The game is... just nothing but mind blowing. It makes you think in odd and complexing ways in order to figure out why the something has done or said so. In order to solve a problem, you must identify why the statement above is true and then fit and see how it is true. Above all, great game to make and truly mind boggling!
Reviews for "ir/rational Redux"
amazing its hard to find philisophical puzzles in games and wspecially ones that make you think. HOWEVER it is short. also the machine is the prototype of GlaDos
A wonderful game! The ending, as others have said, was a bit of a let-down. 4 Stars.
Dear Creators,
I registered here on NG because I think there is a flaw in the argument lines of LEVEL 9.
SPOILER ALERT!
I figured out, that the yes/yes/yes/probably are the machines answers, however, the actual mistake is in the arguing itself:
1. If the machine has contradicted itself, then the machine is not perfect.
2. The Machine thinks smugness is a relevant clue.
3. The Machine thinks smugness is a red herring.
4. IF the Machine thinks smugness is a relevant clue AND The Machine thinks smugness is a red herring then ......
And this is the part where I got stuck, Something like this should follow: then the machine doesn't know what a red herring is.
INSTEAD you have to write "the machine has contradicted itself" which CANNOT be placed here since it is in line 5.
In other words if you deduct with the "then" in line 4 that the machine has contradicted itself, then line 5 is a redundant line!!! Redundant, because it echoes the deduction already made in line 4.
So you either change the "then" part in line 4.. OR remove line 5.
I don't know if I'm making sense here. You have a deduction in line 5, which has already been deducted at the end of line 4.
At least please consider my post. I would also appreciate if the creators addressed this issue. Thanks and great game!
tjubert responds:
Hi! It makes sense, but I'm afraid, as far as I can see, it's not broken int he way you think. It's percetly okay to repeat the same clause in a different context, as 'the machine has contradicted itself' is here. First it's part of an IF-THEN, then it's stated as a conclusion (since we knwo the IF part of the statement has been satisfied. It's a bit like having to show your working in maths.
What's actually a problem with one of the possible solutions to that puzzle is that you can use both smugnes is a red herring and smugness is a relevant clue together, and strictly speaking you should have a premise which states that they mean the same thing. Actually, that's a much better puzzle. Next version!
I thought it was an amazing game. The problems provided made me think without dulling my interest and the plot made me want more games like this. This has definitely been one of my favorite escape games.