Archived from groups: rec.games.int-fiction (More info?)
Review of All Things Devours
half sick of shadows
Awards: 3rd Place, IF Comp 2004
In a post on r.a.i.f., I recently proposed a set of criteria for
reviewing or possibly "grading" interactive fiction. As an
exercise in using these criteria, I am therefore grading the top 3
games in the last IF Comp to see how they would measure up. This is
the third in the series, which will cover Luminous Horizon, Blue
Chairs, and All Things Devours. The Luminous Horizon review was placed
on r.g.i.f. January 5th, 2004. The Blue Chairs review was posted on
January 6th, 2004. After posting this and getting responses on all
three, I will post another thread discussing what I have learned about
the criteria and how they might be improved.
NOTE TO OTHER POSTERS: Feel free to question both my criteria and my
conclusions. I'm just doing this to see if the approach has value
when applied consistently to multiple games. So fire at will.
Genre: Science Fiction
Storyline: The story is about an MIT graduate student whose science
project has been mysteriously taken over by the military. Recognizing
the project as extremely dangerous in the wrong hands, she is sneaking
back into the lab from which she was ousted to destroy the project. As
the player, you have exactly 6 minutes (in game, not real time) and an
improvised explosive device in which to find and destroy the project,
thereby delivering the world from a seriously dangerous form of
science.
Criterion 1: Does the game deconstruct the rooms paradigm so
effectively that no map is required to play the game? If not, does the
story itself have elements that actually focus the PC on geography, so
that a map is necessary to the story itself, not just to the gameplay?
If yes, thumbs up. If no, thumbs down.
This game virtually requires you to make a physical map or room list of
some sort. Not because the geography is too large to remember or the
world too confusing to keep track of, but because the actions of the PC
- where she is and, especially, when - are absolutely critical to
success in the game. The map, the story, and the gameplay are
inextricably linked. This is a perfect example of how a story can both
use and even demand the strictest of player attention to understanding
of the world map. So despite the mapping requirement, it gets a thumbs
up.
Criterion 2: Does the author make game-related choices or
plot-advancing consequences inherent in the majority of actions the
player takes? If yes, thumbs up. If no, thumbs down.
Every move - even the meta commands - matters in ATD, though you
don't necessarily realize the extent of this as you begin the
gameplay. Suffice it to say that the game will soon have you
considering the optimum move or command for every single step of the
game. There are consequences on consequences, and the results are
frequently fatal for you and/or the city of Boston. Thumbs up.
Criterion 3: Does game play and choices made as a result advance the
player to multiple endings, with multiple paths to reach those endings,
in ways that are both supported by and supportive of the main story
trying to be told? If yes, thumbs up. If no, thumbs down.
The endings in this game are binary -- you either succeed, or you blow
yourself or at least the city of Boston up - which makes perfect
sense in the context of the game. However, there are multiple ways to
solve the game within the architecture established. Once you figure
out what's going on, you have relative freedom to choose how you are
going to implement the solution. It's hard to see how another
effective ending could be grafted onto this story without writing
another, much larger game. So, multiple paths to a single ending
results in at best a thumbs sideways.
Criterion 4: Is the story itself actually worth telling? Does it have
a narrative dynamic that would be worth relating in other media, so
that it is not purely a technical exercise? And is that dynamic
sustained throughout the course of the game so that the player
essentially *knows* the story, even if he/she doesn't fully understand
it or all its implications, on the first playthrough? If yes, thumbs
up. If no, thumbs down.
The plot and focus of this story are somewhat old hat (at least to me).
What is interesting about it is how the game design made you *want* to
solve it despite the relatively well-trodden aspect of the story.
There was an urgency and an intellectual interest in how to make things
come out right that invited you to play over and over until the only
acceptable ending was reached. Your definitely new the story by the
end of the game. Nevertheless, for a widely-read sci-fi fan, though,
the story itself was fairly vanilla. And because the writing is
somewhat sparse, with the back story and the epilogue only sketched,
you never really attach yourself to the character's motivations
except at the most superficial level (don't blow up). The gameplay
is dynamic throughout the story arc, but the story is thin. A tough
call, perhaps, but another thumbs sideways here.
Criterion 5: Do commands -- including movement commands -- really
support the story, i.e., if you are using compass directions, is the
player using a compass to navigate with at the time? If not, do the
commands truly enhance the mimetic effect being achieved in the game?
