Be a Supporter!

ir/rational Redux

rated 4.24 / 5 stars
Share Links:
Puzzles - Other

Click on an icon to vote on this!

Credits & Info

Jul 8, 2012 | 6:59 AM EDT

If you liked this, check these out!

Plenty more like this here!

Author Comments

UPDATE 4 (8th September 2012): IR/RATIONAL INVESTIGATOR ANNOUNCED! /sharedfiles/filedetails/

UPDATE 3: ir/rational has made the front page with 45,000 plays in under a week! Thank you everyone - and keep your eyes peeled for announcements in the coming months!

UPDATE 2: Walkthrough available here: /2012/07/irrational-walkt hrough.html

UPDATE 1: Made 10,000 views and the Popular Games list in 24 hours! Thanks to everyone who's played!

Argue the toss in a twisted tale of logic...

In ir/rational you complete, create and discredit arguments by selecting propositions and filling in the blanks. It's a puzzle game based on propositional logic, and a graphic adventure all in one - only here you don't so much need to escape the room as prove why you'd even want to.

- Unique, language-based argument system: formulate logical proofs to progress through the game

- Dark philosophical comedy by Tom Jubert, writer of Penumbra, Driver: San Francisco and FTL.

- 10 screens and roughly half an hour of intelligent, challenging and inventive gameplay

- Musical score by award-winning composer Mikko Tarmia

My website:
My narrative design blog, Plot is Gameplay's Bitch:

- Click to progress story
- Complete the arguments by selecting options from the drop-down menus

NB Some systems don't display all the dropdown options at once, and you have to use the arrow keys to scroll.

If you can't see the right answer, chances are you can resolve the problem with the arrow keys. Hope it's not dampened your enthusiasm!



Rated 4 / 5 stars

Great game.
But I can't figure out 4/10... It the one about oxygen


Rated 5 / 5 stars

I really, really enjoyed this, although I found it infuriating XD Sadly, I guess my logic skills are lacking, as 9/10 has me and my sister stumped, but that hasn't put me off the concept at all. Congratulations on a great game :)

tjubert responds:

Loads of people struggle with 9. It's a lot simpler than you think, you just need to make sure you've shown your working. Don't be afraid to state your interim conclusion (even if you seem like you're repeating itself).


Rated 5 / 5 stars

Warning: This review contains some pretty heavy spoilers.
For those that don't know, a red herring is somthing used to throw someone off the trail of somthing. A red herring is also a picled fish, and was used to throw off scent-traking dogs.
Now, about the Machines statement in 9/10, the yes//yes//yes//probably are in fact answers, to the four questions before that.
1. Smugness IS a revelant clue.
2. It IS a red herring.
3. The Machine DOES know what a red herring is.
4. You probably know what a red herring is.
Since the Machine THINKS smugness is a revelant clue, and it ALSO thinks it is a red herring, there is the contradistion.
About the game: It was awsome, the fact that some answers were hidden didn't give me too much trouble. It would have been nice for the "Brain" to give better hints, say, every 10 or so minutes that you've been stuck.
Music fits the game pretty well.
I hope there is a sequel.


Rated 5 / 5 stars

Nice game really enjoyed it. Very mathematical. Once or twice I replace the statements with letters.


Rated 5 / 5 stars

That is probably the most fun I've had on this site in quite some time... I had a little bit of trouble proving the machine wrong, because I was pulling a major derp and forgot I cannot have a 'therefore' until I put forth an if/then. Everything else was pretty simple. I particularly liked the circular logic at the beginning; on an interesting note (begin tangent), that is probably one of the earliest logical proofs, since the beginning of logic was used to prove religion. I thought the argument was kind of silly when it popped up in my history class, so it was fun to see it here. Anyway, end tangent...

If I had money, I'd totally donate and get the extra content... oh well... I'll just hope for a sequel.
1. People enjoyed this game.
2. If and only if (the creator created this game for the enjoyment of players and the players enjoyed this game), OR (the creator made this game to make money and many people donated), then the creator will make a sequel.

Unfortunately, I don't know what your motivation was, so I have no conclusion. A few possibilities:

3. The creator made this game for the enjoyment of the players
4. THEREFOR the creator will make a sequel.
3. The creator made this game to make money
4. Many people donated to the game
5. THEREFOR the creator will make a sequel.
3. The creator made this game to make money
4. Not many people donated to the game
5. THEREFOR the creator will NOT make a sequel.

... Why did I just do that? I don't know. I wanted more proofs, I guess. No idea if that was right, though. Seems right... Except for the fact that there are other possible motivations for game creation that I did not account for. So there's a fallacy in there...

I'll stop talking now.

People find this review helpful!