Wow, like others have said, a fully narrated jam game is an impressive feat in itself. Also there's a ton of environments and interactions and detailed sound work. The scope here is very impressive.
The platforming was a bit tricky in places, to the point of being frustrating. Seemed like there was a bit of slide induced by the capsule collider of the player.
I liked breaking things though!
I got a black screen at the end and it just seemed to hang there. That was after a speech by the AI at what seemed like the top of the building. I feel like I missed something or something went wrong.
The narrative was good too. The first conversation felt a bit front-loaded (it's irritating waiting for backstory before being engaged in the game, whereas hearing backstory after already being engaged is more satisfying... i.e. Answering questions noone is asking feels tiresome, but answering questions to mysteries that have already been noticed by players feels rewarding).
(I'm not going to find it, but I watched a GDC talk once that made the point that the gaps in information are more engaging than what you get told. If the player becomes aware that they don't know something they're going to try complete their information, whereas if you just tell them everything then they have nothing driving them forward. You have to tell them a little bit so that they become aware of what they don't know, but it's the parts that you keep from them until the end that are the most engaging)
The pleas by the AI at the end came a little bit out of nowhere... I know I had been feeling frustrated running in circles because of the tests the AI was doing on me, but until that moment the narrative hadn't acknowledged it. It also maybe didn't need to be as grand sounding... and... this might have been your idea already... but a little agression test to see if the player is trustworthy is a good idea as a final test before they are released... though I guess just killing the AI might be satisfying in itself and making that a choice might rob those who choose not to destroy the AI of the pleasure of destroying the AI (making the good ending a boring ending). Though maybe there's a narrative solution I'm not thinking of.
For example, there's something weird about AI's testing to see if unfrozen people are imposters. That's already leaving a gap that could be filled. What are these imposters? If something about imposters were mentioned again it'd leave players wondering about this. They'd know that imformation is important because it is mentioned twice or more times, and so players would be motivated to fill their gap of information. Then, for example of a way to fill it, it is suggested that one impostor got through the tests two years ago, so they made the tests harder, now 100% of all unfrozen clients turn out to be impostors and the AI's consider this a success, and that suggests that the AI's are refusing to let anyone unfrozen live and are making up impossible rules to ensure this... but that isn't actually said, it is something the players put together. And it sets up an adversarial relationship with the AI and then defeating the AI and disabling it become a resolution to this conflict.
Leave a comment
Log in with itch.io to leave a comment.