[Comp01] Stephen's Reviews (1/2)
Stephen Bond
Okay, there are quite a few negative reviews here, so if you're annoyed
by negative reviews you should skip these, unless you enjoy being annoyed.
I didn't think this was a good competition year: in fact I'd nominate it as
the worst ever. Every other comp gave us at least a couple of stand-out
games, but this year... well, let me put it this way. At the start of the
year, TEXTFIRE GOLF looked like a fun-but-inconsequential game, but now it's
looking like a multiple XYZZY-winner.
Before the reviews, a few general comments. A lot of the same old problems
with second-person narration keep appearing. One problem I can summarise
like
this: don't tell me how I feel. Unless you make a clear distinction between
player and PC, it's safest not to give the PC any strong feelings. Because
when you tell me how the PC feels, this is like telling me how I feel, and I
don't like being told how I feel. If you tell me I love someone, I'm not
going to love them. If you tell me I care about something, I'm not going to
care about it. I'm a cynical bastard. The solution? =Make= me feel the same
way as the PC. But this is difficult, especially within the scope of a comp
game.
And then we have the old player/PC knowledge conundrum. How do we handle the
PC knowing things the player doesn't? With the 'think about' command, BEST
OF THREE tried a new solution to the problem, but it strikes me as a bit
clumsy.
A lot of games sidestepped the problem by giving the PC amnesia, which is
now
such a cliche that it's impossible to take seriously. Other games, like ALL
ROADS and PRIZED POSSESSION, denied there was even a problem and went
bravely on, with an "it'll all be explained in the end" attitude.
So anyway, on with the reviews. I've reviewed all the games I played for any
appreciable amount of time. Of the remaining games, I either didn't look at
them, or looked at them for a few seconds and didn't find them interesting.
It is entirely possible that I missed something brilliant. The games are
presented here in the order I wrote their reviews: that is, totally at
random.
Oh, and spoilers ahoy.
---
BEST OF THREE, by Emily Short
"What I meant is that there doesn't seem always to be much narrative
momentum, just people sitting around spewing out ideas. Sometimes they're
interesting ideas, but they're all stated in the most verbose mode
possible."
So says one character in BEST OF THREE, describing Dostoyevsky. I'm sure
tongue was in cheek as the author wrote this, though, because the same
comment would be an obvious, if unkind, description of the game itself. In
this game, two people sit down and talk about stuff. The range of stuff they
can talk about is impressive, and some of the stuff is interesting, but the
story is just too weak to contain it. I like ideas being explored in
fiction,
but they can be introduced much more organically than they are here. The
conversations about art, love and literature don't flow from the narrative:
instead, a one-size-fits-all narrative is flung over them. The story seems
like an excuse, rather than a reason, to present a few ideas.
So for most of the running time, we don't so much have a story as a
chocolate-box of different conversations, most of which are essentially
authorial digressions. I can understand why the characters might want to
blather a bit, before they move onto more intimate things, but I'm less
convinced that the digressions have any =artistic= motivation. Why do the
characters talk about the topics they do? Where, for example, does the
literature conversation come from? Does it comment on the action, or advance
it in any way? Or is it, as I think, just an unconnected island-blob of
ideas?
As you'd expect from Emily Short, the writing here is very good. The PC's
reaction to Grant seems very real: the initial defensiveness, the moments
where she almost says things but doesn't, the way she gradually becomes
more open and intimate. And in the 19th-century throwback Grant, the author
has created a convincing character, even if he's a character I don't like.
Yeah, I hated Grant, and not just because he disses my favourite author. I
hated him long before that. My hatred of Grant goes right back to the point
when the game told me I was infatuated with him, whereupon I immediately
decided not to be infatuated with him. (Telling me how I feel again, you
see.) Nothing he said in the game convinced me to change my mind about this
pretentious cane-weilding twit. His conversation rapidly bored me, so I
wanted to leave, and I couldn't, and then I lost sympathy with the PC, and
then I lost sympathy with the game. I ended up wishing he'd hurry up and ask
me out so the whole thing would be over with. And even at that, he took an
age. Really, I hope the PC dumps this guy later.
Anyway, despite the weak points, which I've probably dwelled too much on,
BEST OF THREE is still one of the most worthwhile entries to try.
