Archived from groups: rec.games.int-fiction (More info?)
With my reviews, I have given a score on a scale of 1-10 and a grading on
the basis of 4 factors (novelty, interest, fun, polish). Although these 4
ratings have an influence on the final score, I prefer not to use any kind
of rigid formula. Basically, if I like the game then it gets a good score.
If I don't like it, it gets a bad score. (So if there's one category that
counts more than the others, it's "fun".) Any game that I enjoyed playing is
likely to get at least a 5.
Was there a game that I enjoyed more than last year's winner, Slouching
Towards Bedlam? In my mind, yes. Was there a game that I would pick over
last year's runner up, Risorgimento Represso? Perhaps not.
Regarding the novelty score, I have to admit a certain bias. Sci-fi and
fantasy games abound in IF, and they win the comp year after year. I don't
give a game a high novelty score just because it is set on a different
planet or in a different dimension, simply because it has been done so many
times before. I also tend to reserve the highest novelty scores for
non-fantasy games that tackle areas not covered by other IF. I someone ever
writes a compelling sports game, I may consider that novel. Or maybe a
Seinfeld-style game about nothing.
Andrew's IF Comp 2004 Awards
---
Best Game: Square Circle
Runner Up: Sting of the Wasp
Most Potential: The Great Xavio
Runner Up: Gamlet
Best Puzzles: Square Circle
Runner Up: All Things Devours
Most Novel: Goose, Egg, Badger: An Eccentric Girl's Birthday
Runner Up: Gamlet
Best Story: Sting of the Wasp
Runner Up: Trading Punches
Best Prose: Gamlet
Runner Up: The Great Xavio
Most Polished: Goose, Egg, Badger: An Eccentric Girl's Birthday
Runner Up: The Orion Agenda
Most Intriguing PC: Bellclap
Runner Up: Gamlet
Best NPCs: The Great Xavio
Runner Up: The Orion Agenda
And finally...
Most Surprising: All Things Devours
Runner Up: Splashdown
(These were the entries where my first impression was negative, but the game
turned out to be quite a pleasant surprise.)
I found myself playing the games mostly in order of interest (by title),
although I did try to bounce around between the various interpreters.
Actually, you really can't judge a game by its name, since many of the
better games came near the end.
And did I mention that annotated transcripts are available for any author
who wants them? Just e-mail me with your request (and mind the spam filter).
As for the languages... as usual, most of the better games are written in
Z-Code. The Tads3 games were also of generally good quality. The authors who
chose Adrift, Alan, or home-grown parsers were duly punished. (Why do you
inflict such pain on yourselves and me?) Then there was the phenomenon of
the Tads games. The Tads interpreter that comes with the comp package (HTML
Tads) has the most godawful default colour scheme. Most of the games are
completely unplayable unless you change it. I don't know exactly how much
control a Tads author has over the colour scheme of his game, but I do
wonder who chose that scheme in the first place.
And one final comment... what is with the IF community's obsession with
elementals? At least four games in the comp made use of the
earth/water/air/fire elements.
Summary of ratings:
Highly recommended
---
10: Square Circle
10: Sting of the Wasp
9: The Orion Agenda
9: All Things Devours
8: Gamlet
8: MingSheng
8: Blue Chairs
Also recommended
---
x: Goose, Egg, Badger: An Eccentric Girl's Birthday
x: Bellclap
Worth a try
---
7: Splashdown
7: Trading Punches
7: The Great Xavio
7: EAS3: Luminous Horizon
6: Magocracy
6: Identity
6: Kurusu City
5: I Must Play
5: The Big Scoop
5: Typo!
5: Chronicle Play Torn
5: A Light's Tale
5: Escape from Auriga (disqualified)
Not recommended
---
4: Blink
4: The Realm
4: Order
4: Who Created That Monster
3: Murder at the Aero Club
3: Redeye
3: A Day in the Life of a Superhero
3: Stack Overflow
2: Ninja
2: Blue Sky
2: Zero One (01)
2: Zero
2: Ruined Robots
1: Die Vollkommene Masse (withdrawn)
1: ptbad3.gam
With my reviews, I have given a score on a scale of 1-10 and a grading on
the basis of 4 factors (novelty, interest, fun, polish). Although these 4
ratings have an influence on the final score, I prefer not to use any kind
of rigid formula. Basically, if I like the game then it gets a good score.
