IFComp 2021: Plane Walker

See here for my IFComp 2021 scoring and reviewing rubrics.

Plane Walker opens as an intriguing thriller aboard an empty plane. Not just any plane—you wake up mid-flight to discover you’re a passenger aboard a jumbo jetliner devoid of travelers or crew. Your destination on your ticket has been mysteriously defaced. While this rings out like the set-up for a Twilight Zone episode or a Hollywood action movie, the opening lines hint at something more thoughtful:

You awaken to the comfortable drone of the aeroplane’s engine, feeling rather disoriented after a long sleep. Then again, you’ve felt disoriented almost your whole life, as if you’ve been living in an unreal dream. … Only one thing are you sure of: that you do not belong on this plane.

The game is minimal in its prose and detail, and does not waste the player’s time by attempting to simulate with pedantic accuracy every cubbyhole and feature of the passenger jet. The first act of the game is spent moving up and down the plane’s aisle attempting to understand the situation you’re in, and how to extricate yourself from it.

I loved the thriller intensity of the set-up and the speed with which the game cuts to the chase. Within a few moves I knew the stakes. It’s a locked-room mystery, but the locked room is 20,000 feet in the air.

Some of prose text is pleasantly existentialist, almost philosophical in its quiet resignation:

> get in toilet
You try to step into the loo, but the clashing of worlds prevents it.

The premise is exciting, but some authorial decisions undercut it. One early puzzle requires a double EXAMINE, that is, you must look at the same object twice to discover the detail. I’m not a fan of such obstacles. Another early puzzle is essentially a brute-force problem—the game essentially admits as much, so at least the author recognizes it. Removing yourself from the plane is a head-scratcher, a strained management of inventory (although a couple of clues suggests there’s a logic to it that eludes me). I spent a great deal of time working through it, and had to resort to the walk-through to complete the first act.

Still, I found myself amazed when I stopped playing to learn that my score was a paltry 16 out of 111. The start of the second act suggested the game was only winding up. Would I keep playing? I’m not certain. But I appreciate the high stakes and the conspiratorial intrigue of an empty jetliner flying high over Arctic—or is it Atlantic?—waters.

IFComp 2021: Ghosts Within

See here for my IFComp 2021 scoring and reviewing rubrics.

Ghosts Within is a game of mystery and suspense set in and around the quiet fishing village of Foghelm. The game’s ABOUT command reveals author Kyriakos Athanasopoulos wrote it

as part of his Diploma thesis on Interactive Fiction, for the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering at the University of Patras, Greece! It is the first-ever attempt of the author to create such a game.

Ghosts Within opens with a combination of familiar tropes. You awake in a dark forest with your memory fuzzy how exactly you got there. Wandering around, you meet a number of mysterious characters who give dodgy answers about their backgrounds and their relationships with the others.

The author went heavy on atmosphere and location for Ghosts Within. Fog comes and goes. Locales are bathed in moonlight. A young woman tends to her flowers in the middle of the night. You visit a rustic graveyard and a seemingly abandoned lighthouse. A hotel manager seems friendly enough, but she keeps glancing behind you as though someone just passed by, although no one else is in the lobby.

The smell of damp moss fills the air. Wet grass and dirt surround you while you are lying face down on the cold forest floor. Your clothes are dirty, wet, and slightly torn in places. Your head’s left side is throbbing, your heart is pounding irregularly, and your limbs have gone numb from the pain. You try to examine your surroundings, but the lighting is dim from your current position to do that. You try to stand up, but it feels way too exhausting. You try a second time with the help of a nearby fallen branch; finally, you manage to raise yourself from the ground…

Also in the ABOUT, the author admits there are not many puzzles, and I would second that. Ghosts Within is a game of exploration and conversation, with details gradually accumulating to reveal histories and submerged connections. It’s a rather large game for a first-time author. Most of my play time was spent wandering about and talking with the residents of Foghelm.