Rating: 5
---
STIFFY MAKANE: THE UNDISCOVERED COUNTRY, by One of the Bruces
The game ended, I closed the window, and sat back in horror - as I realised
that STIFFY MAKANE was my favourite game of the competition. Yes, an in-joke
that prominently features extraterrestrial bestiality gets my top marks.
What
does that say about this year's competition? And more worryingly, what does
it say about me?
Years in the making, dreamed up before I had even heard of IF, SM:TUC is a
frequently hilarious romp through the erotic adventures of the eponymous
Starfleet captain. There's a surprising =innocence= about the game,
something that brought out the giggling 14-year-old in me: I laughed at the
kind of things I hadn't laughed at in years. The Erazmatron/orgasmatron
joke,
the outrageous forwardness of Space Moose, the ASSimilating Borgs - all had
me cracking up, as did the appearances of such IF favourites as Beevie and
Granny from SHATTERTOWN SKY. And of course the idea of combining Stiffy with
xtrek is just fricking brilliant, even if it is about three years old now.
(Given the source material, though, couldn't '69' be implemented as a verb?)
There are more ambitious games in this year's comp, there are better-written
games in this year's comp, but as far as I'm concerned, there is no game
more
enjoyable. Now, time to work on those strange feelings I'm getting for large
furry animals.
Rating: 8
---
PRIZED POSSESSION, by Kathleen M. Fischer
As with MASQUERADE last year, Kathleen Fischer has written a quality
historical romance that I just can't get into. Unlike MASQUERADE, though,
which conveyed a certain Victorian stuffiness, the historical vision here is
less successful. Despite the evident research and a liberal sprinkling of
archaisms, the setting comes across as more Hollywood-medieval than
medieval:
I could never escape the feeling that everyone here was wearing moisturiser.
The occasional historical clanger didn't help either. A 12th-century knight
called =Darren=? I half-expected Keith, Gary and Jason to join the party.
It takes a lot of courage and effort to write historical fiction, though,
and
I admire that. I'd like to see more of it in IF.
The prose is generally good in a swoony romantic sort of way: it only gets
uncertain when navigating the frequent archaisms. Characters speak an uneasy
mix of modern speech and stuff like 'Christ, thou art blue.' Most
irritatingly, a horse is always called a 'destrier'. Each time this happens
I
sense the joy of someone sharing new-found medieval vocabulary, and each
time
I think how much better it would be if the horse was just called a horse.
As with many historical romances, POSSESSION never strays very far from
formula. We have a feisty, independent heroine who seems superior to
everyone
else in the story; a strong-but-sensitive hero, played by Richard Gere; and
an assortment of nasty English-accented villains who get their comeuppance
in
the end. There are daring escapes, daring rescues, scenes where His strong
arms envelop Her waist, and so on. These formulaic elements are mainly a
consequence of the genre, I suppose, but they do dilute the impact for me. I
guess historical romance just isn't my scene.
Rating: 4
---
EARTH AND SKY, by Lee Kirby
When I came back to the games to review them, I had to wonder why I passed
this one by the first time around. It seemed competent, and well-written,
and... then I remembered. I have to walk into a lab! Full of equipment! That
I'll probably have to manipulate! Aaaargh!
The second time I played, however, I persevered into the lab, and found out
that it wasn't like that at all. This is, in fact, a light-hearted tribute
to
the world of Marvel superheroes, with no annoying puzzles to get in the way.
Now, I know very little about superheroes - just enough to recognise that
'Lee Kirby' is a pseudonym, and not much more - but this game seems to
capture the superhero experience very well, as far as it goes. It evoked a
genuine sense of wonder as I was exploring my new powers. When I flew for
the
first time, and started zapping things, I felt a sort of liberation, as if I
could do anything - quite an achievement in a railroaded game. The dialogue
here is also excellent - I enjoyed the snappy repartee between the PC and
her
brother.
So the game started for real, and I was getting into it, and it was all set
to be one of my favourite games, when suddenly this happened:
*** You have saved the day ***
- Watch for Episode 2 of EARTH AND SKY, coming in 2002 to an IF archive near
you!
Huh? I'm sorry, but I'd been playing for all of ten minutes! Is that it?
This isn't EARTH AND SKY: this is the trailer for EARTH AND SKY. And as good
as it is, I can't mark a fragment of a game as highly as I would a whole
game.
Rating: 4
---
HEROES, by Sean T. Barrett
"Do you want to play as an [a]dventurer, an [e]nchanter, a [t]hief,
[r]oyalty, or a [d]ragon?"
