You'll find in review after review I complain about the lack of being interactive in games. That is, games like Myst, or whatnot often get horrible reviews based on the knowledge that the game doesn't immerse you the way a game should.

However, often the reason for my gripe is because the programmers are more interested in telling a story, then letting you experience it. I may pick on Myst for this, as it is the most extreme example, but the other side would be Doom ... with no story, and all interactive. However, Panic, a small game that got a little press in Japan under the title Switch, is neither of those games.

Panic is not interactive. And Panic does not have a story. At least, not a story like one would expect from a role playing game, or really anything else. To say that Panic is unique is to say that George W. Bush was the overwhelming winner of the elections! Panic's story consists of a "savior" (an extremely cartoony kid, with his equally cartoony dog) on his quest to rid the worlds computer of a "virus". If he fails, various landmarks (Eiffel Tower, Grand Canyon, etc.) are destroyed.

The less you concern yourself about the story, though, the better. The game isn't about puzzle solving, nor is it about fast fingers. Actually, I'll tell you exactly what it's about, it's randomly picking a button and watching what it does. That's right, with each room (and there are thousands) there is a remote control. The buttons on it will either do something with the level, destroy a landmark, show some wacky Monty Python-ish skit that really makes no sense at all, or send you to another level.

So what's the point of this. There isn't one. That's to say, the fun of the game is just pushing the buttons, and getting ready to watch, more so experience, what you are given. You can literally get lost wandering through the different levels seeing the different animations. But it's not a game. It's really just a show piece that looks as drug related as a Grateful Dead concert.

There are funny moments, your male characters receiving breasts is a highlight, but after everything is said and done, this is not a game, and it is not fun to play. It's hard to enjoy unless you have an extremely abstract sense of humor. And really, it's such a niche game, that I cannot recommend it to any casual gamer. Try it before you pay for it.

You'll find in review after review I complain about the lack of being interactive in games. That is, games like Myst, or whatnot often get horrible reviews based on the knowledge that the game doesn't immerse you the way a game should.

However, often the reason for my gripe is because the programmers are more interested in telling a story, then letting you experience it. I may pick on Myst for this, as it is the most extreme example, but the other side would be Doom ... with no story, and all interactive. However, Panic, a small game that got a little press in Japan under the title Switch, is neither of those games.

Panic is not interactive. And Panic does not have a story. At least, not a story like one would expect from a role playing game, or really anything else. To say that Panic is unique is to say that George W. Bush was the overwhelming winner of the elections! Panic's story consists of a "savior" (an extremely cartoony kid, with his equally cartoony dog) on his quest to rid the worlds computer of a "virus". If he fails, various landmarks (Eiffel Tower, Grand Canyon, etc.) are destroyed.

The less you concern yourself about the story, though, the better. The game isn't about puzzle solving, nor is it about fast fingers. Actually, I'll tell you exactly what it's about, it's randomly picking a button and watching what it does. That's right, with each room (and there are thousands) there is a remote control. The buttons on it will either do something with the level, destroy a landmark, show some wacky Monty Python-ish skit that really makes no sense at all, or send you to another level.

So what's the point of this. There isn't one. That's to say, the fun of the game is just pushing the buttons, and getting ready to watch, more so experience, what you are given. You can literally get lost wandering through the different levels seeing the different animations. But it's not a game. It's really just a show piece that looks as drug related as a Grateful Dead concert.

There are funny moments, your male characters receiving breasts is a highlight, but after everything is said and done, this is not a game, and it is not fun to play. It's hard to enjoy unless you have an extremely abstract sense of humor. And really, it's such a niche game, that I cannot recommend it to any casual gamer. Try it before you pay for it.

You'll find in review after review I complain about the lack of being interactive in games. That is, games like Myst, or whatnot often get horrible reviews based on the knowledge that the game doesn't immerse you the way a game should.

However, often the reason for my gripe is because the programmers are more interested in telling a story, then letting you experience it. I may pick on Myst for this, as it is the most extreme example, but the other side would be Doom ... with no story, and all interactive. However, Panic, a small game that got a little press in Japan under the title Switch, is neither of those games.

Panic is not interactive. And Panic does not have a story. At least, not a story like one would expect from a role playing game, or really anything else. To say that Panic is unique is to say that George W. Bush was the overwhelming winner of the elections! Panic's story consists of a "savior" (an extremely cartoony kid, with his equally cartoony dog) on his quest to rid the worlds computer of a "virus". If he fails, various landmarks (Eiffel Tower, Grand Canyon, etc.) are destroyed.

