Wolfbiter reviews IFComp 2024 - latest: Eikas; wrap-up

today’s theme, courtesy of the rng-gods: two games ft. an institution of higher education as a significant location

The Killings in Wasacona by Steve Kollmansberger
Playtime: 43 minutes

The one where: recent FBI grad investigates string of murders

I was excited about this game based on the front matter alone; I have always wanted to be Clarice Starling.

The game takes an rpg-inflected approach—you can customize your stats or take one of several pre-built “archetypes,” and then some investigative tasks require skill checks based on a die roll. I quite liked this. It was nice that the game showed the skill checks directly so you would understand what was affecting what happened to you. And I liked the overall frame that you won’t be able to get every clue—it added a sense of realism. That’s just how life works, no one can convince every witness to open up to them or notice every possible connection. (And there’s quite a bit of information available that doesn’t require skill checks.)

Now, the danger of this approach is now we have players running around with arbitrarily different amounts of information, but I thought the game handled this really well. The mystery still worked for me despite missing a bunch of skill checks so I think a lot must have gone in behind the scenes to making it still make sense.

I didn’t take one of the pre-made archetypes, but I customized to +6 to physical with deficits elsewhere, so that was probably pretty close to the physical archetype. (Look, I was just thinking “what if you have to engage in fisticuffs with a suspect” and I really did Not want to lose.) (minor spoilers theorizing about efficacy of various builds) I have since seen discussion, including in the walkthrough, that focusing on physical is not the optimal approach, and that’s no doubt true. Different paths probably differ, but I got exactly 2 physical checks all game, and they were both after I told the sheriff to go make an arrest. Still, I wouldn’t say I anti-recommend doing that—the mystery was still pretty solvable and now I get to feel I bloomed in the face of adversity &c &c .

The gameplay is very procedurally focused (we can go to the morgue, we can interview people, we can visit crime scenes) with light resource-management elements, which matches well with the realistic vibe and gives a pleasing sense of autonomy.

On the realism point, the game was also very effective at making me feel the tension between resting and committing future crimes (I’m sorry Jamal . . .).

The writing didn’t get in the way of the game but it might be a focus for future efforts—some of the dialogue read a bit clunky.

And there was a few times the game mechanics were unexpected in an unpleasant way—not sure if this was a bug or not, but sometimes taking one option would foreclose the option of doing the others, and sometimes not (e.g., after I questioned the server at the restaurant I couldn’t eat a meal anymore, after I got the call logs I couldn’t call the victim’s phone).

Finally, I wondered if it was significant that I got the option to arrest Black very early—when I barely had any evidence, andI never got the option to arrest anyone else. I actually think that was not meant to be dispositive that he was the correct choice, but just to indicate I had found some quanta of evidence about him but not others. If that’s the case, spelling that out might avoid people thinking they’ve been spoiled.

I liked the stat table after finishing—if the author does a postmortem I would LOVE to see stats on say, how people build the PC, which pieces of evidence were most and least frequently discovered, etc.

Front matter
Could better set the table for the game Successfully sets the table for the game Successfully sets the table for the game PLUS

Overall, a very well planned and polished procedural mystery

Gameplay tips / typos
  • unlike most locations, you can visit the sheriff’s office more than once
5 Likes