In fact, I came to realize the game’s map-heavy layout was complemented by the count of NPCs one can converse with. Speaking with one NPC will unlock new topics with NPCs you’ve already met. I appreciated that you may lie to some of the residents of Foghelm—and that telling the truth is not always in your best interests. There are three starting points and multiple endings; the author expects players to play several times through to truly finish the game. The different starting points create Roshomon-like effects when encountering the same NPCs in different play-throughs. (For example, from one starting point, I wondered why I met a certain character at a phone booth in the middle of the night. After a second starting point, I at least had a clue why she would be there.)

For all the game’s promise, there are disappointing, but forgivable, issues. Some of the grammar and dialogue is a bit wooden, and there are a number of minor typos. On the flip side, this game did teach me that “clowder” is a collective term for cats, and casually drops the word “seiner” in a description, which I’m convinced I’ve never seen before in print. And as the above quote suggests, these are not pervasive problems.

Another issue deals with movement around the map. Many of the outdoor descriptions are little more than enumerating exits and directions. Some are confusing, with directions and details becoming a blur of compass points. This is one of the problems with a map-heavy game, especially in one so conscious of atmosphere and setting.

The most jarring bug is related to NPC interactions. For example, a nearby research facility can be a topic of discussion with another character, but I had no reason to know about it before that moment.

All said, I’m thoroughly impressed with Ghosts Within. Hats off to a first-time implementor writing a game that leans heavy on NPCs, conversations, and knowledge. Ghosts Within offers spookiness, tons of ambiance, and a gradual accretion of details that lead toward solving at least three mysteries: Who you are, why you’re there, and what really happened long ago in the village of Foghelm.

Addendum: The author posted an updated version after my first run through the game. It’s possible the issues I mentioned have been fixed, as I did not have the chance to try to reproduce them later.

Also, the author informed later that English is his second language. While I stand by my criticism on the points about dialogue and grammar, it certainly makes his effort that much more of an achievement.

IFComp 2021: Scoring and review rubrics

This year I’m participating in the 2021 Interactive Fiction Competition (“IFComp 2021”). Over the next month or so, I’ll play as many of the entries I can manage and post mini-reviews here and at intfiction.org.

If you want to join in, all are welcome to judge! Go to ifcomp.org/ballot to get started.

Scoring rubric

IFComp suggests judges devise a scoring rubric before starting. Here’s mine, which borrows liberally from their example rubric:

  • Rating of 10: Mind-blowing. A game I wish I had written. Something I’ve never seen before, or done extraordinarily well. A professional-grade effort.
  • Rating of 9, 8, 7: A great game, entertaining and nearly flawless, with each increment a gradation of my enthusiasm. Grabbed my attention and sustained my interest.
  • Rating of 6, 5, 4: A promising game that misses its mark, again, graded by my enthusiasm. Piqued my interest but had trouble holding it.
  • Rating of 3: A fatal miss. Flawed in execution. More time spent in revision, or more beta-testing, is needed.
  • Rating of 2: Shot through with bugs. Disappointing beyond being flawed.
  • Rating of 1: Should not have been submitted to the competition. (Honestly, if a game is this bad, I’m inclined not to score it, since I probably didn’t play it for long. It’s unlikely I’ll post a review of it.)

Reviewing rubric

My reviewing rubric borrows from Updike’s rules for reviewing and a few personal guidelines I’ve developed over the years:

  • Try to understand what the author is attempting, and ask myself if he or she succeeded.
  • Quote one or two representative passages to give the reader a chance to sample the prose.
  • Start with positives, list some negatives, and summarize my overall experience. (This comes from a straighforward process I saw used with success in playwriting workshops.)
  • Negatives should come from a place of constructive criticism. Ask if my expectations are in line with the author’s ambitions.
  • Don’t give away the ending or major turning points.
  • Keep the discussion to what’s on the screen. Avoid peripheral issues like ideology or comparisons to other work, unless they illuminate rather than distract.
  • Don’t review something I’m unlikely to enjoy or unqualified to review.
  • Don’t review work I feel compelled to judge positively or negatively no matter the work’s quality.

Obviously there’s some bleed-over between these rubrics: The latter list will inform my scoring, and vice-versa.

I gravitate toward text-only or text-heavy games, meaning my focus will be on games written in TADS, Inform, and the like.

Also, I won’t list my score in the review. I’ll decide the final numbers when I cast my ballot.

With that out of the way, let’s move on to the games I’ve played so far: