Increment by Three: Difference between revisions

From IFWiki

(+ Baf's, + Notable features, + rewritten How it Begins)
(+ Walkthrough, + Reviews)
Line 24: Line 24:
===General Info===
===General Info===
* {{baf game|Increment by Three|6}}
* {{baf game|Increment by Three|6}}
===Reviews===
* [http://ifdb.tads.org/viewgame?id=1z2lxiqua980sedk IFDB game page]
* [http://www.ifreviews.org/index.php?jogo=219 IFReviews]
===Spoilers===
* Walthrough: {{ifarchive|solutions/|3.step}}


[[Category:Games]] [[Category:Games in 1994]] [[Category:TADS 2 games]]
[[Category:Games]] [[Category:Games in 1994]] [[Category:TADS 2 games]]

Revision as of 07:08, 29 May 2008

Note: The name of this article should really be +=3, but wiki software limits what characters are usable in article names. The "+=" part means "increment by" in some programming languages like C.
Adventure
Adventure
One-room
One-room
+=3: A Controversial but Nevertheless Logical Adventure
Author(s) Carl de Marcken and David Baggett
Publisher(s) n/a
Release date(s) 1994
Authoring system TADS 2 (with WorldClass 1.3.1)
Platform(s) TADS 2
Language(s) English
License(s) Freeware
Multimedia
Color effects none
Graphics none
Sound/Music none
Ratings
Cruelty scale Merciful

How It Begins

You're almost there -- 99 points out of 100 and what looks to be a run-of-the-mill troll on the bridge puzzle. Should be trivial for an adventure game god like you. And besides, any puzzle with a logical solution can't be *too* hard to solve. All you have to do is get past the troll, and you will have won.

Notable Features

  • There is only a single puzzle, which is (depending on your point of view) either unfair, a comment on interactive fiction conventions, or both.
  • The author's write, in the game: This game is not impossible, but it is very difficult. In fact, the authors suspect that few (if any) will be able to solve it the direct way; i.e., by using the clues in the game and common sense to figure out how to solve the puzzles.
  • According to Karl Muckenhoupt: Written as an example of how not to write games. Specifically, the thesis it seeks to prove is that it is possible for a puzzle to have a completely logical solution, and yet be nearly impossible to solve except by randomly guessing commands. This was the centerpiece of a heated debate on rec.arts.int-fiction. Not meant to be played and enjoyed.

Versions

Version 1.2

Links

General Info

Reviews

Spoilers