I mentioned in my last post I got halfway through the game without being aware I was some sort of super spy trying to retrieve a blueprint.
Part of the reason why is the events that follow have very little in common with a spy story. It’s really more of a comedy.
You start out needing a ticket to get in the fun house. It costs a dollar. In the parking lot, you find a “five dollar bill” but, upon attempting to use it to buy a ticket, this happens:
There’s a dollar coin stuck in a grate you need to get to buy the ticket instead.
This is followed by a mirror
a maze (thankfully brief)
and a room with a skeleton and three knobs. (Pulling them takes you to three different destinations.)
There’s a “rolling barrel room” that won’t let you leave unless you CRAWL out
a non-working fortune teller
and a tank with a mermaid.
Also, you can send the mermaid down the drain.
The closest there is to a spy-genre event is a pair of spectacles
that can be used to find a secret room back at the mirror. It feels more like Inspector Gadget than James Bond to me, though.
I’m really curious what the thought process with the design here was; did they first want to design a spy game, then picked the setting, then realized the setting was more of a comedy so made it that way? Or did Scott Adams (supposedly with assistance from Alexis Adams on this one) decide they wanted to try a comedy and realized it might not make sense to the average player without a frame story? Was there a genuine desire to make a spy/comedy hybrid? Or was it all just thrown together at random and this is what things ended up at?
How about the calliope, which is apparently so loud your avatar can’t hear your commands?
Ha, yes, that definitely fits in the theme. That will make an appearance in my next post.