[T] Turnabout Mugging ☆

Find and discuss trials made by other members and showcase your own trials.

Moderators: EN - Forum Moderators, EN - Trial Reviewers

User avatar
migueloukao
Posts: 9
Joined: Wed Jun 10, 2015 2:40 am
Gender: Male
Spoken languages: English; Portuguese
Location: Brazil

[T] Turnabout Mugging ☆

Post by migueloukao »

TURNABOUT MUGGING

Image

This case contains optional DGS music spoilers. You may choose to swap the DGS music out at the start.


Synopsis:

Turnabout Mugging is about the intense faceoff between Dougal Justice, a rookie defense attorney who is defending his first case, and Alexander Chevalier, a determined prosecutor who always believes in his witnesses.

The defendant is John Doe, a homeless man accused of armed robbery and homicide, but that may not be the end of it…

As their goals and values clash, Dougal will have to fend off the prosecution’s direct-examinations and make his own arguments via unique gameplay systems to stay alive! The defense has the edge of the presumption of innocence, but will it be enough to fight off the prosecution’s fierce case and determination?

Screenshots:
Spoiler : :
Image Image Image Image Image Image
Credits:

Me – Writer
Leonardo21101996 – Key playtester
Dropda – Key playtester
clcman – Key playtester

Sprites:

DragonTrainer – Tori Labbe, who plays Madeline Whitt
Me – Other custom sprites
Dropda - Editing several sprites

Music:
All OST credited in-game

Links:
Part 1: http://www.aaonline.fr/player.php?trial_id=77599
Part 2: http://www.aaonline.fr/player.php?trial_id=81466
Part 3: http://www.aaonline.fr/player.php?trial_id=84518
Extras: http://www.aaonline.fr/player.php?trial_id=102502

Walkthrough:
Spoiler : :
PART 1
• Chat with John Doe
o Talk through the first 3 subjects
o Present Toy gun
o Talk through 4th subject
• Cross-examination: That Night
o Press everything once
• Cross-examination: The crime scene
o Do the following in any order
o “At the crime scene, we found two very important pieces of evidence.”
 Press
 “After examining the scene, the motive is clearly theft.”
• Press
• “(Do I have anything to help me push the idea that the victim wasn't killed to be robbed?)”
o There is one thing
o “One was the murder weapon left on the ground, right by the body.”
 Press
o “The other was a pair of gloves, which were undoubtedly used to handle the gun during the murder.”
 Press
o AFTER previous two presses
o “The other was a pair of gloves, which were undoubtedly used to handle the gun during the murder.”
 Present Pistol
 “How could she even know that the shooter wore gloves when we consider this?”
• Present Cellphone photo
• “Isn’t it weird that both the left and right-hand gloves have gunpowder when we consider this evidence?”
o Present Pistol or Cellphone photo
o “By proving that the culprit wore gloves, you proved that my client CANNOT be the killer!”
 Present Wallet
• Cross-examination: How I did it
o ‘"I'm tired of this!" BANG! Now I'll just get the loot and go!"’
 Press
• Being geared as usual
 “I was geared and ready as usual! I approached him and did my usual routine.”
• Present Written testimony
o “The reason that my client is not wearing his typical mask in this picture is...”
 It is not him
• “Is there any evidence to present against his theory?”
 “No objections for now.
• “You expect us to believe that my client robbed 400,000 dollars from a bank?!”
o Present John Doe
• Cross-Examination: Connection to the heist
o “There are several points of similarity associating the defendant with one of the two heisters.”
 Press
• “(I'm sure I can find logical inconsistencies that go against him having robbed a bank!)”
o I have evidence (will lead to a false objection with no penalty)
 Present wallet
o “We found part of the stolen money among his belongings, which ties him to the heist without doubt!”
 Press
• “(Should I still insist on asking about the stolen bills?)”
o Press further
 “(A better explanation for those 800 dollars of the stolen money among his belongings...)”
• Present
o Present wallet
 Pick “I have a better explanation”
• “The money from the victim's wallet...”
o Pick “It is under the judge's bench” for Random Ending #1
o Pick “It has been found" to progress the plot.
• “Taking another look at this would surely corroborate that the 800 dollars are the victim's.”
o Present wallet
• Dougal’s argument: The money got deposited
o “I…”
 The money in the wallet came from a bank
o “All we have to do is consider...”
 Present Benjamin Dallas
• Dougal’s argument #2: The victim is the heister
o You may make any different decision here to get a non-generic ending.
o “(What to say, what to say?!)”
 Describe the murder in detail
o “Yes... And one shot the other. Then the gun was left on the floor and the killer left.”
 Go on about the crime
o “My client, Mr. Doe, had the victim's wallet because...”
 Pick either ‘The wallet was given to him by the killer’ or ‘He found the wallet’
o “My client found the victim's wallet at the street around an hour or so before the murder.”
 The money inside was the heist's
o “(Not enough time!)”
 Object back
o “(Dude... What in the...?)”
 Accuse His Honor of wasting time
o “(More time...?)”
 Taunt Chevalier
• “(How can I prove that the victim was the heister, and not Mr. Doe?)
o I recommend picking ‘Let's ask the bank robber’ for laughs, but the right choice is ‘Let's check his bank account’

