Game ends right when you get into it. These sort of games are interesting and curious indeed, but they always seem to end far too quickly. My biggest deal with this game is the "high score" system. The fact that there is no physical way of telling what the score system is based on makes it nearly impossible to critique with a legitimate argument.
If it was based on speed I would say "speed shouldn't be important". If it is based on what you think is the most "strategic" or "intelligent" or even what prolongs the game the most without injuries than I once again think these things are trivial. It is a matter of preference, I simply think the high score system is both unexplained as well as ridiculous.
Sagittarian didn't reward players score based on favorable decisions, it was designed to make a person feel like every decision was equally rewarding, even the stupid ones that got you killed in comical ways.
Now what you nailed was approach and procedure. My favorite part of the game is deciding who to send into the cave first. Naturally, having fond memories of Ice Wind Dale and Baldur's Gate, it was no question that the rogue would be the first to enter. Yet interestingly enough you can go with the exact opposite approach and go with steel clashing and blood oozing from severed limbs.
As for the narrative (probably the most important part of the game):
It described the situations to a point where the player could perceive what decisions to make, however, it didn't do well in the department of imagination. The world wasn't well depicted to me, I love reading fully fleshed scenes of vast waterfalls, abyssal darkness, wheel barrows filled with death and townsmen turning their heads away to shun newcomers out of fear of disease.
This is all opinion though. I can honestly say judging a text based game on gameplay is hard, so it really just comes down to whether I like the descriptions or story enough.