Thanks for your comment. I don't really agree with your definition of what makes a game but I appreciate you took the time to play. The link works fine for me; it provides more context to the project.
Viewing post in Agency of Historical Accuracy - EXAM comments
Some observations and criticism:
1) So, in the interest of fairness, I went ahead and replayed the "game" and went to the website (wronglyaccused.agency, for anyone who'd like to skip straight to the site), and Bitdefender detected suspicious activity; "it is not recommended to continue browsing this website". Gee, I wonder why.
2) The trailer (?) for the game looks nothing like this sample game here (actually, it looks slightly different from the showreel of the game posted on elomelogames' YouTube page a year ago, but I assumed that was because games evolve during their development, and that's normal). It's a 3D, first-person exploration game with investigative elements (I guess), so I don't know why you wouldn't show that instead of this text-based... not-a-game. (For those curious, the trailer is available for viewing on YouTube: "Wrongly Accused - a futuristic detective mystery game").
3) You still haven't addressed why the previous work-up of the game redirected me to an Indian charity or why my previous review was erased, but I guess that's to be expected.
It's not a "crackpot theory"; it's my personal experience playing this "game". If there's nothing wrong with it, why am I the only person reviewing it? If you've played it and there's nothing wrong with it, you would serve the creators better by leaving a positive review about everything they did right rather than sit there and comment on the negative experience of another player. Nothing I wrote was untrue, misleading, or false, so what's your real issue with my comment?