Under rating threshold (hideshow)
Great game, good way for me to brush up on formal logic while on holidays, but it sort of throws you into the symbols. Luckily, they're similar enough to what I learned that it didn;t throw me too much, but that and the test used prevented me from finishing test 10 myself.
Under rating threshold (hideshow)
Oh dear, i was intimidated at first because i took only one critical thinking class, and then thought this game would be some political message to insult others. But NOPE, not at all, its really just a new idea for a game right? And its great :) I OVERTHOUGHT IT, like how a switch attached to a light doesn't mean the switch works the light at all. But it appears one MUST NOT overthink it, just use logic and acknowledge when its right and wrong :) Because like it or not, no one is right all the time.
Under rating threshold (hideshow)
IF I completed ir/rational THEN I would like to exit the game. I completed the game. THEN it just gave me a black screen.
Under rating threshold (hideshow)
#7 and #10 challenged me. I have no academic training in logic. I defeated all problems but #7 on my first try. #7 took 2. Therefor it is probable that I have a natural propensity for logic. If false OR true then make a sequel.
Under rating threshold (hideshow)
Why in the world is there a quit button?
Since very few people feel a need to see an unresponsive black screen, this option would only be useful if this was a standalone application.
Since this is not a standalone application (in this venue) it has no use, therefore it should probably be removed.
Under rating threshold (hideshow)
I like the game, but why cant i make implications like "not B implicits not A" therefore "A implicits B" althought it is logic the game treats is wrong :(
Under rating threshold (hideshow)
I thought I might be good at calculus, but #9 and #10 are closed to me. I would be nice to have some explanation at hand. Like a teaching walkthrough.
Under rating threshold (hideshow)
I don't know how much this was intended as a poke at the lack of logic in most room escape sort of games, but I enjoyed playing a game where actually being rational was rewarded. I don't know that you're taking suggestions, but if so, I for one would enjoy a game built around empiricism the way this one's built around logic.
Under rating threshold (hideshow)
Wait... I didn't spot any actual logical fallacies. If/then statements are not symmetric, yes, but they're logically equivalent to their contrapositives. For example, "p implies q" is logically equivalent to "not q implies not p", and I used that several times during the game. And I didn't spot any place where I needed to make the distinction between inclusive and exclusive or. If "p" is true, then "p or q" is true; I used this several times, and don't remember any instances where the inclusive or needed to be treated as an exclusive or. I did not see any logical ambiguities in this game.
Under rating threshold (hideshow)
Assume: It is raining in Seattle AND It is not raining in Seattle. [It is always kind of drizzling, but not really raining in Seattle]. Prove: God Exists (1. R&~R Show G)
Step 2: Assume God Does Not Exist, Show Contradiction (2. ~G Show =X=)
Step 3: It is Raining in Seattle. (3. R 1,&E)
Step 4: It is Not raining in Seattle. (4. ~R 1,&E)
Step 5: God Does Not Not Exist (5. ~~G 2,3-4,~I)
Step 6: God Exists (6. G 5,~E)
Assume: It is raining in Seattle AND It is not raining in Seattle. [It is always kind of drizzling, but not really raining in Seattle]. Prove: God Does Not Exist (1. R&~R Show ~G)
Step 2: Assume God Exists, Show Contradiction (2. G Show =X=)
Step 3: It is Raining in Seattle. (3. R 1,&E)
Step 4: It is Not raining in Seattle. (4. ~R 1,&E)
Step 5: God Does Not Exist (5. ~G 2,3-4,~I)
There, proofs that God both exists and doesn't exists. Have fun.
Under rating threshold (hideshow)
I got so confused on the problem when you need to prove that the machine contradicted itself. I worked on it for awhile before finally getting it. Overall, fun game and can't wait for the sequels. 5/5
Under rating threshold (hideshow)
If a drop down does not display a scrollbar then it is displaying all available options OR the interface is broken. In the game, some of the drop downs do not display all available options. Therefore if the interface is not broken, some of the drop downs must display a scrollbar. In Chrome, none of the drop downs display a scrollbar. Therefore, in Chrome, the interface is broken.
I probably still messed that up, but hopefully despite any logic errors it gets the problem across.
Under rating threshold (hideshow)
On rethinking I ended up giving the game a 5/5 because, in spite of some things I see as errors/ambiguities from a strict propositional logic standpoint, I don't think a game has ever made me think so much before about it. It also gets to the heart of why propositional logic is so interesting (and I wish its coverage in my discrete math courses could have put it in such an interesting way) -- the actual logic behind the basic axioms we all take for granted.
Under rating threshold (hideshow)
There's a problem with certain browsers that doesn't allow you to see all of the possible answers, as there is no scroll bar. You can use the down arrow to go through all possible answers on the drop down menu.
Hope this helps, it certainly would have saved me some time
Under rating threshold (hideshow)
You need to distinguish between exclusive and inclusive OR, and understand the asymmetric nature of if/then. Also, get a less disappointing ending.
Under rating threshold (hideshow)
Ick, #9 got me because I didn't think you'd have to restate your deduction. (In other words, Line 5 = last box of Line 4 on problem 9, for anyone puzzled about that.)
Under rating threshold (hideshow)
AlexanderB52: The statement "If many people believe a perfect God exists THEN a perfect God does exist" is not logical. It is based on the assumption that believing something makes it true. If that were true, I would be able to fly, pass through walls, and become invisible. If you can supply logic to support the statement, I would love to hear it, because then I could have the abilities I mentioned above.
Under rating threshold (hideshow)
Magnificent game. One thing I particularly liked was your little...speech at the end about donating, the part about rationality being worth nothing if it doesn't make you happy. I'm with that 100%...and I'm assuming this is your point of view and not just a related quote. Now take my 5 stars and go make a sequel.
Under rating threshold (hideshow)
Cool idea, but I docked stars because:
1) Missing answers. Extremely annoying, this really should be fixed (I didn't even know they existed until looking up some walkthroughs).
2) THE LOGIC IS FLAWED. This stuff really bothers me. For referrence, I have tried to quickly list the puzzles I thought were flawed:
Puzzle #3: Though it does not fit the sequence given, "If many people believe a perfect God exists THEN a perfect God does exist" is a valid (logical) statement that supports all conclusions without creating contradictions.
Puzzle #8: The first statement SHOULD read "IF AND ONLY IF the Machine will kill me when it catches me AND there is a good chance I will be caught THEN I should NOT try to escape." (The subphrase "should I THEN" was changed to "THEN I should") The original statement is, in fact, a question, not a statement ("should I then?", as in "Should I suffer the slings and arrows of etc...?").
Otherwise, fun piece. I enjoy logic.
Under rating threshold (hideshow)
galnor: It could have been a second machine with a different prime directive, or its prime directive could have been changed.
Under rating threshold (hideshow)
in the level on Michael Atkinson there are 3 or 4 correct answers but the game only accepts 1 and the level where you prove the machine wrong has an extra box that requires you to declare what you've just deduced, which is confusing and unnecessary. Apart from that, great game 4/5 upgraded to 5/5 when you fix.