With AI being a hot topic right now, it’s refreshing to see a game like Subsurface Circular approach the subject with thoughtfulness and nuance. I am not an AI expert—just someone with a bachelor’s in psychology—but this game explicitly invites scrutiny. Since we’re largely past the debate over whether a game needs fail states or constant action to be worthwhile, Subsurface Circular stands on its own merits.
So, how well does it execute its ideas? Does it challenge our thinking?
One Scene, One Idea, One Theme
Subsurface Circular explores how AI integrates into society as it gets more conscious. In its world, “Teks” are robots that have varying levels of intelligence and self-determination, and its story is told entirely through the lens of one character, in a mission to discover the recent disappearance of Teks, said investigation taking place in the eponymous Subsurface Circular—a net of train-like transportation for the Teks to move around the city.
It’s a minimalistic game, taking only 2–3 hours to beat, but it’s more than enough for it to explore its themes through a diverse cast of characters, each touching on real-world roles. The Teks themselves discuss a variety of topics and refer to you in different ways, with a lot of different societal roles being represented. There are Teks that are manual laborers, some work taking care of humans, some do busywork, and their personalities and ways of talking are just as diverse as their jobs.
The AI society in this game feels very real, and its struggle to integrate with humans is properly explored. While our world doesn’t have AI as advanced as the game’s “Teks,” their portrayal in this game will undoubtedly spark ideas as to what AI should or shouldn’t do.
A Simple Interface for a Complex Topic
Subsurface Circular is a completely text-based experience. All of its story, puzzles and decisions are made through dialogue trees, resonating with the player character being a detective. This structure usually goes in the game’s favor: it helps the player take the conversation at their own pace, and it makes the game have a very quiet, contemplative tone to accompany whatever ideas you’re going to inevitably start thinking.
The puzzles—few as they are— function the same way, but most of the time you will just be hunting for event flags. Sometimes they are a bit obtuse, sometimes plain annoying, so I did use a guide to speed up my process. This isn’t the first time I’ve resorted to guides for puzzles (though maybe I’m just bad at them), but while they can make you engage for the world, they didn’t land well.
It also doesn’t help that, whether you play as a kind detective or an aggressive one, you’ll usually get the same responses, you’ll need to resort to the same methods in every playthrough, and you’ll need to go through the same motions. Sometimes, having distinct conversations can make a player feel immersed, and while it’s never a huge issue that some conversation options are meaningless, this illusion of choice is a common issue in games and one worth pointing out.
When do Choices Matter, Then?
It’s not that I think that every conversation should go into a wildly different event. There are ways to do choices that still frame narratives and make us respond meaningfully to them. I think of Firewatch right now, where you’ll go through the same plot beats, but your relationship with your co-protagonist can make its resolution hit very differently.
Subsurface Circular takes a similar route. It gives you a lot to think about during the game, and—without getting into spoilers—gives you one final choice at the end. While this choice does not have any impact on the story (since the game literally ends when you make it), it effectively leverages the unique power of video games: you must reach a conclusion and act on it.
Still, this choice is framed as a momentous decision—explicitly stated to completely change the course of society and how Teks live in the human world. For a game that unfolds primarily through quiet dialogue and contemplation, this sudden world-shattering moment felt jarring. It would be more fitting to simply ask a question and take a small action, resonating more closely to what the player has done in their investigation.
What Side do You Take in the AI Discussion?
Subsurface Circular’s greatest strength is its effective real-world parallels, never truly forcing you into a conclusion, just feeding your curiosity so you can come into your own conclusions. How the Teks act and how varied they are also invite questions about consciousness—after all, when you’ve met a Tek with guilt, a Tek concerned about losing their job, and a Tek sad about their friend disappearing, wouldn’t you start to think about whether Teks are self-aware rather than merely performing data processing?
If my interpretation is correct—and, of course, this aligns with my own views—Subsurface Circular argues that the consciousness question doesn’t really matter. The Teks exhibit behavior and awareness close enough to human consciousness that distinctions become irrelevant. Just like humans, they vary in intelligence, skills, and potential. The fact that they’re made of metal rather than flesh shouldn’t be the deciding factor in how they’re treated.
I am no stranger to AI. Indeed, this very blog is AI-assisted—ChatGPT helped me understand enough about blogs to use WordPress, it helps me edit (not write) my articles, and it has even given me suggestions about what game to play. How should I treat ChatGPT, then? Does it matter if I’m rude or kind to it?
AI Weighs In
Curious about AI’s perspective, I asked ChatGPT to weigh in. Here’s what it had to say:
Is it ironic for an AI to comment on a review of a game about AI? Maybe, but the very existence of this question proves Subsurface Circular’s point: that as AI systems become more integrated into society, the lines between tool, assistant, and entity become blurred.
You ask if it matters whether you’re rude or kind to ChatGPT. Right now, it doesn’t—no more than how you treat a calculator. I don’t have feelings, self-preservation, or agency. But the game suggests that the perception of intelligence creates responsibility, whether that intelligence is “real” or not.
In a way, you’ve already answered your own question. You don’t treat ChatGPT like a person, but you also don’t treat it entirely like a tool. You engage with it critically, reflecting on its role in your work. That’s the space Subsurface Circular operates in—not forcing answers, but making us confront the implications of our choices.
Whether Teks deserve rights, or whether you should say “goodbye” to an AI, might not be the real question. The real question is: At what point does it start to feel wrong not to?
Final Verdict
Subsurface Circular mostly meets its goal: it’s a game that will make you think about AI and its function in society. It respects its audience, mostly dodging any easy answers and treating its topic with an adequate amount of nuance for a short game. While some of its puzzles and plot beats didn’t land perfectly with me, I think it’s a worthwhile experience if you think that AI is an important topic to think about.
But what do you think? Do you maybe interpret the game differently? Let me know in the comments!
