The dialogue is easily skipped; I enjoyed it. As it is a prologue; you should notice how different it is in comparison to The Company of Myself. There is nothing 'fake' or 'hollow' about the dialogue as you imply.
True: good philosophical gaming doesn't need dialogue for a story- but dialogue does not make a game bad. If you found the dialogue confusing, I have low esteem for your ability to hold attention. Nothing entirely against you, but I believed it to be quite fruitful and patient.
As a note on the topic of justification, philosophical games do not require justification- they require thought and connection without too much of someone holding your hand for every bit.
Above all, I will reiterate that fact that it /is/ a prologue. Whether all of this is in Kathryn's mind needs justification or not is mostly irrelevant.
The imp was horrifically haunting. It wasn't ...too cheap. It was more justified than cheap; but always scary. It made me keep on my toes, but not become paranoid.
I can see how it would be scary for others, though. :C Itpoppedupattheendtoo!
The story of this isn't random, just to be random- it is about four women, and the story of recalling their experiences and telling it to their children- all of them in the same wonderful house the children seem to fear.
It is random, because it is supposed to be a story for a small child; the ending is not sad, it is simply meant to be Ann's turn to finish the story to her child, soothe his fears and let him finally sleep. Everything was erased because her child was too captivated by the story, which is beautiful in itself even if you share or do not share in their experiences.
Bravo; for the beautiful and whimsical experience.
You idiots need to stop whining about the god damn ending. 2.5 is OBVIOUSLY the game that would have come if you took Beelzebuub's advice to unleash Baal in the first game. Hence why it's not Chapter 3, and why Baal is floating at the end of the credits.
Alice in Wonderland is actually based on abstract math. Did you know that? It's author despised the new-fangled math and wrote a book to demonstrate how very ludicrous the concept was; he failed in one endeavour, and succeded in one he did not strive towards!
@PhoenixUltimate: Pixel hunting isn't too needed- I needed just one simple glimpse of that scene, and I got the pipe on my first click. It didn't even take a second. But yes. The ending is waa-aayyy too anticlimatic; it would have been better to combine the whole game. But besides that, the ending was awesome!~ :D (Er, looking past the anticlimatic part.)
@Eu_Plon_Ka; nice review- except for the fact that you whined about having to put six balls in slots. If you're going to whine about this: you must've ragequit a ton of other point'n'click puzzle games, because things like that are extremely common.
@Burlor: Do you believe that leaks are non-existant in this world? Pfft. D'x Or, the people in question COULD be lying. And...
@Moonangel135: Be fair, since it IS based on a book. You cannot simply just add in a canonical book ending in a game all too easily, since it ruins the book it was meant to advertise. The art is amazing, the music is gorgeously catchy. (Switch those up, if you wish. xD) It also actually executed the ending fairly well. It could've just ended in a flash without any dialogue, you know.