Oooh, it's just like Nethack! In fact, I rather wish it was Nethack, because
when it comes to fantasy quests I'd much rather go out and =do= the stuff
than have to read about it. As it happens, as soon as words like 'Blackhelm'
and 'Dragonslayer' start appearing in the text, I can't help drifting away
and thinking of better things to do.
I really have to admire the amount of work put into this one, though. Five
different PCs, five separate quests, each with a feel and story of its own,
with the ability to switch between them in mid-game. HEROES is certainly a
great achievement in programming and game design, and I'd probably really
like it if it was a 3D graphics game. But this game showed me that in IF and
in graphical games, I look for different things. HEROES has everything I'd
look for in a game, but very little that I'd look for in IF. In IF I want to
see an entertaining story, good writing, interesting uses of interactivity.
And any fantasy quest where you have to recover a magic gem is, by
definition, none of the above.
Rating: 4
---
JUMP, by Chris Mudd
"'Don't you want to ask me about her breasts?' he asks insidiously" is
one of the funniest sentences ever written. Especially the 'insidiously'
part, which cracks me up every time. This and other howlers made last year's
dismal 1-2-3, also by Chris Mudd, worth reading. With JUMP, however, I have
to wonder if he's aiming for the title of 'worst living IF author'. This one
isn't even unintentionally funny.
Rating: 1
---
AN APPLE FROM NOWHERE, by Steven Carbone
It's very easy to spew out a load of stream-of-consciousness crap, dress it
up in IF and hope some profundity and structure emerges from the mess. So
while this game fires at some legitimate targets, and though I like the
savage humour and the general anarchic rage, I'd feel conned if I marked it
too highly. At times, too, the satire verges on being simple misanthropy,
and overall the game's cynicism left a bad taste in my mouth.
Rating: 2
---
FILM AT ELEVEN, by Bowen Greenwood
This game is apparently inspired by I-0, so the first time I played it I
spent the whole time doing I-0 type things: I stripped off everywhere and
waited to see how people would react. But the reactions were somehow
disappointing, and the descriptions were somehow disappointing, and I felt a
bit let down. I got the same feeling I get when reading Terry Pratchett -
all
very light-hearted, and the author is having a good time, and the characters
are having a good time, and everyone involved is having a good time, and...
I'm not, really.
One difference between this and I-0 is that the latter is much more richly
described and imagined. To take a concrete example, I-0 gives me a very good
picture of what Tracey Valencia's breasts look like. The description of
Betty
Byline's boobs, on the other hand, is "You've never had any complaints about
them", which is so vague that she might as well be wearing five woolen
sweaters. Does "You've never had any complaints about them" conjure up
images
in anyone's mind? No. And it's not that I'm only slavering after good
descriptions of T&A: a lot of the writing here is similarly unevocative. I-0
it ain't.
The second time I played, however, I tried to appreciate FILM AT ELEVEN on
its own terms, and I found it a lot more likeable. In fact I found the whole
thing rather sweet and endearing. I liked the PC and her infectious
enthusiasm, I liked the quirky small-town inhabitants, and I liked the
friendly, gently chiding voice that was narrating. There's nothing
particularly
memorable here, but ELEVEN makes a pleasant enough way to pass an hour or
two.
Rating: 5
---
Stephen.
www.maths.tcd.ie/~bonds/
ems...@mindspring.com
> IFComp 2001: Stephen's Reviews (1/2)
>
<spoilers>
> So for most of the running time, we don't so much have a story as a
> chocolate-box of different conversations, most of which are essentially
> authorial digressions. I can understand why the characters might want to
> blather a bit, before they move onto more intimate things, but I'm less
> convinced that the digressions have any =artistic= motivation. Why do the
> characters talk about the topics they do? Where, for example, does the
> literature conversation come from? Does it comment on the action, or advance
> it in any way? Or is it, as I think, just an unconnected island-blob of
> ideas?
Not exactly unconnected. But it *is* experimental; the function of
the game was to give a trial run to a conversation system that makes
it much easier for me to script complex dialogues and motivations.
From a design perspective, it was hard to predict how players would
react to it, particularly how proactive the NPC could be without
ruining game play. Now I know (well, better, anyway: Less Proactive
Than This seems to be the consensus).