PART 2
• “This coat would destroy the theory that Mr. Doe killed the victim because...”
o The coat has no gunpowder
• Cross-Examination: Witness's account
o “I could see his face, clear as day. It was the defendant.”
 Present Cellphone Photo
o AFTER previous present, press statement “He pointed it right at the victim's chest and, after a few words, fired.”
 “(Do I still have a problem with her having taken that picture?)”
• I don't have a problem
• “There is no way you could have known his face just because he robbed you ten days ago.”
o Present John Doe for Random Ending #2
o Present Mask or Written testimony to progress
• “(Well, it is nothing new...)”
 Pick ‘It's pointless to cross-examine’ for a Non-Generic ending
 Pick ‘I should cross-examine” to progress
• Cross-examination: Mugging 101
o “He pointed a gun to my chest and demanded my wallet. Pretty scary stuff.”
 Press
• “(Now what? Do I let this line of questioning slide?)”
o Try to block his question to avoid credibility loss
 “So, Ms. Whitt...”
• Did you resist?
o “(As far as she knows, he had a real gun... Can I extract more here?)”
 Press harder
o “Stop staring at me like that, you creep.”
 Press
o “Initially, I slapped his gun away, out of panic.”
 Present Toy Gun
o “And I already know who the owner of the second set is.”
 Present Madeline Whitt
• Cross-Examination: -- Witness's account pt.2 –
• Do the following in any order.
o “That's when he looted the poor guy. I'm guessing he was robbing him.”
 Press
• Go for it
o “If you expect to claim the killer took the wallet and gave it away, show us some proof.”
 Back off
o “After that, he walked away, toward the trash can. He removed his gloves and dumped them.”
 Press
• Attack her credibility
o Present Toy gun for a false objection
o Present Cellphone photo or John Doe to progress
• Now you can press “I saw the shooter loot the wallet out of the victim's dead body.”
o Choose Press her
 She has no credibility
• “He crouched and pulled the wallet out of the victim's external left chest pocket.”
o Present Autopsy Report
• “I can prove the shooter looted the left chest pocket right after the murder!”
o Present Latex Gloves or Defendant’s Coat
• “A witness, you say? Who is the witness you wish to summon?”
o Present E-mail to progress
o Present anything else to laugh and get penalized
• Chat with Chevalier
o Just keep talking to progress.
o You may present Dray, Chevalier, Madeline and Dougal for reactions

PART 3
• Examine file on floor and then talk to Galen
o You can present essentially everything for reaction
• Just talk with Madeline, to progress
• Direct-examination: So sorry
• “(Do I intervene, or do I let him press Hoxton about weird things that may have happened?)”
o Let it pass
• “(Well, what do I do about that question? Do I let him ask about Dallas?)”
o Let it go
• “This was not the first meeting they scheduled, but the first one had to be cancelled. Is that okay?”
o No immediate problem
• Direct-Examination: My ammended account
• Make any different decision to get a non-generic ending
• ("Just so we know, where is it that you live, Clyde?")
o This is invasion of privacy
• ("Why did you not go the meeting with DuperPMXXX?")
o He already answered that
• “How can anyone believe that you never even knew his name?”
o To block this one, pick ‘That is badgering’, but it is not necessary to succeed.
• “And why DID you cancel the meeting?”
o Irrelevant detail
• Do the following in any order
o “Let's get all the details right this time. I was in my apartment all night.”
 Press
o “I had a meeting with an online gamer friend of mine. It would be our first time meeting.
 Press
• “Our previous meeting had been called off. However, we were going to meet again in the same spot.”
o Press
 “(I'll just pull the trigger. Time to try to connect him to the crime scene at the time of death.)”
• Present Cellphone photo 2
• Cross-examination: So sorry pt.2
o Just press everything
• “(Should I stop Chevalier from stopping him?)”
o Choose ‘Let them adjourn’ for a non-generic Ending
o Choose ‘I want to hear Hoxton” to progress
• Present Defendant’s coat or Cellphone photo or Cellphone photo 2 to progress
o Present anything else to get a random ending
• “(Now, I know he didn't see it at the crime scene. He also didn't see it here in court.)”
o He saw it after the crime
• “(He probably found out about Mr. Doe's scar at some point after the crime...)”
o He met Mr. Doe after the crime
• “(Do I assume Hoxton is the real murderer?)”
o Yes
• “(If he's the killer and he saw Mr. Doe's scar after the crime... This piece of evidence is why.)”
o Present Defendant’s coat
• Chevalier’s argument: The case for adjourning
• “We have at least one witness that mentioned absolutely nothing about a scar.”
o Present Madeline Whitt
• “The real moment he saw it was when the accused robbed him. That is why we found his wallet!”
o Present Defendant’s coat
• “As I've stated before, new leads have been presented. With extra time, we can check them.”
o Press
o “This is why verifying the car cannot possibly turn up any useful evidence about the killer!”
 Present Cellphone photo 2 or Defendant’s coat
o “That's wrong! Because of this, Hoxton would not have gotten his car dirty with blood or gunpowder.”
 Present Defendant’s coat or John Doe
o “(Can I refute that Hoxton's apartment may contain incriminating evidence...?)”
 No
o “This is the individual at the heart of this trial!”
 Present John Doe
o “The prosecution's case has suffered some damage throughout this trial, I understand that.”
 Press
 “(Should I go over how much pain the prosecution's case has suffered up until now to the court?)”
• Go over it
• Chevalier’s argument: Chevalier's Closing Argument
o “The shooter looted something out of the victim's chest, put it in his coat and walked away.”
 Present Defendant’s coat
o “If my logic is right, then the shooter never actually used this piece of evidence!”
 Present Defendant’s coat
o “I can think of a PERFECT place for it to have been covered in gunpowder that isn't this shooting.”
 Present The Bank Heist
o “What I am saying is...”
 He got the coat after the bank heist
o “(He's saying the victim's blood is on the coat's sleeve...?)”
 Present Defendant’s coat or Latex gloves
o “That's just fine. Here's all we need to prove the existence of a second coat!”
 Present Chevalier’s Statement
o “(Having spent a while observing Hoxton's personality, I understand why he fired the gun.)”
 Present Clyde Hoxton

And that’s that! Don’t forget to play the Extras! They’re short but have some nice complementary scenes. Thank you for playing.
I began this case back in 2015 when I was having a blast playing AO and cases here in AAO (still have a blast doing it, for the record). My progress slowed down with time, but I decided that this year I’d finally have it released and here it is. I put a lot of effort into this case and I hope you guys will enjoy playing it.

If you do play it, leave a comment below on your thoughts on the case, whether good or bad! It’s my first case here, but I know it’s very rewarding to receive feedback on something you worked hard on!
Last edited by migueloukao on Sat Aug 22, 2020 8:55 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Dropda
Posts: 1
Joined: Mon Jun 22, 2015 7:01 am
Gender: Male
Spoken languages: English, Spanish

Re: [T] Turnabout Mugging●

Post by Dropda »

Holy baskets in a crevice, you actually released this case.

