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

Whom The Telling Changed

by Aaron A. Reed profile

Fiction
2005

Web Site

Return to the game's main page

Reviews and Ratings

5 star:
(2)
4 star:
(10)
3 star:
(7)
2 star:
(2)
1 star:
(2)
Average Rating:
Number of Ratings: 23
Write a review


Previous | << 1 >> | Next


- IcyChoc (New Zealand), July 13, 2010

2 of 4 people found the following review helpful:
Very good, small flaws in setup, July 6, 2010
Overall, this game is excellent. The storytelling mechanic is effective and original...it's far more subtle than a hackneyed chose-your-own-adventure story; you simply affect which points are emphasized and give commentary to the tale. The choice of a real-world epic and collaboration by the author with a storyteller give a very authentic feel to the telling. It's about 10-15 minutes long (though I read fast!) -- short enough to play as a quick break, but long enough to get a good feel for the setting and establish some rapport with the story and characters.

I did, however, have some quibbles with the setup and mechanics. It isn't clear when you select the tools of your trade and the identity of your lover that this will affect your character; a few words of explanation would have cleared it up entirely. I do like the gender-neutrality of your character and choice of gender in your lover. Sometimes turning the story or audience to your side was effectively challenging, but other times it was just cryptic and frustrating. It isn't always clear when you pick a word what exactly you are going to have to say about it, and there were many moments of "Wait, that wasn't what I wanted my character to say at all!", and only repeated playthroughs will help that. In some playthroughs I was scolded for not participating despite having commented on many words; again, just a little more introduction or assistance would give you a better motivation to participate more rather than just sitting in silent agreement when other characters make comments you like and there isn't anything obvious you want to comment on.

- Sorrel, June 24, 2010

- Danielle (The Wild West), April 12, 2010

- Victor Gijsbers (The Netherlands), October 2, 2009

- GDL (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania), September 24, 2009

- Bainespal, September 2, 2009

- Shigosei, August 6, 2009

- Linnau (Tel-Aviv, Israel), October 31, 2008

- George Shannon (Pittsburgh), September 17, 2008

- Genjar (Finland), August 31, 2008

- Wendymoon, June 11, 2008

6 of 6 people found the following review helpful:
The first impression can be misleading, May 30, 2008
by Pavel Soukenik (Kirkland, WA)
This is a very rich game of shaping the attitude of a tribe on the verge of war. Your choices create a nice variety of possibilities: who you are, who is the storyteller and which approach in the story you promote. Although the impact of the personality of the storyteller seems minimal, other choices really matter. To promote the attitudes of the tribe, you select highlighted keywords from the telling. This is quite effective although sometimes it was impossible to tell whether it would result in a push in the desired direction. Ocassionally, the keyword triggers an unobtrusive clarification whether you want to point out an aspect A or B by uncovering your internal weighing of the two options.

There are two problems though. The first is an unfortunate design decision: A title that allows the reader to get through the story by typing "wait" is taking a great gamble. The author better make sure the reader has good reasons to care for and understand what is going on. (I got to the storytelling part in about seven turns and waited, skimming, skipping through all of it, lacking a real motivation to actually do something.) The good news is that when (and if) you actually reach the end in this fashion, you will learn that you basically failed because you did not learn how to shape the story. In addition, you are given a nice recap of the background and what happened; a part of this would be so much needed at the beginning to get the player hooked.

The second problem is at the beginning when you choose your occupation and the identity of your companion. Unfortunately, the method used to give the player the option to decide is ill-chosen. [Details with a minor spoiler:] (Spoiler - click to show)You are told there is a "symbol" of your occupation. When you refer to it, you get a library disambiguation message between a medicine bag and a dagger (which had not been mentioned). The same problem appears soon after, when you are introduced to two main characters, one of them being your "love". For a player who does not know she is effectively defining the main character, this creates confusion, especially in what will often be the first turns.

Don't get discouraged by the first impression. This is a deep, meaningful game. You might still find yourself not drawn into the story the first time through, but by the time it ends, you will probably want to give it a second try.

- reepeecheep (Harare), May 20, 2008

- Moses Templeton, May 3, 2008

- lobespear, March 14, 2008

- Cheryl L (Australia), March 11, 2008

- Ziixxxitria (California), January 27, 2008

- JudgeDeadd (Warsaw, Poland), December 29, 2007

- Juhana, December 7, 2007

- Leland Paul (Swarthmore, PA), November 19, 2007

- Stephen Bond (Leuven, Belgium), October 26, 2007

- Emily Boegheim, October 19, 2007


Previous | << 1 >> | Next | Return to game's main page