Go to the game's main page
Number of Reviews: 3
Write a review
2 of 3 people found the following review helpful:I think I like the concept of this game more than the actual game, May 15, 2017
(Spoiler - click to show)the Emporium puzzle. I'd quite like to know the code that went into that.
Everything else? The plot is minimal and not very original. The solution to the problem is, again, not massively original, but at least it contains one or two twists rather than being a straightforward journey from point A to point B. The writing, while not bad, is somewhat ungrammatical: I can't tell whether the author is going for a Porpentine-style expressionism or simply isn't a native English-speaker, but that in itself is a bit damning. That said, some descriptions are atmospheric, and even the clunky grammar becomes background noise due to the many replays you're going to go through. There is plenty of satire of office life: it's amusing enough (stick it out through the meeting-room presentation at least once), but this is extremely well-trodden ground in IF, and this game doesn't add anything much.
While the puzzles are the high point of the game, towards the end I found myself lawn-mowering through the locations trying to find something I hadn't tried, and it ended up feeling like busy-work. Also, quite a chunk of the game is spent on a red herring (though it does point you in the direction of the correct solution).
EDIT: Removed a complaint that turned out to be due to my own misreading.
I hesitated whether to give this a 3 or a 4. Picture 3.5 stars if you will. The plot, writing and setting are nothing particularly memorable, but the puzzles really are good enough to make up for it. Play it for the puzzles. I'm glad I did.
PS. Was that a Stanley Parable reference?
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No
More Options| Add a comment
Previous | << 1 >> | Next
Sobol, May 14, 2017 - Reply
Concerning the old lady: (Spoiler - click to show)"thrice thrice" means "nine times", not "three times."
Previous | << 1 >> | Next
Christina Nordlander, May 15, 2017 - Reply
Huh, I completely skimmed over the fact that she said (Spoiler - click to show)"thrice" twice (heh!) If I'd noticed it, I think I would have assumed it was a typo. Thank you; I've edited my review accordingly.
Sobol, June 23, 2017 - Reply
> I can't tell whether the author is going for a Porpentine-style expressionism or simply isn't a native English-speaker
- it's probably the former, since the author is a Porpentine fan (see their other works).
Sobol, December 18, 2017 - Reply
If you want to comment on my English grammar (which will be much appreciated, since I know very well it's far from perfect) - please be more clear and elaborate.
I often mess up articles, for example (there are no articles in my native language); and when dealing with such subtleties as the correct usage of singular they, mistakes are inevitable.
Autymn D. C., December 21, 2017 - Reply
Grammar is a barbarism for ghrammatics, another word for composition as in handwriting, font, format, spacing, punctuation, the looks whereas I correct diction as in register, declension, spelling, the meaning.
Also English has been dead for 1000 years sith the Norman Conquest; everyone talks in "Einglish" now. I don't use standard language but reform.
the: definite singular common who; definite plural common they; definite singular neuter that; definite plural neuter those.
a: indefinite singular common one; indefinite plural common some; indefinite singular neuter it; indefinite plural neuter some.