You guys might want to give this guy a chance, the story is pretty entertaining. The narrative and atmosphere is somewhat different from other AO cases. I can't really say its more realistic since its very fictional in its contents but it does draw a lot more ground from real scenarios than the games for example. (The themes in the story lean on the serious/humorous side) There's also plenty of distinct game-play mechanics laid out throughout the case, so that's another interesting point. If you guys are making your own, you might like seeing its takes.

Don't expect the case's mystery/puzzle to be overly complex. I think the selling point of this case is most probably it execution and storytelling. The character interactions are pretty great. (Plus I kind of REALLY like its humor)

I know most of the key plot points and some of the narrative planned for the next releases. To my surprise, its actually pretty good.
Here's to hopping the next one gets released before we die.

This guy made me play the game with him ~3 times and dub it together while doing so since 2015. Also made me edit sprites. (Please like it guys, leave a comment, subscribe, follow his twitter, donate to his Patreon, get him some bits a coffee and subscribe to his only fans account.)

TOTALLY NOT BIASED.

10/10 - Disgustingly good.
leonardo21101996
Posts: 2
Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2011 2:48 am
Gender: Male
Spoken languages: English and Portuguese

Re: [T] Turnabout Mugging●

Post by leonardo21101996 »

I'm not going to post a full review of the case since I said all I felt need to during playtest (and because I suck at making reviews) but I'll say that this trial is definitely worth to check out. Me and Miguel have known each other for 6 years or so and it's no secret to anyone how much I enjoy the stories he writes. Turnabout Mugging has been a thing even before he decided to write it on AAO and it is surprising how he managed to take a story that was already complete and pretty much put several new plot twists without actually changing the core of it. Besides what Dropda said, which I also agree, I feel that this trial has another big "selling point", which is how it takes the roles of defense and prosecution in a significantly different way that AA does. I followed this trial since its first frames and I know how much effort was put into it. Miguel often called me and/or Dropda to discuss some arguments used in the trial to make sure he would have as much as possible covered which, from what I could see, made the case very consistent as a whole. As for difficulty, it is fair but yet it shows why puzzle games don't need to be hard to be fun. Not sure of what else I can say but I definitely recommend this.
User avatar
clcman
Posts: 1312
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2011 3:40 pm
Gender: Male
Spoken languages: English
Location: Classified

Re: [T] Turnabout Mugging●

Post by clcman »

Full Disclosure: I am a credited beta-tester and editor/copy-writer for this case.

Turnabout Mugging (despite its generic name) is a good case and you should probably play it. It is similar to our understanding of a "normal AA trial", but messes around with the tone and theme in a pretty unique way. For example, defense attorneys openly consider and grapple with the possibility that their client might actually have done crimes! This gives it a sort of "realistic" edge to it, even as it engages in all sorts of wacky witness shenanigans and ludicrous defense bluffs. In fact, the case shifts back and forth between serious and absurd quite a lot, but it never feels out of place.

The biggest draw is probably the characters and the comedy. The characters, despite mostly being literal recolors of canon sprites, have a lot more depth to them than it first appears and develop in interesting ways. The case is also quite funny, despite its more serious/realistic elements. The author has a masterful sense of comic timing and expectation manipulation and subversion that lead to some of the funniest segments I've seen in a fancase.

Oh, yes, also gameplay. While there are plenty of regular testimonies in here, there are also some very well-done additional mechanics, most notably the frantic (and usually hilarious) argument sections.

As others have said, the mystery is not really a gripping, impossible logic puzzle that you must strain your brain against, only to be blown away by the brilliance of the answer, so if you are looking for that, you won't find it. But then again, the case is called "Turnabout Mugging", not "Turnabout Ultimate Locked Room Challenge." It serves well enough, and has several proper twists of its own.

The case has also been polished through heavy, heavy testing from multiple sources, which is almost never a bad thing!

Overall, I enjoyed this case and heartily recommend it.
What do REAL, NON-BRIBED people have to say about HTB!?
"This really changed the way I thought about Phoenix as a character. ...Wow." - Reecer6
"HTB! contains truths that might be hard to stomach, but had to be unveiled nonetheless." - Blackrune
"This deserves a best plot twist award." - Evo
"It changed my life, and it can change yours too. For the better, I mean." - Calvinball
"I will never look at Phoenix Wright the same way again" - PhoenixRises123
"omg best thing on aao" - AceAttorneyMaster111
DISCOVER THE TRUTH YOU NEVER KNEW YOU DIDN'T KNOW IN HTB! PROLOGUE AND PART 1, AVAILABLE NOW!!


"Those people who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do." -Isaac Asimov
"For every complex problem, there is an answer that is clear, simple and wrong." -H. L. Mencken
User avatar
MedicInDisquise
Posts: 11
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2016 11:54 am
Gender: Male
Spoken languages: English

Re: [T] Turnabout Mugging●

Post by MedicInDisquise »

I just played through part 1. Here's my first impressions (is that the right word when you play through a solid third of the case?)

Well, actually, let me start off with non-spoilery things. This case is pretty well-presented - lots of custom music, and despite the fact that the cast is pretty much entirely recolors so far, they all feel like original characters with unique personalities. The McQueen picture is what singlehandedly hooked me on the case. I don't know why, but the AAI2 witness stand instantly caught my attention. I have to say that McQueen is probably my favorite character in the case so far - although giving him six themes might've been too much :D . Chevalier comes off as far more willing to play dirty than Godot, and thus more unlikeable. Some of his tricks reminded me of Franziska's 2-2 stunt - in particular, the latter part of part 1, which I'll address inside the spoiler. Dougal is far more emotional than Apollo, which is saying something. And Goode is an asshole, but probably not murderous. Just annoying and rude. The Judge seems a bit more scatterbrained than usual, but it works with Chevalier doing the heavy work here. John Doe (?) works pretty well too, and the Hobonix sprites are used to good effect here. You really get the idea that he's a man, down on his luck, and utterly screwed by the cards of fate.

