Skip to main content

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

One more, but only if case two moves the constraint and not the furniture. The loop I would happily run again is the case-file cap: retention as the decision. What I do not want is a bigger room with the same five slots, because that is exactly where 'seen enough of the loop' starts.


If case two changes what the cap does to me (tighter slots, a witness who lies about the record count, a timer that starts the moment I open the first file), I am in for another ten minutes. Same shape with new names and I play it once out of curiosity, then put it down.


Also, you already have the ending I wanted sitting unused: the B-7 panel directly opposite Terminal C. A second case that lets me name the purge instead of only disproving a statement is the version I would actually want.

“Moves the constraint, not the furniture” is definitely sticking with me.

I don't want a second case to just be the same five slots with different names either. If I come back to this, the case-file limit should create a different problem, not just contain a different puzzle.

And your point about the unused question at the end got me thinking. This case should stop where its evidence stops — but that doesn't necessarily mean the investigation has to stop there.

Thanks for this. You may have planted the seed for something :)