Regarding a recent view on Anchorhead

[Peter_Piers]

@David Whyld

I can still see his point to a degree though. If ASK LIBRARIAN ABOUT BOOK only works after you’ve showed proof that you can take a book, it seems like a problem. Not a big problem in the scheme of things, and certainly not something that would put me off playing game or make me give it a negative review.

We may be talking at cross purposes. “ASK LIBRARIAN ABOUT BOOK” does work before you show proof that you can take the book, but it gives you a message that hints that you need to actually show that proof.

In other words, it’s a puzzle. It doesn’t work before you solve it, any more than “open door” would open until you unlocked it.

I try not to respond to reviews (good or bad), except maybe to say “thanks” – but I’m making an exception here because, funny enough, I agree with many of this reviewer’s criticisms.

Funny thing, I don’t get the impression that you do, on a general level. Let me be clearer: you single out two puzzles which, I agree, design-wise could stand to see some improvement. The keyhole thing didn’t bother me way back when, but I had a lot of context; the cellar bottles thing got me severely stumped for much longer than I was comfortable with. So yeah, I can see you, in hindsight, being unhappy with those…

…but the review has a ton more directed at other points of the game, other expectations, that I notice you didn’t touch on. And it’s those points that bother me, generally speaking. The expectation, for instance, that it should be spelled out, in ten foot tall neon letters, that THE KEY YOU JUST FOUND IS USED TO OPEN , WHICH IS IN , JUST IN CASE YOU HADN’T NOTICED THERE’S A LOCKED THERE.

And of course the frustration with the bum. I mean, that’s when the game came completely alive for me. It forced me to piece things together and act on my findings… it was a very, very big part of my enjoyment, and removing that would… well, sure, it would make the game more accessible, more casual, but it would lose a big part of what makes it special.

[mikegentry]

Oh, I picked out those two puzzles as examples. If you want to be more precise about it, five of his criticisms address parts of the game with which I am personally dissatisfied; three more of his criticisms involve places where I concede the writing could have been clearer or the parser could have been smoother; the rest I think stem from the reviewer either misreading or misunderstanding the text, or else represent a mere difference in aesthetic opinion.

Don’t get me wrong – I am proud of Anchorhead and I personally would rate it at least three stars. Also, the reviewer’s tone is a bit too much ragequit to be very constructive. But it was interesting (and instructive!) to see someone calling out precisely those aspects of the game that I think are weakest. Sort a reassurance that I’m not just being hard on myself. In short, I’m glad he reviewed the game and I appreciate his extensive (if unnecessarily ranty) analysis of what didn’t work for him.

[Peter_Piers]

It begs the question, then… which I have to ask knowing that you’ll probably decline to answer at this stage. Since you’re working on it again, will you be considering revamping those bits of the game you are the least pleased with?

As for the reviewer calling you out on those aspects, I’d probably feel better if he hadn’t called you out on the others too - sort of like, he shot everything and happened to hit occasionally - but I won’t belabour it. Maybe I was confusing “one player’s expectations” with “today’s player’s expectations”, and if so, there’s little to add. If he was useful to you, the author - hey, what better praise!

[Cyllya]

I guess it makes sense for the “bar” to be raised over time, and for the reviews to reflect how fun it is now.

I’ve played Anchorhead for the first time recently. I was surprised to find out how old it is, since it mostly seems like it follows a lot of the modern design “rules”… except for the fact that it can be made unwinnable. That’s kind of a bummer. I feel like that’s a justifiable design decision in some very rare cases, but this doesn’t really seem like the right kind of game for it.

I got stuck in the game, and I think I’m in an unwinnable situation, but it could also be that I’m just failing at the puzzle. (The solutions on IFDB don’t work, but possibly another option works.) Well, my save/restore messed up anyway.

But I did find it interesting how this part of the review contrasted with my own experience:

@matt W's review

3. There are places where scenery objects (that is objects that appear only in room descriptions) can be manipulated. This felt to me like making a puzzle by hiding an object in the wallpaper. Read room descriptions carefully and don’t be afraid to try using what you find there to create logical solutions to your predicament. The puzzles in Anchorhead are generally logical; they just are often well-hidden.

@matt w

It just threw me a bit when

the very first major puzzle in

Anchorhead requires you to move a piece of scenery around. After playing all those others, it really did feel like ripping an object out of the wallpaper to serve my purposes. On the other hand, perhaps I don’t really have the breadth of experience necessary to write reviews that mention the conventions of “most IF.”

I guess I was in more of a “mimesis” mindset for some reason (kind of), because when I encountered that puzzle…

[spoiler]Interacting with the trash can seemed totally reasonable and obvious to me. Rather, my main hurdle with getting into the real estate office was deciding that I even should go through the window at all–isn’t that illegal?!

I actually >WAITed out in front of the office a few turns.

I think my whole train of logic was:

Waiting doesn’t work, I guess the game wants me to do something else.
That alley seems like a good place to start.
The window is very conspicuous and described in great detail; it’s clearly an entrance.
Going in the window seems like a wrong thing to do (not even 100% sure it’s an entrance to the relevant office as opposed to a neighboring building), but “video game logic” is telling me to enter the window.
I think it’s too high, but I will try opening.
Yep, it’s too high. Is there anything I can stand on?
I pictured the trash cans being open, but maybe they have lids (or really solid trash). I’ll try standing on a trash can.
I’m now high enough but too far away from the window?! That’s silly.
Get off the trash can and push it.
Under the window obviously. Duh. Where else would I push it.
Get back on the trash can, open the window, enter the window.
Success! Hopefully the real estate agent doesn’t press charges.

I noticed when checking a walkthrough, it’s possible to do another story event before that, which causes an NPC to start following you. Maybe the dialogue at that point gives a better “excuse” for entering the window, and the game just gives you an option (which I took) to be a trespassing whackjob.

I had trouble figuring out what to do after getting the house keys–if the intro mentioned where the husband was, I missed it or forgot it.[/spoiler]
(spoilers for a very early puzzle of Anchorhead)

OR could this difference in thought process have something to do with the fact that I am physically a bit short?! “It’s too high” is a “puzzle” I encounter all the time in real life. The game used the first solution on my personal checklist for handling this situation.

[mikegentry]

@Cyllya

[spoiler]Rather, my main hurdle with getting into the real estate office was deciding that I even should go through the window at all–isn’t that illegal?!

I actually >WAITed out in front of the office a few turns.[/spoiler]

You’re not the first person to mention feeling that way. In fact, I recall one reviewer got pretty angry about it. Not a reaction I was expecting, but I kind of like it. It should feel out of character. The whole game, really, is about dreadful circumstance forcing you to do things you would never otherwise do.