Case logic is pretty solid so far, although the case quickly jumps from topic to topic. Again, this will be addressed more inside the spoiler, but it's impressive how far the case jumps.
Spoiler : Everything Spoilery, up to the end of Part 1 :
Alright, so I pretty much have to talk about the jump from a mugging gone wrong to a freaking $400,000 heist. :shock: Just.. that came out of left field for me, but while in other cases it might've been too much for the player (or me) to handle, the case recovers with the argumentation phases, which as a side note singlehandedly sold me on the possibility of playing as a witness. Plus, it helps that the prosecution immediately links the heist to the murder itself - so it never feels like we're being sidetracked onto something that doesn't really matter. (Can someone say 1-4's first trial segment?) I will say though that Chevalier making this jump immediately soured me on his character - pretty dirty to bring up what are, initially, two unrelated crimes (the mugging and heist) just to crucify a hobo. Can a hobo who really doesn't remember his own name manage to pull that insane of a crime off? It almost broke my suspension of disbelief - but with how aggressive Chevalier was beforehand against us, it made sense in the end.

I should also talk about the comedy. The case so far has a lot of running gags (Can Dougal pay attention to forensic terminology? The answer is apparently no, unless they're talking about Ballistic Markings, the fingerprints of the gun.) and loves to milk a gag for all it's worth via repetition. The best example of this is the "Ask A Bank Robber" action, where the prosecution, detective, judge, and your co-council react separately to your stupid claim that you know who the second heister is. "Die Hard taught me psychological torture, don't you worry!!!" is probably my favorite line out of the entire bit, besides your co-council standing next to you saying "I'll pretend I don't know who you are, to save face." I really enjoy the tone of the case, and most (if not all) of the jokes hit really well. I laughed out loud several times during the case. (28 witnesses. Each.)

Lastly, the puzzles are all pretty good. I'm not too ashamed to admit I had to peek at the walkthrough - I think the part where you have to present the Victim's profile probably would've stumped me for ages if I didn't look at the walkthrough. And the second argumentation segment has a serious serious ultimate OHKO penalty, which seems very steep to me. But the choices you have to make are easy - just stall a lot.
I'm really excited to play the other two parts! I love it so far, and the case all-in-all feels very very polished.
User avatar
risefromtheashes
Posts: 70
Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2018 2:33 am
Spoken languages: English, Russian, Spanish + Armenian (not fluent)
Location: Name's Ash; pronouns are they/them.

Re: [T] Turnabout Mugging●

Post by risefromtheashes »

I don't have much to add right now, but I have played Part 1 and would heavily agree with everyone's statements above. This case is written very well (the funny quips between the defense, co-council, and prosecutor are VERY funny) and I find the change from "force the whole truth out of everyone because the truth prevails and we know our client would never do anything wrong!!!!" to "play your cards very carefully because you know this prosecutor could easily screw you over and get your client a death penalty, especially cause your client could be lying to you" EXTREMELY refreshing. Nothing wrong with the typical AA "believe in your client" formula, but this is very nice.

I'll play Parts 2 and 3 sometime later, and may or may not leave a review, but this case is goddamn awesome. Props for all the hard work; I'm hoping it's all worth it.
User avatar
MedicInDisquise
Posts: 11
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2016 11:54 am
Gender: Male
Spoken languages: English

Re: [T] Turnabout Mugging●

Post by MedicInDisquise »

Okay, I played through the rest of the case. I won't repeat myself, so I'll focus entirely on Part 2 and 3's writing and case logic.
Spoiler : There Be Spoilers Here For Parts 2 To 3 :
Part 2 is actually not a lot of gameplay, focusing on building up the narrative. We go over Ms. Whitt's testimony - out of the characters we have, she is the straight man. She doesn't have many quirks besides being a starving art student, but she does play a vital role in the mystery as the first witness (and at the time, only witness). We get an insight in the defense team's character - instead of trying to find big turnabouts like the attorneys we know and love, they focus on destroying the credibility of witnesses. In fact, we don't get a lot of chances to properly object and change the case in this case. This isn't bad, but something I wanted to mention. Actually, this ties into the big theme of the case - belief. Both Goode and Chevalier base their entire passion in court off a belief in the defendant or the witness. They both know that, if the defendant was innocent or guilty, the evidence would reflect that. All they would have to do is point it out. This is where Phoenix and Co. and these guys are alike, but Dougal is unique in that he's still finding that out. Actually, until the very end of the trial, he expressly DOESN'T believe in Mr. Doe. And once he does find out, he stress vomits.

It sounds like I'm skipping over case logic. The puzzles and gameplay of the case was pretty good, and handled well. Besides the major twist in Part 1, it all was smooth sailing logically while still remaining tense. The direct examinations were fun, and it felt good to actually shut down Chevalier. The puzzle here that really impressed me was the massive logic jump to proving that there were TWO coats. That was just crazy, in a good way.

The characters are amazing, and easily the highlight of the case! Dougal gets a lot of character development, learning how to stand on his own and finally actually trust in Mr. Doe. Chevalier, meanwhile, gets his confidence shaken as the case goes on and his credibility sinks. His breakdown is the highlight of the case, slamming the table, his hands shaking and even accidentally swatting away coffee cups in his fury. You get the sense he really was betrayed by Hoxton, and that he truly believed in him too. As Dougal points out later, this mirrors Dougal's own breakdown when he begins to truly doubt Mr. Doe's story. Even Mr. Doe gets his own character development - again, this ties into the whole theme of trust and belief. In case you don't get it yet, the writing is really good. The only part of the game's characterization that I'd find negative is when Dougal seriously considers using what is heavily implied to be Whitt's nudes to coerce evidence from her. And while it ultimately ends up being played for laughs, and he ends up being unable to go through with it, it still was very offputting to me.

