Reviews for ir/rational Redux

[Dhall]

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!

[skulblaka71]

I don't think I've ever had to think this hard when playing a game before. I love it :D I got them all on my own eventually. Great game.

[editorncheif]

What a sick, twisted, glorious, amazing, worth-while game. It was fantastic. I look forward to more things similar to this.

[borly]

a simple and easy game using logic and deductive reasoning
good work
the ending is unsatisfying and doesn't explain much of the storyline though
hope there will be follow up games to fix that x]

[Mad-Berserker]

finished it right now, with no actual problems with every level but the 9/10 one. English not being my native language, i didn't understand at first what red herring and smugness stood for. Furthermore, i had missed a little point in my logic and it took me a while to finally notice it.
The 10/10 one made me collapse at the very start, but it was ridiculousy easy as soon i had it written down in the same manner as the other levels.
The ending, well, it left me really disappointed and dropped a bit of the admiration i had gained for this flash. I won't spoiler anything, but what i mean is that it's not the ending itself to be disappointing, but the explanation for it. I have read the final dialogue thoroughly a couple of times now, but that "rational potential realisation rate" is still bugging me. All the theories were proven, and the demonstration of an average logical intelligence in the subject was seemingly the aim of the tests. Then, why that counterpoint at the end? You aren't really never given the opportunity to raise that score, so what was the point of all the test?
I really hope you'll answer this, or point out to some kind of an answer to all players in general, because i feel like either i'm missing some important points, or this game is rushed towards the end.
Anyway, you deserved a 5 by sure.