> Yeah, I hated Grant, and not just because he disses my favourite author. I
> hated him long before that. My hatred of Grant goes right back to the point
> when the game told me I was infatuated with him, whereupon I immediately
> decided not to be infatuated with him.
Well. The game tells you that you >were< infatuated with him, which
is slightly different.
It is possible, and perhaps a good deal more satisfying, to snark at
him in the midgame and to tell him off in the endgame, sending him
home a shattered man. That it isn't evident how to do that, or isn't
clear how your actions point to that ending or not, is clearly my
fault. But it hadn't, like, not occurred to me people might not like
the guy.
ES
Eric Mayer
<steph...@belgacom.net> wrote:
>IFComp 2001: Stephen's Reviews (1/2)
>
>Before the reviews, a few general comments. A lot of the same old problems
>with second-person narration keep appearing. One problem I can summarise
>like
>this: don't tell me how I feel. Unless you make a clear distinction between
>player and PC, it's safest not to give the PC any strong feelings. Because
>when you tell me how the PC feels, this is like telling me how I feel, and I
>don't like being told how I feel.
I disagree. In fiction, and I include here IF, I like strong
characterization. Would you read only books whose characters were just
like you? Yes, the author has to convince the reader to believe in the
character, maybe identify to an extent with the character, or at least
be interested in or put up with the character. But the idea that you
can write fiction without giving your protagonist strong feelings --
even if they are of helpless inadequacy - strikes me as silly.
--
Eric Mayer
Web Site: <http://home.epix.net/~maywrite>
"The map is not the territory." -- Alfred Korzybski
Kathleen
> PRIZED POSSESSION, by Kathleen M. Fischer
>
> As with MASQUERADE last year, Kathleen Fischer has written a quality
> historical romance that I just can't get into. Unlike MASQUERADE, though,
> which conveyed a certain Victorian stuffiness, the historical vision here is
> less successful. Despite the evident research and a liberal sprinkling of
> archaisms, the setting comes across as more Hollywood-medieval than
> medieval:
> I could never escape the feeling that everyone here was wearing moisturiser.
> The occasional historical clanger didn't help either. A 12th-century knight
> called =Darren=? I half-expected Keith, Gary and Jason to join the party.
Hmmm... all names were taken from actual Medieval folks in roughly the
12th century. Of course, it's always possible the book had a typo or
that I wrote the name down wrong.
While the books have long since gone back to the library, I believe
the Darren is a gaelic name, fitting with the origins of escort.
Congradulations Jon!!!
Kathleen (didn't Jason sail with the argonauts?)
Stephen Bond
"Kathleen" <mfis...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:e6fc9551.01111...@posting.google.com...
> "Stephen Bond" <steph...@belgacom.net> wrote in message
news:<3bf4aedd$0$544$ba62...@news.skynet.be>...
knight
> > called =Darren=? I half-expected Keith, Gary and Jason to join the
party.
>
> Hmmm... all names were taken from actual Medieval folks in roughly the
> 12th century. Of course, it's always possible the book had a typo or
> that I wrote the name down wrong. While the books have long since gone
back > to the library, I believe the Darren is a gaelic name, fitting with
the origins of escort.
'Darren' sounded instinctively wrong for me as the name of a 12th-century
knight;
it struck me as a name that didn't have much currency before the 1970s when
various Irishy-sounding names became popular in the world. To make sure I
did a bit of Googling on the subject before I posted these reviews. It seems
the origins of the name are a bit uncertain, where it is given possible
Gaelic, French and even Persian origins. If you saw it in a medival history
book I imagine it was as a variant of Daragh, which sounds a lot more like
the name does in Irish. So I thought a Gaelic name would be pretty unlikely
for a Norman French aristocrat.
However: I didn't realise that a knight isn't necessarily a nobleman, and
that the term could also refer to any mounted soldier. And Gaelic
mercenaries were starting to appear in England in the 12th century, and it
is feasible that one of them was an escort called Daragh, which sounds
enough like Darren that I'd be a pedant to complain. So, in short, I take it
all back. I'm sorry :)
> (didn't Jason sail with the argonauts?)
Yeah, but Jason is one 70s revival name I think we can certainly rule out of
medieval England!
Stephen.
www.maths.tcd.ie/~bonds/
Stephen Bond
<ems...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:a69830de.01111...@posting.google.com...
> "Stephen Bond" <steph...@belgacom.net> wrote in message
news:<3bf4aedd$0$544$ba62...@news.skynet.be>...