Speaking of laughs, the comedy was fun as well, and the case maintained a comedic tone even up to the climatic breakdown. Hoxton is my second favorite character in this case, having a surprising amount of depth and sympathy. Still, he's quirky enough to not be a complete debbie downer, and I got a kick out of his whole internet rant, which even has foreshadowing to his later self-destructive nature when he calls himself a "baka". Emphasis Hoxton's. I appreciate the (intentional??) Payday reference in his name, considering he is later revealed to be one of the heisters and the culprit. But, the reveal of his motive, and his own breakdown is really what cements me as my favorite. It's ultimately really relatable, and you just feel bad for everything he's gone through. Even if he's milking it for sympathy points.
In the end, this case deserves praise in my opinion. Very good, very well presented, very funny, and very well written. Verily. :)
User avatar
migueloukao
Posts: 9
Joined: Wed Jun 10, 2015 2:40 am
Gender: Male
Spoken languages: English; Portuguese
Location: Brazil

Re: [T] Turnabout Mugging●

Post by migueloukao »

MedicInDisquise wrote:Okay, I played through the rest of the case. I won't repeat myself, so I'll focus entirely on Part 2 and 3's writing and case logic.
Spoiler : There Be Spoilers Here For Parts 2 To 3 :
Part 2 is actually not a lot of gameplay, focusing on building up the narrative. We go over Ms. Whitt's testimony - out of the characters we have, she is the straight man. She doesn't have many quirks besides being a starving art student, but she does play a vital role in the mystery as the first witness (and at the time, only witness). We get an insight in the defense team's character - instead of trying to find big turnabouts like the attorneys we know and love, they focus on destroying the credibility of witnesses. In fact, we don't get a lot of chances to properly object and change the case in this case. This isn't bad, but something I wanted to mention. Actually, this ties into the big theme of the case - belief. Both Goode and Chevalier base their entire passion in court off a belief in the defendant or the witness. They both know that, if the defendant was innocent or guilty, the evidence would reflect that. All they would have to do is point it out. This is where Phoenix and Co. and these guys are alike, but Dougal is unique in that he's still finding that out. Actually, until the very end of the trial, he expressly DOESN'T believe in Mr. Doe. And once he does find out, he stress vomits.

It sounds like I'm skipping over case logic. The puzzles and gameplay of the case was pretty good, and handled well. Besides the major twist in Part 1, it all was smooth sailing logically while still remaining tense. The direct examinations were fun, and it felt good to actually shut down Chevalier. The puzzle here that really impressed me was the massive logic jump to proving that there were TWO coats. That was just crazy, in a good way.

The characters are amazing, and easily the highlight of the case! Dougal gets a lot of character development, learning how to stand on his own and finally actually trust in Mr. Doe. Chevalier, meanwhile, gets his confidence shaken as the case goes on and his credibility sinks. His breakdown is the highlight of the case, slamming the table, his hands shaking and even accidentally swatting away coffee cups in his fury. You get the sense he really was betrayed by Hoxton, and that he truly believed in him too. As Dougal points out later, this mirrors Dougal's own breakdown when he begins to truly doubt Mr. Doe's story. Even Mr. Doe gets his own character development - again, this ties into the whole theme of trust and belief. In case you don't get it yet, the writing is really good. The only part of the game's characterization that I'd find negative is when Dougal seriously considers using what is heavily implied to be Whitt's nudes to coerce evidence from her. And while it ultimately ends up being played for laughs, and he ends up being unable to go through with it, it still was very offputting to me.

Speaking of laughs, the comedy was fun as well, and the case maintained a comedic tone even up to the climatic breakdown. Hoxton is my second favorite character in this case, having a surprising amount of depth and sympathy. Still, he's quirky enough to not be a complete debbie downer, and I got a kick out of his whole internet rant, which even has foreshadowing to his later self-destructive nature when he calls himself a "baka". Emphasis Hoxton's. I appreciate the (intentional??) Payday reference in his name, considering he is later revealed to be one of the heisters and the culprit. But, the reveal of his motive, and his own breakdown is really what cements me as my favorite. It's ultimately really relatable, and you just feel bad for everything he's gone through. Even if he's milking it for sympathy points.
In the end, this case deserves praise in my opinion. Very good, very well presented, very funny, and very well written. Verily. :)
Thank you very much for enjoying the case and posting your feedback. I love reading this stuff.

On some of the things you mentioned
Spoiler : :
Regarding the offputting moment you mentioned, it is by design meant to be uncomfortable, though I wouldn't say it got played for laughs. I understand your feelings on it, however.
The payday reference is definitely intentional, especially because there is both Hoxton and Dallas. Also, a Bonnie and Clyde reference (bonnie changed to Benjamin cuz male instead of female).
I'm really happy you liked the two coats twist!
Thank you for playing!
User avatar
Bad Player
Posts: 7219
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 10:53 pm
Gender: Male
Spoken languages: American
Location: Under a bridge

Re: [T] Turnabout Mugging ☆

Post by Bad Player »

☆ This case is pending a QA inspection to be featured.
ItsAllAboutTheTruth
Posts: 6
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 10:35 pm
Gender: Male
Spoken languages: English, Brazillian Portuguese

Re: [T] Turnabout Mugging ☆

Post by ItsAllAboutTheTruth »

It's been a while since i've enjoyed a case SO MUCH.

Even tho pretty much every character presented was just a recolor of other characters, they all felt pretty original, by the end i was really fond GG and John Doe

My overall take on the case is....
Spoiler : :
I'll try to aproach it topic by topic.
Humor - Was mostly on point, i laughed really hard during the whole case, but there were moments where i feel that keeping it serious would be ideal, mostly in the middle of the case where the protag was pretty much just trying to survive. (Although i admit the "check your privileges, your honor" and "you admited to be a complete imbecile" made me laugh for a good couple of minutes). It felt like the "Galen was brutally murdered" joke was repeated a little too much, tho.

The plot - Started really interesting, became really absurd (which usually is not a problem when it is reasonably done, which i didn't feel like it was), and the climax was at the same time really satisfying and kinda "meh", at least to me.

Let me try and explain it a little bit better, the beginning was great, but when chevalier tried to pin the heist on the hobo, it felt a little too hard to believe, specially since the evidence pointing to it was not even really that strong, it was really just a sum of "if you consider all the circunstances, only the other heister could have been the killer, and since this weak piece of evidence points (not even comes close to proving) to the defendant being the bank heister, he should be the killer!" I guess i kinda understood how GG felt at that point, since any competent judge would not have bought the theory without at least some solid evidence to back it up.
I know it's actually ace attorney cliche to have the judge buy into the most ridiculous crap, but it felt kinda out of place since every other person involved in the trial was actually really competent.

