Home | Profile - Edit | Your Page | Your Inbox Browse | Search Games   |   Log In

Cryptozookeeper

by Robb Sherwin profile

Episode 3 of New Haz
Science Fiction
2011

Web Site

Go to the game's main page

Member Reviews

Average Rating:
Number of Reviews: 3
Write a review


12 of 13 people found the following review helpful:
Chimeric Drift, June 25, 2012
A feckless loser, likeable but kind of awful, has his life even further ruined by the intrusion of an SF/F trope. He joins up with a group of yet-more-awful guys and an cute girl or two; together they navigate a grody, nocturnal Americana fever-dream, overcome obstacles through randomised combat, and squabble interminably; a extensive range of graphics and atmospheric music rounds the experience out. Scatology, sass and geekery abound. If you've enjoyed previous Robb Sherwin games, then, this is a safe bet.

In Cryptozookeeper the subject is aliens and cryptids; the result is something that feels like The X-Files cross-bred with Pokemon, with an all-slacker cast. A lot of things don't make sense, and the general feeling is of a partial hallucination; wisecracking is juxtaposed with graphic horror, the plot develops tangled corners that you don't need to keep track of, and gameplay alternates between drifting easily along while expostulation happens, and being stuck in a frustrating corner with a skewy puzzle just beyond your grasp. And it's always night. And characters point out, repeatedly, the many aspects of the story that make no sense. It's a very particular kind of surreal.

At Cryptozookeeper's heart is a mini-game in which you create cryptids by combining DNA that you've collected, then battle them in an underground animal-fighting ring, in order to level them up to face a final challenge. The design is such that collecting all the DNA and discovering all the cryptids is optional. Combat is old-schoolish and random, but handled automatically and quickly; your main decisions are about gaining stats. On the other hand, you'll do a very great deal of it, it involves few strategic decisions, and it's not very clear how much is enough; players who dislike grinding may grit their teeth.

Thorough implementation is often talked about as a sine qua non of IF authorship, but it comes at a high cost. Sherwin puts as much effort, care and love into his games as anybody making IF, and does extensive testing; but robust implementation comes fairly low on his list. (Save often.) Among his higher priorities, it seems, is long-arc story. Cryptozookeeper is sometimes buggy or cumbersome, and often sparse and linear -- but it's also large and brim-full of content.

For much of the game you have three or four NPCs in tow, but you can talk to them rarely and on very limited topics. Despite this, they feel more developed than many NPCs with ten times their conversation topics -- Robb writes very well, the images help, and you have time to get to know them. (Too, you're constantly sniping at one another; the silences feel, appropriately, like irate sulking.)

Like most Sherwin games, this is basically about how the world is dark and horrible but even the most abject can be redeemed; it manages the difficult task of making both the darkness and the light seem genuine.

Comments on this review

Previous | << 1 >> | Next

Molly, June 26, 2012 - Reply
For me the most surprising thing about this game was that you just now wrote a review for it. Er, no offense. It's just super-obvious that you really liked this game a lot, so I assumed you must have written one already.
Sam Kabo Ashwell, June 26, 2012 - Reply
Oh, hm. I suppose that I just updated my star rating for the game (I don't usually give out five-star ratings of a game I've just played; I digest slowly, and how well a game endures as something I care about is a significant part of rating), and I suppose that counts as a change to the review, and that the date is set by the last change to the review.
Sam Kabo Ashwell, June 26, 2012 - Reply
Huh. I wrote that review ages ago, shortly after the game came out. I don't know why the date claims to be June 25!

This is odd because I actually checked back on this review yesterday, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't edit it or anything.
Previous | << 1 >> | Next