Move On

Move On is a short game in which you play a spy racing across a city on a motorcycle. Your character has to make a series of split-second decisions concerning different obstacles thrown in his way — cars, mainly, but also a train at one point. As the player, though, all you have to do is click “Move On” at the bottom to navigate the current obstacle and advance to the next one. At first the game seems not to be very interactive.

However, after surviving several of these encounters something different happened to me. I was trying to speed ahead of an oncoming train and clicked “Move On.” This time, instead of narrowly avoiding the train, it crashed into me. I lost the game, and the ending text said something like “It could have been different.” How? All I was doing was clicking “Move On.”

To say much more would be to swerve too far into spoiler territory, but there is something else going on with Move On. I had noticed it, but it didn’t seem important until the train hit my bike. After that, though (and especially after the second playthrough when I didn’t get as far), I realized that this other aspect of the game is crucial. You have to pay careful attention to it, in fact.

It’s an interesting feature to have in a game. Well, the required player action is incredibly common in certain types of games, but it’s rare to see it in interactive fiction, which makes it innovative from an IF standpoint. Coming from the author of I.A.G. Alpha (an incredibly innovative game — and one recognized as such by a XYZZY award in 2018) it’s perhaps not surprising to see Move On exploring what else can be done with IF.

How effective is this innovation in Move On? Somewhat, I think; there are both pluses and minuses. It does address one of the major shortcomings of choice-based games with respect to how players interact with the text of the game itself, which is a plus. It’s also a worthy effort at tying the player’s interaction with the game to what the player character is experiencing. However, it’s rather difficult to tell exactly what the player needs to do except through trial and error. It would be better if the necessary player actions were indicated more directly by the rest of the game, once the player realizes what’s going on. (*) On the other hand, Move On is short enough that this trial-and-error feature doesn’t become frustrating. Another minus, though: I don’t think this game is going to work well at all for a visually impaired player.

Overall, Move On is a short game that features a worthwhile and interesting experiment in what else can be done with IF. There are aspects of this experiment that could be improved, but the game is short enough that its drawbacks shouldn’t become frustrating for most players. At only fifteen minutes, Move On is a quick play and worth a try.

(*) Added, later: It turns out the game does indicate to the player what needs to be done. I had missed that in my earlier playthroughs.