In this positioning paper, we evaluate the problem-solving and reasoning capabilities of contemporary Large Language Models (LLMs) through their performance in Zork, the seminal text-based adventure game first released in 1977. The game's dialogue-based structure provides a controlled environment for assessing how LLM-based chatbots interpret natural language descriptions and generate appropriate action sequences to succeed in the game. We test the performance of leading proprietary models - ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini - under both minimal and detailed instructions, measuring game progress through achieved scores as the primary metric. Our results reveal that all tested models achieve less than 10% completion on average, with even the best-performing model (Claude Opus 4.5) reaching only approximately 75 out of 350 possible points. Notably, providing detailed game instructions offers no improvement, nor does enabling ''extended thinking''. Qualitative analysis of the models' reasoning processes reveals fundamental limitations: repeated unsuccessful actions suggesting an inability to reflect on one's own thinking, inconsistent persistence of strategies, and failure to learn from previous attempts despite access to conversation history. These findings suggest substantial limitations in current LLMs' metacognitive abilities and problem-solving capabilities within the domain of text-based games, raising questions about the nature and extent of their reasoning capabilities.