Are uncommon commands natural to the story and the responses to
incorrect commands helpful? If yes, thumbs up. If no, thumbs down.
The author spent some time on enabling auto-opening doors, but most of
the commands were obvious and got the obvious results. As I said
earlier, the effect of the timing and the mission you are on make
*every* command important, but there were a few obvious things that
could have been automated to make gameplay at certain points less
monotonous ("wait until ...." being the principal one). That was a
missed opportunity on the part of the author. Some other commands had
results such as "there is no obvious effect" which are, too gamers,
too indicative that looking around will probably find some type of
effect. For myself, where the author missed was on the sound element
that could have been associated with some commands as clues. In a
darkened lab at night, when you are sneaking around, every sound could
have been not only heard, but relevant. On the other hand, not much
beyond the normal/obvious commands would really have been necessary in
this circumstance. Thumbs sideways again on this.
Criterion 6: Does the author have sufficient control of the pacing,
the narrative, the hints, other authorial mechanisms such as
flashbacks, memories, event intrusion, etc., so that the player can't
ever really get stuck and therefore fail to finish the game? If yes,
thumbs up. If no, thumbs down.
In this one, the game is the pacing is the story is the narrative is
the gameplay is the puzzles, etc. The author expects you to get stuck
(even killed) in order to restart with a better idea of how to do the
right thing (learn by dying). It would have been nice to have a
meta-explanation related to the game theme that explained all the
failures and "accounted for" restarts, a la Slouching Towards
Bedlam, but the degree of difficulty would have been high and it would
have made the game even more complicated. The author's placing of a
time limit on the game ensures that every attempt at the game is
mercilessly controlled within the parameters of the game.
Nevertheless, it is up to the *player* to understand the challenges and
make the correct outcome happen, so freedom to succeed or fail is
totally in your hands. Each failed iteration is thankfully fairly
brief, encouraging you to go back and keep struggling through to the
desired endgame. Thumbs up.
Criterion 7: Does the author use timing or turn-related events or
scene-cuts that give the player the appropriate forward momentum
necessary to move from scene to scene and complete the game? If not, is
a slow pace and relatively open player "wandering" reflective of the
story and how it is being told? If yes, thumbs up. If no, thumbs down.
The game has a time counter and is literally all about timing. You
have six minutes (in game time) to save Boston (and possibly the
world). This pressure colors the whole game, as every move counts off
time from your six minutes. The larger puzzle, in essence, requires
you to figure out a "4th dimensional" thought process to defeat the
time constraints. I can't think of another game that uses a timing
device so centrally and effectively. Another definite thumbs up.
Criterion 8: If puzzles are included, are they natural byproducts of
the world model or the interactions of the PC/NPCs? Are the puzzles
absolutely necessary to advance the story being told? If yes, thumbs
up. If no, thumbs down.
This game really is one giant puzzle. The story behind the PCs
actions, the flow of the gameplay, and the actions required to solve
the overall puzzle are so tightly related that they cannot be unwound
from each other. The smaller puzzles advance the story, and the
actions taken by the PC to perform the puzzles then become part of the
larger story and the larger puzzle you must solve. A brilliant game
concept, executed very, very well. A hearty thumbs up on this one.
Criterion 9: Does the game take risks in switching viewpoints (varying
the PC view between one or more of the game characters), using
different voice at different times (applying 1st, 2nd, 3rd and/or
stream of consciousness, perhaps all in one game), and/or breaking with
any other standard PC/NPC conventions (look, inventory, x me, etc.)?
Are those risks successful in the context of the game? If yes, thumbs
up. If no, thumbs down.
The game does not switch viewpoints or apply any real tricks to the
conventions of standard IF. It makes superb use of most of those
conventions, but in a mostly conventional fashion. There are no NPCs
in the game, and the standard commands give you a pretty standard
response. The game is primarily focused on the PC's mission, which
is complicated, so I can understand the author not cluttering the game
up with what could be seen as esoterica, but I think the author missed
a chance to make this more of a "stream of consciousness" exercise
with the PC, particularly in the long intervals where the player must
"wait" repeatedly for certain events to happen. Consequently, a
thumbs down here.
Criterion 10: Is it well-written, well-told, well-edited, well-tested?
If yes, thumbs up. If no, thumbs down.
This game is well-written, but rather sparse. No real complaints about
it, but the story development relied primarily on the player's
individual puzzle solving to both "make" and "tell" the story.
