
This is a puzzle game like a mathematical book, based on logic and deduction. In this game, you don't need to beat the level, but need to prove it is beatable. Your goal is not to win, but to prove you can win.
Modeled estimate, not a reported figure. How we estimate →
Media

About
This is a puzzle game based on logic and deduction. In this game, you can learn and understand a brand new deduction system, and then take the axioms and rules of deduction as tools, to prove the propositions by entering the code.
Features:
Understand the axioms and rules of deduction (just like when you are reading a mathematical book)
Enter the code and prove the proposition (just like when you are solving a math problem)
"Q.E.D.", "Eureka!", and get into the next loop
Elements which might be frustrating:
No good artwork. (That's less important than the other three)
Amounts of text to read, and it requires a little comprehension of math. (Playing this game is virtually like reading a math book)
The only way to create a new proof step is entering the right code, which is not the core of the game essentially. (It's due to my limited programming ability)
No custom-corollary function. Only the axioms and rules of deduction are available. (Welcome to the CLASSIC deduction system)
If all of them are okay for you, then this game may be suitable for you.
FAQs:
Q: Which players are the game mainly for?
A: If you have some experience of reading math books and you are interested in logic, this game may be the one you like.
Q: Is it a hard game?
A: At the first, the difficulty of this game are mainly about the understanding the rules, and it's easy to work out the puzzle. But the problem will become very hard if you keep playing. Anyway, reading and comprehending themselves will form a part of difficulty.
Q: Are you inspired by something when designing this game?
A: This game is inspired by mathematical logic, mainly about natural deduction of statement calculus and first-order predicate calculus.
Q: How long does it take to beat the game?
A: About 20~40 hours.
Q: Is there any difference between this game and a mathematical exercise book?
A: Nothing. And I just let it be. If some players mind that, it's fine by me to use "the executable file" or "the exercise book" while talking with them, instead of "this game".
Genres
Stats
All-time low is the lowest price we've recorded for this game since we started tracking it.
Languages: Simplified Chinese, English
Engagement
Hours played at review time, across 40 reviews with recorded playtime.
Reviews
Themes across 40 recent reviews and how positive each mention is. A keyword signal, not full sentiment analysis.
positive critical· bar length = how often the theme comes up
Reviews
具备数学逻辑的游戏
我最喜欢的视觉小说
目前只玩到前兩章,算有意思的遊戲。但就像其他評論說的一樣,操作方式真的有待改進。
10分给题材,2分给UI
重温了一下这款游戏,早在策划阶段本人就参与过测试与意见,同作为游戏开发者表示真的很难想象作者在开发这样一部作品时是拥有了怎样的勇气——而发售后的结果也完全超出了我个人的预期,可以说zqh真的是独立游戏界的一位传奇人物了。
仿佛回到了初学数理逻辑的时光。 就提点小建议吧。设置可选项太少,游戏主体外的内容还需要打磨。全游戏只有一首音乐而且不能关掉,加上充斥着像素恐怖气息的eureka动画和音效,让我一度以为走错了片场。
上班写代码,下班也写代码
推荐
补个评价吧,想法是好的,创意也是不错的,虽然它不那么像个游戏。但既然steam的的评价标准是“您是否会将这款游戏推荐给他人”,那么我不推荐,因为这个游戏的操作的繁琐程度实在是太难以接受了。
最好增加一个自定义推理规则的功能,很多操作是在反复用之前用过的操作,很麻烦,开启创意工坊
Related
Related
Trends
Concurrent players on Steam, sampled daily since tracking started.
Momentum
Pace estimated from the game's recent review growth (our daily snapshots) at its own sales-per-review ratio — a momentum signal, not booked sales.
Audience
Estimated from the language of this game's reviews — a proxy for where players are, not official Steam demographics.
Related
| SIGNAL: Uncharted Lands | $4.3K | 54 | 98% | $4.99 |
| Drop Doll | $4.3K | 114 | 78% | $1.99 |
| Backmooms | $4.3K | 144 | 83% | $1.33 |
| Whisker Waters | $4.3K | 70 | 46% | $2.99 |
| 溢爱~fragile love | $4.3K | 124 | 88% | $1.99 |
| Mussoumano: Ataque dos Haters | $4.3K | 62 | 65% | $4.99 |