IF Comp Review #3: One Does Not Simply Fry
by Stewart C Baker and James Beamon
ChoiceScript comedy. I’m in.
I am suspicious of comedy as a genre, as taste varies so very much. I personally love the “Lord of the Rings” movies with a fiery passion… but I hate puns. So this will be quite a journey!
Now that we’ve established I have massive biases in both directions, let’s jump in!
Also, there will be massive spoilers because this is more of a live blog thingy than a typical review.
The writers have already done something rather clever. ChoiceScript has a specific visual style, designed to be non-distracting. It’s very basic. The games also automatically open directly into the first bit of text when you click ‘Play Online’. Entrants in the IF Comp typically upload an html file with the link to the game (mine is literally just one hyperlink and nothing else). These guys had a nice-looking page of instructions and other details which is not done in ChoiceScript at all (or if it is, they would have had to sort through a bunch of code to shift colours etc)… but then links to the ChoiceScript file.
I shall definitely do that next time I enter. It is much classier, and feels better to the player.
I do love the name “Mount Boom”.
Props for giving vegan and vegetarian options! I am not at all a vegetarian, but when someone actually thinks about minority groups and chooses to bother doing extra bits of code for them, I am impressed. It also makes me instantly feel safe, because a thoughtful game tends to be a kind game (kind to easily-traumatised readers like me, I mean).
I was scared this game would be entirely built on puns, but they seem to be mostly just for names. The style is fun and amusing. I’m on Paragraph 3 of Chapter 1 and I can now fully relax, because it’s clear I’m in good hands. As I’ve said before, if it’s got good writing I will like it. If not, I’ll hate it.
This is good so far.
At the choice of character, having one who can only be accessed on replay is brilliant, especially as it’s clear the writers really want players to go through the game at least twice. Ooh, and only if you WIN the fry-off. These writers are playing hardball!
There are quite long blocks of text between choices. I wonder if that changes when everything’s set up and properly getting started. We’ll see.
What’s with the dice roll? The story basically told me this was my first test, then it appeared to be randomised and not based on anything I’d done. I’m past the first chapter and I’ve made hardly any meaningful choices at all (although to be fair, the two choices I made were significant: character and goal).
It feels weird to play a ChoiceScript game and not choose my gender. I think the writers felt everyone was sick of choosing gender, sexuality, name, etc every time they play a ChoiceScript game. But I like that stuff.
Uh-oh, things are ending badly (which is good for a game very focused on being replayable—it shouldn’t be too easy). It’s a well-written bad ending.
It’s not my favourite game ever, but it’s pretty darn good, and well executed.
Playthrough #2!
Hmm. I bet the Which King? can influence the dice roll and get the super cool kitchen. [Edit: He can’t. Seriously, what is even the point of the dice roll?? Is it merely to make poor innocent completionist players take a fourth play-through in case the one character they didn’t try gets the good kitchen? Well, probably.]
On two different tests I had two viable choices and one obviously poor choice. But my relevant stats were exactly equal for the two choices, so that was unhelpful. The stats are completely static, too—nothing I do makes any difference to my skills. Which is fine, just unusual in ChoiceScript which is specifically designed for delayed branching.
At a couple of stages, a particular choice is correct regardless of what other choices I’ve made along the way. Good for rewarding replayability (and the player’s short term memory), bad for distinguishing one character from another.
I won this time! I was very anxious because I wanted to win this time around, but I knew my onions weren’t perfect. So I feel good about that.
LOL. I’m literally allergic to onions (yet craving them due to this game) so of course I enjoyed having that option (and the torment of wanting to eat onion rings anyway, which is extremely true right now).
Third Playthrough.
I was planning to play the game twice, but they have lured me in. I’m playing as the Which King? next, even though it didn’t entice me at all the first time around.
On this third play-through I saw some things I hadn’t seen before, but it was also very clear that much of the game remains the same. For example, EVERYONE apparently finds Smeagol (you know who I mean right?) slightly attractive, which is statistically very unlikely. There are so many bits of flavour text that could have been different for each character. It’s a shame they didn’t get developed.
I feel like replaying this game was moderately rewarding but not as rewarding as it should have been for a game that is so determined to have players returning for a second (or third or fourth) go.
Still a good game though.
Felicity Banks 
Leave a comment