The game seemed to be edited appropriately and to be well-tested. I
only encountered one bug, relating to the automated doors, but the
solution, once found, ensured that the bug was meaningless. A thumbs
up, even if the desired depth of the story is not there.
Extra Credit Criteria: Does the game break new ground in the story
being told, new genres, new plots, new structures, etc.? Does it avoid
complete cliches (amnesia, underground empires, etc.)? If yes, extra
credit. If no, then no extra credit.
While the story was not entirely new to me, I think ATD really shines
in the brilliance and integration of the game concept. It's as
perfect an integration of the overall theme, the story, the game play,
the puzzle-solving, and the possible endings as you can realistically
expect from IF. Even Slouching Towards Bedlam, which I thought was
tops in that department, wandered off the point to some fun, but
inconsistent puzzle-solving exercises. It will be hard to top this
thematic integration in the future. ATD will remain a standard to
study for quite some time for authors who are trying to execute a
single brilliant concept as flawlessly as possible. An extra thumbs up
for that.
Total Score:
Thumbs Up: 6 out of 10.
Thumbs Sideways: 3 out of 10.
Thumbs Down: 1 out of 10.
Extra Credit: 1.
Net Score 8.5 thumbs up out of 10.
Final Comments:
Since my standards are meant to be the minimum criteria for a modern,
high-quality IF story, this would suggest that ATD has a little way to
go to meet the minimum standard. In some sense, it is probably one of
the best "adventure" games you could find in such a short format,
which is perhaps why it didn't max out this more literary-focused set
of criteria. But I do think there were place where the author could
have used more backstory - either flashbacks, or scientific
discourse, or whatever - to flesh out the story. The gameplay is
dynamic and captivating, but the story itself is a little mundane. To
get to the next level for the criteria I am grading, the author would
have to address that issue.
However, it *was* my favorite game of the Comp in terms of actually
just playing the game, though I think Blue Chairs was definitely
stronger overall and more deserving of a win. Of course, the irony is
that neither of those games won. EAS3:LH took the top spot. Just goes
to show you, even the critics can't always decide between
"popular" and "artistic" when the choices are this close, and
even then, what they think should be popular isn't necessarily the
same as what the public actually picks. But the bottom line for ATD is
straightforward: a great game executed very, very well. But more
story, please.
Review of All Things Devours
half sick of shadows
Awards: 3rd Place, IF Comp 2004
In a post on r.a.i.f., I recently proposed a set of criteria for
reviewing or possibly "grading" interactive fiction. As an
exercise in using these criteria, I am therefore grading the top 3
games in the last IF Comp to see how they would measure up. This is
the third in the series, which will cover Luminous Horizon, Blue
Chairs, and All Things Devours. The Luminous Horizon review was placed
on r.g.i.f. January 5th, 2004. The Blue Chairs review was posted on
January 6th, 2004. After posting this and getting responses on all
three, I will post another thread discussing what I have learned about
the criteria and how they might be improved.
NOTE TO OTHER POSTERS: Feel free to question both my criteria and my
conclusions. I'm just doing this to see if the approach has value
when applied consistently to multiple games. So fire at will.
Genre: Science Fiction
Storyline: The story is about an MIT graduate student whose science
project has been mysteriously taken over by the military. Recognizing
the project as extremely dangerous in the wrong hands, she is sneaking
back into the lab from which she was ousted to destroy the project. As
the player, you have exactly 6 minutes (in game, not real time) and an
improvised explosive device in which to find and destroy the project,
thereby delivering the world from a seriously dangerous form of
science.
Criterion 1: Does the game deconstruct the rooms paradigm so
effectively that no map is required to play the game? If not, does the
story itself have elements that actually focus the PC on geography, so
that a map is necessary to the story itself, not just to the gameplay?
If yes, thumbs up. If no, thumbs down.
This game virtually requires you to make a physical map or room list of
some sort. Not because the geography is too large to remember or the
world too confusing to keep track of, but because the actions of the PC
- where she is and, especially, when - are absolutely critical to
success in the game. The map, the story, and the gameplay are
inextricably linked. This is a perfect example of how a story can both
use and even demand the strictest of player attention to understanding
of the world map. So despite the mapping requirement, it gets a thumbs
up.
Criterion 2: Does the author make game-related choices or
plot-advancing consequences inherent in the majority of actions the
player takes? If yes, thumbs up. If no, thumbs down.