About the climax, the meh part was just how i felt about the actions of the killer, i mean come on, there's a limit to how much someone can blame their actions on "clumsyness", i mean, they CAN do it, but what was hard for me to swallow was the way everyone bought into it, no one felt like it was suspicious, not a single person? It just felt like one of those "all of these actions were just an accident there's no need to investigate further" kinds of excuses, you get me?

But even putting all that aside, really liked the characters, the gameplay, the protag development, even if he became a real asshole when he put winning above all else, the testimonies, the arguments, everything, real good job, guys!

Solid 9.5 out of 10 imo.
User avatar
PatBrownGame
Posts: 32
Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2019 5:18 pm
Gender: Male
Spoken languages: English
Location: Wherever the nearest subway is.

Re: [T] Turnabout Mugging ☆

Post by PatBrownGame »

Played through it, and I have to say, you made those five years of work worth it! This was extremely good! Good luck on the QA Inspection! :pearlhappy:
User avatar
Bad Player
Posts: 7219
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 10:53 pm
Gender: Male
Spoken languages: American
Location: Under a bridge

Re: [T] Turnabout Mugging ☆

Post by Bad Player »

Spoiler : here we go :
SOC:
432: Wouldn’t it make more sense for his nickname to be “Doug,” not “Dug”? (post-play addendum: while I think it probably should have been "Doug," I'm also don't really feel changing it through the entire case is worth it)
4852: I assume this should be “Heya,” not “Hya”
545: This should probably be “The defendant may,” not “May the defendant”
5232: You should just say “wallet” or rename the evidence to “Wallet & Receipt”
1202: “I’ll not” → “I won’t”
1539: smoothLY
1781: acquiring → he acquired
Evidence should only be added to the Court Record once (for instance, the gun and the gloves)
If you present the photo at the gloves statement, instead of just a standard penalty, you should probably get a hint conversation of Dougal thinking to himself that, while the photo is an important part of his plan, it’s not the piece that brings up the direct problem.
Hmmm, the testimony that he committed a mugging a week ago doesn’t give him an alibi for the heist?
Wait, why would the victim have had the stolen bills if they came from the ATM??
Oh, Chevalier’s got this, nvm.
4274: What’s this “I…”? Wouldn’t it make more sense to phrase this question like: “The money in the wallet…”: “came from a bank” / “did not come from a bank”?
The life bar doesn’t stop flashing for Chevalier’s question about the victim’s motive for committing the heist in your second Argument
I think adding penalties to this time-buying Argument might actually be helpful. Penalties are signals to the player for when they’ve done something wrong. So if you don’t give them a penalty, they don’t get a signal! That becomes an issue here, because when the player makes a wrong choice, they don’t get a penalty. And since the wrong choices here are wrong because they are too “fast,” and not because they have incorrect reasoning, it can be even harder to tell when a wrong choice was made—especially since the player doesn’t know what would’ve happened with the alternative choice. Basically, going “Answer a bunch of questions, and then you won’t know if you made a wrong answer until the very end” is hard because it doesn’t give much feedback. I think I would also make it clearer at the start of the Argument that Dougal is going to want to keep on buying time even through the direct examination, not just when he’s giving the argument itself.


When it’s one word, it’s supposed to be “dammit,” not “damnit.”
319: Missing punctuation
620: Why isn’t “coat” capitalized?
721: equal to → the same as
1341: rationale → reasoning
2002: at → behind
2004: no comments to a blind guy talking about driving?!
2199: under → on
2985: and → of
3166: Evidence appears on wrong side
3291: “It’s” shouldn’t be capitalized
If the mask really did break when mugging Madeline, how did Doe wear the mask when mugging the second person in the Written Testimony?
3370: it happens → it’s happened
No examine conversations? :(

321: am not → haven’t
575: spiked → piqued
1079: You don’t need the double-period.
1920: Clyde → Ben/Dallas
2358: any → a
2388: assert → ensure
2409: consider changing “innocent” to “not guilty”
2764: covered his → covers the
2790: said → say
3777: Heh → Huh
3944, 4231: Ju → JU
4588: Extra line break
So what did Hoxton take from Dallas’ corpse?
Wait……………. Why were they talking about cold nights if this all took place in June??? (You Australian, bro?)
4903: base → basis
4910: delete “to”


Turnabout Mugging feels almost like a deconstruction of the Ace Attorney world. In the canon games, we're usually assured of the innocence of the defendant, who often has a good reason for being defended by the protagonist. But here we've taken a pro bono case so our client is a random hobo. How do attorneys in this world function in this scenario? There's also a lot more legal decorum here than in the canon games.

Most of the elements in this game would probably get an A-. They're good and done well, but there's some flaw holding it back from being an A or A+.

For instance, as I already said, the game plays up the legal side of the games a lot more, introducing direct examination mechanics, making witness credibility actually matter, and leveraging the presumption of innocence. But the game is also filled with plenty of humor, that often gets even sillier than the canon games. While the more realistic approach to legal proceedings and the humor work individually, they pull the game in opposite directions.

The characters and graphics are good, but the main cast is shackled a bit by the canon characters they're based off. The color swaps on everyone are done well, but Dougal, Galen, and Alex all heavily reflect their base characters. Dougal is a hot-headed reckless attorney who works for 'Galen' (and whose last name is "Justice"), Galen is a calm and collected established attorney, and Alex is a rookie aggressive, headstrong prosecutor. They have their traits that distinguish themselves from Apollo, Kristoph, and Godot, but they're still all fairly similar. The palette swaps seem like an attempt to distinguish themselves, but it just forces the comparison. Dray and Clyde are way different from Jacques and Atmey, but they have smaller roles.

So let's talk about the story. Overall, it's very good! Everything proceeds naturally, the plot ramps up in intensity as the case develops, and the contradictions all make sense. The case against Doe is always very strong (which is actually a major plot point), and there are a couple of well-laid contradictions, where all the necessary information is presented long before you have to actually point out the problem.

