given that those are probably the purview of the other two games, that’s fair enough. I will admit that I wanted a bit more worldbuilding on how exactly vampirism is meant to work, especially given that the treatment of sunlight is idiosyncratic – in particular, I wasn’t sure whether feeding generally entailed some form of predation or if ethical vamping was a thing, since that would have helped me get a better handle on how much of Zach’s angst is due to his personality rather than his situation – but all things being equal I feel like a lighter touch is better than a heavier one on this score.

Speaking of things that are light or heavy, there are a lot of choice points in what’s a reasonably slight vignette: beyond narratively important ones like deciding whether or not to accede to Lyle’s entreaties, you’re given quite a lot of scope to define Zach’s attitude and mood. These tend to range from more self-loathing ones, where you draw back from others’ attempts to reach out to you, to happier choices where you disbelievingly accept the love and care that you’re offered (as I said, Zach is angsty, you understandably don’t get completely low-key options).

It’s all well-presented, in prose that’s unshowy but evidences a good eye for detail and foregrounds emotion:

You both get up, and Lyle laughs when they notice your pajamas, informing you they were a gag gift from Daph. You let them hit the bathroom first, and you pull on yesterday’s clothes, glancing yourself over in Lyle’s mirror afterward; that whole no-reflection thing is as much a lie as the burn-up-in-the-sun shit. Your eyes are a little hollow, the corners of your mouth drooping. You put on a smile, grinning so hard it becomes macabre, and when your face goes slack again you look a little less dour. Then, too antsy to just sit and wait, you crack the door.

It all adds up to a satisfying, nicely made game, albeit in my first playthrough it felt a bit slight – I generally stuck to the choices that saw Zach accepting Lyle’s overtures and making a reciprocal effort to connect with them, and while that course did have some bumps along the way, notably some barfing and a need to push down feelings of inadequacy, it felt decidedly low-drama both in terms of conflict and outcomes; by no means was Zach and Lyle’s relationship transformed by these events, it just took a solid but small step forward.

I suspect that players who leaned into other versions of Zach would find their experience quite different, however: a vampire who slinks home alone or awkwardly runs out first thing in the morning would likely see this night as more of a turning point, potentially threatening this promising relationship or just offering a poignant reminder of the ineluctable curse of undeath. If I felt like my playthrough was low-drama because the main takeaway was that Zach just needs to relax a little, well, those other playthroughs are presumably right there.

And yet that’s all speculation, since I left things there. Objectively, there’s no real reason I can give for not exploring my options: I sincerely think the game would change a bunch, and my opinions would be more well-rounded, if I gave it another whirl, and I enjoyed my first go-round so I’m pretty sure I’d like a second, too, even if I’d be spending more of it wincing at Zach’s refusal to get out of his own head. But, well, see above – after hovering my cursor over the “restart” button a couple of times, I didn’t wind up clicking. I guess even if you’re usually a pretty responsible person, there are times when just going with the flow still somehow feels like the right thing even when you know objectively it’s not. And if I can’t figure out why that is for myself, it’s easy to sympathize with Zach for being in the same boat.

8 Likes

Lockout, by xkqr (ParserComp)

(I beta tested this game)

You don’t see as many one-room parser games as you used to. It’d be rank speculation to consider the reasons for this given that even asserting the claim should make a big fat [citation needed] pop up, but I’ve never let that stop me: maybe it’s because there are other more enticingly-minimalist constraints, like sub-1,000 word limits or speed IF, that have come into vogue because they actually impose, well, constraints, while a single room can contain just about the whole world? Or maybe it’s because the IF community as a whole is still working off the Cragne Manor afterglow, inasmuch as it’s basically just 80-odd (and 80 odd) single-room games stapled together? Regardless, I find it’s a rare treat to come across a nicely-polished example of the form these days; it’s satisfying to work through a complex yet neatly cabined series of challenges, like peeling a hard-boiled egg just so.

It’s exactly this satisfaction Lockout offers up. As the title indicates, an emergency lockdown has trapped the player character in a ship’s engine room, and you’ve got to figure out how to work the various mechanisms at your disposal to get out. While the setting is never fully specified – the game does a good job of leaving implications to the player to figure out, rather than bogging things down with exposition – this is no excuse for twiddling around with wacky contraptions: if the model here isn’t a modern, real-world ship, the difference is lost on me. As a result, the puzzles are very grounded, hitting a nice mix of physical manipulation and device- and computer-based challenges without requiring leaps of logic (though there are a couple that do take some chewing on, I think they all play fair).

One potential downfall of the one-room game is overwhelming the player with information, since the object density required to support even a short game like this one is much higher than the parser average. Lockout does well on this score, first by keeping the extraneous scenery to a minimum and not unduly extending the puzzle chain past the point of annoyance, but also by keeping certain objects off-limits until earlier challenges have been resolved, creating a solid sense of progression while also managing the player’s attention. Similarly, while there’s a robustly-implemented computer and quite a lot of control panels, Lockout bottom-lines the info you’ll need and redirects unmotivated flailing to keep you on track. Here’s what you get from examining a complicated series of readouts, for example:

The gauge you instinctively look at first shows the reactor temperature is in the safe region. The second gauge you look at shows the hull pressure differential in the red.

As that excerpt suggests, the prose here is dry, technical, and understated; it fits the techno-thriller vibe and conjures up a sense of place, but it has to be admitted that it’s not very exciting. If compelling writing is one of the main pleasures you get from IF, Lockout might not be your jam, but if you’re in the market for a one-stop-shopping puzzler, this assured debut has you covered.

lockout mr.txt (13.6 KB)

6 Likes

And with that, our Parser-y THON-y trip through the month of July is complete, with only a small fillip at the end derailing things slightly. Thanks to all the authors and organizers who make these events happen, and the other reviewers who either have impeccable takes (because they agree with me) or should hang up their keyboards (because they disagree with me or, worse, said something smart that I didn’t pick up on).

See you at the Comp!

12 Likes

Thanks for playing the games and for taking the time to review them. It’s appreciated.

2 Likes