Every move - even the meta commands - matters in ATD, though you
don't necessarily realize the extent of this as you begin the
gameplay. Suffice it to say that the game will soon have you
considering the optimum move or command for every single step of the
game. There are consequences on consequences, and the results are
frequently fatal for you and/or the city of Boston. Thumbs up.
Criterion 3: Does game play and choices made as a result advance the
player to multiple endings, with multiple paths to reach those endings,
in ways that are both supported by and supportive of the main story
trying to be told? If yes, thumbs up. If no, thumbs down.
The endings in this game are binary -- you either succeed, or you blow
yourself or at least the city of Boston up - which makes perfect
sense in the context of the game. However, there are multiple ways to
solve the game within the architecture established. Once you figure
out what's going on, you have relative freedom to choose how you are
going to implement the solution. It's hard to see how another
effective ending could be grafted onto this story without writing
another, much larger game. So, multiple paths to a single ending
results in at best a thumbs sideways.
Criterion 4: Is the story itself actually worth telling? Does it have
a narrative dynamic that would be worth relating in other media, so
that it is not purely a technical exercise? And is that dynamic
sustained throughout the course of the game so that the player
essentially *knows* the story, even if he/she doesn't fully understand
it or all its implications, on the first playthrough? If yes, thumbs
up. If no, thumbs down.
The plot and focus of this story are somewhat old hat (at least to me).
What is interesting about it is how the game design made you *want* to
solve it despite the relatively well-trodden aspect of the story.
There was an urgency and an intellectual interest in how to make things
come out right that invited you to play over and over until the only
acceptable ending was reached. Your definitely new the story by the
end of the game. Nevertheless, for a widely-read sci-fi fan, though,
the story itself was fairly vanilla. And because the writing is
somewhat sparse, with the back story and the epilogue only sketched,
you never really attach yourself to the character's motivations
except at the most superficial level (don't blow up). The gameplay
is dynamic throughout the story arc, but the story is thin. A tough
call, perhaps, but another thumbs sideways here.
Criterion 5: Do commands -- including movement commands -- really
support the story, i.e., if you are using compass directions, is the
player using a compass to navigate with at the time? If not, do the
commands truly enhance the mimetic effect being achieved in the game?
Are uncommon commands natural to the story and the responses to
incorrect commands helpful? If yes, thumbs up. If no, thumbs down.
The author spent some time on enabling auto-opening doors, but most of
the commands were obvious and got the obvious results. As I said
earlier, the effect of the timing and the mission you are on make
*every* command important, but there were a few obvious things that
could have been automated to make gameplay at certain points less
monotonous ("wait until ...." being the principal one). That was a
missed opportunity on the part of the author. Some other commands had
results such as "there is no obvious effect" which are, too gamers,
too indicative that looking around will probably find some type of
effect. For myself, where the author missed was on the sound element
that could have been associated with some commands as clues. In a
darkened lab at night, when you are sneaking around, every sound could
have been not only heard, but relevant. On the other hand, not much
beyond the normal/obvious commands would really have been necessary in
this circumstance. Thumbs sideways again on this.
Criterion 6: Does the author have sufficient control of the pacing,
the narrative, the hints, other authorial mechanisms such as
flashbacks, memories, event intrusion, etc., so that the player can't
ever really get stuck and therefore fail to finish the game? If yes,
thumbs up. If no, thumbs down.
In this one, the game is the pacing is the story is the narrative is
the gameplay is the puzzles, etc. The author expects you to get stuck
(even killed) in order to restart with a better idea of how to do the
right thing (learn by dying). It would have been nice to have a
meta-explanation related to the game theme that explained all the
failures and "accounted for" restarts, a la Slouching Towards
Bedlam, but the degree of difficulty would have been high and it would
have made the game even more complicated. The author's placing of a
time limit on the game ensures that every attempt at the game is
mercilessly controlled within the parameters of the game.
Nevertheless, it is up to the *player* to understand the challenges and
make the correct outcome happen, so freedom to succeed or fail is
totally in your hands. Each failed iteration is thankfully fairly
brief, encouraging you to go back and keep struggling through to the
desired endgame. Thumbs up.
Criterion 7: Does the author use timing or turn-related events or
scene-cuts that give the player the appropriate forward momentum
necessary to move from scene to scene and complete the game? If not, is
a slow pace and relatively open player "wandering" reflective of the
story and how it is being told? If yes, thumbs up. If no, thumbs down.