However, there are a couple of pitfalls. The game tries to present a moral choice, and... kinda gets it mixed up, I feel. We first see it when Dougal contemplates blackmailing Madeline, but thankfully he decides not to do it. Then it returns when we get to the argument over the coat. The game plays it up to be a giant moral choice, and then Dougal just goes ahead and argues that Doe received the coat from the culprit without any input. It's fine to subvert our expectations, and it could even work to make the wrong choice. But there's no comeuppance. There isn't even any reflection afterwards. Dougal was presented with a moral choice. He made the unethical decision, and although he wins the case in the end, everything is just sunshine and rainbows and there's absolutely no acknowledgment of the fact that Dougal was willing to lie to the court to acquit someone he thought was guilty. It feels like the game is trying to be positive and present being unethical as bad, but Dougal is only able to succeed because he was unethical, and suffers no ill consequences. What if Doe had been guilty, and Dougal had gotten him acquitted due to his lies?

There are a couple of other issues, but I think the "moral choice" is the most glaring weak point. (Having the email with Clyde from the very beginning kinda gives away a fair portion of the mystery at the beginning. Did Dougal really spend 4 years as an intern without seriously considering the ramifications of defending someone who might be guilty, and the function of a defense attorney when a defendant is guilty and how to function in that scenario? The answer, by the way, is you're still allowed to defend your client and argue against the prosecution's case, but you can't make knowingly false statements or allow the defendant to give testimony you know is false.)

It's a compelling story in the end, making you question whether this is going to be a standard, straight-forward case or a standard guilty-defendant subversion case, and tying up all the plot points it raises.

There are no technical issues. Graphics, music, and sound effects are all employed appropriately. There is some relatively complicated coding to account for all the choices, and it all works properly as far as I experienced. The new "mechanics" are simple enough to be easy to grasp based on the original mechanics but new enough to provide a twist. Sometimes they don't seem to be taken to the limit (for instance, "let everything through" then "block everything" isn't super exciting), but they serve their purposes.

I think that just about covers everything. Everything works very well, and none of the flaws bring down the experience significantly, although unfortunately I think most of the flaws are ingrained too deeply into the plot to resolve at this point. The bottom line is that Turnabout Mugging is a solid case with entertaining characters and a well-plotted mystery.

btw cadenza is an album made by Magical Trick Society way back in 2006
also you pass
User avatar
migueloukao
Posts: 9
Joined: Wed Jun 10, 2015 2:40 am
Gender: Male
Spoken languages: English; Portuguese
Location: Brazil

Re: [T] Turnabout Mugging ☆

Post by migueloukao »

Thank you very much for playing and for the extensive review!
I got really happy reading all your notes on the case. Also very psyched that it got approved to be featured.

Let me comment on some of your notes:
Bad Player wrote: Mon Oct 26, 2020 6:44 am
Spoiler : here we go :
SOC:
432: Wouldn’t it make more sense for his nickname to be “Doug,” not “Dug”? (post-play addendum: while I think it probably should have been "Doug," I'm also don't really feel changing it through the entire case is worth it)
4852: I assume this should be “Heya,” not “Hya”
545: This should probably be “The defendant may,” not “May the defendant”
5232: You should just say “wallet” or rename the evidence to “Wallet & Receipt”
1202: “I’ll not” → “I won’t”
1539: smoothLY
1781: acquiring → he acquired
Evidence should only be added to the Court Record once (for instance, the gun and the gloves)
If you present the photo at the gloves statement, instead of just a standard penalty, you should probably get a hint conversation of Dougal thinking to himself that, while the photo is an important part of his plan, it’s not the piece that brings up the direct problem.
Hmmm, the testimony that he committed a mugging a week ago doesn’t give him an alibi for the heist?
Wait, why would the victim have had the stolen bills if they came from the ATM??
Oh, Chevalier’s got this, nvm.
4274: What’s this “I…”? Wouldn’t it make more sense to phrase this question like: “The money in the wallet…”: “came from a bank” / “did not come from a bank”?
The life bar doesn’t stop flashing for Chevalier’s question about the victim’s motive for committing the heist in your second Argument

I think adding penalties to this time-buying Argument might actually be helpful. Penalties are signals to the player for when they’ve done something wrong. So if you don’t give them a penalty, they don’t get a signal! That becomes an issue here, because when the player makes a wrong choice, they don’t get a penalty. And since the wrong choices here are wrong because they are too “fast,” and not because they have incorrect reasoning, it can be even harder to tell when a wrong choice was made—especially since the player doesn’t know what would’ve happened with the alternative choice. Basically, going “Answer a bunch of questions, and then you won’t know if you made a wrong answer until the very end” is hard because it doesn’t give much feedback. I think I would also make it clearer at the start of the Argument that Dougal is going to want to keep on buying time even through the direct examination, not just when he’s giving the argument itself.

This is probably a good idea, since I definitely don't want players to get lost on that segment. I'll try to get to it this weekend.

When it’s one word, it’s supposed to be “dammit,” not “damnit.”
319: Missing punctuation
620: Why isn’t “coat” capitalized?
721: equal to → the same as
1341: rationale → reasoning
2002: at → behind
2004: no comments to a blind guy talking about driving?!
2199: under → on
2985: and → of
3166: Evidence appears on wrong side
3291: “It’s” shouldn’t be capitalized
If the mask really did break when mugging Madeline, how did Doe wear the mask when mugging the second person in the Written Testimony?
3370: it happens → it’s happened
No examine conversations? :(

321: am not → haven’t
575: spiked → piqued
1079: You don’t need the double-period.
1920: Clyde → Ben/Dallas
2358: any → a
2388: assert → ensure
2409: consider changing “innocent” to “not guilty”
2764: covered his → covers the
2790: said → say
3777: Heh → Huh
3944, 4231: Ju → JU
4588: Extra line break
So what did Hoxton take from Dallas’ corpse?

I assume you wrote this before it got revealed, right?

Wait……………. Why were they talking about cold nights if this all took place in June??? (You Australian, bro?)

Because I am Brazilian and have no notion of weather or seasons (even for my own country).

4903: base → basis
4910: delete “to”

All of these minor corrections have been noted. I'll get to them this weekend, thanks for the attentive eye.

Turnabout Mugging feels almost like a deconstruction of the Ace Attorney world. In the canon games, we're usually assured of the innocence of the defendant, who often has a good reason for being defended by the protagonist. But here we've taken a pro bono case so our client is a random hobo. How do attorneys in this world function in this scenario? There's also a lot more legal decorum here than in the canon games.

