IFReviewed by
Roberto Grassi on 2006-05-25 08:41
9:05, by Adam Cadre, is a very short and much overrated IF piece. From the
Baf's Guide:
“A very short game with a devious twist that the IF theorists out there will find interesting. Gains immeasurably on replay.”
I agree about the ‘twist’ but I don't think that 9:05 could have any impact about IF theory. The 'twist' is unfair (I cannot say more in order not to waste the joy of playing) and is based completely on the dyscrasia between the player and the player character.
It seems to me that the 'replay value', too, is not so great and, for sure, it is NOT 'immeasurable'. The only things that deserve replay are two clues to be found at the beginning and find the three different finals. For those about the initial clues, I've found one of them during my first session and so most of the replaying value was lost.
The three endings are disappointing:
- The first one, that justifies the 'twist', is based on the complete dyscrasia between the player and the player character, breaks the mimesis and is hard to justify in a logic way, unless we consider the stupidity of the player character (infact, that's the justification in the game, but it is not enough to redeem it).
- The second one is a ’sudden death’, as such it does not have a particular value.
- The third 'ending', presumably the winning one, can be reached only by try and error. There's no reference in the game about why the player should, or could, reach it.
Cadre says that the game has been written in 4 days, and it is evident. My opinion is that the game should be considered for what it is. A nice short game to be played in 15 minutes. Nothing particularly relevant for the theory and practice of IF. Nothing more, nothing less.