If I don't like it, it gets a bad score. (So if there's one category that
counts more than the others, it's "fun".) Any game that I enjoyed playing is
likely to get at least a 5.
Was there a game that I enjoyed more than last year's winner, Slouching
Towards Bedlam? In my mind, yes. Was there a game that I would pick over
last year's runner up, Risorgimento Represso? Perhaps not.
Regarding the novelty score, I have to admit a certain bias. Sci-fi and
fantasy games abound in IF, and they win the comp year after year. I don't
give a game a high novelty score just because it is set on a different
planet or in a different dimension, simply because it has been done so many
times before. I also tend to reserve the highest novelty scores for
non-fantasy games that tackle areas not covered by other IF. I someone ever
writes a compelling sports game, I may consider that novel. Or maybe a
Seinfeld-style game about nothing.
Andrew's IF Comp 2004 Awards
---
Best Game: Square Circle
Runner Up: Sting of the Wasp
Most Potential: The Great Xavio
Runner Up: Gamlet
Best Puzzles: Square Circle
Runner Up: All Things Devours
Most Novel: Goose, Egg, Badger: An Eccentric Girl's Birthday
Runner Up: Gamlet
Best Story: Sting of the Wasp
Runner Up: Trading Punches
Best Prose: Gamlet
Runner Up: The Great Xavio
Most Polished: Goose, Egg, Badger: An Eccentric Girl's Birthday
Runner Up: The Orion Agenda
Most Intriguing PC: Bellclap
Runner Up: Gamlet
Best NPCs: The Great Xavio
Runner Up: The Orion Agenda
And finally...
Most Surprising: All Things Devours
Runner Up: Splashdown
(These were the entries where my first impression was negative, but the game
turned out to be quite a pleasant surprise.)
I found myself playing the games mostly in order of interest (by title),
although I did try to bounce around between the various interpreters.
Actually, you really can't judge a game by its name, since many of the
better games came near the end.
And did I mention that annotated transcripts are available for any author
who wants them? Just e-mail me with your request (and mind the spam filter).
As for the languages... as usual, most of the better games are written in
Z-Code. The Tads3 games were also of generally good quality. The authors who
chose Adrift, Alan, or home-grown parsers were duly punished. (Why do you
inflict such pain on yourselves and me?) Then there was the phenomenon of
the Tads games. The Tads interpreter that comes with the comp package (HTML
Tads) has the most godawful default colour scheme. Most of the games are
completely unplayable unless you change it. I don't know exactly how much
control a Tads author has over the colour scheme of his game, but I do
wonder who chose that scheme in the first place.
And one final comment... what is with the IF community's obsession with
elementals? At least four games in the comp made use of the
earth/water/air/fire elements.
Summary of ratings:
Highly recommended
---
10: Square Circle
10: Sting of the Wasp
9: The Orion Agenda
9: All Things Devours
8: Gamlet
8: MingSheng
8: Blue Chairs
Also recommended
---
x: Goose, Egg, Badger: An Eccentric Girl's Birthday
x: Bellclap
Worth a try
---
7: Splashdown
7: Trading Punches
7: The Great Xavio
7: EAS3: Luminous Horizon
6: Magocracy
6: Identity
6: Kurusu City
5: I Must Play
5: The Big Scoop
5: Typo!
5: Chronicle Play Torn
5: A Light's Tale
5: Escape from Auriga (disqualified)
Not recommended
---
4: Blink
4: The Realm
4: Order
4: Who Created That Monster
3: Murder at the Aero Club
3: Redeye
3: A Day in the Life of a Superhero
3: Stack Overflow
2: Ninja
2: Blue Sky
2: Zero One (01)
2: Zero
2: Ruined Robots
1: Die Vollkommene Masse (withdrawn)
1: ptbad3.gam
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram