Skip to main content

Indie game storeFree gamesFun gamesHorror games
Game developmentAssetsComics
SalesBundles
Jobs
TagsGame Engines

Played it cold and finished in about 10 minutes. The HELIX OS shell carries the whole thing: LOCKDOWN, READ ONLY snapshot, the 5-record case file cap. That cap is the best idea here, it turns retention into a decision instead of a checklist.


The contradiction is fair. Sorel's "I stayed in the Break Room" against the sensor going 1 -> 0 at 03:09:41 is clean, and the closing line ("this proves the statement false, it does not prove who executed the purge") is the most honest thing in the game.


Where I nearly quit: the first INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE. I had challenged the right statement and picked the 0-occupants row, and it still refused with no hint why. The proof only accepts the sensor rows together plus a security record, so the single smoking-gun row is not enough on its own. I only learned the exact set by reading the page source. A player won't, and will read that rejection as a bug. Say what shape of evidence is missing, or accept the 0-occupants row plus the security order as sufficient.


Second: there is no cost to guessing. Four statements, five slots, and a wrong challenge just says "reconstruct the timeline." So you can challenge all four and win without deducing anything, which is the opposite of what the case-file cap is for. Make a wrong challenge cost a slot, or cost the run.


The thing I wanted and did not get: Sorel leaves during the C3 blackout, and the B-7 panel is directly opposite Terminal C. That is the actual crime and the game stops one step short of it. A second file, or a "name who purged it" step, would make the room sensor matter instead of just resolving.


Good bones. The 03:09:41 row is the whole game and it lands.

Thanks a lot for taking the time to play it cold and write such a detailed breakdown. This is genuinely useful feedback, especially the “insufficient evidence” point and the fact that you nearly read it as a bug.

The no-cost guessing issue is a really good catch too.

Really appreciate you going this deep into it — thank you! 

One thing I’d be curious about: after those 10 minutes, would you actually have wanted to play a second case built around the same core mechanics, or did it feel like you’d already seen enough of the loop?