WeaknessesMultiple reports of buggy or slow-to-register mechanisms, leftover red herrings, and devices that break mid-game. Heavy unsolicited hinting or, conversely, slow responses can undercut agency. Flow can stall while one station waits on others, and the finale often lands softly.
StrengthsStandout split-start design that forces real coordination and keeps all players engaged. Varied tactile and tech interactions with a clean AI-lab atmosphere. At its best, it delivers clever collaboration moments you won’t see in standard lock-and-key rooms.
SecurityA few players noted locked pods without obvious panic releases and wanted clearer safety cues. Staff often screen for claustrophobia and can adjust roles, but maintenance issues were also mentioned.
Level of fearNot scary; it’s a cerebral sci‑fi lab with a cheeky AI presence. Tight pods and brief enclosed bits may bother claustrophobic players, but there’s no horror.
Actors' gameGame masters get mixed marks—some kind and attentive, others distracted or pushy with hints. Set expectations early if you don’t want help unless asked, because the room leans on GM guidance.
Quality of riddlesCommunication and sense-driven tasks lead the way, sprinkled with straightforward logic and tactile tech. When the electronics cooperate, solves feel slick; when they lag, expect re-dos and confusion. Generally fair but occasionally unclear in sequence, which ups reliance on the GM.
PlotLight narrative centered on an AI assessing your humanity through tests. The premise works; the ending is frequently described as anticlimactic.
Difficulty levelPlays medium-to-hard and favors experienced teams or strong communicators. Requires at least four people and is commonly rated best with exactly four.
Reviews