![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
cobaltnineWhat is this? Two reviews in one night? Blame my schedule. I blame it for everything, including, long story short, the two pounds of pasta with alfredo sauce in the fridge.
Below the cut: A review of The Blind House, by Maude Overton. Plot definitely discussed.
A notice appears - this is 'interactive fiction' with the emphasis on fiction and not puzzle solving. In the end, there were definitely enough puzzles that I don't need to consider discounting that category entirely. And perhaps playing's making my puzzle nerves perk up, or perhaps my real life puzzle solving is helping, but I'm finding things left and right now. Confidence!
Except this game isn't about a confident adventurer. My first impression - and I have no idea where this came from - was that the protagonist was some sort of supernatural creature. Maybe a variant vampire. It took me an oddly long amount of time to find the knife. I got the impression she was here with nothing. Oho, I think. There's something wrong with her. My next thought is probably one others felt, although I didn't see it in a quick review of the literature - this woman was being abused, or otherwise escaped from a situation. Also, she's got issues.
By morning (game time), I'm convinced it's not quite like that. Oh, she's got issues, but they're Lady MacBeth issues.
I'd also like to note that while I'm writing this, I keep typing 'I', like we players would normally for IF. IF is usually in the second person, and this is in the first.
It's probably for the best, given the general trend of the story; I don't really want to be the person who I associate with the two better-written endings. I do want to go back and play as the type of person who I think the protagonist is. After reading other reviews, I realized I missed some flavor items that may have made the endings more detailed, and I'm intrigued. The other reason to go back is because now I know how to refer to the damned 'roses tape', which, ridiculously enough, is what I had to break the walkthrough out for. (That and the 'painting' versus 'paintings' versus 'canvas' were pretty annoying.)
Regarding the structure of the game: I'm not sure if this is how it's implemented, but it seems to me that within the house, during the 'next day', there are a series of small actions, localized, which all need to take place before the game advances to having the other woman come home. Nothing was particularly problematic - at no point was I sitting there going 'okay, I've done everything I can think of, now what?' At least some of these puzzle clusters could be completed in any order. It seems that this is where the 'story not puzzles' comes from - there's no need to get Widget A to put in Machine B, which lets you into Room C, ad infinitum.
Now for the endings. Two of the endings - the one we all knew was coming, and a lesser, but possibly more sinister one - were satisfactory. We don't trust the protagonist, and we expect this sort of thing from her at this point. The third ending I found, which consisted mostly of 'Maybe I am fucked up, maybe I should go now,' didn't sit right. It was too abrupt. This situation - the whole situation - has been, the game implies, going on for a long time. Just changing one's mind doesn't seem plausible. It could be made to be so; if the protagonist had evidence of other sudden changes in personality, as opposed to the slow, deep burn I felt from her, it might be plausible she wakes up and decides not to be a creepy, abusive, manipulative psycho.
I think this game is memorable, but I also think there are some flaws and some fiddly bits that don't work and need to be addressed. I can see myself replaying for more of an exploratory flavor, but I don't feel staying power. We don't want to stay in this house, but its horrors aren't quite enough to pull very deep. Just deep enough.
Below the cut: A review of The Blind House, by Maude Overton. Plot definitely discussed.
A notice appears - this is 'interactive fiction' with the emphasis on fiction and not puzzle solving. In the end, there were definitely enough puzzles that I don't need to consider discounting that category entirely. And perhaps playing's making my puzzle nerves perk up, or perhaps my real life puzzle solving is helping, but I'm finding things left and right now. Confidence!
Except this game isn't about a confident adventurer. My first impression - and I have no idea where this came from - was that the protagonist was some sort of supernatural creature. Maybe a variant vampire. It took me an oddly long amount of time to find the knife. I got the impression she was here with nothing. Oho, I think. There's something wrong with her. My next thought is probably one others felt, although I didn't see it in a quick review of the literature - this woman was being abused, or otherwise escaped from a situation. Also, she's got issues.
By morning (game time), I'm convinced it's not quite like that. Oh, she's got issues, but they're Lady MacBeth issues.
I'd also like to note that while I'm writing this, I keep typing 'I', like we players would normally for IF. IF is usually in the second person, and this is in the first.
It's probably for the best, given the general trend of the story; I don't really want to be the person who I associate with the two better-written endings. I do want to go back and play as the type of person who I think the protagonist is. After reading other reviews, I realized I missed some flavor items that may have made the endings more detailed, and I'm intrigued. The other reason to go back is because now I know how to refer to the damned 'roses tape', which, ridiculously enough, is what I had to break the walkthrough out for. (That and the 'painting' versus 'paintings' versus 'canvas' were pretty annoying.)
Regarding the structure of the game: I'm not sure if this is how it's implemented, but it seems to me that within the house, during the 'next day', there are a series of small actions, localized, which all need to take place before the game advances to having the other woman come home. Nothing was particularly problematic - at no point was I sitting there going 'okay, I've done everything I can think of, now what?' At least some of these puzzle clusters could be completed in any order. It seems that this is where the 'story not puzzles' comes from - there's no need to get Widget A to put in Machine B, which lets you into Room C, ad infinitum.
Now for the endings. Two of the endings - the one we all knew was coming, and a lesser, but possibly more sinister one - were satisfactory. We don't trust the protagonist, and we expect this sort of thing from her at this point. The third ending I found, which consisted mostly of 'Maybe I am fucked up, maybe I should go now,' didn't sit right. It was too abrupt. This situation - the whole situation - has been, the game implies, going on for a long time. Just changing one's mind doesn't seem plausible. It could be made to be so; if the protagonist had evidence of other sudden changes in personality, as opposed to the slow, deep burn I felt from her, it might be plausible she wakes up and decides not to be a creepy, abusive, manipulative psycho.
I think this game is memorable, but I also think there are some flaws and some fiddly bits that don't work and need to be addressed. I can see myself replaying for more of an exploratory flavor, but I don't feel staying power. We don't want to stay in this house, but its horrors aren't quite enough to pull very deep. Just deep enough.
