Increment by Three: Difference between revisions

From IFWiki

m (Text replace - '[[Category:Games in 1994' to '[[Category:Works in 1994')
 
Line 23: Line 23:
==Links==
==Links==
===General Info===
===General Info===
* {{baf game|Increment by Three|6}}.
* {{baf game|+=3|6}}.
* {{ifdb game|Increment by Three|1z2lxiqua980sedk}}.
* {{ifdb game|+=3|1z2lxiqua980sedk}}.
* [http://www.mobygames.com/game/tads/3-a-controversial-but-nevertheless-logical-adventure +=3: A Controversial but Nevertheless Logical Adventure] at [[MobyGames]]


===Reviews===
===Reviews===
* {{IFRO game|Increment by Three|219}}.
* {{IFRO game|+=3 - A Controversial but Nevertheless Logical Adventure|219}}.


===Spoilers===
===Spoilers===

Latest revision as of 23:40, 14 November 2017

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 Tough

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 authors 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 Carl 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