IFCOMP 2005 - Internal Vigilance

     It’s easier to point out what’s wrong with it than what’s right, so I’ll start there. The game has a few technical flaws (and as usual, my play transcript is available at the author’s request). Some actions are automatic (using the elevator – which was a little confusing too), while some aren’t (getting in and out of the car and turning on/off the engine). At times, I was able to do things while still inside the car, even though the game described me as standing outside. I noticed a few formatting problems: an extra blank line here, a missing space there, overuse of commas, missing quotes, etc. The lowercase “i” is almost certainly intentional (it’s used throughout, and seems to fit the theme), but it bears mentioning since at first glance it appears to be a mistake among other typos.

     I remember at least two politically-motivated games in last year’s competition: Who Created That Monster? and Blink. This is sort of a middle ground between the large area and frequent puzzles covered by the former, and the almost puzzle-less narrative of the latter. Internal Vigilance allows for choice, and that’s fine. However, with the narrative serving as the PC’s conscious, the endings in which I sided with the Union felt critical. Essentially, I ended the game positively, but the final text wags an invisible finger at me, reminding me that I still live in a dystopic utopia. If I help topple the Union, the endings suggest regret, as though the dystopia-in-sheep’s-clothing was better than the chaos to follow. I found endings one, two, six, seven, and eight. I wonder if the undiscovered ninth ending is best? I replayed from earlier in the game, more than once, and relied on hints. It still wasn’t enough to help me uncover those other endings.

     I’m becoming a fan of menu-tree conversations. I think conversations should side with the story, not the puzzles. Internal Vigilance sticks with the traditional “ask-about” style. This became something like a brute-force “look at”, where I began to experiment with every keyword I could think of. This is made harder because the keywords aren’t objects in the same room, the way brute-force “look at” works. This makes the conversation a puzzle. I found that I would rather move the story along instead. Others may insist that the menu-tree approach is jarring, but I think I prefer it.

     My only other complaint is harder to describe. By the end, I had a good idea what was going on. I knew some about the Union, why it came about, and the result. Beyond that, I never felt a connection to the game’s world. If the author is suggesting that we’re gradually moving toward Union by the actions of our governments now, I disagree. Anyway, it was never quite clear what freedoms and choices were abandoned by the formation of the Union. Everything seemed pretty normal to me. People came and went unhindered. Lives seemed otherwise normal. The theme could have been more heavily saturated into the game, for a better effect. With a theme like this, I think that’s important. Show, don’t tell. The story would benefit from showing happy people living within their obvious restrictions. The interrogation bit at the beginning wasn’t enough. The NeuroChip was a step in the right direction, but I never connected with the characters and their plight, in either direction. It was never quite real enough, because I never really felt the Union was good or bad. It just… existed.

     Now, the good. Gameplay seems solid, although the hints became more necessary than I would have liked. The writing is never too bad – just a little rough in minor ways. Hmm… those are probably back-handed compliments. The story has potential… there I go again. It’s perfectly competition-sized, unless you intend to collect all the endings. Scenery is generally well-implemented, which is sometimes lacking in games that focus too much on story and not enough on game mechanics (okay, yes, I’ve been guilty of that). Some earlier decisions do affect the outcome. All in all, it’s a worthwhile but average game.