The game has a time counter and is literally all about timing. You
have six minutes (in game time) to save Boston (and possibly the
world). This pressure colors the whole game, as every move counts off
time from your six minutes. The larger puzzle, in essence, requires
you to figure out a "4th dimensional" thought process to defeat the
time constraints. I can't think of another game that uses a timing
device so centrally and effectively. Another definite thumbs up.
Criterion 8: If puzzles are included, are they natural byproducts of
the world model or the interactions of the PC/NPCs? Are the puzzles
absolutely necessary to advance the story being told? If yes, thumbs
up. If no, thumbs down.
This game really is one giant puzzle. The story behind the PCs
actions, the flow of the gameplay, and the actions required to solve
the overall puzzle are so tightly related that they cannot be unwound
from each other. The smaller puzzles advance the story, and the
actions taken by the PC to perform the puzzles then become part of the
larger story and the larger puzzle you must solve. A brilliant game
concept, executed very, very well. A hearty thumbs up on this one.
Criterion 9: Does the game take risks in switching viewpoints (varying
the PC view between one or more of the game characters), using
different voice at different times (applying 1st, 2nd, 3rd and/or
stream of consciousness, perhaps all in one game), and/or breaking with
any other standard PC/NPC conventions (look, inventory, x me, etc.)?
Are those risks successful in the context of the game? If yes, thumbs
up. If no, thumbs down.
The game does not switch viewpoints or apply any real tricks to the
conventions of standard IF. It makes superb use of most of those
conventions, but in a mostly conventional fashion. There are no NPCs
in the game, and the standard commands give you a pretty standard
response. The game is primarily focused on the PC's mission, which
is complicated, so I can understand the author not cluttering the game
up with what could be seen as esoterica, but I think the author missed
a chance to make this more of a "stream of consciousness" exercise
with the PC, particularly in the long intervals where the player must
"wait" repeatedly for certain events to happen. Consequently, a
thumbs down here.
Criterion 10: Is it well-written, well-told, well-edited, well-tested?
If yes, thumbs up. If no, thumbs down.
This game is well-written, but rather sparse. No real complaints about
it, but the story development relied primarily on the player's
individual puzzle solving to both "make" and "tell" the story.
The game seemed to be edited appropriately and to be well-tested. I
only encountered one bug, relating to the automated doors, but the
solution, once found, ensured that the bug was meaningless. A thumbs
up, even if the desired depth of the story is not there.
Extra Credit Criteria: Does the game break new ground in the story
being told, new genres, new plots, new structures, etc.? Does it avoid
complete cliches (amnesia, underground empires, etc.)? If yes, extra
credit. If no, then no extra credit.
While the story was not entirely new to me, I think ATD really shines
in the brilliance and integration of the game concept. It's as
perfect an integration of the overall theme, the story, the game play,
the puzzle-solving, and the possible endings as you can realistically
expect from IF. Even Slouching Towards Bedlam, which I thought was
tops in that department, wandered off the point to some fun, but
inconsistent puzzle-solving exercises. It will be hard to top this
thematic integration in the future. ATD will remain a standard to
study for quite some time for authors who are trying to execute a
single brilliant concept as flawlessly as possible. An extra thumbs up
for that.
Total Score:
Thumbs Up: 6 out of 10.
Thumbs Sideways: 3 out of 10.
Thumbs Down: 1 out of 10.
Extra Credit: 1.
Net Score 8.5 thumbs up out of 10.
Final Comments:
Since my standards are meant to be the minimum criteria for a modern,
high-quality IF story, this would suggest that ATD has a little way to
go to meet the minimum standard. In some sense, it is probably one of
the best "adventure" games you could find in such a short format,
which is perhaps why it didn't max out this more literary-focused set
of criteria. But I do think there were place where the author could
have used more backstory - either flashbacks, or scientific
discourse, or whatever - to flesh out the story. The gameplay is
dynamic and captivating, but the story itself is a little mundane. To
get to the next level for the criteria I am grading, the author would
have to address that issue.
However, it *was* my favorite game of the Comp in terms of actually
just playing the game, though I think Blue Chairs was definitely
stronger overall and more deserving of a win. Of course, the irony is
that neither of those games won. EAS3:LH took the top spot. Just goes
to show you, even the critics can't always decide between
"popular" and "artistic" when the choices are this close, and
even then, what they think should be popular isn't necessarily the
same as what the public actually picks. But the bottom line for ATD is
straightforward: a great game executed very, very well. But more
story, please.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram