Fall Comp 2008
Fall Comp 2007
Fall Comp 2006
Fall Comp 2005
Fall Comp 2004
C32 Comp 2004
Older IF News
The IF Archive
The IF Wiki
Played On: 10/05/2005 (8:00 PM to 10:00 PM, 10:30 PM to 11:30 PM, adjusted)
Unofficial Score: 9.0 (8.5 base with +0.5 skew)
Thankfully, it had plenty working for it – not the least of which is that it’s a great game. Even when stuck briefly at a colored-lights puzzle, the game wasn’t frustrating. Perhaps this comes from (a) being only my third game of the competition and (b) following a really frustrating “traditional” IF entry, but I really enjoyed this. It has a few technical problems, sure, but these are minor. I encountered nothing that caused the game to break, or to play out in a way that might indicate broken or incorrect page progressions. Prey for your Enemies is a survival horror game, and even with limited interaction, it was effective.
I hope the judges this year keep an open mind. To rank Space Horror low just because it’s not traditional parser-driven IF would do an injustice to writing that’s superior to much of what we’re likely to see this year. The three main plot threads cross at times, maintaining consistency and appeal that really does build with each newly explored branch. Jerald’s use of multimedia is enough to bring variety without overuse of any one concept. A couple puzzles are even worked in – to good effect – but I’ll get to all of this in a moment.
In all, I played for three hours. I enjoyed every minute of it, even though some (perhaps many) of the page runs were simply continuations without any choices. I was skeptical at first, but it really worked. Using my browser’s “back” as needed, I never had to replay from the beginning. I never had to flip page after page just to try a plot variation, because the bad endings didn’t stray far from the decision point, and because I could always back up just to the last major decision. I guess that’s probably how it’s done with the books, but that was many years ago for me. I was really surprised – and impressed – at how well Jerald managed to keep the entire experience from becoming dull and repetitive. By the end, I was pretty confident that I had explored it all. No mapping was required – not even of the plot branches. The story was very clear, even when backing up and changing lines.
I mentioned puzzles. This is accomplished by what seemed to be a long series of web pages. To the player, that’s invisible unless you’re eyeing the URL (like I was). I didn’t understand the colored light’s puzzle until later. I solved it by trial and error, looking to see which URLs were “new” from the time before, and just going forward and backward. It probably sounds like a frustration, but it really wasn’t. I guess my mind was still gnawing away at the problem, because I realized the solution later. I think the puzzle was made more difficult because the buttons pressed are (I think) zodiac symbols. It would have been more fair (requiring less trial-and-error yet still solvable if you figure out the trick) had the buttons themselves been colored. It would also have still fit the in-game explanation.
Video is used twice. I encountered the long, recorded speech first. I was glad to see it in printed form, after continuing. The other instance is part of a puzzle, and I couldn’t help but wonder if this might have been more fair to hearing-impaired players if this had also been included (somehow) in text form. A few still images are used, and that’s one area where I thought “more” would be even better. One puzzle requires a real-world email, which was thankfully answered right away by an auto-responder. Tina’s website (especially the forum in her own plot branch – the first branch I found, incidentally) was further proof that this game really was going to work.
It isn’t flawless. I noted several typos, collected in a text file that I will gladly send to the author upon request. Several compound words (head on, rear ending, once over, more) were missing their joining hyphen. These instances were hardly a distraction for me, because the text was otherwise wonderful. Some of the plot choices rely on honesty from the player, to avoid hopping branches. I found it more fun to play fair, but I also wonder if the game could be improved with some kind of cookie or plot-tracking method. My biggest complaint, though, is that the story was entertaining enough to make me pick apart the plot. The temporary immunity to the aliens’ method of abduction, for instance, just doesn’t seem possible to sustain for the long period (years, maybe) mentioned in certain endings.
All in all, I enjoyed the game. I recommend it, particularly if you’re open-minded enough to overlook the lack of a parser. I’m basing it 8.5 on my scale, with a +0.5 skew for exceeding my expectations. I hope the game fares well in the final results. Two of my favorites last year were generally disliked by the real judges. That was a disappointment, as would be a low ranking for Space Horror Part I.
As an aside, I’m a little worried now, though. Last year, I remember no games featuring monsters (aside for the political satire, and that was only a figurative monster). If I’m wrong, it at least wasn’t obvious like this year. Of the first three games I’ve played, two feature hostile alien creatures as a key element (Century Cauldron and this one), the third (Amissville II) mentions a creature, and even the one I’ve temporarily skipped (because I beta-tested it), Chancellor, has at least two segments with a murderous monster. The theme is central to my entry as well. Will it be so cliché for the year that we’re all marked down for a perceived lack of originality? At this point, that’s every game I’ve played.