Most of the elements in this game would probably get an A-. They're good and done well, but there's some flaw holding it back from being an A or A+.

For instance, as I already said, the game plays up the legal side of the games a lot more, introducing direct examination mechanics, making witness credibility actually matter, and leveraging the presumption of innocence. But the game is also filled with plenty of humor, that often gets even sillier than the canon games. While the more realistic approach to legal proceedings and the humor work individually, they pull the game in opposite directions.

The characters and graphics are good, but the main cast is shackled a bit by the canon characters they're based off. The color swaps on everyone are done well, but Dougal, Galen, and Alex all heavily reflect their base characters. Dougal is a hot-headed reckless attorney who works for 'Galen' (and whose last name is "Justice"), Galen is a calm and collected established attorney, and Alex is a rookie aggressive, headstrong prosecutor. They have their traits that distinguish themselves from Apollo, Kristoph, and Godot, but they're still all fairly similar. The palette swaps seem like an attempt to distinguish themselves, but it just forces the comparison. Dray and Clyde are way different from Jacques and Atmey, but they have smaller roles.

So let's talk about the story. Overall, it's very good! Everything proceeds naturally, the plot ramps up in intensity as the case develops, and the contradictions all make sense. The case against Doe is always very strong (which is actually a major plot point), and there are a couple of well-laid contradictions, where all the necessary information is presented long before you have to actually point out the problem.

However, there are a couple of pitfalls. The game tries to present a moral choice, and... kinda gets it mixed up, I feel. We first see it when Dougal contemplates blackmailing Madeline, but thankfully he decides not to do it. Then it returns when we get to the argument over the coat. The game plays it up to be a giant moral choice, and then Dougal just goes ahead and argues that Doe received the coat from the culprit without any input. It's fine to subvert our expectations, and it could even work to make the wrong choice. But there's no comeuppance. There isn't even any reflection afterwards. Dougal was presented with a moral choice. He made the unethical decision, and although he wins the case in the end, everything is just sunshine and rainbows and there's absolutely no acknowledgment of the fact that Dougal was willing to lie to the court to acquit someone he thought was guilty. It feels like the game is trying to be positive and present being unethical as bad, but Dougal is only able to succeed because he was unethical, and suffers no ill consequences. What if Doe had been guilty, and Dougal had gotten him acquitted due to his lies?

There are a couple of other issues, but I think the "moral choice" is the most glaring weak point. (Having the email with Clyde from the very beginning kinda gives away a fair portion of the mystery at the beginning. Did Dougal really spend 4 years as an intern without seriously considering the ramifications of defending someone who might be guilty, and the function of a defense attorney when a defendant is guilty and how to function in that scenario? The answer, by the way, is you're still allowed to defend your client and argue against the prosecution's case, but you can't make knowingly false statements or allow the defendant to give testimony you know is false.)

Regarding the comments above, I don't necessarily agree with everything, but I can see what you mean in everything. I definitely learned a lot from writing this case and it received an insane amount of overhauls during the writing process (only the two original playtesters know the extent of them). I'm going to keep all the flaws you mentioned in mind for the future, so I appreciate that you took the time in pointing them out. Also, I'm glad that the overall style that I wanted the case to feel like actually got accross. :lol:

It's a compelling story in the end, making you question whether this is going to be a standard, straight-forward case or a standard guilty-defendant subversion case, and tying up all the plot points it raises.

There are no technical issues. Graphics, music, and sound effects are all employed appropriately. There is some relatively complicated coding to account for all the choices, and it all works properly as far as I experienced. The new "mechanics" are simple enough to be easy to grasp based on the original mechanics but new enough to provide a twist. Sometimes they don't seem to be taken to the limit (for instance, "let everything through" then "block everything" isn't super exciting), but they serve their purposes.

I hope that I or others get to expand on them more on the future so that they are even better! I can definitely see how they didn't go their full potential (like maybe a DE where you have to only block some statements, for instance).

I think that just about covers everything. Everything works very well, and none of the flaws bring down the experience significantly, although unfortunately I think most of the flaws are ingrained too deeply into the plot to resolve at this point. The bottom line is that Turnabout Mugging is a solid case with entertaining characters and a well-plotted mystery.

btw cadenza is an album made by Magical Trick Society way back in 2006

Thank you.

also you pass

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
What do I do now? Does it already get featured, or must I do the minor corrections first?
User avatar
Bad Player
Posts: 7219
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 10:53 pm
Gender: Male
Spoken languages: American
Location: Under a bridge

Re: [T] Turnabout Mugging ☆

Post by Bad Player »

You need to make all the corrections, and then it'll get featured.
User avatar
migueloukao
Posts: 9
Joined: Wed Jun 10, 2015 2:40 am
Gender: Male
Spoken languages: English; Portuguese
Location: Brazil

Re: [T] Turnabout Mugging ☆

Post by migueloukao »

I've adressed nearly everything you mentioned. There are a couple of things I'm unsure on, though.
Spoiler : :
I can't find the frame where you said evidence was added to the court record again. Do you still remember where it was?

Regarding the usage of dammit that you mentioned in part 2, does that mean all "goddamnits" are actually "goddammit"? Cuz that's a lot of goddamnits I'll have to search, if so. Or is it just when I used "damnit"?

Regarding putting penalties on the make your argument segment, how do you think they should be added? By which I mean, once the player chooses a bad statement to add, they get a penalty right then? I can do that if you think it's important, though I think it feels weird and basically gives you the answer right away.

I have also considered just changing some dialogue to better reflect what the player has to do (Dougal now thinks he must choose whatever will keep Chevalier speaking the longest). Also altered some dialogue to clarify that you will have to stall for time during the rebuttal itself as well, once Chevalier makes his first "hold it". I find that the only potential tricky bit is when you have to intentionally screw up a fact of the case to get Chevalier to object and buy time, so I've also added a frame after you get through that bit in the rebuttal, with Dougal realizing that it would have helped him if he had gotten Chevalier to object to him instead of passing by with no issues.
By the way, you mentioned nothing of the Extras part. Did you play it as well?
Post Reply