> > IFComp 2001: Stephen's Reviews (1/2)
> >
> > BEST OF THREE, by Emily Short
>
> <spoilers>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> the game was to give a trial run to a conversation system that makes
> it much easier for me to script complex dialogues and motivations.
> From a design perspective, it was hard to predict how players would
> react to it, particularly how proactive the NPC could be without
> ruining game play. Now I know (well, better, anyway: Less Proactive
> Than This seems to be the consensus).
Actually I didn't mind that the NPC was proactive: in fact, given the
personalities of the two characters, and the fact that Grant was the one
with the
obvious agenda, it made sense that he drove much of the conversation.
> Well. The game tells you that you >were< infatuated with him, which
> is slightly different.
Well the first mention of infatuation I see in the text is
"...you find your mind crowding with events you've done your best to put
aside:
your infatuation with Grant..."
which implied to me that the PC's attempts to put it aside hadn't quite been
successful. And anyway, all of the PC's behaviour towards Grant told me that
the infatuation was still very much a going concern. Her initial terror, her
attitude that cycles between bitterness and hope, the thrill she feels when
he wipes the cappucino froth off her lips, the 'remembered lust, which is
not too different from lust in the present' (badly quoted from memory) - all
of this tells me that the PC is
in the presence of someone she really has the hots for.
This was both one of the strongest and one of the weakest points in the
game, in
my view. Strong because all of the PC's reactions and feelings seemed
convincing and authentic, and weren't overplayed; and weak because none of
her feelings were =my= feelings. If the character had been distinctive
enough that I felt I was playing a role, this wouldn't have been so jarring:
but as it is I have to agree with Adam's comments on her being a 'border
zone' character.
> It is possible, and perhaps a good deal more satisfying, to snark at
> him in the midgame and to tell him off in the endgame, sending him
> home a shattered man. That it isn't evident how to do that, or isn't
> clear how your actions point to that ending or not, is clearly my
> fault.
More like my fault as a player, since other people have found this, and
despite playing it twice and doing my best to insult Grant both times, I
only ever found the 'happy' ending. I will have to play it again, though,
just to see Grant shattered.
Stephen.
www.maths.tcd.ie/~bonds/
Xander
--
[Formerly appended fullquote was nuked by morver,
the versatile morphing server.]
Stephen Bond
"Eric Mayer" <emay...@epix.net> wrote in message
news:3bf55c3e...@newsserver.epix.net...
> On Fri, 16 Nov 2001 07:15:32 +0100, "Stephen Bond"
> <steph...@belgacom.net> wrote:
>
> >IFComp 2001: Stephen's Reviews (1/2)
> >
> >Before the reviews, a few general comments. A lot of the same old
problems
> >with second-person narration keep appearing. One problem I can summarise
> >like
> >this: don't tell me how I feel. Unless you make a clear distinction
between
> >player and PC, it's safest not to give the PC any strong feelings.
Because
> >when you tell me how the PC feels, this is like telling me how I feel,
and I
> >don't like being told how I feel.
>
> I disagree. In fiction, and I include here IF, I like strong
> characterization.
And so do I. Hell, I've even written a bit of IF in which the PC had one
or two strong views.
> But the idea that you
> can write fiction without giving your protagonist strong feelings --
> even if they are of helpless inadequacy - strikes me as silly.
And me too, but that's not what I said. What I said was that in a
second-person
narrative, I think it's safest not to give the PC strong feelings unless
there is a clear distinction between PC and player, i.e unless it's clear
than I'm playing a role and not just an alternative version of myself.
Giving the PC no strong feelings is not the same as the giving the
protagonist no feelings, since the player is also the protagonist in a piece
of IF. If neither the player nor the PC are feeling anything, then you have
a pretty drab work of fiction, I admit. But even in many
'namelessadventurer' games where the PC is apparently emotionless, the
player is still likely to be feeling something: excitement, frustration,
whatever. And in a game like this, it's always better to elicit these
feelings from the player than flatly announce that the PC has them.
If the PC is well fleshed-out and recognisably =not= meant to be the same
person as the player, then it's easier to do all that emotional stuff, and
I'd encourage it.
Stephen.
www.maths.tcd.ie/~bonds/
Eric Mayer
<steph...@belgacom.net> wrote:
You're right. You didn't. I must've been up too late posting my
reviews.