The less you concern yourself about the story, though, the better. The game isn't about puzzle solving, nor is it about fast fingers. Actually, I'll tell you exactly what it's about, it's randomly picking a button and watching what it does. That's right, with each room (and there are thousands) there is a remote control. The buttons on it will either do something with the level, destroy a landmark, show some wacky Monty Python-ish skit that really makes no sense at all, or send you to another level.

So what's the point of this. There isn't one. That's to say, the fun of the game is just pushing the buttons, and getting ready to watch, more so experience, what you are given. You can literally get lost wandering through the different levels seeing the different animations. But it's not a game. It's really just a show piece that looks as drug related as a Grateful Dead concert.

There are funny moments, your male characters receiving breasts is a highlight, but after everything is said and done, this is not a game, and it is not fun to play. It's hard to enjoy unless you have an extremely abstract sense of humor. And really, it's such a niche game, that I cannot recommend it to any casual gamer. Try it before you pay for it.

You'll find in review after review I complain about the lack of being interactive in games. That is, games like Myst, or whatnot often get horrible reviews based on the knowledge that the game doesn't immerse you the way a game should.

However, often the reason for my gripe is because the programmers are more interested in telling a story, then letting you experience it. I may pick on Myst for this, as it is the most extreme example, but the other side would be Doom ... with no story, and all interactive. However, Panic, a small game that got a little press in Japan under the title Switch, is neither of those games.

Panic is not interactive. And Panic does not have a story. At least, not a story like one would expect from a role playing game, or really anything else. To say that Panic is unique is to say that George W. Bush was the overwhelming winner of the elections! Panic's story consists of a "savior" (an extremely cartoony kid, with his equally cartoony dog) on his quest to rid the worlds computer of a "virus". If he fails, various landmarks (Eiffel Tower, Grand Canyon, etc.) are destroyed.

The less you concern yourself about the story, though, the better. The game isn't about puzzle solving, nor is it about fast fingers. Actually, I'll tell you exactly what it's about, it's randomly picking a button and watching what it does. That's right, with each room (and there are thousands) there is a remote control. The buttons on it will either do something with the level, destroy a landmark, show some wacky Monty Python-ish skit that really makes no sense at all, or send you to another level.

So what's the point of this. There isn't one. That's to say, the fun of the game is just pushing the buttons, and getting ready to watch, more so experience, what you are given. You can literally get lost wandering through the different levels seeing the different animations. But it's not a game. It's really just a show piece that looks as drug related as a Grateful Dead concert.

There are funny moments, your male characters receiving breasts is a highlight, but after everything is said and done, this is not a game, and it is not fun to play. It's hard to enjoy unless you have an extremely abstract sense of humor. And really, it's such a niche game, that I cannot recommend it to any casual gamer. Try it before you pay for it.

You'll find in review after review I complain about the lack of being interactive in games. That is, games like Myst, or whatnot often get horrible reviews based on the knowledge that the game doesn't immerse you the way a game should.

However, often the reason for my gripe is because the programmers are more interested in telling a story, then letting you experience it. I may pick on Myst for this, as it is the most extreme example, but the other side would be Doom ... with no story, and all interactive. However, Panic, a small game that got a little press in Japan under the title Switch, is neither of those games.

Panic is not interactive. And Panic does not have a story. At least, not a story like one would expect from a role playing game, or really anything else. To say that Panic is unique is to say that George W. Bush was the overwhelming winner of the elections! Panic's story consists of a "savior" (an extremely cartoony kid, with his equally cartoony dog) on his quest to rid the worlds computer of a "virus". If he fails, various landmarks (Eiffel Tower, Grand Canyon, etc.) are destroyed.

The less you concern yourself about the story, though, the better. The game isn't about puzzle solving, nor is it about fast fingers. Actually, I'll tell you exactly what it's about, it's randomly picking a button and watching what it does. That's right, with each room (and there are thousands) there is a remote control. The buttons on it will either do something with the level, destroy a landmark, show some wacky Monty Python-ish skit that really makes no sense at all, or send you to another level.

So what's the point of this. There isn't one. That's to say, the fun of the game is just pushing the buttons, and getting ready to watch, more so experience, what you are given. You can literally get lost wandering through the different levels seeing the different animations. But it's not a game. It's really just a show piece that looks as drug related as a Grateful Dead concert.

There are funny moments, your male characters receiving breasts is a highlight, but after everything is said and done, this is not a game, and it is not fun to play. It's hard to enjoy unless you have an extremely abstract sense of humor. And really, it's such a niche game, that I cannot recommend it to any casual gamer. Try it before you pay for it.